35mm f1.2S officially Announced

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Nimi said:
I agree with Lance. In my experience, the expensive lenses, regardless of iris size, have far superior optics and IQ. It's true for the Plena, the 85/1.2 and the 50/1.2 in the Z mount and for the four expensive 1.4s in the F mount.
Click to expand...
And that's the thing, it's not just the shallower DOF, it's the step up in overall IQ that comes with this caliber of glass. Like you say, the Plena, the 85 f1.2 and 50 f1.2 all exhibit this step up in IQ and why we pay the extra price. If you're going to pay more for the extra half a stop, then you want that extra IQ as well.
 
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
jhallettbc said:
It is totally a matter of taste and how discerning we want to be. I know I would be able to see a difference but the extra cost would definitely not be worth it to me .
Click to expand...
It is a classic example of the Law of Diminishing Returns. Additionally, I suspect it is only a matter of time before AI programs in the camera's processor will make the differences between f/1.2, f/1.4, & f/1.8 insignificant. And, if Nikon is reluctant to add that element to its processors (in order to preserve the sale of those f/1.2 lenses), some clever programmer will make it seamlessly possible in post-processing.
 
Member's gallery
spamalot1950 said:
It is a classic example of the Law of Diminishing Returns. Additionally, I suspect it is only a matter of time before AI programs in the camera's processor will make the differences between f/1.2, f/1.4, & f/1.8 insignificant. And, if Nikon is reluctant to add that element to its processors (in order to preserve the sale of those f/1.2 lenses), some clever programmer will make it seamlessly possible in post-processing.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have a relatively authentic image than an AI-generated/modified one, and hopefully with the C2PA they're slowly integrating into the system, it'll be possible to tell the difference. But to each their own preference. There's also a very subjective tolerance to what is modified: is colour grading fine? Is retouching skin spots OK? What about removing glare? And so on. :)

Besides, I think that people who buy those more expensive lenses don't want to spend too much time in post-processing if they can avoid it, so there will always be an audience for those products. But I agree that those small improvements cost more and more in weight, size and price.
 
Member's gallery
Unscript said:
I'd rather have a relatively authentic image than an AI-generated/modified one, and hopefully with the C2PA they're slowly integrating into the system, it'll be possible to tell the difference. But to each their own preference. There's also a very subjective tolerance to what is modified: is colour grading fine? Is retouching skin spots OK? What about removing glare? And so on. :)

Besides, I think that people who buy those more expensive lenses don't want to spend too much time in post-processing if they can avoid it, so there will always be an audience for those products. But I agree that those small improvements cost more and more in weight, size and price.
Click to expand...
All true, but it's worth recalling that 40 years ago there were some who felt that real photographers didn't need auto-focus. It wasn't a universal sentiment, but it was there. Times change; attitudes change. :)
 
Member's gallery
Lance B said:
Not so much for nature, but just general street photography, landscapes, night scenes, video, environmental portraiture etc. Some samples with the Z 35 f1.8S, I would have loved an f1.2 version:

original.jpg


original.jgp


original.jpg


original.jpg


original.jpg


I was wanting to isolate the lighthouse at f1.8 and it did to a degree but at f1.2 in this light would have been much better

original.jpg
Click to expand...
I used to shoot with my old 35mm a lot on the D3 and then got the 35 kit lens when I bought a Z6. Rarely used it (cause I rarely used the Z6) and then again rarely used it when the Z9 came into my life, then the 50 1.2 showed up in my bag, and well the 35 is now on long term loan to a friend. BUT these shots are peeling back my attempt to ignore the new 1.2 35, reminding me how much I like the focal length. Thanks for the temptation Lance LOL
 
Member's gallery
ssheipel said:
I used to shoot with my old 35mm a lot on the D3 and then got the 35 kit lens when I bought a Z6. Rarely used it (cause I rarely used the Z6) and then again rarely used it when the Z9 came into my life, then the 50 1.2 showed up in my bag, and well the 35 is now on long term loan to a friend. BUT these shots are peeling back my attempt to ignore the new 1.2 35, reminding me how much I like the focal length. Thanks for the temptation Lance LOL
Click to expand...
I also really like the 35mm perspective. On a full frame mirrorless using DX you also have a 52mm with about 20 MP. The only thing that puts me off about the Z f1.2 is the size and weight. I have a Voigtlander 35 f2 II apo-lanther and it seems ridiculously small in comparison even to the Z f1.8 I love it and it will be my go-to for street photography for the foreseeable future. It is also super sharp for my purposes.
 
Member's gallery
jhallettbc said:
I also really like the 35mm perspective. On a full frame mirrorless using DX you also have a 52mm with about 20 MP. The only thing that puts me off about the Z f1.2 is the size and weight. I have a Voigtlander 35 f2 II apo-lanther and it seems ridiculously small in comparison even to the Z f1.8 I love it and it will be my go-to for street photography for the foreseeable future. It is also super sharp for my purposes.
Click to expand...
Yes, the wise thing is to keep the money in my pocket and get the z35 1.8 back from my friend and give my arms a rest from carrying the plena or 50 1.2 when just strolling about the street for photos :)
 
Member's gallery
spamalot1950 said:
It is a classic example of the Law of Diminishing Returns. Additionally, I suspect it is only a matter of time before AI programs in the camera's processor will make the differences between f/1.2, f/1.4, & f/1.8 insignificant. And, if Nikon is reluctant to add that element to its processors (in order to preserve the sale of those f/1.2 lenses), some clever programmer will make it seamlessly possible in post-processing.
Click to expand...
I've already messed around with the lightroom depth mapping and adding bokeh to F8 on the 28-400. Posted the shots in a few places. Nobody noticed the manipulation. So I can see this becoming a thing for lenses like that if not already. AI can probably even replicate bokeh from any lens with training to be applied to any image, want Plena Bokeh for your kit lens, here you go. The only way that would not happen is for all of us to stop using image sharing sites where they hoover up the images for Ai training.

