p.1 #1 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Have mine in my hands...
Ask me anything!
I will post first impressions shortly after I’ve downloaded some quick test images (haven’t taken any real photos yet). First impression: heavier than I thought (but not heavy), and very well built despite not being an S lens.
p.1 #4 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Ok - some quick test shots (certainly no real photography going on here), and first impressions.
1) Wide open, the lens is a bit soft and hazy when shooting close up and at somewhat moderate distances. The shots take sharpening fairly well so you can bring these up to decent levels if wanted. On the Zf, it looks pretty decent here, but the Z8 stresses it a little too much, so you won't really get any more resolution wide open on the Z8 vs a 24MP body.
Focused further away, it's actually fairly decent wide open, even across the frame, but contrast is still low.
2) Stopped down to f/2, there is a small increase in sharpness and a rather large increase in contrast, and most of the haze is gone.
3) Stopped down to f/4 - f/5.6 the lens shows very good sharpness corner to corner. There's still a little bit of astigmatism visible at the corners if you look close, but nothing worth worrying about.
4) The lens shows a small amount of purple fringing that gets worse towards the edges. It's visible, but not overly saturated.
5) Longitudinal CA is of course there. It can show up in some areas, but it's not overly saturated, and no worse (or even a bit better) than the 35/1.8S in this regard.
6) Bokeh is...interesting. Wide open there's a bright ring outline on specular highlights, but only on the side away the center of the image. Overall, it's not bad, especially for a lens of this price point. Unlike a lot of compact 35mm primes, it doesn't show a large amount of mechanical vignetting, which often appears to make the edges of frame look like they were taken at like f/2.8 or something...it's fairly even blur across the frame. Stopped down the bokeh becomes more neutral.
So far, it's looking like it will fit very well in for its price point. Seems like it will likely be more at home on 24MP bodies than the 45MP bodies. It's not going to match the 35/1.8 for sharpness (and certainly not my 35/2 APO Lanthar), but I think it will be a nice lens for wide aperture work, and I love the compact size. I'm looking forward to getting out to actually test it in the field.
Test shot wide open:
100% crop of focus point:
Here's a 45MP 100% crop from the center of the frame indoors:
Full size image (can right click and open in new tab if needed) at f/1.4 at a distance on the Zf:
Indoor quick shot closer up at f/1.4 and then at f/2 (see the contrast difference):
f/1.4:
f/2:
And just for Scott: the lens on my Z8 (you laugh, but I do find pics of the lens on camera to be useful, as it helps show the size / handling of a lens)
p.1 #6 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Bokeh looks good, and in fact, really good for the price point. If you want "sharp at all costs", the 35/1.8 exists. If you want a great MF-only lens, the CV 35/2 exists. If you want nearly identical rendering with a really nice MF option, the 35/1.4G exists at the same price at the cost of heft. Sooner or later we're gonna get the 35/1.2 that beats the pants off all of these at the weight of the G, but likely with better balancing, at 3x the cost.
Tons of good options for Z users! Curious to hear your thoughts on how it feels/balances on the ZF.
p.1 #7 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
OP, can you edit and retitle this thread to "Official 35mm 1.4 Image Thread" as soon as we start getting them in our hands we can post pics on this thread without starting a new one.
p.1 #8 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Tons of good options for Z users! Curious to hear your thoughts on how it feels/balances on the ZF.
I think it feels great. I use the newer Neewer grip with the rear thumb hook and so it feels nice and light and comfortable. It's very slightly heavier than the 35/2 APO Lanthar, and almost identical to the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 (in both size and weight...just barely smaller in diameter and very slightly lighter).
Some other observations:
The lens focuses fairly close at 0.27m. While the lens is fairly even in sharpness at moderate and further distances, when you get very close, so you're near MFD, sharpness drops off dramatically away from the center. At MFD, the center is pretty soft, but still has some detail. f/2 is better, but still a little soft. f/2.8 is pretty sharp, and f/4 and f/5.6 are very sharp. If you move towards the corners at MFD, though, it's absolutely atrocious at f/1.4 (basically one big smear), not much better at f/2, and takes until about f/5.6 before it's actually sharp. There's a huge jump at MFD away from center between f/4 and f/5.6. Again, not something to worry about except near MFD. Even moving back 8-9 inches improves things quite a bit.
p.1 #9 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Jman13 wrote:
While the lens is fairly even in sharpness at moderate and further distances, when you get very close, so you're near MFD, sharpness drops off dramatically away from the center. At MFD, the center is pretty soft, but still has some detail. f/2 is better, but still a little soft. f/2.8 is pretty sharp, and f/4 and f/5.6 are very sharp. If you move towards the corners at MFD, though, it's absolutely atrocious at f/1.4 (basically one big smear), not much better at f/2, and takes until about f/5.6 before it's actually sharp. There's a huge jump at MFD away from center between f/4 and f/5.6. Again, not something to worry about except near MFD. Even moving back 8-9 inches improves things quite a bit. ...Show more →
Thanks a bunch for sharing your experience, Jordan.
One clarifying question: When you talk of reduced sharpness off center for closer focus are you referring to targets that are off center that you've specifically focused on (so more astigmatism/coma kinds of effects) or are you talking about targets off center when you have focused at the center (so more field curvature kind of effect like shooting a planar test chart).
