This topic is in the 2024 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2024Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
p.4 #1Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Max Power wrote:
If not, the 1.8 is the winner here, given only $100 difference.
The price difference was a bit artificially reduced at the time of introduction because the 35/1.8S was on rebate and the 35/1.4 was not. Right now, with the rebates over, the price difference is up to $250. Presumably in the future both lenses will get rebated and so they won't end up so close in price.
All that said, at $600 it is still a bit squeezed between the 40/2 at $300 and 35/1.8S at $850. (Non-rebate prices)
But hey, we've got a whole lot of Z lenses these days and so often newer lenses are going to seem not that different from existing alternatives. Hopefully Nikon knew what they were doing as far as market demand goes creating this!
If not, the 1.8 is the winner here, given only $100 difference.
The price difference was a bit artificially reduced at the time of introduction because the 35/1.8S was on rebate and the 35/1.4 was not. Right now, with the rebates over, the price difference is up to $250. Presumably in the future both lenses will get rebated and so they won't end up so close in price.
All that said, at $600 it is still a bit squeezed between the 40/2 at $300 and 35/1.8S at $850. (Non-rebate prices)
But hey, we've got a whole lot of Z lenses these days and so often newer lenses are going to seem not that different from existing alternatives. Hopefully Nikon knew what they were doing as far as market demand goes creating this!
Jul 23, 2024 at 11:36 AM
p.4 #2Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
pemanja93 wrote:
I tought this lens would be all over youtube with tests and reviews, but there is none so far(from bigger youtubers)...probably Chris will release his review soon...I know this lens is not the best optically, but, it's nice combination with small weight and f1.4 aperture...
Me too! Release day came and B&H was like... ¯_(ツ
_/¯ ... Nikon Rumors... not really anything other than a day after being like... it's in stock at Amazon. Zero fanfare or excitement. I can't believe Nikon didn't send out early copies for reviews. There's that one video right now and nothing else besides videos trying to figure out what Nikon is up to.
I tought this lens would be all over youtube with tests and reviews, but there is none so far(from bigger youtubers)...probably Chris will release his review soon...I know this lens is not the best optically, but, it's nice combination with small weight and f1.4 aperture...
Me too! Release day came and B&H was like... ¯_(ツ
_/¯ ... Nikon Rumors... not really anything other than a day after being like... it's in stock at Amazon. Zero fanfare or excitement. I can't believe Nikon didn't send out early copies for reviews. There's that one video right now and nothing else besides videos trying to figure out what Nikon is up to.Jul 23, 2024 at 07:57 PM
p.4 #3Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Jman13 wrote:
So I went to my local store that specializes in used gear (though they have plenty of new stock too), and they had a used 35GM, so I picked one up after trading in a few lenses I was going to sell anyway.
I did some head to head comparisons on the Z8. I will say, when not shooting test images, the Z 35/1.4 does a good enough job for the most part. It's still flawed, for sure, but not as bad as when shooting test charts or something. In fact, at full body height distance, the 35GM is only...Show more →
Jaw dropping difference there....thanks again!
So I went to my local store that specializes in used gear (though they have plenty of new stock too), and they had a used 35GM, so I picked one up after trading in a few lenses I was going to sell anyway.
I did some head to head comparisons on the Z8. I will say, when not shooting test images, the Z 35/1.4 does a good enough job for the most part. It's still flawed, for sure, but not as bad as when shooting test charts or something. In fact, at full body height distance, the 35GM is only...Show more →
Jaw dropping difference there....thanks again!
Jul 24, 2024 at 12:38 AM
p.4 #4Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
I am currently using the Sony system but used to use Nikon. I have the 50mm 1.2 GM, 35mm GM and 85mm GM. For the look and rendering, I prefer the 85 and 50 over the 35. The 35 is very sharp like the 50 but more clinical, so I never gelled with the overall look of the images. I use the Sigma 35mm F2 much more than the GM. I wish Sigma would adapt their contemporary line to Nikon as they make for a great light kit.
