Experienced photographers know that the shallowest the DOF don't mean better picture.

When I switched to mirrorless the 50 1.8 was the first lens I got (after dropping the cash on the camera the price was appealing for the lens) I'm more of a zoom guy but that 50 1.8 is nice to have in my bag, it's sooo sharp.

I own both. And love the 1.2 much more. It's the character and rendering that is amazing! I use the 1.8 for travel

Hi Luke, just to say I really like your videos! The way you shoot, talk and then edit them is so good to me. Really appreciate your work. Thanks for this!

Hi Luke, thanks for the advice. Nice polished video as usual 👍🏽😊

Best review, thank you so much!

I love you channel! I am so happy that I found it. You're doing a great job. I think you are my favourite wedding photographer now and I have been following quite a few :)

Great video, love hearing your thought process in the 1.2 lens

For me the 50F1.8S is perfect. It offers a level of performance that is very satisfying . I like the price and weight difference. It works equally well with the Z6ii and Z9. For soft backgrounds etc. I think I would opt for the Plena rather than the 50 1.2. I understand the reasoning of looking more professional but I am not involved in making a living from photography. 135 is not a wedding photography lens but it is a lens you should take a close look at and use for a while. I have a 50 so I don’t need a second 50 no matter how great it is.

I’m actually a little surprised that you’re not shooting events (i.e., weddings) with the Z8 given the much-improved EyeAF over the Z6II, due to the newer, faster processor. Even the Zf surpasses the Z6II is this respect (not sure if you like the retro styling).

I love my 50 1.8 for portraits. If I get a 1.2, it will be when the 35 1.2 is released. The weight is a big concern for me so I’m anxious to see how big it will be.

I have had the 50 1.2 for probably almost 3 years or something. It's such a no regrets purchase. If you cover events or do a lot of portrait work the 50 1.2 is a no brainer unless you're super concerned with equipment weight.

I am still quite new to wedding photography and i have the 50mm 1.8 and its a lot value for the money. I pair it up with my 24mm 1.8 and 40mm 2 as a backup. I also have a Tamron 35-150 for special situations. At the moment i cant justify the upgrade to the 1.2. But maybe one day since 50mm is my main lens.

50 1.8 S for me, crazy sharp, small, well built. So in summary your thoughts are for wedding/events the 50 1.2 is the right lens for that environment. The 50 1.8 S for travel, everyday carry, but it is still a very capable lens if your just starting out as a wedding photographer.

Just got the 1.2 and it's definitely a lens with character. Worth the purchase. The 1.8 one was my first Z lens and least used because it just didn't give me that 'je ne sais quoi' that a nifty 50 is supposed to give

I tried out the 50mm 1.8 and I actually found it to be heavy, maybe because I was comparing it to the 24mm 1.7 DX lens which I also was testing out at the same time, and what I found was that if you aren't crazy about sharpness and perfection, the little 24mm is actually a pretty cool little lens. The close focusing ability of the 24 allows for some interesting perspectives and the light weight and small size make it nice to carry around. Sure it crops on the z6ii so you only get like 10 megapixels but it was fine usually. I don't really care if a lens feels like a toy, I just care if I like my pictures. I found myself leaning back/backing up trying to get any extra distance I could with the 50mm, so the 1.2 seems like it would be tricky in small rooms/spaces. I think Nikon could have fit another control ring and a function button on the 50 1.8, I don't understand why the control ring is so big on it, but I guess there's a reason for it because it seems like it's even bigger on the 1.2. I was a bit disappointed with the 50mm, maybe because I heard such great things about it like it is so optically perfect but I still saw some chromatic aberration, I mean it's fixable but still, and then I heard the autofocus was so amazing but I didn't find it to be better than the 24-120. For my purposes, the 50mm wasn't worth double the cost of the 24mm, but I think "worth" always depends on your needs.

I have the 50mm 1.8 and I absolutely love it ❤❤. Also have the cheap 40mm f/2 which is nice but not anywhere near the 50mm 1.8. I will never need that 50mm 1.2 for hobby photography but as you are a professional I totally get all your reasoning.

Hey Luke! Do you have other links aside from the shorturl? I cant seem to access it on this side of the world. would love to avail your preset! Ty!

Do you use iPhone or Android, if android which android and if iPhone, do you think there is some features and usabilities that android can't provide as a photographer? Do you carry your camera or just phone in day to day and travel? Do you use more specialised lens for your camera and just use your phone for more common wide angle side of focal lengths?

I need a 1.2 len right anyone has recommendations?

Or you get the Megadap + Sigma 50 1.2 DG DN . The Z lens is just too large .

The 1.2 is amazing but my god it is heavy. I like to think I'm in halfway decent shape but after a 8 to 10 hour day lugging that thing around on a harness I definitely feel it in my back and shoulders.

Just like horsepower, to get that top level you’re gonna pay. Magic costs! 👍🏾

50 1.2 just hits different. Minimal. But it hit different.

I shoot medium format and Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is the closest you can get to that MF look and feel. Exceptional lens regardless the price, size and weight.

The second!!!

Im here to say the 40mm f/2 isn’t bad for $300!!!!

You guys loving 501.2S must have strong arms. The design of 501.2 totally ignores mobility , you take this len , you will be exhausted before you scare everyone .

I bought the 50mm 1.8. Sold it, then bought the 1.2. Then? I bought the 50mm 1.8 AGAIN. They are very different tools. My EDC / travel kit is the Z8 with the 24-120mm f4S.

I'll be the outlier here...I would never use the f1.2, or pay the money. The depth of field at 1.2 is for me, useless. Can't say I've ever wanted so little in focus that the "look" is what I'm after. But, I'm not a wedding photographer.

The first!!! 😂