p.5 #3 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
PixiPhotography wrote:
A Z7 III with 60mp is enough. In fact 45mp is more than enough. Any higher I’d go MF.
MF is nice but has many drawbacks too, including more bulk and weight, inferior AF (even with my GFX-100II, by far the best focusing « MF » camera ever), extremely limited lenses options, less DoF control, worse video,…
So I’d personally be all over a 80+ mp Z7III. Agreed that 60mp wouldn’t be different enough from the current 45mp and would be pointless.
p.5 #6 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
No doubt the 35 1.2 is a capable lens. But is it real world practical?
The more I look at these 1.2 images, the more I feel that these huge apertures are not very practical.
Seeing a cat with one eye in sharp focus and the rest of the head blurred and similar shots make me wonder as to the real world usefulness of such a lens.
Even for portrait work, 1.2 has a paper thin depth of field and has limited value, unless you have a paper thin subject
You will need to stop up to take some meaningful/useful shots.
An amazing bokeh can be achieved with a 1.8 or 2.0 lens while being real word useful by maintaining far more of the face/ body/cat/etc in focus and still providing a spectacular bokeh.
Such a lens would also be lighter to carry and something like a 50mm F1.8s lens can give you the best of speed, IQ, less weight, and at 1/4 the price.
p.5 #7 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
bernardl wrote:
Still no fringing to be seen in the most extreme backlit situation.
There's very clear green fringing on the middle photo, but it's still decently controlled. I see purple in the other tree examples posted as well, but again, less than your average lens at 1.2.
Hyperbolic positivity is a little goofy when the examples are so clear.
p.5 #9 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
F786786 wrote:
No doubt the 35 1.2 is a capable lens. But is it real world practical?
The more I look at these 1.2 images, the more I feel that these huge apertures are not very practical.
Seeing a cat with one eye in sharp focus and the rest of the head blurred and similar shots make me wonder as to the real world usefulness of such a lens.
Even for portrait work, 1.2 has a paper thin depth of field and has limited value, unless you have a paper thin subject
You will need to stop up to take some meaningful/useful shots.
An amazing bokeh can be achieved with a 1.8 or 2.0 lens while being real word useful by maintaining far more of the face/ body/cat/etc in focus and still providing a spectacular bokeh.
Such a lens would also be lighter to carry and something like a 50mm F1.8s lens can give you the best of speed, IQ, less weight, and at 1/4 the price.
...Show more →
You can stop 1.2 down if you want more depth of field, but you know that. Of course there are practical use cases. You can’t open a 1.8 to 1.2 to get more light. Also despite how spectacular the Z 1.8 lenses are, it’s very likely the 1.2 lenses perform even better stopped down - that’s at least the case with the 85 1.8/1.2 combo and will certainly be the case here.
There are many examples where I agree stopping down will benefit an image but we are starting to wade into subjective territory.
The good thing is if you don’t find the value in a 1.2 lens you can simply buy something else that you find practical.
p.5 #10 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
F786786 wrote:
No doubt the 35 1.2 is a capable lens. But is it real world practical?
The more I look at these 1.2 images, the more I feel that these huge apertures are not very practical.
Seeing a cat with one eye in sharp focus and the rest of the head blurred and similar shots make me wonder as to the real world usefulness of such a lens.
Even for portrait work, 1.2 has a paper thin depth of field and has limited value, unless you have a paper thin subject
You will need to stop up to take some meaningful/useful shots.
An amazing bokeh can be achieved with a 1.8 or 2.0 lens while being real word useful by maintaining far more of the face/ body/cat/etc in focus and still providing a spectacular bokeh.
Such a lens would also be lighter to carry and something like a 50mm F1.8s lens can give you the best of speed, IQ, less weight, and at 1/4 the price.
Photography is also an art, not everything about art has to be practical. Wedding and events with low light constraints and unappealing backgrounds are where this is actually a practical choice. Other disciplines it's more of an artistic choice. Both perfectly good reasons to get one!
p.5 #12 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
PixiPhotography wrote:
For those wondering about fringing or LoCa, heres a metal speaker cover showing it does show some magenta/green fringing. Cropped and shot a 1.2
p.5 #19 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - IMAGE THREAD (photo picture photos pictures images)
ULTRA777 wrote:
Hello, I am thinking about purchasing this lens with the view to taking it on vacation.
I only have room for two lenses when I travel and would probably take my 14-24mm F2.8 S to complement it.
What other lenses did you take with you in your kit for your vacation?
Depends on what you plan to shoot.
Last trip was almost 2 weeks long and I had a friend who was able to help me carrying a couple of lenses so I had 35/1.2s and 85/1.2s as my main lens. But I also had 14-30/4, 100-400 to cover something else as well.
If weight is limited and I can only bring to lens, I think 14-24/2.8 or 14-30/4 and 24-70/2.8 would do the trick.
However, if I plan to do a lot of street, 35/85 pairs work very well for me. I sometimes throw in Leica 50/2 apo with MTZ adapter for something small as I actually am more comfortable with 50mm but I have been experimenting with 35mm a bit
more lately.