I was hoping the 35mm 1.4 Z was going to look more like the 35 1.4G and 58 1.4G lenses in terms of rendering but that doesn't seem to be the case. I prefer the smoother bokeh balls over the soap bubble bokeh of the Z lens.
Jman13 wrote:
So I went to my local store that specializes in used gear (though they have plenty of new stock too), and they had a used 35GM, so I picked one up after trading in a few lenses I was going to sell anyway.
I did some head to head comparisons on the Z8. I will say, when not shooting test images, the Z 35/1.4 does a good enough job for the most part. It's still flawed, for sure, but not as bad as when shooting test charts or something. In fact, at full body height distance, the 35GM is only...Show more →
I was hoping the 35mm 1.4 Z was going to look more like the 35 1.4G and 58 1.4G lenses in terms of rendering but that doesn't seem to be the case. I prefer the smoother bokeh balls over the soap bubble bokeh of the Z lens.
Jman13 wrote:
So I went to my local store that specializes in used gear (though they have plenty of new stock too), and they had a used 35GM, so I picked one up after trading in a few lenses I was going to sell anyway.
I did some head to head comparisons on the Z8. I will say, when not shooting test images, the Z 35/1.4 does a good enough job for the most part. It's still flawed, for sure, but not as bad as when shooting test charts or something. In fact, at full body height distance, the 35GM is only...Show more →
Jul 24, 2024 at 08:42 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.4 #5Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
The examples side by side to the 1.8S...yikes. Not a lens I'd keep around personally. There are so many 35-40 options and that feels very much like settling at that price point with what you're up against at 1.4 (the entire reason to consider this lens).
Jul 24, 2024 at 08:57 AM
p.4 #6Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Thanks for the multiple image postings to help the rest of us out Jordan. Really appreciate the work you put in, as always. Your written experience really helps to provide a good balance to the posted images.
Now selfishly, did your copy of the Z 1.4 appear to be a "good copy"? I realize you only tested one sample, but the off center close-up (link copied and shown again below) looked really bad to my eyes.
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_mfd_crop.jpg
However, this one looks great (might be due to the subject
)
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_selfie_crop.jpg
Edited on Jul 24, 2024 at 09:23 AM · View previous versions
Now selfishly, did your copy of the Z 1.4 appear to be a "good copy"? I realize you only tested one sample, but the off center close-up (link copied and shown again below) looked really bad to my eyes.
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_mfd_crop.jpg
However, this one looks great (might be due to the subject
)https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_selfie_crop.jpg
Edited on Jul 24, 2024 at 09:23 AM · View previous versions
Jul 24, 2024 at 09:18 AM
p.4 #7Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Here is one photo from Alex video, edited...removed CA, added contrast, sharpness..etc...it looks pretty good..yes, other 35mm will probably look better, but in real life, there is no that much difference
https://i.ibb.co/PjrzBDR/DSC-1847w.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/PjrzBDR/DSC-1847w.jpg
Jul 24, 2024 at 09:19 AM
p.4 #8Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
pbraymond wrote:
Thanks for the multiple image postings to help the rest of us out Jordan. Really appreciate the work you put in, as always. Your written experience really helps to provide a good balance to the posted images.
Now selfishly, did your copy of the Z 1.4 appear to be a "good copy"? I realize you only tested one sample, but the off center close-up (link copied and shown again below) looked really bad to my eyes.
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_mfd_crop.jpg
However, this one looks great (might be due to the subject)
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_selfie_crop.jpg
It's entirely to do with focus distance.
Near infinity, there's reasonably good resolution across the frame. It's not super sharp, but it's definitely decent. At moderate distances, it's still fairly sharp as you move off center, but it is softer there than at longer distances. Moving closer up (say 0.5-1.5m), there's a distinct softening as you move towards the edges, but even this is still reasonably usable, it's just hazier and a bit softer. At very close distances (where that laptop shot was taken) near minimum focus distance, it gets softer in the center, and complete garbage at the edges. Note that moving back just 6-10 inches gets you out of that garbage zone.
