Hello Dvir, I was just reviewing some of your articles from the past, particularly the one called What to Photograph in Greece, which I enjoyed so very much. Your articles are so good, please don’t restrict yourself to gear reviews, but give us more content articles like the ones you used to write.
Caveman
September 26, 2024 11:47 am
How about focus breathing performance? Nikon has tended to nearly eliminate it on many, but certainly not all, of it’s high end lenses. But then its lenses tend to be quite a bit larger and heavier than the competition, particularly Sony’s lenses which I believe tend to exhibit quite a bit of focus breathing. Is this why Nikons lenses are larger/heavier? I certainly don’t know, but I’m curious.
The Sony breathes like a pig, but I think that unless you are doing video it doesn’t matter. I would speculate that this is the reason that the Nikon is heavier. They basically made a Cine lens but forgot to add all the buttons and dials that Cine photographers like.
Dmitry
September 26, 2024 12:29 am
I usually don’t write about the assessment. But when I see that the Z 50 mm f/1.2S has a 4.7 rating, then I have a lot of questions about the 4.8 rating. A lot. How did an optically poorer lens get a higher rating, how is that?
Don’t stress over the difference between 4.7 and 4.8 stars, seriously. Both of these lenses are close to optical perfection.
As for the reason behind the different scores, it’s just how our scoring system works. The overall star rating on Photography Life is the average of each of our category ratings. In this case, both lenses got perfect scores for optical performance. The one-tenth point difference in their final ratings is because the Nikon got a 4/5 on size and weight, while the Canon got a 4.5/5 in the same category. I stand by those scores – the Nikon lens is meaningfully bigger and heavier than the Canon (about 1.5 inches longer and 1/3 pound heavier, not a trivial difference).
But at the end of the day, reducing a 5000 word review to a single number is always going to be a little flawed and subjective. I would ask our readers for some grace, especially if the scores are so close anyway, and to read the full review to get the complete story of a lens.
B T
September 25, 2024 10:14 pm
I’m lookin’ at you, PSFS building photo.
Now hotel?…
Petr
October 26, 2021 2:36 am
The biggest benefit of this fifty is, that fits perfectly in my smaller hands with R body.
Cool
September 15, 2021 6:13 am
All brands today produce all those super sharp and corrected bulky lenses that lack personality, what people use to say about the “leica look” “zeiss pop” and the amazing L primes EF set Canon have (…had). When my EF L primes will stop working I’d rather go medium format with Fuji, that, while still obsessed with all this overly corrected stuff, being medium format delivers on its own outstanding nuances and micro contrast. Something that EF L primes have (sacrificing a bit of resolution when wide open) and modern mirrorless lenses don’t. Truly disappointed by the direction where photography is going.
While this lens does everything his precious Fuji medium format will do (IE. Excellent Micro-contrast, great bokeh, etc.), he trashes it. I’ve tried one, and it’s images are just beautiful! I’m saving up for mine.
Ronald
June 23, 2021 1:00 pm
I never see COMA discussed. How does this lens compare to other high end lens wrt COMA.
Austin
February 17, 2020 3:29 pm
Not sure what everyone is seeing here. The EF is clearly better at every aperture except for the corners.
Ok I’m here to whine. I’ll admit it. The white mark on the brick wall is a muddy mess on the RF. It’s over corrected for maximum detail resolving power that would only show up at wall size print sizes…
That’s medium format territory.
I’m sick of the photography industry catering to prosumers and people who lack the nuanced vision to see what a truly professional lens can deliver circa 2008. Then everything became about sacrifice to tone and color to higher virtual megapixel scores to make people who lack vision but want to feel justified in spending 3000$ On a lens.
Yes, you’re a whiner. I had the EF 50mm f1.2L, and I’ve tried tried the new RF 50mm f1.2, and the new lens is, corner to corner, an order of magnitude better. The images the new lens produces are something special. If everyone believed, like you, that the peak of lens development occurred in 2008, Nikon, Fuji, and Canon, etc would have gone out of business a decade ago. As for nuanced vision, get out and your basement, and you’ll find dozens of local photographers producing beautiful work with their “prosumer” equipment.
Joachim
April 6, 2019 9:36 am
Dvir, although I really really like your sample pictures for how they look and their colours and everything: But if I’d be a Canon shooter and would think about getting a really fast 50 mm, I would like to know how it behaves in dark situations, inside or in the streets. I would also like to know how much coma it has in case I’d like to snap some Milky way pictures. I would like to know how thin the DoF in a face is – a fruit as a close-up just doesn’t tell me the same. I would like to know how well it’s handling frontlight. All of these questions are potentially weak points of fast lenses – how it behaves stopped down, I really don’t care much – I simply expect the best at this price.
The lens has to be sharp at least at around f/2.8, at this price point this is no question, it’s a simple demand. As Moses said “$ 2300… Hmmm” I think you should ask yourself what reasons you’d accept to spend this kind of money and if the lens live sup to your expectations. No one needs a f/1.2 50 mm just for landscapes, no matter how beautiful you did them…
M
April 6, 2019 9:04 am
Any chance you could do a comparison at the same apertures of the Nikon 50mm 1.8 S lens vs this one? Curious to see whether the much smaller Z lens can keep up with this behemoth.
