Get the 50mm f1.8 for general work, the 105 2.8 MC for macro. Still cheaper than the 50mm f1.2, lighter too. Problem solved :) Bonus is that the 105 f2.8 MC works as a smashing portrait lens. So with this setup you get 2 portrait lens, a general walk around 'everything' lens, and arguably one of the best macro lenses Nikon has released. And it is a light combo too. These too lens and the 28mm f2.8 are my hiking lens setup. I find I can do everything with this combo. And its *still* lighter/cheaper than the 50mm f1.2.
You can have both the 1.8 and the macro for less than the price of the 1.2 lens alone. That's what I did. I have found the macro is a great "pet portrait" lens because you can get up close and use distance as well as aperture to control bokeh. I don't know if it's the macro design or not but I find there is something a little different about it's bokeh that appeals to me. That said, for critical non-macro shots I'm grabbing the 1.8 every time I have the option available.
I enjoy these type of comparison videos. I would like to see the Nikkor 100mm Macro vs the 85mm F/1.8. That 100mm is awesome and the macro shots are excellent. In my opinion you get two different type of shots with the 100mm closeup macro and it is great for portraiture too., Cheers!
I may not need the 50 f/1.2 but it is a dream to shoot. The sharpness at 1.2 is out of this world. Once it goes on the camera, I’m very reluctant to remove it again.
I have the 1.8 and was contemplating on the 2.8 since I'm a ne born photographer and like to do macros of the baby. Instead , I decided to purchase a macro filter for more than half the price and works really well.
Love the 50 f/1.2. The 50 macro is a bit soft and uncomfortable when you're used to shooting macro on the 105 MC, but it's still light enough to just throw in the bag when macro isn't the main plan of the day. With a little bit of post processing the shots can begin to look sharp-ish enough to still be usable :)
I would have liked to see the 40mm in this comparison over the 50mm macro. The results of the macro lens are not surprising; it is a macro lens after all. But the 40mm is fairly close to 50mm field of view while having the huge advantage of smaller size and weight.
I did miss any thoughts on the auto-focus and VR, especially with the MC lens. Using a Z 30 this was of special interest to me. Could you please make a point of touching these points in future lens reviews?
As there is no VR on these lenses we didn't touch on this point, as the IBIS all coomes down to the camera, but thanks for pointing out that the autofocus speed didn't make it into this video - the 50mm f/1.2 is the fastest, being near-instant most of the time, though it is difficult to tell the difference in daylight circumstances between that and the 50mm f/1.8 because they perform similarly. The 50mm f/2.8 MC is the slowest but also has the longest focus range, so if you are focusing on subjects all within a similar field they will all produce close results in AF speed. Hope that helps!
I think will have to go with a Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art or Sigma 40mm 1.4 for my F system, looking for sharpness. Mint used 50mm 1.4 will cost me $350, and will go nice with my Sigma 24-35 Art 2.0 and Sigma 135 1.8 Art, though have many Nikon, Zeiss and Voightländer lenses in between. All Sigma lenses focus quite close for their focus distance. Jumping into the Z system to use the multi-special glass Z 50mm 1.8S doesn’t make sense at this point. Maybe when the Z6 takes a deep price dive on the used market. Probably will need more than 24MP up to Z7 and at least 45MP to see some results there.
I would like to see some tests regarding that aperture difference you mention at 4:10. Most lenses effectively stop down as they are focused closer, but they're not programmed to report it unlike the macros.
@@jpdj2715 Any lens, whether it's designed to correct focus breathing or not, will have to change in some way to focus at different distances. Like you said, the most basic way to achieve this is to move the lens (assembly) away from the camera, thus changing the focal length. In internal-focus lenses this is achieved in different ways, but the end result is the same - a change in optical properties. It specifically depends on the lens in question, which is why the comment piqued my interest.
Becky is on to something. I also have the 50/2.8 Z and It frustrating to use. I wish she Would mount the AF-S 60mm on a FTZ and do her thing again. Wish’s are great until they aren’t.
Hello Both, Sorry to ask this but how bad is the Z mount 24mm-70mm f2,8 set at 50mm agent the 50mm f1.2 and f1.8. I know the isolation will not be as creamy, as the Zoom lens at it widest is f2.8. But for sharpness, contrast and eat.. just a thought.
From my POV, the Z 50 f/1.2 S is like a specialty lens while the holy trinity is the journeyman tool. What are the selection criteria depending on what the photographer wants or value the most, bokeh, sharpness, micro-contrast, etc.? But many 50 f/1.2 S owners will not put it down because it is a new standard expected from the new Z lenses. Not to mention that we no longer have to stop it down for best performance and the images @ f/1.2 just look right with the 3D pop and the background falls off beautifully. Although if I want a creamy and softer image, then I'll use my adapted Canon EF 85 f/1.2 L II or a macro lens if I want razor sharp images. As far as the 50 f/1.8 S, it is no doubt a great value lens and can take on any jobs without any complains. But what we get is just its best while the f/1.2 is the best (in general) that we can get from a Z 50 mm lens. It is similar to are we happy with getting less than 100% vs. 100% in grade? For sure, we still able to reach the top in the future with a lower grade, while getting 100% is showing what that person can do at that time. BTW, all of above are BS since the same arguments can be made between the Z 58 f/0.95 NOCT and Z 50 f/1.2 S besides AF. 🙂
Get the 50mm f1.8 for general work, the 105 2.8 MC for macro. Still cheaper than the 50mm f1.2, lighter too. Problem solved :) Bonus is that the 105 f2.8 MC works as a smashing portrait lens. So with this setup you get 2 portrait lens, a general walk around 'everything' lens, and arguably one of the best macro lenses Nikon has released. And it is a light combo too. These too lens and the 28mm f2.8 are my hiking lens setup. I find I can do everything with this combo. And its *still* lighter/cheaper than the 50mm f1.2.
I've had my 50 f1.8 Z for 2 years(bought from Grays) and it's my favourite lens.
You can have both the 1.8 and the macro for less than the price of the 1.2 lens alone. That's what I did. I have found the macro is a great "pet portrait" lens because you can get up close and use distance as well as aperture to control bokeh. I don't know if it's the macro design or not but I find there is something a little different about it's bokeh that appeals to me. That said, for critical non-macro shots I'm grabbing the 1.8 every time I have the option available.
I enjoy these type of comparison videos. I would like to see the Nikkor 100mm Macro vs the 85mm F/1.8. That 100mm is awesome and the macro shots are excellent. In my opinion you get two different type of shots with the 100mm closeup macro and it is great for portraiture too., Cheers!
I may not need the 50 f/1.2 but it is a dream to shoot. The sharpness at 1.2 is out of this world. Once it goes on the camera, I’m very reluctant to remove it again.
Great to see these comparisons. It’d be interesting to really mix it up with say, a 50/1.4 AIs to see how things have moved on.
Before I brought the Z 40 f/2 as my pancake lens, the Z 50 f/1.2 S was my only Z mount lens.
Wich do u prefer? 40mm or 50mm
@@kareninalugo8777 50mm
I have the 1.8 and was contemplating on the 2.8 since I'm a ne born photographer and like to do macros of the baby. Instead , I decided to purchase a macro filter for more than half the price and works really well.
Why no comparison to the 58mm Noct?😀 Are you even allowed to borrow one from Ricci?
I have the 50mm 1.2 and 1.8 but the 40mm is my bash around lens.
The 50mm f2.8 macro is a bit too soft for my uses...🦘
Love the 50 f/1.2. The 50 macro is a bit soft and uncomfortable when you're used to shooting macro on the 105 MC, but it's still light enough to just throw in the bag when macro isn't the main plan of the day. With a little bit of post processing the shots can begin to look sharp-ish enough to still be usable :)
Very nice and fun comparison ...
Thank you.
1.8 is a Winner
I would have liked to see the 40mm in this comparison over the 50mm macro. The results of the macro lens are not surprising; it is a macro lens after all. But the 40mm is fairly close to 50mm field of view while having the huge advantage of smaller size and weight.
I did miss any thoughts on the auto-focus and VR, especially with the MC lens. Using a Z 30 this was of special interest to me. Could you please make a point of touching these points in future lens reviews?
