The low light test sealed it for me, I love the low iso look and I shoot quite a lot in low light, so I'm going to save up for the 1.2. Thank you for showing the comparison, other reviews didn't really sell me too much on the 1.2 but this was really clear and showed me all the things I find important!
Glad it helped. I’ve made a few other videos comparing it to the 58 1.4 too worth watching. The 50 1.2 does most my photography. Worth looking ok used markets for a good price
I did the same with my 1.2 and managed to find one like new for £1800 and agree with both points of view but as always it’s based on use case. No it’s not necessary but wow what a fabulous piece of kit to have and use and that a majority of clients won’t know the difference but that’s not the point because I do and I know that I’ve done the best I possibly can. Not for everyone but for those that do will love it 👍
I have the 50 1.8 and I absolutely love it - so it would be almost impossible for me to justify the cost / size / weight of the 1.2. Keeping in mind too, the 50 1.8 is actually my first 50 I've owned in decades of photography - so I haven't been the biggest 50 fan. Glad I have one now though! :) But I do prefer the 85, so I might feel differently when the 85 1.2 is released. But again, the 1.8's are SO good... they're just too close (for my needs) to justify that huge cost difference.
Both are great lenses with different use cases. Another area where the f/1.2 performs better is in backlit situations, which I personally shoot a lot in. I like that at f/1.2 the lens is softer for portraits. It’s just the right combo of sharpness and yet still flattering for skin. For me at f/1.2 subjects pop out ever so subtly at medium distances vs. the f/1.8. Also, if there is a textured background like tall grass, pine leaves, etc. there is a certain look to the bokeh, particularly in the corners when shooting 5-7 feet (~2 meters) from the subject.
It's those middle distance couples and group shots that really show off the 50 f/1.2. The background look is great in the wedding gourp shots you showed. I don't think this lens shines as a portrait lens; that's what an 85mm is for. But, for group and full length it's amazing. Thanks guys.
I loved the Bokeh comparison while videoing at the end. My biggest question is when the 85 1.2 comes out would that be a better focal length to take advantage of the Bokeh then the 50? It’s hard to distinguish between the Bokeh depth of field based on the millimeter on the lens versus the compression I guess we’ll have to wait and see when that lens comes out. I saw it in a little bit when you flashed the 105 1.4 on the screen.
The 85 will smash the background much more than the 50 1.2 could ever due to the focal length. Depends on the look you are after. The 50 is just right for me for shooting distance and I want some context of background for weddings etc. The 105 1.4 will be very similar to the 85 1.2 again due to the focal length. Time will tell. The only reason I'd swap the 105 for the 85 would be to get rid of the FTZ.
Absolutely fascinating stuff. I am actively looking for a 50mm prime for use with my Z8 so also completely relevant. Whilst the price and bulk of the 1.8 is really attractive, one very important use-case for me is astrophotography, i.e. landscape + Milky Way, both tracked and stacked, though 50mm is ideal for MW panoramas. As you say, it's all about individual use-case and mine absolutely has to include very low-light, so that extra stop that the f/1.2 boasts sort of seals the deal. Thank you for the very interesting insights.
I appreciate you guys. I like your analysis and witty banter. Have you considered using an ND filter when overexposed? For me, I cannot justify the additional cost of f/1.2, but If I was in your shoes, I may. Keep it up guys, and dont be afraid to experiment. I wish you success!
I recently purchased the 50mm f1.2 (it was on sale) and I love it. It definitely has a character of its own. PS: Now that you've purchased the Z8 you won't have a problem with overexposing at f1.2 as the maximum shutter speed is 1/32000.
Thanks for suggesting this video. Have you tried it on the Z9? It’s a perfect balance (if heavy on a wedding day), I much much prefer it to the 1.8 for the character/the warmth. Like you, I’ve kept my 1.8 but I seem to be collecting Z lenses!
I’m sure it’s great on a z9. I don’t want to go back to a big heavy camera. Mirrorless was supposed to be smaller and lighter. Will you be interested in the 85 1.2?
