BillyBobSenna
Senior Member
For when you can’t back up enough to use the Plena or 85 f1.2.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Photography Life review of the Z 50 f/1.2 S
- Thread starter Wahrsager
- Start date
Rodenmg
Veteran Member
I pull this lens out and Harvey immediately starts posing. 
--
... Mike, formerly known as Rod.
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/
--
... Mike, formerly known as Rod.
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/
Rodenmg
Veteran Member
I fully understand that. But at 50mm it's not as shallow and difficult to manage as the longer focal lengths at similar apertures. Depending on distance to the subject of course.At f1.2, the DoF is so shallow I’m not sure when I would use that.For when you can’t back up enough to use the Plena or 85 f1.2.
EDIT: Oops, I just realized I cheated on this one. That was a 10 shot focus stack.
--
... Mike, formerly known as Rod.
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/
Last edited:
shadowlands
Senior Member
Not an awesome image, but I was simply testing F1.2 for a portrait of my niece. Shot in my front yard with an endless array of houses and cars behind her. To the left of the tree is a street sign across the street. I was blown away by how it could wash away the subdivision for the most part. Just a simply test, right outside of front door. LOL
BTW, it's my favorite lens. Well, the 50 1.2 and the Plena.
--
NIKON Z8 & NIKON ZF
NIKON Z 40MM F2 SE
NIKON Z 50MM F1.2 S
NIKON Z 24-70MM F2.8 S
NIKON Z 70-200MM F2.8 S
NIKON Z 135MM F1.8 S PLENA
NIKON Z 180-600MM F5.6-6.3 VR
https://www.flickr.com/photos/darrenwb/
BTW, it's my favorite lens. Well, the 50 1.2 and the Plena.
--
NIKON Z8 & NIKON ZF
NIKON Z 40MM F2 SE
NIKON Z 50MM F1.2 S
NIKON Z 24-70MM F2.8 S
NIKON Z 70-200MM F2.8 S
NIKON Z 135MM F1.8 S PLENA
NIKON Z 180-600MM F5.6-6.3 VR
https://www.flickr.com/photos/darrenwb/
Last edited:
Nebido
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,507
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 3,404
Also works with longer focal lengths.
If necessary, switch to the cat, it doesn't have a long snout and therefore has a shallow DoF-friendly face.
Canon FD 85/1.2 @ f/1.2
Plena @ f/1.8
But it also works with dogs, if I want maximum separation and want the background to disappear.
Plena @ f/1.8
Here is an example of an image that would have produced no effect at all without the minimal DOF of the Plena @ f/1.8 + close to minimum focus distance.
That's the beauty of such thin DoF, in conjunction with such a smooth OOF rendering.
The "ugly" exposed aggregate concrete slabs from the 70s (lower left area), the visual outline of our red watering can in the top left corner, the green watering can (upper right), the blooming and faded lilac blossoms in the out-of-focus area, the garden hose are even suitable as a picturesque colorful blur backdrop.
Plena @ f/1.8
If necessary, switch to the cat, it doesn't have a long snout and therefore has a shallow DoF-friendly face.
Canon FD 85/1.2 @ f/1.2
Plena @ f/1.8
But it also works with dogs, if I want maximum separation and want the background to disappear.
Plena @ f/1.8
Here is an example of an image that would have produced no effect at all without the minimal DOF of the Plena @ f/1.8 + close to minimum focus distance.
That's the beauty of such thin DoF, in conjunction with such a smooth OOF rendering.
The "ugly" exposed aggregate concrete slabs from the 70s (lower left area), the visual outline of our red watering can in the top left corner, the green watering can (upper right), the blooming and faded lilac blossoms in the out-of-focus area, the garden hose are even suitable as a picturesque colorful blur backdrop.
Plena @ f/1.8
Last edited:
Rodenmg
Veteran Member
Dof friendly face lol! 
Nebido
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,507
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 3,404
With more DoF, the background of the butterfly picture would be completely unsuitable, because then you would recognize exactly the things that only I know about as the picture creator and garden owner, colored water cans, water hose, washed concrete slabs = basically complete background chaos.
Of course, you can't always work with so little DoF, but it gives you scope and possibilities, which also means flexibility.
Many people only see flexibility as a one-way street in terms of focal length, preferably from 14mm to 600mm without gaps.
But flexibility also means speed, which opens up completely new options, gives you creative freedom and often has excellent eraser qualities in difficult background conditions.
