p.6 #1 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
photonc wrote:
Thanks for posting these. What stands out to me is that the FOV of the 40 looks very similar to the 35 1.4 assuming you were shooting on a tripod. I'm wondering if the the 35 1.4 is closer to a 37mm.
Nah, I backed up a little for the 40 in an attempt to get similar framing. The Nikon 35 is the shortest of the 3…might actually be a little wider than 35.
p.6 #2 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
RustyRus wrote:
I much prefer the Nikon in these examples. I have never really liked the rendering on the 35 1.4GM though.
I could see where for landscapes the 35 GM might be preferable but there are tons of better options for Nikon landscapes then adapting Sony lenses IMO.
If you already own it, seems like a sensible decision if you can live with the adapter.
i never could jell with with the 35 GM. To be fair I couldn't jell with Sony period and just put up with them for so long.
I get a kick out of how the eternal dissatisfaction with every available FE 35mm lens extends even into the Nikon forum. The 35GM is the best all around fast 35 I've used, and I'd be happy to have a lens just like it in any mount. I agree that it wouldn't be something I'd run out and buy primarily to use on an adapter.
p.6 #6 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Adamwilbert wrote:
Focus noise?
In a quite environment - You can barely hear it - The shutter on the Z7_3 is 3X as loud (un scientifically)
In any type of normal environment, You couldn't notice it. I had to have my eye in the viewfinder to even notice it in a silent house. Even then it was background.
p.6 #8 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
My copy of the 35 f/1.4 Z arrived, and unfortunately, I am boxing it back up to be returned. The AF is very inconsistient for some reason, and images are generally soft. Oh well...
p.6 #9 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
jrscls wrote:
My copy of the 35 f/1.4 Z arrived, and unfortunately, I am boxing it back up to be returned. The AF is very inconsistient for some reason, and images are generally soft. Oh well...
Can we see?
Would love to see what you are seeing as soft- Also what camera are you using? I thought the AF was spot on even wide open with moving subjects on the Z6_3
p.6 #10 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Some of my images were just misfocused using this lens on my Z8, but here are a few images around the house that shows performance wide open. As we have seen, there is a lot of CA and some soap bubble bokeh.
Overall, my copy was a bit disappointing. I just dropped it off at FedEx, so back it goes.
35 f/1.4 Z at f/1.4 focused around the "A"
35 f/1.4 Z at f/1.4 focoused near right side of camera lens
Just for comparison purposes, this one with 50 f/1.8 S at f/1.8 (ISO 3200) focused near right side of camera lens
p.6 #11 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
This is reminding me of the initial response to the 40mm f2, with people judging the lens as inferior based on shots taken near mfd. Meanwhile, Rusty does the unthinkable, pictures of actual humans from a reasonable distance, and it looks great. The lens has limitations but this is really good value for f1.4, and will be even more so once they start showing up on the used market.
p.6 #12 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
“Great” is highly subjective. Rusty’s real world shots have rendering I find distracting and undesirable. If you know what you’re getting into and want that, then great. Light, cheap, and “unique” has a place.
p.6 #13 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
The bokeh is busy for sure, and there's LoCA. Would be nice to see more comparisons against the 1.8S because it has the same problems (no soap bubbles though).
p.6 #14 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
drcrumble wrote:
The bokeh is busy for sure, and there's LoCA. Would be nice to see more comparisons against the 1.8S because it has the same problems (no soap bubbles though).
So when I first starting seeing some images from this lens I was intrigued. I have plenty of perfect 35's that can go take a crisp, perfect picture in all conditions.
I also have quite a few "character" 35's
What I don't have is an AF lens, that has a unique look to it that I can go out and have fun with. I think that is what this 35 brings to the table for me. I really like the look it gives. I am going to do some real comparisons against the 35 Lux just for fun (not sharpness shots).
Here is two snaps, One being the 35 1.4 from Nikon the other being with the coded adaptor and the Leica 35 Summilux Asph 1.4
I love both of them-
As soon as I started shooting with this 35, it REMNINDED me of some of the Leica lenses I have- Not calling these the same and I prefer the Leica but this 35 is special so far for me.
NIKON Z6_3Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH lens35mmf/1.41/8000s250 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z6_3NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 lens35mmf/1.41/8000s180 ISO0.0 EV
p.6 #15 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
The lens is definitely too expensive for my taste at the moment, at least based on EU prices.
