Serious question re: f/1.2 trinity lack of performance wide open at 45mp

Melidonia said:

90% I use the lens wide open,

Click to expand...

Melidonia said:

I would never have bought a lens at this price to use it at f2.8,

Click to expand...

Leonard Shepherd said:

Melidonia said:

90% I use the lens wide open,

Click to expand...

I use mine some of the time stopped down - some want more than f1.2 depth of field some of the time

Leonard Shepherd said:

I would never have bought a lens at this price to use it at f2.8,

Click to expand...

I bought mine for overall performance, bokeh etc - we seem to have different priorities.

For what it is worth most lenses shorter than about 200 mm perform usefully better two stops down for wide open.

When you shoot at f2.8 an f1.2 lens almost always contributes more to image resolution than an f2.8 lens.

Click to expand...

RumDiddlyRum said:

I'm attempting to understand what I'm seeing with Nikon's f/1.2s.

Three copies of the 85mm f/1.2 produce the same ... for lack of a better word ... inability to fully resolve the 45mp sensor on Z9.

Had the same issue with the 50mm f/1.2 when compared to my 28mm 1.4E. I never ended up owning one after testing two different copies.

Click to expand...

BasilG said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

Melidonia said:

90% I use the lens wide open,

Click to expand...

I use mine some of the time stopped down - some want more than f1.2 depth of field some of the time

BasilG said:

I would never have bought a lens at this price to use it at f2.8,

Click to expand...

I bought mine for overall performance, bokeh etc - we seem to have different priorities.

For what it is worth most lenses shorter than about 200 mm perform usefully better two stops down for wide open.

When you shoot at f2.8 an f1.2 lens almost always contributes more to image resolution than an f2.8 lens.

Click to expand...

Sure. But one could then also use a 50/1.8 S, with similar results and for a fraction of the cost. Of course, the advantage of the 50/1.2 S is that you can go to f/1.2 if needed. But if stopped down performance is of primary or exclusive interest, better options exist.

Click to expand...

Ocoloy said:

I never will understand pixelpeeping. A good image is a good image. I never had people looking at my prints or books or online images complaining about sharpness.

Click to expand...

Ocoloy said:

Focus on the images rather than the technical stuff.

Click to expand...

Fabian Joya said:

IMO the f/1.2 primes do not do a stellar job in terms of OOF rendering, especially wide open, with the 35mm performing the worst.

Click to expand...

Nikon Z 85mm f/1.2 Review (2024)

The 85mm lens is my go to portrait lens, and has been for ten years. It’s an easy focal length to work with – flattering, but I’m not a mile away for...

lizputnam.com

Nikon Z 85mm f/1.2 S Review | Portrait Lens Perfection?

Nikon is putting their enormous Z mount to very good use with some of the most impressive full-frame mirrorless lenses we have ever seen, and this is another one of them.: an ultimate portrait lens!

www.slrlounge.com

RumDiddlyRum said:

I'm attempting to understand what I'm seeing with Nikon's f/1.2s.



Three copies of the 85mm f/1.2 produce the same ... for lack of a better word ... inability to fully resolve the 45mp sensor on Z9.

Had the same issue with the 50mm f/1.2 when compared to my 28mm 1.4E. I never ended up owning one after testing two different copies.

In this case the 85mm f/1.2 doesn't catch up in sharpness to the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 until f/2.8 (Sigma still wide open at f/1.4), and at f/4 sharpness is on the decline again and noticeably worse than the Sigma wide open.

Multiple copies of the lens. Expecting same mediocre result from the 35mm f/1.2 I just ordered that I will probably end up returning.

I don't want to hear the nonsense of "this is the way the lens is designed to render more beautifully" since the 200mm f/2 is the standard for rendering and bokeh as far as I'm concerned (and has been for 20 years).

The Sigma 105mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.2 render so close that the only difference between the two is the focal length. If you reposition the same shot, you can't tell the difference between the two lenses in terms of bokeh, but you can certainly see it in the sharpness wide open.

Checked a friends Canon and it wasn't the same at all.

