p.1 #2 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
I have both the Nokton and the GM. My last portraits were taken with film, so I can't really offer any firsthand experience, but the GM is so much sharper and somehow clearer compared to the Nokton that I would definitely consider it less suitable for portraits. On the other hand, it has autofocus, and for many people, portraits can never be sharp enough. Otherwise, I find the image rendering quite similar. The sharpness drops off more abruptly with the GM, and the bokeh is perhaps a bit more jittery compared to the Nokton. Both of these can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on the subject. I prefer the Nokton's rendering. Nevertheless, I hardly use it anymore since I got the GM. Probably because it's so comfortable to use, despite its greater weight.
p.1 #3 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
I had the Nokton a few years back as a "character" lens at the same time as my current GM, here are some brief thoughts.
The Nokton has lovely rendering, its soft wide open and has a bit of "character" the GM is very sharp wide open, also has lovely rendering and a bit of 3d pop. I would say that 50mm f1.4 Zeiss Planar sits nicely in between them IQ wise but it has LOTS of 3d pop.
I can't speak for the Sigma as i've never used it.
p.1 #4 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
I have the Nokton, but not the other two. I think it is sharp enough, wide open, for portraits.
One other lens that you could consider is the Sony GM 50mm f1.4, unless you prefer the rendering of the 1.2 lenses. I have that one, and it is also on a higher level, compared to the Nokton's sharpness wide open.
Back when I was considering whether I wanted the Sony 1.2 or 1.4, I decided on the latter because to me the difference between the blur at 1.4 and 1.2 was not significant, the rendering differences were not significant, while the size/weight difference was significant.
p.1 #5 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
asekcsc5 wrote:
I have the Nokton, but not the other two. I think it is sharp enough, wide open, for portraits.
One other lens that you could consider is the Sony GM 50mm f1.4, unless you prefer the rendering of the 1.2 lenses. I have that one, and it is also on a higher level, compared to the Nokton's sharpness wide open.
Back when I was considering whether I wanted the Sony 1.2 or 1.4, I decided on the latter because to me the difference between the blur at 1.4 and 1.2 was not significant, the rendering differences were not significant, while the size/weight difference was significant.
I've never used the Nokton though I think you can't go wrong with the Sony 50/1.2, sharp details where needed, dreamy background blur, smooth transitions. If I could only bring a prime lens to a desert island this would probably be it.
My experience with the Sony 50/1.4 also has been different to yours. I didn't like its rendering at all; yes it was clinically sharp - perhaps even sharper than the Sony 50/1.2 and certainly too sharp for portraits - but I found the bokeh also rather clinical and harsh. (If I had to go F/1.4, especially for portraits, I would much prefer the Sigma 50/1.4.)
In terms of the Sony 50/1.2 vs Sigma 50/1.2, there are several comparisons on Youtube, e.g. Jared Polin is pretty reliable:
?si=bgHfDQzzp9999-gz The Sigma holds up well but if one is nitpicking the background blur, I'd say the Sony has very slightly bigger bokeh balls.
p.1 #6 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
I have the Nokton 1.2, Nokton 1.0, Sony 50/1.2GM, and the Sony 50/1.4GM.
For portraits, all are fabulous. My favorite is the Nokton 1.0, with the Sony 50/1.2 a close second. But in reality they are all so good that you can’t go wrong with any of them. For you, I would consider the 50/1.2GM if the size and cost are ok with you. There isn’t a lot of difference between it and the 1.4 version, but there is a slight difference in bokeh in favor of the 1.2 (it’s a tad smoother and the bokeh balls are larger). In real life you probably won’t see a difference but you can on a nice screen. And the autofocus is fantastic on the Sony lenses. For static portraits I always use the Nokton 1.0, but if there is any movement I’ll go with the 1.2 or 1.4 GMs.
p.1 #7 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
I mainly use the 50/1.2gm for portraits/people and honestly can't think of a better lens for the job (in this focal length). AF is very fast and accurate but more importantly the bokeh (at f1.2) is very soft yet the subject very sharp giving great subject isolation. I have the ZA 50/1.4 as well, which by chance am using today, but I don't feel it has the same image quality as the 50/1.2gm (and they weigh almost the same too) and the ZA has a slight sharpness dip in the mid zone where you tend to place the eyes. Just saying that I think it's impossible to go wrong with the 50/1.2gm.
p.1 #8 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
Thank you for all your advices. I have watched comparison between sigma and sony 1.2, and the latter looks to be kind of magical. So. Well I don't need another 50 right now, since I have the nokton for character and a viltrox (replacing my sony G) for lightweight and landscape and AF. But I'll probably save some money and wait for a GM 1.2
p.1 #9 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
ryanli wrote:
The Sigma holds up well but if one is nitpicking the background blur, I'd say the Sony has very slightly bigger bokeh balls.