@@russandloz That’s how I felt about mirrorless until I tried the z9, now I just cope, as the benefits out-weigh ( pun intended) the larger body. I hope it’s not a 1.4 rather than a 1.2 but yes either way I’ll be in the queue for one, especially if it has that defocus control. 🙃
You could use an ND filter in brighter scenes so that you can shoot the lens at f1.2. Kase has a magnetic filter system that allows you to quickly switch the filter on and off. The f1.2 lens also has a tiny better contrast than the f1.8. But I must say that the f1.8 lens is a hell of a lens for the price point, especially that the differences are not that big.
I have the 24-70, 70-200 and 50 1.2. And I’ve had the 35 and 85 1.8 s. I have to say the 50 1.2 is the best lens I’ve ever used. The character of the photo’s are so gorgeous. They make amateur photos look professional.
Very different use cases for each lens. 24-70 2.8 is amazing for most things. It’s versatile. But primes can create an extra special look a zoom can’t. Look on the used Market for deals on both
@@russandloz I placed my order for the 50 1.2. I shoot mainly portraits. That 24-70 looks good and versatile but I wanted a special prime in my kit. I appreciate you taking your time to help me out. Cheers
Yeah I get it. You’re much more likely to enjoy and use your camera if it’s smaller and lighter. The z system was supposed to be with a larger mount but it’s the opposite lol
Interestingly though, the DOF difference in the split screen section at the end of the video looked like way more than 1 stop. Was the 1.8 really at 1.8?
@@Ahduciekwndnbbbsvvvghhhyyyyy Yes agreed, slight error in that we used the z7ii with z6ii, meaning they have a different tone and video qualities. But they were right next to each other wide open so not sure why.
I have them and when you shoot full body that difference is that huge. The 50mm is for full body in order not the get the distortion. If you shoot half body the difference is not that big. One other thing, I use the 1.2 on the z6 iso 1/8000 some times the images would be 0.7 over but that is easily recoverable in post. Now on the z9 the 1.2 focuses much faster then the 50 1.8.
Hi Russ . How do you make the must of the 1.2 in weddings? could you do a video just about that? btw 35 mm S 1. 2 will be in the market. As a weding hibrid photo-videographer which will be best to buy? Thank you masters.
@@russandloz that's exactly the same question I was going ask. On my azuz laptop with I7 10th gen 8gb rams 512ssd, selecting a subject mask can take up to 20 seconds or longer.
With a lot of money in my pockets I would have no doubts and get the 1.2, it is superior and magic, but in real world most people won't even think about getting it for that amount of money. 1.8 is still good enough for most situations.
Yes we agree, luckily I got it much cheaper to justify it and love it so far. Maybe in 6 months i'll see if the novelty wears off lol. Glad it was helpful though and always interesting to see what the options are.
Sharpness is not always desirable in portraits. N’cest Pas? You’re clients and friends don’t necessarily want to see what they really look like ; but rather what they like to look like. That’s where I think the Canons excel; a little more smoothing in the software, and less color smudges with the AA filters. Hey Just sayin my feelings. Thanks. 😅
Your sharpness test right at the start is flawed. The Z7ii missed focus, it's just that at 1.4/1.8 the DOF is large enough for it not to matter. If you used a Z9 you'd get different results. The 50/1.2 is a lens you love more the more you use it. Oh and on the daylight shooting due to the 1/8000s limitation. That will hopefully disappear with the Ziii bodies like it has with the Z9 :)
What I learned from your comparison: That this very fast lens is not for me! In respect to sharpness it does not clearly outperform my beloved Z 50/1.8. The bokeh in the background is more creamy, yes indeed, but on a much lesser degree as I thought it would be. So the only advantage I see for this lens is at very low light, at dawn and dusk, and for wedding photographers in the church maybe, and at night scenes of course, but even then F1.8 with some higher ISO will do the job, or the tripod.
@@markusbolliger1527 You can also do so much more in lightroom now with the new masking options, if the background not to your liking you can adjust it. The 50mm 1.8 is just so good it really is not worth upgrading in my humble opinion.
