How did you feel about the AF Noise on the lens? I just received my copy and feel it is a little louder then I am used to and can’t tell if it’s my lens only or normal. Thanks!
I no longer have it in front of me, so I’m just going by memory – but I don’t remember it being any louder than my other Z lenses. However, Googling it, looks like plenty of photographers are saying that their copy is a little on the loud side, too.
I think there’s absolutely nothing to worry about. A loud focus motor would not indicate any problem with the glass whatsoever. So as long as it focuses quickly and accurately, you’re all good. (That said, if you’re able to find a local camera store or another photographer with a copy, it’s probably worth trying to see if it’s any quieter than yours.)
Charles
September 6, 2024 10:11 am
Nasim, did you make a trip to Oxford, UK whilst reviewing this lens? Some of the locations in your photos look very familiar. Beautiful photos btw :)
Awesome review, Spencer. What an amazing lens and it just adds to the great selection we have today as photographers. Sometimes I wish I were a portrait photographer…the lenses are so light. haha.
Haha, thanks Jason! Calling the 50mm f/1.2 S light is something you’d only hear from a sports or wildlife photographer :)
Quintecent
August 22, 2024 7:12 am
Sony took a major leap over every other manufacturer in terms of optical performance with the latest GM II and newer GM lenses. The 50 F1.2 is in another league. I tested it myself and it is the best lens I’ve ever used, just not my favorite focal length. Also, the 24-70 F2.8 GM II and the 70-200 GM II currently can not be touched as well. Once Sony releases the rumored 24-70 f2.0 it will obliterate the competition for wedding photographers/event/journalists/general/street photographers. Sony is the only company that keeps innovation quite high.
After the disappointing R1, the incremental R5II and the impractically heavy and huge 24-105 f2.8. I feel like Canon will continue to lose market shares. Canon lenses were cool, when character was all the rage. The did have more character, softer renderings, and quite more flaring. I loved it, especially when I used the original EOS R with older EF lenses. The old 16-35 mk ii was a gem. The 70-200 f2.8 mark ii was so nostalgically warm!
Nikon seems to be more neutral and overall excellent, yet I am more impressed with the f1.8 primes and the Z8 than anything else from Nikon. Maybe the Nikkor Z 14-24 F2.8 is a lens that would be a real contender to modern GM lenses, but I don’t know. To me, they are just bigger, slightly worse than Sony lenses. At least you can get them cheap used.
The Nikkor Z 50 f1.2 is a lens that I would put somewhere between the RF F1.2 and the Sigma 50 f1.2. The 50 f1.2 GM is still the best 50 mm and likely the best lens every produced, I would argue even better than the Noct (no af, heavy, huge).
For me, the 50 F1.2 GM is the reference lens, that every subsequent lens should be compared to.
Yes, I used the Sigma 50 f1.2 on a few shoots (excellent) and owned the GM 1.2 (outstanding) for more than a year and briefly used the GM 1.4 (excellent, but boring in comparison) and the FE50f1.8 (only for a few days and sold it back imidiatly as it’s really horrifically bad) on my A7RV.
I used the Canon 50 1.2 on the R5 (tested and loaned it in my local camera store and tested it to the core for a few hours) and for half an hour with the R3. I did my usual tests: shooting tree branches against and slightly of the sun, shooting portraits backlit creating some flaring, shooting landscapes at F8-10 and looking at the corners. Capturing photos in minmal focus distance and at about 2 meters.
I used the Nikkor Z 50mm f1.2 on mulitple shoots (weddings, of course) and owned the 1.8 for ever (one of my most favourite Nikkor lenses along 20f1.8 and 35f1.8).
Nikon F1.8 lenses outclass every other manufactorer. They even outclass the Sigma I series.
Recent Sony GM primes and the GMII zooms are unbeatable.
On dpreview.com you can find sample images of the Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM in full resolution. Very bright highlights are rendered with a clear cat’s eye effect towards the edge of the image when the aperture is open. It is not only in this respect that the Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 Plena is far superior to the Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM.
It’s crazy, how I got downvoted for my comment. Is it a Nikon bias? As someone who used Nikon excessively, I think it’s almost comical.
@Rainer Yes, more telephoto lenses tend to have more round bokeh, but why do you compare a 50 with a 135?
Yes, I used most 50s there are — also most wide-angle lenses and most standard zooms. I am not a wildlife photographer, so I can’t say anything about 200mm+ But of course, this is where Nikkors shine, based on the reviews. In the more standard and wide-angle zoom range, there is a big gap in optical performance to top Sony lenses: corners, center, contrast, chromatics…almost in every regard.
I didn’t have the chance to use the Plena, but I used the Nikkor Z 105 mm Macro and the NIKKOR Z 70-200 f2.8 and I must say, the 70-200GMII was far superior to both. I don’t know how Plena would compare to 70-200GMII.
