Nikon Z 50mm F1.2 S sample gallery

Even if the DOF is practically same when factoring lens to subject distance, longer lens will "compress" background more by cropping it, and also magnify the OOF areas compared to shorter lens.

Two completely different lenses, but OK?

Of course, longer the focal length shallower the DOF but the perspective changes as well. For wider angel view with shallow DOP the only option is to have a wider aperture lens.

The 105 1.4 is my favorite lens. I don’t care where it was made (Thailand) what adaptors I use (sometimes FTZ, sometimes I just use it with f-mount) or the materials (plastic was right for weight prove me wrong). Its images and af speed and sharpness and ergonomics are supreme.

Gyms are not a solution for everyone. If you suffer from chronic back pain for instance, as you get older, you discover this more and more. I wish some manufacturer would do a range of high quality autofocus light weight lenses for a full frame sensor.

Oh there are plenty lightweight lenses, especially if you go down a notch to APSC or M43. But even FF has them. Just not the f/1.2 bokeh monsters with near perfect lens characteristics.

sir_c - that is exactly my point. For full frame, and highest quality, then it must weigh a tonne.

@watsOn You can"t say that some specific aperture is sufficient for subject isolation... It all depends on the distance to that subject... If your subject is just 1 meter away, an f1.8 lens will do great. However, if your subject is a standing person 6 meters away (environmental portrait), an f1.8 lens won't give desires results... You may want in that case a lens even faster than f1.2... Check the first photo of dpreview's gallery!!

Legacy lenses were generally soft wide open, so for a decent quality you need stop down a bit, a 1.4 was really a n f2.in a sense.
New lenses are sharper in the edges and at maximum aperture. Long story short 1.8 lenses are actually 1.8 & sharp , not 2.8 & Sharp.

@IdM photography I understand your point, but I wonder to what extent would you like to blur the environment in an environmental portrait? Just curious, because I think a 1.8 prime would do just fine for that. Under low light circumstances, there's obviously a gain in a larger aperture though

@Michiel953

Exactly, the best example is of course the 'fashion' industry

M Lammerse: Not just the fashion industry. Cars, bicycles...

But I guess the idea makes for a convenient derogatory, snide remark

..or in the audio business where each doubling of prices yields a 10% improvement at best.

Pink and flat skin tones

Are you talking about the artificial people? They are dummies. (^_^)

Oh, that pink. It's a digital photography problem that occurs seasonally. I shoot with Nikons and in winter and early spring when white people have lost their tan the camera exaggerates the redness in their skin. As they spend more time in the sun and get their color back it's less of a problem but for several months it's a giant pain in the neck.
The usual method of getting rid of it is to throw on a hue/saturation adjustment layer, select the red in their skin correct it.

@MrBrightSide - sounds like too much hassle to me. My "latest" Nikon is the D610 that always made people look too yellow/ orange with a hint of green which is sth. I wasnt "sensitive" to up to and including the D700. I always had sth. against fiddling around with the output of the "machine". I stopped "upgrading" Nikon bodies thereafter.

I agree, but Sony pushed it's way in the duopoly by FF mirrorless, when Canon and Nikon were milking their existing DSLR mounts. Short term it made a lot of money, long term they lost 1/3 of the pie. Now, for the most part, the 3 brands are more similar than different, and being different enough is hard to define.

@mferencz: It can only be a problem for you, as a (presumed) Sony enthusiast.

It says for every image "distortion and chromatic aberration corrections enabled".

An f1.2 lens will always produce the same DoF. In that sense, these look just like my 50mm f1.2 wide open shots on my Fuji, although of course the TT Artisan's $100 special couldn't come close to this in sharpness, etc. Again: strictly and only comparing DoF and not any other optical quality.

But whether it's on m43 or GFX, the same aperture of lens produces always the same DoF. It's just the bigger sensor lets it do so over a larger area.

Mr. JeffinVancouver needs to bone up on his optical education so he can understand that Mr. Bolton is absolutely correct.

JeffinVancouver needs to put the 50mm f1.2 on his Nikon and shoot it. Then put the Nikon in crop mode. Take the same picture, as in with the same object in the center.

