Nikon Z 50mm 1.2 - Surprising Results!

The difference is negligible in my opinion and certainly not worth it for anyone without extremely deep pockets (Russ apparently! 😉).

Interestingly though, the DOF difference in the split screen section at the end of the video looked like way more than 1 stop. Was the 1.8 really at 1.8?

Great buy!

You know those lens hoods are carefully designed to ensure they perform as they should on a specific lens. You shouldn’t just attach a hood from another lens just because it fits.

50/1.2S dream lens

I did the same with my 1.2 and managed to find one like new for £1800 and agree with both points of view but as always it’s based on use case. No it’s not necessary but wow what a fabulous piece of kit to have and use and that a majority of clients won’t know the difference but that’s not the point because I do and I know that I’ve done the best I possibly can. Not for everyone but for those that do will love it 👍

Z9 offers 2 stops faster shutter speeds so much light can be dealt with wide open

You could use an ND filter in brighter scenes so that you can shoot the lens at f1.2. Kase has a magnetic filter system that allows you to quickly switch the filter on and off. The f1.2 lens also has a tiny better contrast than the f1.8. But I must say that the f1.8 lens is a hell of a lens for the price point, especially that the differences are not that big.

Guys, you are great but please don't zoom into the video, it makes me dizzy. I know the zoom is very gradual and slight, but it bothers

Love the 1.8 for street photography, but the 1.2 is far to big and conspicuous for that

Why do old British blokes love Nikons?

Why do old British blokes love Nikons?

Have you tried the Viltrox range of lenses on the z mount, quality lenses at a fraction of the price of Nikon.

What I learned from your comparison: That this very fast lens is not for me! In respect to sharpness it does not clearly outperform my beloved Z 50/1.8. The bokeh in the background is more creamy, yes indeed, but on a much lesser degree as I thought it would be. So the only advantage I see for this lens is at very low light, at dawn and dusk, and for wedding photographers in the church maybe, and at night scenes of course, but even then F1.8 with some higher ISO will do the job, or the tripod.

What hood are you using on the 50 1.2?

Thanks for suggesting this video. Have you tried it on the Z9? It’s a perfect balance (if heavy on a wedding day), I much much prefer it to the 1.8 for the character/the warmth. Like you, I’ve kept my 1.8 but I seem to be collecting Z lenses!

It's those middle distance couples and group shots that really show off the 50 f/1.2. The background look is great in the wedding gourp shots you showed. I don't think this lens shines as a portrait lens; that's what an 85mm is for. But, for group and full length it's amazing. Thanks guys.

Both are great lenses with different use cases. Another area where the f/1.2 performs better is in backlit situations, which I personally shoot a lot in. I like that at f/1.2 the lens is softer for portraits. It’s just the right combo of sharpness and yet still flattering for skin. For me at f/1.2 subjects pop out ever so subtly at medium distances vs. the f/1.8. Also, if there is a textured background like tall grass, pine leaves, etc. there is a certain look to the bokeh, particularly in the corners when shooting 5-7 feet (~2 meters) from the subject.

As an amateur I will definitely go for the 1.8.

I have the 50 1.8 and I absolutely love it - so it would be almost impossible for me to justify the cost / size / weight of the 1.2. Keeping in mind too, the 50 1.8 is actually my first 50 I've owned in decades of photography - so I haven't been the biggest 50 fan. Glad I have one now though! :)

But I do prefer the 85, so I might feel differently when the 85 1.2 is released. But again, the 1.8's are SO good... they're just too close (for my needs) to justify that huge cost difference.

With a lot of money in my pockets I would have no doubts and get the 1.2, it is superior and magic, but in real world most people won't even think about getting it for that amount of money. 1.8 is still good enough for most situations.

I wonder how they'd compare with the 58mm f1.4 G

I loved the Bokeh comparison while videoing at the end. My biggest question is when the 85 1.2 comes out would that be a better focal length to take advantage of the Bokeh then the 50? It’s hard to distinguish between the Bokeh depth of field based on the millimeter on the lens versus the compression I guess we’ll have to wait and see when that lens comes out. I saw it in a little bit when you flashed the 105 1.4 on the screen.

And heres me downsizeing to 2 Z30 with a 13mm Viltrox and a 40mm F2 - had it with heavy equipment - having a lot more fun with lighter gear

What the spec of the computer used for your lightroom

Your sharpness test right at the start is flawed. The Z7ii missed focus, it's just that at 1.4/1.8 the DOF is large enough for it not to matter. If you used a Z9 you'd get different results. The 50/1.2 is a lens you love more the more you use it. Oh and on the daylight shooting due to the 1/8000s limitation. That will hopefully disappear with the Ziii bodies like it has with the Z9 :)

I prefer the 7artisans 50mm f/1.05 which is MF but 4 times cheaper and it produces fabulous images wide open 💝
Edit: How come you can't shoot outside wide open? VNDs exists, Freewell, Kase, McKinnon end etc 🤷

Excellent video and informative

I'm doing the "one lens challenge" with this one in Toronto next month, will let you know how that goes

I have the 24-70, 70-200 and 50 1.2. And I’ve had the 35 and 85 1.8 s. I have to say the 50 1.2 is the best lens I’ve ever used. The character of the photo’s are so gorgeous. They make amateur photos look professional.

