Nikkor 35mm f1.4 Released

[Cameron T]

I'm going to pass on the lens. I have no desire for a much less sharp lens than what I have, especially for the use cases I'd want this for.

I also have to say, a lot of the comments in general about "dreamy" looks wide open or w/e... Lens design wasn't great, and the lenses are optically far from ideal. They're not sharp wide open because they couldn't be. I don't want to go back to that design schema personally. I'd rather lenses be as sharp as possible out of the box.

 

[JAJohnson]

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.

Good points. I think the issue for some of us is that a 35 f/1.2 S was expected because it appeared to be on the lens roadmap. This isn’t that lens. Otherwise I’m sure it’s well designed and produces beautiful images at an attractive price. Nikon continues to surprise.

 

[Michael Dreese]

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.

I used it for the first time on my ZF a few weeks ago on a family trip. It does have a look that differs from my other primes. It is so light and easy to carry too. I just ordered a few prints and I’m eager to see the results. It’s a steal at that price point!

 

[ssheipel]

Thank you Nikon for the 1.4 lens! I've got the z 35 S 1.8 so will now NOT have to be tempted to fork over more of my retirement dollars to Nikon as I would have been had this lens been the 'expected' 1.2

 

[Nimi]

Thank you Nikon for the 1.4 lens! I've got the z 35 S 1.8 so will now NOT have to be tempted to fork over more of my retirement dollars to Nikon as I would have been had this lens been the 'expected' 1.2

I'm #1 on the waitlist at my local store for the 1.2, partially because of you...

 

[ssheipel]

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?

It's not an S lens as is the 1.8, so the release might be about price difference of a few hundred dollars?

 

[ssheipel]

I'm #1 on the waitlist at my local store for the 1.2, partially because of you...

The 50 1.2 is a magical thing so in my heart (not my wallet)I'm still waiting for the 35 equivalent

 

[abc123brian]

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.

I love my 40/2. It has a little different rendering to it and is fantastic on the Zf. This is the first I'm hearing of it becoming a cult lens, but from the DPR forum, it seems people either love the images from it or complain it doesn't have the sharpness of the 50 1.8s.

 

[Tim Robinson]

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.

I picked one up when they first released it love it for what it is....I'm tempted by the 35 1.4 but since I already have the 50 1.2S, and it goes with me pretty much on every shoot, I'm not seeing a lot of need personally.

 

[fcotterill]

This new lens is probably one of the most affordable fast primes available, certainly compared to what Nikon makes and has made previously faster than f1.8.

I think with this 35 f1.4, Nikon plans to offer a new series of primes priced above the f2 consumer primes but under the S Line f1.8 and f1.2 primes. The Z Mount allows for this breadth of design space.

After all, there has been clamouring on forums for f1.4 primes. A DPR thread suggests Nikon has come close to emulating the 35 f1.4G, which has many fans, although it's dismissed by some as too soft etc

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.

 

[JAJohnson]

Thom Hogan: "To me what Nikon has done is reimagine the original 35mm prime for the Z System for the more casual photographer, and in doing so, made it slightly brighter." And, "It is interesting to note that the lens-on-camera product image Nikon supplied is on the Z6 III.”

Nikon Announces Faster 35mm | Thom Hogan

Nikon launches the 35mm f/1.4 lens for the Z System

www.zsystemuser.com

 

[fcotterill]

Lens Roadmap Still Incomplete | Thom Hogan

Nikon's Lens Roadmap is Still not Complete

www.zsystemuser.com

 

[wotan1]

I start with this that I probably already have too many Z lenses at this point. I am looking to simplify my setup and may let a few things go.

I have zooms that cover the 35mm focal length, one f4 and the other f2.8. The latter lens is amazingly sharp and my favorite in this range.

I do however like quality primes. Based on the Thom Hogan reviews the 85mm f1.8 and the 105mm macro were some of the early Z lens purchases. They both had stellar reviews for quality. I still find them remarkable. I use the 105mm whenever I want to go macro and I pull the 85mm out once in a while.

I mostly shoot with the Z9. I do crave a lighter camera for occasional carry around shooting. For that I have the Z 7ii which was my first Z camera body purchase.

There is something to be said for marrying the Z7ii to a small “pancake” wide angle lens for casual shooting. Would this 35mm f1.4 lens fit the bill?

Perhaps but I am definitely not jumping at the opportunity. I will wait this one out.

 

[Nimi]

I start with this that I probably already have too many Z lenses at this point. I am looking to simplify my setup and may let a few things go.

I have zooms that cover the 35mm focal length, one f4 and the other f2.8. The latter lens is amazingly sharp and my favorite in this range.

