Re: Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?
For what it's worth, and using Sony/Lumix/Nikon with some of the best lenses for each system, I must say I'm both surprised and impressed by the Nikon Z f1.2 lenses.
Surprised because of the size and weight of course, but also by the resolution wide open, to be honest, some of my Sigma, S Pro and GM lenses are much sharper in the center than both my 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.2 Z at fast apertures, at least when using ACR.
By exemple my 28-45mm Sigma at 35mm f1.8 is sharper than my 35mmm f1.2 Z at f1.8 (the Sigma is crazy sharp at 35mm). My 50mm S Pro is also sharper than my 50mm f1.2 Z, no matter the aperture I use, it was the same with my 50mm GM f1.2 I sold, the GM was sharper at f1.2.
I know we can't really compare resolution and sharpness between different systems, and it's certainly true because by example I can see that my Sony GM lenses are very slightly sharper on my old A7III than my Z6III with the Megadap Pro+ when I pixel peep (of course I speak about Raw files).
However, I just love the rendering of these Nikon Z f1.2 !
For portrait, the 50mm f1.2 Z has the best rendering I saw from a modern 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 lenses, including the 50mm GM, 50mm S Pro, 50mm Summilux SL and many other. For a bit more cripsness and by exemple when shooting objects, I often prefer the 50mm S Pro or the 50mm GM. But for portrait, I really like the 50mm f1.2Z.
The 35mm f1.2 Z have a similar rendering than the 50mm f1.2 Z but with more contrast, giving more "pop" at the pictures, some people reported it is maybe a tiny bit sharper wide open than the 50mm, this is not my case, but it also has an excellent rendering for everything involving people. My 35mm GM and the Viltrox f1.2 I had were both slightly sharper in the center wide open and at f1.4 (at f1.8 my 35mm f1.2Z has a huge resolution boost), but neither the GM nor the Viltrox have the same contrast and overall rendering with some scenes, there is a sort of smooth but high contrast on skin I like a lot, similar to some Leica and Zeiss lenses I have used.
Re: Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?
For what it's worth, and using Sony/Lumix/Nikon with some of the best lenses for each system, I must say I'm both surprised and impressed by the Nikon Z f1.2 lenses.
Surprised because of the size and weight of course, but also by the resolution wide open, to be honest, some of my Sigma, S Pro and GM lenses are much sharper in the center than both my 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.2 Z at fast apertures, at least when using ACR.
By exemple my 28-45mm Sigma at 35mm f1.8 is sharper than my 35mmm f1.2 Z at f1.8 (the Sigma is crazy sharp at 35mm). My 50mm S Pro is also sharper than my 50mm f1.2 Z, no matter the aperture I use, it was the same with my 50mm GM f1.2 I sold, the GM was sharper at f1.2.
I know we can't really compare resolution and sharpness between different systems, and it's certainly true because by example I can see that my Sony GM lenses are very slightly sharper on my old A7III than my Z6III with the Megadap Pro+ when I pixel peep (of course I speak about Raw files).
However, I just love the rendering of these Nikon Z f1.2 !
For portrait, the 50mm f1.2 Z has the best rendering I saw from a modern 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 lenses, including the 50mm GM, 50mm S Pro, 50mm Summilux SL and many other. For a bit more cripsness and by exemple when shooting objects, I often prefer the 50mm S Pro or the 50mm GM. But for portrait, I really like the 50mm f1.2Z.
The 35mm f1.2 Z have a similar rendering than the 50mm f1.2 Z but with more contrast, giving more "pop" at the pictures, some people reported it is maybe a tiny bit sharper wide open than the 50mm, this is not my case, but it also has an excellent rendering for everything involving people. My 35mm GM and the Viltrox f1.2 I had were both slightly sharper in the center wide open and at f1.4 (at f1.8 my 35mm f1.2Z has a huge resolution boost), but neither the GM nor the Viltrox have the same contrast and overall rendering with some scenes, there is a sort of smooth but high contrast on skin I like a lot, similar to some Leica and Zeiss lenses I have used.
Re: Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?
For what it's worth, and using Sony/Lumix/Nikon with some of the best lenses for each system, I must say I'm both surprised and impressed by the Nikon Z f1.2 lenses.
Surprised because of the size and weight of course, but also by the resolution wide open, to be honest, some of my Sigma, S Pro and GM lenses are much sharper in the center than both my 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.2 Z at fast apertures, at least when using ACR.
By exemple my 28-45mm Sigma at 35mm f1.8 is sharper than my 35mmm f1.2 Z at f1.8 (the Sigma is crazy sharp at 35mm). My 50mm S Pro is also sharper than my 50mm f1.2 Z, no matter the aperture I use, it was the same with my 50mm GM f1.2 I sold, the GM was sharper at f1.2.
I know we can't really compare resolution and sharpness between different systems, and it's certainly true because by example I can see that my Sony GM lenses are very slightly sharper on my old A7III than my Z6III with the Megadap Pro+ when I pixel peep (of course I speak about Raw files).
However, I just love the rendering of these Nikon Z f1.2 !