So my question is: What's going on here? Are these lenses just poor performers on higher mp sensors?

Click to expand...

Melidonia said:

anotherMike said:

I think your 35 is faulty.

Below is a run from MTFmapper, the three lenses in question at F/1.2 and F/2.8, at 8 feet shooting distance, on a Z8. Best of 5 taken from each series. Dead center of the frame as the target.

Note the 35 is, easily, the sharpest of the bunch, and by F/2.8, clearly runs away from the other two at *this* test distance. And that's key - the 1.2 lenses that are designed for people have a bit of tuning in them where Nikon is trading off some high spatial frequency performance for OOF transition and bokeh quality. They've done this before (and in far more harmful, IMO, magnitude with the 58/1.4G - Sato even has talked about it in interviews). So someone using the 50 or 85 1.2 to do macro shots or expecting perfection wide open on a non-person subject in portrait distance is the wrong customer for the lens.

Given the 35 and 50 share a designer, it's evident they (the design team) had different goals in mind for the 35; likely they didn't expect it to be as people-centric as the 85 so they optimized it differently. No surprise it tests differently.

At distance, the 35/1.2S is beyond stellar at a broad central zone stopped down a bit - beating even things like the 35 apo lanthar and the 40 sigma art. If you're not getting that kind of performance, you simply have a bad copy. Both the 50 and 85 F/1.2 are also excellent at distance - the 50 ranking only second, at distance, to my 50 apo lanthar, and it's seriously close. I tend to carry the smaller 85/1.8S for landscape but if I can fit it in, the 1.2 goes as it's just a touch incrementally better. But the 85 and 50 mostly serve as studio or outdoor dance/outdoor fashion/outdoor portraiture lenses, which is IMO where they truly shine.

Here's the result of my testing, again, at 8 feet. Note that MTF50 measurements (top right corner for each lens/aperture) are FAR from the be all/end all of describing lens performance, but you can see from the curves that the 35 is leading the pack here.

Click to expand...

The only time I saw pretty sharp pics with the Nikon 35mm S f1.2 wide open is when the images are processed in NX Studio, C1 or in Lightroom with a good amount of sharpness or clarity.
But when using Lightroom and ACR with the same settings (default Adobe settings), the 35mm f1.2S is not really sharp wide open, at least clearly less sharp than my 35mm GM or my 35mm DG II.

Click to expand...

anotherMike said:

I doubt I have a golden sample; I strongly suspect that as one changes the testing distance the behavior (which lens is sharper than which) changes. I noticed that when I first did mtfMapper testing with the 50/1.2S long ago - it "loses" it's "tuning" as the distance is increased - I forgot offhand at what point - and my test configuration is limited to about 15 feet or so, but it does change. We don't know the distance of all these tests from the other sites.

I'm glad you feel you don't have a bad lens.

As far as raw converters: NX Studio doesn't "cook" the files - it honors precisely the sharpening parameters you have set in the camera. I don't use aggressive sharpening. Same with Capture One - I've been using this for a couple months and it's not cooking the files either. And BTW, the mtfMapper results are using their own raw conversion without sharpening IIRC - those results are not processed in any raw converter. As an overall rule, I tend to be perhaps slightly subtractive in sharpening - I'm very sensitive to over-sharpening and think most folks do over-sharpen, so I'm extremely careful about it. My goal is that on a landscape print at 17x22/A2 size, one should be able to go half normal viewing distance and not see a sharpening halo and everything should be detailed but natural.

At the end of the day, definitely for the 50/1.2S, a little less so for the 50 and then again a little less so for the 35/1.2, Nikon is tuning these lenses in the portrait distances for sure. Not as strongly as, like, the 58/1.4G, but they are. That does mean if someone needs absolute maximum wide open sharpness (and the situation allows for such to be captured; honestly, most situations don't when one is wide open), then another tool is better.