I've seen nothing to indicate that this is a 'bad copy', as there are no obvious tilts in focus plane, or inconsistent asymmetric anomalies. It also sharpens up quite nicely at smaller apertures.
It's not a bad lens, and if you want character in your bokeh, it can range from being cool, to being pretty bad (depending on background). Ultimately, I think I'd feel a bit better about its optical prowess if it were another $100-$150 cheaper. $600 just feels a little too high given its weaknesses, but it's definitely a lens that is going to be a very personal decision as to whether its worth it or not.
Thanks for the multiple image postings to help the rest of us out Jordan. Really appreciate the work you put in, as always. Your written experience really helps to provide a good balance to the posted images.
Now selfishly, did your copy of the Z 1.4 appear to be a "good copy"? I realize you only tested one sample, but the off center close-up (link copied and shown again below) looked really bad to my eyes.
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_mfd_crop.jpg
However, this one looks great (might be due to the subject
)https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_selfie_crop.jpg
It's entirely to do with focus distance.
Near infinity, there's reasonably good resolution across the frame. It's not super sharp, but it's definitely decent. At moderate distances, it's still fairly sharp as you move off center, but it is softer there than at longer distances. Moving closer up (say 0.5-1.5m), there's a distinct softening as you move towards the edges, but even this is still reasonably usable, it's just hazier and a bit softer. At very close distances (where that laptop shot was taken) near minimum focus distance, it gets softer in the center, and complete garbage at the edges. Note that moving back just 6-10 inches gets you out of that garbage zone.
I've seen nothing to indicate that this is a 'bad copy', as there are no obvious tilts in focus plane, or inconsistent asymmetric anomalies. It also sharpens up quite nicely at smaller apertures.
It's not a bad lens, and if you want character in your bokeh, it can range from being cool, to being pretty bad (depending on background). Ultimately, I think I'd feel a bit better about its optical prowess if it were another $100-$150 cheaper. $600 just feels a little too high given its weaknesses, but it's definitely a lens that is going to be a very personal decision as to whether its worth it or not.
Jul 24, 2024 at 09:29 AM
p.4 #9Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
So far this thread has made my want an adapted GM35.
I'd be curious to see some side-by-side comparisons with the 40 f/2
I'd be curious to see some side-by-side comparisons with the 40 f/2
Jul 24, 2024 at 10:53 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.4 #10Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Jman13 wrote:
Now selfishly, did your copy of the Z 1.4 appear to be a "good copy"? I realize you only tested one sample, but the off center close-up (link copied and shown again below) looked really bad to my eyes.
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_mfd_crop.jpg
However, this one looks great (might be due to the subject)
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_selfie_crop.jpgIt's entirely to do with focus distance.
I've seen this in many lenses, but have also seen many fast lenses that do not completely fall apart on their face near MFD. It's a good thing to know if you're throwing $600 at something that using it at "supported parameters" (wide open near MFD) can lead to output you'd never accept, while there are other lenses that best those results, sometimes near the same price point.
pbraymond wrote
Thanks for the multiple image postings to help the rest of us out Jordan. Really appreciate the work you put in, as always. Your written experience really helps to provide a good balance to the posted images.Now selfishly, did your copy of the Z 1.4 appear to be a "good copy"? I realize you only tested one sample, but the off center close-up (link copied and shown again below) looked really bad to my eyes.
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_mfd_crop.jpg
However, this one looks great (might be due to the subject
)https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_selfie_crop.jpg
I've seen this in many lenses, but have also seen many fast lenses that do not completely fall apart on their face near MFD. It's a good thing to know if you're throwing $600 at something that using it at "supported parameters" (wide open near MFD) can lead to output you'd never accept, while there are other lenses that best those results, sometimes near the same price point.
