Color rendition is definitively better on the 1.2, and much brighter at same ISO and adjusted shutter speed Is it worth $1200 more and extra weight? I think if you shoot it all the time, yes! I’ve used both, the 1.8 is very sharp and a little less flattering. I also have the 24-70 z 2.8, so I’d compare 1.2 or 1.8 to 2.8. For me more light is always better if you exercise it and can afford it!
@@Vahagraphy that 1.8 was the first lens I bought. According to Ricci, the 1.2 is slightly better. However, youll neef to zoom in to see the marginal difference. Z mount 1.8 with 9 blades produce bokeh like their F mount 1.4 predecessors.
Thanks V for a great review. I recently acquired the 1.8 and I have been blown away with the image quality. As an amateur photographer I have no need for the 1.2 although I can see the low light advantages for a pro.
You made the right choice. Before this video I was thinking about selling mine given that I own the 1.2 but after seeing this side by side I'm having second thoughts. I would basically sum it up 2 ways when buying the $2100 1.2. If I want that 1.2 look and I'm shooting it wide open most the time and second, for that extra light and maybe 3rd the amazing focus breathing or lack there of. That's it. :) Glad you enjoyed the video.
Love the 1.8, for my main use of a 50 (street photography) the 1.2 is far too large and conspicuous so I think even given a free choice I would always go with the 1.8
Free choice. 1.2. save money 1.8. If you want the extra features and the 1.2 well 3.5X the cash. Is it worth it? if not shooting at 1.2 NO. I buy the 50 1.2 to shoot at 1.2. If subjects are far from the camera, 1.2 is not needed.
Hello Vahagraphy, What a nice comparison of both lenses. I know youtube will not show much of the detail, but it is the best we have. I would be good to see the 85mm f1.8 and when jared 😁lets you have his 85mm f1.2. Well I am sure you will get your own. Loveing your work, Keep well, keep safe and stay rocking.
Thank you John. shooting the 1.2 wide open, the sharpness usually takes a back seat. ALso more CA in the images. this lens does a good job at 1.2 almost matching the 1.8 sharpness. the 1,8 lens is a bit sharper wide open but the bokeh is better on the 1.2 even both at 1.8. So its a give and take. Size and weight well you know. hehe. also whats not a give and take is the price. I guess if I want to shoot 1.2 I would need to pay the 1.2 money.
V love the video!!!!!!! To my eye the difference is so small that the 1.8 takes it. Remember I'm a hobbyist and not a pro. Great comparison!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great video! It doesn't make it any easier to decide though. They are both extremely sharp (a toss up), so it comes down to how much the superior bokeh and the extra stop of light are worth to me.
My pleasure Alex. Glad you enjoyed the video. You know I do have to independent full reviews on these lenses on my channel where I do video. Search 50mm Z lens reviews Vahagraphy and you will find them.
Very nice comparison V. I don't think the IQ is worth the price difference; however, that 1 stop of light gathering difference would come in handy if you don't want to compromise your ISO or shutter speed, and for that I assume anyone who needs to shoot under conditions where these aspects come into play will appreciate the brighter optic. Not to forget the background blur difference which is also significant.
And also the 1.2 has this dreamy effect that the 1.8 does not. There is allot mote glass elements in the 1.2 and I thing 1 extra ED or aspherical, one of the 2. Both have 9 rounded blades. I think if you really look closely you can see a quality difference and why you pay the big bucks.
Great video. Both lenses are amazing. It does look like the 1.2 is brighter as it should along with the background blur. It all depends on what you want to do.
Very good lens comparison between the Nikon 50 1.2 and 50 1.8 The 50 1.2 has really good sharpness, color and bokeh which is great for it's quality and price which pays for itself. Great video.
I had a tough time choosing between the two. I do think that the 1.2 provided just a little more detail on some of the shots, but was enough to justify the price? Really tough call. I'm not a pro. For me, I'd get the 1.8 and buy another lens. :-)
Thank you Patrick and I appreciate the feedback. Its good to hear from viewers in what they like. It helps for future videos. Glad you enjoyed the video.