The problem with many commentators is the language. Quintecent, you wrote: “The 50 f1.2 GM is still the best 50 mm and likely the best lens every produced, I would argue even better than the Noct (no af, heavy, huge).” So you didn’t limit your insinuation to the standard lens, but proclaimed the Sony 50 f1.2 GM to be the best lens of all time. You yourself elevated it above Nikon’s 58mm Noct, which is not a standard lens. Just as unfounded, with unsubstantiated claims, you lump the Nikon Z 105mm Macro together with the Sony 70-200GMII. I have the 105 macro from Nikon. Where is the Sony 70-200GMII supposed to be better? In terms of sharpness? Is it 2 % or even 5 % sharper? What nonsense. The Nikon 105 has a lower distortion than the Sony 70-200GMII, better imaging performance in the close-up range (especially in the close-up range at apertures like 11 or 16). The Sony FE SEL 70-200mm 2.8 GM OSS II is only just usable at close range, because with this lens the edges of the image become slightly blurred at close range when the aperture is open, at the shortest and longest focal lengths. I could go on like this, but you’re too much of a Sony fan to be objective. Otherwise you wouldn’t be comparing a zoom like the Sony FE SEL 70-200mm 2.8 GM OSS II with the Nikon Z 135mm Plena. Every zoom lens looks bad against the imaging qualities of the Nikon (especially the bokeh).
Rainer, the 58mm is right in the ballpark of a 50mm lens, thus it is comparable to a 50mm as is the Zeiss 55mm f1.8. This is the reason, why most 50mm lens comparisons include the 55 and the 58. How is this an argument?
Again, I didn’t compare the 135 Plena to 70-200 GM II as I said that I did not use the Plena yet. They are comparable though, as both lenses cover 135mm. So you of course can compare them. Of course, a prime lens will outperform a Zoom, but by how much? And this is exactly, why I respect Sony. For making a smaller and lighter 70-200 that rivals some primes and exceeds every other competition-zooms.
Why am I too much of a Sony fanboy and how do you know it? I used Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, Blackmagic, and Canon for years, before recently trying Sony for the first two years. I continue to use Blackmagic for my video-related work and work with Irix & Sigma lenses.
Is everyone claiming that Sony just did many things right in the last few years being a fan-boy? Then yes, call me in! Best viewfinders? Check. Best lens selection, check. First global shutter camera with excellent ergonomics and mind-boggling speed, check. Affordable vlogging/videography b-cams with the ZVE1, check. Best performing yet most compact zoom lenses, check. Using more innovative sensors with almost every release, check. Being the first to have reliable autofocus, check.
How does this even matter in the discussion? This is a comment section, we comment on our options.
Now regarding the comparison of 70-200 GMII with the Nikkor Z 105: the Nikkor vignettes more wide open at F2.8 and is less contrasty when flaring, I found it also slow focusing, yet I was using a Z7 and a Z5 and Z7II then (so not the Z9/Z8) and my version had as many chromatic aberrations as I get with my GMII zooms, maybe due to sample variation. Also – yes – in terms of center- and corner sharpness, the GMII performs better (although there is a difference if you compare a 61MP sensor to a 45,7). The magnification is surely different on a Macro lens, and the 70-200 isn’t a Macro lens. Yet overall the GMII is for me a far superior lens and the more versatile one. It is a Zoom that is as good as most primes are.
Also again, I kindly disagree with you even on the Bokeh part. If large Bokeh-balls and creaminess were my primary AND only goals, I would still pick the GMII over Plena, simply because of the focal length. There is a big difference in 200mm vs 135mm and the 65mm difference is much more than a f-stop. Of course, there is the right tool for the right occasion and Plena seems to be one of the best if not the best 135 (here Canon RF 135 is a valid option). But I would rather keep a 70-200GMII for everything and continue to use Sony, until Nikon offers me something similar. If I use the 135 I lose a lot of focal length and gain marginally better performance, but similar weight. I see no real reason to go anything but the 70-200 except for maybe a 85mm F1.4 (I have the DG DN, which is terrific). It also makes more sense for me, personally, than a 135. You can get more of the background and have insane separation, without completely flattening the face like a 135 or 200 would. I work mostly in weddings, commercials and events. Brides love the 35mm look more than the tele. You know why? Because they got used to iPhone pictures and selfies.
The Nikkor Z 50 f1.2 is still far worse than the GM50f1.2 And there can’t be any debate. Its better, smaller, lighter, and offers me a Mount with many different options. I can safe so much weight, by simply using the 16-35 GMII, the 50 F1.2 GM and the 70-200 GM II. Honestly, if I currently had the money to keep all three, this is how I would roll all the time.
Feel free to downvote my personal experience based opinion again, though.
58 Noct, 55 Zeiss and 45mm I-series are all lenses I would compare to a 50mm prime. All are standard lenses.
I can compare the 105 Macro with the 70-200GM II at the 105 mm focal length, even if I am a few mm off on the zoom.
My claims are founded, and substantiated and are all based on personal testing and additionally read reviews. I also always use different platforms like Photography Life, Dxomark, optical limits, and videos from different YouTubers like Christopher Frost and many more. But I only talk about lenses I tested. I test them via a big array of test shots for different purposes. So I know what I am talking about. Also, I am still commenting on my personal experience.
The GMII is sharper in the center and corners wide open at f2.8 than the Z 105mm. It vignettes less, and the distortion is quite comparable, as it is not heavy on 105mmm on the GMII. The perceived sharpness is debatable, as we compare a 61MP to a 45,7MP sensor. In terms of Chromatic Aberrations, even though reviews claim there are almost no aberrations on the 105, I still had them in my shots. And the amount was comparable to my GMII. Better? Probably, BUT I still had to deal with it. And I’m not too fond of chromatic aberrations, as I shoot many leaves, buildings with fences, etc.
