Nikkor 35mm f1.4 Released

[fcotterill]

NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 Full-Frame Prime Lens | Nikon

Discover the NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 full-frame prime lens: ideal for street photography and video, delivering sharp images with a classic perspective.

www.nikon.co.uk

Nikon releases the NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4, a wide-angle lens for the Nikon Z mount system

www.nikon.com

Nikon NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 | Mirrorless Lenses | Nikon USA

The NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 lens offers a large f/1.4 aperture that cuts through low light and creates dramatic shallow depth of field, with close focus of 10.6 inches.

www.nikonusa.com

NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4-概要 | NIKKORレンズ | ニコンイメージング

ニコンのフルサイズフォーマットNIKKORレンズ「NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4」の製品ページ。カメラ、レンズ、アクセサリーなどの製品特長、主な仕様、撮影サンプル、関連製品に関する情報も。

www.nikon-image.com

 

[John Navitsky]

 

[Lance B]

This begs the question. Is Nikon going to release a raft of cheaper non S f1.4 lenses to supplement the S f1.8 lenses?

 

[JAJohnson]

This begs the question. Is Nikon going to release a raft of cheaper non S f1.4 lenses to supplement the S f1.8 lenses?

Perhaps a 50 f/1.4 and eventually a 35 f/1.2?

 

[Lance B]

Perhaps a 50 f/1.4 and eventually a 35 f/1.2?

Possibly. However, I am a bit perplexed at this release. The MTF doesn't look all that impressive compared to the 35 f1.8S. However, they have made a point of it having good bokeh, maybe that is part of the attraction? Video centric?

 

[hef19898]

Excluding sales, the 35/1.4 is 150 € cheaper than the 35/1.8S. For people looking for a low light prime lens to be used in those rare occassions that makes a difference. And for those low light primes, the 35/1.4 fits in well between the 35 S, the budget 40/2, the 50/1.8. It is either cheaper than the S alternatives or offers a larger aperture than the budget lenses (40/2, 26 or 28/2.8).

Not everyone buys lenses based on some MTF diagram.

 

[JAJohnson]

Possibly. However, I am a bit perplexed at this release. The MTF doesn't look all that impressive compared to the 35 f1.8S. However, they have made a point of it having good bokeh, maybe that is part of the attraction? Video centric?

If Nikon is going to produce a 35 f/1.2 S lens, it’ll have to be of superior resolving quality. I have no doubt they technically can do it. Is the delay due to lack of availability of highest quality glass? Production capacity? Something else?

 

[Lance B]

If Nikon is going to produce a 35 f/1.2 S lens, it’ll have to be of superior resolving quality. I have no doubt they technically can do it. Is the delay due to lack of availability of highest quality glass? Production capacity? Something else?

The 35 f1.2 will be a class leading lens like the 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2 and 135 f1.8 Plena. I think the delay is due to making sure the design is top of the class. A 35 f1.2 will be more difficult to perfect than the other three I mentioned.

 

[Lance B]

Excluding sales, the 35/1.4 is 150 € cheaper than the 35/1.8S. For people looking for a low light prime lens to be used in those rare occassions that makes a difference. And for those low light primes, the 35/1.4 fits in well between the 35 S, the budget 40/2, the 50/1.8. It is either cheaper than the S alternatives or offers a larger aperture than the budget lenses (40/2, 26 or 28/2.8).

Not everyone buys lenses based on some MTF diagram.

Yes, I know not everyone buys based on MTF, but it certainly goes a long way. The MTFs look quite soft wide open in comparison to the other Z lenses. In fact the MTF is only a smidgen better than the old F mount 35 f1.4G which is quite soft wide open. I know, I had it. It was OK back in the day, but it just doesn't stand up to the modern high res sensors of today. It's quite a bit softer than the Z 40 f2.

Maybe this is more a video-centric lens.

