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

[RumDiddlyRum]

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?

 

[Fabian Joya]

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?

How close are you focusing? From what I understand, the f/1.2 lenses are optimized for portrait distance. At both infinity and close-up distances these lenses do not perform well IMO.

Also, IMO, these lenses are not designed to be used wide open. They have a large max aperture to provide the best bokeh and out-of-focus rendering (at any aperture), but really perform much better in the f/2 - f/2.8 range.

 

[noggin2k1]

I think you've got a camera or lens problem there.

I've shot with everything Sony/Canon/Nikon has to offer, and the Nikon f/1.2's have the same biting sharpness as the best everyone else have to offer.

Scanning through the last weddings it's only the 85 I've shot wide open at a sensible ISO, and I'd say there's not a single image where it's left me wanting more from a sharpness perspective.

 

[TheSoaringSprite]

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?

As the other reply asks, how close are you to the target? The closer you get to your subject at f/1.2, the dreamier and fuzzier the subject will appear, also due to the incredibly shallow depth of field. At a proper distance from the target, I bet the lens will appear sharper.

I have the Z 85mm f/1.2 and find it very sharp on my Z8 even wide open, unless I try to shoot too close to the subject.

I find it plenty sharp, even surprisingly sharp wide open, but I guess we all have our own standards.


f/1.2


f/1.2


f/1.2


f/1.2


f/1.4


f/1.2 at MFD - the dreamy, bloomy effect of getting too close.





--

Dream Source Studio | Photography by J.P.

Welcome to Dream Source Studio, home to sports, wildlife, event, travel & landscape photography. Need help improving your own skills as an aspiring photographer? Check out the new photography tips section or feel free to e-mail me with your questions!

www.dreamsourcestudio.com

@TheSoaringSprite

 

[Rodenmg]

After being unsatisfied with 3 85’s and 2 50’s I can hardly wait to hear what you think about the 35!

Good luck.

 

[AWG_Pics]

Seems like user error most likely.

 

[Mr Bolton]

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?

You seem to be comparing a number of lenses that aren't f1.2, of different focal lengths. Are we looking at a crop of the extreme corner here? And, at what distance? If you're taking a lens designed to make portraits look good with a bit of dreamy softness wide open, then.. maybe don't expect it have to have a 3600 mtf score in the far corners?

In point of fact, this lens has excellent center and midframe performace wide open, with corners sharpening up nicely by f2.8 and the lens being most fantastic at f4-5.6. Here's my receipts: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-85mm-f-1-2-s/2

This is my BOTD answer to a first time poster. Perhaps they don't understand that lenses made for different purposes render and work in different ways. I mean.. today I happened to have my cheap n cheerful 85mm AstriHori portrait lens and I tried to shoot some local birds with it. Big surprise, the autofocus wasn't stellar for this purpose. Does that mean it's a bad lens? Nope, just means it wasn't designed for that purpose. To its credit however, it did make a valiant effort and I did get a few keepers, at least.

 

[JustSomeone]

Sharpness isn’t everything. I own all 1.2 Z lenses and they are just beautiful.
Mind you, I’m not a pixel peeper. So much so that my favourite F mount lenses are the 58mm 1.4G and 35mm 1.4G. No pixel peeper touches those. Haha. As opposed to those who appreciate proper optics.

 

[JustSomeone]

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?

How close are you focusing? From what I understand, the f/1.2 lenses are optimized for portrait distance. At both infinity and close-up distances these lenses do not perform well IMO.
Also, IMO, these lenses are not designed to be used wide open. They have a large max aperture to provide the best bokeh and out-of-focus rendering (at any aperture), but really perform much better in the f/2 - f/2.8 range.

Remember reading an interview with a Nikon person where they said the 1.2 are designed with softness in mind at close and far distances like you said.
who wants pin sharpness at those distances when shooting portraits!! Guess OP wants that. Haha.

 

[Melidonia]

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?

I see the same with my 85/50/35 f1.2S when editing my raw files in Lightroom and ACR (Adobe settings).

I use other systems (Sony FE and Leica/Panasonic L), and when I compare my 35mm DG II f1.2 on my S1II to my 35mm f1.2S on my Z6III, the Sigma is obviously sharper wide open when looking at 1:1.
Same for my 50mm f1.2S compared to my 50mm S Pro and the 50mm GM f1.2 I had.

