With that money for 50 f1.2S lens, I would buy 35 f1.4, 85 f1.8S & 20 f1.8S.

Choosing a background so far behind is bonkers. You could have an f4 and see little difference. The 50mm f1.2S is an amazing lens. So is the 1.8S. But they produce very different portrait results in the conditions where one would reach for the 1.2S. The size and cost are the downsides and the 1.8S will be perfect in many cases.....but c'mon, if you want to make a comparison, show the conditions where you would actually see the difference.....full body shots or half-body shots (not headshots) with some not so distant background.

I also have the 50 1.2 85 1.2 and 135 1.8 and the 50 1.2 is the one I use the least, I agree with you that the 1.8 is more than enough

3:06 love this video but you did her dirty right here 😂

That extra stop of light when shooting low light can make a big difference though

Very good comparison.

the 50 1.8s is so over engineered for the price it's crazy.

Good review, it's a very specialised lens - I wouldn't want one. I still love my old AFS 50mm f/1.8, but it's a bit big with the ftz adaptor, so I just got a super small and cheap Viltrox 40mm f/2.5 (180g!) and love it for casual shooting when I'm walking my dogs or going to the store when I don't want to carry a big lump around my neck. I find 40mm really nice - a bit more breathing room than a 50, but still a similar look.

The size and the horrible design is the reason why I avoided the 1.2

NICE VIDEO, THAT 1.2 IS JUST WAY TO BIG FOR ME CANT HANDLE IT! WE SHOULD COLLAB!

I have Z8 not big deal for me and just like 1 week ago bought 24-70mm 2.8 f and with micro lens 105mm even better in next 3 months will add 85mm 1.2 F Will not have regret love Nikon

Better optical quality. The 1.8 is an s lens. Give me a break

The photos taken by 1.8S look boring , it is just too sharp.

f/1.4

I own both. They are very different tools.