Also, I didn’t compare the GMII to the plena, but they are comparable at the 135mm focal length. While of course, I expect the Plena to be better in every aspect, I wonder by how much, as the GMII is so good. For bokeh, as previously stated I would still prefer the GMII on 200mm if big bokeh balls was all I wanted, but usually this is not the case in weddings. I also much rather have a 85mm f1.4 than a 135 f1.8, because the longer you get, the flatter faces become and this is not always what brides want. They got used to 28mm lenses on their phones and how they look. Sometimes you get to squared jaws on those longer lenses. But I can be much more flexible with the 70-200. Honestly, I don’t see a reason to have a 135 for my personal use cases. I would rather have a 50 f1.2 or an 85 f1.4; the 70-200GMii and the 16-35 GMII. To this day, this is my favorite lens combination. And I used almost every combination in the past. In my Nikon times, I used the Z24-70f2.8, the 35mm f1.8, the 50 f1.8 the 85f1.8, and the 70-200f2.8 yet it was too damn heavy and huge. The f1.2 primes were not released yet.
If by calling me a Sony fanboy, you are implying that I only used Sony all my life – you are mistaken. Even currently I use different systems for different purposes (like Blackmagic cameras for some videography, manual lenses, vintage lenses, etc.). For many more than a decade I used Panasonic cameras. Then I used Nikon primarily for over 5 years. I used Ricoh, Fuji, Canon, and yes, Sony (most recently). But I indeed would consider myself a Sony FAN, as they are innovating where others seem to stagnate. Large mounts were promised to have a superior resolution, corner sharpness, and less chromatics, yet Sony proved that they could create smaller, more compact, and optically superior lenses. Their cameras are almost always the most innovative releases. Just look at the 12MP sensors for high-iso performance even if it’s based around noise reduction, or the 33, the 50, and the 61MP sensors with all their bells and whistles. Or the 24MP global shutter sensor with insanely high fps. Look through the viewfinders on the A7RV or the A9III. Try the ergonomics of the A9III. Look at those screen designs that tilt and flip out (much more solid design than on the Panasonic). See how well-priced some stripped-down versions of the cameras are like ZV-E1. See what Sony does in the cinema department: they not only rivaled the Canons C-series but dethroned it with the FX and Venice series. I know there are still some pros to having optimized sensors like the 45,7 sensor from Nikon, which was perfected over the years and has less to deal with diffraction. I still love Nikon for many reasons. The easy switch to auto ISO. The two buttons on close to the lens mount, which were a joy to use. I loved the look of my Z 24-70 F2.8 and I loved how incredibly portable the Z 14-30 was. I loved all my f1.8 primes, especially the 85, 35 and the 20. I also loved the 50mm and to this day those primes are breathtaking and surpass every other 1.8 lenses, even the modern I-Series from Sigma.
I am also a Sigma and a Tamron fan. And I am still a Canon and Nikon fan. Less so Panasonic recently, due to lackluster releases (GH6, S9, no new S1R).
The Nikkor Z 50f1.2 is a great lens, but the GM is smaller, lighter, and optically better. What else is there to be said?
I hear you. I use Nikon and Sony lenses for landscape astrophotography, and the Sony lenses are excellent – 14 mm f/1.8 (extremely light!) GM, 24 mm f/1.4 GM, 35 mm f/1.4 GM, 135 mm f/1.8. I will try the 50 mm f/1.4 GM next weekend. The 12-24 mm f/2.8 GM is superior to the Z mount 14-24 mm f/2.8 (point stars across the whole range, while the 14-24 mm works best at 14 mm). That said, I love the Nikon 20 mm f/1.8, 50 mm f/1.8 and 85 mm f/1.8 too. My “test” is that the stars should be points from corner to corner without aberrations. I still have my 24-70 mm f/2.8 Z mount lens but I might well swap it for the much lighter Sony GMII counterpart.
You’re getting downvoted for absurd claims such as 70-200 GMii having “far superior” performance to the Z 70-200. Every test comparison shows they have roughly similar performance, only difference being weight. The Z 105 is a macro lens and that’s an Apple vs orange comparison.
Based on every review I can find, the Sony FE 70-200 2.8 GM II has vastly sharper edges; is significantly sharper in the middle of the frame, has less corner darkening on FF sensors, is lighter and takes up a lot less space in the bag. I am currently eying with this lens and want to sell my Nikon gear for a A7CR + and A7CII or a jus an 7RV. Not decided yet. But I have the Nikkor 70-200 its ridiculously heavy so I rarely use it and when I use it, I hate it being so heavy. Tried the 35-150 but it has so much fringing its not even funny.
I think Quintessent is comparing the 105 in this regard as a telephoto lens, which it also is. So I feel like it’s a justified comparison. And hes got a point, yet I would prefer a having a dedicated macro lens for my plant/mushroom photography. But hey, if he does weddings only I can understand the practicable thinking. I want the 70-200 be primarily my landscape telephoto and hiking lens. And for equestrian photography. I need faster autofocus for that than on my Z7I and Z6II. But I am not sure, if I should just stay in the Nikon system and buy a 100-400.
Is the Z 50 f1.2 fast focusing on moving subjects? Anyone got experience with the Z8?
Kamuran Akkor
August 22, 2024 2:42 am
Thanks for the detailed review Spencer. Is the distortion test after or before correction?
Thanks Kamuran! We test distortion without any correction.
Kurt Mann
August 21, 2024 4:34 pm
I knew before I got this that for image quality over the 1.8 you are paying dearly, but I still went ahead and it still may be my favorite lens. Haven’t really used the 1.8 much since I got this, but when I went on vacation recently I did opt for my niftier fifty.