 

[fcotterill]

Nikon Bucks Expectations and Launches Z 35mm f/1.4 Lens for $600

Not quite what people expected.

petapixel.com

Nikon Z 35mm f/1.4 Announced: An Unexpected Budget Lens

Nikon just announced the first f/1.4 lens for the mirrorless Z system, the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.4. That's the full name of this lens; there's no "S" designation, which is a bit of a surprise. Another surprise is the price: At $600, it's even cheaper than the f/1.8 version!

photographylife.com

 

[hef19898]

One can always stop down, rigjt? The times I shot anything wide open shorter than 300 mm by accident trend towards zero. If I do, it is intentional: depth of field, astro or extremely low light. And in all those cases, theoretical sharpness takes the back seat (in different car quite some distance behind the one I am driving) to those points. Because if I have to use F 1.4 *and* the high ISO a Z6 is capable of means I cannot use a tripod and longer shutter speeds. So getting the shot trumps any potential sharpness issues most people fail to see in real life anyway.

No idea about video, I don't do video.

 

[Lance B]

One can always stop down, rigjt? The times I shot anything wide open shorter than 300 mm by accident trend towards zero. If I do, it is intentional: depth of field, astro or extremely low light. And in all those cases, theoretical sharpness takes the back seat (in different car quite some distance behind the one I am driving) to those points. Because if I have to use F 1.4 *and* the high ISO a Z6 is capable of means I cannot use a tripod and longer shutter speeds. So getting the shot trumps any potential sharpness issues most people fail to see in real life anyway.

No idea about video, I don't do video.

Then there is no point in having such a fast aperture. Why not just f2? The reason to have f1.4 is so you can shoot at f1.4 and have a sharp subject. I'm just failing to see the real appeal of this lens other than a cheap f1.4 compared to the Z 35 f1.8S.

 

[hef19898]

1.4 lenses have always been softer at 1.4 than 1.8 or f2 lenses at 1.8 and f2 respectively, right? The reason for those appertures is, if you ask me, very shallow depth of field and tons of ligjt. The latter becoming less interesting with ultra high ISO performance and denoising software.

Also, each and every lense gets sharper being stopped down, up until defraction hits. Why would a "budget" 35/1.4 Z lense be any different? Budget in quotes, as 730 € still is quite expensive if you ask me, compared to the 250ish 40/2. That is like saying no one needs a, say, 300/2.8 because it is sharper when stopped down...

I already said it, sharpness is over rated, in general and *especially* theoretical lense sharpness. Good pictures, let alone the great ones, have a lot more going for them then sharpness. If a 35/1.4 allows some people to create good pictures, good for them. Choice is good.

 

[Lance B]

1.4 lenses have always been softer at 1.4 than 1.8 or f2 lenses at 1.8 and f2 respectively, right? The reason for those appertures is, if you ask me, very shallow depth of field and tons of ligjt. The latter becoming less interesting with ultra high ISO performance and denoising software.

Also, each and every lense gets sharper being stopped down, up until defraction hits. Why would a "budget" 35/1.4 Z lense be any different? Budget in quotes, as 730 € still is quite expensive if you ask me, compared to the 250ish 40/2. That is like saying no one needs a, say, 300/2.8 because it is sharper when stopped down...

I already said it, sharpness is over rated, in general and *especially* theoretical lense sharpness. Good pictures, let alone the great ones, have a lot more going for them then sharpness. If a 35/1.4 allows some people to create good pictures, good for them. Choice is good.

The old F mount lenses were generally soft wide open compared to modern lenses, mostly due to the limitations of the F mount. The Z mount has changed that line of thinking. The new iterations of fast lenses in the Z mount have all been very sharp wide open look at the 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8. You may think sharpness is overrated, but most like the ability to have a sharp lens wide open. You can always add softness in post, you cannot add sharpness. I just don't see the real appeal of this lens over the f1.8 version other than price. As I said, it is possibly more a videocentric lens.

 

[fcotterill]

Subject to the real world testing, this new Z Nikkor prime is more about rendering than acuity. Nikon has established it's credentials in this department of optical engineering....

Nikon designed the 35 f1.4G as a first venture into depicting the 3D character of an image.....rendering the bokeh smoothly from the narrow focus plane in the out of focus zones. Judging by interviews, Haruo Sato pioneered this endeavour, which the 58 f1.4G - Neo Noct - refined further. Both these lenses are controversial 'Marmite Optics' and forums have debated their qualities endlessly....[ Links etc ] Some prominent websites and personalities revealed their own misunderstandings in reviews of the NeoNoct in particular.
Besides they are both challenging to focus wide open with a DSLR I learned this the hard way comparing my 58 f1.4G on a D850 versus Z7 and now Z9.
More here https://bcgforums.com/threads/is-ba...ary-in-wildlife-photography.29593/post-334350

The MTF charts of these 2 primes (35 f1.4G and 58 f1.4G) are somewhat misleading and suggest poor performance outside the centre, but this hints at how the out-of-focus zones; the PL review of the NeoNoct explains the conundrum better...."that focuses on producing aesthetically pleasing images, rather than purely focusing on sharpness...".