For portrait, the 50mm f1.2 Z has the best rendering I saw from a modern 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 lenses, including the 50mm GM, 50mm S Pro, 50mm Summilux SL and many other. For a bit more cripsness and by exemple when shooting objects, I often prefer the 50mm S Pro or the 50mm GM. But for portrait, I really like the 50mm f1.2Z.
The 35mm f1.2 Z have a similar rendering than the 50mm f1.2 Z but with more contrast, giving more "pop" at the pictures, some people reported it is maybe a tiny bit sharper wide open than the 50mm, this is not my case, but it also has an excellent rendering for everything involving people. My 35mm GM and the Viltrox f1.2 I had were both slightly sharper in the center wide open and at f1.4 (at f1.8 my 35mm f1.2Z has a huge resolution boost), but neither the GM nor the Viltrox have the same contrast and overall rendering with some scenes, there is a sort of smooth but high contrast on skin I like a lot, similar to some Leica and Zeiss lenses I have used.
Re: Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?
For what it's worth, and using Sony/Lumix/Nikon with some of the best lenses for each system, I must say I'm both surprised and impressed by the Nikon Z f1.2 lenses.
Surprised because of the size and weight of course, but also by the resolution wide open, to be honest, some of my Sigma, S Pro and GM lenses are much sharper in the center than both my 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.2 Z at fast apertures, at least when using ACR.
By exemple my 28-45mm Sigma at 35mm f1.8 is sharper than my 35mmm f1.2 Z at f1.8 (the Sigma is crazy sharp at 35mm). My 50mm S Pro is also sharper than my 50mm f1.2 Z, no matter the aperture I use, it was the same with my 50mm GM f1.2 I sold, the GM was sharper at f1.2.
I know we can't really compare resolution and sharpness between different systems, and it's certainly true because by example I can see that my Sony GM lenses are very slightly sharper on my old A7III than my Z6III with the Megadap Pro+ when I pixel peep (of course I speak about Raw files).
However, I just love the rendering of these Nikon Z f1.2 !
For portrait, the 50mm f1.2 Z has the best rendering I saw from a modern 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 lenses, including the 50mm GM, 50mm S Pro, 50mm Summilux SL and many other. For a bit more cripsness and by exemple when shooting objects, I often prefer the 50mm S Pro or the 50mm GM. But for portrait, I really like the 50mm f1.2Z.
The 35mm f1.2 Z have a similar rendering than the 50mm f1.2 Z but with more contrast, giving more "pop" at the pictures, it is maybe only a tiny bit sharper wide open than the 50mm and it also has an excellent rendering for everything involving people. My 35mm GM and the Viltrox f1.2 I had were both slightly sharper in the center wide open and at f1.4 (at f1.8 my 35mm f1.2Z has a huge resolution boost), but neither the GM nor the Viltrox have the same contrast and overall rendering with some scenes, there is a sort of smooth but high contrast on skin I like a lot, similar to some Leica and Zeiss lenses I have used.
Re: Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?
For what it's worth, and using Sony/Lumix/Nikon with some of the best lenses for each system, I must say I'm both surprised and impressed by the Nikon Z f1.2 lenses.
Surprised because of the size and weight of course, but also by the resolution wide open, to be honest, some of my Sigma, S Pro and GM lenses are much sharper in the center than both my 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f1.2 Z at fast apertures, at least when using ACR.
By exemple my 28-45mm Sigma at 35mm f1.8 is sharper than my 35mmm f1.2 Z at f1.8 (this lens is crazy sharp at 35mm). My 50mm S Pro is also sharper than my 50mm f1.2 Z, no matter the aperture I use, it was the same with my 50mm GM f1.2 I sold, the GM was sharper at f1.2.
I know we can't really compare resolution and sharpness between different systems, and it's certainly true because by example I can see that my Sony GM lenses are very slightly sharper on my old A7III than my Z6III with the Megadap Pro+ when I pixel peep (of course I speak about Raw files).
However, I just love the rendering of these Nikon Z f1.2 !
For portrait, the 50mm f1.2 Z has the best rendering I saw from a modern 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 lenses, including the 50mm GM, 50mm S Pro, 50mm Summilux SL and many other. For a bit more cripsness and by exemple when shooting objects, I often prefer the 50mm S Pro or the 50mm GM. But for portrait, I really like the 50mm f1.2Z.
The 35mm f1.2 Z have a similar rendering than the 50mm f1.2 Z but with more contrast, giving more "pop" at the pictures, it is maybe only a tiny bit sharper wide open than the 50mm and it also has an excellent rendering for everything involving people. My 35mm GM and the Viltrox f1.2 I had were both slightly sharper in the center wide open and at f1.4 (at f1.8 my 35mm f1.2Z has a huge resolution boost), but neither the GM nor the Viltrox have the same contrast and overall rendering with some scenes, there is a sort of smooth but high contrast on skin I like a lot, similar to some Leica and Zeiss lenses I have used.
Sep 20, 2025 at 08:13 AM
Previous versions of Keunish's message #16893877 « Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others? »