Of course, you can't always work with so little DoF, but it gives you scope and possibilities, which also means flexibility.
Many people only see flexibility as a one-way street in terms of focal length, preferably from 14mm to 600mm without gaps.
But flexibility also means speed, which opens up completely new options, gives you creative freedom and often has excellent eraser qualities in difficult background conditions.
Last edited:
Kamil Z
Well-known member
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 476
Read the sharpness comparison. The Sony is sharper in the center and much sharper in the corner. Given the size and weight difference, the Nikon 50 1.2. is just a bad designed lens in comparison to the Sony. That's not what I call "amazing".
anotherMike
Forum Pro
Yep. At the test distance they used, the MTF50 score is less than some competing lenses. I found that out when I objectively tested my copy. However, when one looks at longer test distances (or landscape distances), the lens behaves quite differently - and is extremely sharp - to the point I'm fairly certain it's diffraction limited around F/4 through most of the frame. It can compete quite well, and is possibly even a bit superior to, the Voigtlander 50/2 Apo Lanthar at *distance*, another reference lens.
And in portrait situations - which is what the lens is designed for in the closer range - it will behave better than the others, even though it will "lose" the test war.
So what is going on here?
The test is misleading, the reviewer doesn't adequately understand the concepts involved (even though he likely means well and the site is quite nice in all other regards).
If we look at MTF in the classic optical bench way of plotting resolution frequency (we'll use traditional terms of 10lp/mm, 30lp/mm, 50lp/mm, etc here) against contrast at a particular spot in the frame, you'll see a generally downward slope; this is because as we in frequency (the details get finer and finer) the ability to resolve those drops due to diffraction and other matters. The key point here is that Otto Schade, who pioneered MTF long ago, did all sorts of studies and determined that image quality is related to the square of the area under an MTF trace as so described, which has really serious implications: First, it means that looking at only one frequency point isn't telling you the whole picture, and second, it means the lower frequencies are quite important. And MTF50 score is the resolution when the contrast hits 50%. Doesn't tell you about the overall balance of frequencies or the shape. It's useful in a very broad way for a general idea of "sharp", but as I'm about to explain, you'll also see it can be misleading, or not even relevant to a shooting situation.
Next we to briefly hit upon some concepts of lens design that have been out there for a while. I can't tell you who first discovered this, because I don't know, but the earliest writings about the topic of designing for a flat plane (the test chart) versus designing a lens for reality (three dimensional) that I saw was from the writings of Jun Hirakawa, a very famous lens designer from Pentax, and the date on the writings was about 2000 IIRC. Similar concepts were also noted by Nikon designer Haruo Sato when he did the F mount 58/1.4G Noct. Hirakawas writings specifically noted that if you approached the design you needed to make sure that astigmatism was well controlled, even if it meant leaving in some field curvature, even if doing so meant the test numbers might not be as good if you did so. In Haruo Sato's writing, and I think also in some interviews with the designer of the 50/1.2S, Hiroki Harada, it's mentioned that there is a TRADE OFF between going for maximum resolution OR being able to get a natural depiction OOF transitions and bokeh, which are quite relevant to portraiture. In other words, you can max out one aspect, but you lose the other. This is a fine balancing act - IMO Sato got it a bit wrong (too much of a trade) in the 58G, while Harada got it right in the 50/1.2S.
So I assure you, if Harada wanted to win the test chart wars, he easily could have - he's Nikons most senior designer, but his view was that the 50/1.2S at portrait distances would be used for people, so he tuned/optimized the lens *for that task* instead of trying to beat the test chart game. What he did was make sure the lens was pretty sharp - because he realized in the high resolution era, people wanted textures accurately reproduced, but he didn''t max it out. He made sure the transition as well as both the front and back bokeh were nice. He took the trade that would mean it loses (slightly) in the test chart. And - he also knew as distance increased, he would need to concentrate on resolution more so, so if you test the lens with, say, MTF mapper at various distances, you'll see this portrait tuning reduce and eventually go away as you get outside of portrait distance. This is where the designer is optimizing the lens for a task in real life, as opposed to the test chart.
