After a long wait, Nikon’s fast primes for its Z mount are starting to appear and fans now have a choice between the 50mm f/1.8 S and the brand new 50mm f/1.2 S. How good is this meaty f/1.2 beast, and which of these lenses is the right choice for you?
Nikon’s NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S is far from being the cheapest nifty fifty on the market, though it’s currently discounted from its original price of $596.95 down to $496.95. However, it has been garnering some excellent reviews and seems to offer very impressive corner-to-corner sharpness even when it’s wide open. Combined with its weather sealing and lack of focus breathing, some are dubbing it the best 50mm f/1.8 ever made.
As a result, the pressure was on for the NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S, especially after such a long wait, and it seems that Nikon fans will not be disappointed, assuming that they are willing to stretch to $2,096.95 when this lens is finally in stock.
Will you be investing in the 50mm f/1.2 or are you going to save your money, opt for the f/1.8, and wait to invest heavily when Nikon’s slated 85mm f/1.2 appears next year? Let us know in the comments below.
Nikon do make great lenses but with Sigma starting to roll out Z mount lenses I'd bet their version will be F1.4, a third of the Nikon price and every bit as good. Oh and also available when they say it will be.
That 1.2 is too rich for my blood.
Nikon fans: Canon's RF glass is stupid huge. Nikon: Hold my beer.
One of my favorite lenses is the Sigma Bokehmaster. That thing is chonky, but it works great on f-mount and with the ftz adapter.
Dunno... it feels to me like what used to make Photography not just an Art, but also a delightful Science has been overload by WAY overpriced gadgetry.
For instance, not all that long ago (cough, cough, ahem, errr...) I had a Konica, which I bought precisely because Consumer Reports said it was nearly the best for an awesome price, AND you could order it with the 50 mm / F/1.2 lens. My brother and I, at the tender age of 12 and 16 respectively, saved up our beans, and plopped down the $350 or so to buy it. 1975...
It had no auto anything. The only thing really nifty about the camera was that it had a built in light-meter (thru lens), which at least told you if you were in the right ball-park exposure wise. We bought veritable giant-pancake cans of medium-grain, medium sensitivity 35 mm cinema negative, black-and-white, of course ... to practice with. Lil' refillable cans for the film, and a nice double layered silk-and-canvas bag to load the film with, on the kitchen table, any time of day.
We had only the one lens. Leaned about bokeh. Learned about intentional under-exposure and the artistic benefits of 'push' developing. And 'push' enlarger exposure. And dodging. And burning. And ... and ... Endless amusement. One camera, 2 boys. A wealthy uncle bequeathed on us a fabulously old, creaky and absurdly finicky enlarger and about 1 football stadium worth of print paper. And hundreds of pounds of dry chemicals. Motherlode!
THIS IS NOT THE POINT of the comment tho', just a backdrop. The point is, our camera didn't auto-expose a thing. It didn't focus for us. It didn't adjust aperture. It didn't now a thing about ISO in an auto-read-from-lil-cans point of view. Everything was manual. YET... it never disappointed. And it rarely misfired, or was mis-exposed, once we got the hang of it. Fast, light weight, compact, and jaw-droppingly crisp. For 1970's Japanese glass.
I'm not really pining for the days of old, in the completely manual sense. But when I look at the 50 millimeter half-kilogram monster, I think the point of adding endlessly 'better' lens groups and aspheric elements, along with faster than an eye-blink printed-spec-friendly focussing, along with everything else ... for TWO GRAND, is just a bit dramatic. This lens literally costs more than a perfectly decent full-frame FX DSLR, lightly used and not abused. The D750 I just received from an EBay seller ... for $525, including a bunch of stuff and a lens, is WAY cheaper. No, I don't have a bokeh monster, but still ... TWO grand?
Just Saying,
-= GoatGuy =-
Yeah, it's a solid chunk of money. I look at cars the same way. I just need something to get me from a to b. I can drive just as fine without heated seats, heated steering wheel, all wheel drive, etc. Those things add to the bottom line. However, I am getting quite spoiled with it and even though I'd happily buy a vehicle without those features I am enjoying them at the higher cost. What's the point? I dunno. Just I think that packing in quality for a higher price is becoming the standard.
I’d be fine shooting at f1.8.primes at that price point. Would like to acquire the 35, 50 & 85