Nikon Z 50mm f1.2 S lens review vs Nikon Z 50mm f1.8 S | The Z 50mm challenge Image & Video Samples
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 ноя 2024
- #50mm #nikon #50mmvs50mm @nikonusa @NikonEurope
Subscribe www.youtube.co...
Instagram / vahagraphy
facebook / vahagraphy
email - vahagraphy@yahoo.com
The battle of the Z 50mm S lenses!
Nikon Z 50mm 1.2 S VS Nikon Z 50mm 1.8 S lenses and review
$2100 vs $600 How does the 50mm 1.8 match up to the big brother 1.2?
Lets find out
In this lens review -
50mm Z 1.2 vs 50mm Z 1.8
50mm Z sample images
50mm Z 1.2 and 1.8 video clips
We look at sharpless. bokeh colors and more in this video
I want to thank Michael Ares from Michael Ares photography for letting me try out his Nikon Z 50mm f/1.2 S lens.!!
I met Michael and we had a 50mm challenge. It was allot of fun
Check it out.
Enjoy
I want to thank everyone who has subscribed to Vahagraphy. Please share the video with all your photographer friends and let us grow and expand.
Also please hit the Like button so more people can see VAHAGRAPHY so we can bring you more content in the future. Bigger and better content.
If you like this video and you want more videos relating to all things photography. Subscribe to VAHAGRAPHY. Very much appreciate it.
Rock & Roll everyone
VAHAGRAPHY - ROCK & ROLL PHOTOGRAPHY CHANNEL
I personally like the 1.8 because the 1.2 called me poor.
hehe 🤘🏻🤘🏻
😂🙌🏼
😂👍
🤣🤣🤣
Due to the lower element count of the 50mm Z 1.8 S lens, it has superior tonal and color contrast, whereas the 50mm Z 1.2 S lens has excellent bokeh and sharpness. However. due to the price and weight, I'm going with the 50mm 1.8 S Lens.
I'm with u
Thank you for confirming a
quality of 50 1.8s,an outstanding lens.
Yup. Mil. Rock n Roll the 50mm. both lenses are great .
Enjoyed the review. I have seen a couple of other good comparison’s between these two lenses, but in this review, the differences were clearer. Overall, I can see why pros and well-heeled hobbyist spend the money. Like other professional Z glass (or Canon RF glass, etc.) the value proposition is clear to those who decide to make the investment. I am glad you pointed out the other big story; “How well the 50 f1.8 lens stands up in a comparison!”. I think that is true regardless of the price point. The price and size just makes the 1.8 all that more remarkable.
Thank you Greg. Glad you enjoyed the video. Both are amazing. both will do it. comes down to if you need the faster lens, 1.2 . I can tell you, sure its nice to have a 1.2 and as sharp as this but this lens is really a waste if you buy it and never use it. For video, it really shines, specially if you want that bokeh.
Excellent video! I love the side by side comparisons. I have the original Z6 and the 50mm 1.8 lens. While the 1.2 is amazing these comparisons made me very happy with my lens. As an amateur enthusiast on a budget the 1.8 can't be beat!
Hi Frank. yes for sure your 1.8 lens is a great choice . the 1.8 is a pro lens. these are not the 1.8 lenses from the past. the z 1.8 line is simply outstanding. basically if you don’t need the extra stops of light then ur all set.
Nice video of the Nikon Z 1.8 and the 1.2 lens. The 1.2 is definitely really good for the bokeh and great detail and sharpness of the subject especially in the small area of the subject, it comes into view really good. I think the 1.2 is worth the price tag and it will pay for itself in photo jobs. Michael is so cool to see with you. Great video Vahagn.
thank you Agnetha. The 50 mm 1.2 lens is truly amazing. no focus breathing at all. the z lenses do a great job with focus breathing. this is why the z lenses are a bit bigger than usual.
This video came out SO GOOD! Again, it was fun to film this with you and settle the debate for a 1.2 or 1.8 lens for a viewer out there. #RockAndRoll
Michael thank you brother it was my pleasure. It was a lot of fun we will definitely do this again. Rock n Roll 🤘🏻🤘🏻
Great collab. I'm sold on the 1.2. I already own the 1.8 and it's just gorgeous and sharp, but who can resist that bokeh on the 1.2?
exactly . love them both . thank you Yamen
The 50 1.2 is just fantastic, I enjoy it every single time! :)
The 1.8 is more practical and a really great alternative! But the joy of the 1.2 is worth every penny, for me ;)
1.2 lenses have always been special. Think about all the past 1.2 lenses. from all makers. they all have been gems. this 50 is probably the best 1.2 I've ever shot with to date.