Sigma 50 1.2 is slightly wider than Sony 50 1.2, Sigma feels more like 46-47mm. That's why Sony bokeh balls seem slightly bigger. Nikon 50 1.2 is even more tighter than Sony 50 1.2
Matt Granger compared all 3 in field and in studio on tripod to reach this conclusion -
It was similar story in my comparison of 35 F1.4 GM vs Sigma 35 F1.2 DG DN, here Sigma is tighter than Sony and is more like 39-40mm. Coupled with 1.2, Sigma is noticeably smoother and creamier.
p.1 #10 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
Am I the only one who finds it weird to consider a lens less suitable for portraits because it is sharp?!!!! We live in the age of digital PP. Any level of sharpness can be toned down in the software to reach some unsharp outcome one may like. The other way, is still very hard to achieve. If the lens produces unsharp images, it is very little one can do in the software to correct this and produce a pleasant result.
Post note added on February 14th: On has the liberty of applying any effect of blur or softening in PP selectively. If the initial image is sharp, one can keep the eyes sharp while softening other parts to however amount one may desire.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I have both the Nokton and the GM. My last portraits were taken with film, so I can't really offer any firsthand experience, but the GM is so much sharper and somehow clearer compared to the Nokton that I would definitely consider it less suitable for portraits. On the other hand, it has autofocus, and for many people, portraits can never be sharp enough. Otherwise, I find the image rendering quite similar. The sharpness drops off more abruptly with the GM, and the bokeh is perhaps a bit more jittery compared to the Nokton. Both of these can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on the subject. I prefer the Nokton's rendering. Nevertheless, I hardly use it anymore since I got the GM. Probably because it's so comfortable to use, despite its greater weight....Show more →
p.1 #12 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
raminolta wrote:
Am I the only one who finds it weird to consider a lens less suitable for portraits because it is sharp?!!!! We live in the age of digital PP. Any level of sharpness can be toned down in the software for any sort of unsharp outcome one may desire. The other way, is still very hard to achieve. If the lens produces unsharp images, it is very little one can do in the software to correct this and produce a pleasant result.
That's the reason why:
First I was not talking about sharpness, but about rendering
And second in Capture one most of the time sharpness is on a level between 0 and 30 (the by default setting is 180) a very sharp lens with this setting is lovely to my taste. I really don't like when sharpness is artificially added in post.
p.1 #13 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
raminolta wrote:
We live in the age of digital PP. Any level of sharpness can be toned down in the software for any sort of unsharp outcome one may desire.
That may well be true, but simply adjusting the sharpness sliders in post-processing might not be enough. I just quickly snapped two pictures. Feel free to try and replicate the glow (view the clock in full size on Flickr and you'll see what I mean), blur, and their progression, as seen in the Nokton image, in the GM image.
Also, look at how differently the lettering in the bottom left corner of the coffee machine is rendered. I doubt that the GM image can be adjusted using the sharpness control so that the lettering is displayed the same way as in the Nokton image.
I specifically chose the close-up range because the difference is particularly noticeable in this area. It's not about who likes which image better, but only about whether the GM image can be easily and without much effort adapted to the Nokton image.
Both images are JPG ooc.
p.1 #14 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
I will come back to you with a modified version of the second picture that I like more. However, let me first tell you that personally, I like the second picture much more. The second picture has a nice 3D pop to it. The first picture has considerably ruined that effect due to the blurriness of the main subject that is the clock. I don't really see any special glow in the first picture. Of course, since the clock is blurred it may falsely come across as glowy because its highlights are blurred as well. I am going to create a glow effect in the second picture that I like best. So I'll leave this point for later. One may argue that the coffee maker on the right in the second picture is a bit too sharp hence distracting. Parts of it are almost in same the focal plane as the clock. Blurring it in PP can remedy this impact even though it is subjective. The difference in the luminance value of the different parts of the scene can be adjust in PP too. In the first picture the front is a bit over bright and distracting. It can be toned down.