Now the third thing. Going back to resolution again. People always concentrate on the highest numbers, how important they are, how they "prove" that, say, the sony lens is absolutely better than the Nikon because of this, like the Nikon designers were idiots. But now let's get to the real word, keeping in mind both of the paragraphs above. If you are handheld, taking a portrait, I can almost guarantee you that you'll *never* see the maximum resolution performance of the lens, ever. You can do 10 runs of a test with MTF mapper using your best AF method - pin focus - and you'll have 10 *different* resolutions (small differences), and that's if you're on a tripod and focusing carefully. You add subject movement, motion blur, any sort of less precise focus, and those higher spatial frequencies - the 50lp/mm and up (probably lower than that) won't be achieved in your image. But the lower ones will be.
So what would you rather have as a portrait shooter?
A lens that is amazing on the test chart at resolutions that you likely will never achieve (because you're not shooting portraits on a tripod with exact focus) OR a lens that is quite sharp, but whose designer made some trade offs for rendering/OOF/bokeh to provide a more realistic depiction of the scene and "gave away" some high frequency resolution (which would lower the MTF50 score and thus the lens would "lose" on the chart) to do so, because he knew that the likelihood of achieving high frequency resolution in the portrait situation wasn't happening anyway?
I know which lens I'd prefer if I'm shooting people. It's not the test chart winner.
And remember, at distance, the 50/1.2S will hang with anything, from anyone.
Now - if for what you personally shoot, you need max resolution at closer distances, then, no, the 50/1.2S is not your lens. Different answer than if you were a portrait shooter. Personally, I use something else for portrait distance full length in the studio because I want a different "tradeoff game" for that work, but I'll use the 50/1.2 outdoors with portraiture all day long and prefer it over the lens I use in the studio - tool to task matching, as opposed to test chart winner wars.
The key is - the test chart "review" doesn't tell us what we need to know, and thus, like most flat chart sites, it's of minimal value - it doesn't tell us anything about the more important behavior for portrait situations, and because the chart test is not at distance, it doesn't tell us the performance at distance either. Now you know why I don't place much weight at all in such chart tests. When I use a chart - I'm trying to see where (and how much) any portrait tuning is done, and I'm also very interested in the shape of the plot when resolution frequency is plotted against contrast, as that tells me more about some subtle aspects of lens rendering.
And in portrait situations - which is what the lens is designed for in the closer range - it will behave better than the others, even though it will "lose" the test war.
So what is going on here?
The test is misleading, the reviewer doesn't adequately understand the concepts involved (even though he likely means well and the site is quite nice in all other regards).
- An MTF50 score is a very small slice of what the overall resolution performance of a lens is, and not indicative, at all, of overall image quality. It is a very rough proxy for general sharpness, certainly not enough to quantify a lens as being absolutely and uniformly better than another.
- A test chart is generally shot at portrait distances (there are exceptions, one of our own forum members tests with extremely large charts and very long distances, but that's not the way photographylife is doing it), and this presents an issue because *some lenses are designed to perform differently in the portrait distance range than in the landscape distance range*
If we look at MTF in the classic optical bench way of plotting resolution frequency (we'll use traditional terms of 10lp/mm, 30lp/mm, 50lp/mm, etc here) against contrast at a particular spot in the frame, you'll see a generally downward slope; this is because as we in frequency (the details get finer and finer) the ability to resolve those drops due to diffraction and other matters. The key point here is that Otto Schade, who pioneered MTF long ago, did all sorts of studies and determined that image quality is related to the square of the area under an MTF trace as so described, which has really serious implications: First, it means that looking at only one frequency point isn't telling you the whole picture, and second, it means the lower frequencies are quite important. And MTF50 score is the resolution when the contrast hits 50%. Doesn't tell you about the overall balance of frequencies or the shape. It's useful in a very broad way for a general idea of "sharp", but as I'm about to explain, you'll also see it can be misleading, or not even relevant to a shooting situation.
Next we to briefly hit upon some concepts of lens design that have been out there for a while. I can't tell you who first discovered this, because I don't know, but the earliest writings about the topic of designing for a flat plane (the test chart) versus designing a lens for reality (three dimensional) that I saw was from the writings of Jun Hirakawa, a very famous lens designer from Pentax, and the date on the writings was about 2000 IIRC. Similar concepts were also noted by Nikon designer Haruo Sato when he did the F mount 58/1.4G Noct. Hirakawas writings specifically noted that if you approached the design you needed to make sure that astigmatism was well controlled, even if it meant leaving in some field curvature, even if doing so meant the test numbers might not be as good if you did so. In Haruo Sato's writing, and I think also in some interviews with the designer of the 50/1.2S, Hiroki Harada, it's mentioned that there is a TRADE OFF between going for maximum resolution OR being able to get a natural depiction OOF transitions and bokeh, which are quite relevant to portraiture. In other words, you can max out one aspect, but you lose the other. This is a fine balancing act - IMO Sato got it a bit wrong (too much of a trade) in the 58G, while Harada got it right in the 50/1.2S.