Jul 24, 2024 at 11:05 AM
p.4 #11Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Jman13 wrote:
Now selfishly, did your copy of the Z 1.4 appear to be a "good copy"? I realize you only tested one sample, but the off center close-up (link copied and shown again below) looked really bad to my eyes.
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_mfd_crop.jpg
However, this one looks great (might be due to the subject)
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_selfie_crop.jpgIt's entirely to do with focus distance.
Near infinity, there's reasonably good resolution across the frame. It's not super sharp, but it's definitely decent. At moderate distances, it's still fairly sharp as you move off center, but it is softer there than at longer distances. Moving closer up (say 0.5-1.5m), there's a distinct softening as you move towards the edges, but even this is still reasonably usable, it's just hazier and a bit softer. At very close distances (where that laptop shot was taken) near minimum focus distance, it gets softer in the center, and complete garbage at the edges....Show more →
Would stopping down when shooting near MFD, even 1 stop, improve its performance?
pbraymond wrote
Thanks for the multiple image postings to help the rest of us out Jordan. Really appreciate the work you put in, as always. Your written experience really helps to provide a good balance to the posted images.Now selfishly, did your copy of the Z 1.4 appear to be a "good copy"? I realize you only tested one sample, but the off center close-up (link copied and shown again below) looked really bad to my eyes.
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_mfd_crop.jpg
However, this one looks great (might be due to the subject
)https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_selfie_crop.jpg
Near infinity, there's reasonably good resolution across the frame. It's not super sharp, but it's definitely decent. At moderate distances, it's still fairly sharp as you move off center, but it is softer there than at longer distances. Moving closer up (say 0.5-1.5m), there's a distinct softening as you move towards the edges, but even this is still reasonably usable, it's just hazier and a bit softer. At very close distances (where that laptop shot was taken) near minimum focus distance, it gets softer in the center, and complete garbage at the edges....Show more →
Would stopping down when shooting near MFD, even 1 stop, improve its performance?
Jul 24, 2024 at 01:03 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.4 #12Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Oldwino wrote:
Now selfishly, did your copy of the Z 1.4 appear to be a "good copy"? I realize you only tested one sample, but the off center close-up (link copied and shown again below) looked really bad to my eyes.
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_mfd_crop.jpg
However, this one looks great (might be due to the subject)
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_selfie_crop.jpgIt's entirely to do with focus distance.
Near infinity, there's reasonably good resolution across the frame. It's not super sharp, but it's definitely decent. At moderate distances, it's still fairly sharp as you move off center, but it is softer there than at longer distances. Moving closer up (say 0.5-1.5m), there's a distinct softening as you move towards the edges, but even this is still reasonably usable, it's just hazier and a bit softer. At very close distances (where that laptop shot was taken) near minimum focus distance, it gets softer in the center, and complete garbage at the edges. Note that moving back just 6-10 inches gets you out of that garbage zone.
I've seen nothing to indicate that this is a 'bad copy', as there are no obvious tilts in focus plane, or inconsistent asymmetric anomalies. It also sharpens up quite nicely at smaller apertures.
It's not a bad lens, and if you want character in your bokeh, it can range from being cool, to being pretty bad (depending on background). Ultimately, I think I'd feel a bit better about its optical prowess if it were another $100-$150 cheaper. $600 just feels a little too high given its weaknesses, but it's definitely a lens that is going to be a very personal decision as to whether its worth it or not.Would stopping down when shooting near MFD, even 1 stop, improve its performance?
Yes, this is the next test for Jordan if he's up for it. I've had plenty of glass that was much more usable near MFD nudged up a bit from open. What has been posted in here so far near MFD would rate as "unacceptable" to me.
Jman13 wrote
pbraymond wrote
Thanks for the multiple image postings to help the rest of us out Jordan. Really appreciate the work you put in, as always. Your written experience really helps to provide a good balance to the posted images.Now selfishly, did your copy of the Z 1.4 appear to be a "good copy"? I realize you only tested one sample, but the off center close-up (link copied and shown again below) looked really bad to my eyes.