Thank you for this information very detailed I do have one question about your experience between the 50mm 1.8 z vs the older F counterpart. I currently have the F mount 50mm 1.8 and shoot boudoir but not sure if it’s worth the investment for the z mount
I went in a different direction and bought the Z 50mm MC f/2.8 (macro). I have the benefit of the nifty 50 and throw in the macro for fun. It too is sharp and does some fantastic macro shots. Just buy all three and forgetabboutit! 😁😁😁
Great job. While the 1.2 indeed has better bokeh and that slight increase in speed, it's also more than double the weight plus 3 times the price. Giving serious consideration to the 1.8. A lens for the rest of us.
I'm Nikon user I have Nikon d7200 and Nikon d780 for photo and cannon 90d for video.. why Nikon is not making good crop size video camera like Sony 6600
I just bough the 17-55 f2.8G and 70-200 f2.8G VR i Grey. For half the price and clean glass. 17-55 f2.8 owner told me she doesn't use it since she use Fujifilm 70-200 f2.8 owner told me that he won the lens on auction with boxes. He won multiple cameras and lens without knowing what's inside the box.
@@Vahagraphy I did! I wanted to get an S lens but changed my mind because of their price on FB Market. Your videos helped me make a firm decision. Thanks Vahagraphy!
Is is just me or does the 1.8 seem like it has better clarity, sharpness? Especially any straight lines text or straight lines. My eyes found the right photo more pleasing for foreground objects, but the bokeh on the 1.2 is better.
I think the f/1.2 lens is more of a vanity lens for photographers. Most clients can't tell the difference in bokeh from one lens to the other. Maybe if you needed it for low light but the z cameras do well in low light compared to older cameras. It might be a better lens for astrophotography when using a tracker. I don't see me buying it. I wonder what the difference is between the two on a z7. The 1.2 may be sharper on the z7. I hope with this lens coming out that the 200-600 will be next. That's the one I'm interested in. I just bought the 40mm f/2 on black Friday. I'm really impressed by that little cheap lens. It is very sharp.
Ahh congrats ont he 40 f2. I might pick one up for the channel just to have. interesting point about Z7 and high pixels. If I had one I would try it. Might pick a Z7II up in the future for the channel again.
Thanks for the great comparison. Any idea why the bokeh of the 1.2 is noticeably more blurred than the 1.8 when both are set to 1.8 ? I can understand that the bokeh may have different characteristics (like how "busy" it looks, cat's eyes at the edges may look different, different CA etc), but why would the 1.2 have noticeably more blur and also larger bokeh balls on the highlights than the 1.8 when both are shot at 1.8 ?
Maybe because of the glass elements. More glass. more glass elements, the size of the lens. That's what I noticed as well. the 1.8 is a great lens too.
Yes the 1.8 is sharper wide open, but once the 1.2 is stopped down to 1.8, its the same. the 1.2 is a special lens, you buy it to shoot and get that look of Shallow DOF. Bottom line is, you are paying for the look, the extra features and the ability to really isolate subjects.
I think it has to do with my settings. the way to really tell is if Im shooting at the same SS and settings. then, Since shooting at 1.2, I really need to higher my SS on most the shots vs the 1.8, but if you see 2 shots with the same settings. SS included, then.
Not seeing the 50mm f1.2 worth that much, and I don't see me moving on from my 105mm f1.4 either since I like me compression soooo much. But if the case is Z 85mm f1.2, I'm taking that cake. 😂 Thanks for the video!
After seeing this video, there ain't no way I'll go for the 1.2. The 1.8 is a quarter of the price and the results are barely distinguishable - and I actually liked the 1.8 in many of the examples. Thank you Vaha for the video!
just a bit better blur (in both quality and also quantity) on 1.2, but I see more chromatic aberrations at common apertures (more LOCA). Better off with Sony 50mm GM(you can adapt) I think if 1.2 is desired and you don't mind breathing. Nikon 1.2 compromised on optics and size to stop breathing which is moot for stills. The 1.8S is a brilliant lens for the price, performance and weight.
