I have both and use them for different reasons. For work events I will use the 50mm 1.2 on the Z8. I'm almost 70 and I don't have a problem with using it for about a 6 hour period. I eat my spinach. The 1.8 is excellent also and if I am going all day, i.e. 15 hours, I'll go with the 1.8. Non-photographers seem to notice how pleasing the prints of the 1.2 look, especially at 1.2 or 1.3 or 1.4. They have not seen anything that looks like the prints at 1.2. It's the rendition that different from the 1.8. It is subtle, but they notice.
Voigtländer Nokton 58mm f1.4 is actually 1.2 because it overexposes if you don't correct the exposure by -0.7 or -1. It's a superior lens when adapted via FTZ adapter. Yes, it's manual focus but it renders beautifully like no other lens. I use it together with the Z 50 f1.8 S, which is a phenomenal lens. They both actually cost the same, happy shooting 👍
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.
As a Sony user, I borrowed a Nikon Z8 and the Nikon 50mm f1.2 for a week to compare them with my Sony A7rV and the 50mm f1.2 GM. Visually, I don't see much difference. Both lenses are great (sharpness, bokeh)! However, compared to the 50mm f1.2 GM, the Nikon 50mm f1.2 is huge, heavy and has a slow and loud autofocus. The weight difference of the camera-lens combination is around 500g (Sony around 1.5kg and Nikon around a little more than 2kg). So if you ask me, I won't be buying the Nikon 50mm f1.2 anytime soon.
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.
It isn't about performance and a slightly narrower DOF. Some people can't see or don't know the difference or what a lens like the 1.2 is about. They should certainly just buy the 1.8 workhorse, it's great. The 1.2 is just about that amazing, special rendering, like the f mount 105 f1.4, the AIS 105 f2.5 and a select few lenses... Difficult to describe really. I have both lenses and the 50 f1.2 is so often on my camera.
In my opinion f1.8 is definitively not enough, but the Nikon 50mm f1.2 is huge, (front) heavy and has a slow and loud autofocus. So knowing both lenses, I'd also pick the f1.8. However on my Sony system (A7rV and 50mm f1.2GM) I'd always choose the 50mm f1.2 GM because the Sony lens is small, relatively lightweight and has an instant, completely silent autofocus. And yes, if you take full body shots, you see a lot of difference between f1.2 and f1.8.
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