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_mfd_crop.jpg
However, this one looks great (might be due to the subject
)https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_selfie_crop.jpg
Near infinity, there's reasonably good resolution across the frame. It's not super sharp, but it's definitely decent. At moderate distances, it's still fairly sharp as you move off center, but it is softer there than at longer distances. Moving closer up (say 0.5-1.5m), there's a distinct softening as you move towards the edges, but even this is still reasonably usable, it's just hazier and a bit softer. At very close distances (where that laptop shot was taken) near minimum focus distance, it gets softer in the center, and complete garbage at the edges. Note that moving back just 6-10 inches gets you out of that garbage zone.
I've seen nothing to indicate that this is a 'bad copy', as there are no obvious tilts in focus plane, or inconsistent asymmetric anomalies. It also sharpens up quite nicely at smaller apertures.
It's not a bad lens, and if you want character in your bokeh, it can range from being cool, to being pretty bad (depending on background). Ultimately, I think I'd feel a bit better about its optical prowess if it were another $100-$150 cheaper. $600 just feels a little too high given its weaknesses, but it's definitely a lens that is going to be a very personal decision as to whether its worth it or not.
Yes, this is the next test for Jordan if he's up for it. I've had plenty of glass that was much more usable near MFD nudged up a bit from open. What has been posted in here so far near MFD would rate as "unacceptable" to me.
Jul 24, 2024 at 01:05 PM
p.4 #13Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Oldwino wrote:
Now selfishly, did your copy of the Z 1.4 appear to be a "good copy"? I realize you only tested one sample, but the off center close-up (link copied and shown again below) looked really bad to my eyes.
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_mfd_crop.jpg
However, this one looks great (might be due to the subject)
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_selfie_crop.jpgIt's entirely to do with focus distance.
Near infinity, there's reasonably good resolution across the frame. It's not super sharp, but it's definitely decent. At moderate distances, it's still fairly sharp as you move off center, but it is softer there than at longer distances. Moving closer up (say 0.5-1.5m), there's a distinct softening as you move towards the edges, but even this is still reasonably usable, it's just hazier and a bit softer. At very close distances (where that laptop shot was taken) near minimum focus distance, it gets softer in the center, and complete garbage at the edges. Note that moving back just 6-10 inches gets you out of that garbage zone.
I've seen nothing to indicate that this is a 'bad copy', as there are no obvious tilts in focus plane, or inconsistent asymmetric anomalies. It also sharpens up quite nicely at smaller apertures.
It's not a bad lens, and if you want character in your bokeh, it can range from being cool, to being pretty bad (depending on background). Ultimately, I think I'd feel a bit better about its optical prowess if it were another $100-$150 cheaper. $600 just feels a little too high given its weaknesses, but it's definitely a lens that is going to be a very personal decision as to whether its worth it or not.Would stopping down when shooting near MFD, even 1 stop, improve its performance?
When you're near MFD, if you're near the edges, it takes until about f/5.6 before it really sharpens up. There are improvements before that, but it's so far gone at that focus distance that it takes a while to get out of the pit. f/4 is usable. f/2.8 and shallower is a mess. Note that in the center, it's OK at f/1.4, better at f/2 and quite sharp by f/2.8.
Again, if you're at around 0.35m instead of 0.27m, f/2 is good enough for decent sharpness away from center. It's not amazing there, but it's usable. f/2.8 when focused a little further back yields good sharpness.
(The Sony 35 GM, on the other hand, does not have such restrictions..it's decent off center at MFD wide open and quite good by f/2....and I think some of that is simply due to sensor stack differences from Sony)
Jman13 wrote
pbraymond wrote
Thanks for the multiple image postings to help the rest of us out Jordan. Really appreciate the work you put in, as always. Your written experience really helps to provide a good balance to the posted images.Now selfishly, did your copy of the Z 1.4 appear to be a "good copy"? I realize you only tested one sample, but the off center close-up (link copied and shown again below) looked really bad to my eyes.