Even my excellent copy of the 50mm f1.8 S lumix is sharper wide open in the center than my 50mm f1.8S, I posted some comparison pics on a L-mount thread. I tried multiple copies of the 50mm f1.8S and f1.2S and everytime they were softer than my Lumix lenses.
I also downloaded some pics with the 35/50/85S f1.2 from the web and they don't look sharper than my copies when importing them in Lightroom. The only time the files look tack sharp is when they are in JPEG or in processed in NX Studio, default sharpening look higher than in Lightroom.



However, I use a Megadap Pro + to use my GM lenses on my Z6III and I can say the GM lenses are slightly softer on my Z6III than on my A7III or A7C2, so maybe the Z6III OLPF is the issue but I still think Sony uses some hidden sharpening on the raw files, and I think it's the same with Panasonic, sometimes the rendering of both Panasonic and Sony raw files doesn't look very natural and I have the impression a sort of rough sharpening is applied.

Also, the overall rendering of the Nikon S lenses are in my opinion much nicer than most Sony, Panasonic or Sigma lenses (the 50mm S Pro and 24-70mm S Pro are great though, they certainly have this sort of "Leica look"). By example, my Sigma DG II 35mm f1.2 looks very flat compared to my Nikon 35mm f1.2S, despite the Sigma being sharper, the Nikon has nicer contrast, depth and colors.

 

[Mr Bolton]

Maybe Nikon gives up a little bit of ultimate sharpness wide open, in exchange for more character and color rendition.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

My copies of each of the three F1 .2 lenses and the Plena are extremely sharp.

Either your lens is defective or as others are indicating your testing is not as good as it needs to be to obtain the maximum sharpness that is possible.

As others have suggested you may be focusing closer than the minimum focus distance of your lens.

If you have your camera set to shutter priority rather than focus priority, the camera can take a picture when the focus distance is too close for critical sharpness.

The Nikon specification for the 85 mm F1 .2 mentions a reproduction ratio of 0.11X at minimum focused distance. This covers a 13.64 inch wide subject.

Unless you cropped the dollar bill images significantly before posting, you seem to be trying to get sharp pictures at closer than minimum focus distance.

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

Perhaps you misunderstand that lens resolution and the sensor resolution each separately and cumulatively contribute to image resolution – and that improving either lens resolution or sensor resolution increases image resolution.

The notion that a lens as you put it can "out resolve" a 45 MP sensor is a common internet myth.

If you test to a good standard with a copy of a lens that performs as it should you should get first class results

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.

 

[BasilG]

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.

Are you positive you are in focus? The 85/1.2 shot has green fringing all over it, which might suggest that you are slightly off perfect focus. Also, as others have suggested, make sure you are not right at the minimum focus distance.

I do not have the 85/1.2, but I have the 50/1.2, and it is clearly not as sharp at f/1.2 as it is at f/2, but does not look like your shot when used wide open, either. In fact, your test shot is so soft that I do not even need to go to 100% view to see the softness - it is already apparent when just viewing the forum thread. I am positive my 50/1.2 is better than that.

 

[Melidonia]

Maybe Nikon gives up a little bit of ultimate sharpness wide open, in exchange for more character and color rendition.

Using multiple systems with the best lenses for each, I think the same.
For photography, I prefer my Nikon S lenses over almost everything. I use my Sigma or Panasonic lenses mostly for video since the IBIS is very impressive on the S1II and S1RII.

 

[RumDiddlyRum]

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?

You seem to be comparing a number of lenses that aren't f1.2, of different focal lengths. Are we looking at a crop of the extreme corner here? And, at what distance? If you're taking a lens designed to make portraits look good with a bit of dreamy softness wide open, then.. maybe don't expect it have to have a 3600 mtf score in the far corners?

In point of fact, this lens has excellent center and midframe performace wide open, with corners sharpening up nicely by f2.8 and the lens being most fantastic at f4-5.6. Here's my receipts: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-85mm-f-1-2-s/2

This is my BOTD answer to a first time poster. Perhaps they don't understand that lenses made for different purposes render and work in different ways. I mean.. today I happened to have my cheap n cheerful 85mm AstriHori portrait lens and I tried to shoot some local birds with it. Big surprise, the autofocus wasn't stellar for this purpose. Does that mean it's a bad lens? Nope, just means it wasn't designed for that purpose. To its credit however, it did make a valiant effort and I did get a few keepers, at least.

