p.3 #1 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
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.
Indeed, its odd, as I see images that look great and everything well corrected, and then I see other images where I see some strong color fringing. Case in point I highlighted the areas from the photos I've mentioned:
I know I'm pixel peeping here, but this is definitely visible at normal sizes here in the forum as well.
p.3 #2 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
Yes, it's extremely noticable even at low forum resolutions, it's not pixel peeping. You hate to pee in people's cheerios while they are in the infatuation stage of owning an expensive lens, but this is 101 stuff.
p.3 #3 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
gavinsan wrote:
Indeed, its odd, as I see images that look great and everything well corrected, and then I see other images where I see some strong color fringing. Case in point I highlighted the areas from the photos I've mentioned:
I know I'm pixel peeping here, but this is definitely visible at normal sizes here in the forum as well.
The amount of fringing visible is going to also depend on the person's post-processing habits and software. For example, I find DxO PhotoLab 8 great at most things and it's my favorite PP software, but they suck at removing CA. Adobe Lightroom on the other hand will remove any sign of fringing.
Back in the day when shooting with a D750 and pulling shadows in Lightroom, it would produce some purple discoloration in the bottom of the image, but I didn't get any of that in Nikon's own RAW converter.
p.3 #5 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
RoamingScott wrote:
Yes, it's extremely noticable even at low forum resolutions, it's not pixel peeping. You hate to pee in people's cheerios while they are in the infatuation stage of owning an expensive lens, but this is 101 stuff.
It is indeed visible in those samples, I just don’t see it in mines.
p.3 #6 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
gavinsan wrote:
Indeed, its odd, as I see images that look great and everything well corrected, and then I see other images where I see some strong color fringing. Case in point I highlighted the areas from the photos I've mentioned:
I know I'm pixel peeping here, but this is definitely visible at normal sizes here in the forum as well.
The top picture is mine. Unfortunately I don't have the original raw file anymore as this was just walking around trying out new lens session. I only have the small jpg file that I processed and sent to my hosting web.
On my computer at showing the picture at 100% of the reduced size picture, purple fringe is not really visible. The branch is not completely black and has a slight warm cast to it. Mine you, the sun is right behind the branch, not off the frame. I did change WB to daylight which added a bit more warmth and a bit more magenta shade to the picture from original AWB.
Not saying that there is no color fringe but directly against the sun at f1.2, I have not seen any other 35mm lenses in the f1.2-1.4 range does better than this ( I realize I have not seen them all but certainly own quite a few in the past).
p.3 #8 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
gavinsan wrote:
Indeed, its odd, as I see images that look great and everything well corrected, and then I see other images where I see some strong color fringing. Case in point I highlighted the areas from the photos I've mentioned:
I know I'm pixel peeping here, but this is definitely visible at normal sizes here in the forum as well.
So you know of any 35mm f1.4 or better lens that does better than this at the same conditions? Remember the color fringing is directly correlated on how bright and dark the transition difference are. The sun is REALLY REALLY bright.
the second pic looks bad but the 1 and 3 looks acceptable
p.3 #9 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
wind30 wrote:
So you know of any 35mm f1.4 or better lens that does better than this at the same conditions? Remember the color fringing is directly correlated on how bright and dark the transition difference are. The sun is REALLY REALLY bright.
The Tamron 35mm f1.4 (f-mount) is actually very good at preventing colour fringing. Better than the 1.8S.
p.3 #10 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
It seems that the lens fringes on high contrast backlit elements which are partially OOF. Not fully OOF or in focus though. But clearly this is a compromise the engineers have elected to make in order to achieve the rendering "look" while still being very sharp. The images look very beautiful to me.
p.3 #11 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
wind30 wrote:
So you know of any 35mm f1.4 or better lens that does better than this at the same conditions? Remember the color fringing is directly correlated on how bright and dark the transition difference are. The sun is REALLY REALLY bright.
the second pic looks bad but the 1 and 3 looks acceptable
Sure, the Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/1.4 is better corrected. (At least, the 25mm f/1.4 is, from personal experience, and the 35 mm is said to be as good or better.)
p.3 #12 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
urbanwild wrote:
The Tamron 35mm f1.4 (f-mount) is actually very good at preventing colour fringing. Better than the 1.8S.