@@russandloz - I don't know! I've heard good things, particularly in terms of overall rendering, and it comes in between the two in terms of max aperture and cost, so I was just wondering.
@@lozzom It was fun to have 50mm as my only choice. The razor thin depth of field is such fun to play around with too. Everywhere we went it nailed focus and there seemed to be always a shot that took advantage of it's abilities. Tricky business choosing what to have in focus at times! Really happy with the color transmission of this glass reminds me of the 70-200. Also, on the Z7 it knew how to focus on the moon even though there was a roller coaster and Christmas lights between me and it. This lens puts a touch of quality on photos that is hard to quantify. It is a bit bulky though, not exactly discrete. Tomorrow I will share some samples :)
Nice video and nicely filmed, but you ought to work on your film editing skills. The constant zooming and switching between lenses is horrible in the later part of the video. Not to mention that the one footage clearly is back-focused...
You know those lens hoods are carefully designed to ensure they perform as they should on a specific lens. You shouldn’t just attach a hood from another lens just because it fits.
I only use them for protection when I need them. What other function do they provide as I don’t often see people using them? In fact I’ve heard they live caused digging issues in cold weather.
50/1.2 such a dream lens. Would love one. It’s fine to use that lens hood, but it won’t perform the proper function of a lens hood. It’s meant to shield off frontal light. It improves contrast and colour and protects from flare. Same as if your facing the sun and shield you eyes with your hand or a hat. However, with modern coatings it isn’t as important as it used to be and many use it just to protect the lens. I’d certainly use the proper lens hood outdoor in sunlight.
Lens hoods help with flare, but that is practically a thing of the past. The new coatings on these lenses make lens flare non-existent in most cases, and in the few occasions that there is a slight bit of flare it is so reduced that I find I actually don't mind it as it adds to the image. So, I don't bother with lens hoods anymore. A lot of them are so large relative to the lens diameter and they make packing your kit in a camera bag more difficult, so they pretty much stay at home now unless I have the space for them.
I prefer the 7artisans 50mm f/1.05 which is MF but 4 times cheaper and it produces fabulous images wide open 💝 Edit: How come you can't shoot outside wide open? VNDs exists, Freewell, Kase, McKinnon end etc 🤷
Z 9 with the 1/32,000 minimum shutter speed would allow you to shoot that 50/1.2 S in virtually any natural lighting condition without resorting to ND filters.
A great thread. I have both the 35/1.8 and the 85/1.8 and their brilliant. But yes, the 50/1.2 is probably too expensive to really justify. As a professional photographer I’m running two systems in a Z6ii and two 850’s which makes things complicated. At this point I simply don’t trust the Z bodies for consistent focus performance which is a shame.
i like the 2. opinion. what a great discussion. --- oh boy... ever thought that die 1,8 isn't a real 1,8?? maybe try it with f2 oder even 2,8 if you really tell you into the story of "charakter" to be honest, i couln't spot the "charakter". for me this is just justifying spending so much money for such little difference...and imagine how little it is againt a 1.4 ....depending on the construction and aperture the battle could be very close! but there is one diffence: a sigma art 50 is way smaller and cheaper so there is money left for a fantastic 135 or so. is it a keeper? i think in most cases it is, who would say it was a bad choice in the first place? i nearly almost kept lenses, the regret comes later if you think about a nice short trip or good food ;) You can always try to maximise the effect, just 1 step closer...or another. so your clients will pay you NOT for the 1.2 in 98% i guess... so why bothering about it? cause you like the weight? the size? i think its more realistic to be closer with the 1,8 instead of the huge brick nobody want's to have in his face.