Hello Dvir, I was just reviewing some of your articles from the past, particularly the one called What to Photograph in Greece, which I enjoyed so very much. Your articles are so good, please don’t restrict yourself to gear reviews, but give us more content articles like the ones you used to write.
How about focus breathing performance? Nikon has tended to nearly eliminate it on many, but certainly not all, of it’s high end lenses. But then its lenses tend to be quite a bit larger and heavier than the competition, particularly Sony’s lenses which I believe tend to exhibit quite a bit of focus breathing. Is this why Nikons lenses are larger/heavier? I certainly don’t know, but I’m curious.
The Sony breathes like a pig, but I think that unless you are doing video it doesn’t matter. I would speculate that this is the reason that the Nikon is heavier. They basically made a Cine lens but forgot to add all the buttons and dials that Cine photographers like.
I usually don’t write about the assessment. But when I see that the Z 50 mm f/1.2S has a 4.7 rating, then I have a lot of questions about the 4.8 rating. A lot. How did an optically poorer lens get a higher rating, how is that?
Don’t stress over the difference between 4.7 and 4.8 stars, seriously. Both of these lenses are close to optical perfection.
As for the reason behind the different scores, it’s just how our scoring system works. The overall star rating on Photography Life is the average of each of our category ratings. In this case, both lenses got perfect scores for optical performance. The one-tenth point difference in their final ratings is because the Nikon got a 4/5 on size and weight, while the Canon got a 4.5/5 in the same category. I stand by those scores – the Nikon lens is meaningfully bigger and heavier than the Canon (about 1.5 inches longer and 1/3 pound heavier, not a trivial difference).
But at the end of the day, reducing a 5000 word review to a single number is always going to be a little flawed and subjective. I would ask our readers for some grace, especially if the scores are so close anyway, and to read the full review to get the complete story of a lens.
I’m lookin’ at you, PSFS building photo.
Now hotel?…
The biggest benefit of this fifty is, that fits perfectly in my smaller hands with R body.
All brands today produce all those super sharp and corrected bulky lenses that lack personality, what people use to say about the “leica look” “zeiss pop” and the amazing L primes EF set Canon have (…had). When my EF L primes will stop working I’d rather go medium format with Fuji, that, while still obsessed with all this overly corrected stuff, being medium format delivers on its own outstanding nuances and micro contrast. Something that EF L primes have (sacrificing a bit of resolution when wide open) and modern mirrorless lenses don’t. Truly disappointed by the direction where photography is going.
While this lens does everything his precious Fuji medium format will do (IE. Excellent Micro-contrast, great bokeh, etc.), he trashes it. I’ve tried one, and it’s images are just beautiful! I’m saving up for mine.
I never see COMA discussed. How does this lens compare to other high end lens wrt COMA.
Not sure what everyone is seeing here. The EF is clearly better at every aperture except for the corners.
Ok I’m here to whine. I’ll admit it. The white mark on the brick wall is a muddy mess on the RF. It’s over corrected for maximum detail resolving power that would only show up at wall size print sizes…
That’s medium format territory.
I’m sick of the photography industry catering to prosumers and people who lack the nuanced vision to see what a truly professional lens can deliver circa 2008. Then everything became about sacrifice to tone and color to higher virtual megapixel scores to make people who lack vision but want to feel justified in spending 3000$ On a lens.
Yes, you’re a whiner. I had the EF 50mm f1.2L, and I’ve tried tried the new RF 50mm f1.2, and the new lens is, corner to corner, an order of magnitude better. The images the new lens produces are something special. If everyone believed, like you, that the peak of lens development occurred in 2008, Nikon, Fuji, and Canon, etc would have gone out of business a decade ago. As for nuanced vision, get out and your basement, and you’ll find dozens of local photographers producing beautiful work with their “prosumer” equipment.
Dvir, although I really really like your sample pictures for how they look and their colours and everything: But if I’d be a Canon shooter and would think about getting a really fast 50 mm, I would like to know how it behaves in dark situations, inside or in the streets. I would also like to know how much coma it has in case I’d like to snap some Milky way pictures. I would like to know how thin the DoF in a face is – a fruit as a close-up just doesn’t tell me the same. I would like to know how well it’s handling frontlight. All of these questions are potentially weak points of fast lenses – how it behaves stopped down, I really don’t care much – I simply expect the best at this price.
The lens has to be sharp at least at around f/2.8, at this price point this is no question, it’s a simple demand. As Moses said “$ 2300… Hmmm” I think you should ask yourself what reasons you’d accept to spend this kind of money and if the lens live sup to your expectations. No one needs a f/1.2 50 mm just for landscapes, no matter how beautiful you did them…
Any chance you could do a comparison at the same apertures of the Nikon 50mm 1.8 S lens vs this one? Curious to see whether the much smaller Z lens can keep up with this behemoth.