Now overlay the two. With the center object in the center in each case. Then try to tell me that *just the depth of field* is different. The FoV is different, of course. So the full frame picture will have a larger frame of image. They will not be the same picture, but the DoF will be the same.

#thisisbenji I'm not saying it's the same picture. Never said that. All I'm saying is that, within the frame of each format, the same focal length of f1.2 lens will make the same amount of background blur.

I agree Mr Bolton, physics dictates that I do of course, but the OP said: blah blah 1.2/1.4 with such optical excellence, or similar.

Unsure he was talking about some variance in DoF, which of course is impossible.

For 50mm glass it is

It’s not a manual focus 1.8 of yester year. It’s not another brand with focus breathing and/or lesser optics. It’s 1.2 with little compromise. Sigma’s 40 & 85 1.4 are bigger and heavier. If you shoot once a week or review specs on YouTube, yeah, you might have a problem with 1 kilo. If you shoot regularly your body just adapts and you get stronger. Plus, at the end of the day there is the incredible Z 50 1.8 that is Otus-like sharp too.

@m_black: the sigma 85/1.4 dg dn is like 630g. And it’s an amazing lens with stellar performance.

Agreed, none of my old nifty fifties ever made anything like this kind of 3D pop :-D But they were all f1.8 or 2.

In fairness, the vast majority of customers do not care about focus breathing in a lens like this and would far, far rather have a 30% lighter lens.

How would you know what “most users” want? Sony pushes the video aspect of their cameras. Sony made a big deal about focus breathing compensation. It was a camera “feature” in many 1st and 3rd party promo/YouTube reviews. They made sure people knew about it. No product is perfect, and the compromise they made to get a light weight 50 1.2 is focus breathing. Nikon’s compromise was weight and length to get almost no focus breathing. But the Nikon 50 is really not that heavy. It’s made to sound heavy by those who find a kilo heavy, but really, it’s not heavy.

m_black: Calm down, the focus breathing on the GM-50 isn't an issue at all, not to mention that photographers absolutely don't care about that at all, and also not to mention that even people who do video also care not that much. So CTMRIguy is absolutely correct.

@m_black Focus breathing isn’t an issue for some video shooters. It depends on your use case

As I said in another comment there are lots of options on emount if a user absolutely needs a non focus breathing lens. Sony choose to make their premium 50mm lens smaller, lighter and able to shoot 30fps. Nikon went for a design that corrects for focus breathing. Different philosophies in lens design and that’s ok. I personally prefer Sony’s approach and others will prefer Nikon’s.

I can't say it is completely true what Sony and Nikon users would really prefer, because a Nikon users don't have the choice and also the Sony user don't have the choice. Nikon user has the 1KG 50mm lens and that's it. To choose the GM 50mm that means to change ecosystems and some people do, I could be wrong but Sony sales number do show to be more healthy than Nikon's sales numbers.

I’m plenty calm thanks. Just addressing all the Sony comments, again, in a non-Sony article. It doesn’t take long to hear “great, but Sony….” So I’m here to balance the algorithms. I have the Z 50 1.2. It’s an incredible lens. It’s weight and size are not a big deal. Conversely, I’ve tried a friend’s a1 and 50 1.2 and my knuckles on my shooting hand’s fingers constantly hit the lens. No bueno. Where as I can hold a Z9 & 50 1.2 all day. Comfortable and balanced. The Sony commenters here are stuck on metrics that don’t always matter and speak to the fora like they’re trying to prevent a purchase like another brand having a great lens makes you nervous or something. Sheesh.

What separates the Canon RF 50 1.2 apart from the other two modern 1.2 is that it has a staggering high price, it is big and heavy but still focus breathesssss, and bokeh quality is not as good as the other two lenses.

So the award of overpriced 1.2 lens has to go to Canon!!!

Well, I speak from the experience of having an SL2 with the 50mm Summilux SL and I can say unequivocally that while the output is gorgeous it is too heavy (and it is not even f1.2). I am glad you do not find your Nikon that heavy but I really do not see the downside of shedding 30% of the weight when IQ is so good.

