Joel Klein wrote: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 StudioJoel -the 50 f1.8 is an excellent lens technically - very .... or as some would say "biting " sharp.the 85 also in bitingly sharp but the out of focus areas can be somewhat severe ......the 50 f1.2 can be a little more painterly and delicate in its rendering as shown below -better transitions from in focus to out of focus areas

I have gotten dreamy looking images with other cameras - particularly filmand the very long large monster Nikon telephotos - but my God those things are monsters ...... notice that the blades of grass are almost totally blurred out

and maybe that can even be seen as a NEGATIVE .....the new lens are so good - they are so crisp and perfect that you are going to have to come up with something clever ,,,,,, something interesting ..... or your photos are going to be real boring .... you combine boring rendering with boring composition and boring editing ...... guess what your image is going to be ?and that's the problem I have now .... what images  can I make which are interesting   when the lens is doing nothing to help me  - I have no crutch ?I am doing it but it s hard - takes a lot of thinkingI can look for atmosphere  :I can look for the bizarre and thought provoking :I can look for things in the shadows :and I can look for the beautiful :but the one thing I cant depend on is the Z lens .... they are too perfect

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.So I do not have the Nikkor Z 50/1.2 S but do own the Canon RF and also the Sony FE 50/1.2 GM that I can adapt and use on the Z9.  I’m pretty impressed with the Sony IQ. Color wise I admit I’m not focused on as much since I use Cobalt Images camera profiles which allow me match the Sony A1, Nikon Z9, and Canon R5. So is the Nikkor Z better and if so why?

Joel Klein wrote: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 StudioHiKindly note that my response about the gear list was directed to Laqup, not you.Best regardsRB

Mr Giggles wrote:Joel Klein wrote: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 StudioJoel -the 50 f1.8 is an excellent lens technically - very .... or as some would say "biting " sharp.the 85 also in bitingly sharp but the out of focus areas can be somewhat severe ......the 50 f1.2 can be a little more painterly and delicate in its rendering as shown below -better transitions from in focus to out of focus areasOhhhh! Gorgeous!!I think I get the feel. Thank you 🙏I like what I see.I think I’m going to wait up for the 85 1.2 If that lens will have the same feel, I might snatch it. - I want both.. the 50 and upcoming 85 1.2, Just can’t fund them all at the same time. I should begin putting $$ aside.85mm f/1.2 even though the DOF is less compared to 50mm, the 85mm “compression” should bring more subject in the DOF. Like I did summer with the 500pf. Although its f/5.6, it is 500mm, and the compression got the subject perfectly.Obviously I can’t use the 500pf in portrait studio, But I’m trying to achieve that ‘feel’ as much as possible (for certain shots, and for those customers who ask for a dreamy look) using 50mm at f/1.2 5 feet away from a toddler is way to little DOF, because at 1.8 its too little. I need at least f/3.5 I don’t want to back away more because I need the composition. But Hay, you never know until you try. So one day hopefully

Steve W 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.So I do not have the Nikkor Z 50/1.2 S but do own the Canon RF and also the Sony FE 50/1.2 GM that I can adapt and use on the Z9. I’m pretty impressed with the Sony IQ. Color wise I admit I’m not focused on as much since I use Cobalt Images camera profiles which allow me match the Sony A1, Nikon Z9, and Canon R5. So is the Nikkor Z better and if so why?Yeah, “the colors that a given lens gives” comment always puzzles me. I use an xRite color checker passport to create my own custom body/lens profiles. If I were to create custom profiles for other body/lens combos my color rendering should be near identical - and indeed that is the whole point. So what is it that makes people perceive that a given lens renders nicer colors than another?

Its a fact. Not a belief or a logic

Lenses have different native color casts. They often aren't huge. However, what often occurs is that someone shoots with a lens that has a color cast that is *beneficial* to the scene, and then pronounces that lens as having "natural color", "deep color", etc, etc, etc, compared to another lens whose native color cast is not a good "marriage" (shall we say) to the scene. One would think by now people know how to normalize the cast out. It's not that there aren't very subtle color differences between lenses even when this is done, but it's to a far less a degree of magnitude than all the people who claim lens A has better color than lens B.An example from my past: Back when I didn't know better, the D300 era, I show a post-sunset ocean scene with the 14-24/2.8G and the 24/1.4G. Same light, same exposure, same camera. The scenes color schema, for lack of a better word, was strongly blue - post sunset near dusk light, right? The shots from the 14-24 were "better" in terms of color - rich, dark, strong, saturated, deep (pick your adjective) blues. WOW I thought. THIS lens had AMAZING color compared to the same shots with the prime. Couple days later, I was in a different location. Daylight, waterfalls, lots of greens and yellows and some neutral rocks. Nowhere as much blue. Same thing - shot both lenses, same light, same exposure, same WB, the whole bit. Now the 24/1.4G shots were wow. Better color. Rich, strong, dark, natural - again, pick your adjective. While I was about ready to head off into forum land to loudly proclaim the 14-24's superiority to the prime due to the deep, amazing color, I couldn't do that now. So what happened in reality?The 14-24/2.8G had a much cooler native cast compared to the 24/1.4G. I was shooting with the same (daylight) WB, so in the scene that had predominantly cool colors (the ocean past sunset), the cast + the scene worked together, and colors looked great. Same scene, the 24/1.4G, which had a much warmer native color cast than the 14-24G, a "mismatch" - the blues didn't look at strong and deep. So in this scene, the 14-24 was "better". The situation reversed at the waterfall with the foilage - not as much blue, but more warm colors. So the scenes color schema matched the 24/1.4G better than the 14-24 did. So it had "better" colors.Later on I realized this, and realized that I had to normalize out the color cast in post, or do a preset WB specifically to each lens, to normalize out the cast.Additionally, years later when in the forums there was a heated battle about 35mm lenses and how bad the (then new) Sigma art 35/1.4 was "because it had bad color and the Nikon had deep, natural color", I decided to put the theory to the test. Shot my Nikon 35mm lenses alongside the Sigma - with a color checker as the subject. Normalized the WB so the cast was taken out of the equation. Nobody could pick which lens was which based upon the color checker chart.So yea, lenses have color casts, but that doesn't make them superior to another in a color sense in absolute terms. So RMCL (the post you are responding to) is taking the correct approach.(And yes, between some lenses, there might be extremely subtle color differences, but we're talking of a magnitude far less than the native color cast of the lens)(And, to add to this, comparing lens "color" between two lenses on different camera systems is a fools errand)

Thanks Mike - once again your answer hits the nail on the head:anotherMike wrote:Lenses have different native color casts. They often aren't huge. However, what often occurs is that someone shoots with a lens that has a color cast that is *beneficial* to the scene, and then pronounces that lens as having "natural color", "deep color", etc, etc, etc, compared to another lens whose native color cast is not a good "marriage" (shall we say) to the scene.One would think by now people know how to normalize the cast out. It's not that there aren't very subtle color differences between lenses even when this is done, but it's to a far less a degree of magnitude than all the people who claim lens A has better color than lens B.Exactly the point. People who think lens A gives better color than lens B are apparently not using a properly color managed workflow. I.e., not calibrating for color casts/shifts at the image capture end of the process.An example from my past: Back when I didn't know better, the D300 era, I show a post-sunset ocean scene with the 14-24/2.8G and the 24/1.4G. Same light, same exposure, same camera. The scenes color schema, for lack of a better word, was strongly blue - post sunset near dusk light, right? The shots from the 14-24 were "better" in terms of color - rich, dark, strong, saturated, deep (pick your adjective) blues. WOW I thought. THIS lens had AMAZING color compared to the same shots with the prime. Couple days later, I was in a different location. Daylight, waterfalls, lots of greens and yellows and some neutral rocks. Nowhere as much blue. Same thing - shot both lenses, same light, same exposure, same WB, the whole bit. Now the 24/1.4G shots were wow. Better color. Rich, strong, dark, natural - again, pick your adjective. While I was about ready to head off into forum land to loudly proclaim the 14-24's superiority to the prime due to the deep, amazing color, I couldn't do that now. So what happened in reality?Nice example 😊The 14-24/2.8G had a much cooler native cast compared to the 24/1.4G. I was shooting with the same (daylight) WB, so in the scene that had predominantly cool colors (the ocean past sunset), the cast + the scene worked together, and colors looked great. Same scene, the 24/1.4G, which had a much warmer native color cast than the 14-24G, a "mismatch" - the blues didn't look at strong and deep. So in this scene, the 14-24 was "better". The situation reversed at the waterfall with the foilage - not as much blue, but more warm colors. So the scenes color schema matched the 24/1.4G better than the 14-24 did. So it had "better" colors.Later on I realized this, and realized that I had to normalize out the color cast in post, or do a preset WB specifically to each lens, to normalize out the cast.Additionally, years later when in the forums there was a heated battle about 35mm lenses and how bad the (then new) Sigma art 35/1.4 was "because it had bad color and the Nikon had deep, natural color", I decided to put the theory to the test. Shot my Nikon 35mm lenses alongside the Sigma - with a color checker as the subject. Normalized the WB so the cast was taken out of the equation. Nobody could pick which lens was which based upon the color checker chart.So yea, lenses have color casts, but that doesn't make them superior to another in a color sense in absolute terms. So RMCL (the post you are responding to) is taking the correct approach.(And yes, between some lenses, there might be extremely subtle color differences, but we're talking of a magnitude far less than the native color cast of the lens)(And, to add to this, comparing lens "color" between two lenses on different camera systems is a fools errand)Cheers Mike 👍

Joel Klein wrote:Its a fact. Not a belief or a logicIt’s a fact, yes,… and an outcome of not working with a properly color managed workflow.

But you missed the chance for the Nikon 50 mm 1.0 that just sold for €175,000.

RMcL wrote:Joel Klein wrote:Its a fact. Not a belief or a logicIt’s a fact, yes,… and an outcome of not working with a properly color managed workflow.Yes and no. Yes when its true, No in my case it’s not true! I’m on a color profile from Z9 Adobe 1998 to post processing with calibrated BenQ’s. I compared the 24-70 f/2.8 @50 to the 50mm prime, and I was shocked to see so much color difference, specially contrast and vibrance.

Joel Klein wrote:RMcL wrote:Joel Klein wrote:Its a fact. Not a belief or a logicIt’s a fact, yes,… and an outcome of not working with a properly color managed workflow.Yes and no. Yes when its true, No in my case it’s not true! I’m on a color profile from Z9 Adobe 1998 to post processing with calibrated BenQ’s. I compared the 24-70 f/2.8 @50 to the 50mm prime, and I was shocked to see so much color difference, specially contrast and vibrance.Yeah, the piece that is missing here is creating custom profiles that you yourself create for your Z9 plus various lenses. One for each combination. If you did that then you would end up with more consistent colors across bodies and lenses. This is the point being made here and is essential if you require consistent results for all your bodies/lenses. Many don’t bother with this though for what they do. Go research it. It’s an interesting topic. If you are a professional then at minimum it is beneficial to be aware of this 😉

It would have helped if Joel had done a preset WB per lens. Wouldn't change contrast/resolution differences, but color would no longer be in the discussion. Probably easier than building profiles perhaps.

anotherMike wrote:It would have helped if Joel had done a preset WB per lens. Wouldn't change contrast/resolution differences, but color would no longer be in the discussion. Probably easier than building profiles perhaps.Agree that that is simpler. I have a Z7/Z9 and the same lenses Joel mentions plus others. Over time I've created custom profiles for each of these. One time job. Mainly daylight profiles and I see little to no differences in color rendition among bodies/lenses. Important in any case to set appropriate WB of-course.

RMcL wrote:Joel Klein wrote:RMcL wrote:Joel Klein wrote:Its a fact. Not a belief or a logicIt’s a fact, yes,… and an outcome of not working with a properly color managed workflow.Yes and no. Yes when its true, No in my case it’s not true! I’m on a color profile from Z9 Adobe 1998 to post processing with calibrated BenQ’s. I compared the 24-70 f/2.8 @50 to the 50mm prime, and I was shocked to see so much color difference, specially contrast and vibrance.Yeah, the piece that is missing here is creating custom profiles that you yourself create for your Z9 plus various lenses. One for each combination. If you did that then you would end up with more consistent colors across bodies and lenses. This is the point being made here and is essential if you require consistent results for all your bodies/lenses. Many don’t bother with this though for what they do. Go research it. It’s an interesting topic. If you are a professional then at minimum it is beneficial to be aware of this 😉I had a long deep conversation with my brain about this topic. And concluded: Its not something customers would see or appreciate. They want a shot. They would prefer a style, But ultimately how to deliver that style they don’t care. So I chose to rather see the difference in lenses myself and tweak it to taste in ACR.

Joel Klein wrote:RMcL wrote:Joel Klein wrote:RMcL wrote:Joel Klein wrote:Its a fact. Not a belief or a logicIt’s a fact, yes,… and an outcome of not working with a properly color managed workflow.Yes and no. Yes when its true, No in my case it’s not true! I’m on a color profile from Z9 Adobe 1998 to post processing with calibrated BenQ’s. I compared the 24-70 f/2.8 @50 to the 50mm prime, and I was shocked to see so much color difference, specially contrast and vibrance.Yeah, the piece that is missing here is creating custom profiles that you yourself create for your Z9 plus various lenses. One for each combination. If you did that then you would end up with more consistent colors across bodies and lenses. This is the point being made here and is essential if you require consistent results for all your bodies/lenses. Many don’t bother with this though for what they do. Go research it. It’s an interesting topic. If you are a professional then at minimum it is beneficial to be aware of this 😉I had a long deep conversation with my brain about this topic. And concluded: Its not something customers would see or appreciate. They want a shot. They would prefer a style, But ultimately how to deliver that style they don’t care. So I chose to rather see the difference in lenses myself and tweak it to taste in ACR.I assume you are meaningyourcustomers and not all customers in general, right?I'm not passing judgement on you/others here and their preferences. Only speaking to the point brought up earlier in this thread, that differing color casts among different lenses need not be an issue, or indeed even a consideration when weighing the relative merits of one lens versus another, because there is a well-recognized process to eliminate that variable from consideration.There are many areas of photography where a fully color managed flow is not only desired but is required. Product photography, fashion, etc., etc. For me personally, I choose to do it because I get satisfaction in knowing that all my images have a more accurate/consistent color rendition as a starting point regardless of body/lens combo and I find the whole topic fun and interesting to boot.

RMcL wrote:Joel Klein wrote:RMcL wrote:Joel Klein wrote:RMcL wrote:Joel Klein wrote:Its a fact. Not a belief or a logicIt’s a fact, yes,… and an outcome of not working with a properly color managed workflow.Yes and no. Yes when its true, No in my case it’s not true! I’m on a color profile from Z9 Adobe 1998 to post processing with calibrated BenQ’s. I compared the 24-70 f/2.8 @50 to the 50mm prime, and I was shocked to see so much color difference, specially contrast and vibrance.Yeah, the piece that is missing here is creating custom profiles that you yourself create for your Z9 plus various lenses. One for each combination. If you did that then you would end up with more consistent colors across bodies and lenses. This is the point being made here and is essential if you require consistent results for all your bodies/lenses. Many don’t bother with this though for what they do. Go research it. It’s an interesting topic. If you are a professional then at minimum it is beneficial to be aware of this 😉I had a long deep conversation with my brain about this topic. And concluded: Its not something customers would see or appreciate. They want a shot. They would prefer a style, But ultimately how to deliver that style they don’t care. So I chose to rather see the difference in lenses myself and tweak it to taste in ACR.I assume you are meaningyourcustomers and not all customers in general, right?I'm not passing judgement on you/others here and their preferences. Only speaking to the point brought up earlier in this thread, that differing color casts among different lenses need not be an issue, or indeed even a consideration when weighing the relative merits of one lens versus another, because there is a well-recognized process to eliminate that variable from consideration.There are many areas of photography where a fully color managed flow is not only desired but is required. Product photography, fashion, etc., etc. For me personally, I choose to do it because I get satisfaction in knowing that all my images have a more accurate/consistent color rendition as a starting point regardless of body/lens combo and I find the whole topic fun and interesting to boot.Correct. My customers. Maybe one day when Nikon will offer a Z10 I would want to match up bodies. So far I have a Z30 as a RX100, Z7ii as a backup for the Z9 which is the only camera  being used professionally. The Z7ii I began using for products, Wine bottles, I’m using the 70-200 or MC 105.  The customer base for that is looking for a decent photographed bottle to use in their advertisements. Lower budget.

RMcL wrote:Joel Klein wrote:RMcL wrote:Joel Klein wrote:RMcL wrote:Joel Klein wrote:Its a fact. Not a belief or a logicIt’s a fact, yes,… and an outcome of not working with a properly color managed workflow.Yes and no. Yes when its true, No in my case it’s not true! I’m on a color profile from Z9 Adobe 1998 to post processing with calibrated BenQ’s. I compared the 24-70 f/2.8 @50 to the 50mm prime, and I was shocked to see so much color difference, specially contrast and vibrance.Yeah, the piece that is missing here is creating custom profiles that you yourself create for your Z9 plus various lenses. One for each combination. If you did that then you would end up with more consistent colors across bodies and lenses. This is the point being made here and is essential if you require consistent results for all your bodies/lenses. Many don’t bother with this though for what they do. Go research it. It’s an interesting topic. If you are a professional then at minimum it is beneficial to be aware of this 😉I had a long deep conversation with my brain about this topic. And concluded: Its not something customers would see or appreciate. They want a shot. They would prefer a style, But ultimately how to deliver that style they don’t care. So I chose to rather see the difference in lenses myself and tweak it to taste in ACR.I assume you are meaningyourcustomers and not all customers in general, right?I'm not passing judgement on you/others here and their preferences. Only speaking to the point brought up earlier in this thread, that differing color casts among different lenses need not be an issue, or indeed even a consideration when weighing the relative merits of one lens versus another, because there is a well-recognized process to eliminate that variable from consideration.There are many areas of photography where a fully color managed flow is not only desired but is required. Product photography, fashion, etc., etc. For me personally, I choose to do it because I get satisfaction in knowing that all my images have a more accurate/consistent color rendition as a starting point regardless of body/lens combo and I find the whole topic fun and interesting to boot.This is more for New York top level fashion photographers who also have very advanced lighting systems and filters such as Profoto or higher end.Occasionally I will set a custom white balance but most of the time the camera is good enoughlike I said some huge percentage of folks who buy into the Z system are taking photos of brick walls and cats ........ color science is the last thing they need to worry aboutyou just need to find an interesting Cat .... camera dont matter