This 35mm f1.2S looks very nice regardless.
Yes. I owned sigma 35mm f1.4, sigma 40 mm f1.4, Nikon 35mm f1.4 g, Sony Zeiss 35mm f1.4, Sony 35mm f1.4 gm, sigma 35mm f1.2. In terms of loca the sigma 40mm is much better than the rest. I would put the new Nikon 35mm f1.2 as above average actually based on the test shots.
The tamron 35mm does look very good in the lens tip review.
p.3 #14 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
protikh wrote:
Is #1 from Sigma?
No, 1 is Nikon. The sigma pic has more onion rings I feel. I also took flare comparison shots too but the Nikon front element was dirty. Even with a dirty front element, the Nikon wins in terms of flare convincingly.
p.3 #15 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
The sigma one also seems to have more distortion. For example, the left wall looks a bit curved for sigma.
wind30 wrote:
No, 1 is Nikon. The sigma pic has more onion rings I feel. I also took flare comparison shots too but the Nikon front element was dirty. Even with a dirty front element, the Nikon wins in terms of flare convincingly.
p.3 #16 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
wind30 wrote:
No, 1 is Nikon. The sigma pic has more onion rings I feel. I also took flare comparison shots too but the Nikon front element was dirty. Even with a dirty front element, the Nikon wins in terms of flare convincingly.
I just love these comparisons that are not labelled. Especially when the resolution is decent. If folks can't tell the difference or if they have to look really hard for the difference, then that's telling. Not to suggest paying more isn't worth it for other reasons (no ftz, quicker focus, etc), but it keeps us honest otherwise.
In this case, I did notice the chromatic aberrations right away in the images identified in an earlier post and I find it difficult to truly judge a lens when there's so many images in the marketing that has the focus point so close......lots of lenses will show beautiful bokeh when focused on a subject so closely. So I'd love to see more posts like this (or threads like this) where we can compare very similar images using different lenses under the same conditions. It's been helpful with other lens comparisons in other posts too. May prevent more GAS too . Cheers!
p.3 #17 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
protikh wrote:
The sigma one also seems to have more distortion. For example, the left wall looks a bit curved for sigma.
The sigma lens was labelled as nikon 85mm f1.8G because I was using a viltrox e2z adaptor. And ACR applied the wrong profile correction which explains the distortion... I should have changed the profile. My bad.
p.3 #18 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
urbanwild wrote:
I just love these comparisons that are not labelled. Especially when the resolution is decent. If folks can't tell the difference or if they have to look really hard for the difference, then that's telling. Not to suggest paying more isn't worth it for other reasons (no ftz, quicker focus, etc), but it keeps us honest otherwise.
In this case, I did notice the chromatic aberrations right away in the images identified in an earlier post and I find it difficult to truly judge a lens when there's so many images in the marketing that has the focus point so close......lots of lenses will show beautiful bokeh when focused on a subject so closely. So I'd love to see more posts like this (or threads like this) where we can compare very similar images using different lenses under the same conditions. It's been helpful with other lens comparisons in other posts too. May prevent more GAS too . Cheers!...Show more →
I put my sigma 35mm f1.2 up for sale after testing the nikon 35mm f1.2. The sigma lens which I bought in July 2019 was the lens I kept the longest.
p.3 #19 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
This is my favourite 35mm so far having own 35/1.8s, Zeiss 35/1.4ZM, Milvus 35/1.4, Leica 35/2 8e, 35/1.4 FLE and 35/1.4 AA . The AA has its own magic but I don't feel like carrying a lens that cost more than a car with me everywhere
. Cheers!