I do however like quality primes. Based on the Thom Hogan reviews the 85mm f1.8 and the 105mm macro were some of the early Z lens purchases. They both had stellar reviews for quality. I still find them remarkable. I use the 105mm whenever I want to go macro and I pull the 85mm out once in a while.

I mostly shoot with the Z9. I do crave a lighter camera for occasional carry around shooting. For that I have the Z 7ii which was my first Z camera body purchase.

There is something to be said for marrying the Z7ii to a small “pancake” wide angle lens for casual shooting. Would this 35mm f1.4 lens fit the bill?

Perhaps but I am definitely not jumping at the opportunity. I will wait this one out.

No, it's far from a pancake lens, which is very short.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Mirrorless setups (lenses and cameras) are so sharp that in my opinion the pro designation (S for Nikkor lenses) is not that significant. The Z 180-600 is not an S series (and my wallet thanks Nikon for this), yet it is just as sharp as my other three Z lenses (all of which are S). I have no proof, but my instinct is that the S designation has more to do with build quality, weather sealing, and possibly lens coatings, then it does with sharpness. Since I treat my gear well and don't photograph in jungles or war zones, those factors are not important to me.

However, there is one annoying feature (or lack thereof) with some of their non-S lenses like this one and the Tamron-based f2.8 trinity. They don't have a switch on the lens barrel to go from AF to MF. Others here say they don't care about that, but it's important to me (imortant enough that it prevents me from buying any of those lenses).

 

[John Navitsky]

i’m pretty conflicted. i was waiting for a 1.2. or at least a 1.4S. i currently have the very nice tamron 35 1.4 sp g2, so i may just stick with that and see if a 1.2 ever shows up. the nikon 1.4 is probably better than my tamron, but probably not that much better.

 

[Michael Dreese]

i’m pretty conflicted. i was waiting for a 1.2. or at least a 1.4S. i currently have the very nice tamron 35 1.4 sp g2, so i may just stick with that and see if a 1.2 ever shows up. the nikon 1.4 is probably better than my tamron, but probably not that much better.

I just preordered it as it will fill a niche in my lineup, primarily candid street portraits, urban nightscapes and concerts. A big bulky lens would be detrimental in most of these use cases.

 

[Chris K]

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

I’m hoping the 35/1.4 is Nikon attempting to make a ‘character’ lens like the 58/1.4. The 40/2 does nicely, but there’s definitely room for improvement compared to the best Nikon has produce.

In reality, I think it’s more Nikon’s ”cheap” line, and we’ll see a cheap 24/28, 50, and something 85+.

 

[JAJohnson]

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.

Pejorative generalizations like this are rarely accurate or fair. Is the comment above helpful in supporting your argument?

 

[Cameron T]

Pejorative generalizations like this are rarely accurate or fair. Is the comment above helpful in supporting your argument?

I don't even see how his comment is accurate, the 180-600 is praised for being (wrt to super teles) cheap, and still a very good. Lens.

 

[O]

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.

People doing video are in cases using older lenses for certain effects, its also that if their making a movie or film clip that is retro, some want the outcome to be fitting for the period.


Today there are so many super sharp lenses that in many cases actually boarder on being to clinical therefore not engaging.

You watch some TV series and the film looks ok but every person has bleeding sharp eyes that actually look alien.

A show with queen Victoria in amazing gown with her maids, the story is set in an a period yet the cast all have alien eyes because i assume the editing or tracking software has made it that way, terrible actually.

Wedding photos ultra-sharp are not pleasing so some say.

I think your view on the lens being video-centric makes sense so far.

When you look at it you have several levels of optic choices emerging, that could be for specific purpose, versatility of use or price, regardless they are great options.

In the Lab the 35mm 1.4 G doesn't rate as good or sharp wide open technically as the 1.8 s because of CA and some other artifacts, but the G it did seem to have a nicer bokah.

There all just tools.

MTF charts, are just a technical measurement tool or means to quickly establish the light gathering capabilities or over all lens optimum performance capabilities that fit the purpose without having to go out and do extensive trials first.
MTF charts shows me quickly that the 16-35 is 20% sharper in the centre compared to the 14-24 yet the 14-24 is sharp to edges and gathers more light, this is all from reading a simple chart, so before i even buy or rent a lens i check the MTF charts, noted the public may be less likely to and would rely possibly more on Face Book or internet posts.


Is this the start of 3 levels of products, does this mean there may well be 3 levels of cameras ????
What this 35mm 1.4 is about will be understood over time, i guess.

Only an opinion

 

[Lance B]

People doing video are in cases using older lenses for certain effects, its also that if their making a movie or film clip that is retro, some want the outcome to be fitting for the period.


Today there are so many super sharp lenses that in many cases actually boarder on being to clinical therefore not engaging.