I think Scott's analysis is a good hot take. This looks at first blush like a good set of trade offs optimized for a different kind of desired result than the 35/1.8S. Great to have options!
p.1 #10 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
kwalsh wrote:
Thanks a bunch for sharing your experience, Jordan.
One clarifying question: When you talk of reduced sharpness off center for closer focus are you referring to targets that are off center that you've specifically focused on (so more astigmatism/coma kinds of effects) or are you talking about targets off center when you have focused at the center (so more field curvature kind of effect like shooting a planar test chart).
I think Scott's analysis is a good hot take. This looks at first blush like a good set of trade offs optimized for a different kind of desired result than the 35/1.8S. Great to have options!...Show more →
I mean targets off center I've focused on. It's probably best to consider the MFD about 0.4m instead of 0.27m if you're going to shoot at wider apertures and your subject is off center.
p.1 #12 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
To illustrate:
Here's a shot at f/1.4, focus on the laptop badge, at the minimum focus distance:
100% crop of focus area:
And here's a 100% crop of it recomposed so it's centrally focused at f/1.4 at MFD. LoCA is stronger here than at moderate distances, but there's still ok resolution:
100% crop at f/2, center, MFD:
And as you can see, move just a little further away, and it's decent outside the center at f/1.4. Still some softness, but definitely usable.
p.1 #14 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
This is great stuff @Jman13 thank you! I figured there would be a slim chance I'd sell the Tamron 1.4 and the 1.8S for this and you're confirming my feelings there I think. I will enjoy what I have or sell the 1.8S for the CV 35.....or wait for a CV 28mm perhaps. Appreciate your quick work here.
p.1 #15 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
urbanwild wrote:
This is great stuff @Jman13@ thank you! I figured there would be a slim chance I'd sell the Tamron 1.4 and the 1.8S for this and you're confirming my feelings there I think. I will enjoy what I have or sell the 1.8S for the CV 35.....or wait for a CV 28mm perhaps. Appreciate your quick work here.
As someone who has owned the Tamron 35/1.4, optically there is no contest between them. The Tamron is the far superior lens. It is also very large and heavy. Of course the Tamron is also the best 35/1.4 I’ve used. I just ended up leaving it at home most of the time.
Edit: I did just go for a quick shoot this morning before work and it performed pretty well. I'll have lots more pics tonight. Overall, pretty pleased with it. It's not without its quirks (flare for instance - the lens seems to control it VERY well when the sun is in the frame in MOST positions....basically nothing visible. Then you hit just the right spot near the center of the frame and it explodes with ghosting.)
p.1 #16 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Thanks @Jman13@.
In conclusion, this Z 35/1.4 is a Nikon-branded "average third-party lens", not as good as other third-party lenses. To put it another way, because third party lenses today are so good, Nikon had to make a cheap lens with the quality of a third party lens from a few decades ago. World is going backwards
p.1 #17 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
That is not the conclusion I would give at all, actually. I would say it actually feels very much like the f/1.4 primes from first party manufacturers from their DSLRs 10-15 years ago. I haven't used the Nikon 35/1.4G, but samples I've seen have a similar vibe. It reminds me a little of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - fast, compact, decent optically. But not on the level of today's top notch primes, because those are insane..and clinical to some level, and also generally huge.
It's nice having a fast mirrorless lens with AF that isn't gigantic.
p.1 #18 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Yes, I was sure we couldn't find an agreement
I would prefer comparing a Nikkor Z 35/1.4 (74.5x86.5 mm, 425 g) to 35/1.4 primes from Sony and Canon. Of course, both the 35/1.4 GM (76x96 mm, 520 g) and the RF 35/1.4 L VCM (76.5 x 99.3mm, internal focusing, 550 g) are more expensive, and presumably optically superior, although they are not "gigantic" (slightly larger and heavier, I'd say).
This lens reminds me the E-series Nikon lenses, which didn't have the "Nikkor" label.
Jman13 wrote:
That is not the conclusion I would give at all, actually. I would say it actually feels very much like the f/1.4 primes from first party manufacturers from their DSLRs 10-15 years ago. I haven't used the Nikon 35/1.4G, but samples I've seen have a similar vibe. It reminds me a little of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - fast, compact, decent optically. But not on the level of today's top notch primes, because those are insane..and clinical to some level, and also generally huge.
It's nice having a fast mirrorless lens with AF that isn't gigantic.
p.1 #19 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Yeah, the 35GM is quite compact, and I'm sure optically superior in most every way, though it's also over twice the price. Not really a comparable instrument. (also, you point out internal focusing on the Canon, and wanted to point out that the Nikon is IF as well).
This lens is not designed to be a top tier lens with top tier pricing to go along with it. It's a mid-range lens for people who want a fast 35mm without breaking the bank. It's a cool market to go after. Not every lens needs to be top of the line. I'll be keeping this lens, along with my Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO-Lanthar, because it gives me an extra stop of speed and autofocus. When I don't need that speed and am OK with manual focus, I'll bring the Voigtlander since it is optically spectacular and even more compact. There's room for more than one design philosophy in a lens lineup.
p.1 #20 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
I’m actually glad to see Nikon release another Z lens with “vintage” (for lack of a better word) characteristics. CA and soft corners wide open used to be acceptable defects, and the near total elimination of such flaws in the S lenses comes at a cost (money, size, weight, complexity, and most importantly to me, rendering).
Of course the Tamron is also the best 35/1.4 I’ve used. I just ended up leaving it at home most of the time.