My comment on "most users" not caring about the focus breathing is based on a) most reviews say the breathing is minor anyways, b) it is irrelevant for photography, and c) a 50mm f1.2 is not a go-to lens for video for most people. Is it relevant to some? Sure it is. Is it relevant to the majorty? No - certainly not as relevant as cutting the size and the weight by 30%.

I get that there is a backlash against making cameras and lenses lighter and smaller. Nikon seems to be leaning into that with heavier and bulkier cameras and lenses, and perhaps they will find success with that niche.

As multiple system user, if i am in the market for a 50 1.2 today the Sony is a clear winner for me, yes, many people mentioned focus breathing, but for my usage, I don't care about it at all, but the smaller form factor makes more difference. I would even go this far and putting the 50 F1.2 GM on my Z9 with a adapter, in fact, I am using all my GM and Voigtlander E-mount prime this way now, because I love those GM lens but don't care much about the Sony bodies.

@ctrmiguy… Nikon’s niche is not making bigger and heavier lenses. Their niche is making great lenses. Their f/4 and 2.8 zooms are smaller than their DSLR equivalents. (Minus the 70-200). You make a lot of generalizations about “many” this, “most” that. But here is one to ponder… many don’t find the weight of the 50 1.2 at all too heavy or cumbersome. I don’t. And bonus points that it shares an 82mm front filter size with the 24-70 2.8. I do understand that some like less weight. But Sony is full of compromises in their ergonomics that make their lighter system less comfortable to hold and use for 14 hours straight. Mass is objective. Weight is subjective. We should move away from opinions on weight because not everyone cares about 400 extra grams vs a competitor. And, if someone is not switching, the argument is completely irrelevant anyway.

Actually, Nikon users do have the choice.. they can adapt Sony lenses to their cameras.. things even out.

@m_black knuckles hitting lens was a big reason I never bought into Sony. I have big hands, yet it was never a problem in m43 or even the deep grip Fuji X-H1. And some of those XF lenses are pretty good sized.

Ergonomic assessment of a camera is a very individualized thing - I totally agree, m_black.

I honestly do not believe, though, that anyone would not want lighter lenses if possible. I really don't. And a 30% difference probably is enough to make people start to look at different systems.

You get what you pay for in both weight and optical correction. I think it's a safe assumption that Nikon made that lens exactly to the gram, the weight it needed to be in order to achieve their optical objectives.

The other more likely possibility is that having shed so much market share and so many engineers, Nikon cannot keep up with the relentless pace of progress in optical development.

Yeah, that's why their new flagship model is showing Sony-with their vast mountain of Playstation cash-a thing or two about the relentless pace of development.

I think Nikon has just the right amount of engineers.

The Sony GM-50 1.2 breathes like and asthmatic 1 pack a day smoker. It may not bother your but you can clearly see that some sacrifices are made for the smaller size and weight. If you want to be a perfectionist and eliminate those sacrifices you end up with a bigger lens.

https://vimeo.com/546416402

@Mr Bolton
Aside from the sensor, which Sony made, what exactly is the technological breakthrough you feel that the Z9 has made that is showing up Sony?

I do not want to get into a company vs company argument as I really have no particular affinity for Sony, but I am curious what you feel is the major achievement here.

@MyReality I'm a professional. That's why I can use a manual lens. Amateurs need top of the line gear to compensate for their lack of knowledge and skill

So people have " skill " don't need high quality lens, only those don't have skill buys top of the line gears, damn, I should trash my Z9.

By the way, I mainly use Zeiss Voigtlander and Loxia on my Sony system too, but I wouldn't go this far and say amateurs need top of line gear to compensate for their lack of knowledge and skill, good gears can help everyone, including the professional, why you think those pros covering the Olympic game with 1D/D5 not those Canon Rebel and Nikon D5600? they got all the skills in the world.

@Dan_168 I didn't say professionals don't need high end equipment. I said many amateurs do have them and most buy them for ostentation. And browsing the z9 groups on Facebook is a good example. LOL. Too much money so badly wasted.

