Is the 32 f/1.2 worth the price?

Started May 23, 2017 | Questions thread
Drplusplus Contributing Member • Posts: 567
Re: Is the 32 f/1.2 worth the price?
2

CX Bob wrote:

I wanted to thank Camerosity for mentioning the wide-open performance; I couldn't remember if the 32 was better than typical in this situation or not.
I also appreciate PaPeRo and Alex bringing up a couple different 'relative quality' aspects regarding bokeh. To be honest, I've never thought about bokeh much. I'm realizing now that when one is considering spending a lot of money on a lens that will often be used for photographs that have large out-of-focus areas, bokeh becomes a very significant issue.
And now, another thanks to Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul (I copy/pasted that for accuracy! ) for bringing up the topic of autofocus. Clearly the focusing performance wasn't a 'deal breaker'. And since the N1/CX combo is so great at focusing to begin with, it would be great to hear from other 32 owners how the 'relatively weak' focusing of the 32 works in actual practice.

On a scale where 18.5 is the fastest and the 85 1.8G/FT-1 is the slowest, the 32 would be somewhere in the middle, closer to the 18.5. There's a lot of mass being thrown around in the 32, so it is not lightning-fast.

Besides bokeh and sharpness, the 32 in my opinion exceeds other non-nanocoated CX lenses in contrast and color purity--where it also handily beats the 85 1.8G. Several other Nikon users have noted the difference between nanocoated and non-nanocoated lenses in the FX range. We are lucky to have the 32 and 70-300 both nanocoated.

J5 32 f/2.8 ISO 560 1/500th

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
55T
55T
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow