Hal Wilson
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,178
- Reaction score
- 1,299
Interesting. Why do you prefer the Plena over the 85 f1.2? I ask as someone interested in potentially buying both. When you say it 'outperforms' the 85mm, what do you mean?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Thoughts on the 50mm f/1.2S?
- Thread starter tomrath
- Start date
when i compare both lenses, the Plena had better bokeh (more appealing for portraits), and seemed more sharp (both are extremely sharp, but plena had a slight edge). the build quality is really nice. I also liked the coloring/contrast better in comparison to the 85 1.2.
I am looking at it from a portrait photographer perspective, and using it outdoors. Indoors, like i said, i would much prefer the 50 1.2, as at times i will be in much tighter spaces. for instance i had to take this photo indoors in very very poor lighting conditions and the 50 1.2 made it an appealing image, along with the Z6iii in camera image stabilization. if i owned the 85 1.2, no way did i have enough room inside the restaurant to shoot.
then i was easily able to take this image outdoors:
thats why i like the 50 1.2 over the 85 1.2. could i have taken the outdoor pic with the 85? yes absolutely, but i also could do it with the Plena..could i have taken both photos above with the 35 1.2? yes i could have, but the 50 1.2 just does a better job with portraits in comparison to. i borrowed the 35 1.2 for like 2 weeks. its a great lens, but for what i do, the 50 1.2 provides more for what i do. Which may not be the same for everyone.
Now the Plena...its an amazing lens. The only other lens i could compare it to is the Noct. but looking at cost and AF capabilities, Plena makes more sense. It focuses fast, silent, zero CA, i dont veen notice lens distortion, and the aperture blades differ, which aids in its amazing bokeh. I am a Plena fan boy..if you cant tell LOL Here are some recent images i took with the Plena. can make my backyard seem appealing LOL
here is a portrait done with the Noct:
The 85 1.2 will render awesome portraits, which i enjoyed using..but again, it was more of an outdoor lens. Could you use it indoors? yes definitely, but things could get tight pretty quick. I would much rather have the flexibility of the 50 1.2. Like i said, for personal use, i just bring the 50 1.2 and the 26 2.8 pancake lens and im happy outside of wildlife images.
to me, the Plena outdoors is a better choice.. and if things are tight, the 50 1.2 is no slouch and will get the job done. Its not no Noct (which is the only other 50mm i would consider over the 50 1.2), but nothing else is lol, and the Noct is very expensive in comparison to. I will be doing alot of work with the Plena next month, so i will be putting it through its paces and should be fun.
--
https://jessemartinez.zenfolio.com
Last edited:
anotherMike
Forum Pro
You know I think (very) highly of your work, but I will "argue" (LOL) about the 85/1.2S...
I'm extremely picky, and while yes, the bokeh of the Plena is unmatched, the 85/1.2S is still bloody excellent. From a resolution point of view, using both lenses for a lot of frames in the studio and outdoors, I can't honestly say there is much tangible difference - both are extremely sharp (without becoming overbearing), to the point where they easily meet my threshold for "this is really, really sharp", and extremely honest to the source, and offer extremely realistic/natural OOF transitions and in general the somewhat cinematic rendering that represents the Nikon house look.
I don't get caught up in "color of lens" discussions (because in most cases it's just not a deal for me) so I'll skip that topic.
So other than bokeh and focal length, I don't really consider these two in any sort of competition at all.
I never think, when I grab any of the "core 4" of 35/1.2S, 50/1.2S, 85/1.2S, or Plena, that I'm lacking something. (Now Nikon, release a 105 Plena... lol)
For me, the 35/85 pairing is used more than the 50/135 pairing, but I'm never selling any of those 4 as I do think they represent the best Nikon has done at those focal lengths, ever, and are the among, if not the, best at those focal lengths from any maker, particularly for anyone shooting people.
I'm extremely picky, and while yes, the bokeh of the Plena is unmatched, the 85/1.2S is still bloody excellent. From a resolution point of view, using both lenses for a lot of frames in the studio and outdoors, I can't honestly say there is much tangible difference - both are extremely sharp (without becoming overbearing), to the point where they easily meet my threshold for "this is really, really sharp", and extremely honest to the source, and offer extremely realistic/natural OOF transitions and in general the somewhat cinematic rendering that represents the Nikon house look.
I don't get caught up in "color of lens" discussions (because in most cases it's just not a deal for me) so I'll skip that topic.
So other than bokeh and focal length, I don't really consider these two in any sort of competition at all.
I never think, when I grab any of the "core 4" of 35/1.2S, 50/1.2S, 85/1.2S, or Plena, that I'm lacking something. (Now Nikon, release a 105 Plena... lol)
For me, the 35/85 pairing is used more than the 50/135 pairing, but I'm never selling any of those 4 as I do think they represent the best Nikon has done at those focal lengths, ever, and are the among, if not the, best at those focal lengths from any maker, particularly for anyone shooting people.
Last edited:
Thanks Mike! i appreciate the compliment (however i think i have alot of work to improve, but i am flattered to hear it from other photographers)
i agree with you, the 85 1.2 is phenomenal! its a GREAT lens... but as i mentioned for me, it made sense owning the Plena considering i have the 50 1.2 and the Plena.
Now if the Plena wasnt less in cost and it ended up costing more, i wouldnt own the Plena and would be shooting with the 85 1.2. I should have discussed more of the 85 1.2 capabilities, but he did ask why i like the Plena over the 85 1.2. Plena's Bokeh and contrast and sharpness..its very appealing. alot of people skip over the Plena, but in ranking order i think its Nikon's top lens for portrait work. Not taking anything away from the 85 1.2..
but lets be honest, we are comparing a Porsche GT3RS to a GT2RS...i would cut my pinky finger off to own either or lol..but if i could or would, i would pick the GT2RS over the GT3, but one may prefer the GT3RS, and that is ok..and some may even prefer the GT4RS and thats perfectly fine..but there are tid bits that is better. I just wish Nikon designed more Plena lenses lol
and would i be disheartened if i didnt own the Plena and just used the 85 1.2 absolutely not lol but the Plena being cheaper..man how can you not talk about that lens? its sexy lol
anotherMike
Forum Pro
While I don't need one, a 105/1.4 Plena would be sweet with a capital S!
Or make up a new name for it!
I'm about "done" with lenses unless I tweak my kit slightly to make some things more portable (I've considered getting rid of the 100-400 for the 70-200 and eventually getting a 300 prime of some sort, or a 14-24S for travel to cut back on lenses carried), but if Nikon were to do a 24/1.2S in the same quality zone as the 35/1.2S, it would be "take my money now", and a 105/1.x Plena would be about the same.
Or make up a new name for it!
I'm about "done" with lenses unless I tweak my kit slightly to make some things more portable (I've considered getting rid of the 100-400 for the 70-200 and eventually getting a 300 prime of some sort, or a 14-24S for travel to cut back on lenses carried), but if Nikon were to do a 24/1.2S in the same quality zone as the 35/1.2S, it would be "take my money now", and a 105/1.x Plena would be about the same.
RBFresno
Forum Pro
Hi Mike!
I think that I understand your wanting a Z mount 105 1.4
Of all of my F mount lenses, the 105 1.4 is one that I miss more than most of the others:
(This is a two image stitch)
View: original size (external website)
View: original size (external website)
View: original size (external website)
View: original size (external website)
View: original size (external website)
View: original size (external website)
View: original size (external website)
View: original size (external website)
View: original size (external website)
I try to at least feign some fiscal restraint buying lenses (but don't always succeed)
Hard for me to justify getting the Z 85 1.2 when I have the Plena and 50 f/1.2S ... maybe if I develop a desire for the extra f stops at 85mm...
I didn't want any of Nikon's 50-ish lenses until the 50 1.2S. Been very pleased with it though I haven't used it much:
As always, I very much appreciate your posts!
For someone like myself who only spends a little time with photography, it's a real benefit getting opinions about lenses from someone like yourself who has such a great background and expertise in the nuances of lens performances.
Thanks again!
Best Regards.
