p.2 #1 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
Really liking this lens so far. Color saturation and contrast are off the charts, even wide open. Looks like very little flare to speak of, and it holds contrast extremely well in back lit situations. Image sharpness is excellent wide open, though the plane of focus can be pretty shallow. Looks like it will be a great match for my 85mm f/1.2 and 135 plena.
Interestingly, I received this one on release day (Thursday). This was the first time I preordered and recieved it on release day. In the past the items have always shipped on release day.
p.2 #4 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
Going to wait to post images until I can do a better test under darker skies, but pointed the 35 at the stars last night just for a quick first impression. Bit of a mixed bag. Astigmatism and coma wide open. The astigmatism mostly resolves by f2, but the coma doesn't. I should have tested at f2.8, but at that point, there is no shortage of lenses that perform well, so why use a $2800 giant one. The Sigma 40mm ART is still king in this range it seems. I was definitely hoping for better astro performance. It's not unusable, but it's definitely not amazing, either. The 85mm 1.2s is exceptionally good for astro, and obviously the Plena is aa good astro lens, too. The 50mm 1.2s has some minor issues, but of the super fast nikon primes, this 35mm looks like it may be the worst performer. The good news was that there is no color fringing that I could discern (although that can show up under darker skies with longer exposures--I was testing from a bottle 8 backyard), and the lens is very very sharp even wide open.
p.2 #5 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
Nikon Z8 + 35mm f1.2 S in Kyoto @ f1.2
I am extremely impressed by my copy of this lens. It's as close to perfect as I have ever seen. I photographed with the 35mm f1.2 S and 135mm f1.8 S Plena and that combo is just made in heaven.
The samples here were photographed in terrible light with bright white skies... yet I can hardly see any fringing or CA on super contrasty edges. The bokeh is to die for, the lens is incredibly sharp wide open. Plain incredible.
I am extremely impressed by my copy of this lens. It's as close to perfect as I have ever seen. I photographed with the 35mm f1.2 S and 135mm f1.8 S Plena and that combo is just make in heaven.
The samples here were photographed in terrible light with bright white skies... yet I can hardly see any fringing or CA on super contrasty edges. The bokeh is to die for, the lens is incredibly sharp wide open. Plain incredible.
p.2 #8 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
Thank you for sharing. I love the Plena for astro and was really hoping this 35mm would hit the mark.
nhmorgan wrote:
Going to wait to post images until I can do a better test under darker skies, but pointed the 35 at the stars last night just for a quick first impression. Bit of a mixed bag. Astigmatism and coma wide open. The astigmatism mostly resolves by f2, but the coma doesn't. I should have tested at f2.8, but at that point, there is no shortage of lenses that perform well, so why use a $2800 giant one. The Sigma 40mm ART is still king in this range it seems. I was definitely hoping for better astro performance. It's not unusable, but it's definitely not amazing, either. The 85mm 1.2s is exceptionally good for astro, and obviously the Plena is aa good astro lens, too. The 50mm 1.2s has some minor issues, but of the super fast nikon primes, this 35mm looks like it may be the worst performer. The good news was that there is no color fringing that I could discern (although that can show up under darker skies with longer exposures--I was testing from a bottle 8 backyard), and the lens is very very sharp even wide open. ...Show more →
p.2 #9 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
The more I look at the images captured with the 35mm f1.2 S, the more it feels like Nikon released to the market from scratch the equivalent to a second generation product. As if they had come up with a first gen internally, were not 100% happy with it and redesigned it a second time. It's that good.
I am really looking forward to their next releases.
p.2 #10 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
nhmorgan wrote:
Going to wait to post images until I can do a better test under darker skies....
Kinda bummed to hear this on the astro side as that was one of the main things I was looking for this lens to shine on. It looks like its closer to the performance of the 85mm f/1.2 than the Plena for astro stuff. The Plena is superb for astro work. I also have the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 (f-mount) and the 20mm f/1.8 S Nikkor, both of which are also exceptional for astro work. I was really hoping this 35 would be in the same league for astro as these others.
For all that I have used the 35mm f/1.2 for so far though, its been top-of-the line performance. The performance wide open is simply outstanding - sharpness, contrast and color saturation, not to mention to-die-for bokeh are all there at f/1.2. Having fun with this one so far. My best pics at this point are family pics, so nothing to post yet. No chance to take it out at night yet either, weather has not been cooperating.
p.2 #11 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
How noticeable is chromatic aberration or color fringing in general? I’ve seen it in some photos, especially in shots with branches against strong backlight:
p.2 #12 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
gavinsan wrote:
How noticeable is chromatic aberration or color fringing in general? I’ve seen it in some photos, especially in shots with branches against strong backlight:
I know these are extreme scenarios for such a fast lens, but I’m wondering how easy it is to fix in post. In a few photos, it looks quite pronounced.