As for use cases, I need the lenses to do many things well. That means excellent rendering about a stop or down from wide open (because honestly, 1.2 is crazy thin DOF) for outdoor work at the widest (I typically run F/2 - F/5 or so for outdoor work with dancers or portraits), as well as studio work (F/9) and then of course landscape work (F/4 - F/9, generally F/4 to F/6.3 if I can get away with it). In my experience, that's where these lenses shine. So my use cases are different. I also highly value OOF transition and OOF rendering, which these lenses excel at, at the apertures I use, and I value the more balanced rendering they offer compared to things like the somewhat clinical 50/1.8S, as an example. So we do have different use cases.

Click to expand...

busb said:

Melidonia said:

anotherMike said:

I think your 35 is faulty.

Below is a run from MTFmapper, the three lenses in question at F/1.2 and F/2.8, at 8 feet shooting distance, on a Z8. Best of 5 taken from each series. Dead center of the frame as the target.

Note the 35 is, easily, the sharpest of the bunch, and by F/2.8, clearly runs away from the other two at *this* test distance. And that's key - the 1.2 lenses that are designed for people have a bit of tuning in them where Nikon is trading off some high spatial frequency performance for OOF transition and bokeh quality. They've done this before (and in far more harmful, IMO, magnitude with the 58/1.4G - Sato even has talked about it in interviews). So someone using the 50 or 85 1.2 to do macro shots or expecting perfection wide open on a non-person subject in portrait distance is the wrong customer for the lens.

Given the 35 and 50 share a designer, it's evident they (the design team) had different goals in mind for the 35; likely they didn't expect it to be as people-centric as the 85 so they optimized it differently. No surprise it tests differently.

At distance, the 35/1.2S is beyond stellar at a broad central zone stopped down a bit - beating even things like the 35 apo lanthar and the 40 sigma art. If you're not getting that kind of performance, you simply have a bad copy. Both the 50 and 85 F/1.2 are also excellent at distance - the 50 ranking only second, at distance, to my 50 apo lanthar, and it's seriously close. I tend to carry the smaller 85/1.8S for landscape but if I can fit it in, the 1.2 goes as it's just a touch incrementally better. But the 85 and 50 mostly serve as studio or outdoor dance/outdoor fashion/outdoor portraiture lenses, which is IMO where they truly shine.

Here's the result of my testing, again, at 8 feet. Note that MTF50 measurements (top right corner for each lens/aperture) are FAR from the be all/end all of describing lens performance, but you can see from the curves that the 35 is leading the pack here.

Click to expand...

The only time I saw pretty sharp pics with the Nikon 35mm S f1.2 wide open is when the images are processed in NX Studio, C1 or in Lightroom with a good amount of sharpness or clarity.
But when using Lightroom and ACR with the same settings (default Adobe settings), the 35mm f1.2S is not really sharp wide open, at least clearly less sharp than my 35mm GM or my 35mm DG II.

Click to expand...

When the Z9 1st launched (& to a lesser extent, the Z8) many complained that they were getting poor results & in particular, at high ISOs. Others were not having the same issues. It soon transpired that many were understandably sticking to their usual workflow that had served them well unto the Z8/9. There laid the problem that went away when using Nikon's NX-Studio. Although I use PhotoShop almost daily, I don't use ACR anywhere my RAW files! I use NX-Studio or DxO PureRaw for highAdo ISOs. If folk must use ACR, at lease use the relevant Nikon one & NOT the Adobe defaults!

Click to expand...

Melidonia said:

busb said:

Melidonia said:

anotherMike said:

I think your 35 is faulty.

Below is a run from MTFmapper, the three lenses in question at F/1.2 and F/2.8, at 8 feet shooting distance, on a Z8. Best of 5 taken from each series. Dead center of the frame as the target.

Note the 35 is, easily, the sharpest of the bunch, and by F/2.8, clearly runs away from the other two at *this* test distance. And that's key - the 1.2 lenses that are designed for people have a bit of tuning in them where Nikon is trading off some high spatial frequency performance for OOF transition and bokeh quality. They've done this before (and in far more harmful, IMO, magnitude with the 58/1.4G - Sato even has talked about it in interviews). So someone using the 50 or 85 1.2 to do macro shots or expecting perfection wide open on a non-person subject in portrait distance is the wrong customer for the lens.