Well shooting at 1.2 CA is to be expected. Im shooting chrome after all and at 1.2. Once you stop it down some it goes away. the no breathing on the lens is genius. Really good video lens as well. yes and the 1.8 S lens is a masterpiece.
@@Vahagraphy 1.8S less LOCA at similar apertures (but both almost negligible usually) However 1.2's bokeh nicer at same apertures. There's no perfect lens but just really really really good tools for the job.
Once again great content pro!!!👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾🤜🏾 I've tested the 1.2 for about a week. I decided I'd wait for Nikon to come out with a 85/105/135 1.2/2 better I revisit. The 50mm 1.8 is so good. It was mainly compression with a 50mm and knowing it just wasn't a big deal. So waiting on a lens that offered much more compression was a no brainier. But that's just me
Thank you Lem. Glad you enjoyed the video. You're good if you have the 1.8. the 50 1.2 is an awesome lens but you saw the results. Almost similar in this type of shoots. I would put the money into a different focal length like you said. the 85mm 1.2 :)
Yeah looking at this and as somebody that doesn't chase Bokeh I don't see a significant difference between the 1.2 and 1.8. I was expecting a difference like the 85 and the significant difference in tonal look between the two. So for me I would save my money. Now the 85 1.2 is a different story.
V the average person would not see the difference in 1.2 vs 1,8, if you need a 50 the 1.8 is a better option to me, the 1.2 is a "want" lens not a need ✌
proved to me I took a good decision there is no good enough reason to upgrade 1.8 to 1.2 and I the same we will find with the new 85 1.2. if money is no object O will get a Leica or Hasselblad/
Yes , so basically, the only reason why someone would buy this 1.2 is to shoot at 1.2 and also, if someone has so much money that they buy it just to say they have it. But in 2023 I find myself soon really looking at what I own and maybe selling off what I hardly ever use. this comparison really made me think. the 50 1.8 was on my short list of lenses that I would sell but after this, not so sure anymore. The real question for me is. is the 1.2 look justified for me keeping that lens. I know once I sell gear I regret it and buy it back. ahhh its a hard decision sometimes.
My first lens as a student was the old 50mm nikkor lens for about 130 Euro. It made phantastic photos. I agree that the today Z lenses are a bit better but even the 600 Euro for the 1.8 is quite expensive. But it is a decent and high quality lens. The 2300 Euro 1.2 lens is frankly a rip off. It is a little bit like a Rolls Royce. Nothing I would care about.
For as much as I use a 50 (and what I use it for), the 1.8 is the way to go. They’re more than close enough. I may have a different answer about the 85. Plus I can put the money I save towards the Porsche 😎
50mm 1.8G is good enough with FTZ converter. If someone needs 1.2 aperture he can go for 50mm Ai-s lense. Nikon 50mm 1.2 S is too much expensive. Well, you money is not a factor go for the best. Monirul Islam Dhaka, Bangladesh. 29 May 2024
Color rendition is definitively better on the 1.2, and much brighter at same ISO and adjusted shutter speed
Is it worth $1200 more and extra weight? I think if you shoot it all the time, yes! I’ve used both, the 1.8 is very sharp and a little less flattering. I also have the 24-70 z 2.8, so I’d compare 1.2 or 1.8 to 2.8.
For me more light is always better if you exercise it and can afford it!
Try the new Sirui 85mm. Sweet lens.
Just got the 1.2 and absolutely love it!!
Amazing review. Answered all my questions in reagrds to both lenses.
well done. this was a good comparison. I might get the 50 f1.2 at some point.
After shooting this side by side, I'm thinking if not shooting at 1.2 and not needing the extra DOF the 1.8 is just as good and lighter.
@@Vahagraphy that 1.8 was the first lens I bought. According to Ricci, the 1.2 is slightly better. However, youll neef to zoom in to see the marginal difference.
Z mount 1.8 with 9 blades produce bokeh like their F mount 1.4 predecessors.
Thanks V for a great review. I recently acquired the 1.8 and I have been blown away with the image quality. As an amateur photographer I have no need for the 1.2 although I can see the low light advantages for a pro.
You made the right choice. Before this video I was thinking about selling mine given that I own the 1.2 but after seeing this side by side I'm having second thoughts. I would basically sum it up 2 ways when buying the $2100 1.2. If I want that 1.2 look and I'm shooting it wide open most the time and second, for that extra light and maybe 3rd the amazing focus breathing or lack there of. That's it. :) Glad you enjoyed the video.
Rock on Sir! The 1.8 is more then enough for anyone!
Sweet review
Thanks bro
Easy my friend after watching your 1.2 review I called my dealer and bang 1 hour later I came home with my new 50mm 1.2s its "Killer" Thanks Vaghan
COngrats man. You get he 1.2 to shoot at 1.2. thats the conclusion. the look. Sharpness takes a back seat when it comes to 1.2
Vahagan you should have links to affiliate sites.
Great review - looks like the 1.8 is perfectly good enough for an amateur enthusiast like me, so you just saved me a lot of money!
Love the 1.8, for my main use of a 50 (street photography) the 1.2 is far too large and conspicuous so I think even given a free choice I would always go with the 1.8
The f/1.2 is not too large, it sits in the pam of your hand like a glove. And in regards to being conspicuous, that is your self conscious speaking.
Free choice. 1.2. save money 1.8. If you want the extra features and the 1.2 well 3.5X the cash. Is it worth it? if not shooting at 1.2 NO. I buy the 50 1.2 to shoot at 1.2. If subjects are far from the camera, 1.2 is not needed.
@@jfphotography69 lol a glove? yeah maybe a catcher's mitt
Hello Vahagraphy, What a nice comparison of both lenses. I know youtube will not show much of the detail, but it is the best we have. I would be good to see the 85mm f1.8 and when jared 😁lets you have his 85mm f1.2. Well I am sure you will get your own. Loveing your work, Keep well, keep safe and stay rocking.
Thank you John. shooting the 1.2 wide open, the sharpness usually takes a back seat. ALso more CA in the images. this lens does a good job at 1.2 almost matching the 1.8 sharpness. the 1,8 lens is a bit sharper wide open but the bokeh is better on the 1.2 even both at 1.8. So its a give and take. Size and weight well you know. hehe. also whats not a give and take is the price. I guess if I want to shoot 1.2 I would need to pay the 1.2 money.
I love the Z lenses. The Z 50mm 1.8 is the winner here with overall sharpness and all else and the one I would buy!
and lets not forget the amazing price. hehe
Glad I bought the f1.8 lens great lens for the price - Definitely going in my bag on tour with me the next 3 months!
Yup its a winner.
V love the video!!!!!!! To my eye the difference is so small that the 1.8 takes it. Remember I'm a hobbyist and not a pro. Great comparison!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you Mike. Glad you enjoyed the video. 1.8 is fantastic.
Nice review man. Thank you 😎
You are very welcome. More like this in the future. Stay tuned.
Great video! It doesn't make it any easier to decide though. They are both extremely sharp (a toss up), so it comes down to how much the superior bokeh and the extra stop of light are worth to me.
Thanks V. Good review and gave me a good idea of that slight difference between bokeh and overall look.
Glad it was helpful! thanks boosted.
Thank you so much! Exactly what I needed to see! Did you try these 2 on video?
My pleasure Alex. Glad you enjoyed the video. You know I do have to independent full reviews on these lenses on my channel where I do video. Search 50mm Z lens reviews Vahagraphy and you will find them.