I thought they are pretty well controlled from the three samples you linked. I wonder if anyone done a comparison with the sigma f1.2 35mm. I have the sigma and am itching to get the Nikon. But the sigma really is very good. The Nikon looks better in terms of flare and Bokeh rendering .
p.2 #13 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
gavinsan wrote:
How noticeable is chromatic aberration or color fringing in general? I’ve seen it in some photos, especially in shots with branches against strong backlight:
p.2 #14 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
Color fringe around bright light bulb is just about the worse case scenario I think. I can see it on my pictures but I have to say, of all f1.4 lenses, let alone f1.2 lenses in this range that I ever tried, 35/1.2s has it under control the most and less obtrusive than most if not all. May be Zeiss 35/1.4 Milvus is close but not better I think.
p.2 #15 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
gavinsan wrote:
How noticeable is chromatic aberration or color fringing in general? I’ve seen it in some photos, especially in shots with branches against strong backlight:
I know these are extreme scenarios for such a fast lens, but I’m wondering how easy it is to fix in post. In a few photos, it looks quite pronounced.
Does anyone know if Lightroom or other RAW converters already have a profile for this lens? I'm wondering if the purple fringing/LoCA is really this pronounced when the profile is applied. Do the SOOC JPGs look any different than RAW conversions when it comes to finging and LoCA?
p.2 #16 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
Wezre wrote:
Does anyone know if Lightroom or other RAW converters already have a profile for this lens? I'm wondering if the purple fringing/LoCA is really this pronounced when the profile is applied. Do the SOOC JPGs look any different than RAW conversions when it comes to finging and LoCA?
p.2 #17 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
I don't find any lens profiles in Lightroom for mirrorless lenses. The lens profile is written into the image NEF file by the camera and applied by Lightroom on import. Same with C1. Make sure you are running the latest firmware.
p.2 #18 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
I guess I'm on the...fringe...but I'm also seeing quite a number of things in various photos posted so far I'm not crazy about, especially for the price and how long it took to release this particular lens. One big knock on the 35 1.4 was poor fringe control, and it seems to be present in at least several copies here, meaning it's likely more widespread than not.
I'm also quite disappointed in how it is handling bokeh busyness behind the focal point, particularly when foliage or branches are involved...it renders much more like a Sony GM than a typical S lens.
I was curious if this lens could scratch the same itch the GFX 55 does, and so far, I'm not seeing it. I'll likely rent one later this year and put it through its paces head to head.
p.2 #19 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
There is a Lightroom profile for this lens. It was out before the official launch date, which was obviously surprising. I bet it will be updated, because it doesn’t do anything.
p.2 #20 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
bernardl wrote:
Again, zero fringing in C1 Pro.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks. I hadn't seen mention of which RAW converter you used.
---------------------------------------------
Luke_Miller wrote:
I don't find any lens profiles in Lightroom for mirrorless lenses. The lens profile is written into the image NEF file by the camera and applied by Lightroom on import. Same with C1. Make sure you are running the latest firmware.
I guess I had never noticed that the Z lenses aren't listed in the drop-down, since the profiles are always applied on import. I don't own this lens, but was trying to get a handle on why certain people are reporting/sharing images with vastly different levels of purple fringing and LoCA.
---------------------------------------------
RoamingScott wrote:
I guess I'm on the...fringe...but I'm also seeing quite a number of things in various photos posted so far I'm not crazy about, especially for the price and how long it took to release this particular lens. One big knock on the 35 1.4 was poor fringe control, and it seems to be present in at least several copies here, meaning it's likely more widespread than not.
I'm also quite disappointed in how it is handling bokeh busyness behind the focal point, particularly when foliage or branches are involved...it renders much more like a Sony GM than a typical S lens.
I was curious if this lens could scratch the same itch the GFX 55 does, and so far, I'm not seeing it. I'll likely rent one later this year and put it through its paces head to head....Show more →
Of all the S lenses I've owned or seen samples of, this is definitely the most surprising when it comes to how poorly corrected it seems to be. Either that or there's some wild sample variation going on right now that they need to get under control. Definitely seems like it's not on the level of the 50 1.2, 85 1.2, and Plena, unless there's some manufacturing QC issue that they need to address.