@@russandloz The low light performance of the Z6II & Z7II is so good that 1.8 really is enough for a huge majority of tasks and the 1.2 is simply massive. I've just come back from a week in Italy and only took the 28 2.8 and the 40 2.0, leaving the 50 1.8 at home. The 28 2.8 stayed on 90% of the time and even shooting in real night conditions performed great. I understand for professional situations like weddings etc, getting that last 5-10% of performance can be worth the extra cost and weight of the 50 1.2!
i got the 50 1.8 on EBAY fpr 250 Bucks in excellent condition...and MAN is it good. Shot Canons RF 50 1.8 before that was absolute garbage in comparison...this 50 1.8 renders images not even the Sony 50 1.2 could... however, it ofc. lacks the insane isolation that one had...Nikkors 1.2 is nice, and i "see the difference" but for THAT size id take the 85 instead and get even more of that dreamy look for the effort...its just too big man...
@@russandloz yeah, 50 1.4 would be the sweet spot. Tbh my biggest reason NOT to get it, is the excellence of the 50 1.8 and the fact, that i prefer the 24-35mm range and then the 85-135mm ranges more. 50is nice, but it has that „tele“ look to it without the real compression and isolation power of 85mm+ … my dream combo would be 35 1.2 and 85 or 105…
How come you’re metered correctly for the faces but not the sky? Are you not using strobes for a paid wedding shoot? Your backgrounds are completely blown out. I enjoy your videos, but that was surprising to see for a paid wedding shoot. 😬🤷♂️
Lol. I’m sure Sony and Canon do well here too. But in the beginning Nikon had the nicest colour renditions. But yes, very jealous of other brands autofocus systems
The low light test sealed it for me, I love the low iso look and I shoot quite a lot in low light, so I'm going to save up for the 1.2. Thank you for showing the comparison, other reviews didn't really sell me too much on the 1.2 but this was really clear and showed me all the things I find important!
Glad it helped. I’ve made a few other videos comparing it to the 58 1.4 too worth watching. The 50 1.2 does most my photography. Worth looking ok used markets for a good price
I did the same with my 1.2 and managed to find one like new for £1800 and agree with both points of view but as always it’s based on use case. No it’s not necessary but wow what a fabulous piece of kit to have and use and that a majority of clients won’t know the difference but that’s not the point because I do and I know that I’ve done the best I possibly can. Not for everyone but for those that do will love it 👍
I have the 50 1.8 and I absolutely love it - so it would be almost impossible for me to justify the cost / size / weight of the 1.2. Keeping in mind too, the 50 1.8 is actually my first 50 I've owned in decades of photography - so I haven't been the biggest 50 fan. Glad I have one now though! :)
But I do prefer the 85, so I might feel differently when the 85 1.2 is released. But again, the 1.8's are SO good... they're just too close (for my needs) to justify that huge cost difference.
Yes it’s true. They are both great lenses the 1.8’s. But I do enjoy the 1.2 so far and will see how it feel in 6 months
@@russandloz hello! sorry, i don't where else to ask. Could you guys tell me which lens are you using at 2:50? thank you!
Both are great lenses with different use cases. Another area where the f/1.2 performs better is in backlit situations, which I personally shoot a lot in. I like that at f/1.2 the lens is softer for portraits. It’s just the right combo of sharpness and yet still flattering for skin. For me at f/1.2 subjects pop out ever so subtly at medium distances vs. the f/1.8. Also, if there is a textured background like tall grass, pine leaves, etc. there is a certain look to the bokeh, particularly in the corners when shooting 5-7 feet (~2 meters) from the subject.
Yes a few people have suggested the medium distance had the best look. Interesting
The way he flipped the lens in his hand, wow
It's those middle distance couples and group shots that really show off the 50 f/1.2. The background look is great in the wedding gourp shots you showed. I don't think this lens shines as a portrait lens; that's what an 85mm is for. But, for group and full length it's amazing. Thanks guys.
Thanks Geoffrey, it does have a different look to longer focal lengths but I guess that’s a matter of taste. Just imagine the 85 1.2!
@@russandloz We're all waiting impatiently for that one!
I loved the Bokeh comparison while videoing at the end. My biggest question is when the 85 1.2 comes out would that be a better focal length to take advantage of the Bokeh then the 50? It’s hard to distinguish between the Bokeh depth of field based on the millimeter on the lens versus the compression I guess we’ll have to wait and see when that lens comes out. I saw it in a little bit when you flashed the 105 1.4 on the screen.