@madeinlisboa - I was implying that amateurs could save a lot of money by buying less expensive gear.
If pros can make money with less expensive gear, more power to them.
Yes, it can be wasted money for ostentation or to feed one's ego.
Where I live, I have seen a lot of amateurs with $4000+ of gear hanging from their shoulder, but they hardly take a picture. They are just proud that their partner bought them the gear as a birthday present.

People love to talk poorly of the TTartisan and 7artisan lenses, but 1 they’re fun and economically viable. I think some are well made despite optical imperfections, but honestly, no other companies are innovating like them. I suspect they will go beyond sigma and 1st parties over years and iterations.

The RF 28-70 F/2L is also absurdly large but for a reason. Its an F/2 zoom. The Nikon 50 1.2 has no reason to be that large.
When it comes to rendering I was talking about the RF 50.

The 50mm f1.2 S is significantly better than the RF including focus breathing control, that’s why it’s larger.

Besides Nikon has an amazing and very compact 50mm f1.8 S which is why they didn’t have to compromise the f1.2 as Canon did.

Confirmation bias? Whatever I buy must be the best I have ever own! Even Leica! Mmhh..Personally I find the short too soft wide open. But hey, your mileage may indeed differ.

@MyReality: I think you are trying too hard to be a scientist here )):: What data are you talking about? Any why would you need data? I guess there is too much camera gear in your head ):::

If you want smaller 50's, they exist in spades.
There's thankfully also a fast 50 (Noct).

This is a very nice rendering, fast lens that's also technically almost perfect and is, in my opinion, still compact and light enough to use often.

I've got the 1.2GM, which is very nice, but will get this for the Z bodies.

I own the 50mm f1.2 GM and I for one am very happy that its not heavier and larger. I personally don’t care about focus breathing performance as I don’t shoot video and even if I did there are other options on emount that perform better in that area including cheap cine glass. That’s the beauty of emount is that users have that option.

For Nikon I suppose they have optimise their lenses for focus breathing as aside from a couple of Voigtländer lenses there’s no other choice on Z mount.

Frankly, Sony 50/1.2 GM looks better to me in every respect, it's smaller, lighter, sharper, smoother bokeh, and less CA. It's also $100 cheaper (before discounts). If I wanted 50mm lens, I'd rather buy Sony and use it with TZE adapter. But I won't buy either as I almost never want that focal length.

That Sony doesn’t render anything like this Nikon. It’s a great lens but looks much more like the Canon counterpart imo. The Nikon has a much nicer look than either.
Lens diagram different too. I bet a lot of the r&d that went into the insane Noct lens is inherited by this 50mm.

@SNJ I actually played around with a friends 50mm GM adapted to a Z body. Surprisingly worked extremely well. There’s unlimited options for Z mount.

@Einride
I have looked at plenty of images from both lenses and actually prefer the Sony, but I really do not believe there is much difference honestly.

I have the Summilux SL 50mm and I love that lens but I cannot deny that in 2022 it does not represent good value and it is too large and heavy.

The GM 50mm f1.2 is the only Sony GM lenses that renders really nice IMHO.

I still prefer the focus transition of the Nikon but the Sony is pretty close.

The Canon RF is an ok lens but clearly behind the Nikon and Sony. It’s also a bit older.

I would agree about the earlier GMs but everything since the 24mm f1.4 and 135mm f1.8 has been fantastic. This new generation have a very uniform rendering, and it is great.

I actually think that many Nikon Z lenses have beautiful rendering also - I just am questioning the huge weight disparity.

Minimal to no focus breathing isn't just a plus for video, it's useful for stacking/blending which I do for landscapes, architecture etc. to extend DOF.

It's a benefit and whilst its usefulness is prioritised differently, I value it and I'm happy to carry a little extra weight to have it by design, not corrected for with software.

People that complain about the weight have a valid point, however, it (the Nikon) is a light lens coming in significantly less than, for example, a 1.4/105, 1.8/135, 2/200, 1.4/85, 2.8/70-200, 2.8/24-70 etc. most of which are used regularly by many photographers and hand carried.