Hi Russ . How do you make the must of the 1.2 in weddings? could you do a video just about that? btw 35 mm S 1. 2 will be in the market. As a weding hibrid photo-videographer which will be best to buy? Thank you masters.

Z 9 with the 1/32,000 minimum shutter speed would allow you to shoot that 50/1.2 S in virtually any natural lighting condition without resorting to ND filters.

A great thread. I have both the 35/1.8 and the 85/1.8 and their brilliant. But yes, the 50/1.2 is probably too expensive to really justify. As a professional photographer I’m running two systems in a Z6ii and two 850’s which makes things complicated. At this point I simply don’t trust the Z bodies for consistent focus performance which is a shame.

very nice review! I own both and agree totally

Nice video and nicely filmed, but you ought to work on your film editing skills. The constant zooming and switching between lenses is horrible in the later part of the video. Not to mention that the one footage clearly is back-focused...

I’m still torn if I should get this special lens 50 1.2 or a 24-70 2.8?

Do you have buyers remorse?

I agree that your client will never notice the difference and it is huge!! Would never buy the 1.2

I recently purchased the 50mm f1.2 (it was on sale) and I love it. It definitely has a character of its own.

PS: Now that you've purchased the Z8 you won't have a problem with overexposing at f1.2 as the maximum shutter speed is 1/32000.

Sharpness is not always desirable in portraits. N’cest Pas? You’re clients and friends don’t necessarily want to see what they really look like ; but rather what they like to look like. That’s where I think the Canons excel; a little more smoothing in the software, and less color smudges with the AA filters. Hey Just sayin my feelings. Thanks. 😅

Just got the 50mm 1.8 used for $450. Great lens so far.

The voice of reason, Loz, versus the young idealistic Russ. Both viewpoints make sense to me.
📷😎👍

The way he flipped the lens in his hand, wow

i like the 2. opinion. what a great discussion.
---
oh boy... ever thought that die 1,8 isn't a real 1,8?? maybe try it with f2 oder even 2,8 if you really tell you into the story of "charakter" to be honest, i couln't spot the "charakter". for me this is just justifying spending so much money for such little difference...and imagine how little it is againt a 1.4 ....depending on the construction and aperture the battle could be very close! but there is one diffence: a sigma art 50 is way smaller and cheaper so there is money left for a fantastic 135 or so.

is it a keeper? i think in most cases it is, who would say it was a bad choice in the first place? i nearly almost kept lenses, the regret comes later if you think about a nice short trip or good food ;)

You can always try to maximise the effect, just 1 step closer...or another. so your clients will pay you NOT for the 1.2 in 98% i guess... so why bothering about it? cause you like the weight? the size? i think its more realistic to be closer with the 1,8 instead of the huge brick nobody want's to have in his face.

How come you’re metered correctly for the faces but not the sky? Are you not using strobes for a paid wedding shoot? Your backgrounds are completely blown out. I enjoy your videos, but that was surprising to see for a paid wedding shoot. 😬🤷‍♂️

Does it have a tight at mount

I appreciate you guys. I like your analysis and witty banter. Have you considered using an ND filter when overexposed?

For me, I cannot justify the additional cost of f/1.2, but If I was in your shoes, I may.

Keep it up guys, and dont be afraid to experiment. I wish you success!

The low light test sealed it for me, I love the low iso look and I shoot quite a lot in low light, so I'm going to save up for the 1.2. Thank you for showing the comparison, other reviews didn't really sell me too much on the 1.2 but this was really clear and showed me all the things I find important!

Absolutely fascinating stuff. I am actively looking for a 50mm prime for use with my Z8 so also completely relevant. Whilst the price and bulk of the 1.8 is really attractive, one very important use-case for me is astrophotography, i.e. landscape + Milky Way, both tracked and stacked, though 50mm is ideal for MW panoramas. As you say, it's all about individual use-case and mine absolutely has to include very low-light, so that extra stop that the f/1.2 boasts sort of seals the deal. Thank you for the very interesting insights.

i got the 50 1.8 on EBAY fpr 250 Bucks in excellent condition...and MAN is it good. Shot Canons RF 50 1.8 before that was absolute garbage in comparison...this 50 1.8 renders images not even the Sony 50 1.2 could... however, it ofc. lacks the insane isolation that one had...Nikkors 1.2 is nice, and i "see the difference" but for THAT size id take the 85 instead and get even more of that dreamy look for the effort...its just too big man...