The 85 will smash the background much more than the 50 1.2 could ever due to the focal length. Depends on the look you are after. The 50 is just right for me for shooting distance and I want some context of background for weddings etc. The 105 1.4 will be very similar to the 85 1.2 again due to the focal length. Time will tell. The only reason I'd swap the 105 for the 85 would be to get rid of the FTZ.
Excellent video and informative
Absolutely fascinating stuff. I am actively looking for a 50mm prime for use with my Z8 so also completely relevant. Whilst the price and bulk of the 1.8 is really attractive, one very important use-case for me is astrophotography, i.e. landscape + Milky Way, both tracked and stacked, though 50mm is ideal for MW panoramas. As you say, it's all about individual use-case and mine absolutely has to include very low-light, so that extra stop that the f/1.2 boasts sort of seals the deal. Thank you for the very interesting insights.
I appreciate you guys. I like your analysis and witty banter. Have you considered using an ND filter when overexposed?
For me, I cannot justify the additional cost of f/1.2, but If I was in your shoes, I may.
Keep it up guys, and dont be afraid to experiment. I wish you success!
Thanks, it’s not sunny very often here in the UK to worry about it. But with the z8 the shutter speed can go a lot higher now
I recently purchased the 50mm f1.2 (it was on sale) and I love it. It definitely has a character of its own.
PS: Now that you've purchased the Z8 you won't have a problem with overexposing at f1.2 as the maximum shutter speed is 1/32000.
Yes it does feel better on the Z8 for weight balance too!
Thanks for suggesting this video. Have you tried it on the Z9? It’s a perfect balance (if heavy on a wedding day), I much much prefer it to the 1.8 for the character/the warmth. Like you, I’ve kept my 1.8 but I seem to be collecting Z lenses!
I’m sure it’s great on a z9. I don’t want to go back to a big heavy camera. Mirrorless was supposed to be smaller and lighter. Will you be interested in the 85 1.2?
@@russandloz That’s how I felt about mirrorless until I tried the z9, now I just cope, as the benefits out-weigh ( pun intended) the larger body. I hope it’s not a 1.4 rather than a 1.2 but yes either way I’ll be in the queue for one, especially if it has that defocus control. 🙃
You could use an ND filter in brighter scenes so that you can shoot the lens at f1.2. Kase has a magnetic filter system that allows you to quickly switch the filter on and off. The f1.2 lens also has a tiny better contrast than the f1.8. But I must say that the f1.8 lens is a hell of a lens for the price point, especially that the differences are not that big.
Thanks for your advice, though in the UK it isn’t sunny that often, usually to have that issue. Quite the opposite most the year. 😊
very nice review! I own both and agree totally
Thanks, i'm interested to know when you prefer to use the 1.8 lens over the other?
What hood are you using on the 50 1.2?
I have a few lenses with the same hood thread size so currently using the 24-70 2.8 hood or the 14-30, just to protect from knocks.
Have you tried the Viltrox range of lenses on the z mount, quality lenses at a fraction of the price of Nikon.
I was tempted by them. It so they have autofocus? As a event photographer it’s a must for me
@@russandloz yes autofocus. I think there’s only one online shop in the U.K. that sells them
I have the 24-70, 70-200 and 50 1.2. And I’ve had the 35 and 85 1.8 s. I have to say the 50 1.2 is the best lens I’ve ever used. The character of the photo’s are so gorgeous. They make amateur photos look professional.
Yeah I agree. Wish it was smaller though like other brands?
@@russandloz Nikon decided to correct for focus breathing unlike other manufacturers. This explains the larger size.
@@ghas4151 I would prefer the focus breathing back for a smaller size
The voice of reason, Loz, versus the young idealistic Russ. Both viewpoints make sense to me.
📷😎👍
Which one would you go for?
I’m still torn if I should get this special lens 50 1.2 or a 24-70 2.8?