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_mfd_crop.jpg
However, this one looks great (might be due to the subject
)https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/z35_selfie_crop.jpg
Near infinity, there's reasonably good resolution across the frame. It's not super sharp, but it's definitely decent. At moderate distances, it's still fairly sharp as you move off center, but it is softer there than at longer distances. Moving closer up (say 0.5-1.5m), there's a distinct softening as you move towards the edges, but even this is still reasonably usable, it's just hazier and a bit softer. At very close distances (where that laptop shot was taken) near minimum focus distance, it gets softer in the center, and complete garbage at the edges. Note that moving back just 6-10 inches gets you out of that garbage zone.
I've seen nothing to indicate that this is a 'bad copy', as there are no obvious tilts in focus plane, or inconsistent asymmetric anomalies. It also sharpens up quite nicely at smaller apertures.
It's not a bad lens, and if you want character in your bokeh, it can range from being cool, to being pretty bad (depending on background). Ultimately, I think I'd feel a bit better about its optical prowess if it were another $100-$150 cheaper. $600 just feels a little too high given its weaknesses, but it's definitely a lens that is going to be a very personal decision as to whether its worth it or not.
When you're near MFD, if you're near the edges, it takes until about f/5.6 before it really sharpens up. There are improvements before that, but it's so far gone at that focus distance that it takes a while to get out of the pit. f/4 is usable. f/2.8 and shallower is a mess. Note that in the center, it's OK at f/1.4, better at f/2 and quite sharp by f/2.8.
Again, if you're at around 0.35m instead of 0.27m, f/2 is good enough for decent sharpness away from center. It's not amazing there, but it's usable. f/2.8 when focused a little further back yields good sharpness.
(The Sony 35 GM, on the other hand, does not have such restrictions..it's decent off center at MFD wide open and quite good by f/2....and I think some of that is simply due to sensor stack differences from Sony)
Jul 24, 2024 at 01:30 PM
p.4 #14Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
First things first: I did a couple quick tests with the 40/2 and the 35/1.4. After pixel peeping, there's not much to share here. At non-super close distances, the two lenses are essentially identical in sharpness at the same apertures. As such, the 40/2 is slightly sharper at f/2 than the 35/1.4 is at f/1.4, but the 35/1.4 brings it up to match at f/2. I'd post crops, but it's boring because they look effectively identical.
So, since people are interested in MFD performance off axis, I did a quick test with the Z 35/1.4, the Z 40/2, and the Sony 35/1.4 GM at MFD (essentially), with the focus put about 85% to the corner.
A couple things:
1) the camera was obviously moved for the 40/2 due to its longer focal length and slightly longer MFD - almost identical magnification, though.
2) I tried to get focus on the same area, but you will see the Sony GM shots are very slightly focused in front of where the other two are (though we're taking a couple millimeters)...can still easily see the differences.
3) The Nikon lenses have fairly minimal focus breathing, especially the 35/1.4. The Sony GM has quite a lot of focus breathing, so at MFD, it's actually the longest of the three lenses...however it focuses closer than any of them, so ultimately, the magnification is a little larger on that lens.
Full shots at f/8 to see the FOV differences and where I focused. All shots are tripod mounted with the Z8.
Nikon Z 35mm f/1.4:
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/n35_close.jpg
Nikon Z 40mm f/2:
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/n40_close.jpg
Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM:
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/35gm_close.jpg
And below are 100% crops of the focus area at whole stops between f/1.4 and f/8. As you can see, the Nikon 35/1.4 is the worst of the bunch, though the 40/2 also struggles at MFD off axis. The Sony GM is a bit soft wide open here, but it still has a semblance of detail, and sharpens up pretty quickly. The 40 is about a stop ahead of the Nikon 35 as to when it sharpens up. The GM becomes quite sharp by f/2.8 and razor sharp beyond that. The other two lenses never get as sharp as the GM is at f/2.8 (and maybe f/2)
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/35_mfd.jpg
Edited on Jul 24, 2024 at 02:25 PM · View previous versions
So, since people are interested in MFD performance off axis, I did a quick test with the Z 35/1.4, the Z 40/2, and the Sony 35/1.4 GM at MFD (essentially), with the focus put about 85% to the corner.