Thx for comparison. The 1.2 ia a great lens no question, but the 1.8 gives definitely the most bang for the bucks.
Great video guys! I have both lenses, 1.8 is amazing for it's price and when I don't need faster lens, the smaller factor is really useful. And 1.2 just blows my mind every time I use it. Sharpness at 1.2., bokeh... I really love it despite it's size and weight.
Glad you enjoyed the video. you nailed it with your comment. and don’t forget the 0 focus breathing . just an amazing lens
Does it have a tight at mount
How about showing few low light samples...
good idea . maybe next time I will shoot this lens at night . we shall see . either i will get one or maybe visit Mike again . hehe
@@Vahagraphy thanks. excited to see that comparison😎
Excellent review! You might want to check out Monochrome Memoirs or Matt Irwin on their reviews. I would love to see thdm on your show👍
MM I will def hit up soon. I love that guy, Matt Irwin I've had ruclips.net/video/ZFwIj-IiA9w/видео.html
Nice comparison. I just picked up the 1.2 and it IS worth it IMHO. The micro contrast is second to none.
Thanks, Vahagn. I really enjoyed the review and this helped me decide to stick with the 1.8 for now.
The Z 50mm f1.2 has smoother bokeh, but slightly less colour saturation and contrast wide open than the f1.8 but both seem to even out at f2.8. The Z f1.2 I think, would be right in it's element at a small-to-medium size venue band shoot where I can shoot close to the stage. Most of the musicians I know however, are too broke to pay well enough for me to justify buying this lens.
hehe ur comment at the end lol. buy it for your love of photography . :) . hehe but i get what you are saying . the justification of 2300 for. 50mm :)
The 1.2 at an aperture of1.2 obliterates the background with a nice dreamy distortion. The 1.8 at an aperture of 1.8 compared with the 1.2 at an aperture of 1.8, well, I couldn't see the difference. My money is on the 1.8. A very good comparison video. Rock on dude.
Great Video!, I have the 1.8 with the Z7-II, the 1.8 is a Great Lens, but hands Down, the 1.2 is Better, I can see myself eventually purchasing the 1.2 if I ever decide to do photography as a profession, it would be a got to have Lens
Hi Jimmy. SO I figure its 2100 plus tax, but that lens is a keeper in my book. You have the ultimate AF 50mm lens ever made. Sharp and takes in so much light. its a beauty. And yes , it is worth the money if you are working and making and making a living off this. Sure the 1.8 is great to but that 1.2 with all that extra light, hard to pass up if you have the cash in hand.
On a roll bro!
hehe thank you . i have a destination wedding gig this weekend so i thought let me put out both videos before i travel and get busy with my day job . hehe luckily that being a photographer . lol
Thank you for the video , it's very detail to take over each parts of different situation .
Glad it was helpful! CH
Great video thank you. I see no material difference between them wide open and my clients won't appreciate any subtle bokeh difference. In my POU (philosophy of use) I can move my distance to subject and get identical separation in many cases (to a point). I can tax deduct these lenses but the ROI just isn't there for me. The extra size and weight of the 1.2 vs 1.8 is a non-starter for me because of the locations and travel requirements. If I'm going to switch to Z Mount it makes no sense to me to end up with a honking great heavy piece of glass when the 50/1.8 Z produces results like this; not to mention the 50/1.2 AI-S that does essentially the same job in a far smaller package.
I see your point, the 50 1.8 Z is an amazing lens and the price, cant be beat. The 1.2 has its place ofcourse. The magic of shooting at 1.2 and still having tack sharp results is big. Now that said the 1.8 delivers the goods aswell at a fraction of the price and size. the 50 1.2 AI-S I would have to disagree with you here. No comparison as far as those 2 lenses when it comes to sharpness. Great lens the AI-s but you cannot even compare both.
@@Vahagraphy Big part of my preference for the 50/1.2 AI-S is the size, weight, and have you seen the price difference for the filters lately? The AI-S is only standard 52mm whilst the Z is a whopping 82mm. For legacy shooters this (can be) a big deal particularly if you run multiple filters. In my case it's a couple thousand dollars just to upsize all the filters I use. Also I'm not personally fixated on sharpness in fact I'm noticing the latest lenses (not just the Z lenses but also the latest F lenses too) are very flat clinical images and a bit too sharp IMHO. This arises of course because of the evolution of formula complexity (elements/groups), and in the case of some consumer zooms, plastic elements.
