The OP Elijah started this thread without having the lens for weeks or months, then when he has his, he post pictures that are way too contrasty and saturated and I said to myself that cannot be true. Now I pick up mine from our local NPS yesterday and I am having pictures just as beautifully represented as those of tek9. So, what is wrong here? Nikon produce 2 different types of these lenses or user's errors? I think is more of the later because he now has gone over to Canon and left this thread hanging. Umm... I think threads like these should be started by the first owner of these lenses with real pictures rather than hogging the threads without pictures for weeks and months like this and the 105E.
And by the way nice pictures tek9.
hans98ko wrote:
The OP Elijah started this thread without having the lens for weeks or months, then when he has his, he post pictures that are way too contrasty and saturated and I said to myself that cannot be true. Now I pick up mine from our local NPS yesterday and I am having pictures just as beautifully represented as those of tek9. So, what is wrong here? Nikon produce 2 different types of these lenses or user's errors? I think is more of the later because he now has gone over to Canon and left this thread hanging. Umm... I think threads like these should be started by the first owner of these lenses with real pictures rather than hogging the threads without pictures for weeks and months like this and the 105E.
And by the way nice pictures tek9. ...Show more →
Rather than "user error", I call Elijah's pictures wonderful and they were one of the reasons I bought the 58 1.4 and the 105 1.4 Even though post processing is subjective, I believe that the majority on the Nikon lens forums appreciates Elijah's PP skills evidenced by the number of likes he receives on them.
Congrats on the lens, I might pick one soon
The idea to start this, the 58, and 105 threads (before the lenses were available) was to start a discussion among potential owners and set the stage for the "cult" to follow.
Not saying that he can't take nice pictures because I have seen some of his nicer work with other lenses here, but just for this particular lens his color just don't look right. Just go back to review the color of green leaves and skin tones, does it look right to you?
For me I think there is a cast of yellowish hue to it, compare to some other who also shoot with similar backgrounds.
Maybe if he finds out what is wrong, he might come back to rejoin Nikon. 😛
I have to admit I don't post process much. Mainly playing with sliders in Lightroom (almost never using PS - gotta learn it some more one day). I just try to make things look the way they looked to me when I took the photo.
Post processing is always a matter of taste. (and Auto WB in Nikon D850 is probably the best to date in any digital Nikon camera).
That is exactly what I like to do too, to take pictures that represent what we see with minimum post processing even though I am well versed with PS.
This even demonstrates more on how well the lens is doing. Good job!
Yeah. In the end we took Monday off (because the weather was too good to pass on it). After spending 2 nights in Fort Stevens State Park - we ended up camping in Nehalem Bay (and hiking to Cape Falcon).
Definitely need to slow down more next time we go to OR Coast. There's so much to see when you don't just 'drive down the coast'.
hans98ko wrote:
That is exactly what I like to do too, to take pictures that represent what we see with minimum post processing even though I am well versed with PS.
This even demonstrates more on how well the lens is doing. Good job!
It's all subjective and depends on the context, your taste and the purpose of the image
tek9 wrote:
Yeah. In the end we took Monday off (because the weather was too good to pass on it). After spending 2 nights in Fort Stevens State Park - we ended up camping in Nehalem Bay (and hiking to Cape Falcon).
Definitely need to slow down more next time we go to OR Coast. There's so much to see when you don't just 'drive down the coast'.
Hello! I love the images posted on this thread; they influenced me to get one myself to replace my 28mm 2.8 AIS as my walkabout prime.
I got this lens last week and I'm absolutely loving its rendering. However, I'm on my second copy as I'm a little concerned about the autofocus. My first copy required wildly different AFMA values at the MFD and infinity, and my second copy requires this too, but not to a great degree. Also, my first copy was inconsistently back and front focusing.
Has anyone else experienced autofocus issues with this lens? Or is it a characteristic of fast Nikon primes that I'll have to get used to. I used to own a Sigma 35 ART that acted similarly, but sold it for a Tamron 35 which focuses extremely well.
This is a photo of my dog, she's always my test subject for new equipment:
Agh well I blame this thread for pushing me to pick one up.
I bought a used copy of the 28 f1.8 g and 35 f1.8g to see which I liked better (I’ve been more of a 50mm shooter when it comes to primes but these Nikon lenses are opening me up to new “perspectives”) and I just found that the 28mm FOV seems just different enough from 35 that it makes it pop a bit more - I’m so used to 35mm that it’s kind of a boring focal length for me, but I can see myself using the 28 f1.4 for environmental portraits a lot
Some great photos here.
I'm intrigued by this lens but I think it's a bit too wide for my eye. I have and like the 28 1.8G and am hoping they do the 35 in e version soon. I recently bought and am getting to know the 105e and am sold on the IQ of these lenses. Will be interesting to see which prime they convert to e version next. A 35 or 50 will get my interest.
Spectro wrote:
Some great photos here.
I'm intrigued by this lens but I think it's a bit too wide for my eye. I have and like the 28 1.8G and am hoping they do the 35 in e version soon. I recently bought and am getting to know the 105e and am sold on the IQ of these lenses. Will be interesting to see which prime they convert to e version next. A 35 or 50 will get my interest.
It's an interesting question.
I don't expect a 35 anytime soon.
Best bet would be either the 14 or the 20. The current 14 is quite weak, almost 20 years old and an obvious win. For a 20, we've seen a fair bit of duplication between the f1.8 primes and the f1.4's, only the 20 and 105 don't have equivalents in the other line and the 20 is the one missing a f1.4 version. As good as the 20/1.8 is, that provides Nikon with an opportunity to show up Zeiss in particular, as their 21/2.8 is generally considered the standard here, but is a 30-ish year old optical design (dating to the C/Y era) and should be beatable on the sort of budget a 20E would justify.
Outside case would be a 135 or 50. The current 50/1.4 AF-S is newer, but is also by far the worst of the f1.4 primes and Nikon currently lacks a world-class 50 in a market full of world-class 50's. The 135 would be the next step in filling the gap between the 105E and the 200/2, and replacing the weak 135/2, which is AF-D and considered by many to be the weakest of the higher-end primes in Nikon's line. Alternatively I could see Nikon doing a 135/1.8 on a budget, to round out the 1.8 line while still keeping the size reasonable.
I love the photos uploaded to this thread, hopefully more people will realise how great this lens is and will post their photos. I sent my copy to Nikon and had it micro adjusted, now it focuses perfectly at all distances. I’m extremely happy with it. Both of these are at 1.4.
Even though post processing is subjective, I believe that the majority on the Nikon lens forums appreciates Elijah's PP skills evidenced by the number of likes he receives on them. 
In the end we took Monday off (because the weather was too good to pass on it). After spending 2 nights in Fort Stevens State Park - we ended up camping in Nehalem Bay (and hiking to Cape Falcon). 
