Zermelo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread | |
All these linked reviews are essentially worthless, especially since the methodology they use for certain measurements needs a complete overhaul. I can’t believe sometimes people still cite that dumpster fire of a site, DXOMark; every time I stumble onto those pages, the optical physicist in me dies.
I own the Sigma and the Viltrox, which I use on my Sony A7V, as well as the Nikkor for my Nikon Z8 and ZR. In real world use, the peak center acutance of the Viltrox, even compared to the Nikkor, is irrelevant for typical 35mm shooting; it's only noticeable if you crop images shot on beefy sensors with the subject dead center. The moment you move the subject off-center, that 'virtual' advantage vanishes.
The Nikkor’s superior uniformity, on the other hand, while it lacks the Viltrox's obsessive peak, is due to better field curvature management, which is a fundamental issue for video and bokeh quality. The Sigma also handles field curvature better than the Viltrox, even if it’s slightly less sharp than the Nikkor.
But I challenge you to compare dozens of photos taken with these three different lenses and see if you can actually tell them apart. Sharpness and contrast don't just depend on synthetic benchmark charts, so obsessing over them is pointless: they are just a basic reference to give you a rough idea of what you're buying if you live in he best of all possible worlds (you don't  ), and that’s it.
For istance: the test posted a few pages back comparing the rendering of the Nikkor and the Sigma on two different sensors with the same subject at the same distance is also a bit misleading. It’s common knowledge that the focal length printed on the box isn't the actual one, but rather a nominal value for its class. If one lens has a slightly wider real world angle of view than the other (Nikkor ~32.5mm vs. Sigma ~34.5mm), comparing them on the same subject won't give you a true sense of the bokeh quality. These are all just enthusiast games, but we should be careful not to overstate their value when it comes to actual performance.
Personally, and this is just a matter of personal taste, I prefer the Nikkor for its rendering: it heavily reminds me of the ARRI 35mm Master Prime T1.3 I tested on large format during a workshop (which, for my needs, would be total overkill). The ARRI is arguably the state of the art for this focal length, which leads me to believe that, as things currently stand and keeping within this form factor, we've already hit the performance ceiling for this type of lens. To squeeze anything more out of it, you’d either have to increase the size and weight or come up with completely new materials.
Other reasons why I prefer the Nikor are its overall design consistency and how it fits into my workflow: I shoot video for events, night concerts, and clubs, and this lens is completely unfazed by direct light: there’s a total absence of flare and ghosting, and no noticeable drop in image quality. Furthermore, the video autofocus and flat field curvature are far superior to the other two. While benchmarks might describe the AF edge as minor or negligible, in a real world workflow, the difference is actually substantial.
Is that 'substantial' difference actually worth a whopping 1500 euros (or dollars, if you're outside Europe)? Probably not. If I didn't work primarily in video, I’d say no, and I’d probably just stick with Sigma; as much as I prefer the Nikkor, as a professional, I know I could put that money to much better use.
The only reason mine hasn't ended up on a resale site is that I got it with a massive discount and I can offset the cost through what it delivers as my primary video lens (and also because gear is one of my favorite ways to blow money and or the pure personal pleasure of getting the exact look I want). So, for me, the juice is worth the squeeze. But at full price, it’s really hard to justify (here as well, my assertion is relative; if we factor Leica or Zeiss into our discussion, the pricing structure becomes considerably more elastic): I don't think Nikon would have gone bankrupt by pricing the Nikkor in the same bracket as the 50mm f/1.2 S. That would have been a much more realistic price point; combined with periodic discounts, it’s a cost that would have actually made sense.
There’s one final point to consider, however, that never gets emphasized enough: Nikon offers (at least in Italy) a full 6 year warranty and up to 10 years of support, with a widespread network of Pros, Specialists, and Nikon Centers. This ensures proper assistance even after that period, with trained staff who actually know what they’re doing and have access to original parts and materials. Sigma provides a 2 year warranty and has truly reliable customer service, anyone who’s dealt with them can only speak highly of the brand. Viltrox? You get 30 days of free support, followed by a year where the customer covers shipping costs, and a history of 'passing the buck' between the company and sellers that isn't exactly reassuring.
Furthermore, we have over half a century of empirical experience regarding the quality and durability of Sigma and Nikon materials, from optical glues and resins to various coatings and weather sealing; with Viltrox, we simply don't have a long enough track record yet to make a judgment call. It's worth noting that the Viltrox design is full of doublets, whereas in the Nikkor design the elements are almost all independent: when it comes to longevity, we know exactly what that implies.
I don't want to come across as a Viltrox slanderer, after all I bought one (used) and I really enjoy using it. Its performance is truly excellent, and I’m sure that despite their track record, they are a company that wants to establish itself and do things right. However, you always have to remember that with a lower price tag, you’re paying for the risk.
|
