24, 28, 35, 105 and maybe a 1.8 or 1.4 135.
f/1.2 -vs- f/1.4
- Thread starter Whiskeyman
- Start date
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).
You would have to open two brand new large factory spaces to meet the demand from a lineup which included a 105 F1.2; 85 1.2; 200-600 F5.6; & Z8.
I love those King Parrots. I wish they frequented my area too. I have ordered the 85 F1.8. I hope to photograph a King Parrot with it one day just to see how it matches your image. I do know a spot where I can do that, however.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!!!
Roy
Well-known member
This image was taken in 2004.I love those King Parrots. I wish they frequented my area too. I have ordered the 85 F1.8. I hope to photograph a King Parrot with it one day just to see how it matches your image. I do know a spot where I can do that, however.
Since we moved to the Dandenong Ranges we see King Parrots almost every Day...
The photo I took was in Spetember 2021. I never used to see that many in our area but there have been way more over the last couple of years, possibly due to the higher rainfall of late. We have a number of them that now stop by as we ocassionally give them a bit of seed but I don't want them to become dependant. I now also see a number of juveniles being led around by their parents. They are such beautiful birds with such a lovely gentle nature about them.I love those King Parrots. I wish they frequented my area too. I have ordered the 85 F1.8. I hope to photograph a King Parrot with it one day just to see how it matches your image. I do know a spot where I can do that, however.
The 85 f1.8S is a gem of a lens, it really doesn't have any flaws. Sharp wide open, sharp edge to edge and throughout the aperture range as well as at any subject distance. Virtually no CA either.
Seeing the video by R i c c i (auto correct refuses to let me type the word) about sharpness is interesting. At this stage the 85 1.8 S is sharper than the 85mm 1.2 S wide open and at 1.8. See
I wouldn't read too much into that video by R i c c i. The published MTF curves for the 50 f1.2S and 85 f1.2S are very close and I can tell you that the 50 f1.2S is super sharp wide open so, I would expect the real world images wide open results will also be sharp for the 85 f1.2S depending on subject distance and aperture. I think we may find that the 85 will be tuned differently to the 50 in that it may have a different sharpness regime at portrait distances - say 1-4mts compared to distances slightly further out and beyond. I am purely speculating that it may be ever so slightly less sharp at portrait distance wide open but then past portrait distance wide open it will quite possibly sharpen up moreso. Also, at those close ranges, you would be less likely to shoot wide open anyway due to minimal DOF and would probably be at f2-f4 or possibly even more where it will be very sharp for sure. After all, this is a portrait lens first and foremost and generally speaking portraits don't always want to be razor sharp, just sharp enough - but again this is wide open at portrait distance where we would be less likely to use it wide open. However, past portrait distance, we generally then want it to sharpen up nicely wide open so that we get that pop for full length people shots or other subject matter of about that size and subject distance. This is a case for right tool for the job and I am just saying that don't expect it to be all things to all people. Having said that, with the parameters I have suggested may be the case above, I would speculate that it will be a stunning lens for a lot of photography as shown by Matt Irwin's video, where he seems to think it is one of Nikon's finest:
fcotterill
Well-known member
There appears to be a continuity in the quest for better bokeh rendering, which began with classics such as the 85 f1.4AFD aka 'The Cream Machine' and followed by some of the G type primes: 35 f1.4G then a big step forward to the 58 f1.4G. at some stage over a decade ago, they introduced OPTIA to improve and speed up lens design.
Judging from what's been let out in interviews, OPTIA was pivotal to quantify out of focus rendering etc in designing these faster Nikkors. One example is how Haruo Sato and colleagues invested a great deal into the 105 f1.4E, released as Nikon's Centennial Lens in 2017.
By then - 2017 if not earlier - Nikon had probably scoped out their new Z system, as to how to exploit the benefits of the new mirrorless mount architecture in optical designs. Henceforth the f1.8 Z Nikkors are in many ways the new f1.4's with a new standard set with the Z f1.2 primes. [Grammar corrected]
More here about how the Z mount architecture benefits lens designs; note how the term 'Used Up' engineers describes how exhaustively their design exploits the universe of "design space" :
bcgforums.com
Judging from what's been let out in interviews, OPTIA was pivotal to quantify out of focus rendering etc in designing these faster Nikkors. One example is how Haruo Sato and colleagues invested a great deal into the 105 f1.4E, released as Nikon's Centennial Lens in 2017.
By then - 2017 if not earlier - Nikon had probably scoped out their new Z system, as to how to exploit the benefits of the new mirrorless mount architecture in optical designs. Henceforth the f1.8 Z Nikkors are in many ways the new f1.4's with a new standard set with the Z f1.2 primes. [Grammar corrected]
More here about how the Z mount architecture benefits lens designs; note how the term 'Used Up' engineers describes how exhaustively their design exploits the universe of "design space" :
Z 9 開発者Special Interview vol.2～光学性能と小型化を追求したZ マウントシステムの開発意図と誕生秘話～ | ニコンイメージング
新次元の光学性能、システムの小型化、そして使いやすさを追求するニコン Z マウントシステム。具体的な製品の誕生秘話まで、Z マウントの開発意図や背景から、光学設計と商品企画プロダクトマネジャーのインタビュー記事をご紹介いたします。
www.nikon-image.com
Does flange distance impact sharpness?
I recently asked the folks running Greys of Westminster YouTube channel via live chat about why the Z lenses are significantly sharper than f mount glass. They implied that the larger Z mount with the 16 mm flange distance as opposed to the 46 mm flange distance on the f mount is a big reason...
bcgforums.com
Last edited:
As I recall the F mount 85 1.8 was a bit sharper wide open than the F mount 85 1.4 wide open. That doesn’t mean it was better altogether. Wide open sharpness is only one thing. By F2 or F4 things may be utterly different besides the bokeh and other optical qualities are far more important.
I simply mean that Nikon has clearly built a very good Z series 85 1.8. It is (as expected) very good even wide open.
As I understand it the wider Z series design has made a big difference to the across the frame resolution and better control of chromatic aberrations etc.
I simply mean that Nikon has clearly built a very good Z series 85 1.8. It is (as expected) very good even wide open.
As I understand it the wider Z series design has made a big difference to the across the frame resolution and better control of chromatic aberrations etc.
I suspect it was in part designing to both price point and user needs.
The f/1.8 lineup like the f/4 lenses strikes a nice balance with smaller size, moderate price, and excellent optics even wide open.
The f/1.2 lineup was not practical for F-mount due to the design limitations, so f/1.4 was as good as they could reliably deliver at a reasonable price. The reality was most of those lenses were a bit soft wide open so f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms often needed to be stopped down. The f/1.2 primes offer a meaningful difference in aperture, DOF, backgrounds, and exposure choice. You could even consider there to be a meaningful difference in size, price, and pure optical performance.
The bokeh on the f/1.2 glass is really clean - even compared to the f/1.8 lenses with both at f/1.8.
The f/1.8 lineup like the f/4 lenses strikes a nice balance with smaller size, moderate price, and excellent optics even wide open.
The f/1.2 lineup was not practical for F-mount due to the design limitations, so f/1.4 was as good as they could reliably deliver at a reasonable price. The reality was most of those lenses were a bit soft wide open so f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms often needed to be stopped down. The f/1.2 primes offer a meaningful difference in aperture, DOF, backgrounds, and exposure choice. You could even consider there to be a meaningful difference in size, price, and pure optical performance.
The bokeh on the f/1.2 glass is really clean - even compared to the f/1.8 lenses with both at f/1.8.
Not to this crowd, but the shorter fast primes category has always been a battleground between Canon and Nikon and remains so. Actually because more film-makers are getting into mirrorless (as they call these hybrid cameras), the 24-85 fast prime market is probably more important than ever as it goes against the standard "lens bundle" film-makers buy. Canon has a slight edge over Nikon right now, but before it's over both will have 1.2s across that range as well as a fast 105 and 135. Canon already showcased these in a series of patents and the 135/1.8 is now due. Sony has surprisingly (to me) stayed out of this.
Reading threads ;ike this are fascinating to me. They certainly point out to me how incredibly much I have to learn about the hobby that I am loving more and more as I learn.
One thing mentioned in this thread a few times I have never heard of before. May I ask, what is focus breathing? I know I can go google it, but I would rather hear from people I know and respect that read a cold explanation on Google.
One thing mentioned in this thread a few times I have never heard of before. May I ask, what is focus breathing? I know I can go google it, but I would rather hear from people I know and respect that read a cold explanation on Google.
Focus breathing is the change in focal length as you focus from infinity to nearby. Most stills lenses essentially act as zooms. So what's in the frame when focusing on infinity is cropped out as you focus say at 10ft. Not a big deal in most stills applications, Big deal in video. The Nikon Z lenses have improved, but still a problem on the 85 and 105.
Thank you.
ccirelli
Well-known member
I was wondering about Ricci's test results at 1.2 (he mentioned he repeated the test multiple times with the same result). But yes clearly it showed that the 1.8 S was noticeably sharper at 1.8 than the 1.2 was, at 1.2. Why / how? My only thought is, maybe his pre-production copy wasn't the best one? Not sure, but it bothered me
ALSO - doesn't Nikon INSIST that all previewers NOT zoom in to their test images at 100% (as Ricci did)? I imagine there's a good reason for this with pre-production lenses. But how was he able / allowed to show images at 100% (during his sharpness comparison test)?
He is a Nikon company employee/ presenter. I assume he has permission to do what he did. The results are consistent with the published MTF charts.
Firmware?
If it is a portrait lens maybe highest possible sharpness wide open is not the real aim of the lens. The look comes from a very sharp in focus subject clearly shown against a smooth out of focus background. An image which does this is surely more successful than one which is a tad sharper if you look with a magnifying glass but has a more distracting background. Perhaps with wedding photography, for example, extreme sharpness may mean longer post production times to smooth out small details and skin.
Firmware?
If it is a portrait lens maybe highest possible sharpness wide open is not the real aim of the lens. The look comes from a very sharp in focus subject clearly shown against a smooth out of focus background. An image which does this is surely more successful than one which is a tad sharper if you look with a magnifying glass but has a more distracting background. Perhaps with wedding photography, for example, extreme sharpness may mean longer post production times to smooth out small details and skin.
I was wondering about Ricci's test results at 1.2 (he mentioned he repeated the test multiple times with the same result). But yes clearly it showed that the 1.8 S was noticeably sharper at 1.8 than the 1.2 was, at 1.2. Why / how? My only thought is, maybe his pre-production copy wasn't the best one? Not sure, but it bothered me
ALSO - doesn't Nikon INSIST that all previewers NOT zoom in to their test images at 100% (as Ricci did)? I imagine there's a good reason for this with pre-production lenses. But how was he able / allowed to show images at 100% (during his sharpness comparison test)?
As someone who uses the 85 as his money-maker lens, and has the 1.2 on order, I can tell you I didn't buy it for its sharpness; I'm certain it's sharp enough. I buy fast primes for separation and transition from focus to oof regions. I shoot product which include cowboy hats worn by models. The photos are used in catalogs, online shops, displays, and social media.
I opted for the 85mm F1.8 but it wasn’t because of the sharpness wide open tests either. It was for the focal length plus consistency across the frame, lack of CA, bokeh, size convenience and price.
Sharpness is only one of the features worth looking for. Minor differences are irrelevant.
Sharpness is only one of the features worth looking for. Minor differences are irrelevant.
I do hope they fix the focus breathing of the 1.8 is addressed in the 1.2. It's pronounced. I think at close focus it's more like 70mm.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
afaik, this is reasonably common for fast lenses. the big thing is to be acceptably sharp at wide open.