A couple things:
1) the camera was obviously moved for the 40/2 due to its longer focal length and slightly longer MFD - almost identical magnification, though.
2) I tried to get focus on the same area, but you will see the Sony GM shots are very slightly focused in front of where the other two are (though we're taking a couple millimeters)...can still easily see the differences.
3) The Nikon lenses have fairly minimal focus breathing, especially the 35/1.4. The Sony GM has quite a lot of focus breathing, so at MFD, it's actually the longest of the three lenses...however it focuses closer than any of them, so ultimately, the magnification is a little larger on that lens.
Full shots at f/8 to see the FOV differences and where I focused. All shots are tripod mounted with the Z8.
Nikon Z 35mm f/1.4:
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/n35_close.jpg
Nikon Z 40mm f/2:
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/n40_close.jpg
Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM:
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/35gm_close.jpg
And below are 100% crops of the focus area at whole stops between f/1.4 and f/8. As you can see, the Nikon 35/1.4 is the worst of the bunch, though the 40/2 also struggles at MFD off axis. The Sony GM is a bit soft wide open here, but it still has a semblance of detail, and sharpens up pretty quickly. The 40 is about a stop ahead of the Nikon 35 as to when it sharpens up. The GM becomes quite sharp by f/2.8 and razor sharp beyond that. The other two lenses never get as sharp as the GM is at f/2.8 (and maybe f/2)
https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/35_mfd.jpg
Edited on Jul 24, 2024 at 02:25 PM · View previous versions
Jul 24, 2024 at 02:17 PM
p.4 #15Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Thanks, Jordan. Looks like I'll be adapting my 35GM in short order.
Jul 24, 2024 at 02:22 PM
p.4 #16Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Does everyone use the Megadap ETZ21 Pro for adapting e-mount? I really want a small 35 2.8 which sony offers but I have been hesitant to start adapting vs native.
Jul 24, 2024 at 06:30 PM
p.4 #17Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
photonc wrote:
Does everyone use the Megadap ETZ21 Pro for adapting e-mount? I really want a small 35 2.8 which sony offers but I have been hesitant to start adapting vs native.
Yeah, the ETZ21Pro is the way to go. The other adapters don’t seem to be nearly as good. The Sony lenses I’ve used have been near native with their response. The earlier non pro versions seemed to have reliability issues, but I’ve heard far fewer reports with the Pro version. I’ve had two of them for many months and they’ve been great.
Jul 24, 2024 at 06:58 PM
p.4 #18Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
FedX dropped off the lens today. This is the 1st shot. JPEG at F/1.4, at MFD, handheld, iso64, 1/12 shutter. Looks good to me, a keeper.
1st jpeg nikon z 35 f/1.4 by Michael Spinelli, on Flickr
1st jpeg nikon z 35 f/1.4 by Michael Spinelli, on FlickrJul 24, 2024 at 09:40 PM
p.4 #19Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Same shot Raw. Cropped to square and ran it through light Topaz AI . I like this lens.
1st raw from Nikon z 35mm f/1.4 at f/1.4 by Michael Spinelli, on Flickr
1st raw from Nikon z 35mm f/1.4 at f/1.4 by Michael Spinelli, on FlickrJul 24, 2024 at 09:43 PM
p.4 #20Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Thanks all for the extensive testing done on this lens. I expected it to have a baptism of fire. I'm looking forward to it being available here.
Jul 25, 2024 at 03:51 AM