So I assure you, if Harada wanted to win the test chart wars, he easily could have - he's Nikons most senior designer, but his view was that the 50/1.2S at portrait distances would be used for people, so he tuned/optimized the lens *for that task* instead of trying to beat the test chart game. What he did was make sure the lens was pretty sharp - because he realized in the high resolution era, people wanted textures accurately reproduced, but he didn''t max it out. He made sure the transition as well as both the front and back bokeh were nice. He took the trade that would mean it loses (slightly) in the test chart. And - he also knew as distance increased, he would need to concentrate on resolution more so, so if you test the lens with, say, MTF mapper at various distances, you'll see this portrait tuning reduce and eventually go away as you get outside of portrait distance. This is where the designer is optimizing the lens for a task in real life, as opposed to the test chart.
Now the third thing. Going back to resolution again. People always concentrate on the highest numbers, how important they are, how they "prove" that, say, the sony lens is absolutely better than the Nikon because of this, like the Nikon designers were idiots. But now let's get to the real word, keeping in mind both of the paragraphs above. If you are handheld, taking a portrait, I can almost guarantee you that you'll *never* see the maximum resolution performance of the lens, ever. You can do 10 runs of a test with MTF mapper using your best AF method - pin focus - and you'll have 10 *different* resolutions (small differences), and that's if you're on a tripod and focusing carefully. You add subject movement, motion blur, any sort of less precise focus, and those higher spatial frequencies - the 50lp/mm and up (probably lower than that) won't be achieved in your image. But the lower ones will be.
So what would you rather have as a portrait shooter?
A lens that is amazing on the test chart at resolutions that you likely will never achieve (because you're not shooting portraits on a tripod with exact focus) OR a lens that is quite sharp, but whose designer made some trade offs for rendering/OOF/bokeh to provide a more realistic depiction of the scene and "gave away" some high frequency resolution (which would lower the MTF50 score and thus the lens would "lose" on the chart) to do so, because he knew that the likelihood of achieving high frequency resolution in the portrait situation wasn't happening anyway?
I know which lens I'd prefer if I'm shooting people. It's not the test chart winner.
And remember, at distance, the 50/1.2S will hang with anything, from anyone.
Now - if for what you personally shoot, you need max resolution at closer distances, then, no, the 50/1.2S is not your lens. Different answer than if you were a portrait shooter. Personally, I use something else for portrait distance full length in the studio because I want a different "tradeoff game" for that work, but I'll use the 50/1.2 outdoors with portraiture all day long and prefer it over the lens I use in the studio - tool to task matching, as opposed to test chart winner wars.
The key is - the test chart "review" doesn't tell us what we need to know, and thus, like most flat chart sites, it's of minimal value - it doesn't tell us anything about the more important behavior for portrait situations, and because the chart test is not at distance, it doesn't tell us the performance at distance either. Now you know why I don't place much weight at all in such chart tests. When I use a chart - I'm trying to see where (and how much) any portrait tuning is done, and I'm also very interested in the shape of the plot when resolution frequency is plotted against contrast, as that tells me more about some subtle aspects of lens rendering.
Last edited:
pyang88
Well-known member
I suppose we all have different definitions of an "amazing" lens. I should put out a disclaimer that I haven't used/tried the Nikon Z 50/1.2 S (nor the Sony counterpart), so my statement of it being an "amazing" lens was just a vague conjecture based on reading about experiences of others who are more knowledgeable. Also I think a snippet of my post was quoted sorta out of context here... I went on to explain why the 50/1.2 S isn't worth it for me.
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
The problem is that you can't compare MTF numbers unless you keep other things constant, like the megapixel count. If Nikon had a 61mp camera it would test "better."
Fabian Joya
Leading Member
- Messages
- 843
- Reaction score
- 949
I can see how that applies to center sharpness. But edges and corners?
Thanks! Well hopefully I’ll see them when I go there at some point.That is a King Parrot, found on the eastern seaboard of Australia, generally south of the Tropic line. One of my favourite birds.What species is that bird? I've never seen what seems to be a type of parrot like that one.Twas was possibly me, I do think.
