f/1.2 -vs- f/1.4

[Whiskeyman]

With the recent announcement of the Nikkor S 85mm f/1.2 lens, I have to ask "Why f/1.2?"

In the past, they've offered the F-mount 85mm f/1.4 as a top-of-the-line lens in that focal length, and it was a preium lens at a premium price. I'm assuming that going to f/1.2 over f/1.4 with this lens is also going add to the price. (But by how much?)

So my question is how much is it really worth, image wise, to go to an aperture of f/1.2? After all, the D-o-F at f/1.4 on any lens is already really shallow...

 

[bleirer]

I think it comes out to .44 stops. Probably it is more that they can do it more easily on a Z mount with the bigger flange and closer lens. I read somewhere that the largest theoretical f number would be f .7 so they will keep at it until they get there.

 

[Whiskeyman]

I think it comes out to .44 stops.

How so? I don't understand what you mean, Bill.

 

[Nimi]

With the recent announcement of the Nikkor S 85mm f/1.2 lens, I have to ask "Why f/1.2?"

In the past, they've offered the F-mount 85mm f/1.4 as a top-of-the-line lens in that focal length, and it was a preium lens at a premium price. I'm assuming that going to f/1.2 over f/1.4 with this lens is also going add to the price. (But by how much?)

So my question is how much is it really worth, image wise, to go to an aperture of f/1.2? After all, the D-o-F at f/1.4 on any lens is already really shallow...

With Canon leading the pack, 1.2 is the new 1.4, although optically the new 1.8s are better than the older 1.4s.

Some of it is bragging rights. Some of it, which is why I always bought the fastest portrait lenses (and ordered this one) is that camera companies always pack something special into the fast primes. In most cases it had to do with the DOF falloff more then the absolute slimmer DOF. There is no way the 1.2 wide open is as sharp as the 1.8 wide open, and given that the majority of buyers are shooting it in the studio the extra light is meaningless. For portraits, it is the gradation of focus going from the closest pupil to the farther side of the face.

Two other supposed advantages of this particular set is the two extra blades for smoother background and rounder bokeh balls and the reported decrease in breathing which is one of the issues of the 1.8.

 

[John Navitsky]

With Canon leading the pack, 1.2 is the new 1.4, although optically the new 1.8s are better than the older 1.4s.

i think this is what they are thinking; basically their 1.8 offerings fill the "1.4 segment" in their mind. and so if you have that covered, the only thing is a no compromises, build it as good as you can, thus the 1.2 offerings

edit: i wonder if they'll let 3rd parties fill in 1.4 offerings since they have solid anchors with the 1.8 and 1.2 lines

 

[Whiskeyman]

With Canon leading the pack, 1.2 is the new 1.4, although optically the new 1.8s are better than the older 1.4s.

Some of it is bragging rights. Some of it, which is why I always bought the fastest portrait lenses (and ordered this one) is that camera companies always pack something special into the fast primes. In most cases it had to do with the DOF falloff more then the absolute slimmer DOF. There is no way the 1.2 wide open is as sharp as the 1.8 wide open, and given that the majority of buyers are shooting it in the studio the extra light is meaningless. For portraits, it is the gradation of focus going from the closest pupil to the farther side of the face.

Two other supposed advantages of this particular set is the two extra blades for smoother background and rounder bokeh balls and the reported decrease in breathing which is one of the issues of the 1.8.

But they could also do both of those (bolded/italicized text) with with an f/1.4 lens.

I think you hit the nail squarely on the head with "Some of it is bragging rights." I think that it's that, for marketing, for the most part. Similar to marking the maximum volume on an amplifier as "Eleven. Not ten."

At a subject distance of eight feet (96 inches) the depth of field at f/1.4 is about 2.65 inches, and at f/1.2 the depth of field is about 2.23 inches. Thats not much at all, but I'm sure there are some for whom it is desired, if not required.

 

[Garfield]

Once Nikon completely fills-out their f1.2 lineup along with the f1.8's and DX offerings, maybe they plan to fill-in with "decent" performing but more compact f1.4 glass (a la Sony). But they need to complete the main lineup first.

 

[JoelKlein]

I got the 1.2 for the optical reasons even at f/5.6. It is a magic lens and cuts down significantly post processing time. It just looks amazingly great right out of the camera.