Given the 35 and 50 share a designer, it's evident they (the design team) had different goals in mind for the 35; likely they didn't expect it to be as people-centric as the 85 so they optimized it differently. No surprise it tests differently.

At distance, the 35/1.2S is beyond stellar at a broad central zone stopped down a bit - beating even things like the 35 apo lanthar and the 40 sigma art. If you're not getting that kind of performance, you simply have a bad copy. Both the 50 and 85 F/1.2 are also excellent at distance - the 50 ranking only second, at distance, to my 50 apo lanthar, and it's seriously close. I tend to carry the smaller 85/1.8S for landscape but if I can fit it in, the 1.2 goes as it's just a touch incrementally better. But the 85 and 50 mostly serve as studio or outdoor dance/outdoor fashion/outdoor portraiture lenses, which is IMO where they truly shine.

Here's the result of my testing, again, at 8 feet. Note that MTF50 measurements (top right corner for each lens/aperture) are FAR from the be all/end all of describing lens performance, but you can see from the curves that the 35 is leading the pack here.

Click to expand...

The only time I saw pretty sharp pics with the Nikon 35mm S f1.2 wide open is when the images are processed in NX Studio, C1 or in Lightroom with a good amount of sharpness or clarity.
But when using Lightroom and ACR with the same settings (default Adobe settings), the 35mm f1.2S is not really sharp wide open, at least clearly less sharp than my 35mm GM or my 35mm DG II.

Click to expand...

When the Z9 1st launched (& to a lesser extent, the Z8) many complained that they were getting poor results & in particular, at high ISOs. Others were not having the same issues. It soon transpired that many were understandably sticking to their usual workflow that had served them well unto the Z8/9. There laid the problem that went away when using Nikon's NX-Studio. Although I use PhotoShop almost daily, I don't use ACR anywhere my RAW files! I use NX-Studio or DxO PureRaw for highAdo ISOs. If folk must use ACR, at lease use the relevant Nikon one & NOT the Adobe defaults!

Click to expand...

So I should use the the Nikon settings in ACR with extra sharpening, clarity and texture added (and sometimes luminace too) ? Why I should use these settings on my Z6III files and not on my other cameras like my S1II or A7III ?

Click to expand...

Pshots23 said:

Looks like user error to me.

Click to expand...

Pshots23 said:

My advice is deal with this at the camera store, have them educate you on how to use the lenses, and or explain what you are seeing.

Click to expand...

smallegret said:

We are talking about a $2,800 lens here and for that money I would want great sharpness wide open, not diatribes on why it isn't necessary ....

Click to expand...

anotherMike said:

smallegret said:

We are talking about a $2,800 lens here and for that money I would want great sharpness wide open, not diatribes on why it isn't necessary ....

Click to expand...

I'm going to discuss this one.

First off, why would one be so close minded and obstinate NOT to listen to why a lens may be designed to NOT be "tack sharp" wide open, and instead, just "sharp enough"?

You seem like a reasonable guy - so I ask that question.

Nikon designers know what they are doing. If they wanted to, they could have blown the test chart numbers off the scale wide open on the 1.2 lenses without breaking a sweat. They have their own glass foundry to make new glass types (unlike Sony/Viltrox/Sigma) if needed (like they did on the .95 noct), they have highly experienced designers, and quite likely better evaluation equipment than Sony, Sigma, or Viltrox. So the question then becomes "why", yet we've got people with comments such as yours (or the OP) where they don't want to hear it. That's what irks me. The closed mind, the obstinate attitude, and frankly, the arrogance that people aren't willing to listen and discuss. (I'm not saying this is you - I think your posts are pretty balanced, I'm speaking generally)

Here's a thought: For every scenario, there is a range of how much resolution, particularly in terms of high spatial frequencies, that you can capture due to the scenario, and then you have, overall, the maximum capability of the system. For some scenarios, there is not much difference. For some, there is. If you were to do a resolution analysis of a test chart locked down on a tripod, focus absolutely precise, no movement, and then you were to do the same test chart hand held, with both the chart and the photographer hand held, and focus is not absolutely precise, you'd obviously have WILDLY different results. Wildly.

