fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 6

8 … 17 18 end

Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

wind30
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #1 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

Buckeye2604 wrote:
All opinion, but the Sigma looked to have busy, slightly distracting bokeh to me and the swirly look. However, I�m not going to pass judgment on lenses based on two side by side pictures. That would be crazy.

I own the Sigma and I think the nikon samples look just as good if not better in terms of bokeh. The only optical issue i feel the Sigma have is flare resistance.

Feb 06, 2025 at 06:41 PM

swifty168
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #2 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

Jman13 wrote:
The Sigma is actually discontinued in e-mount right now, so I was looking at used prices on MPB, where it's available for $1,000. The Sony I did use the amount I paid for my used copy, so you are correct that the better comparison would be '$1,500 better' for the current new price for the Sony.

Ultimately, this Nikon does look to be really, really outstanding optically (though still not perfect, with some longitudinal CA creeping in here and there). Perhaps the best AF 35mm lens on the market. I still think they priced it about $600-$700 too high given...Show more →
Only issue is you�re comparing the 50�s to the 35�s. Nikon charges a similar amount for their 50 f/1.2S to the competition as that�s the closest like for like comparison we have for the big 3.
If you accept that ~$2k is fair for a 50mm f/1.2 flagship, the question is what should a 35mm flagship be? 35mm lenses are always more expensive than their 50mm cousins, but it varies a bit by how much.
The list price of the 35mm f/1.2S is about 1.4X more than the $2k mark which seems kinda in line with the difference between many 35mm and 50mm equivalents but perhaps it�s priced a touch high to get the first movers premium and make room for future discounting.

Feb 06, 2025 at 07:52 PM

DWOfPaul
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #3 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

The Sigma 35mm f1.2 has the Sigma look. There are lots of images from the lens to be found online, as it's now about 5 years old.

The Nikon so far seems to be a bit better optically in most ways, has the Nikon look, and I would even go as far as to say has the top of the line Nikon look of lenses like the 135mm f1.8 and 28mm f1.4 E.

I would be curious to see how they stack up next to each other in light transmission and vignetting.

Is the Nikon worth almost twice as much as the Sigma? I think it depends on the photographer. Back in the F mount days, a Zeiss Otus 55mm made a lot of sense for some photographers, but a Sigma 50mm f1.4 art probably made sense to many more photographers. Hopefully, someday, we will be able to choose from both 35mm f1.2 lenses natively on Z mount.

Feb 06, 2025 at 08:02 PM

wind30
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #4 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

DWOfPaul wrote:
The Sigma 35mm f1.2 has the Sigma look. There are lots of images from the lens to be found online, as it's now about 5 years old.

The Nikon so far seems to be a bit better optically in most ways, has the Nikon look, and I would even go as far as to say has the top of the line Nikon look of lenses like the 135mm f1.8 and 28mm f1.4 E.

I would be curious to see how they stack up next to each other in light transmission and vignetting.

Is the Nikon worth almost twice as much as the...Show more →

... i use sigma Sony nikon lens... i don't know what u mean by nikon look... every lens is different and render differently. The Sigma 35mm f1.2 renders very well, even in Sony emount where people has 10001 35mm primes to choose, the Sigma 35mm f1.2 is regarded as the best in rendering.

I feel the nikon renders similarly which is high praise. I feel for light transmission, the sigma ismore like f1.3.

I feel among nikon premium primes only the plena is priced competitively.

Feb 06, 2025 at 10:20 PM

ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #5 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

wind30 wrote:
i don't know what u mean by nikon look... every lens is different and render differently.

Yes and no. What people mean by "rendering" can be different things to different people.

Things that are quite similar e.g., across Nikon's S-line f/1.8 lenses, for example, include: 1) colors in similar lighting and environment conditions, 2) response to light sources (flare and ghosting), 2) overall MTF characteristics, i.e. how much different spatial frequencies are attenuated at different positions of the frame, 3) correction of chromatic aberration, 4) correction of spherical aberration, 5) bokeh, etc. Apart from the 135/1.8, the other lenses do have some cat's eyes which is different from the 135 (which is probably why it got a special name, "Plena"). Generally longer focal length primes have the nicest out-of-focus rendering and these f/1.8 don't perhaps quite get into that in the same way as it's more challenging to do that in shorter lenses.

