This discussion is interesting but reminded me a lot of the days when Nikon focused a lot on their family of lenses having a very similar color temperature across the AS-I family. Of course for camera to camera we relied on the consistency of the film manufacturers.That was the day when Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta all offered Kodak or Fujifilm colors.

Mr Giggles wrote: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.I don’t think so Mr. Giggles. I am no New York top level fashion photographer or even a professional photographer of any kind for that matter. It’s actually a super easy process and there is a dedicated plugin in Lightroom Classic for creating xRite custom profiles. I take a picture of the color checker passport, upload the RAW to lightroom and export with presets to create profile. Done. It’s that simple. In practice I have found that its adequate (for me at-least) to create one daylight profile per camera per lens and these profiles are good there after. For me its a one time thing and takes a few minutes to do and I never have to repeat it. I do most of my shooting outdoors. Occasionally I will create dual-illuminant profiles, say indoor lighting and Daylight if I think I will be shooting indoors in artificial light and then that profile will give good results for a wide range of lighting conditions. The only other thing I do is carry the color checker with me so that I can take at least one grey card reference shot for WB during and outing. Maybe, people are put off from the idea because they think its going to be way more complicated and burdensome than it actually is? AND, it makes a BIG difference to color rendering too depending on situation. But, yeah, I get that many don’t care or it doesn’t matter to them and they are happy seeing through the “eyes” of Nikon color and/or Adobe Color with the added variable of what color cast a given lens may be adding to the mix. It actually make a BIG difference in color rendering depending on the situation.Occasionally I will set a custom white balance but most of the time the camera is good enoughImportant thing is that you are happy, as that’s all that really matters. In my experience with all Nikon cameras I’ve owned, D500, D850, Z7 and Z9, they all (most of time, not always) produce a white balance that is too cool even when latter three cameras are set to Auto WB Natural - usually in the region of 500K-1000K too cool. The Auto WB feature can be erratic too. I don’t think its anywhere near as good as a lot of people would like to think it is and this has been my experience across multiple Nikon bodies.like 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 matterLove the cat!

Mr Giggles wrote: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?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.Am I the only one to find this statement weird, maybe even a bit sexist, maybe ageist?  I mean, the lens weighs 2.4#, as opposed to the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/25 at 2.6# and the Sigma 40/1.4 at 2.7#.  If one cannot lift 3#, they probably should find a hobby besides photography.  Personally, I like the solid feel, but I'm just 70.  Not old.

Yes, except size and light balls at f/2 and f/2.8 produce bad bokeh. The 1.8 is better in that respect.anything else it is an amazing lens.

NeedMorePractice wrote: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...).Be careful, a very logical and sensible thought process to post on a gear site! I agree 100% - a lens is for life, not just for Christmas to use a dog analogy. Bodies come and go and unless there is some glaring omission that makes a body completely out of the question then my decision process has always been handling/UI of the body (I have to enjoy handling the thing, not fight it!) followed immediately by the glass.The internet melted when the Z6/7 were launched over the AF (but it was better than my 750 even then and subsequently very good indeed) but the quality of the 24-70 ‘kit’ showed where Nikon were going - it’s taken time, true, for various reasons but the glass is spectacular- my 24-120 is stunning and a world away from my old F version.My local store has a 100-400 sitting on the shelf and my credit card is cowering in terror!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.

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.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)Another great explanation. So, is this due to the lens glass having different transmission characteristics at different frequencies/colors?  If so, then the cast can be removed electronically by adjusting each color in post?

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.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)Indeed. Each system has its own colour signature, due to the different coatings and glass available to each manufacturer. I assume the manufacturer designs in the signature look. And it can change with time. My Nikon 28mm F2.8 AIS produces very cool images compared to my (now sold)  28 mm F1.8 AF-S F mount lens. And then of course we have the brand specific Bayer filtration and in camera demosaicing to contend with. However, digital makes it easy to correct the colours, in the field using preset WB in my case.Contrast is another separating character. I have a book with photos from Leica and Nikon lenses. It is very easy to guess which image is Leica or Nikon, contrast and colour differ. My Tamron macro lens produced ‘softer’ (not less sharp) and warmer images than my Micro Nikkors.For me a key aspect of the Z lenses is the reduced or absent CA in out of focus areas. That was an issue with my 28mm F1.8 lens, and all my micro Nikkors. They also seem to produce smoother bokeh, but I have only two samples to compare which is not enough.