So if there is an optical benefit in the trade-offs that is lens design, can you now see why a designer might trade off something that is likely never to be captured in real life *for a specific scenario* as opposed to just making sure a lens wins a test chart battle. In essence, that's what's going on - the designers of the 1.2 lenses, while having different thoughts on the *magnitude* of trade off, have tuned the 1.2 lenses in the portrait range, at wider apertures to be optimized for this use case. As such, there will be other lenses that pop a bit more contrast, or seem a bit "sharper". I've not yet seen a shot I've taken wide open of a person where I'm thinking "OMG, this lens needs to be sharper" with these lenses. Obviously perhaps if I needed max resolution wide open and was on a tripod, that would be a different situation.

Why this is considered a negative diatribe by some folks, bluntly, is both annoying and frustrating. Some of us are just trying to educate. Guess what, I think we have the right to be heard too. There is a lot more than test charts, MTF50 scores or even "tack sharp wide open". Perhaps people need to discuss this more instead of brush it off. If people talked about this more, then they might make better purchase decisions. If one is truly super sensitive about max contrast/max sharpness in their F/1.2 lens wide open, guess what, a guy like me talking about these topics would have brought it up in a review of the F/1.2 lens, and then the potential buyer would ride on and buy their garden variety clinical test chart winning Viltrox and be happy, which is also their right.

Off my soapbox.

Click to expand...

Ocoloy said:

Ocoloy said:

Some people don't care that much about the final image. Learning about the gear and getting out to hunt for the perfect photo is where the maximum enjoyment comes out.

Click to expand...

Most photographers I know have more gear than they need. Most of the photographers also buy new gear before they really learned their "old" lens or camera, in hope of a better image. They spend more times reading reviews and watching youtube than actually out there taking images. I lecture at photography clubs and do private lessons and I am more or less shocked every time by the amount of amazingly expensive and modern gear rather than the quality of the images.

Click to expand...

anotherMike said:

smallegret said:

We are talking about a $2,800 lens here and for that money I would want great sharpness wide open, not diatribes on why it isn't necessary ....

Click to expand...

I'm going to discuss this one.

First off, why would one be so close minded and obstinate NOT to listen to why a lens may be designed to NOT be "tack sharp" wide open, and instead, just "sharp enough"?

You seem like a reasonable guy - so I ask that question.

Nikon designers know what they are doing. If they wanted to, they could have blown the test chart numbers off the scale wide open on the 1.2 lenses without breaking a sweat. They have their own glass foundry to make new glass types (unlike Sony/Viltrox/Sigma) if needed (like they did on the .95 noct), they have highly experienced designers, and quite likely better evaluation equipment than Sony, Sigma, or Viltrox. So the question then becomes "why", yet we've got people with comments such as yours (or the OP) where they don't want to hear it. That's what irks me. The closed mind, the obstinate attitude, and frankly, the arrogance that people aren't willing to listen and discuss. (I'm not saying this is you - I think your posts are pretty balanced, I'm speaking generally)

Here's a thought: For every scenario, there is a range of how much resolution, particularly in terms of high spatial frequencies, that you can capture due to the scenario, and then you have, overall, the maximum capability of the system. For some scenarios, there is not much difference. For some, there is. If you were to do a resolution analysis of a test chart locked down on a tripod, focus absolutely precise, no movement, and then you were to do the same test chart hand held, with both the chart and the photographer hand held, and focus is not absolutely precise, you'd obviously have WILDLY different results. Wildly.