RB
--
http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/859
Last edited:
that...would be awesome! would also like a Plena wide angle lens..20mm of some sort
anotherMike
Forum Pro
I sold my 105/1.4E to fund the 85/1.2S; I wish I could have kept it, but it wasn't *quite* where I wanted it to be image quality wise compared to the best Z glass. That's not slamming it - it was the best F mount mid tele by miles, but times move on.
So what I would want would be something along the lines of an improved 105/1.4E; a bit sharper, a smidge less CA; basically 85/1.2S or Plena quality at 105mm optimized for portraits. I'm covered for landscape with the excellent 105/2.8MC.
What I really want is a 24/1.2S with 35/1.2S quality. That would be a dream.
So what I would want would be something along the lines of an improved 105/1.4E; a bit sharper, a smidge less CA; basically 85/1.2S or Plena quality at 105mm optimized for portraits. I'm covered for landscape with the excellent 105/2.8MC.
What I really want is a 24/1.2S with 35/1.2S quality. That would be a dream.
Rodenmg
Veteran Member
I would too if it didn’t end up the size of the 400 f4.5.
--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/
Last edited:
RBFresno
Forum Pro
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your reply!
I'm more of a super tele guy than some on this forum (Loving the 400 TC!)
My own next "dream" Z lens might be a 200 f/2 that surpasses my F mount 200 f/2VR ( if that's possible), and lighter, with a built in 1.4TC and also would accept a 2x TC
The 200 VR was one of the few f mount lenses that I would use the 2x TC. I think that the resulting 400 f/4 image quality was better than that of my 200-400 (without a TC) and the 200 VR was much easier to hand hold than the 200-400 VR
The 200VR with an external 1,4TC was very good:
Best Regards,
RB
http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/859
Last edited:
wingster999
Leading Member
- Messages
- 501
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 317
I can see the 50 1.2 and Plena as making a really nice combo for a lot of situations (indoors vs outdoors). I am using the Zeiss 135 but see making a leap to the Plena to go with my 50 1.2. I do not reach for an 85 as much as others might. I guess I see the 85 as a "tweener" focal length like a 35 sits between 24 to 50. A 50 to 135 really makes a nice progression, but just an opinion. Its nice to have so many options these days.
Last edited:
yes it is, works great together. outdoors the difference in using a 85 and a 135 isnt as big of a deal, outdoors you should have plenty of room. Indoors is where i am usually cramped or looking for more room. Honestly the 35 1.2 could be argued a better choice considering, however...while traveling i like shooting portraits and the 50 1.2 does a great job on both sides of the spectrum.
RBFresno
Forum Pro
Hi!
I'm in the same boat as you, having the 50 1.2S and Plena
Also, like you I have the Zeiss 135/2 APO Sonnar.
The Zeiss is a terrific lens, but of course is manual focus.
I'd have a hard time setting these Plena images with the MF Zeiss:
Since getting the Plena, I haven't use the Zeiss 135/2
Best Regards,
RB
--
http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/859
Attachments
Last edited:
wingster999
Leading Member
- Messages
- 501
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 317
Nice work.....what body did you use for these images?Hi!
I'm in the same boat as you, having the 50 1.2S and Plena
Also, like you I have the Zeiss 135/2 APO Sonnar.
The Zeiss is a terrific lens, but of course is manual focus.
I'd have a hard time setting these Plena images with the MF Zeiss:
Since getting the Plena, I haven't use the Zeiss 135/2
Best Regards,
RB
RBFresno
Forum Pro
Thanks!Nice work.....Hi!
I'm in the same boat as you, having the 50 1.2S and Plena
Also, like you I have the Zeiss 135/2 APO Sonnar.
The Zeiss is a terrific lens, but of course is manual focus.
I'd have a hard time setting these Plena images with the MF Zeiss:
Since getting the Plena, I haven't use the Zeiss 135/2
Best Regards,
RB
Z8
(BTW, the 50 1.2S is a wonderful lens}
Best Regards,
RB
--
http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/859
Last edited:
Hal Wilson
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,178
- Reaction score
- 1,299
So essentially what you're saying is that its all about your on personal preference than anything else? Not any deficiency of the 85mm. That's good to know.