Very nice comparison V. I don't think the IQ is worth the price difference; however, that 1 stop of light gathering difference would come in handy if you don't want to compromise your ISO or shutter speed, and for that I assume anyone who needs to shoot under conditions where these aspects come into play will appreciate the brighter optic. Not to forget the background blur difference which is also significant.
And also the 1.2 has this dreamy effect that the 1.8 does not. There is allot mote glass elements in the 1.2 and I thing 1 extra ED or aspherical, one of the 2. Both have 9 rounded blades. I think if you really look closely you can see a quality difference and why you pay the big bucks.
Great video. Both lenses are amazing. It does look like the 1.2 is brighter as it should along with the background blur. It all depends on what you want to do.
Yah its a tough call. Is the price justified given that the 1.8 is such an awesome lens?
Very good lens comparison between the Nikon 50 1.2 and 50 1.8 The 50 1.2 has really good sharpness, color and bokeh which is great for it's quality and price which pays for itself. Great video.
Thank you. Bottom line, you buy the 1.2 to shoot at 1.2 for the look.
I had a tough time choosing between the two. I do think that the 1.2 provided just a little more detail on some of the shots, but was enough to justify the price? Really tough call. I'm not a pro. For me, I'd get the 1.8 and buy another lens. :-)
The F1.8 is sharper wide open, without a doubt. See 8:14
Best bokeh comparison I have seen between the 1.2 and 1.8. I found the comparison of the 1.2 shot at 1.8 vs. the 1.8 lens very helpful.
Thank you Patrick and I appreciate the feedback. Its good to hear from viewers in what they like. It helps for future videos. Glad you enjoyed the video.
9:24. Just a correction. One is shot at 2.5 not 2.8. Great video thanks 👍🏻
man both lenses look epic!
Both are great. there is a reason why you pay 2K for the 1.2
@@Vahagraphy oh for sure!
Need both. Large and in charge. Then small and discreet.
Thank you for this information very detailed I do have one question about your experience between the 50mm 1.8 z vs the older F counterpart. I currently have the F mount 50mm 1.8 and shoot boudoir but not sure if it’s worth the investment for the z mount
Good afternoon! Please make a comparison 50mm f1,2s vs 58mm f0,95 nokt
Hi. thats a good idea. I will do that soon.
@@Vahagraphy Thanks 🙏. Good luck 🤞
I went in a different direction and bought the Z 50mm MC f/2.8 (macro). I have the benefit of the nifty 50 and throw in the macro for fun. It too is sharp and does some fantastic macro shots. Just buy all three and forgetabboutit! 😁😁😁
hehe forgetabut it. lol. I wonder how the 50 MC compares with the 1.8 or 1.2 doing this test. and how the bokeh compares. Interesting to see.
Man, I’m not seeing $1500 worth of difference here, to be honest. You gotta really have a need for that extra stop to justify that 1.2 .
Maybe, but I do on the 85 1.2. the 85 is something else.
Thank you for doing this video. Can't go wrong with either lens.
Glad you enjoyed the video. Shooting at 1.2 has its magic and has its uses and the 1.8 lens is def a winner for the price and size.
@@Vahagraphy off subject but RIP Jeff Beck. I was lucky to see him perform in 2022.
Great job. While the 1.2 indeed has better bokeh and that slight increase in speed, it's also more than double the weight plus 3 times the price. Giving serious consideration to the 1.8. A lens for the rest of us.
I'd go with the 50 1.8 all day. Money size weight. Now when we talk 85mm 1.2 vs 1.8. different story for me.
I'm Nikon user I have Nikon d7200 and Nikon d780 for photo and cannon 90d for video.. why Nikon is not making good crop size video camera like Sony 6600
They need something with good IBIS. The aps-c cameras have no IBIS and its really unusable for vlogging.
@@Vahagraphy if you need any assistance then give me a chance ..i would love to work with you
I just bough the 17-55 f2.8G and 70-200 f2.8G VR i Grey. For half the price and clean glass.