Very different use cases for each lens. 24-70 2.8 is amazing for most things. It’s versatile. But primes can create an extra special look a zoom can’t. Look on the used Market for deals on both
@@russandloz I placed my order for the 50 1.2. I shoot mainly portraits. That 24-70 looks good and versatile but I wanted a special prime in my kit. I appreciate you taking your time to help me out. Cheers
As an amateur I will definitely go for the 1.8.
It’s a great pro lens. Very good price too if you look in quality used market
Great buy!
And heres me downsizeing to 2 Z30 with a 13mm Viltrox and a 40mm F2 - had it with heavy equipment - having a lot more fun with lighter gear
Yeah I get it. You’re much more likely to enjoy and use your camera if it’s smaller and lighter. The z system was supposed to be with a larger mount but it’s the opposite lol
Interestingly though, the DOF difference in the split screen section at the end of the video looked like way more than 1 stop. Was the 1.8 really at 1.8?
I noticed that too. All of a sudden it looked way different.
@@Ahduciekwndnbbbsvvvghhhyyyyy Yes agreed, slight error in that we used the z7ii with z6ii, meaning they have a different tone and video qualities. But they were right next to each other wide open so not sure why.
Maybe as the z7 4K video is downsampled from the full width of the sensor at 1.0x crop?
I have them and when you shoot full body that difference is that huge. The 50mm is for full body in order not the get the distortion. If you shoot half body the difference is not that big. One other thing, I use the 1.2 on the z6 iso 1/8000 some times the images would be 0.7 over but that is easily recoverable in post. Now on the z9 the 1.2 focuses much faster then the 50 1.8.
Love the 1.8 for street photography, but the 1.2 is far to big and conspicuous for that
Yes I agree. Often think a 35mm would be better for street?
Hi Russ . How do you make the must of the 1.2 in weddings? could you do a video just about that? btw 35 mm S 1. 2 will be in the market. As a weding hibrid photo-videographer which will be best to buy? Thank you masters.
It depends which focal length you prefer to work with. 35 will show more context but the 50 will have better depth of field
What the spec of the computer used for your lightroom
I use a 2021 MacBook Pro. I found subject detection a little slow with older computers
@@russandloz that's exactly the same question I was going ask.
On my azuz laptop with I7 10th gen 8gb rams 512ssd, selecting a subject mask can take up to 20 seconds or longer.
@@shadyninja1 That seems a long time, maybe increase the RAM or may have to upgrade. Or look into optimising your library and catalogue.
With a lot of money in my pockets I would have no doubts and get the 1.2, it is superior and magic, but in real world most people won't even think about getting it for that amount of money. 1.8 is still good enough for most situations.
Yes we agree, luckily I got it much cheaper to justify it and love it so far. Maybe in 6 months i'll see if the novelty wears off lol. Glad it was helpful though and always interesting to see what the options are.
Does it have a tight at mount
I've never had an issue with it, But most lenses are a little loose sometimes
50/1.2S dream lens
It is nice to use. But close to the 1.8 version?
Sharpness is not always desirable in portraits. N’cest Pas? You’re clients and friends don’t necessarily want to see what they really look like ; but rather what they like to look like. That’s where I think the Canons excel; a little more smoothing in the software, and less color smudges with the AA filters. Hey Just sayin my feelings. Thanks. 😅
I like the philosophy of taking photos of what people like to look like, for weddings and portraits especially
Your sharpness test right at the start is flawed. The Z7ii missed focus, it's just that at 1.4/1.8 the DOF is large enough for it not to matter. If you used a Z9 you'd get different results. The 50/1.2 is a lens you love more the more you use it. Oh and on the daylight shooting due to the 1/8000s limitation. That will hopefully disappear with the Ziii bodies like it has with the Z9 :)
What I learned from your comparison: That this very fast lens is not for me! In respect to sharpness it does not clearly outperform my beloved Z 50/1.8. The bokeh in the background is more creamy, yes indeed, but on a much lesser degree as I thought it would be. So the only advantage I see for this lens is at very low light, at dawn and dusk, and for wedding photographers in the church maybe, and at night scenes of course, but even then F1.8 with some higher ISO will do the job, or the tripod.