Going into the f/2.8 zooms, I find again although the 24-70/2.8 isn't quite as sharp as the f/1.8 primes, the images have a very similar feel to them. I can't really tell among these lenses, which I used, if I swap in the same conditions and use a different lens among the series I can't really identify them based on the images (apart from the Plena). This kind of consistency doesn't quite exist among F-mount lenses (there is more quality variation and stylistic variation among F-mount lenses, though lenses of the same era tend to be more similar than those separated by decades). The Z-mount lenses were developed in a relative short time and thus they're very similar. The non-S line Z lenses (such as 40/2, etc.) seem a bit different in that there is no nano or ARNEO coating, and so the images appear lower contrast and more "feeling" lenses than aimed for the highest technical quality. They're obviously also intended to be smaller and less expensive as well.

I value this consistency (within the S-line lenses) very much as it makes it easier to switch focal length without affecting other aspects of the images, which makes it easier to present images together. I know on this forum there are a lot of people who mix lenses from different brands, arguing that each lens is different and perhaps they're just thinking of different things in the lens image characteristics than I am looking at. Of course, it's great to have more options so that more people can find what they need, but for me the consistency across focal lengths is very important.

For now I don't have immediate plans of acquiring f/1.2 lenses as they kind of throw away the benefits of smaller size and weight that mirrorless can afford users, and I don't feel an acute need for going for such apertures. Of course the cost is high as well, but likely there will be rebates in the next few years that can make these lenses more affordable than they initially are. I like being able to choose from a broad set of focal lengths with constant aperture (in this case 20 mm to 135 mm at f/1.8, instead of the narrow range of 35 to 85 mm at f/1.2), all the while keeping the bag weight moderate. I do occasionally shoot in situations where the extra light would be beneficial, reducing the need to use excessively high ISOs, and I do like the shallow depth of field, but the f/1.2's still feel like an extravagant choice that may be great for some photographers but feels a bit excessive to me.

Feb 07, 2025 at 06:23 AM

Wezre
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #6 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

Jman13 wrote:
The Sigma is actually discontinued in e-mount right now, so I was looking at used prices on MPB, where it's available for $1,000. The Sony I did use the amount I paid for my used copy, so you are correct that the better comparison would be '$1,500 better' for the current new price for the Sony.

Ultimately, this Nikon does look to be really, really outstanding optically (though still not perfect, with some longitudinal CA creeping in here and there). Perhaps the best AF 35mm lens on the market. I still think they priced it about $600-$700 too high given...Show more →

I'm not sure why you're comparing used prices of discontinued lenses to new prices of a lens that was just released. Why not just compare the prices of their f/1.2 lenses, which will show you that the 50 1.2 lenses from all three manufacturers are around the same price, the Canon/Nikon 85 1.2 lenses are the same price, and the Nikon 35 1.2 is the same price as the 85s? Trying to draw conclusions from pricing of f/1.4 lenses is odd, when there's clearly a higher level of pricing that's been set by Nikon, Canon, and Sony for the f/1.2 versions. MSRPs:

Sony 50 1.2 $2,000
Nikon 50 1.2 $2,100
Canon 50 1.2 $2,300
Nikon 35 1.2 $2,800
Canon 85 1.2 $2,800
Nikon 85 1.2 $2,800

Feb 07, 2025 at 08:27 AM

Wezre
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #7 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

RoamingScott wrote:
Clearly talking about the used market, which doesn't yet exist for the Z. The GM is easily findable under $1000 if you're patient: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1890193/0?keyword=35,gm#16745411

I figured that was the case, which makes zero sense.

Feb 07, 2025 at 08:31 AM

wind30
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #8 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

ilkka_nissila wrote:
Yes and no. What people mean by "rendering" can be different things to different people.

Things that are quite similar e.g., across Nikon's S-line f/1.8 lenses, for example, include: 1) colors in similar lighting and environment conditions, 2) response to light sources (flare and ghosting), 2) overall MTF characteristics, i.e. how much different spatial frequencies are attenuated at different positions of the frame, 3) correction of chromatic aberration, 4) correction of spherical aberration, 5) bokeh, etc. Apart from the 135/1.8, the other lenses do have some cat's eyes which is different from the 135 (which is probably why it got a special name, "Plena"). Generally longer focal length primes have the nicest out-of-focus rendering and these f/1.8 don't perhaps quite get into that in the same way as it's more challenging to do that in shorter lenses.

Going into the f/2.8 zooms, I find again although the 24-70/2.8 isn't quite as sharp as the f/1.8 primes, the images have a very similar feel to them. I can't really tell among these lenses, which I used, if I swap in the same conditions and use a different lens among the series I can't really identify them based on the images (apart from the Plena). This kind of consistency doesn't quite exist among F-mount lenses (there is more quality variation and stylistic variation among F-mount lenses, though lenses of the same era tend to be more similar than those separated by decades). The Z-mount lenses were developed in a relative short time and thus they're very similar. The non-S line Z lenses (such as 40/2, etc.) seem a bit different in that there is no nano or ARNEO coating, and so the images appear lower contrast and more "feeling" lenses than aimed for the highest technical quality. They're obviously also intended to be smaller and less expensive as well.