The offending image was either of these two as I can't remember which one I posted at the time, the first at f2 and the second at f1.2. Both cropped a little for composition as I didn't want to spook the bird by getting too close - it was a "wild" bird after all, but must have been very used to humans to do what it did and be relatively calm. We see him from time to time and now visits us with his mate as they come past for a feed every now and then. Such gorgeous, beautifully natured birds.
Best viewed large by clicking on images
Z7II + 50 f1.2S, 1/320s f/2.0 at 50.0mm iso640
Z7II + 50 f1.2S, 1/320s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso200
Like those that have this lens and know it's amazing abilities, I love it. It's not just about sharpness wide open and stopped down, it's all the IQ abilities, the bokeh, the transition of the bokeh, the overall rendering - something that AnotherMike as best at describing.
Potted rabbit. ;-)
It's not always about wide open
--
Lance B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/?
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
Wezre
Senior Member
How are the effects of pixel density on MTF results different at the edges and corners than at the center? If the lens can out-resolve the sensor at the edge/corner, then a higher resolution sensor will still result in higher MTF numbers across the frame.
Last edited:
ray_burnimage
Senior Member
Having shot extensively with Nikon Z but now with Sony, I disagree, but with practical caveats:
1. Read EVERTHING you can by @AnotherMike
2. I agree with @AnotherMike on all he says about optical qualities.
HOWEVER, where @AnotherMike and I diverge is on practicality:
1. The 50mm 1.2S, 85mm 1.2S and Plena are best in class. No argument from me there!
2. BUT, you have to have some commitment to carry them, especially as you clients won't notice the difference as much as you do ;-)
3. Ironically, @anothermike still uses his D850, thus eliminating the use of his beautiful exotic Z glass, when stopped down in the studio....with sigma 40mm 1.2 mounted instead, because Nikon is still an epic fail in this scenario.
Meanwhile, for jobbing photographers like me, I can grab my Sony's and go....
Diminishing returns and all that.... you might get 3 to 5% more 'secret sauce" with the top Nikkor lenses.... but you have to carry them.
And, at that point, might as well have a look at medium format etc etc etc......
Last edited:
Question, is there a basic way of determining how much additional light a given camera lens lets in based on its aperture. For example, Z 50f/1.2 vs Z50 f/1.8 S, is it 20% more light, or whatever the value is?
I ask because often times I see lenses, and I wonder if a higher priced lens with close or somewhat close aperture values is "worth" the additional money for me.
I have to admit sometimes I cannot say without actually trying the lens, or reading many reviews followed by Q&As.
I ask because often times I see lenses, and I wonder if a higher priced lens with close or somewhat close aperture values is "worth" the additional money for me.
I have to admit sometimes I cannot say without actually trying the lens, or reading many reviews followed by Q&As.
anotherMike
Forum Pro
Oh, we might not disagree on practicality that much either LOL.
I'm packing for a trip where photography won't be the primary activity, and none of the big guns are coming along - the voigt apos, the 24s and 85/1.8S however will be.
As for studio work - a week or so ago I did a session where I used the Z8 for about half to 60% of the shots as I was working close in, usually with the 85/1.2S, and with the latest firmware, it's gotten better (AF wise in studio light situation) - still not where it needs to be - but it's improved a bit. The D850/40 art is for very fast moving full length stuff, but I rarely use that body for 1/2 shots or headshots in the studio any longer.
I'm packing for a trip where photography won't be the primary activity, and none of the big guns are coming along - the voigt apos, the 24s and 85/1.8S however will be.
As for studio work - a week or so ago I did a session where I used the Z8 for about half to 60% of the shots as I was working close in, usually with the 85/1.2S, and with the latest firmware, it's gotten better (AF wise in studio light situation) - still not where it needs to be - but it's improved a bit. The D850/40 art is for very fast moving full length stuff, but I rarely use that body for 1/2 shots or headshots in the studio any longer.
Last edited:
Kamil Z
Well-known member
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 476
1.8/1.2 x 1.8/1.2 = 2,25
The 50mm f/1.2 lens allows 2.25x more light to enter compared to the 50mm f/1.8. This means that if you shoot at ISO 6400 with the f/1.2 lens, to achieve the same exposure with the f/1.8 lens, you would need to increase the ISO to 14,400.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum