I have rented a bunch of lens from different systems over the past 10 years.thinking about the results the NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S was the stand -out as a general purpose lens.( and the 20 NIKKOR Z 20 mm f1.8 is the best wide angle lens I have tried.)how vibrant the colors were ,,,,,, the out of focus areas , sharpness in the center .....Hell I even liked the size because I have found that if you are going to be doing photographer things ,,,,, such as photographing folks on the street - you better look like a photographer - makes for a lot less problems and issues ,,,,,,what did I rent you might think ?well I rented the top Canon primes such as the Canon RF50mm F 1.2L USM LensI tried the top Panasonic primes - such as the Panasonic LUMIX S PRO 50mm F1.4 Lenstried the mid tier Sony primesnone were comparable to the Nikkor z 50 f1.2and the Nikon SLR lens line-up ?forget it - not even close except for the professional 300 , 400 and 500 telephoto seriesoh ,,,,,,, and for prime wide angle tried the Sigma primes - the Nikon SLR line and a Zeiss distagon 21mm .... a legendary lens ...... the 20z smoked them all .Tip : you will learn more from renting lens then by reading about them on the internet

Wow - very interesting thoughts and thanks for posting.  I've tried to rent before Mr Giggles, but here in Australia there doesn't seem too many options.  They often want to tie you into a 6 month contract, which makes it very expensive.  My big question, after your comments - would you buy that F1.2S lens?

Mr Giggles wrote:I have rented a bunch of lens from different systems over the past 10 years.thinking about the results the NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S was the stand -out as a general purpose lens.( and the 20 NIKKOR Z 20 mm f1.8 is the best wide angle lens I have tried.)how vibrant the colors were ,,,,,, the out of focus areas , sharpness in the center .....Hell I even liked the size because I have found that if you are going to be doing photographer things ,,,,, such as photographing folks on the street - you better look like a photographer - makes for a lot less problems and issues ,,,,,,what did I rent you might think ?well I rented the top Canon primes such as the Canon RF50mm F 1.2L USM LensI tried the top Panasonic primes - such as the Panasonic LUMIX S PRO 50mm F1.4 Lenstried the mid tier Sony primesnone were comparable to the Nikkor z 50 f1.2and the Nikon SLR lens line-up ?forget it - not even close except for the professional 300 , 400 and 500 telephoto seriesoh ,,,,,,, and for prime wide angle tried the Sigma primes - the Nikon SLR line and a Zeiss distagon 21mm .... a legendary lens ...... the 20z smoked them all .Tip : you will learn more from renting lens then by reading about them on the internetI have the 50 f1.2S and I have to say it is an amazing lens. If they make the 35 f1.2S and the 85 f1.2S as good, I am going to be broke.

No clue why you would think that it is actually any better than the Canon RF50mm F 1.2. This is also a stellar lens while being much smaller, a bit lighter and can focus a bit closer. Optical performance is identical.Very subjective post. Why do you think the Nikkor is superior? For me, both of them are 10/10.

Mr Giggles wrote:I have rented a bunch of lens from different systems over the past 10 years.thinking about the results the NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S was the stand -out as a general purpose lens.( and the 20 NIKKOR Z 20 mm f1.8 is the best wide angle lens I have tried.)how vibrant the colors were ,,,,,, the out of focus areas , sharpness in the center .....Hell I even liked the size because I have found that if you are going to be doing photographer things ,,,,, such as photographing folks on the street - you better look like a photographer - makes for a lot less problems and issues ,,,,,,what did I rent you might think ?well I rented the top Canon primes such as the Canon RF50mm F 1.2L USM LensI tried the top Panasonic primes - such as the Panasonic LUMIX S PRO 50mm F1.4 Lenstried the mid tier Sony primesnone were comparable to the Nikkor z 50 f1.2and the Nikon SLR lens line-up ?forget it - not even close except for the professional 300 , 400 and 500 telephoto seriesoh ,,,,,,, and for prime wide angle tried the Sigma primes - the Nikon SLR line and a Zeiss distagon 21mm .... a legendary lens ...... the 20z smoked them all .Tip : you will learn more from renting lens then by reading about them on the internetHappy to read that I actually made a good decision with the z20mm. And I always wanted to try the 50 1.2.. just haven’t got to do itQuestion: Your impression when using the 50 f/1.2, at which aperture, wide-open?

Sutto wrote:Wow - very interesting thoughts and thanks for posting. I've tried to rent before Mr Giggles, but here in Australia there doesn't seem too many options. They often want to tie you into a 6 month contract, which makes it very expensive. My big question, after your comments - would you buy that F1.2S lens?I was in Australia 6 months before the pandemic hit and I was startled at the cost of EVERYTHING  there.the most frustrating thing is I showed up in Sydney and some how thought there would be an easy way to visit the Outback - wrong - its slow trains or expensive flights.That was my second time there and never did make it to the outback......as far as the lens - its a beast - its heavy - I would not recommend it for a Women unless she is on the larger or stronger side - maybe not even for an older Man.but if you can handle it I sure would recommend it.would I buy it - yes  ..... I am thinking about itit could even replace the 85 Z as a portrait lensi have a solution for you so you can check out the lensyou bring a memory card with you to the store - tell them you want to check out the lens and you have your own card - take pictures of people and outside right in front of the store  - go home and edit them with a raw processor - and Bobs your Uncle .

Joel Klein wrote:Mr Giggles wrote:I have rented a bunch of lens from different systems over the past 10 years.thinking about the results the NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S was the stand -out as a general purpose lens.( and the 20 NIKKOR Z 20 mm f1.8 is the best wide angle lens I have tried.)how vibrant the colors were ,,,,,, the out of focus areas , sharpness in the center .....Hell I even liked the size because I have found that if you are going to be doing photographer things ,,,,, such as photographing folks on the street - you better look like a photographer - makes for a lot less problems and issues ,,,,,,what did I rent you might think ?well I rented the top Canon primes such as the Canon RF50mm F 1.2L USM LensI tried the top Panasonic primes - such as the Panasonic LUMIX S PRO 50mm F1.4 Lenstried the mid tier Sony primesnone were comparable to the Nikkor z 50 f1.2and the Nikon SLR lens line-up ?forget it - not even close except for the professional 300 , 400 and 500 telephoto seriesoh ,,,,,,, and for prime wide angle tried the Sigma primes - the Nikon SLR line and a Zeiss distagon 21mm .... a legendary lens ...... the 20z smoked them all .Tip : you will learn more from renting lens then by reading about them on the internetHappy to read that I actually made a good decision with the z20mm. And I always wanted to try the 50 1.2.. just haven’t got to do itQuestion: Your impression when using the 50 f/1.2, at which aperture, wide-open?I shot it wide open and medium apertures.I have no idea how it would do as a landscape lens at f16 ..... thats not why you buy this lens.the lens has a quality that is somewhat hard to verbalize - it is both clinical and has character at the same time.the out of focus transitions and background blur is greatthe colors are very saturated and give the images a special look that is hard to describeI am actually thinking about selling my 50 and 85 Z 1.8s and getting this lens

Laqup wrote:No clue why you would think that it is actually any better than the Canon RF50mm F 1.2. This is also a stellar lens while being much smaller, a bit lighter and can focus a bit closer. Optical performance is identical.Very subjective post. Why do you think the Nikkor is superior? For me, both of them are 10/10.you actually own both ?thats greatcould you take a few comparison images of the exact same subject at the same time of day and post to this thread ?

When I made the jump to mirrorless from DSLR, I did so based on quality and performance of the Z lenses that were available to that point, rather than the performance of any particular camera body compared to the competition.  The bodies will continue to improve over the years, as will their features and performance with future firmware, versions, and models, but the glass I purchase will likely have to stay with me for decades, and this is also where the real money is spent on a serious professional kit unless you require several high end bodies (and even then...).While Nikon's Z lens offerings at the time were far from comprehensive, the quality and performance of those that did exist were evident, so I kept that long-term vision in mind.  And years later, I'm glad I did.  Not everything is yet available to cover every situation perfectly, but the options continue to expand and impress, and I've yet to use a Z lens I didn't enjoy, particularly with the S-Line models.

the big thing is to not get wrapped up with written reviews - spec sheets -graphs.actual physically go to the camera stores and get test images !I can not emphasize this enough .here is an exampleI found out the Canon rep was going to be at a local store so I brought a memory card with me and got test shots with the expensive primesall these lens designs are different - the optical coatings are different - how they play with the sensor are different and unfortunately there is even sample variations within identical lens.heck - some folks want clinically sharp images so they can shoot photos of brick walls - other folks want soft artsy renditions - how can you know which is better for you without trying them first ?before you buy an expensive lens always try it first - you may not like it !someone asked about this lens - yes its great -  but I still think the 50 Z offered better colors when combined with the Z7 sensor - at the expense of size and weight

Mr Giggles wrote:Laqup wrote:No clue why you would think that it is actually any better than the Canon RF50mm F 1.2. This is also a stellar lens while being much smaller, a bit lighter and can focus a bit closer. Optical performance is identical.Very subjective post. Why do you think the Nikkor is superior? For me, both of them are 10/10.you actually own both ?thats greatcould you take a few comparison images of the exact same subject at the same time of day and post to this thread ?Hi!Perhaps he hasn't updated it, but according to hisGEAR LIST,he doesn't own either the Canon R 50 1.2 or the Nikon Z 50 1.2Add me to the list of those who appreciate (and own) the 50 f/1.2S!(I have no personal experience how it compares to the Canon counterpart since I've never used one)Best Regards,RBhttp://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/532

Mr Giggles wrote:none were comparable to the Nikkor z 50 f1.2No doubt the Nikon 50 F1.2 Z is a gorgeous lens, but as a dual system user I actually like the Canon 50 F1.2 RF better, maybe I am more of a " Canon color fan", LOL. but I am no huge fan of 50mm FL when it comes to portrait so i am patiently waiting for the Nikon 85 F1.2 S, i am more of a 35+85 guy, currently shooting with a Sigma 35 F1.2 which no Nikon and Canon can come even close to that.As for the 20mm, I actually prefer the new Sigma 20 F1.4 DN DG E-mount over the Nikon 20 F1.8S, and that's what I am currently using ( with adapter) on my Z9.

Dan_168 wrote:Mr Giggles wrote:none were comparable to the Nikkor z 50 f1.2No doubt the Nikon 50 F1.2 Z is a gorgeous lens, but as a dual system user I actually like the Canon 50 F1.2 RF better, maybe I am more of a " Canon color fan", LOL. but I am no huge fan of 50mm FL when it comes to portrait so i am patiently waiting for the Nikon 85 F1.2 S, i am more of a 35+85 guy, currently shooting with a Sigma 35 F1.2 which no Nikon and Canon can come even close to that.As for the 20mm, I actually prefer the new Sigma 20 F1.4 DN DG E-mount over the Nikon 20 F1.8S, and that's what I am currently using ( with adapter) on my Z9.if you like the Canon system colors more why spend the big bucks on the Z 85 F1 .2 ?comparison photos - lets see that those Sigmas beat the Nikon at 20 and 50 - you are a professional photographer making you the ideal person to show us how they stack upI rather like the Nikkor Z 20 myself .......

I particularly like the first image.  That really illustrates what the 20mm perspective can deliver.

RBFresno wrote:Perhaps he hasn't updated it, but according to hisGEAR LIST,he doesn't own either the Canon R 50 1.2 or the Nikon Z 50 1.2Correct. I don't own either of them, but as a dual system user had the pleasure to shoot with both of them (although not in direct comparison).There are a lot of things where Nikon shines comparead to Canon, but as previously stated both 50mms for the respective system are fantastic and I would not be able to pick a clear winner. The Sony is probably no slouch either (have no experience with their 1.2 G-master).But the author of this thread must have a different experience, maybe you are still willing to share what lead you to your conclusion (Z 50mm 1.2 > RF 50mm 1.2).

Mr Giggles wrote:Dan_168 wrote:Mr Giggles wrote:none were comparable to the Nikkor z 50 f1.2No doubt the Nikon 50 F1.2 Z is a gorgeous lens, but as a dual system user I actually like the Canon 50 F1.2 RF better, maybe I am more of a " Canon color fan", LOL. but I am no huge fan of 50mm FL when it comes to portrait so i am patiently waiting for the Nikon 85 F1.2 S, i am more of a 35+85 guy, currently shooting with a Sigma 35 F1.2 which no Nikon and Canon can come even close to that.As for the 20mm, I actually prefer the new Sigma 20 F1.4 DN DG E-mount over the Nikon 20 F1.8S, and that's what I am currently using ( with adapter) on my Z9.if you like the Canon system colors more why spend the big bucks on the Z 85 F1 .2 ?comparison photos - lets see that those Sigmas beat the Nikon at 20 and 50 - you are a professional photographer making you the ideal person to show us how they stack upI rather like the Nikkor Z 20 myself .......The 50 /1.8 is also an amazing lens full of flavor. Since you have both, Let’s forget the 1.2 factor, could you please elaborate in your words the “Taste” of the 1.2 lens vs. the 1.8 lens? For me to try the 1.2 lens I have to find the time to drive into traffic/Manhattan B&H which I’m trying to avoid. Or order it and return it, something I don’t do unless I have a >50 % chance of keeping it.

Laqup wrote:RBFresno wrote:Perhaps he hasn't updated it, but according to hisGEAR LIST,he doesn't own either the Canon R 50 1.2 or the Nikon Z 50 1.2Add me to the list of those who appreciate (and own) the 50 f/1.2S!(I have no personal experience how it compares to the Canon counterpart since I've never used one)Correct. I don't own either of them, but as a dual system user had the pleasure to shoot with both of them (although not in direct comparison).I don't consider myself a qualified lens tester. BUt I've used the Z 50/1.2S enough to see athThere are a lot of things where Nikon shines comparead to Canon, but as previously stated both 50mms for the respective system are fantastic and I would not be able to pick a clear winner. The Sony is probably no slouch either (have no experience with their 1.2 G-master).But the author of this thread must have a different experience,maybe you are still willing to share what lead you to your conclusion (Z 50mm 1.2 > RF 50mm 1.2).What "conclusion" of mine are you referring to (other than my statement that the 50 f/1.2S is a "great lens"?)I don't consider myself a qualified lens tester.But I've used the Nikon 50 f/1.2S enough that I feel comfortable qualitatively describing it as a great lens.Not saying "great" in comparison its R 50 f/1.2 Canon counterpart (with which I stated that I have no personal experience), but rather comparing it to other quality lenses that have used a lot including the Zeiss 100/2 Macro planar, Zeiss 135/2 APO Sonnar, Nikon 105/1.4, Nikon 200 VR, Nikon 500VR f/4 among others.Please excuse the skepticism that I might have inferred when I noticed that you didn't own or have images in your gallery of either lens.You have the benefit (which I lack) of having used both.Best regards,RB

RBFresno wrote:Laqup wrote:RBFresno wrote:Perhaps he hasn't updated it, but according to hisGEAR LIST,he doesn't own either the Canon R 50 1.2 or the Nikon Z 50 1.2Add me to the list of those who appreciate (and own) the 50 f/1.2S!(I have no personal experience how it compares to the Canon counterpart since I've never used one)Correct. I don't own either of them, but as a dual system user had the pleasure to shoot with both of them (although not in direct comparison).I don't consider myself a qualified lens tester. BUt I've used the Z 50/1.2S enough to see athThere are a lot of things where Nikon shines comparead to Canon, but as previously stated both 50mms for the respective system are fantastic and I would not be able to pick a clear winner. The Sony is probably no slouch either (have no experience with their 1.2 G-master).But the author of this thread must have a different experience,maybe you are still willing to share what lead you to your conclusion (Z 50mm 1.2 > RF 50mm 1.2).What "conclusion" of mine are you referring to (other than my statement that the 50 f/1.2S is a "great lens"?)I don't consider myself a qualified lens tester.But I've used the Nikon 50 f/1.2S enough that I feel comfortable qualitatively describing it as a great lens.Not saying "great" in comparison its R 50 f/1.2 Canon counterpart (with which I stated that I have no personal experience), but rather comparing it to other quality lenses that have used a lot including the Zeiss 100/2 Macro planar, Zeiss 135/2 APO Sonnar, Nikon 105/1.4, Nikon 200 VR, Nikon 500VR f/4 among others.Please excuse the skepticism that I might have inferred when I noticed that you didn't own or have images in your gallery of either lens.You have the benefit (which I lack) of having used both.Best regards,RBI didn’t update my gallery in a long time. The 50s being used mostly in Portrait Studio

Mr Giggles wrote:the big thing is to not get wrapped up with written reviews - spec sheets -graphs.actual physically go to the camera stores and get test images !I can not emphasize this enough .here is an exampleI found out the Canon rep was going to be at a local store so I brought a memory card with me and got test shots with the expensive primesall these lens designs are different - the optical coatings are different - how they play with the sensor are different and unfortunately there is even sample variations within identical lens.heck - some folks want clinically sharp images so they can shoot photos of brick walls - other folks want soft artsy renditions - how can you know which is better for you without trying them first ?before you buy an expensive lens always try it first - you may not like it !someone asked about this lens - yes its great - but I still think the 50 Z offered better colors when combined with the Z7 sensor - at the expense of size and weightThat’s a very acceptable snapshot…

RBFresno wrote:Laqup wrote:But the author of this threadmust have a different experience, maybe you are still willing to share what lead you to your conclusion (Z 50mm 1.2 > RF 50mm 1.2).What "conclusion" of mine are you referring to (other than my statement that the 50 f/1.2S is a "great lens"?)I just confirmed your observation and didn't refer to you in any other way . "The author of this thread" references Mr Giggles, not you, sorry for the confusion. Would be interesting to hear from him why he rates the lenses the way he does.If it is only "better color" as stated before, than I am highly confused, as this is probably more related to the body and vendor specific "color science" and post processing than the lens.