I like the 85mm focal length, as it offers a little bit more separation than a 50mm does. I see your point re tight spaces, but that's actually why I like the 85mm; it enables me to get good pics where say a 105 or longer wouldn't work. I like the 'intimacy' the 85mm brings over the 50. The 50 I like when a little bit of context is required. People like the 35mm for the same reason. We all have different ways of working.
I've been using my 105 macro for portraits. It's an amazing lens, no question, but for portraits I just feel it's not quite what I want. I suppose a 105 f1.4 dedicated 'portrait' lens would be ideal, but hey, no such thing exists (yet) in the Z-mount. So I think my next big purchase will be the 85mm, as it also offers less compression than longer lenses, so just that little bit more 'natural' in relation to normal human vision. All swings and roundabouts though for sure.
I own or owned a lot of 50mm including the Nikon 50mm f1.2S, 50mm f1.2 GM, 50mm Lumix S Pro, 50mm Summilux SL, 50mm f1.4 FE planar, Olympus 25mm f1.2 Pro etc, sometimes with multiple copies to be sure to not get a lemon.
In my opinion, the 50mm f1.2S has a very nice output, I prefer its rendering for portrait between every modern 50mm I used. It is not as sharp (especially wide open and at fast apertures) than by example the 50mm GM f1.2 or the Lumix 50mm S Pro but I like its bokeh (even front bokeh) and the way it renders the transition between highlights and midtones (maybe the coating).
However, for everything else, I prefer the 50mm GM and the S Pro, especially the S Pro because it has the same beautiful light transition than the Nikon but it is sharper overall and has a very special punchy rendering because of the its OOF transitions, almost 3D in some scenes. The same applies to the Summilux 50mm SL.
I also found the focus on the Nikon not as accurate at fast aperture than the GM and the S Pro when using eye focus, I think its mostly because of the Z8 and Z6III, I have more slight front or back focus (by example the focus is made on the eyebrow instead of the eye) than on my recent Sony and Lumix cameras. I have the same issue with the 85mm f1.2S when shooting wide open at close distance. Definitely an issue with Nikon's subject detection more than the lens. Using AF-S with pin point focus solves the accuracy issue but that's only possible with still subjects.
Of course the Nikon is also bigger and heavier than most other 50mm f1.2/f1.4, it is why most people really need to think twice about the 50mm f1.2S. By example, the Nikon 50mm f1.8S is a lovely lens with the same highlights to midtones transition than the f1.2, it is as sharp, much lighter, smaller and of course much cheaper.
I plan to sell the 50mm f1.2S and only keep the 50mm f1.8S on my Nikon system.
In my opinion, the 50mm f1.2S has a very nice output, I prefer its rendering for portrait between every modern 50mm I used. It is not as sharp (especially wide open and at fast apertures) than by example the 50mm GM f1.2 or the Lumix 50mm S Pro but I like its bokeh (even front bokeh) and the way it renders the transition between highlights and midtones (maybe the coating).
However, for everything else, I prefer the 50mm GM and the S Pro, especially the S Pro because it has the same beautiful light transition than the Nikon but it is sharper overall and has a very special punchy rendering because of the its OOF transitions, almost 3D in some scenes. The same applies to the Summilux 50mm SL.
I also found the focus on the Nikon not as accurate at fast aperture than the GM and the S Pro when using eye focus, I think its mostly because of the Z8 and Z6III, I have more slight front or back focus (by example the focus is made on the eyebrow instead of the eye) than on my recent Sony and Lumix cameras. I have the same issue with the 85mm f1.2S when shooting wide open at close distance. Definitely an issue with Nikon's subject detection more than the lens. Using AF-S with pin point focus solves the accuracy issue but that's only possible with still subjects.
Of course the Nikon is also bigger and heavier than most other 50mm f1.2/f1.4, it is why most people really need to think twice about the 50mm f1.2S. By example, the Nikon 50mm f1.8S is a lovely lens with the same highlights to midtones transition than the f1.2, it is as sharp, much lighter, smaller and of course much cheaper.
I plan to sell the 50mm f1.2S and only keep the 50mm f1.8S on my Nikon system.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum