John Navitsky
Well-known member
if it was an s line it would have had to be more expensive and probably larger and heavier as the s line would dictate more corner to corner sharpness
the 1.4 is their “value”[sic] lens
My Plena Adventure
- 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).
the 1.4 is their “value”[sic] lens
Which maybe should have been the f/1.8 version,... no? To me, it would have made a lot more sense to make the f/1.4 version the S-line lens, and not the f/18.
Unless Nikon specifically did it this way to steer more buyers to the f/1.2 version of the lens. IMO, there is a different customer base for the f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses, and they are more likely, than not, looking for the added benefits of the S-line over the photographer looking for the f/1.8 version of the 50mm lens.
@JoelKlein Imagine if this guy was say like 74 years younger what you could do for your kid portraits.
@Whiskeyman - congratulations. I love this lens like many others. I won't travel without it. I sat in this cafe in Sicily and did people and espresso cups.
On this trip I didn't use it for wildlife like I have on others. I think you will find many great uses for it.
@Whiskeyman - congratulations. I love this lens like many others. I won't travel without it. I sat in this cafe in Sicily and did people and espresso cups.
On this trip I didn't use it for wildlife like I have on others. I think you will find many great uses for it.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Doug A.
Well-known member
I think Nikon's intention with the Z 50mm f1.4 was to offer a lens to those folks who are not particularly enthralled with the rendering of the 50mm f1.8 and don't want to pay for the 50mm f1.2. I'm sure most, if not all, of you have read where some folks are just not fans of the "clinical or sterile" look that some modern mirrorless lenses can produce. I feel that way about the 85mm f1.8S and so kept my 85mm f1.8G. I suspect the relative success of the 40mm f2 (a non-S lens with clear compromises but well regarded by those who own it) may have had something to do with that. In every objective measure, the 50mm 1.8 S lens is optically better than the 1.4, but there are quite a few folks who are quite happy to give up some of that optical perfection for a little more shallow depth of field without paying an exorbitant price.
Whenever I think of an f/1.4 wide angle or normal focal length lens, no matter the brand, series or focal length, I look for it to be a step above, optically.
By "clinical or sterile" look, are you referring to the contrast, the extreme detail and focus, something else, or a combination of them?
I own a copy fo the Z 50mm f/1.8, but haven't used it enough to make me think of the photos taken with it as having either of those characteristics. Then again, that could be due to my abilities as a photographer. Now, I'm going to have to get it out, shoot with it and see if it does produce such.
Last edited:
Doug A.
Well-known member
The "clinical/sterile" look is an extremely subjective thing and some folks never see it and so wonder what the heck others are talking about. I only really notice it with portraits. To me there is something about the rendering of portraits with the 85mm f1.8S that can make the subject look.......off. Part of it is the extreme detail and contrast, the person somehow appears almost like a perfect wax dummy. Perhaps there are certain apertures, subject distances, and lighting that causes the 85mm f1.8 S to render this way as I've see other portrait shots from it that are wonderful. I never got that from my 85mm f1.8G, which makes me think there is something about its optical shortcomings as compared to the f1.8S that are preventing this effect.
joe43
Well-known member
The pictures above are very good and represent why so many love this lens. The images remind me of pictures I have taken with my Nikon 200mm f4 D macro lens, especially regarding sharpness. I would love to see some comparison shots of subjects like flowers taken by both lenses so the images can be compared side by side. I may have to rent a Plena and do some comparison shots.
beano
Active member
Nice photo! For older folks, when using my 135 PLENA, as well, as the 85 and 50 1.2 glass, I usually always add a 1/8th Black Mist filter, it ever so slightly softens up the cracks and creases. Makes for wonderful portraits of them, adding a very slight touch of Mystique to the photos.
I‘m extremely happy with this lens. The richness in details, the superb bokeh and the overall quality of the lens, everything is outstanding!
tomcat
Member
Wow!! 3-D is very evident. thanks for sharing
Rick Kibbey
Well-known member
Love this lens also. I used it on my trip to the UK last month. Also use it for video of Cape Canaveral launches. Unfortunately, it doesn't defeat heat waves I experience a lot at the Cape in the summer. I do recommend this for many types of photography.
tomcat
Member
How fast is the AF on this lens? I currently shoot a Sigma Art 135mm f/1.8 for nighttime sports and was thinking about getting this Plena lens. But I need to know if the AF is fast enough for sports. Thanks
I have the Plena and the 50 1.2 . 1.Love them both. The Plena is constantly attached to my Z9. As to how it will shoot fast acting sports...don't know...but it does a good job with fast acting birds:
1.
2.
3.
And these birds move pretty quickly too:
1.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
2.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
3.
And these birds move pretty quickly too:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
With the Zf you have the option of skin softening to various degrees in a setting. I always leave mine on to high because it seems most the people shots I take are of older people.
tomcat
Member
I would say that these are fast enough for sports applications
Nice images !! When I am out birding I could not use the Z135 Plena. 500mm is my short focal length and my most used lens is Z 800mm f/6.3 ... as I mentioned in another Plena thread I would want an 800 mm f/4 Plena ... of course that would be a tad heavier than my Z800 f/6.3
And a tad more expensive, possibly?Nice images !! When I am out birding I could not use the Z135 Plena. 500mm is my short focal length and my most used lens is Z 800mm f/6.3 ... as I mentioned in another Plena thread I would want an 800 mm f/4 Plena ... of course that would be a tad heavier than my Z800 f/6.3
I need a wealthyAnd a tad more expensive, possibly?
I have a Z600 f/4 TC coming as a loaner from NPS for the first 2 full weeks in November. With a little luck I will find it just to logistically challenging compared to my Z800 f/6.3.
I'm of the impression that everyone on this forum could use/need a wealthy !!!
Or, that no one here would tell him to leave them alone!
!!!Or, that no one here would tell him to leave them alone!
beano
Active member
Yep, but I use it more on the z8/z9 bodies, and I prefer the look of a physical filter over software filters. Horses for courses, whatever works best for you. But a good point, thank you for the reminder, will be handy for when I forget the filter at home!
Which filter would soften skin?
How are you capturing these with only 135mm? Heavy crop?
25 -30 ft away and cropped
here is another photo done when playing around with my Plena. 1/2000 at f/4, ISO 100, Z9. Cropped to 6134 in length. I'm happy with the background but especially with the details in the fur of the little blighters.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
beano
Active member
Hi Joel, I have used the 1/8“ or 1/4” Black Mist Mist filters, they are ok, imho. YMMV though.