 

[Nimi]

I am not sure there will ever be a 85 1.4, maybe a 105. It's not necessary. Next I'd say a fast (1.8) 135, maybe 105, dreamily 200 to cover the fast prime series pros need. All with little focus breathing that's so important for video (the the 105, as great as it is, sucks at).

The 85 is SO important, probably the most important in most commercial and professional kits. In addition to shooting it at 2 meters, we use it for full body portraits, so we are much farther ways and separation is tougher with the 1.8.

 

[bleirer]

How so? I don't understand what you mean, Bill.

I mean f 1.2 gives between 1/3 and 1/2 stop more light than f 1.4, or .44 of a stop.

 

[Nimi]

But they could also do both of those (bolded/italicized text) with with an f/1.4 lens.

I think you hit the nail squarely on the head with "Some of it is bragging rights." I think that it's that, for marketing, for the most part. Similar to marking the maximum volume on an amplifier as "Eleven. Not ten."

At a subject distance of eight feet (96 inches) the depth of field at f/1.4 is about 2.65 inches, and at f/1.2 the depth of field is about 2.23 inches. Thats not much at all, but I'm sure there are some for whom it is desired, if not required.

[Appreciating the Spinal Tap reference. All-time favorite.]

 

[JoelKlein]

And even at f/1.2, its OOF render is yummm

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Whiskeyman]

I mean f 1.2 gives between 1/3 and 1/2 stop more light than f 1.4, or .44 of a stop.

Oh, yes. I wasn't thinking anything at all about exposure, but only of depth of field when I relpied to you initially.

 

[Whiskeyman]

[Appreciating the Spinal Tap reference. All-time favorite.]

There are many appropriate applications of that reference in today's world. It seems like everyone is always trying to outdo everyone else.

 

[Calson]

It was done for bragging rights much like Canon with their f/1.2 lenses. At its weight and cost which are comparable to the S 70-200mm f/2.8 lens it is not appealing to me at all. It is actually a disappointment that Nikon set the bar so low.

The Nikon 105mm f/2.0 DC lens is far superior for photographing people and deserves an update. Even better would be a Nikon equivalent to the groundbreaking Sony 100mm f/2.8 STF lens that uses an apodization filter to realize notably smooth bokeh with rounded out-of-focus highlights in both the foreground and background. Sony provides the best update to the Nikon DC lenses and shows what can be done.

I can purchase the Sony FE 100mm f/2.8 STF lens and a Sony A7 II camera for less than the cost of the Nikon 85mm f/1.2 lens. I have been tempted to do this ever since the Sony lens was announced. For portrait work this is the best combo one can buy at any price.

 

[Griffym]

For some it may be bragging rights but for a lot it is about the look and the character of the resulting images. That said I looked closely at the 85mm 1.2 and again at the 85mm 1.8.
I can see the difference in character. If you are aiming to produce great images at shorter focal lengths, then those things really do matter. If, for example, a telephoto lens had busy distracting bokeh (as some variable aperture zooms do) you find yourself preferring a much more expensive fixed aperture fast prime with buttery smooth bokeh.
I think the 85mm 1.2 has a distinct character but I also know it is something you either see or you don’t see. For those who notice and look closely, trying to find that specific quality, it really matters to them.
I can see it and find it both exciting and inspiring. Being realistic (see below) I am not certain I belong in that group. It is not something I absolutely have to have!
So having looked closely I thought about my lens line up, what I want to do and my skill levels and the situations where I want to use an 85mm. Keeping those things in mind I realised that the 85 F1.8 has its own distinct advantages and optical character. It is very sharp, has very nice bokeh, is light and leaves me some cash to keep available to eventually purchase that 100-400 or 200-600 much sooner. I had to wait to see what the 85 F1.2 would offer and what it would cost.
I will use the 85mm both in the studio and add it to my bag (where weight really does count a lot) for outings where I want just one body and 3 lenses, (one on the camera and two options).
I am very much looking forward to the 85mm F1.8 soon.

P.S.
AND I fully intend to brag about owning a great little 85mm lens anyway.

 

[Nimi]

For some it may be bragging rights but for a lot it is about the look and the character of the resulting images. That said I looked closely at the 85mm 1.2 and again at the 85mm 1.8.
I can see the difference in character. If you are aiming to produce great images at shorter focal lengths, then those things really do matter. If, for example, a telephoto lens had busy distracting bokeh (as some variable aperture zooms do) you find yourself preferring a much more expensive fixed aperture fast prime with buttery smooth bokeh.
I think the 85mm 1.2 has a distinct character but I also know it is something you either see or you don’t see. For those who notice and look closely, trying to find that specific quality, it really matters to them.
I can see it and find it both exciting and inspiring. Being realistic (see below) I am not certain I belong in that group.
So having looked closely I thought about my lens line up, what I want to do and my skill levels and the situations where I want to use an 85mm. Keeping those things in mind I realised that the 85 F1.8 has its own distinct advantages and optical character. It is very sharp, has very nice bokeh, is light and leaves me some cash to keep available to eventually purchase that 100-400 or 200-600 much sooner. I had to wait to see what the 85 F1.2 would offer and what it would cost.
I will use the 85mm both in the studio and add it to my bag (where weight really does count a lot) for outings where I want just one body and 3 lenses, (one on the camera and two options).
I am very much looking forward to the 85mm F1.8 soon.

Well said. I always benefited from the fastest glass and should have my 85/1.2 by end of March.

 

[Griffym]

Well said. I always benefited from the fastest glass and should have my 85/1.2 by end of March.

Sounds great. It is a brilliant lens.
It doesn’t matter whether a lens it 1.8 or 1.4 or 1.2 if it is producing the images you are looking for.
I think Nikon’s decision to opt for great 1.8 lenses and stunning 1.2 lenses is a good decision for them. I don’t even know if any lens manufacturer offers all three [1.8, 1.4,1.2].
I won’t be spending any time wondering or caring what alternative lenses might be like, now I have made my choice.

 

[Nimi]

Sounds great. It is a brilliant lens.
It doesn’t matter whether a lens it 1.8 or 1.4 or 1.2 if it is producing the images you are looking for.
I think Nikon’s decision to opt for great 1.8 lenses and stunning 1.2 lenses is a good decision for them. I don’t even know if any lens manufacturer offers all three [1.8, 1.4,1.2].
I won’t be spending any time wondering or caring what alternative lenses might be like, now I have made my choice.

That was my first Z lens and by far my biggest money maker, as 85s been most of my career. You'll love it.

 

[Basil]

This is exciting! Great wrap for the Z85 1.2 by Matt Irwin.

 

[Roy]

With the recent announcement of the Nikkor S 85mm f/1.2 lens, I have to ask "Why f/1.2?"

In the past, they've offered the F-mount 85mm f/1.4 as a top-of-the-line lens in that focal length, and it was a preium lens at a premium price. I'm assuming that going to f/1.2 over f/1.4 with this lens is also going add to the price. (But by how much?)

So my question is how much is it really worth, image wise, to go to an aperture of f/1.2? After all, the D-o-F at f/1.4 on any lens is already really shallow...

Most people dont know how hard it is with such a shallow depth of field.
For portraits unless I need to blur the bacground I shoot at f5.6 an smaller anyway.
Nikon has made 50mm and 55mm f1.2 manual lenses for decades.
Unlike the Z glass these lenses were soft wide open and I only kept them for low light/no flash situations...

 

[Griffym]

It depends on the user. If you are talking about manual focussing, I find that my Z cameras make that easier than my D series cameras ever did. The Z6ii is very good at picking up the eye and Z9 is often brilliant especially if the light is at a favourable level and the settings are correct.
I think the sequence of shots sending up the dancin‘ Fro in the DPReview video on the 85 F1.2 makes it clear that the Z9 will cope exceptionally well with the demands of focusing the 85F1.2 anyway.
My take on it is that this is a specialised tool for people who want the specific look that Nikkor lenses can produce at F1.2. Nikon is proving that it has lens making deep in its DNA. The S series and other Z series are making that very clear indeed.
The conclusion that Steve comes to about Z lenses in his Z9 vs A1 comparison video is a clear hint at the strength of Nikon moving forward.

 

[Lance B]

It's better to have the ability of f1.2 and only occasionally need it than to not have it and need it. Yes, the DOF can be very narrow, but that depends very much on your subject size, subject distance and image viewing size. So, a large subject matter shot wide open on a 85mm f1.2 lens at say 10mts, allows you to isolate the subject well yet have sufficient DOF at say "normal" viewing distance and image size. This is also dependant on what you are trying to achieve and even at say "relatively close" subject distance you may really want to limit DOF for creative purposes with the other above aspects of viewing size and viewing distance taken into consideration.