For image authentication, Film, we already have that haha. It would be pretty interesting to have encrypted SOOC files that you can't edit and can only be printed on authentication printers or some kind of authenticated only flickr site or social media.
 
Member's gallery
The DOF at f/1.2 wth a 35mm focal length is a very real limitation and the larger aperture may improve low light autofocus performance but with more OOF images resulting. Focusing on a person's eyes there nose or an ear or their partner may be OOF. DOF with a camera to subject distance of 4 feet at f/1.2 is less than 2 inches. Even with a 24mm f/1.4 lens I used it primarily with a f/2 or smaller aperture to have the DOF needed for individuals and for couples.

So far I have not been impressed with real AI output which is lacking sophistication and usually is the same programs but with a new moniker to boost sales.
 
Member's gallery
Unscript said:
I'd rather have a relatively authentic image than an AI-generated/modified one
Click to expand...
i agree and it was just recently i was reminded that with the ai stuff there can be a very thin line between a smart and decent process and making %!$& up.

i was editing some event photos taken in pretty poor lighting so i run everything through a denoise cycle.

in the past i used topaz because it was what was available and got decent results but i understood you needed to not overdo it otherwise it would turn the image into plastic.

when lr denoise came out i switched to it because it seemed more “neutral”. it didn’t seem to add sharpening or modify colors, just a decent, contextual cleanup of noise.

well, when pixel peeping at these pictures that are on the edge of being useable, i see that when push comes to shove, lr denoise will make %#$& up, too.

and then it comes back up me, duh, of course, it’s intrinsic to the process that it’s guessing what to do in any given situation and it’s a fine line between that and making %#$& up.

Unscript said:
and hopefully with the C2PA they're slowly integrating into the system, it'll be possible to tell the difference.
Click to expand...
yes, but… i suspect stuff that happens before the image is written will be a bit invisible.

my understanding is canon is doing nr against the raw files for example. we can imagine this getting more ai driven and also baked into the original image.

certainly we can expect more and more computational processing and it may be hard to really know exactly what the impact is.
 
Member's gallery
I like the idea of this lens but I don't know how it fits in to what I currently do. I guess I would like to rent one at some point to put it through its paces and see how it works for me, but that is low priority for me right now. I am still heavily focused on wildlife and long telephoto lenses so this is the opposite direction.

I like the idea that Nikon is creating an arsenal of "Plena clone" lenses in other focal lengths.

35mm is a nice focal length for general photography.

I absolutely love the Plena, I like the 135mm focal length because it means you can get a bit back from the subject and use the shallow depth of field for isolation and creative emphasis. I am still learning to use the Plena effectively and sometimes that means moving off maximum aperture to get more of the subject in good focus. I do that a lot witth flowers and interesting foliage.

What would tempt me enormously is if Nikon made a Plena equivalent at 200mm or 300mm.
 
Member's gallery
mjais said:
Ordered my 1.2/35 S yesterday at my usual camera store in Munich. No confirmation yet but I hope to get it in March (some German stores report the lens as "in stock").
Will report back once I have used it a few times.
Click to expand...
I've played with the 35mm f1.2 lens.
Its as impressive as the 50 85 and plena and I'm sure you will love it.
I'm not a 35mm photographer so I do find the lens a bit oversized for a 35mm ...🦘
 
Member's gallery
Got the lens recently.
If one can live with the size and weight (and the price), this lens is a lot of fun. The optics are as good as Nikon says and the background rendering is amazing for such a wide lens.
It makes the most sense when shot at f1.2 most of the time. If you always shoot at f1.8 or slower, then then 1.8/35 probably makes more sense.
If you really want a 1.2/35, this lens does not disappoint, it clearly shows that Nikon is capable of when it comes to making stellar lenses.
 
Member's gallery
The depth of field is too shallow at f/1.2 to be usable in most situations and becomes a gimmick as with similar wide angle lenses. When I used a 24mm f/1.4 to shoot weddings I avoided the f/1.4 aperture for the most part as the DOF meant I could not have both the bride and the groom in focus in the same image. I used it at f/2.0 or smaller apertures for that reason.

I used a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 as my Nikon digital cameras exhibited extreme levels of noise at ISO greater than 640 and the faster glass helped the autofocus system in low light situations. Faster than f/1.4 would have provide not benefit and a reduced DOF was the last thing I wanted for the images for my clients.
 
Member's gallery
I have already found quite a few situations where I liked the f1.2 and the look it gives me.
But that was cities and mostly situations where the narrow depth-of-field was ok and exactly what I wanted (e.g. a flat wall or more distant subjects).
I agree that it would not have made much difference compared to f1.4 but compared to f1.8 or f2, it did make a noticeable difference.
I have not photographed people yet and I use my 1.2 lenses mostly for cities, plants, etc.
The narrow depth-of-field can sometimes be just perfect (or overcome with stacking).

f1.2 is dangerous as it may lead people to shoot at f1.2 even if f2 or f4 would be a much better choice (I've been guilty of that.)
But when the situation allows the use of 1.2, the background blur is just different from f1.8 or f2.

If I was a weeding photographer I would probably be perfectly fine with the 1.8 lenses (and save a lot of weight and money and have a much lighter backpack).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top