Oh my, this conversation reminds me of my father talking about the benefits of tube amps over transistor amps in a stereo system. Quick, someone rescue me!!

Glass types + coatings.

Rick620 wrote:Be careful, a very logical and sensible thought process to post on a gear site! I agree 100% - a lens is for life, not just for Christmas to use a dog analogy. Bodies come and go and unless there is some glaring omission that makes a body completely out of the question then my decision process has always been handling/UI of the body (I have to enjoy handling the thing, not fight it!) followed immediately by the glass.The internet melted when the Z6/7 were launched over the AF (but it was better than my 750 even then and subsequently very good indeed) but the quality of the 24-70 ‘kit’ showed where Nikon were going - it’s taken time, true, for various reasons but the glass is spectacular- my 24-120 is stunning and a world away from my old F version.My local store has a 100-400 sitting on the shelf and my credit card is cowering in terror!Don't fight it, get the 100-400!I went with the 400 4.5 when I had to choose, knowing it made more sense for my purposes, but only by a hair.  I would LOVE having that 100-400 zoom available for many situations where its versatility would outweigh the extra sharpness of the 400 4.5.  It may not be the number one lens on my wish list (I'm looking HARD at that 14-24 2.8), but it's up there, and I can't help but feel I'll add one at some point.

fpessolano wrote:Yes, except size and light balls at f/2 and f/2.8 produce bad bokeh. The 1.8 is better in that respect.anything else it is an amazing lens.here is an image from the Z 1.2  lens taken at f1.8decide for yourself if the Bokeh is OK

Paddler213 wrote:Mr Giggles wrote: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?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.Am I the only one to find this statement weird, maybe even a bit sexist, maybe ageist? I mean, the lens weighs 2.4#, as opposed to the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/25 at 2.6# and the Sigma 40/1.4 at 2.7#. If one cannot lift 3#, they probably should find a hobby besides photography. Personally, I like the solid feel, but I'm just 70. Not old.not weird or sexist - the lens is a beast for a general walk around lens which is exactly what a 50 mm is used for most of the time.are you saying that you think the average Man and Women have the same strength and what is heavy for one is exactly the same as for the other.now that I do find weird .... its been my experience that Men are quite a bit stronger then womenI know that I sure am .

Mr Giggles wrote: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 lensThe Z 50 1.2 s is very very sharp at long distance when wide open.

Please read what i wrote and BTW i have both lenses.Take a photo at f/2 or 2.8 with light sources (bulbs and alike) in the background bokeh and you will see the light circles are polygonal. It is a specific situation.Apart from that i love my 1.2

fpessolano wrote:Please read what i wrote and BTW i have both lenses.Take a photo at f/2 or 2.8 with light sources (bulbs and alike) in the background bokeh and you will see the light circles are polygonal. It is a specific situation.Apart from that i love my 1.2very interesting - particularly because you own bothI only own the 1.8 but rented the 1.2 for 3 days.can you please post examples of this polygonal Bokeh issueI am very interested ......

I would need to make them as this is what i noticed when i tested the lens and since then i actually never stopped it down (while with the old 1.4G 1.4 was like a rarety for me)

fpessolano wrote:I would need to make them as this is what i noticed when i tested the lens and since then i actually never stopped it down (while with the old 1.4G 1.4 was like a rarety for me)I see ...

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.Laqup, you are sounding pretty defensive and even offended there. OP is really just stating his opinion about a lens that he really likes.

J_Allen wrote:Laqup, you are sounding pretty defensive and even offended there. OP is really just stating his opinion about a lens that he really likes.J_Allen, you are sounding pretty defensive (of the OP) here. I just stated my opinion  about those two lenses. Same principle I guess?Another fact about me: I do not like posts from #fantasyland (no further reference).

Mr Giggles wrote:fpessolano wrote:Yes, except size and light balls at f/2 and f/2.8 produce bad bokeh. The 1.8 is better in that respect.anything else it is an amazing lens.here is an image from the Z 1.2 lens taken at f1.8decide for yourself if the Bokeh is OKBokeh is pretty bad in this example.In the image above I marked some examples of polygonal bokeh. Uniformity &"roundness" in general is bad as well. I believe some of those effects were somewhat enhanced by post processing (added contrast / clarity & sharpness to out of focus areas).How would you rate your example yourself?