Little to disagree with and much to like, despite his technical leanings differing from mine. The modern cinematic look is anything but clean and clinical, rather 'naturalness' is now the goal. Depth of images here is related purely to curvature of field and focus fade character (several inputs here), and this effect remains quite consistent across the frame, though it may (and does in many fancied 35s) depart from flatness across the outer frame. See the f1.4 curves here:
Do see the slider comparisons too, to see which you like. I find the 35/1.8 flat and linear, and I dislike the etchy hair rendering - detail should never overpower the image as a whole. The article lapses into reviewer mode re CA that is near to invisible. 35/1.4 images are so much more interesting.
The 35/1.8 S was the first S lens for the system. It's over five years old. The 35/1.4 came along in July 2024 - after Nikon had the benefit of seeing the reception of the older lens, which no doubt subsequently influenced their design decisions.
p.10 #3 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
When you read reviews from actual users, it can restore your faith in their perceptiveness and ability to get to the heart of the matter - image quality. From B&H's review section:
p.10 #4 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
philip_pj wrote:
When you read reviews from actual users, it can restore your faith in their perceptiveness and ability to get to the heart of the matter - image quality. From B&H's review section:
In a previous post on this thread I said I returned mine due to concerns about sharpness at 1.4. After more thoughts, I have picked another copy up from a FM member to go on my Zf. The 35 1.4 is a compromise but it has a lot to offer. While the 1.4 aperture is a bit challenged, it recovers very nicely as evidenced by the Photography life review. The 1.4 version solves the principal issue I had with the 35 1.8 which I found to be the most clinical looking of the 3 S primes Nikon first released (at least on the Z7II sensor). Its images were stellar but I found myself somewhat empty inside when I looked at them later. I also finally had to let my beloved Tamron 35 1.4 (a wonderful rendering lens) go as well, as it was just too unwieldy on a Zf, a camera that I am really getting comfortable with. I was using the 40 F2 but I find its resolution at distance is challenged, although it has a nice rendering style for mid range and closer distances. I do like the wider pitch spacing of the focus ring ribs on the 1.4 line, less tendency to trap particles.
I think the new 35 and 50 1.4s solve some of the issues I had with the S line. I find myself pretty well aligned to your perspective on these lenses (as well as the comments on the B and H reviews you linked to). The differences here are profound as it really highlights subtitles in the way a photographers vision works. I could see some having sets of both 1.8s and 1.4s, they are that different. The AK review referenced here in this thread brings that point home. I am even more turned off by the 85 1.2, 50 1.2 lenses, but like the fact that Nikon recognizes the differences here and provides choices. So glad I stayed in the Nikon system. With the release of a Zf and these 1.4 lenses I feel connection to my early days in film from long ago. Seems that Nikon wants to reintroduce a new generation of photographers to some of its heritage. The Zf and the 1.4s may rapidly become a "cult classic." Their retro decision making is exciting. The journey continues.....
.
Eagerly anticipating the 85 1.4 whenever it shows up to round out the set........
p.10 #5 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
I already have 40/2 SE and wondering if I should get 35/1.4.
These focal lengths are pretty close , do you think its worth swapping?
35mm is a bit bigger and heavier for general purpose lens.
p.10 #6 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
phinix wrote:
I already have 40/2 SE and wondering if I should get 35/1.4.
These focal lengths are pretty close , do you think its worth swapping?
35mm is a bit bigger and heavier for general purpose lens.
You have a preference for small lenses. I'm not sure this will suit you. I say soldier on with the 40mm and keep repeating to yourself "It's big" every time the thought of the 35 comes to mind. Have you thought about the Voigtlander 35mm APO-Lanthar? It's expensive but seems like your kind of lens.
p.10 #7 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
SiMuMe wrote:
You have a preference for small lenses. I'm not sure this will suit you. I say soldier on with the 40mm and keep repeating to yourself "It's big" every time the thought of the 35 comes to mind. Have you thought about the Voigtlander 35mm APO-Lanthar? It's expensive but seems like your kind of lens.
Only APO I could have is 35mm I think. I would like to have one, but some funky Voigtlander lens. I can't deiced which one. I would like to have 35mm f1.4 E mount, but hard to find used in UK. I'm not a pro, cannot afford to have many lens
p.10 #8 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
phinix wrote:
I already have 40/2 SE and wondering if I should get 35/1.4.