I value this consistency (within the S-line lenses) very much as it makes it easier to switch focal length without affecting other aspects of the images, which makes it easier to present images together. I know on this forum there are a lot of people who mix lenses from different brands, arguing that each lens is different and perhaps they're just thinking of different things in the lens image characteristics than I am looking at. Of course, it's great to have more options so that more people can find what they need, but for me the consistency across focal lengths is very important.

For now I don't have immediate plans of acquiring f/1.2 lenses as they kind of throw away the benefits of smaller size and weight that mirrorless can afford users, and I don't feel an acute need for going for such apertures. Of course the cost is high as well, but likely there will be rebates in the next few years that can make these lenses more affordable than they initially are. I like being able to choose from a broad set of focal lengths with constant aperture (in this case 20 mm to 135 mm at f/1.8, instead of the narrow range of 35 to 85 mm at f/1.2), all the while keeping the bag weight moderate. I do occasionally shoot in situations where the extra light would be beneficial, reducing the need to use excessively high ISOs, and I do like the shallow depth of field, but the f/1.2's still feel like an extravagant choice that may be great for some photographers but feels a bit excessive to me.

...Show more →

... I bet you will not be able to tell apart the Sigma 35mm f1.2 pics and nikon 35mm f1.2 pics in a blind test.

The differences are there but it is very minor.

Feb 07, 2025 at 09:31 AM

wind30
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #9 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

Wezre wrote:
I'm not sure why you're comparing used prices of discontinued lenses to new prices of a lens that was just released. Why not just compare the prices of their f/1.2 lenses, which will show you that the 50 1.2 lenses from all three manufacturers are around the same price, the Canon/Nikon 85 1.2 lenses are the same price, and the Nikon 35 1.2 is the same price as the 85s? Trying to draw conclusions from pricing of f/1.4 lenses is odd, when there's clearly a higher level of pricing that's been set by Nikon, Canon, and Sony for the f/1.2...Show more →

I don't think the Sigma 35mm f1.2 is discontinued... it is still selling everywhere. Here is singapore it is 1400 usd brand new.

Feb 07, 2025 at 09:33 AM

Wezre
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #10 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

wind30 wrote:
I don't think the Sigma 35mm f1.2 is discontinued... it is still selling everywhere. Here is singapore it is 1400 usd brand new.

It's available in a few stores here for both E-mount and L-mount, but B&H only has the L-mount version. The E-mount version is shown as discontinued on B&H and some other sites.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1492968-REG/sigma_341965_35mm_f_1_2_dg_dn.html

Feb 07, 2025 at 09:45 AM

RoamingScott
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #11 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

Wezre wrote:
I figured that was the case, which makes zero sense.

Assuming everyone buys their lenses new makes less than zero sense, because it's not how the world works.

Feb 07, 2025 at 09:50 AM

Wezre
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #12 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

RoamingScott wrote:
Assuming everyone buys their lenses new makes less than zero sense, because it's not how the world works.

Complaining about how expensive a new lens is that hasn't even been shipped yet, and using used prices of discontinued lenses as the point of comparison is laughable. I understand people but used lenses - I do as well. But this idea that the Nikon 35 1.2 is massively overpriced because a discontinued Sigma 35 1.2 is half the price (or a third of the price when bought used) doesn't hold up. Every Sigma lens is about half the price of the first-party equivalent when comparing new MSRPs. Every used lens is significantly less than new lenses, especially newly released lenses.

Feb 07, 2025 at 10:32 AM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #13 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

But I do think comparing to other high end f/1.4 lenses is valid. We have seen that high end 85mm f/1.2 lenses are around $2800, but we also see that high end 85mm f/1.4 lenses are generally in the $1800 range. High end 50mm f/1.4s are in the $1400 price range, while high end 50mm f/1.2s are in the $2000 price range. Since high end 35mm f/1.4 lenses tend to be in that $1400-$1500 price range, you would expect high end 35mm f/1.2 lenses to be closer to their 50mm brethren rather than their 85mm brethren.

Feb 07, 2025 at 10:51 AM

Wezre
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #14 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

Jman13 wrote:
But I do think comparing to other high end f/1.4 lenses is valid. We have seen that high end 85mm f/1.2 lenses are around $2800, but we also see that high end 85mm f/1.4 lenses are generally in the $1800 range. High end 50mm f/1.4s are in the $1400 price range, while high end 50mm f/1.2s are in the $2000 price range. Since high end 35mm f/1.4 lenses tend to be in that $1400-$1500 price range, you would expect high end 35mm f/1.2 lenses to be closer to their 50mm brethren rather than their 85mm brethren.