Jeff
August 21, 2024 2:13 pm
Now that we have the 50mm 1.2S, 85mm 1.2S and the Plena, I have a hypothesis about Nikon’s path to get here.
The 50mm 1.2S was the culmination of everything that Nikon had learned and they threw everything into the 50mm 1.2S bucket. As a result we received a highly competent lens for photographers and video users. In affect, it is the ultimate hybrid 50mm lens – in fact the only real contender in this price range. However, photographers didn’t appreciate the video qualities of the lens and more to the point, resented having to pay for it. While I don’t think they paid for it in $, they paid for it in size and weight. I am one of them, but the size and weight is a small factor for me. I appreciate the lens due to its pure still imaging qualities.
So Nikon considered this and designed the 85mm 1.2S with the same strategy as the 28mm 1.4E and 105mm 1.4E. Very sharp wide open and beautiful (rendering, bokeh) with no special enhancements to appeal to the video market. Sure it is the same size as the 50mm 1.2S, but almost all 85s are bigger than their 50 counterparts. The size is what you would expect from a lens of this caliber.
Then they introduced the Plena. The Plena exceeded the 50mm 1.2 and 85 1.2 in the same way as those two lenses exceeded their f-mount counterparts. First, sharpness is taken to a new level. Second, sharpness is corner to corner. Third, vignetting is even better than the Noct – not zero but practically none. I cannot see it on my Plena. Finally, bokeh is essentially flawless edge to edge with not even a hint of clipping until you get to the corners – and then only a hint.
The Plena will go down in history as a seminal lens and I hope that it informs the design of Nikon’s fast S-line lenses moving forward. I wish for Plenas from 13mm to 300mm.
(*) Vignetting performance is more important than people give it credit for. If a lens vignettes one stop less than a competitor in the corners, then affective corner noise and corner dynamic range is one stop better than the competitor. This is lost on a lot of reviewers and people that are currently getting very excited about the smaller decline in dynamic range with stacked sensors.
“(*) Vignetting performance is more important than people give it credit for.”
For example, if a lens has two stops of vignetting at f/1.4 then the depth of field in the corners increases to f/2.8, which reduces the effect of field curvature.
Technically yes, but only if you make the distinction between optical vignetting and falloff. Typical “vignetting” test results, including ours, just measure total corner darkening, which is a combination.
I don’t want people to think that 2 stops in our test results (or those of other websites) actually has two full stops of a depth of field increase in the corners – though there will be some.
I have to make the falloff/vignetting distinction here. Falloff doesn’t affect DoF. It’s the result of, mainly, the inverse square rule – where light traveling to the corners of the image must travel farther than to the center of the image, so the corners are darker. All lenses, but especially wide-angles, have falloff. Falloff doesn’t improve upon stopping down.
Optical vignetting is a little different. It’s the result of the lens design itself blocking light from the corners. The easiest way to visualize it is with the cat’s-eye shape to the bokeh. Basically, as viewed from the corners of the image, the aperture of the lens is not fully circular. It’s partly chopped off, not unlike using a narrower aperture in the first place (though shaped like a cat’s eye). This does affect depth of field in the corners of the image, though it’s generally not very relevant. And this does improve upon stopping down, generally to the point of vanishing completely.
You can get a good sense of how much falloff a lens has by looking at our “vignetting” results at the narrowest apertures like f/16 – loosely speaking, that’s the falloff. Subtract that from the measurements at other apertures to see the optical vignetting caused by the lens design.
For this lens, for example, there is about 0.48 stops of falloff at every aperture, and about 1.33 stops of optical vignetting at f/1.2 infinity focus.
Not that this is especially relevant most of the time, but I hope this answers your question. The only site I’ve seen really discuss these nuances is Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting
I think I get it. The falloff is similar to the reduced energy as a function of area as you go farther away from the equator, as the area illuminated by the sun increases.
Very few people understand vignetting, especially natural vignetting (aka natural illumination falloff). If you are interested, here’s an article by Doug Kerr:
Derivation of the “Cosine Fourth” Law for Falloff of Illuminance Across a Camera Image Douglas A. Kerr, P.E. (2007) dougkerr.net/Pumpk…alloff.pdf
Robert John
August 21, 2024 12:05 pm
Has one of you been to Oxford?
I tried to read what was on the bus-stop but, disappointingly, the image doesn’t seem to be sharp enough. (I am a tech numbskull – should I have exported it?).
As you say, expensive, large and heavy. My 50/f1.8D is cheap, tiny and light. The very definition of ‘nifty’. But it’s largely unused – just not my focal length.
bg5931
August 21, 2024 10:47 am
Thanks for the review! I think the last three samples on the “more sample photos” page are quite interesting. Even though the scenes encompass a comparably large subject/low reproduction ratio (full body with lots of additional room or multiple people), there is still pretty decent subject isolation. IMO, this is more impressive (and probably a more useful characteristic of this lens) than the ultra-shallow DoF it renders on close up shots (flowers, cats).
payen
August 21, 2024 10:27 am
Interesting,but…I have a 135mm 1,8 art sigma and for me the bokeh is very similar just the perspective is different …thanks for your tests
How did you feel about the AF Noise on the lens? I just received my copy and feel it is a little louder then I am used to and can’t tell if it’s my lens only or normal. Thanks!