The Z 35/1.8 S is also available for € 729, even one euro cheaper.
Maybe I am biased because of my history.
I've been shooting analog for much longer than the majority, 35mm and medium format.
My first digital system camera is the Z6, so I've been working with vintage lenses for decades, including extremely high-quality lenses, so I'm delighted with the level of modern lenses, even if I still adapt my vintage lenses like the Canon FD 85/1.2 L, or my Tomioka 55/1.4 depending on the situation.
I have dozens of vintage lenses that cost a fraction of a Z 35/1.4, have similar flaws wide open and have a more analog, cinematic rendering.
They definitely don't have to hide from a Z 35/1.4.
When I look at the fact that a 35/2 Apo-Lanthar costs just € 300 more, but plays in a completely different league, and thanks to the floating group design, also puts the pedal to the metal in the MFD area, then € 729 is clearly too much for such a lens.
Of course, if you absolutely want f/1.4 @ 35mm and AF is an absolute must, then you may evaluate the matter differently due to a lack of alternatives.
€ 200 less at launch and I would rate the lens differently, but € 729 would definitely not be worth it to me.
p.6 #16 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
RustyRus wrote:
So when I first starting seeing some images from this lens I was intrigued. I have plenty of perfect 35's that can go take a crisp, perfect picture in all conditions.
I also have quite a few "character" 35's
What I don't have is an AF lens, that has a unique look to it that I can go out and have fun with. I think that is what this 35 brings to the table for me. I really like the look it gives. I am going to do some real comparisons against the 35 Lux just for fun (not sharpness shots).
Here is two snaps, One being the 35 1.4 from Nikon the other being with the coded adaptor and the Leica 35 Summilux Asph 1.4
I love both of them-
As soon as I started shooting with this 35, it REMNINDED me of some of the Leica lenses I have- Not calling these the same and I prefer the Leica but this 35 is special so far for me.
p.6 #17 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
pemanja93 wrote:
They almost looks the same
In terms of foliage-against-sky rendering, yes. Once you pay attention to the bokeh shape and ground rendering, the differences are immediately noticable. Similar, in a way, but quite different overall. Also demonstrates the insanity of what Leica charges for that lens
p.6 #18 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
drcrumble wrote:
The bokeh is busy for sure, and there's LoCA. Would be nice to see more comparisons against the 1.8S because it has the same problems (no soap bubbles though).
The few comparisons at longer focus distances I've seen so far seem to show the 35/1.8S is marginally better as far as less LoCA and slightly less busy bokeh (probably closely related to soap bubbles). But not an earth shattering difference. As far as I can tell if someone didn't like the 35/1.8S bokeh I'm having trouble understanding why someone would prefer the 35/1.4 bokeh - they are more similar than different and the 1.4 appears if anything slightly worse. Of course "worse" and "better" as far as bokeh is a really subjective thing, so some might think slightly better instead!
But in all fairness, bokeh at full body portrait distances is hard for many lenses in this focal range! Very few look "great" and so it is probably down to personal preferences whether one or the other appears "better".
The bokeh in RustyRus's helpful outdoor people samples kind of claw at my eyeballs, but as he just showed a $4K Leica sports nearly identical busy LoCA filled bokeh at that shooting distance. So yeah, we can poo-poo and pick apart the 35/1.4 bokeh, but apparently people are happy to fork out six times as much for that kind of bokeh.
The more I see the more I think the 35/1.4 vs 35/1.8S is going to be a very personal choice with no community consensus one way or the other.
p.6 #19 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
It's also funny how "character" can be used in both directions...
1) The Leica has "character" that no modern lenses have, of course I'll pay $5000 for something "unique"
2) The Z has "character", of course it's lower priced than the more clinical S, and represents a fair rendering for the price
Whatever, in the end. If you like the way it looks, more power to anyone to spend their money appropriately. Consensus isn't needed, nor should it be expected. But at this point it's clear what this lens is to anyone curious.
All in all, glad I managed to scoop a Z APO up before they dry up
p.6 #20 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
All in all, glad I managed to scoop a Z APO up before they dry up
Yep, as Jordan already alluded to the Voigt 35/2 APO is the one lens that is decidedly "different" from most everything else on offer. Not necessarily what every person wants, but a notably different set of trade offs with unique characteristics.