Fair enough. I guess we'll see how much the next 35mm f/1.2 costs.

Feb 07, 2025 at 11:09 AM

sungphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #15 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

The image samples, especially from Joe McNally, look great so I'll probably pick one up. Love my 35 1.8 S for how small it is, but there is something special about a wide lens being crushing a background. I'm generally less confident with adapted lenses because they can be a bit hit or miss, and a firmware update can make a third party lens an expensive paperweight. The pricing isn't that surprising, especially considering that making fast wide glass is more difficult than a fast 50 or 85. The Sigmas just don't really do it for me personally in terms of color and rendering, even Nikon hasn't really made something that replaces the Nikon 28E/58G/105E in my opinion.

Feb 07, 2025 at 11:53 AM

DWOfPaul
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #16 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

wind30 wrote:
... i use sigma Sony nikon lens... i don't know what u mean by nikon look... every lens is different and render differently. The Sigma 35mm f1.2 renders very well, even in Sony emount where people has 10001 35mm primes to choose, the Sigma 35mm f1.2 is regarded as the best in rendering.

I feel the nikon renders similarly which is high praise. I feel for light transmission, the sigma ismore like f1.3.

I feel among nikon premium primes only the plena is priced competitively.

As other people have mentioned, different lens manufacturers have a different look in the images their lenses produce. It's usually subtle things like color, contrast, and flare. It's mostly an artistic difference rather than a technical difference. If you want to jump down the rabbit hole of lens rendering / look I recommend looking at Flickr groups of specific lenses. For example, compare the Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 vs the Sony 24-70 and 70-200. Eventually, you will start to see some trends in how a manufacturer's lenses handle and render images. For example, most Sony lenses render cooler colors than Nikon lenses. Every company has some outlier lenses too, so you need to compare many lenses.

BTW I am in no way nocking Sigmas rendering. I own a few Sigma lenses, and there are a few others I am interested in. Overall though, I do prefer Nikon's look.

----------

That's interesting B&H has the Sigma 35mm f1.2 as discontinued. I wonder if they're about to update it. It's not listed on Sigma's discontinued lens page, they made a 50mm f1.2 last year, and it was a well regarded lens.
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/discontinued/

Feb 07, 2025 at 12:17 PM

JadedWriter
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #17 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

The only caveat is that Joe McNally can get a great picture out of a pinhole lens made out of the materials of a Sony GM box

sungphoto wrote:
The image samples, especially from Joe McNally, look great so I'll probably pick one up. Love my 35 1.8 S for how small it is, but there is something special about a wide lens being crushing a background. I'm generally less confident with adapted lenses because they can be a bit hit or miss, and a firmware update can make a third party lens an expensive paperweight. The pricing isn't that surprising, especially considering that making fast wide glass is more difficult than a fast 50 or 85. The Sigmas just don't really do it for me personally in terms...Show more →

Feb 07, 2025 at 12:18 PM

sungphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #18 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

JadedWriter wrote:
The only caveat is that Joe McNally can get a great picture out of a pinhole lens made out of the materials of a Sony GM box

Lol yes, he can also make a better portrait with a speedlight than many folks can with a fully kitted studio, and a sharp eye without whining about eye-af

I have a few of his excellent books, and was an inspiration for me to get into lighting when I first started getting more serious about photography. His knowledge of how to mix color temps in a beautiful way is mind blowing.

Feb 07, 2025 at 12:32 PM

JadedWriter
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #19 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

I honestly think Joe is on modern photographer Mt. Rushmore. I have nothing but respect for him regarding the craft and his hustle. That man will die with a camera in his hand and I mean that in the nicest way possible.
sungphoto wrote:
Lol yes, he can also make a better portrait with a speedlight than many folks can with a fully kitted studio, and a sharp eye without whining about eye-af

Feb 07, 2025 at 12:40 PM

pemanja93
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #20 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

As I see on photorumors, Viltrox will announce 35mm f1.2(and 50mm and 85mm f1.2) in 2 months, and 35mm will be lighter, and almost 4x cheaper than Nikon(around 700$), which is insane...but we will see...even if they put 1000-1200$ for 35mm, it will be a great price.

I just hope AF will work as it should, and we know Viltrox will make it really good optically, so this will be exciting year for us.

Feb 07, 2025 at 01:54 PM

1 2 3 … 6 7 8 … 17 18 end
FM Forums \| Nikon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 … 17 18 end

Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread

You are not logged in. Login or Register