wind30 wrote: bernardl wrote:
I don't deny the existence of differences, I am saying they will mostly not impact a large majority of images.
Cheers,
Bernard
.... i just say your standards are pretty low. I can probably tell the z f1.4 vs the gm f1.4 in a blind test assuming there is bokeh shot at f1.4.
The comparison between the Sigma f1.2 and z f1.2 will be much closer and harder
I don’t think they are. The bokeh of the 35mm f14 Z is very pleasing in many situations. Zooming at 100% on a worst case scenario is not representative of the vast majority of images.
And the gap is clearly smaller than the price difference would suggest.
Cheers,
Bernard
you keep adding on conditions... if you are not going to zoom in and view the pic at low res, just use your handphone. why even bother with a big camera? It does not have to be worst case scenario I think is the point most people is making. The nikon 35mm f1.4 bokeh is very different and you can see it in probably many pics once you know what to look for. Whether it matters to you, that is subjective.
We are saying the same thing.
It is just as arbitrary to call the 35mm f1.4 Z the ideal price to performance compromise as it is to call the 35mm f1.4 GM that best compromise compared to the f1.2 S, which has been my point all along. it depends on the application and on personal preference.
As far as APS-C goes that may be the best compromise for some but you add further limitations in terms of DR, focusing performance (not intrinsic to aPS-C but there are no flagships), limited lenses line up,…
As far as I am concerned, as a former owner of the 35mm f1.4 GM I find it to be a great lens but I always felt it lacked a bit of subject separation for what I do and found the bokeh nicer than that of the 135mm f1.8 but still a bit boring. The f1.2 S will be the best compromise for me but it wouldn’t cross my mind to declare this personal preference as a universal truth.
wind30 wrote: bernardl wrote:
I don't deny the existence of differences, I am saying they will mostly not impact a large majority of images.
Cheers,
Bernard
.... i just say your standards are pretty low. I can probably tell the z f1.4 vs the gm f1.4 in a blind test assuming there is bokeh shot at f1.4.
The comparison between the Sigma f1.2 and z f1.2 will be much closer and harder
I don’t think they are. The bokeh of the 35mm f14 Z is very pleasing in many situations. Zooming at 100% on a worst case scenario is not representative of the vast majority of images.
And the gap is clearly smaller than the price difference would suggest.
Cheers,
Bernard
you keep adding on conditions... if you are not going to zoom in and view the pic at low res, just use your handphone. why even bother with a big camera? It does not have to be worst case scenario I think is the point most people is making. The nikon 35mm f1.4 bokeh is very different and you can see it in probably many pics once you know what to look for. Whether it matters to you, that is subjective.
We are saying the same thing.
It is just as arbitrary to call the 35mm f1.4 Z the ideal price to performance compromise as it is to call the 35mm f1.4 GM that best compromise compared to the f1.2 S, which has been my point all along. it depends on the application and on personal preference.
As far as APS-C goes that may be the best compromise for some but you add further limitations in terms of DR, focusing performance (not intrinsic to aPS-C but there are no flagships), limited lenses line up,…
As far as I am concerned, as a former owner of the 35mm f1.4 GM I find it to be a great lens but I always felt it lacked a bit of subject separation for what I do and found the bokeh nicer than that of the 135mm f1.8 but still a bit boring. The f1.2 S will be the best compromise for me.
wind30 wrote: bernardl wrote:
I don't deny the existence of differences, I am saying they will mostly not impact a large majority of images.
Cheers,
Bernard
.... i just say your standards are pretty low. I can probably tell the z f1.4 vs the gm f1.4 in a blind test assuming there is bokeh shot at f1.4.
The comparison between the Sigma f1.2 and z f1.2 will be much closer and harder
I don’t think they are. The bokeh of the 35mm f14 Z is very pleasing in many situations. Zooming at 100% on a worst case scenario is not representative of the vast majority of images.
And the gap is clearly smaller than the price difference would suggest.
Cheers,
Bernard
you keep adding on conditions... if you are not going to zoom in and view the pic at low res, just use your handphone. why even bother with a big camera? It does not have to be worst case scenario I think is the point most people is making. The nikon 35mm f1.4 bokeh is very different and you can see it in probably many pics once you know what to look for. Whether it matters to you, that is subjective.
We are saying the same thing.
It is just as arbitrary to call the 35mm f1.4 Z the ideal price to performance compromise as it is to call the 35mm f1.4 GM that best compromise compared to the f1.2 S, which has been my point all along. it depends on the application and on personal preference.
As far as APS-C goes that may be the best compromise for some but you add further limitations in terms of DR, focusing performance (not intrinsic to aPS-C but there are no flagships), limited lenses line up,…
As far as I am concerned, as a former owner of the 35mm f1.4 GM I find it to be a great lens but I always felt it lacked a bit of subject separation for what I do. The f1.2 S will be the best compromise for me.
wind30 wrote: bernardl wrote:
I don't deny the existence of differences, I am saying they will mostly not impact a large majority of images.
Cheers,
Bernard
.... i just say your standards are pretty low. I can probably tell the z f1.4 vs the gm f1.4 in a blind test assuming there is bokeh shot at f1.4.
The comparison between the Sigma f1.2 and z f1.2 will be much closer and harder
I don’t think they are. The bokeh of the 35mm f14 Z is very pleasing in many situations. Zooming at 100% on a worst case scenario is not representative of the vast majority of images.
And the gap is clearly smaller than the price difference would suggest.
Cheers,
Bernard
you keep adding on conditions... if you are not going to zoom in and view the pic at low res, just use your handphone. why even bother with a big camera? It does not have to be worst case scenario I think is the point most people is making. The nikon 35mm f1.4 bokeh is very different and you can see it in probably many pics once you know what to look for. Whether it matters to you, that is subjective.
We are saying the same thing.
It is just as arbitrary to call the 35mm f1.4 Z the ideal price to performance compromise as it is to call the 35mm f1.4 GM that best compromise compared to the f1.2 S, which has been my point all along.
As far as APS-C goes that may be the best compromise for some but you add further limitations in terms of DR, focusing performance (not intrinsic to aPS-C but there are no flagships), limited lenses line up,…
As far as I am concerned, as a former owner of the 35mm f1.4 GM I find it to be a great lens but I always felt it lacked a bit of subject separation for what I do. The f1.2 S will be the best compromise for me.
Cheers,
Bernard
Cheers,
Bernard
Feb 08, 2025 at 08:28 PM
Previous versions of bernardl's message #16749500 « Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread »
it depends on the application and on personal preference.