I no longer have it in front of me, so I’m just going by memory – but I don’t remember it being any louder than my other Z lenses. However, Googling it, looks like plenty of photographers are saying that their copy is a little on the loud side, too.
I think there’s absolutely nothing to worry about. A loud focus motor would not indicate any problem with the glass whatsoever. So as long as it focuses quickly and accurately, you’re all good. (That said, if you’re able to find a local camera store or another photographer with a copy, it’s probably worth trying to see if it’s any quieter than yours.)
Nasim, did you make a trip to Oxford, UK whilst reviewing this lens? Some of the locations in your photos look very familiar. Beautiful photos btw :)
Yes, some of the photos are from Oxford :)
Thank you for your feedback!
Awesome review, Spencer. What an amazing lens and it just adds to the great selection we have today as photographers. Sometimes I wish I were a portrait photographer…the lenses are so light. haha.
Haha, thanks Jason! Calling the 50mm f/1.2 S light is something you’d only hear from a sports or wildlife photographer :)
Sony took a major leap over every other manufacturer in terms of optical performance with the latest GM II and newer GM lenses. The 50 F1.2 is in another league. I tested it myself and it is the best lens I’ve ever used, just not my favorite focal length. Also, the 24-70 F2.8 GM II and the 70-200 GM II currently can not be touched as well. Once Sony releases the rumored 24-70 f2.0 it will obliterate the competition for wedding photographers/event/journalists/general/street photographers. Sony is the only company that keeps innovation quite high.
After the disappointing R1, the incremental R5II and the impractically heavy and huge 24-105 f2.8. I feel like Canon will continue to lose market shares. Canon lenses were cool, when character was all the rage. The did have more character, softer renderings, and quite more flaring. I loved it, especially when I used the original EOS R with older EF lenses. The old 16-35 mk ii was a gem. The 70-200 f2.8 mark ii was so nostalgically warm!
Nikon seems to be more neutral and overall excellent, yet I am more impressed with the f1.8 primes and the Z8 than anything else from Nikon. Maybe the Nikkor Z 14-24 F2.8 is a lens that would be a real contender to modern GM lenses, but I don’t know. To me, they are just bigger, slightly worse than Sony lenses. At least you can get them cheap used.
The Nikkor Z 50 f1.2 is a lens that I would put somewhere between the RF F1.2 and the Sigma 50 f1.2. The 50 f1.2 GM is still the best 50 mm and likely the best lens every produced, I would argue even better than the Noct (no af, heavy, huge).
For me, the 50 F1.2 GM is the reference lens, that every subsequent lens should be compared to.
So you already have used the Sigma 50mm f/1.2? and the Nikon and the Canon?
Not to forget the Sony?
@Pieter Kers
Yes, I used the Sigma 50 f1.2 on a few shoots (excellent) and owned the GM 1.2 (outstanding) for more than a year and briefly used the GM 1.4 (excellent, but boring in comparison) and the FE50f1.8 (only for a few days and sold it back imidiatly as it’s really horrifically bad) on my A7RV.
I used the Canon 50 1.2 on the R5 (tested and loaned it in my local camera store and tested it to the core for a few hours) and for half an hour with the R3. I did my usual tests: shooting tree branches against and slightly of the sun, shooting portraits backlit creating some flaring, shooting landscapes at F8-10 and looking at the corners. Capturing photos in minmal focus distance and at about 2 meters.
I used the Nikkor Z 50mm f1.2 on mulitple shoots (weddings, of course) and owned the 1.8 for ever (one of my most favourite Nikkor lenses along 20f1.8 and 35f1.8).
Nikon F1.8 lenses outclass every other manufactorer. They even outclass the Sigma I series.
Recent Sony GM primes and the GMII zooms are unbeatable.
You might draw a different conclusion if you were comparing 135 lenses. In my mind, that is the reference.
Get off your knees
On dpreview.com you can find sample images of the Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM in full resolution. Very bright highlights are rendered with a clear cat’s eye effect towards the edge of the image when the aperture is open. It is not only in this respect that the Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 Plena is far superior to the Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM.
It’s crazy, how I got downvoted for my comment. Is it a Nikon bias? As someone who used Nikon excessively, I think it’s almost comical.
@Rainer Yes, more telephoto lenses tend to have more round bokeh, but why do you compare a 50 with a 135?
Yes, I used most 50s there are — also most wide-angle lenses and most standard zooms. I am not a wildlife photographer, so I can’t say anything about 200mm+ But of course, this is where Nikkors shine, based on the reviews. In the more standard and wide-angle zoom range, there is a big gap in optical performance to top Sony lenses: corners, center, contrast, chromatics…almost in every regard.
I didn’t have the chance to use the Plena, but I used the Nikkor Z 105 mm Macro and the NIKKOR Z 70-200 f2.8 and I must say, the 70-200GMII was far superior to both. I don’t know how Plena would compare to 70-200GMII.
The problem with many commentators is the language. Quintecent, you wrote: “The 50 f1.2 GM is still the best 50 mm and likely the best lens every produced, I would argue even better than the Noct (no af, heavy, huge).”
So you didn’t limit your insinuation to the standard lens, but proclaimed the Sony 50 f1.2 GM to be the best lens of all time. You yourself elevated it above Nikon’s 58mm Noct, which is not a standard lens.