17-55 f2.8 owner told me she doesn't use it since she use Fujifilm
70-200 f2.8 owner told me that he won the lens on auction with boxes. He won multiple cameras and lens without knowing what's inside the box.
I think you scored. G- f mount lenses are still good and have their own unique look.
@@Vahagraphy I did! I wanted to get an S lens but changed my mind because of their price on FB Market. Your videos helped me make a firm decision. Thanks Vahagraphy!
Always light weight if possible. Photography is not about bokeh
50 1.8 is my fav 1.8 z lens , this and the 35mm. the 85mm is good aswell .
it is also about bokeh and especially light, and therefor the 1.2 is a killer
Is is just me or does the 1.8 seem like it has better clarity, sharpness? Especially any straight lines text or straight lines. My eyes found the right photo more pleasing for foreground objects, but the bokeh on the 1.2 is better.
I think the f/1.2 lens is more of a vanity lens for photographers. Most clients can't tell the difference in bokeh from one lens to the other. Maybe if you needed it for low light but the z cameras do well in low light compared to older cameras. It might be a better lens for astrophotography when using a tracker. I don't see me buying it. I wonder what the difference is between the two on a z7. The 1.2 may be sharper on the z7. I hope with this lens coming out that the 200-600 will be next. That's the one I'm interested in. I just bought the 40mm f/2 on black Friday. I'm really impressed by that little cheap lens. It is very sharp.
Ahh congrats ont he 40 f2. I might pick one up for the channel just to have. interesting point about Z7 and high pixels. If I had one I would try it. Might pick a Z7II up in the future for the channel again.
@@Vahagraphy Matt Irwin uses the 40mm on his channel. He mentioned it in one of his recent videos. Nikon is doing some great things with the z lenses.
Thanks for the great comparison. Any idea why the bokeh of the 1.2 is noticeably more blurred than the 1.8 when both are set to 1.8 ? I can understand that the bokeh may have different characteristics (like how "busy" it looks, cat's eyes at the edges may look different, different CA etc), but why would the 1.2 have noticeably more blur and also larger bokeh balls on the highlights than the 1.8 when both are shot at 1.8 ?
Maybe because of the glass elements. More glass. more glass elements, the size of the lens. That's what I noticed as well. the 1.8 is a great lens too.
Look how good that 1.8 is! I don’t make $$ from my work, it’s a no-brainer.
It really is an awesome lens. I was surprised at some of the shots. The 50 1.8 looks great.
I think the 1.8 outperformed the 1.2 in 1 or 2 cases. Especially in contrast. Nice comparison, thanks for doing this!
Fortunately the Megadap ETZ21 is working quite nicely with the latest firmware. So many affordable Sony E mount lenses can also be used.
I don’t own either lens but from the pictures the 1.8 looks sharper.
Sharp is only the nail in your head.
Yes the 1.8 is sharper wide open, but once the 1.2 is stopped down to 1.8, its the same. the 1.2 is a special lens, you buy it to shoot and get that look of Shallow DOF. Bottom line is, you are paying for the look, the extra features and the ability to really isolate subjects.
The 1.8 looks brighter in a lot of the shots. Strange.
I think it has to do with my settings. the way to really tell is if Im shooting at the same SS and settings. then, Since shooting at 1.2, I really need to higher my SS on most the shots vs the 1.8, but if you see 2 shots with the same settings. SS included, then.
Not seeing the 50mm f1.2 worth that much, and I don't see me moving on from my 105mm f1.4 either since I like me compression soooo much.
But if the case is Z 85mm f1.2, I'm taking that cake. 😂 Thanks for the video!
After seeing this video, there ain't no way I'll go for the 1.2. The 1.8 is a quarter of the price and the results are barely distinguishable - and I actually liked the 1.8 in many of the examples.
Thank you Vaha for the video!