Yes I agree, it's a lot closer than I thought too. I think with very high end lenses, you pay a lot more for a bit more?
@@russandloz Yes - for 10 percent more resolution and bokeh you pay 80% more.
@@markusbolliger1527 You can also do so much more in lightroom now with the new masking options, if the background not to your liking you can adjust it. The 50mm 1.8 is just so good it really is not worth upgrading in my humble opinion.
Just got the 50mm 1.8 used for $450. Great lens so far.
Probably the best value lens in the Nikon Line up!
I wonder how they'd compare with the 58mm f1.4 G
I’ve never used that lens. Is it good still?
@@russandloz - I don't know! I've heard good things, particularly in terms of overall rendering, and it comes in between the two in terms of max aperture and cost, so I was just wondering.
@@ianiles6430 If you're using the Z system, I would always get native lenses. The 50 1.8 is incredible for the price.
@@russandloz - I got it a while back when Nikon lowered the price - a steal at just over £300. Top quality lens.
I'm doing the "one lens challenge" with this one in Toronto next month, will let you know how that goes
How did it go ?
@@lozzom It was fun to have 50mm as my only choice. The razor thin depth of field is such fun to play around with too. Everywhere we went it nailed focus and there seemed to be always a shot that took advantage of it's abilities. Tricky business choosing what to have in focus at times! Really happy with the color transmission of this glass reminds me of the 70-200. Also, on the Z7 it knew how to focus on the moon even though there was a roller coaster and Christmas lights between me and it. This lens puts a touch of quality on photos that is hard to quantify. It is a bit bulky though, not exactly discrete. Tomorrow I will share some samples :)
@@YANFRET2 thanks for the update - look forward to the samples !
@@lozzom I posted a flickr album link but I think youtube deleted the comment :o
Guys, you are great but please don't zoom into the video, it makes me dizzy. I know the zoom is very gradual and slight, but it bothers
Nice video and nicely filmed, but you ought to work on your film editing skills. The constant zooming and switching between lenses is horrible in the later part of the video. Not to mention that the one footage clearly is back-focused...
Do you have buyers remorse?
In a way. It often stays at home now as it’s too big and heavy. I recently discovered the 58 1.4. See our video
You know those lens hoods are carefully designed to ensure they perform as they should on a specific lens. You shouldn’t just attach a hood from another lens just because it fits.
I only use them for protection when I need them. What other function do they provide as I don’t often see people using them? In fact I’ve heard they live caused digging issues in cold weather.
50/1.2 such a dream lens. Would love one.
It’s fine to use that lens hood, but it won’t perform the proper function of a lens hood. It’s meant to shield off frontal light. It improves contrast and colour and protects from flare. Same as if your facing the sun and shield you eyes with your hand or a hat.
However, with modern coatings it isn’t as important as it used to be and many use it just to protect the lens.
I’d certainly use the proper lens hood outdoor in sunlight.
Lens hoods help with flare, but that is practically a thing of the past. The new coatings on these lenses make lens flare non-existent in most cases, and in the few occasions that there is a slight bit of flare it is so reduced that I find I actually don't mind it as it adds to the image. So, I don't bother with lens hoods anymore. A lot of them are so large relative to the lens diameter and they make packing your kit in a camera bag more difficult, so they pretty much stay at home now unless I have the space for them.
I prefer the 7artisans 50mm f/1.05 which is MF but 4 times cheaper and it produces fabulous images wide open 💝
Edit: How come you can't shoot outside wide open? VNDs exists, Freewell, Kase, McKinnon end etc 🤷
For event photography MF lenses wouldn’t be suitable. If it’s sunny 1.4 overexposes the scene even at 8000th shutter speed
Z9 offers 2 stops faster shutter speeds so much light can be dealt with wide open
I didn’t know that. But I really don’t want a big camera again. Thanks
@@russandloz Maybe next Z whatever will have it too in semibody
@@dystopia-utopiarelation-re3191 I’d prefer better eye detection
@@russandloz this is likely to tickle down from the Z9
Z 9 with the 1/32,000 minimum shutter speed would allow you to shoot that 50/1.2 S in virtually any natural lighting condition without resorting to ND filters.
