I don't use 85 so much , So I went for the 85 1.8. It's enough for me , the 50 1.2 is almost welded to my Z9 love it. But I recently added the 135 Plena , OMGG!! what a lense , I think it's becoming my favorit of all time. The fact it's 135 makes it a bit more situational , but once you get the chance, it is magnificent.
Unfortunately, the 50mm f1.2 is unnecessarily large and heavy in my opinion. There are much smaller/lighter and faster focusing 50mm f1.2 lenses such as the Sony 50mm f1.2 GM or the Sigma 50mm f1.2 DG DN. If you ask me, Nikon should urgently release a smaller, lighter and faster focusing version of their 50mm f1.2 S.
@@stefan_becker we are not Engineers , this maybe because the Z mount is so Large and needs a large lense to cover as 1.2 , but if they can make version II lighter and smaller that would be a godsent
@@LOLA6ifyable You can for example adapt the Sony 50mm f1.2 GM with the very thin Megadap ETZ21 adapter. The Sony GM works great on the Z8 even with autofocus. So it's definitively possible.
just shot a wedding this past weekend . had the 50 1.2 and the 85 1.2 . on the z9 and z7ii. Even tho they are both amazing ! I did use the 50 mm a good 75% of the day.
No problems for me. Pets for me are mostly still though and not running around, so I haven’t done extensive testing. My work with people has always been accurate though
I've got the 85mm 1.4G and 105mm 1.4E with a FTZII on Z6III and grip (using grip first time this weekend). No interest in the 50 1.2 , somewhat curious about the 85mm 1.2 so thanks for the vid.
This is my current situation as I love the colors and rendering of the 58mm would be nice to not have to worry about only center framing and distance to subject when shooting wide open for a shot with the 58mm for optimal sharpness at 1.4
hey, currently have both lenses in the drybox, so I thought some opinions wont hurt. between the two, I prefer the 58 1.4, precisely because it is not too sharp, and for me it kinda puts some kind of analogue vibes into the images. the 50 1.2 in comparison, is sharp, focuses faster, and more quiet. kinda like Nikon addresses all the quirks in the 58, then make this 50 1.2. oh, I prefer the 58 because it kinda smoothens the make-up, once I had to shoot a graduation session, and the client had a slightly uneven makeup (likely of acne scars), and the 50 rendered it in detail, even in 1.2. wished I brought the 58 that time.
I have both of them as well. I like 85 mm more overall. But on vacation or with a beautiful background, I just need 50 mm. Because 85 mm is not enough to show downtown sky houses or mountains or sea shore. 85 mm is perfect to make pictures with a lot of people or details on the background. 50 mm is better to make a street photography or occasional people shots 😀
@@TaylorJacksonPhoto - I look forward to a video with it if you get to use one. From what I am hearing, everyone lives it. The bokeh, and bokeh balls are just top notch.
Serious question. With the sharpness and image quality of the z mount 70-200 why would you ever use a prime at an event? I can see posed shots using a 1.2 or 1.4 but that 2.8 is very much adequate, isn’t it?
okay okay but forget most useful -which one takes best photos? which one will make you look the most pro easier? the 85 1.2 right? .... now what about the 85 vs the plena ....... i have to choose one -already got 24-70s -50mm while way cheaper just seems redundant
By pro do you mean shallow depth of field? Then the plena wide open all day. Lighting is probably more important than lens choice for pro looking images though
@@TaylorJacksonPhoto thanks Taylor -I appreciate you! ....you're 100% right about lighting -however, some lenses have a "the look" -like everything the 50mm 1.2 takes looks like a fashion magazine cover -the 50 1.8 just doesn't do that... there's something with the combo of 50 1.2 etc even over 1.4... or the 85mm 1.2 is kinda the same but slightly more cinematic .... where as the plena looks to destroy the background -Im finding it doesn't look all that pro, and often looks like a background i could just make in photoshop -aka not worth it .... I dunno though -i would say 135mm is a great focal length, but the photos I see online just aren't that great -I can't tell if most photographers just dont know how to use the lens or 135mm right or im just not into it ...furthermore when I look up the 135 sigma photos -they look more pro -to me it looks like something with the rolloff -but again it could just be the types of people taking the photos ..... any who, just wanted to try and explain in short -thanks again for your input
2:06 As a Sony shooter, nope- not at all! I am so happy with their approach to the GM primes. If the 85 1.2 is more of a character lens like my old Canon EF 85 1.2, then maybe but at that size and weight that's bordering on impracticality of the Nikon Z version- no thanks!
Focal Ignite deal: www.bookfocal.com/ignite
I don't use 85 so much , So I went for the 85 1.8.
It's enough for me , the 50 1.2 is almost welded to my Z9 love it.
But I recently added the 135 Plena , OMGG!! what a lense , I think it's becoming my favorit of all time.
The fact it's 135 makes it a bit more situational , but once you get the chance, it is magnificent.
Unfortunately, the 50mm f1.2 is unnecessarily large and heavy in my opinion. There are much smaller/lighter and faster focusing 50mm f1.2 lenses such as the Sony 50mm f1.2 GM or the Sigma 50mm f1.2 DG DN. If you ask me, Nikon should urgently release a smaller, lighter and faster focusing version of their 50mm f1.2 S.