Example. These are the same size images, the same viewing distance but two vastly different subject sizes and thus subject distances are almost right as a comparison in order to illustrate on the 50 f1.2S lens.

1) An Australian King Parrot decided to fly into our home looking for food - must be very used to human interaction ( and hungry!) as it was very tame but not a pet. It even sat on a plate of seed and allowed me to carry it outside so as it wouldn't get slooked and fly into our windows and hurt itself.

Z7II + 50 f1.2S, 1/320s f/2.0 at 50.0mm iso640. I used f2 and not wide open as I was so close that there was going to be too little DOF at f1.2. As it was, I barely got the beak and eyes in focus but the background is so beautifully smooth and lovely.

2) A Wombat, which is a much larger animal, means that to fit it in the frame I need to step back much further and to get the isolation, f1.2 is just enough to get the background blur and isolation decent - eyes and head in focus and the background nicely OOF.

Z9 + 50 f1.2S, 1/400s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso64.

It's all about the right tool for the job. If I were to use the 85 f1.2S instead of the 50 f1.2S, I would have to back up about 60% and I would quite probably have slightly better OOF blur but a narrower FOV which may or may not help in these situations depending on what you are trying to achieve.

Whatever the case for use, I would like the *ability* to choose the DOF for the occasion and be less limited by having as large a maximum aperture as I can that gives a balance of lens size, lens weight, lens cost and lens overall IQ. What that balance is for you may be different from me, but then we have the 85 f1.8S which is also a *stunning* lens as an alternative if the other parameters do not suit you. I have the 85 f1.8S and one day I hope to get the 85 f1.2S when more sensible street pricing comes about as it is way too expensive for me at the moment in Australia at AU$4,800!!!

 

[Whiskeyman]

For some it may be bragging rights but for a lot it is about the look and the character of the resulting images. That said I looked closely at the 85mm 1.2 and again at the 85mm 1.8.
I can see the difference in character. If you are aiming to produce great images at shorter focal lengths, then those things really do matter. If, for example, a telephoto lens had busy distracting bokeh (as some variable aperture zooms do) you find yourself preferring a much more expensive fixed aperture fast prime with buttery smooth bokeh.
I think the 85mm 1.2 has a distinct character but I also know it is something you either see or you don’t see. For those who notice and look closely, trying to find that specific quality, it really matters to them.
I can see it and find it both exciting and inspiring. Being realistic (see below) I am not certain I belong in that group. It is not something I absolutely have to have!
So having looked closely I thought about my lens line up, what I want to do and my skill levels and the situations where I want to use an 85mm. Keeping those things in mind I realised that the 85 F1.8 has its own distinct advantages and optical character. It is very sharp, has very nice bokeh, is light and leaves me some cash to keep available to eventually purchase that 100-400 or 200-600 much sooner. I had to wait to see what the 85 F1.2 would offer and what it would cost.
I will use the 85mm both in the studio and add it to my bag (where weight really does count a lot) for outings where I want just one body and 3 lenses, (one on the camera and two options).
I am very much looking forward to the 85mm F1.8 soon.

P.S.
AND I fully intend to brag about owning a great little 85mm lens anyway.

I haven't owned many f/1.4 lenses, but the ones I either owned or borrowed all had what you refer as their own character. I would describe it as "image pop" in most cases.

 

[Griffym]

I have never bought the “fast” shorter lenses (less than 200) so I have only seen what I would describe as the intangible image pop you describe on longer lenses. I haven’t really seen it on shorter lenses. (But see below)
I do have an Fmount 300 F2.8 VRII and a fast 500 F4. They do provide images with very narrow depth of field especially up close to a subject. They often justify their purchase price with images that have stunning clarity and pop.
I did however notice that the files coming off my Z series 50mm 1.8 S made me look twice and marvel at how much pop and clarity (not just sharpness) they had. I was surprised and delighted to discover this coming from a fairly basic F1.8. I am certain that the 50 F1.2 would be special too but that 50mm S justified the extra cost compared to my old G series 50 1.8. (I used to have the D version of the 50 1.8 - very sharp in the middle only.)
I think Nikon is very clearly saying that the quality you used to get from the F mount 1.4 lenses is now no longer just for those with extra cash. The old F mount ‘fast’ lenses are being clearly surpassed by the Z mount F1.8 S series lenses. If you want more that that - check out the F1.2 S mount lenses. I wonder which other focal lengths might get a 1.2 version?