p.8 #1 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
RustyRus wrote:
I think if Nikon put an S Plena label on the lens or some other clever marketing and charged 1800 bucks- It would be paraded around.
I am shocked at how much I am enjoying this lens. It really feels like a vintage lens to me when I am working with the files but in practical use, to AF is really nice sometimes.
When I actually have some free time, I am going to real world compare it to the Leica 35 Summilux ASPH and the Leica 35 Summilux pre-asph versions.
Curious how the looks will compare in real world testing.
p.8 #2 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
RustyRus wrote:
I think if Nikon put an S Plena label on the lens or some other clever marketing and charged 1800 bucks- It would be paraded around.
I am shocked at how much I am enjoying this lens. It really feels like a vintage lens to me when I am working with the files but in practical use, to AF is really nice sometimes.
When I actually have some free time, I am going to real world compare it to the Leica 35 Summilux ASPH and the Leica 35 Summilux pre-asph versions.
Curious how the looks will compare in real world testing.
I think you’re being rather hyperbolic here. If this were an $1800 lens it would be dismissed as a complete failure of an optic given the competition, especially since it is nearly identical optically to the $300 40/2.
It can certainly be used for great photos and I think it is near worth the cost. But it is nowhere near a Plena. Like not even in the same neighborhood. It’s nowhere near the 50/1.8S.
Again, this doesn’t mean it can’t be enjoyed, or used well.
p.8 #3 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Jman13 wrote:
I think you’re being rather hyperbolic here. If this were an $1800 lens it would be dismissed as a complete failure of an optic given the competition, especially since it is nearly identical optically to the $300 40/2.
It can certainly be used for great photos and I think it is near worth the cost. But it is nowhere near a Plena. Like not even in the same neighborhood. It’s nowhere near the 50/1.8S.
Again, this doesn’t mean it can’t be enjoyed, or used well.
Agreed. It's not even in the same ball park as the Plena, not even close.
p.8 #4 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Photographylife published MTF measurements on their Patreon:
- it’s sharper than the f1.4G
- matches the f1.8S in the center from f1.8 onwards but is a bit weaker in mid and corners
- sharper than the 40mm f2 when both are at f2, very similar at other shared apertures
p.8 #5 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Jman13 wrote:
I think you’re being rather hyperbolic here. If this were an $1800 lens it would be dismissed as a complete failure of an optic given the competition, especially since it is nearly identical optically to the $300 40/2.
It can certainly be used for great photos and I think it is near worth the cost. But it is nowhere near a Plena. Like not even in the same neighborhood. It’s nowhere near the 50/1.8S.
Again, this doesn’t mean it can’t be enjoyed, or used well.
Of course I am being hyperbolic here- I shouldn't have used the Plena word and just stuck with the Nikon calling it a P badge for portrait or something. I do feel that this lens is as special as the Plena though- I own the Plena 135 and love it- Its actually why I switched to Nikon from Sony for AF bodies. I still use Leica M digital and film bodies but for AF, its all Nikon now.
This 35 IMO is right up there with it in terms of output for portraits and overall renerding. Its unique - You pointed out we have multiple options at 35 mm for being perfect and sharp- Hell you could buy this 35 1.4 and the 35 APO for about the same cost as the Sony 35 1.4 GM with adapter and get better options on the Z system-
Its ok- We have different opinions on this. You prefer the Sony 35 Look- Its a great lens-
This one for my eye and my photography, the Nikon is unique and stunning. I can slap on the 35 APO if I want technical perfection.
p.8 #6 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
fjablo wrote:
Photographylife published MTF measurements on their Patreon:
- it’s sharper than the f1.4G
- matches the f1.8S in the center from f1.8 onwards but is a bit weaker in mid and corners
- sharper than the 40mm f2 when both are at f2, very similar at other shared apertures
Seems pretty solid for the price.
I am curious about 1) because I find the 35mm f/1.4G sharpens up incredibly quick and the testing that I have seen of Z seems nothing like that.
3) I expected but really like the rendering of the 40. I'm finding the foliage bokeh of the Z35 difficult to like.
p.8 #7 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Now I'm seriously thinking of buying this lens.
I was saving for 58G to use on my Zf, but now, once I noticed that this 35/1.4 produces those funky bubble bokeh, I started to want one
p.8 #8 · 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.
If you prefer the nikon in these examples you need to see an optometrist ASAP
p.8 #9 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
fjablo wrote:
Photographylife published MTF measurements on their Patreon:
- it’s sharper than the f1.4G
- matches the f1.8S in the center from f1.8 onwards but is a bit weaker in mid and corners
- sharper than the 40mm f2 when both are at f2, very similar at other shared apertures
Seems pretty solid for the price.
Where is this information published? I was not able to pull this up. Seems plausible from what I have seen so far.
p.8 #10 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
phinix wrote:
Now I'm seriously thinking of buying this lens.
