I just got into the Z mount and I am blown away by the rendering of my Z 35mm 1.8S. It made me realize that Nikon as a pretty unique set of 1.8 prime that offer outstanding optical quality. I am really excited to discover what the other lens of the series have to offer as well.
Why not start a thread where we can share some of our favorite images taken with those 1.8S prime lens.
The list of lenses:
NIKKOR Z 20MM F/1.8 S
NIKKOR Z 24MM F/1.8 S
NIKKOR Z 35MM F/1.8 S
NIKKOR Z 50MM F/1.8 S
NIKKOR Z 85MM F/1.8 S
Here are some recent pictures of mine
Alexis
NIKON Z fNIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.8 S lens35mmf/1.81/250s100 ISO+0.7 EV
NIKON Z fNIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.8 S lens35mmf/1.81/1250s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z fNIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.8 S lens35mmf/1.81/160s100 ISO0.0 EV
These where shot in raw and lightly edited in LR. I spent less than a minute on each picture. I did use Adobe Rgb colors space in camera and the standard camera profile.
Absolutely amazing. This lens was never on my radar but now I will have to check it out.
alskouba wrote:
These where shot in raw and lightly edited in LR. I spent less than a minute on each picture. I did use Adobe Rgb colors space in camera and the standard camera profile.
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 S had gotten somewhat muted reviews for not being as sharp as competition (which is true), but pixel level sharpness is not everything. This lens absolutely kills on its rendering. I initially had not bought it but once I got it in a package deal, I found that it was a keeper.
indusphoto wrote:
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 S had gotten somewhat muted reviews for not being as sharp as competition (which is true), but pixel level sharpness is not everything. This lens absolutely kills on its rendering. I initially had not bought it but once I got it in a package deal, I found that it was a keeper.
I fully agree. I found one used and decided to give it a try. The rendering and pop resemble the 35L but with far better control of aberration and much sharper wide open. Although it's not the most sharp lens I used I found it sharp enough. Especially for portrait!
In this sample witch is BTW SOOC you can see how much the colors and contrast pop.
NIKON Z fNIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.8 S lens35mmf/1.81/320s100 ISO0.0 EV
indusphoto wrote:
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 S had gotten somewhat muted reviews for not being as sharp as competition (which is true), but pixel level sharpness is not everything. This lens absolutely kills on its rendering. I initially had not bought it but once I got it in a package deal, I found that it was a keeper.
BTW here is a 100% crop. I think that is plenty sharp enough!
alskouba wrote:
BTW here is a 100% crop. I think that is plenty sharp enough!
Plenty sharp is different from as sharp as competition (compared to say Sony 35mm). I am not complaining about sharpness either, just saying that this was a sticky point with reviewers.
Another factor was that Nikon Z 50mm had raised expectations and it is not quite that level.
indusphoto wrote:
Plenty sharp is different from as sharp as competition (compared to say Sony 35mm). I am not complaining about sharpness either, just saying that this was a sticky point with reviewers.
Another factor was that Nikon Z 50mm had raised expectations and it is not quite that level.
Absolutely. I did have the 35gm and it's crazy sharp but it dosent render really well and can be somewhat unflatering to the subject. Maybe great for landscape etc but not my first choice for portrait.
I read amazing things on the 50mm S and decided to order it as well. If it's better than the z35S then I need that lens in my bag!
I found the 35/1.8S to be plenty sharp, but I ended up returning mine because the chromatic aberration on out of focus highlights (high contrast) could get extreme enough that I found it distracting. I went with the Voigtlander 35/2 APO for my 35mm lens, and I LOVE that lens.
I have also previously owned the 20/1.8, which was great except mine was a bit decentered, making it not useful for astro work where it would normally excel...I'm sure a properly centered copy is awesome.
I have the 50/1.8S (and re-purchased it after selling it the first time). What a great lens. Balanced size and image quality, very sharp, nice rendering, beautiful color. I also had the 85/1.8 which was similarly impressive. I ended up swapping it for an E-mount Sigma 85/1.4, which I absolutely love, but the 85/1.8S is an outstanding optic, and I was very, very pleased with it.
The rendering on the 35/1.8 is nice, I'll give it that, and that's all I'll give it. Noisy and slow AF hold it back from being a DUH purchase, for me at least. Also felt quiet cheap in the hand. Not a lens that gave me those warm and fuzzies about its long term reliability, but to be fair to the lens and Nikon I've never heard anecdotal complaints on that.
It just feels very...hobbiest tier.