Good points
That is a very helpful comparison. 1.8 for my Z 50. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed the video. Was very fun to make. the 50 1.8 is a great lens. ALso check out my review I did with the 50 1.8 Z lens out in Napa CA.
I felt the 1.8 looked better lol... but both are really good, if I could afford the 1.2s I would get them but the 1.8 did amazingly! Thank you as always.
It’s crazy that the $600 lens held its own vs the 1.2. but the 1.2 is on another level . the bokeh is out of this world good. thank you Fel.
Jup wide open the subject on the 1.8 had more contrast. If you want blurred backgrounds, I wouldn't grab a 50mm anyway and if I did wanted more blur, you can easily add blur in post process.
I currently have the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8. In your opinion is it worth it to upgrade to the 50 1.2? Or would money be better spent on the 85 1.2?
Damn that 1.2 wide open is on a whole new level!
right . it’s just disintegrates the background while keeping the Foreground sharp as hell.
Great comparison, great images and video to make it super clear what you get for the extra money and weight of the f/1.2; and yes I am super late to this party at well!
Hi Vahagan, which would be best? An 85mm 1.8 S lens or a 50mm 1.2 S lens?
Enjoy your channel and I have learned a lot from Nikon shooters. As for your channel on Jared Polin, yes he is a great photographer but like me, I am a beginning photographer, I just don't take his opinion on a lens or camera I am interested in . I do my research on a lens or camera if I am deciding to buy.
THank you Barbara. Glad you are enjoying the content on Vahagraphy. Its good to do your research from mutiple sources. well atleast with me I show viewers what lenses can do out in the real world. I actual use them at shoots and events. I always stay unbias. If there is a negative I point it out.
What about the 1.8 for reflex? It only costs 200 dollars and it can be used with an adapter
Oh you can tell the difference for sure, the 1.2S has that special quality. The 1.8S is incredibly comparable however, I don't think most non-photographers could even tell the difference. (Other than the price).
I concur: if I was using this lens to make money, 100% 1.2S. However, for the casual photographer, it's a gigantic and intimidating lens for casual portraits. I think the 1.8S is better all around for most times when you're not actually shooting wide open.
Excellent video! To me, I am going to sell my Sigma art 85 1.4 for Nikon Z 50 1.2S over 1.8 due to the sharpness and image quality 1.2 performs well in all environment than 1.8. 50mm 1.2 is also the best focal length for wedding photography too. 50 1.2 is the winner for wedding photography! What do you think @Vahagraphy? Thank you so much!
Can you compare the sigma 50mm 1.4 art with the adapter
Sure if I see this lens or can get a hold of one i might.
“Is that Penn Park … IT IS PENN PARK !” Im from Whittier, crazy reaction seeing you here !
YUP PENN PARK IT IS.. hehe
Thanks man. Great video. I’m new to photography and I just bought all the 1/8 Nikon S Line lens. Because of the price and overall satisfaction from the 1/8 vs the price of the 1/2. I also went from a d3300 to the New Z9. 😂. I know, BIG JUMP! What’s the best setting focus mode setting for taking pictures of 2-5 people? Because sometimes one person is focused and the others aren’t. Please advise. New Subscriber. Thanks man. 😊 Ps, I’m still learning so I may need simple terminology and examples😂
I think I missed this episode. But I just wanted to say that at the 50mm focal length I could never see myself getting the 1.2. In fact, I'm even more impressed with my 50/1.8 after watching this video. To me, the 1.2 is certainly great, but no way in hell is it worth the penalty in cost and size and weight over the 1.8. Maybe this just reveals how much of an amateur I am.
📷😃👍
It's better, but not by much! Impressive lenses from Nikon recently - even the 40mm f2 is very good. Only photographers will see the difference.
I agree! Only some photographers can see the difference! If I want more Bokeh I just added with a brush on Lightroom or PS 😅 I don't have a use for Bokeh that the neck looks gone for 1800 dollars more 😅
The 50/1.8 is incredible, regardless of price!
I knew the 1.2 would be better but wow I am so surprised just how much better it is. The 1.8 is a fantastic lens so yea surprised
Both great lenses but geared towards different reasons of use. both options are killer . Can't go wrong with either or.
@@Vahagraphy Honestly even back in my portrait studio days. I almost never shot my old 85mm 1.8 D lens wide open. Even outdoors I tended to find simple clean backgrounds and really never needed to open up.