Just as unfounded, with unsubstantiated claims, you lump the Nikon Z 105mm Macro together with the Sony 70-200GMII. I have the 105 macro from Nikon. Where is the Sony 70-200GMII supposed to be better? In terms of sharpness? Is it 2 % or even 5 % sharper? What nonsense. The Nikon 105 has a lower distortion than the Sony 70-200GMII, better imaging performance in the close-up range (especially in the close-up range at apertures like 11 or 16). The Sony FE SEL 70-200mm 2.8 GM OSS II is only just usable at close range, because with this lens the edges of the image become slightly blurred at close range when the aperture is open, at the shortest and longest focal lengths.
I could go on like this, but you’re too much of a Sony fan to be objective. Otherwise you wouldn’t be comparing a zoom like the Sony FE SEL 70-200mm 2.8 GM OSS II with the Nikon Z 135mm Plena. Every zoom lens looks bad against the imaging qualities of the Nikon (especially the bokeh).
Rainer, the 58mm is right in the ballpark of a 50mm lens, thus it is comparable to a 50mm as is the Zeiss 55mm f1.8. This is the reason, why most 50mm lens comparisons include the 55 and the 58. How is this an argument?
Again, I didn’t compare the 135 Plena to 70-200 GM II as I said that I did not use the Plena yet. They are comparable though, as both lenses cover 135mm. So you of course can compare them. Of course, a prime lens will outperform a Zoom, but by how much? And this is exactly, why I respect Sony. For making a smaller and lighter 70-200 that rivals some primes and exceeds every other competition-zooms.
Why am I too much of a Sony fanboy and how do you know it? I used Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, Blackmagic, and Canon for years, before recently trying Sony for the first two years. I continue to use Blackmagic for my video-related work and work with Irix & Sigma lenses.
Is everyone claiming that Sony just did many things right in the last few years being a fan-boy? Then yes, call me in! Best viewfinders? Check. Best lens selection, check. First global shutter camera with excellent ergonomics and mind-boggling speed, check. Affordable vlogging/videography b-cams with the ZVE1, check. Best performing yet most compact zoom lenses, check. Using more innovative sensors with almost every release, check. Being the first to have reliable autofocus, check.
How does this even matter in the discussion? This is a comment section, we comment on our options.
Now regarding the comparison of 70-200 GMII with the Nikkor Z 105: the Nikkor vignettes more wide open at F2.8 and is less contrasty when flaring, I found it also slow focusing, yet I was using a Z7 and a Z5 and Z7II then (so not the Z9/Z8) and my version had as many chromatic aberrations as I get with my GMII zooms, maybe due to sample variation. Also – yes – in terms of center- and corner sharpness, the GMII performs better (although there is a difference if you compare a 61MP sensor to a 45,7). The magnification is surely different on a Macro lens, and the 70-200 isn’t a Macro lens. Yet overall the GMII is for me a far superior lens and the more versatile one. It is a Zoom that is as good as most primes are.
Also again, I kindly disagree with you even on the Bokeh part. If large Bokeh-balls and creaminess were my primary AND only goals, I would still pick the GMII over Plena, simply because of the focal length. There is a big difference in 200mm vs 135mm and the 65mm difference is much more than a f-stop. Of course, there is the right tool for the right occasion and Plena seems to be one of the best if not the best 135 (here Canon RF 135 is a valid option). But I would rather keep a 70-200GMII for everything and continue to use Sony, until Nikon offers me something similar. If I use the 135 I lose a lot of focal length and gain marginally better performance, but similar weight. I see no real reason to go anything but the 70-200 except for maybe a 85mm F1.4 (I have the DG DN, which is terrific). It also makes more sense for me, personally, than a 135. You can get more of the background and have insane separation, without completely flattening the face like a 135 or 200 would. I work mostly in weddings, commercials and events. Brides love the 35mm look more than the tele. You know why? Because they got used to iPhone pictures and selfies.
The Nikkor Z 50 f1.2 is still far worse than the GM50f1.2 And there can’t be any debate. Its better, smaller, lighter, and offers me a Mount with many different options. I can safe so much weight, by simply using the 16-35 GMII, the 50 F1.2 GM and the 70-200 GM II. Honestly, if I currently had the money to keep all three, this is how I would roll all the time.
Feel free to downvote my personal experience based opinion again, though.
Also, I completely agree that a macro lens is better at close-range F11-16 than a telephoto zoom lens.
But my analogous, and similarly useless, comment would be: But the 70-200 can do 70-134 and 136-200 better.
In all my posts I only wrote about optical performance, not features.
58 Noct, 55 Zeiss and 45mm I-series are all lenses I would compare to a 50mm prime. All are standard lenses.
I can compare the 105 Macro with the 70-200GM II at the 105 mm focal length, even if I am a few mm off on the zoom.
My claims are founded, and substantiated and are all based on personal testing and additionally read reviews. I also always use different platforms like Photography Life, Dxomark, optical limits, and videos from different YouTubers like Christopher Frost and many more. But I only talk about lenses I tested. I test them via a big array of test shots for different purposes. So I know what I am talking about. Also, I am still commenting on my personal experience.
The GMII is sharper in the center and corners wide open at f2.8 than the Z 105mm. It vignettes less, and the distortion is quite comparable, as it is not heavy on 105mmm on the GMII. The perceived sharpness is debatable, as we compare a 61MP to a 45,7MP sensor. In terms of Chromatic Aberrations, even though reviews claim there are almost no aberrations on the 105, I still had them in my shots. And the amount was comparable to my GMII. Better? Probably, BUT I still had to deal with it. And I’m not too fond of chromatic aberrations, as I shoot many leaves, buildings with fences, etc.