On my iPad the 1.8 actually seems a little sharper.
just a bit better blur (in both quality and also quantity) on 1.2, but I see more chromatic aberrations at common apertures (more LOCA). Better off with Sony 50mm GM(you can adapt) I think if 1.2 is desired and you don't mind breathing. Nikon 1.2 compromised on optics and size to stop breathing which is moot for stills. The 1.8S is a brilliant lens for the price, performance and weight.
Well shooting at 1.2 CA is to be expected. Im shooting chrome after all and at 1.2. Once you stop it down some it goes away. the no breathing on the lens is genius. Really good video lens as well. yes and the 1.8 S lens is a masterpiece.
@@Vahagraphy 1.8S less LOCA at similar apertures (but both almost negligible usually) However 1.2's bokeh nicer at same apertures. There's no perfect lens but just really really really good tools for the job.
Once again great content pro!!!👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾🤜🏾
I've tested the 1.2 for about a week. I decided I'd wait for Nikon to come out with a 85/105/135 1.2/2 better I revisit.
The 50mm 1.8 is so good. It was mainly compression with a 50mm and knowing it just wasn't a big deal. So waiting on a lens that offered much more compression was a no brainier. But that's just me
Thank you Lem. Glad you enjoyed the video. You're good if you have the 1.8. the 50 1.2 is an awesome lens but you saw the results. Almost similar in this type of shoots. I would put the money into a different focal length like you said. the 85mm 1.2 :)
1.2s is for “hey look at me” photographer
Yeah looking at this and as somebody that doesn't chase Bokeh I don't see a significant difference between the 1.2 and 1.8. I was expecting a difference like the 85 and the significant difference in tonal look between the two. So for me I would save my money. Now the 85 1.2 is a different story.
V the average person would not see the difference in 1.2 vs 1,8, if you need a 50 the 1.8 is a better option to me, the 1.2 is a "want" lens not a need ✌
its a 1.2 for extra light and the look. thats why we pay the big dollars. a specialty lens. like you said for most the 1.8 is perfect.
proved to me I took a good decision there is no good enough reason to upgrade 1.8 to 1.2 and I the same we will find with the new 85 1.2. if money is no object O will get a Leica or Hasselblad/
Yes , so basically, the only reason why someone would buy this 1.2 is to shoot at 1.2 and also, if someone has so much money that they buy it just to say they have it. But in 2023 I find myself soon really looking at what I own and maybe selling off what I hardly ever use. this comparison really made me think. the 50 1.8 was on my short list of lenses that I would sell but after this, not so sure anymore. The real question for me is. is the 1.2 look justified for me keeping that lens. I know once I sell gear I regret it and buy it back. ahhh its a hard decision sometimes.
My first lens as a student was the old 50mm nikkor lens for about 130 Euro. It made phantastic photos. I agree that the today Z lenses are a bit better but even the 600 Euro for the 1.8 is quite expensive. But it is a decent and high quality lens. The 2300 Euro 1.2 lens is frankly a rip off. It is a little bit like a Rolls Royce. Nothing I would care about.
f1.2S retains more details and the overall picture is softer.
I think its an artsy lens.
For as much as I use a 50 (and what I use it for), the 1.8 is the way to go. They’re more than close enough. I may have a different answer about the 85.
Plus I can put the money I save towards the Porsche 😎
That Porsche is super sweet. These cars are amazing. A work of art in a totally different industry.
Too large for my taste. Should be half of it size. Perhaps nikon in future launch z 50/1.4 s line with 1300-1400 price range. Ill get the 1.4 version
10 seconds in, look at the size difference.... 1.8s it is then :)
Just goes to show what a bargain the 50mm 1.8 is.
Heck yah. even better when you find it used at an even lower price than retail.
50mm 1.8G is good enough with FTZ converter. If someone needs 1.2 aperture he can go for 50mm Ai-s lense.
Nikon 50mm 1.2 S is too much expensive.
Well, you money is not a factor go for the best.
Monirul Islam
Dhaka, Bangladesh.
29 May 2024