There's a consensus that Nikon's Centennial Lens - the 105 f1.4E was the best achievement of the three F Nikkors in Sato's quest to integrate acuity with bokeh to balance producing aesthetically pleasing images, with sharpness.

The Z System optical engineers - Sato included - have continued to advance their expertise pursuing the acuity-bokeh balance in several Z primes, including the 50mm and 85mm S line lenses. Moreover, the Z Mirrorless cameras make precise focusing much easier and more precise with a fast prime.
{ Edited}

 

[fcotterill]

This review captures the controversy and intangibles in describing attributes of lenses

The AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G Review: A Look Inside My Photographic Heart

Touching the great indoors. Nikon D750, AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G, f/2.0 1/400 secHello and welcome to a rare thing around here on my photoblog, the product review. I’m going to give my takeawa…

50lux.com

It is likely this 35 f1.4 Z Nikkor is another 'Marmite Lens', better for street photography and portraiture,but not a first choice for landscape... However, shut down to f8, it may surprise the sceptics

 

[hef19898]

The old F mount lenses were generally soft wide open compared to modern lenses, mostly due to the limitations of the F mount. The Z mount has changed that line of thinking. The new iterations of fast lenses in the Z mount have all been very sharp wide open look at the 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8. You may think sharpness is overrated, but most like the ability to have a sharp lens wide open. You can always add softness in post, you cannot add sharpness. I just don't see the real appeal of this lens over the f1.8 version other than price. As I said, it is possibly more a videocentric lens.

You may not see the appeal, I do. Would I take the 1.4 over the 1.8, given the latter is currently on sale? Propably not, I fabor the "S" over the larger apperture (marketing, I know...). Would I pick the 1.4 over the 1.8 based on regular prices? Yes, absolutely. Just check how often you shoot at the max apperture of a given lens, I'll go out on a lomb and say very, very rarely.

Price is an appeal that is not really appreciated by people on bcg. Not a big surprise, as there seem to be a ton of people worrying whether or not their two Z9s and 30k in exotic prime lenses fot in the overhead compartment of their first class seating on their way to Africa. Or if a Z6iii is a suitable backup body for said duo of Z9's or if a Z8 woupd be better. Not everyone has enoigh disposable income for that, and for those people *price* is a very huge factor. Or why do you think Nikon released a 28-400 hyperzoom?

 

[Nimi]

Can be summarized as mass-produced, fast & cheap, and probably very good. Maybe rebadged Rokinon? Contrast with the amazing 35/1.2 Canon just released at 2.5x the price. Two different markets. Personally, I'll wait for the 1.2S.

@Lance B nothing video-centric about it except the obligatory mention of "repressed focus breathing" which is easy to do on a short prime. The Canon I mentioned above is actually the first "hybrid" lens I've seen. The telltale is manual iris control.

 

[Lance B]

You may not see the appeal, I do. Would I take the 1.4 over the 1.8, given the latter is currently on sale? Propably not, I fabor the "S" over the larger apperture (marketing, I know...). Would I pick the 1.4 over the 1.8 based on regular prices? Yes, absolutely. Just check how often you shoot at the max apperture of a given lens, I'll go out on a lomb and say very, very rarely.

Price is an appeal that is not really appreciated by people on bcg. Not a big surprise, as there seem to be a ton of people worrying whether or not their two Z9s and 30k in exotic prime lenses fot in the overhead compartment of their first class seating on their way to Africa. Or if a Z6iii is a suitable backup body for said duo of Z9's or if a Z8 woupd be better. Not everyone has enoigh disposable income for that, and for those people *price* is a very huge factor. Or why do you think Nikon released a 28-400 hyperzoom?

The only reason I ever use my Z35 f1.8 is if I am going to use it wide open. Otherwise I use my 24-70 f2.8S because stopped down they are almost line ball.