As there is no VR on these lenses we didn't touch on this point, as the IBIS all coomes down to the camera, but thanks for pointing out that the autofocus speed didn't make it into this video - the 50mm f/1.2 is the fastest, being near-instant most of the time, though it is difficult to tell the difference in daylight circumstances between that and the 50mm f/1.8 because they perform similarly. The 50mm f/2.8 MC is the slowest but also has the longest focus range, so if you are focusing on subjects all within a similar field they will all produce close results in AF speed. Hope that helps!
I think will have to go with a Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art or Sigma 40mm 1.4 for my F system, looking for sharpness. Mint used 50mm 1.4 will cost me $350, and will go nice with my Sigma 24-35 Art 2.0 and Sigma 135 1.8 Art, though have many Nikon, Zeiss and Voightländer lenses in between. All Sigma lenses focus quite close for their focus distance.
Jumping into the Z system to use the multi-special glass Z 50mm 1.8S doesn’t make sense at this point. Maybe when the Z6 takes a deep price dive on the used market. Probably will need more than 24MP up to Z7 and at least 45MP to see some results there.
Always excellent video and informative
I would like to see some tests regarding that aperture difference you mention at 4:10. Most lenses effectively stop down as they are focused closer, but they're not programmed to report it unlike the macros.
@@jpdj2715 Any lens, whether it's designed to correct focus breathing or not, will have to change in some way to focus at different distances. Like you said, the most basic way to achieve this is to move the lens (assembly) away from the camera, thus changing the focal length. In internal-focus lenses this is achieved in different ways, but the end result is the same - a change in optical properties.
It specifically depends on the lens in question, which is why the comment piqued my interest.
Becky is on to something.
I also have the 50/2.8 Z and
It frustrating to use. I wish she
Would mount the AF-S 60mm
on a FTZ and do her thing again.
Wish’s are great until they aren’t.
@@danieleppelsheimer9273 The 60mm functions in the exact same way, so there would be no improvement in this regard.
Love the Vizsla is he yours
Hello Both, Sorry to ask this but how bad is the Z mount 24mm-70mm f2,8 set at 50mm agent the 50mm f1.2 and f1.8. I know the isolation will not be as creamy, as the Zoom lens at it widest is f2.8. But for sharpness, contrast and eat.. just a thought.
From my POV, the Z 50 f/1.2 S is like a specialty lens while the holy trinity is the journeyman tool. What are the selection criteria depending on what the photographer wants or value the most, bokeh, sharpness, micro-contrast, etc.?
But many 50 f/1.2 S owners will not put it down because it is a new standard expected from the new Z lenses. Not to mention that we no longer have to stop it down for best performance and the images @ f/1.2 just look right with the 3D pop and the background falls off beautifully. Although if I want a creamy and softer image, then I'll use my adapted Canon EF 85 f/1.2 L II or a macro lens if I want razor sharp images.
As far as the 50 f/1.8 S, it is no doubt a great value lens and can take on any jobs without any complains. But what we get is just its best while the f/1.2 is the best (in general) that we can get from a Z 50 mm lens. It is similar to are we happy with getting less than 100% vs. 100% in grade? For sure, we still able to reach the top in the future with a lower grade, while getting 100% is showing what that person can do at that time.
BTW, all of above are BS since the same arguments can be made between the Z 58 f/0.95 NOCT and Z 50 f/1.2 S besides AF. 🙂
@@bfs5113 Very well said.
Awesome video Thanks ❤️👍🏻
If you don’t have a 1.2 is better the 1.8. If you don’t know why the 1.2 is another world you don’t need it
Thanks for verifying that my investment in the 1.2 was a wise choice if quality is paramount!😂👍🏾🙏🏾
👍👍
They dont come sharper than the 50 f1.8
You clearly haven’t tried the 1.2. It is very far ahead of the 1.8.
Apparently you didn’t actually watch the video
WOW WHAT A SURPRISE!! The much more expensive glass is the winner and the best of the three. Dah!! I still love you guys 💌 F/1.8 for me please. Peace