Also, I didn’t compare the GMII to the plena, but they are comparable at the 135mm focal length. While of course, I expect the Plena to be better in every aspect, I wonder by how much, as the GMII is so good. For bokeh, as previously stated I would still prefer the GMII on 200mm if big bokeh balls was all I wanted, but usually this is not the case in weddings. I also much rather have a 85mm f1.4 than a 135 f1.8, because the longer you get, the flatter faces become and this is not always what brides want. They got used to 28mm lenses on their phones and how they look. Sometimes you get to squared jaws on those longer lenses. But I can be much more flexible with the 70-200. Honestly, I don’t see a reason to have a 135 for my personal use cases. I would rather have a 50 f1.2 or an 85 f1.4; the 70-200GMii and the 16-35 GMII.
To this day, this is my favorite lens combination. And I used almost every combination in the past. In my Nikon times, I used the Z24-70f2.8, the 35mm f1.8, the 50 f1.8 the 85f1.8, and the 70-200f2.8 yet it was too damn heavy and huge. The f1.2 primes were not released yet.
If by calling me a Sony fanboy, you are implying that I only used Sony all my life – you are mistaken. Even currently I use different systems for different purposes (like Blackmagic cameras for some videography, manual lenses, vintage lenses, etc.). For many more than a decade I used Panasonic cameras. Then I used Nikon primarily for over 5 years. I used Ricoh, Fuji, Canon, and yes, Sony (most recently). But I indeed would consider myself a Sony FAN, as they are innovating where others seem to stagnate. Large mounts were promised to have a superior resolution, corner sharpness, and less chromatics, yet Sony proved that they could create smaller, more compact, and optically superior lenses. Their cameras are almost always the most innovative releases. Just look at the 12MP sensors for high-iso performance even if it’s based around noise reduction, or the 33, the 50, and the 61MP sensors with all their bells and whistles. Or the 24MP global shutter sensor with insanely high fps. Look through the viewfinders on the A7RV or the A9III. Try the ergonomics of the A9III. Look at those screen designs that tilt and flip out (much more solid design than on the Panasonic). See how well-priced some stripped-down versions of the cameras are like ZV-E1. See what Sony does in the cinema department: they not only rivaled the Canons C-series but dethroned it with the FX and Venice series. I know there are still some pros to having optimized sensors like the 45,7 sensor from Nikon, which was perfected over the years and has less to deal with diffraction. I still love Nikon for many reasons. The easy switch to auto ISO. The two buttons on close to the lens mount, which were a joy to use. I loved the look of my Z 24-70 F2.8 and I loved how incredibly portable the Z 14-30 was. I loved all my f1.8 primes, especially the 85, 35 and the 20. I also loved the 50mm and to this day those primes are breathtaking and surpass every other 1.8 lenses, even the modern I-Series from Sigma.
I am also a Sigma and a Tamron fan. And I am still a Canon and Nikon fan. Less so Panasonic recently, due to lackluster releases (GH6, S9, no new S1R).
The Nikkor Z 50f1.2 is a great lens, but the GM is smaller, lighter, and optically better. What else is there to be said?
I hear you. I use Nikon and Sony lenses for landscape astrophotography, and the Sony lenses are excellent – 14 mm f/1.8 (extremely light!) GM, 24 mm f/1.4 GM, 35 mm f/1.4 GM, 135 mm f/1.8. I will try the 50 mm f/1.4 GM next weekend. The 12-24 mm f/2.8 GM is superior to the Z mount 14-24 mm f/2.8 (point stars across the whole range, while the 14-24 mm works best at 14 mm). That said, I love the Nikon 20 mm f/1.8, 50 mm f/1.8 and 85 mm f/1.8 too. My “test” is that the stars should be points from corner to corner without aberrations.
I still have my 24-70 mm f/2.8 Z mount lens but I might well swap it for the much lighter Sony GMII counterpart.
You’re getting downvoted for absurd claims such as 70-200 GMii having “far superior” performance to the Z 70-200. Every test comparison shows they have roughly similar performance, only difference being weight. The Z 105 is a macro lens and that’s an Apple vs orange comparison.
Based on every review I can find, the Sony FE 70-200 2.8 GM II has vastly sharper edges; is significantly sharper in the middle of the frame, has less corner darkening on FF sensors, is lighter and takes up a lot less space in the bag. I am currently eying with this lens and want to sell my Nikon gear for a A7CR + and A7CII or a jus an 7RV. Not decided yet. But I have the Nikkor 70-200 its ridiculously heavy so I rarely use it and when I use it, I hate it being so heavy. Tried the 35-150 but it has so much fringing its not even funny.
I think Quintessent is comparing the 105 in this regard as a telephoto lens, which it also is. So I feel like it’s a justified comparison. And hes got a point, yet I would prefer a having a dedicated macro lens for my plant/mushroom photography. But hey, if he does weddings only I can understand the practicable thinking. I want the 70-200 be primarily my landscape telephoto and hiking lens. And for equestrian photography. I need faster autofocus for that than on my Z7I and Z6II. But I am not sure, if I should just stay in the Nikon system and buy a 100-400.
Is the Z 50 f1.2 fast focusing on moving subjects? Anyone got experience with the Z8?
Thanks for the detailed review Spencer. Is the distortion test after or before correction?
Thanks Kamuran! We test distortion without any correction.