Very interesting to see the difference between the lenses was stark. Are you going to slowly change to Z mount lenses when the Z9 makes its appearance or have you decided now to switch from F to Z mount 🤔
yes and no. yes i will be buying 2.8 z lenses and even 1.2 in the future and yes i will also shoot f mount lenses . hehe i like the best of both worlds man. i like what both systems deliver . i just love them both . can’t let go.
Gotta get that 1.2!!!
i just made another video comparing both with stills. results are surprising.
Well on this one the 1. 8 on my camera and 1500! 1n my pocket would be a win win thanks Rock on
Good point. the 1.2 is very nice. great lens and would love to have this lens but the 1.8 meets my needs for now. Good point when it comes to the 1500 in your pocket. hehe.
One can compare those two lenses as you had done, but also from a competitive advantage POV. How often does one see images taken with a 50 f/1.2 S (or a NOCT), whereas almost everywhere and from everyone with a 50 f/1.8 S. In other words, too ordinary. That's one of the reasons why I haven't shot with a 50 f/1.8 for over four decades, even as an enthusiast. But I have the Z 50 f/1.2 S.
Q&A:
1) It is the photographer, not the gear. What if the photographers have the same skills and experience (e.g., the same person)? Hence the difference may come down to equipment.
2) The difference is minimal. Sad but true and that include the NOCT. Unlike the old glasses, the f/1.8 has harsh out of focus background, f/1.4 is smooth and f/1.2 is creamy.
Hence, the price difference probably can only be justified in situations when the f/1.8 comes up short. Then, it becomes business as usual for the photographer who has the f/1.2 S while the f/1.8 S owners may have to work harder.
3) Pros and cons: The pro is f/1.2 and cons are: pricey, too big & heavy and the control ring is too loose, thus the photographer often has to double check for any accidental change of values. Hence, I disable the control ring.
4) Does it worth the price difference? The text book answer is diminishing return.
5) Do you need one? IMO, no if you have to ask, otherwise, horse for courses.
Personally, I expect more from the Z lens collection. For instance, I wish Nikon offers a 28-70 f/2 just as Canon does, instead of repeating the old standard bearer (24-70 f/2.8).
good point at the end there . the standard 2.8 24-70 hehe. i would like to also see a 24-120 z 2.8 . 16-35 2.8 z .
Thanks for this great review
Best Comparison 👍
the 1.2 has a real character. it's what you pay. Same as the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 I own on my lumix S1R... or the Leica 50mm SL 1.4
If one does portrait for his leaving, yes the 1.2 deserves...
Great video!
THank you Karen.
@@Vahagraphy I’d like to see more on location videos on th z cameras
The f/1.2 is without a doubt worth every bit of $2200. The fact that the f/1.8 is a homerun as well shouldn't detract from that. For me personally, the f/1.8 is 'good enough' as I don't shoot this focal length often. But, when I do need a fast 50mm, I have the reliable f/1.8 in the bag, and it won't take up much room!
That said, I now have $1800 EXTRA to spend on other gear! (you can find more f/1.8s on the used market than the f1.2, and it was only $400 in 9/10 condition)...
With that extra cash I saved, I can grab a 105mm Z MC, an 85mm f/1.8S, and still have enough to fill my gas tank to take me to a location where I can use these amazing lenses!
That said, I do still want that f/1.2... I just have other priorities.
Looks to me like the 1.2 is a half stop darker?
I noticed the 1.2 lens is still very sharp at 1.2 as far as being darker, it could be, Allot going on in these types of shoots. but I learned allot for next time.
I prefer the 1.8 but your other recent video where you bought the 1.2 makes the 1.2 look much better but I don't think that the average shooter is going to think the 1.2 delivers a good value.
I think it all depends on how you use the lens. For most the 1.8 will be just as good. And also one might not like the size and weight of the 1.2. Its not for everyone.
Nice review!
Thank you CHris. Glad you enjoyed the video.
I recently bought a Z 50 1.8S and am on the verge of being entitled to resign and refund. I like to be uncompromising. But I am increasingly inclined to stay with my 1.8S. The difference with the 1.2S in bokeh doesn't seem to me to justify going for such heavy and expensive equipment. The bokeh drawn by the 1.2S seems unnatural to me. I also considered the Nikkor Z 50 1.4, which is noticeably less sharp. Additionally, there is a manual Voigtlander Nokton 50 f/1 on the market, which is priced comparably to the 1.2S, but without AF. On the other hand it is lighter and brighter. Unfortunately, my editing program does not have a correction profile for it. Nevertheless, Nokton offers a truly artistic bokeh f/1.0. I would appreciate any suggestions.
