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
Calson said:
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.
Click to expand...
The depth of field of any f1.2 lens is going to be shallow for things like portraits.
Because its a 35mm lens this shouldn't really be a problem for most people and you can always stop down if you are struggling.
F1.2 would be a great street lens if it wasn't so big and heavy like Nikons' other fast lenses......🦘
 
Member's gallery
BertieB said:
Maybe a stupid question, is this lens any good for landscape? I need to broaden my skills and move into landscape as an alternative to nature and critters.
Click to expand...
It will be excellent for landscapes. However, I am sure that it is possibly overkill for simply landscapes and the reason for the f1.2 max aperture is for a more varietal usage.
 
Member's gallery
BertieB said:
Maybe a stupid question, is this lens any good for landscape? I need to broaden my skills and move into landscape as an alternative to nature and critters.
Click to expand...

For many landscape situations a zoom like the 4/24-120 is probably better unless you want the best sharpness possible (the 24-120 is great but obviously the prime is even sharper).

I plan to use the 1.2/35 for landscapes when I want to blur the background, for example with a flower in the foreground when I want to emphasise the flower but still show the habitat without distracting too much from the flower.
 
Member's gallery
The 35mm f1.2 is as sharp as the other Z S lenses of its type (50 85 f1.2 and 135 plena).
It would be good as a Landscape lens but a waste of money.
Landscapes dont need a fast f1.2 lens - too little depth of field.
But it would be great as an astro lens...🦘
 
Member's gallery
Landscapes I like to go with something that offers some telephoto. Plenty of lenses are sharp enough these days. I personally like the 24-200 a lot for landscapes, or the 28-400 for the versatility, either with a 14-30s is what I bring with me and I'll have a few primes for low light in town.

I think the 35/50/85 1.2's are fine glass and there if you need a 1.2, or if you want sharper 1.4 or 1.8 as they outperform the 1.8s at that wide open from what I've seen. They're maximum optical quality for those that are after that and come with the price tags. I have the Plena myself, but the 1.8s for the 35/50/85 range and I have no doubt the 1.2's are amazing glass, but I'm not really after 1.2 aperture.

Nikon really doesn't have any dud's for lenses so it's hard to go wrong no matter what you pick. It used to be the superzoom's were pretty soft and a real compromise but even those in Z mount are good now, only really limited by a narrow aperture range. Even the 28/40 sub $300 lenses are quite good.
 
Member's gallery
The 35mm f1.2 is as sharp as the other Z S lenses of its type (50 85 f1.2 and 135 plena).
It would be good as a Landscape lens but a waste of money.
Landscapes dont need a fast f1.2 lens - too little depth of field.
But it would be great as an astro lens...🦘
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top