Dead center sharpness.

Photography Life actually shows this lens fails to perform wide open.

Full body portraits are clearly not sharp at f/1.2. I just finished a shoot with this lens, and that's the reason for my post.

No issues with ANY other lenses from my kit on the exact same bodies.

When I tested both the 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2, they required being PAST f/2 to match the Sigma 105mm for portraits.

 

[BasilG]

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



[...]

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

You seem to be comparing a number of lenses that aren't f1.2, of different focal lengths. Are we looking at a crop of the extreme corner here? And, at what distance? If you're taking a lens designed to make portraits look good with a bit of dreamy softness wide open, then.. maybe don't expect it have to have a 3600 mtf score in the far corners?

In point of fact, this lens has excellent center and midframe performace wide open, with corners sharpening up nicely by f2.8 and the lens being most fantastic at f4-5.6. Here's my receipts: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-85mm-f-1-2-s/2

[...]

Dead center sharpness.

Photography Life actually shows this lens fails to perform wide open.

Full body portraits are clearly not sharp at f/1.2. I just finished a shoot with this lens, and that's the reason for my post.

Photographylife shows that this lens should be pretty good wide open. Even if it is maybe not quite as stellar as e.g. the Sony 50/1.2 GM at f/1.2, it should be better than your test shot.

[Edit]: Cameralabs has chart test shots available:

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-85mm-f1-2-s-review/2/

The centre-frame chart test shot is maybe not the sharpest result ever, but still clearly better than the test shown here.

 

[Melidonia]

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?

You seem to be comparing a number of lenses that aren't f1.2, of different focal lengths. Are we looking at a crop of the extreme corner here? And, at what distance? If you're taking a lens designed to make portraits look good with a bit of dreamy softness wide open, then.. maybe don't expect it have to have a 3600 mtf score in the far corners?

In point of fact, this lens has excellent center and midframe performace wide open, with corners sharpening up nicely by f2.8 and the lens being most fantastic at f4-5.6. Here's my receipts: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-85mm-f-1-2-s/2

This is my BOTD answer to a first time poster. Perhaps they don't understand that lenses made for different purposes render and work in different ways. I mean.. today I happened to have my cheap n cheerful 85mm AstriHori portrait lens and I tried to shoot some local birds with it. Big surprise, the autofocus wasn't stellar for this purpose. Does that mean it's a bad lens? Nope, just means it wasn't designed for that purpose. To its credit however, it did make a valiant effort and I did get a few keepers, at least.

Dead center sharpness.

Photography Life actually shows this lens fails to perform wide open.

Full body portraits are clearly not sharp at f/1.2. I just finished a shoot with this lens, and that's the reason for my post.

No issues with ANY other lenses from my kit on the exact same bodies.

When I tested both the 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2, they required being PAST f/2 to match the Sigma 105mm for portraits.

For what it's worth, my 85mm f1.2S is a bit sharper than both my 50mm and 35mm f1.2S wide open. My 35mm is slightly worse than my 50mm.
Digitalcameraworld reviews confirms my finding.
If your 85mm is softer than your 50mm and 35mm, maybe your 85mm is a bad copy.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

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?

IMO most fast lenses are not necessarily sharp wide open. I don't own the 1.2's (although I've played with them a few times) but I always generally step down my 1.8's to f/2 at least when shooting to ensure perhaps a sharper image. I would say most super fast lenses are not necessarily sharp wide open, some of the 1.8's might be an exception but I think faster lenses it's probably more true. Now my 2.8's and f4's I'll shoot wide open generally without an issue but my "super fast" lenses I like to step them down a tad.

--
* PLEASE NOTE: I generally unsubscribe from forums/comments after a period of time has passed, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. *

 

[commiebiker]

Even at base ISOs 1/15th at f 1.2 seems like a pretty dark environment for testing

 

[Rodenmg]

This is approaching the extreme of exotic lenses. I do not use these lenses at these apertures for macro like pixel peeping. That’s not what they are designed for and not what they do best. That said, the op’s example looks worse than it should for center of the frame. If he shot three examples of this lens and all looked like this I feel something is wrong.

--
... Mike
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/