Hmmm. These images are not helpful. I really don’t want to buy any more F mount lens! But, this lens was designed by Haruo Sato, the 58/1.4 G designer, and it was probably his proof of concept. Mmmm.
Indeed!
He apparently also designed the Z 35mm 1.8s, but it wasnt designed with 3dhifi concept it seems. I for sure prefer the 35mm 1.4g over the 35mm 1.8s
You can't even imagine how I do miss my 35/1.4G. But I can't justify to buy a new one while I have 28/58 nor get a pre-owned copy because this lens I want to get untouched. Dilemma!
akul wrote:
Hmmm. These images are not helpful. I really don’t want to buy any more F mount lens! But, this lens was designed by Haruo Sato, the 58/1.4 G designer, and it was probably his proof of concept. Mmmm.
Luka
Glad I could help! I've been seeing the 35 as a wider 58 since I got it and this certainly explains it. Not super sharp wide open but has nice smooth falloff, beautiful bokeh, starts sharpening up at f2 but never gets that clinical look, just like the 58.
GoroMajima wrote:
Indeed!
He apparently also designed the Z 35mm 1.8s, but it wasnt designed with 3dhifi concept it seems. I for sure prefer the 35mm 1.4g over the 35mm 1.8s
Interesting, but his post is unclear who designed 35/1.8S. He just says they are both designed, it no mention by who in this post.
Regardless, I own and really enjoy 35/1.8S. No issue with its rendering or sharpness for my use. But, it is not 1.4, and I miss that for a certain shot. I thought I were waiting for the 35/1.2 S, but obviously, it willl be another behemoth and fund sucker. Nikon refurbished 35/1.4 G is sold at $ 1,200 and I know prices will only go one direction. I wait till 35/1.2 is unveiled, then make a decision. This thread is definitely NOT helping!
Kasper6188 wrote:
Glad I could help! I've been seeing the 35 as a wider 58 since I got it and this certainly explains it. Not super sharp wide open but has nice smooth falloff, beautiful bokeh, starts sharpening up at f2 but never gets that clinical look, just like the 58.
Totally. And all others posted in this thread. Y’all confused me. I am baffled and excited at the same time.. Well, it still is much heavier lens than 58/1.4 G, but, for certain much less than 35/1.2 S when released. I need to be patient as my fund needs get healthier after unexpected Plena intervention.
Kasper6188 wrote:
Glad I could help! I've been seeing the 35 as a wider 58 since I got it and this certainly explains it. Not super sharp wide open but has nice smooth falloff, beautiful bokeh, starts sharpening up at f2 but never gets that clinical look, just like the 58.
Oh,the 28/1.4, the other big detractor. It weighs about the same as 35/14 G. It will make a pair with Focal length-wise with 58G, actually, more like a perfect pair in my shooting. Or, it can be paired with 40mm/1.2 Nokton. On the other hand, I seem to love 35 mm as a base focal length.
akul wrote:
Oh,the 28/1.4, the other big detractor. It weighs about the same as 35/14 G. It will make a pair with Focal length-wise with 58G, actually, more like a perfect pair in my shooting. Or, it can be paired with 40mm/1.2 Nokton. On the other hand, I seem to love 35 mm as a base focal length.
Luka
Even though the 28 and the 35 are pretty close in focal length I kept them both in my collection. I see the 28 as a better corrected, sharper, general purpose lens that can render very well. The 35 to me, like mentioned above, is sort of a wider 58g. It doesn't just render very well, it can generate that magic.
Kasper,
You are not making anything easier !! Can't get both... can I ? Mmmm no. I must resist.
35/1.4G is softer, but has a nice way of wrapping around the subject in its rendering. 35/1.8S is sharper with more contrast. Like I said, I very much like 35/1.8S rendering, but I also am really liking what I see from the 35/1.4G rendering here and the article you referred to included.
Last time I sold 35/1.4g for 28/1.4e. But! Now I’m at the same situation like Elijah many years ago. 28/1.4 is not a replacement for 24/35 pair at all. It’s a great lens! 100% sure but it’s not a replacement. Because 35mm definitely looks more natural. It can be generic lens for travels and portraits and 28/1.4 is not. 28 mm is a specific lens for cinematic kind of view for streets and some portraits. But our eyes so quickly understand that something is different. But with 35mm.. it’s like a real world. Sometimes it’s boring. There are no any challenges for the viewers. No wow effects because of unusual FOV but it’s kinda magic that you can see a real life here.
So I definitely would rather have 24/28/35 at the same time than replace them with each other.
vaptre wrote:
... But with 35mm.. it’s like a real world. Sometimes it’s boring. There are no any challenges for the viewers. No wow effects because of unusual FOV but it’s kinda magic that you can see a real life here.
Very well said. I find the images to be most life-like of any lens I have used wide open. The 58mm has this same effect but for me only once out of shallow depth of field apertures. We haven't been together for long but it's been married to the D3 since day 1.
SiMuMe wrote:
Very well said. I find the images to be most life-like of any lens I have used wide open. The 58mm has this same effect but for me only once out of shallow depth of field apertures. We haven't been together for long but it's been married to the D3 since day 1.
I've been seeing the 35 as a wider 58 since I got it and this certainly explains it. Not super sharp wide open but has nice smooth falloff, beautiful bokeh, starts sharpening up at f2 but never gets that clinical look, just like the 58. 
