Again, largely matches what is already reported in this thread. One thing illustrated well in the review is how the transition zone rendering of the Z35/1.4, Z35/1.8S and CV35/2 compare.
p.9 #2 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
I sent mine back in the end. Its a nice lens at a nice price but I just could not give up using the Tamron 35 1.4. When I need small and light I will revert to the 40mm. I just feel the Nikon 35 1.4 is just a tad underpowered wide open which is where I want to use it the most. I understand the attraction though.
p.9 #4 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Has anyone used this lens for astrophotography? I'm trying to decide between the 35/1.4 or 35/1.8 to complement my 20/1.8. I'd most likely be shooting completely wide open (at around ISO 6400) with the 35/1.4 for the Milky Way.
p.9 #5 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
justindong wrote:
Has anyone used this lens for astrophotography? I'm trying to decide between the 35/1.4 or 35/1.8 to complement my 20/1.8. I'd most likely be shooting completely wide open (at around ISO 6400) with the 35/1.4 for the Milky Way.
You want the 35/1.8S, the 35/1.4 is a mess in the corners based on the MTF chart and review images (see CameraLabs reviews of both lenses).
Even better for astro would be the CV 35/2, but that’s even more expensive as well as MF.
p.9 #6 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
It's not just the poor corner performance wide open, but also coma smearing and color fringing, color artifacts with bright lights.
For astro you actually want a lens that is already corrected to the highest possible quality wide open, the area where the Z 35/1.4 definitely doesn't have its strengths.
Particularly in the areas that make astro so demanding, the concept of the Z 35/1.4 deliberately accepts serious weaknesses wide open.
p.9 #8 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Thanks everyone for everything said about this lens.
I have the Tamron 35 1.4, but I find it too heavy to be used all the time, so I'm considering this 35 1.4Z, but mostly I wanted the 35 1.4G... but I could not find any youtube or written review comparing those Nikons 1.4...
I also have the CZ Distagon 2/35 ZF (manual focus), which I like a lot, but I want to have one autofocus.
p.9 #11 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Yeah, I mean this was entirely expected. The 1.4 wasn’t meant to be a super corrected lens. I tested and posted the Sony 50mm 1.4 GM vs Nikon Z 50mm 1.8 S, and the Z was superior and it’s like 1/3rd the cost or less.
p.9 #15 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
This one is a winner. The really good ones are always controversial, in particular the 'beauty first' ones, as exemplified by this release. Their appeal lies in the realm of aesthetics, not the starch pumped out by the review community as judgments.
Nikon went too far with the three asph equipped 35/1.8, this one will hopefully set them on the better path going forward. They more lenses like this in longer focal lengths, having soaked their clientele with the sharpness first f1.8 series.
People are starting to wake up to what photography is about - the representation of beauty, not more characterless surveillance lenses that are now littering the landscape. This one bears no comparison to the sterile GM 35/1.4 either. When you aim for technical perfection and remove the aberration load, what is left? You are lucky to have it in Z-mount.
Read through comments by actual users and trust them ahead of the forensic examiners - and you will get much closer to the truth:
p.9 #16 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
philip_pj wrote:
This one is a winner. The really good ones are always controversial, in particular the 'beauty first' ones, as exemplified by this release. Their appeal lies in the realm of aesthetics, not the starch pumped out by the review community as judgments.
Nikon went too far with the three asph equipped 35/1.8, this one will hopefully set them on the better path going forward. They more lenses like this in longer focal lengths, having soaked their clientele with the sharpness first f1.8 series.
People are starting to wake up to what photography is about - the representation of beauty, not more characterless surveillance lenses that are now littering the landscape. This one bears no comparison to the sterile GM 35/1.4 either. When you aim for technical perfection and remove the aberration load, what is left? You are lucky to have it in Z-mount.
Read through comments by actual users and trust them ahead of the forensic examiners - and you will get much closer to the truth:
Nikon has the price points of their Z 35s the wrong way round, but you benefit from a buy in at a discount price. Highly recommended. Watch it go. ...Show more →
This 35 1.4 is the best autofocus 35 I ever used- It’s a steal at 600 bucks.
It’s an amazing little lens!!!! I love the output from it-
p.9 #18 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
This lens looks like a nice character lens when you dont need perfection of S line.
I wish it was smaller, so it would be great for Zf. People say it balanses nicely on Zf, I wonder if thats really truth. Something between 40/2 and this size would be better. And that look, why Nikon lens are so ugly? I moved from Sony and love my Zf, but lens... why are they so ugly? Is it just my opinion?
p.9 #19 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
phinix wrote:
This lens looks like a nice character lens when you dont need perfection of S line.
I wish it was smaller, so it would be great for Zf. People say it balanses nicely on Zf, I wonder if thats really truth. Something between 40/2 and this size would be better. And that look, why Nikon lens are so ugly? I moved from Sony and love my Zf, but lens... why are they so ugly? Is it just my opinion?
My opinion , Z lenses are not ugly, just too plain, but Nikon explained their reasoning in this note. I am not mad at them. In practice, I have grown to like the minimalist look.
Having said that, the design philosophy seems to have evolved a bit since the first lenses came out. The 40mm f/2, 28 f/2.8 would be done differently if they were released now. E.g. the feel and damping of the control ring, the mount, the finish. The output is good enough. There's S line for perfection.
It would not surprise me if 35mm f/1.4 is well-balanced on Zf. The bigger glass is closer to the mount than up front. It's only a 415g lens. It surprised me that it felt good even mounted on a z50. It might be better to go to a shop that can let you put it on your Zf.
p.9 #20 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
SiMuMe wrote:
My opinion , Z lenses are not ugly, just too plain, but Nikon explained their reasoning in this note. I am not mad at them. In practice, I have grown to like the minimalist look.
Having said that, the design philosophy seems to have evolved a bit since the first lenses came out. The 40mm f/2, 28 f/2.8 would be done differently if they were released now. E.g. the feel and damping of the control ring, the mount, the finish. The output is good enough. There's S line for perfection.
It would not surprise me if 35mm f/1.4 is well-balanced on Zf. The bigger glass is closer to the mount than up front. It's only a 415g lens. It surprised me that it felt good even mounted on a z50. It might be better to go to a shop that can let you put it on your Zf....Show more →
Yeah, gonna have to try it out in a shop first before I order it.
It terms of design - they are plain, but for me personally older G line (F mount) looked better, design wise, not the size etc
I like SE series lens and still waiting for more of those for Zf.
, Z lenses are not ugly, just too plain, but Nikon explained their reasoning