As for price, we'll I am sure there are those that need a cheap lens on a $3000 body.

 

[Lance B]

Can be summarized as mass-produced, fast & cheap, and probably very good. Maybe rebadged Rokinon? Contrast with the amazing 35/1.2 Canon just released at 2.5x the price. Two different markets. Personally, I'll wait for the 1.2S.

@Lance B nothing video-centric about it except the obligatory mention of "repressed focus breathing" which is easy to do on a short prime. The Canon I mentioned above is actually the first "hybrid" lens I've seen. The telltale is manual iris control.

Videocentric in that it's cheap, probably decent enough for your average blogger. Low focus breathing is important for many. I just don't see where it fits in otherwise

 

[Nimi]

Videocentric in that it's cheap, probably decent enough for your average blogger. Low focus breathing is important for many. I just don't see where it fits in otherwise

Vloggers, didn't think about that. I think they are all on Sony... Most of my work is video, but I still don't exactly understand how the market is segmented. The only two I can think of are Thomas Heaton who uses an action camera for outdoors (and Z8 for his landscapes) and Camera Conspirecies (worth watching, the guy is funny), who uses a Zf with I think 85/1.2 and maybe 40?

In general, certainly in my case (not a vlogger), the requirements for video optics are greater than stills.

 

[hef19898]

Not everybody is using 3k camera bodies neither... Alternatives to those: used Z6 in mint condition for 900, Z6ii for 1700 (on sale and in €), z5 for 1100 (on sale and in €). Not to start with the zf, z50 and even z30...

If someone has 3k, that buys him either a Z7ii without lense or a z5 with said 35/1.4 and a weekend trip to some place nice to actually use it.

But fair enough, for some this new lens is not interesting. For others it is. Same as every other lense, I for example would never use a 24-70, too expensive, too short, too heavy. Others swear by it. Guess what, I think that's the reason why manufacturers offer more than a handful of lenses.

Oh, and there are those with a 3k body and still non-endless budget who find a fast prime, that doesn't break the bank, useful.

 

[Michael Dreese]

Excluding sales, the 35/1.4 is 150 € cheaper than the 35/1.8S. For people looking for a low light prime lens to be used in those rare occassions that makes a difference. And for those low light primes, the 35/1.4 fits in well between the 35 S, the budget 40/2, the 50/1.8. It is either cheaper than the S alternatives or offers a larger aperture than the budget lenses (40/2, 26 or 28/2.8).

Not everyone buys lenses based on some MTF diagram.

I agree completely. I’m actually considering this lens for low light street photography and also for concerts and events. I’m hoping this lens renders a bit filmic instead of absolute sharpness. I like to have a few “character” lenses in my lineup. The 40mm f2 has some of these qualities. I like the variety of choices Nikon is giving us. Not every lens will appeal to everyone.

 

[Michael Dreese]

The old F mount lenses were generally soft wide open compared to modern lenses, mostly due to the limitations of the F mount. The Z mount has changed that line of thinking. The new iterations of fast lenses in the Z mount have all been very sharp wide open look at the 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8. You may think sharpness is overrated, but most like the ability to have a sharp lens wide open. You can always add softness in post, you cannot add sharpness. I just don't see the real appeal of this lens over the f1.8 version other than price. As I said, it is possibly more a videocentric lens.

I have been using old legacy lenses on my Nikon ZF to create a more vintage look in my travel and candid portraits. If this lens provides that filmic look I will definitely purchase one. In my wildlife photography I want a razor sharp lens but other genres are far less demanding for my tastes. People are actually buying filters to reduce sharpness in modern lenses. It all depends on the output you desire. The f1.4 will be great for nighttime street photography and low light concerts where absolute sharpness is not the biggest priority.

 

[Nimi]

I agree completely. I’m actually considering this lens for low light street photography and also for concerts and events. I’m hoping this lens renders a bit filmic instead of absolute sharpness. I like to have a few “character” lenses in my lineup. The 40mm f2 has some of these qualities. I like the variety of choices Nikon is giving us. Not every lens will appeal to everyone.

I got the 40/2 when I bought the Zf. It DOES have lots of character and I hear it's becoming a "cult" lens.