I knew before I got this that for image quality over the 1.8 you are paying dearly, but I still went ahead and it still may be my favorite lens. Haven’t really used the 1.8 much since I got this, but when I went on vacation recently I did opt for my niftier fifty.
Now that we have the 50mm 1.2S, 85mm 1.2S and the Plena, I have a hypothesis about Nikon’s path to get here.
The 50mm 1.2S was the culmination of everything that Nikon had learned and they threw everything into the 50mm 1.2S bucket. As a result we received a highly competent lens for photographers and video users. In affect, it is the ultimate hybrid 50mm lens – in fact the only real contender in this price range. However, photographers didn’t appreciate the video qualities of the lens and more to the point, resented having to pay for it. While I don’t think they paid for it in $, they paid for it in size and weight. I am one of them, but the size and weight is a small factor for me. I appreciate the lens due to its pure still imaging qualities.
So Nikon considered this and designed the 85mm 1.2S with the same strategy as the 28mm 1.4E and 105mm 1.4E. Very sharp wide open and beautiful (rendering, bokeh) with no special enhancements to appeal to the video market. Sure it is the same size as the 50mm 1.2S, but almost all 85s are bigger than their 50 counterparts. The size is what you would expect from a lens of this caliber.
Then they introduced the Plena. The Plena exceeded the 50mm 1.2 and 85 1.2 in the same way as those two lenses exceeded their f-mount counterparts. First, sharpness is taken to a new level. Second, sharpness is corner to corner. Third, vignetting is even better than the Noct – not zero but practically none. I cannot see it on my Plena. Finally, bokeh is essentially flawless edge to edge with not even a hint of clipping until you get to the corners – and then only a hint.
The Plena will go down in history as a seminal lens and I hope that it informs the design of Nikon’s fast S-line lenses moving forward. I wish for Plenas from 13mm to 300mm.
(*) Vignetting performance is more important than people give it credit for. If a lens vignettes one stop less than a competitor in the corners, then affective corner noise and corner dynamic range is one stop better than the competitor. This is lost on a lot of reviewers and people that are currently getting very excited about the smaller decline in dynamic range with stacked sensors.
“photographers didn’t appreciate the video qualities of the lens ”
why?
I understand the focus breathing is very low…for one.
Or do you mean something else?
Because they are photographers, not videographers.
“(*) Vignetting performance is more important than people give it credit for.”
For example, if a lens has two stops of vignetting at f/1.4 then the depth of field in the corners increases to f/2.8, which reduces the effect of field curvature.
Technically yes, but only if you make the distinction between optical vignetting and falloff. Typical “vignetting” test results, including ours, just measure total corner darkening, which is a combination.
I don’t want people to think that 2 stops in our test results (or those of other websites) actually has two full stops of a depth of field increase in the corners – though there will be some.
Falloff affecting DOF? I must admit this is a new concept for me. Where can I learn more?
I have to make the falloff/vignetting distinction here. Falloff doesn’t affect DoF. It’s the result of, mainly, the inverse square rule – where light traveling to the corners of the image must travel farther than to the center of the image, so the corners are darker. All lenses, but especially wide-angles, have falloff. Falloff doesn’t improve upon stopping down.
Optical vignetting is a little different. It’s the result of the lens design itself blocking light from the corners. The easiest way to visualize it is with the cat’s-eye shape to the bokeh. Basically, as viewed from the corners of the image, the aperture of the lens is not fully circular. It’s partly chopped off, not unlike using a narrower aperture in the first place (though shaped like a cat’s eye). This does affect depth of field in the corners of the image, though it’s generally not very relevant. And this does improve upon stopping down, generally to the point of vanishing completely.
You can get a good sense of how much falloff a lens has by looking at our “vignetting” results at the narrowest apertures like f/16 – loosely speaking, that’s the falloff. Subtract that from the measurements at other apertures to see the optical vignetting caused by the lens design.
For this lens, for example, there is about 0.48 stops of falloff at every aperture, and about 1.33 stops of optical vignetting at f/1.2 infinity focus.
Not that this is especially relevant most of the time, but I hope this answers your question. The only site I’ve seen really discuss these nuances is Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting
I think I get it. The falloff is similar to the reduced energy as a function of area as you go farther away from the equator, as the area illuminated by the sun increases.
Very few people understand vignetting, especially natural vignetting (aka natural illumination falloff). If you are interested, here’s an article by Doug Kerr:
Derivation of the “Cosine Fourth” Law for Falloff of Illuminance Across a Camera Image
Douglas A. Kerr, P.E. (2007)
dougkerr.net/Pumpk…alloff.pdf
Has one of you been to Oxford?
I tried to read what was on the bus-stop but, disappointingly, the image doesn’t seem to be sharp enough. (I am a tech numbskull – should I have exported it?).
As you say, expensive, large and heavy. My 50/f1.8D is cheap, tiny and light. The very definition of ‘nifty’. But it’s largely unused – just not my focal length.
Thanks for the review! I think the last three samples on the “more sample photos” page are quite interesting. Even though the scenes encompass a comparably large subject/low reproduction ratio (full body with lots of additional room or multiple people), there is still pretty decent subject isolation. IMO, this is more impressive (and probably a more useful characteristic of this lens) than the ultra-shallow DoF it renders on close up shots (flowers, cats).
Interesting,but…I have a 135mm 1,8 art sigma and for me the bokeh is very similar just the perspective is different …thanks for your tests