You watch some TV series and the film looks ok but every person has bleeding sharp eyes that actually look alien.

A show with queen Victoria in amazing gown with her maids, the story is set in an a period yet the cast all have alien eyes because i assume the editing or tracking software has made it that way, terrible actually.

Wedding photos ultra-sharp are not pleasing so some say.

I think your view on the lens being video-centric makes sense so far.

When you look at it you have several levels of optic choices emerging, that could be for specific purpose, versatility of use or price, regardless they are great options.

In the Lab the 35mm 1.4 G doesn't rate as good or sharp wide open technically as the 1.8 s because of CA and some other artifacts, but the G it did seem to have a nicer bokah.

There all just tools.

MTF charts, are just a technical measurement tool or means to quickly establish the light gathering capabilities or over all lens optimum performance capabilities that fit the purpose without having to go out and do extensive trials first.
MTF charts shows me quickly that the 16-35 is 20% sharper in the centre compared to the 14-24 yet the 14-24 is sharp to edges and gathers more light, this is all from reading a simple chart, so before i even buy or rent a lens i check the MTF charts, noted the public may be less likely to and would rely possibly more on Face Book or internet posts.


Is this the start of 3 levels of products, does this mean there may well be 3 levels of cameras ????
What this 35mm 1.4 is about will be understood over time, i guess.

Only an opinion

I can't really argue with anything you've said.

I think the new Z35 f1.4 will be a fine lens and it will fit a certain market, it has just sort of come from left field, not the typical Z lens. That doesn't make it bad, just a different tool for specific applications. It will be interesting to see how it performs in the real world.

I had the 35 f1.4G and it rendered very nicely, just a bit too much CA and a little too soft wide open, but the bokeh was lovely. I ended up with the Sigma 35 f1.4 Art as it was very sharp wide open at the expense of better bokeh of the 35 f1.4G. I wish there had been a combination of both. I think the Z mount allows for a better balance as has been shown by the Z50 f1.8 and Z85 f1.8, sharpness wide open but still good bokeh in most instances. Even the Z35 f1.8 has pretty good bokeh and is sharp wide open.

As with all things, unless we go the top spec lenses like the 135 Plena, there is an optical compromise somewhere. Unfortunately, the compromise with the top spec lenses is size, weight and cost!

 

[Chris K]

I haven’t seen any good samples with the 35/1.4 yet. I did see a YouTube video that showed some donut-ringed bokeh. I’ll hold my opinion until I’ve seen some good photographic samples.

 

[O]

I can't really argue with anything you've said.

I think the new Z35 f1.4 will be a fine lens and it will fit a certain market, it has just sort of come from left field, not the typical Z lens. That doesn't make it bad, just a different tool for specific applications. It will be interesting to see how it performs in the real world.

I had the 35 f1.4G and it rendered very nicely, just a bit too much CA and a little too soft wide open, but the bokeh was lovely. I ended up with the Sigma 35 f1.4 Art as it was very sharp wide open at the expense of better bokeh of the 35 f1.4G. I wish there had been a combination of both. I think the Z mount allows for a better balance as has been shown by the Z50 f1.8 and Z85 f1.8, sharpness wide open but still good bokeh in most instances. Even the Z35 f1.8 has pretty good bokeh and is sharp wide open.

As with all things, unless we go the top spec lenses like the 135 Plena, there is an optical compromise somewhere. Unfortunately, the compromise with the top spec lenses is size, weight and cost!

Makes a lot of sense.

I guess time will tell with the Nikon strategy.
Was it made by Tamron ?

I have the 50mm 1.8s which is just in a space of its own, i take 2 to 3 steps forward or back to get 24 or 85mm LOL,
and along side it usually is the 70-200 FL DSLR lens they make a great combo.

I was considering a 35mm 1.8 S at one stage but the steps back and forward seem to work well for now, also the 24-70 F2.8 G covers the focal range acceptably well, i know the Z version 24-70 is better but for what i do and need at times the G delivers.

Only an opinion

 

[DBalaur]

Makes a lot of sense.

I guess time will tell with the Nikon strategy.
Was it made by Tamron ?

I have the 50mm 1.8s which is just in a space of its own, i take 2 to 3 steps forward or back to get 24 or 85mm LOL,
and along side it usually is the 70-200 FL DSLR lens they make a great combo.

I was considering a 35mm 1.8 S at one stage but the steps back and forward seem to work well for now, also the 24-70 F2.8 G covers the focal range acceptably well, i know the Z version 24-70 is better but for what i do and need at times the G delivers.

Only an opinion

It is unlikely to be made by Tamron. The stacked large rear glass elements so close to the mount flange is indicative that it is a unique Z-mount design that will be difficult to replicate for other mounts.