A great thread. I have both the 35/1.8 and the 85/1.8 and their brilliant. But yes, the 50/1.2 is probably too expensive to really justify. As a professional photographer I’m running two systems in a Z6ii and two 850’s which makes things complicated. At this point I simply don’t trust the Z bodies for consistent focus performance which is a shame.
i like the 2. opinion. what a great discussion.
---
oh boy... ever thought that die 1,8 isn't a real 1,8?? maybe try it with f2 oder even 2,8 if you really tell you into the story of "charakter" to be honest, i couln't spot the "charakter". for me this is just justifying spending so much money for such little difference...and imagine how little it is againt a 1.4 ....depending on the construction and aperture the battle could be very close! but there is one diffence: a sigma art 50 is way smaller and cheaper so there is money left for a fantastic 135 or so.
is it a keeper? i think in most cases it is, who would say it was a bad choice in the first place? i nearly almost kept lenses, the regret comes later if you think about a nice short trip or good food ;)
You can always try to maximise the effect, just 1 step closer...or another. so your clients will pay you NOT for the 1.2 in 98% i guess... so why bothering about it? cause you like the weight? the size? i think its more realistic to be closer with the 1,8 instead of the huge brick nobody want's to have in his face.
The difference is negligible in my opinion and certainly not worth it for anyone without extremely deep pockets (Russ apparently! 😉).
For the discounted cost of 25% off I'm happy, but yeah I wouldn't pay full price! 🙂
@@russandloz The low light performance of the Z6II & Z7II is so good that 1.8 really is enough for a huge majority of tasks and the 1.2 is simply massive. I've just come back from a week in Italy and only took the 28 2.8 and the 40 2.0, leaving the 50 1.8 at home. The 28 2.8 stayed on 90% of the time and even shooting in real night conditions performed great.
I understand for professional situations like weddings etc, getting that last 5-10% of performance can be worth the extra cost and weight of the 50 1.2!
@@ericcantona3503 Very true, even the F4 lenses hold up really well too because of the low light ability.
@@russandloz thought you didn’t like F4 lenses Russ ? 🤔😂
@@lozzom They are growing on me
i got the 50 1.8 on EBAY fpr 250 Bucks in excellent condition...and MAN is it good. Shot Canons RF 50 1.8 before that was absolute garbage in comparison...this 50 1.8 renders images not even the Sony 50 1.2 could... however, it ofc. lacks the insane isolation that one had...Nikkors 1.2 is nice, and i "see the difference" but for THAT size id take the 85 instead and get even more of that dreamy look for the effort...its just too big man...
Yes it is a pain to carry. But I wouldn’t have that operating space for an 85 really. Wish they’d make a 1.4 version
@@russandloz yeah, 50 1.4 would be the sweet spot.
Tbh my biggest reason NOT to get it, is the excellence of the 50 1.8 and the fact, that i prefer the 24-35mm range and then the 85-135mm ranges more. 50is nice, but it has that „tele“ look to it without the real compression and isolation power of 85mm+ … my dream combo would be 35 1.2 and 85 or 105…
I agree that your client will never notice the difference and it is huge!! Would never buy the 1.2
I'm on the verge of selling it as I've recently got the 58 1.4 (see our comparison video) but maybe it does have a place for certain tasks
Why do old British blokes love Nikons?
How come you’re metered correctly for the faces but not the sky? Are you not using strobes for a paid wedding shoot? Your backgrounds are completely blown out. I enjoy your videos, but that was surprising to see for a paid wedding shoot. 😬🤷♂️
I never needed strobes really, not sure which examples you mean but I also prefer not to use flashes unless really needed as it effects my look
Why do old British blokes love Nikons?
Lol. I’m sure Sony and Canon do well here too. But in the beginning Nikon had the nicest colour renditions. But yes, very jealous of other brands autofocus systems
Colour and lenses. Sony puts out cameras too quickly , canon has no soul🫣