So if there is an optical benefit in the trade-offs that is lens design, can you now see why a designer might trade off something that is likely never to be captured in real life *for a specific scenario* as opposed to just making sure a lens wins a test chart battle. In essence, that's what's going on - the designers of the 1.2 lenses, while having different thoughts on the *magnitude* of trade off, have tuned the 1.2 lenses in the portrait range, at wider apertures to be optimized for this use case. As such, there will be other lenses that pop a bit more contrast, or seem a bit "sharper". I've not yet seen a shot I've taken wide open of a person where I'm thinking "OMG, this lens needs to be sharper" with these lenses. Obviously perhaps if I needed max resolution wide open and was on a tripod, that would be a different situation.

Why this is considered a negative diatribe by some folks, bluntly, is both annoying and frustrating. Some of us are just trying to educate. Guess what, I think we have the right to be heard too. There is a lot more than test charts, MTF50 scores or even "tack sharp wide open". Perhaps people need to discuss this more instead of brush it off. If people talked about this more, then they might make better purchase decisions. If one is truly super sensitive about max contrast/max sharpness in their F/1.2 lens wide open, guess what, a guy like me talking about these topics would have brought it up in a review of the F/1.2 lens, and then the potential buyer would ride on and buy their garden variety clinical test chart winning Viltrox and be happy, which is also their right.

Off my soapbox.

Click to expand...

anotherMike said:

smallegret said:

We are talking about a $2,800 lens here and for that money I would want great sharpness wide open, not diatribes on why it isn't necessary ....

Click to expand...

I'm going to discuss this one.

First off, why would one be so close minded and obstinate NOT to listen to why a lens may be designed to NOT be "tack sharp" wide open, and instead, just "sharp enough"?

You seem like a reasonable guy - so I ask that question.

Nikon designers know what they are doing. If they wanted to, they could have blown the test chart numbers off the scale wide open on the 1.2 lenses without breaking a sweat. They have their own glass foundry to make new glass types (unlike Sony/Viltrox/Sigma) if needed (like they did on the .95 noct), they have highly experienced designers, and quite likely better evaluation equipment than Sony, Sigma, or Viltrox. So the question then becomes "why", yet we've got people with comments such as yours (or the OP) where they don't want to hear it. That's what irks me. The closed mind, the obstinate attitude, and frankly, the arrogance that people aren't willing to listen and discuss. (I'm not saying this is you - I think your posts are pretty balanced, I'm speaking generally)

Here's a thought: For every scenario, there is a range of how much resolution, particularly in terms of high spatial frequencies, that you can capture due to the scenario, and then you have, overall, the maximum capability of the system. For some scenarios, there is not much difference. For some, there is. If you were to do a resolution analysis of a test chart locked down on a tripod, focus absolutely precise, no movement, and then you were to do the same test chart hand held, with both the chart and the photographer hand held, and focus is not absolutely precise, you'd obviously have WILDLY different results. Wildly.

So if there is an optical benefit in the trade-offs that is lens design, can you now see why a designer might trade off something that is likely never to be captured in real life *for a specific scenario* as opposed to just making sure a lens wins a test chart battle. In essence, that's what's going on - the designers of the 1.2 lenses, while having different thoughts on the *magnitude* of trade off, have tuned the 1.2 lenses in the portrait range, at wider apertures to be optimized for this use case. As such, there will be other lenses that pop a bit more contrast, or seem a bit "sharper". I've not yet seen a shot I've taken wide open of a person where I'm thinking "OMG, this lens needs to be sharper" with these lenses. Obviously perhaps if I needed max resolution wide open and was on a tripod, that would be a different situation.

Why this is considered a negative diatribe by some folks, bluntly, is both annoying and frustrating. Some of us are just trying to educate. Guess what, I think we have the right to be heard too. There is a lot more than test charts, MTF50 scores or even "tack sharp wide open". Perhaps people need to discuss this more instead of brush it off. If people talked about this more, then they might make better purchase decisions. If one is truly super sensitive about max contrast/max sharpness in their F/1.2 lens wide open, guess what, a guy like me talking about these topics would have brought it up in a review of the F/1.2 lens, and then the potential buyer would ride on and buy their garden variety clinical test chart winning Viltrox and be happy, which is also their right.

Off my soapbox.

Click to expand...