Now...the F 35/1.4G...same lens designer and just a better lens in every conceivable way if the size doesn't bother you, all for $200 less bucks!
I also agree that the 50/1.8 is in another class at this price point. But, 35 != 50, and if you like 35, doesn't matter how good the 50 is.
Jman13 wrote:
I found the 35/1.8S to be plenty sharp, but I ended up returning mine because the chromatic aberration on out of focus highlights (high contrast) could get extreme enough that I found it distracting. I went with the Voigtlander 35/2 APO for my 35mm lens, and I LOVE that lens.
I have also previously owned the 20/1.8, which was great except mine was a bit decentered, making it not useful for astro work where it would normally excel...I'm sure a properly centered copy is awesome.
I have the 50/1.8S (and re-purchased it after selling it the first time). What a great lens. Balanced size and image quality, very sharp, nice rendering, beautiful color. I also had the 85/1.8 which was similarly impressive. I ended up swapping it for an E-mount Sigma 85/1.4, which I absolutely love, but the 85/1.8S is an outstanding optic, and I was very, very pleased with it. ...Show more →
The 35mm 1.8S does suffer a bit from chromatic aberration, I have seen worse, but I have also seen much better! From my short experience with the lens it seem to be in the far background not so much in the close to subject out of focus. For now I find it manageable but that could change in the future.
I have a hard time justifying a fast wide angle because I usually prefer zooms in the ultra wide. For astro it must be amazing! I can see myself do some creative shot at 1.8 using it's close focusing ability but it does sound like a one trick poney.
The 50/1.8S gets a lot of praise! It seems the price/performance ratio is unmatched. I can't wait to try it out!
Sigma keeps releasing amazing optics at competitive price. I know a lot as change since the dslr days but my experience was that they lacked character and they rendered flat images. I can imagine it's not the case anymore. Sharpness, chromatic aberration control and vigneting where always awesome tough. How does both lenses compare in your opinion?
RoamingScott wrote:
The rendering on the 35/1.8 is nice, I'll give it that, and that's all I'll give it. Noisy and slow AF hold it back from being a DUH purchase, for me at least. Also felt quiet cheap in the hand. Not a lens that gave me those warm and fuzzies about its long term reliability, but to be fair to the lens and Nikon I've never heard anecdotal complaints on that.
It just feels very...hobbiest tier.
Now...the F 35/1.4G...same lens designer and just a better lens in every conceivable way if the size doesn't bother you, all for $200 less bucks!
I also agree that the 50/1.8 is in another class at this price point. But, 35 != 50, and if you like 35, doesn't matter how good the 50 is.
That's a beautiful photo! Good exemple of how well it renders.
Maybe the z35/1.8S should of been cheaper. Being more expensive than the Z50/1.8S suggest better performance but from what I understand it's not the case. At used price I still think it's worth it.
Coming from fuji the AF feels so much faster it's hard for me to see anything wrong with it. It's faster than what I really need but I dont do much sports.
It does indeed feel a bit cheap in the hand because of the plastic body and prosumer tier would represent well it's level of quality. But I could see any pro rocking it and I would personally feel confident to use it in light rain or snow. I would not feel the same confidence with any Fuji's as a comparison.
Here is a jpeg from today.
Contrast is a little high but the rendering is amazing.
I am getting used to the Zf and I can finally get the result I want in camera.
The Zf and z35 1.8S sure is a great combo.
NIKON Z fNIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.8 S lens35mmf/1.81/320s100 ISO0.0 EV
3catsinky wrote:
i am debating this lens right now to replace a Zeiss ZA F1.4 35 on Sony. this thread is very helpful
I don’t have any experience with the ZA F1.4 35 unfortunately. I can say that the Z35S is one of the best rendering lens I have tested and that for a 1.8 it’s punches above it’s weight in terms of bokeh. The background are really even and smooth and almost comparable to 1.4. I think it’s mostly due to the z mount being so wide but that’s just a theory of mine.
I did adapt a couple lens from e-mount and you can expect good result but sometimes you will experience a bit of focus hunting and variation in exposure. Nothing dramatic especially in raw, but if I where to shoot a professional gig I would use native lens.
Just got the Z50 1.8S and indeed it's a great lens! I really enjoy the Zf and 1.8S combo. The files I get SOOC are amazing and most of the time dont even need adjustments. I rely on jpegs more and more.
NIKON Z fNIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S lens50mmf/1.81/400s100 ISO+0.3 EV
I am still learning to use the new focal length but I am in aw with the pop and rendering this lens as! Never seen that with any other 50mm I have tried in the past.