By 50 standards, yes, it's heavy, but in general it is not a heavy or large lens.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that Sony's versions of all of those lenses, even the 70-200 f2.8 MkII, are lighter than the Nikon 50 f1.2.

@jeff The Nikon 50 1.2 is sharper than the canon RF version. At least the copies I owned. By a noticeable amount (when zooming) with any stopping down. The RF has better near MFD sharpness.

Actually, people with no sense of humour is a more common problem here.

I have a friend who has this, and keeps confusing the lens with his 70-200 :)

I mean, if shallow DoF is the ultimate goal, it's really hard to beat longer glass. The 105/1.4 or 70-200/2.8 would probably be better choices for background obliteration. This 50/1.2 does provide nice shallow DoF at a easier working distance and is probably a joy to use in low-light conditions. Still at $2,000 it's very much a niche lens imo, I think I'd rather spend a few more pennies and just go with a 70-200.

Agree with you both. F1.4 used to be a great sweet spot but it’s becoming rarer.

I also agree with using 100mm+ focal lengths for background obliteration. Yes, working distance increases and perspective changes, but oh well.

I still think that the Nikon z 50/1.8 is more than the sum of its parts. It’s “only” an f1.8 but the bokakkeh is super nice and it’s sharp wide open. Great rendering and relatively cheap.

The 1.8s are awesome these days. I have the 35, 50, and 85 and honestly they're great! I had the G versions of these previously and it's amazing how different they are. The Z-mount primes are amazing straight from F1.8, where I always felt the need to stop the F-mount glass down to F4.0 for similar results. The fact that the modern glass is so strong wide-open kind of makes the need for wider apertures less relevant.

Having just shot for 4 days Japanese festivals with the 50mm f1.2 on the Z9 this lens is just magical.

The colors in particular, resulting from the outstanding LoCA control are simply breathtaking.

For environmental work this may be the best lens ever designed IMHO.

It's always easier to pull sharpness back in post than it is to add sharpness that isn't there. I'll take too sharp any day of the week.

A long focal length is not always practical. If one is shooting groom or bride prep, 105 1.4 or 70-200 is too long to use. The 50 1.2 can give similar effects without having to stand in the hallway outside a bedroom. But I find there is a certain look the 50 has that can’t and perhaps don’t want to be replications of longer lenses. Any focal length over 100mm requires some working distance and has two effects; 1. People just look far away from the photographer. There is a certain look of ‘unattachment’, I call it. Plus you have to raise your voice to give instructions. 2. Fast, longer than 100mm can obliterate backgrounds to the point where it doesn’t even look real. It could be a canvas background that gets used for school photos for all we can see. I’ve seen portraits with the 200 f/2 and it looks ridiculous. A 50 1.2 blurs the background just enough to make the subject stand out but still makes the background discernible to the viewer.

lol, I used to work with 3 film cameras around my neck that were made of nothing but metal and glass all day, every day.

Some younger photographers perhaps need to work out a little, eat some protein and/or take a spoonful of cement.

It’s quite similar to carrying most 24-70 f2.8 lenses. Of which tens of thousands have been carried around for decades.

To me, f/1.2 looks as sharp as any other aperture judging by this gallery.

Look sharp to me judging by the AP's used.

DOF falls off fast at f1.2. it's very sharp for what's in focus.

I think it's incredibly sharp for such aperture, actually.

This is the 20th comment confirming it's sharp where it's in focus.

The transitional areas are also very well handled, blur is fantastic, the overall drawing is glorious.

Considering how technically good it is, they've managed to keep it from being sterile, so well done.

wcan
From what I have seen this lens is sharper at f1.8 than the 50/1.8S, which is one of the sharpest 50mm. From all the tests I’ve seen this f1.2S is extremely sharp, with very good sharpness from wide open

The lens is extremely sharp. Look at the sites measuring it.

There’s one outlier site that says it’s not that sharp wide open… which is clearly not the case.

Owning the 50mm f1.2 S it’s as sharp at f1.2 as many other lenses at f2.0 and one of the sharpest lens on the planet btwn 2.8 and 4.

But this extreme sharpness comes with the smoothest focus transition there is which results in uniquely 3D images.