I was saving for 58G to use on my Zf, but now, once I noticed that this 35/1.4 produces those funky bubble bokeh, I started to want one
The 58 remains a unique lens in Nikons portfolio for human subjects with really good bokeh-centric output with fine transitions but has a steep fall-off for subject resolution based on aperture/distance settings. I am impressed with the ability of the 35 1.4 to replicate some of the qualities of the 58 with better resolution, particularly at distance. Having the 35 1.4, and the 105 1.4 with a 50 1.8S sort of in the middle is now my primary trio of primes. In most situations, the soap bubble deal is actually quite acceptable.
The foliage/nervous bokeh is certainly a concern but it should not steer one away from this lens unless you are doing landscapes. For indoor subjects it looks great. It sharpens up quite nicely actually, has good color saturation but somewhat weak contrast but that can easily be adjusted. A little fine tuning and this lens really makes some nice images. One should play around with the NX software before judging this lens. No regrets in buying this lens. It pairs really nicely with the 50 1.8S, where a small step can give you a nice option in outputs.
p.8 #11 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
aerospace99 wrote:
Where is this information published? I was not able to pull this up. Seems plausible from what I have seen so far.
On their Patreon, as I said. They have removed all the ads from the site and are instead relying on voluntary contributions via Patreon. In return supporters like me get early access to test data
p.8 #12 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
fjablo wrote:
On their Patreon, as I said. They have removed all the ads from the site and are instead relying on voluntary contributions via Patreon. In return supporters like me get early access to test data
Oh I see it now. Well thanks for relaying this information, Seems very plausible from what I have seen. I am satisfied with the overall resolution of this lens for the subjects I have interest in,
p.8 #13 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
a sample test shot with Z9 and Profoto A2 with softbox on left, white reflector as fill, A10 with grid as kicker. shot on a tripod near MFD all at f2.0 for consistency to test for LoCA and veiling and bokeh quality. This is album to see the full-size JPGs. Will add more test shots/images on the album as time permits.
35/1.4
[
35/1.8
40/2
Just for more comparison
VM 35 APO Lanthar with VM-Z Close-Focus adapter
Note that the above is the Leica Mount version...but the VM and Z 35 APO Lanthars have the same lens design (just different mounts) so I thought it would justified to have it here.
p.8 #14 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
One of the few first shots of my uses for a fast 35. It's true, it is sharper than the 35mm f/1.4G wide open and arguably up to F2. Noticably crisp. However, it has foliage bokeh that only its mother would love.
p.8 #15 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Christopher Frost review:
Not really anything new said that hasn't already been shown in this thread, but goes through standard controlled tests for those who might be interested.
p.8 #16 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
kwalsh wrote:
Christopher Frost review:
Not really anything new said that hasn't already been shown in this thread, but goes through standard controlled tests for those who might be interested.
Based on my experiences with the lens, there’s nothing wrong in that review (except him saying excellent contrast from wide open is a big stretch, IMO), but one thing those tests do is avoid a lot of the situations in which the lens struggles. His close up test only checks the very center, and so there’s no mention of the huge drop off away from center near MFD, etc.
p.8 #17 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
the 35/1.4Z IMO is really good at its price point. i don't put too much weight on the edge/corner performance at wider apertures because i don't use it in a manner where that makes much of a difference...what does matter to me is consistency of performance in the center area from wide open, and it does perform consistently regardless of subject distance (which can't be said with the 40/2)...
the 35/1.4 (and the 1.8S) both have the Multi-Focusing System which is the modern equivalent of the CRC (aka Floating Element) which allows this consistency of sharpness across its focus range.
the 35/1.4 does suffer more LoCA because of lack of ED/ELD element but it's still well-controlled.
as for the foliage bokeh "issue"...i honestly don't see what the fuss is all about or it doesn't really bother me. i think it's more of a function of the background itself rather than the lens.
So in summary, I think Nikon made the right call in nerfing 35/1.4 (if you can even call it that) somewhat. it's very good but not really as good optically as the 1.8 but less character than the 40/2. And this justifies the (eventual existence) of the 35/1.2S
p.8 #18 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
dalegaspi wrote:
the 35/1.4Z IMO is really good at its price point. i don't put too much weight on the edge/corner performance at wider apertures because i don't use it in a manner where that makes much of a difference...what does matter to me is consistency of performance in the center area from wide open, and it does perform consistently regardless of subject distance (which can't be said with the 40/2)...
.
.
So in summary, I think Nikon made the right call in nerfing 35/1.4 (if you can even call it that) somewhat. it's very good but not really as good optically as the 1.8 but less character than the 40/2. And this justifies the (eventual existence) of the 35/1.2S...Show more →
Good points. Personally, I've just moved on to shooting the thing and it's making me very happy. It's good that we have these choices.