Overall, this is indeed a perfect example of my argument. The second picture is much better and has great potential for significant improvement in PP. Not the same thing can be said about the first picture. Is the Nokton really that bad that it cannot produce a reasonably sharp subject at its widest aperture even when there is no focus error on the user side?
p.1 #15 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
The focal planes are identical in both images. And as I said, it's not about personal preference, and certainly not about 3D pop (I get a rash just hearing or reading the term). It's about achieving the same rendering with simple(!) means, not with extensive editing orgies that nobody wants to embark on when they can avoid them with the right lens. That might be okay for single photos, but for many? That's why a "one-click" editing option is needed.
p.1 #16 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
If you read my original post again, you notice I did not say to achieve the same rendering effect. I said create an image that pleases the user. Now if the first image is what you like to achieve, of course you can put some effort in PP and get something close enough (again subjective). However, I just don't find anything special about the rendering of the first image. Why would I want to replicate a uninteresting image. By the way, if the term 3D pop bothers you, this is not a photographic issue. It is true that the term is somewhat overused or misused or wrongly used by some. So are the terms such as 'rendering', 'micro contrast', 'bokeh', etc..
I do agree with you that if a lens is capable of producing the type of rendering you like and enjoy, it's a no brainer choice. I would get that lens too if it's not too expensive. I just don't see the Nokton lens is that kind of lens. Perhaps it is if I see more pictures produced by it (though I doubt it). The picture above does not come across as a good example for the argument, IMO.
I am not against blurry images. Sometimes, a blurred image talks to us in a thousand ways and is more interesting that many sharp images. I am no expert by any means to create interesting blurry images. It's not my specialty. Here is one example from me:
p.1 #17 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
raminolta wrote:
If you read my original post again, ...
...then I read raminolta wrote:
Any level of sharpness can be toned down in the software for any sort of unsharp outcome one may desire.
And I pointed out that it's not always that simple. If the less obtrusive sharpness is due, among other things, to a glow—that is, the overexposure of bright areas into dark ones—it becomes more complicated. And that answers your question in the original post: raminolta wrote:
Am I the only one who finds it weird to consider a lens less suitable for portraits because it is sharp?!!!!
The comparison image wasn't meant to be "pretty," but rather to illustrate the effect I'm referring to. Personally, I'd probably prefer the GM for technical subjects. For portraits, however, I'd definitely choose the Nokton if autofocus isn't necessary. My point was simply to show that it's easy to say you can easily simulate a "blurrier" image with a sharper lens, but in practice, I think it might be different.
p.1 #18 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
raminolta wrote:
I do agree with you that if a lens is capable of producing the type of rendering you like and enjoy, it's a no brainer choice. I would get that lens too if it's not too expensive. I just don't see the Nokton lens is that kind of lens.
But the question wasn't whether Nokton is sufficiently different for you.
raminolta wrote:
Perhaps it is if I see more pictures produced by it (though I doubt it). The picture above does not come across as a good example for the argument, IMO.
I didn't want to show a "Look how great the Nokton renders" image, but rather an example image of a blur effect that I believe is difficult or even impossible to replicate with the GM, since the question was about differences between Nokton and GM and you said that the differences can easily be compensated for today by making the sharp image more blurry.
raminolta wrote:
Look; I am not against blurry images.
Well, the Nokton image isn't actually blurry, it's just not as sharp as the GM image. The motion blur in your example image has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. That's something completely different.
p.1 #20 · 50mm 1.2 Sony - Sigma - Voigtlander Has anyone compared them?
raminolta wrote:
After a couple of minutes of PP (time mostly spent to think what outcome I like more):
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54953890688_028a59d059_b.jpg GM glows
Hm, I don't see any glow, I only see a GM photo that still clearly stands out from the Nokton photo.
There's certainly a lot more that can be done if you're familiar with all the electronic tools, but like I said, it's not as easy as you think.
Perhaps you now understand why someone who likes the type of (un)sharpening rendering of a particular lens would want to take pictures with that lens and not simply with the "best" lens, only to try to correct it afterwards in Lightroom.
And don't worry, the Nokton is clearly sharper at portrait distances. :-)
Incidentally, I find it interesting that the "GERMANY" on the dial is not legible in the GM photo, but it is in the "blurry" Nokton photo.
raminolta wrote:
I didn't want to make dramatic changes to the image. I would have wanted to clean the background from the clutter (keeping the coffee maker).
I'll write it a third time. This isn't about the picture, because it's not really a picture. I simply wanted a subject that effectively showcases the glow and the alarm clock was just sitting there.