@@stefan_becker we are not Engineers , this maybe because the Z mount is so Large and needs a large lense to cover as 1.2 , but if they can make version II lighter and smaller that would be a godsent
@@LOLA6ifyable You can for example adapt the Sony 50mm f1.2 GM with the very thin Megadap ETZ21 adapter. The Sony GM works great on the Z8 even with autofocus. So it's definitively possible.
Both are amazing! Looking forward to the 35mm f/1.2
The 50 1.2 is my guy. I get sad when I have to switch to the 24-70 for versatility. That 85 is a want- wish it was a need
I feel this comment. Whenever I'm on weddings and have to switch to my 24-70mm my internal music goes womp womp womp 😂
just shot a wedding this past weekend . had the 50 1.2 and the 85 1.2 . on the z9 and z7ii. Even tho they are both amazing ! I did use the 50 mm a good 75% of the day.
How is the AF on the 50 and 85 for tracking moving subjects or pets?
No problems for me. Pets for me are mostly still though and not running around, so I haven’t done extensive testing. My work with people has always been accurate though
The main reason why 1.4s are better for most shoots. The size and weight. Oh and the astronomical cost.
On Nikon.
I've got the 85mm 1.4G and 105mm 1.4E with a FTZII on Z6III and grip (using grip first time this weekend).
No interest in the 50 1.2 , somewhat curious about the 85mm 1.2 so thanks for the vid.
I have the 58mm 1.4G, is it worth going to the 50 1.2S? Would I see a big difference between the two for portraits? Great video thanks!
This is my current situation as I love the colors and rendering of the 58mm would be nice to not have to worry about only center framing and distance to subject when shooting wide open for a shot with the 58mm for optimal sharpness at 1.4
@@theflyest203 Agreed, I love the size of the 58 although you lose some advantage in terms of size when using the z mount adaptor.
Depends on budget really
hey, currently have both lenses in the drybox, so I thought some opinions wont hurt.
between the two, I prefer the 58 1.4, precisely because it is not too sharp, and for me it kinda puts some kind of analogue vibes into the images.
the 50 1.2 in comparison, is sharp, focuses faster, and more quiet. kinda like Nikon addresses all the quirks in the 58, then make this 50 1.2.
oh, I prefer the 58 because it kinda smoothens the make-up, once I had to shoot a graduation session, and the client had a slightly uneven makeup (likely of acne scars), and the 50 rendered it in detail, even in 1.2.
wished I brought the 58 that time.
@@titussasmoko2353 Interesting take, thanks!
I have both of them as well.
I like 85 mm more overall.
But on vacation or with a beautiful background, I just need 50 mm.
Because 85 mm is not enough to show downtown sky houses or mountains or sea shore.
85 mm is perfect to make pictures with a lot of people or details on the background.
50 mm is better to make a street photography or occasional people shots 😀
For indoor like this i prefer 50. But budget wise i use 34/1,8 and 85/1,8 so i use 85
What about the Plena? Have you used that yet?
I actually haven’t used it yet. It might be the only lens other than the noct I haven’t used
@@TaylorJacksonPhoto - I look forward to a video with it if you get to use one. From what I am hearing, everyone lives it. The bokeh, and bokeh balls are just top notch.
how do your photos get that cinematic look?
Serious question. With the sharpness and image quality of the z mount 70-200 why would you ever use a prime at an event? I can see posed shots using a 1.2 or 1.4 but that 2.8 is very much adequate, isn’t it?
The 2.8 is great as well. Some just prefer the look at 1.2 or 1.4
2.8 диафрагмы то хватит
но на 1.2 сказочная картинка
Добрый день )
Я из России , я очень люблю Америку )
okay okay but forget most useful -which one takes best photos? which one will make you look the most pro easier? the 85 1.2 right? .... now what about the 85 vs the plena ....... i have to choose one -already got 24-70s -50mm while way cheaper just seems redundant
By pro do you mean shallow depth of field? Then the plena wide open all day. Lighting is probably more important than lens choice for pro looking images though
@@TaylorJacksonPhoto thanks Taylor -I appreciate you! ....you're 100% right about lighting -however, some lenses have a "the look" -like everything the 50mm 1.2 takes looks like a fashion magazine cover -the 50 1.8 just doesn't do that... there's something with the combo of 50 1.2 etc even over 1.4... or the 85mm 1.2 is kinda the same but slightly more cinematic .... where as the plena looks to destroy the background -Im finding it doesn't look all that pro, and often looks like a background i could just make in photoshop -aka not worth it .... I dunno though -i would say 135mm is a great focal length, but the photos I see online just aren't that great -I can't tell if most photographers just dont know how to use the lens or 135mm right or im just not into it ...furthermore when I look up the 135 sigma photos -they look more pro -to me it looks like something with the rolloff -but again it could just be the types of people taking the photos ..... any who, just wanted to try and explain in short -thanks again for your input
2:06 As a Sony shooter, nope- not at all! I am so happy with their approach to the GM primes. If the 85 1.2 is more of a character lens like my old Canon EF 85 1.2, then maybe but at that size and weight that's bordering on impracticality of the Nikon Z version- no thanks!