This different. Both has similiar premium quality from 1.8 up. The deciding factor is the size. If 1.2 size half the length ill buy the 1.2
50 1.8 great lens for the money. best bang for the buck, however I sold it and bought the 1.2 :)
@@Vahagraphyi think z f1.2 is for someone that actually need f1.2 nikon success here by release great f1.8 and great f1.2 ie budget not good f1,8 great f1.4 and best f1.2
Excellent!
Many thanks! ROck n ROll!!
The 50mm 1.2S lens is an amazing lens, but having the 50mm 1.8S lens is not justifiable with the slight difference. I am going to save the cost difference and wait on the 85mm 1.2S lens when ever it comes out since I already have the 50mm 1.8S which is amazing in its own right
Interesting video. Thx for that :-)
you are welcome Walo.
Love my 50 1.2S
great lens Kheng. Enjoy .
I think I’m gonna hold out for the 85mm1.2
The 85mm 1.2 will be epic. the 50 1.2 is amazingly sharp. for being a 1.2 lens shooting it wide open, man, this blows my mind how sharp this lens is.
@@Vahagraphy I’m looking for one. Damn it. I’d also like a 35mm 1.2.
Same!
Thanks!
you are very welcome. More to come very soon. Thank you for the super sticker.
The 1.8 looked sharper for the still shots. The 1.2 a bit soft(that could be down to the narrower depth of field)
For video the 1.2 was a clear winner ✅
Hi Mike. From the results these lenses are very close . i would def need to spend more time with the lens but judging by these both did a great job.
Thanks for the reviews! Guess I'm old school---I've always been impressed with Nikon's AFS FX Nikkor lenses with their gold lettering, gold ring, gold N and of course the outstanding quality and sharp images. The Z lenses may be more tech advanced...however, they remind me of the bland looking kit lenses back in the day. So, I recently ordered the latest Z adapter with the Z9! Canon's RF lenses also look like kit lenses in my opinion...I adapt my Canon EF L lenses on my R6.
You’re missing out! The Z lenses are a step above the F mount.
The 1.2 makes you smile more
Yup smile more, lighter on the wallet but who cares. Atleast we are smiling and getting that Bokeh baby.
In short, for the masses, go for the 1.8. For studio and wedding photography, go for the 1.2, period!
both are great. I captured some candids at a wedding this past weekend with the 50mm 1.8, amazing results. both lenses are great and serve their purpose. That 1.2 is a marvel.
@@Vahagraphy You're a true Nikon diehard for sure. Put aside the Z lenses, I still prefer the F mount 105mm f1.4 E ED for portraits any time over these two. I think that's the only F lens that could equal the Z series. Yes, the Z 50 f1.2 is indeed an ingenious creation by Nikon. Other makes have 1.2's as well but it is the Nikon colour science, in my book that sets it apart. Even the Z MC 50mm is as sharp as the 50 f1.8.
Keep up your great channel, you rock Bro! - Hisham from Malaysia
@@hishamosman4341 🎯
❤️❤️❤️
Thank you , Rock n Roll!!!!!
side to side with sigma 50 mm1.4 art would be nice to see
I'd prefer a non S f/1.4 that is a light and compact as the 50 1.4G. I no longer shoot professional and my days of breaking my back hand holding lenses are over. As amazing as the S line in, I just want a small light 1.4 and I'm ok if it isn't as good. I just want af, no adapter, and that 1.4 aperture. Nikon is making it hard to stay with them. I don't want to go Sony but they have a 1.4 that is much more like my old g lens.
Very interesting take. Have you tried the 50 1.8? Doesnt weight to much, its sharp and has some nice bokeh and doesn't cost to much money, Its a bit long in size compared to the older D and G models but good. Also look at the 40 f2. You might like this.
@@Vahagraphy yeah I'm considering it. However I'm still getting over the sticker shock and size of a 50 1.8 when those lenses have been history cheap, light, high value lenses on Nikon g and d models. 3 S line lenses seems like an odd choice for such a historically affordable and timeless focal length. Makes you wonder why that 40 f2 non S wasn't simply a 50 1.8 non S...
Personally , not worth the money. Beautiful lens no question . It really does depend what you’re using it for . If your a wedding photographer, I could see it ,sure . I wanted to see the 1.2 on the Z 6 . He had it on the Z6 II .
The 2 major things I got out of the 1.2 lens is,, just how sharp it is wide open at 1.2. and the 0 focus breathing. and also just how big this lens is for a 50mm. byt an incredible lens non the less.
Great lens but the question is will the client appreciate it if there's nothing to compare it to. So what photographer is going to have two lenses with the same focal length just to prove a point.
yah it all depends what you are shooting. if u do mostly video i can totally see this lens in my bag. for wedding shooters you can do the job with the 1.8
50 1.2 look like the bokeh we can see in some big Hollywood movie at 2100 USD it is actually kind of cheap ... If only Nikon Z6II had NLOG internally
I want n log internal too. If the fuji can do it with f log, why not Nikon.
@@Vahagraphy yeah gh5 is doing it since 4 years already… wish Nikon release a z6 with nlog
good video
Thank you Ryan. Much appreciated.
Nowdays. I prefer great f1.8 ie great f1.2 except at the time i actually need it.
and I thought compression was the same at the same focal length
It really depends how far or close the subject is to your lens.
The 50mm 1.2 is sooo pleasing for Video but i heard it shouldnt be that Good for Video because it’s Not a Stepper Motor ?!
And Nobody Testing this Lens for Video! This Video was the only one i found with small Video testing in it!
At 1,8, the 50f/1,2 has smoother bokeh in the foliage.
But is it worth this price difference.
the 1.8 is known already as being very good. And it's what we can expect for it as it's already 2 to 3 times the price of a regular F mount 1.8 50mm ...
At f1.2 the depth of field at several feet is just too narrow, f1.8 is the goldilocks speed. Unless it's for really really low light.
Why 1.8 seems much better in every way.
For me it's not worth it. It's huge and If I'm editing the image and do want more blurred background I'll just open up Luminar AI.
the size is what kills it for most photographers. maybe the price too. but more the size. if your happy with the 1.8 and most probably you will be then I would go with that.
for 1.800$ less I can live with less blur. Anyway the client (wedding photography) will not be able to see the difference, unless they watch your video😊
no IO'll no put the money for the 1.2
I switched to the Z 50 1.2 and I love it. 1.8 is a super fine lens as well. For the money and performance. Really can't go wrong with either or.
thanks you made me buy this lens....😒
a quarter of the price, less than half the weight? Zero comparison. 1.8 all day
Ridiculous size.
Damn Nikon, what are you doing? U were so proud of ure big mount but now these lenses for it? Why is Canon RF 50mm 1.8 so much smaller lighter and cheaper than ure 50mm 1.8... This lens should be a good beginner allround lens for travel and having fun - but ure version is to big and to expensive... This type of lens doesnt need to be the best corrected lens of th world - it should be sharp in the middle and have a nice bokeh - thats it...
the 50mm 1.2 looks like a sigma art lens with an adapter. looks to me very frontheavy and not a joy to use. be honest nikon, did u take an old dslr design and put an adapter on it? then u wasted money for this idiotic display noone needs - seems to me, u dont understand what photographers need. we already have displays on the camera, u think we need an extra display on the lens? did some photographers ask for this??? why shouldnt i buy a 500 dollar sigma art lens and use it with an adapter, when ure original looks like this anyway. yes, the image quality of the nikon glass seems to be good, but i dont think many people would see a significant difference to a sigma art... and nikon - when u presenting the most expensive 50mm 1.8 on the market (even sony zeiss fe 55mm 1.8 is cheaper), ure design should at least look premium - to me, these 1.8 lenses look plasticky and cheap... im sorry, but i cant help to feel disappointed in nikon. i expected more...
And this is why I love photography and photographers. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and observations. To me the 50 1.8 is a gem. Will I buy the 1.2, maybe. I can def see where that 1.2 will come in handy, specially for video work. That said I respect your opinion and thoughts.
No, this lens is not an adapted DSLR lens, it has glas elements in it from to back. It's so huge and heavy because it's extremely well corrected for focus breathing. About the 50 1.8. Look at it the other way round. Nikon is giving you a professional grade lens for ~$500. If you want a cheap lens for beginners, get the 40mm f2. And those primes do not feel cheap and plasticy, as they are both made from metal for the most part.
@@romanpul yes, the 40mm f2 seems to be their beginners prime lens. all plastic and 78€ more expensive than canons rf 50mm 1.8...
@@romanpul yes negligible focus breathing. These Z lenses are extraordinary!
How much we have waiting for 85 mm 1.2 ? 🥲
Im still waiting. Maybe soon it will happen.
Great video!
thank you Michael.