These focal lengths are pretty close , do you think its worth swapping?
35mm is a bit bigger and heavier for general purpose lens.
I have been comparing the 35 1.4 and 40 F2 and would say read the recent review on Photography Life for the 35 1.4 and look at the resolution comparisons if you want an idea of what the differences are. The key difference here though is the 5 mm of focal length. I have warmed up quite a bit to the 40mm focal length this past year. The extra 5 mm offsets some of the resolution loss and at F2 they are very close in output. Imagine if you took a 35 1.4, set it to F2 and physically cut the lens down to crop the image down to 40 mm and there you go. There is maybe just a hint of more microcontrast in the 40, and it has maybe a better look for street work. The 40 has horrible coma results however. But the extra stop of light and shallower depth of field for the wider FOV is compelling for many situations.
As I write this I wish I had a copy of a 35 1.8S to compare with as that lens while clinical looking at least on the Z7II, I suspect has the best IQ at distance at F2. The 40 makes a great street lens so you have to think carefully about your user case and whether you need the extra 5 mm of width. If I were doing expensive travel, I would go with the S lens. For discrete candids, the 40 is a no brainer. I have to admit I find the 35mm focal length a bit of a challenge these days. I do like the 35 1.4 for reasons stated but it is not much different from the 40 and now a Voigtlander 35 APO is looking more attractive. I do like the looks out of the 35 1.4 though so we will see. I will keep my 40 in any case. That lens has the same retro look that I spoke of in my previous post. That lens is a stroke of genius by Nikon and works and looks great on the Zf.
Before you make any decisions, think very carefully about what the extra 5mm does for you. For outdoor scenics, the 35 is a more compelling lens. For indoor snaps, the 40 is really a great lens. I am not too thrilled with it for distance outdoors though and actually prefer my 24-70 F4 for outdoor scenery.
p.10 #10 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
I'm holding onto my 28/1.4e and 35/1.4g tight. Along with the 58/1.4 and 105/1.4. Such beautiful rendering & character that the newer sharper and technically more perfect z lenses lack.
p.10 #11 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Picture This! wrote:
I'm holding onto my 28/1.4e and 35/1.4g tight. Along with the 58/1.4 and 105/1.4. Such beautiful rendering & character that the newer sharper and technically more perfect z lenses lack.
I can understand this. I finally parted with the 28 and 58 but am holding on to the 105. I like the 35 and 50 1.4s on the Zf sensor. I also got tired of adapters. But the lenses you mentioned are Nikon classics to be sure!
p.10 #13 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
I have and like the 40/2 but am considering the 35/1.4. While I do like the classic rendering, the main reason would be for the control ring.
My other lens for my ZF is a Voigtlander with an aperture ring (which I greatly prefer). This means I need to use the camera in different ways depending on the lens. The 35/1.4 would let me set up the camera the same for both it and the Voigt.
phinix wrote:
I already have 40/2 SE and wondering if I should get 35/1.4.
These focal lengths are pretty close , do you think its worth swapping?
35mm is a bit bigger and heavier for general purpose lens.
p.10 #14 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
LeonD60 wrote:
I have and like the 40/2 but am considering the 35/1.4. While I do like the classic rendering, the main reason would be for the control ring.
This! The dedicated control ring is better damped than the control/MF ring of the 40mm. If that's your kind of thing, you will like it.
p.10 #15 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
I got mine and used it to shoot an event and a few cars. Truth is, I do like it. The problem is, I got used to the sharpness and corrected 1.8 S lenses so I’m easily spotting the fringing.
p.10 #16 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
LeonD60 wrote:
I have and like the 40/2 but am considering the 35/1.4. While I do like the classic rendering, the main reason would be for the control ring.
My other lens for my ZF is a Voigtlander with an aperture ring (which I greatly prefer). This means I need to use the camera in different ways depending on the lens. The 35/1.4 would let me set up the camera the same for both it and the Voigt.
Why do you need control ring? WHat would you use it for? Its not stepped, only smooth rotations, easily moved while handling, so useless for example for aperture or ISO.
p.10 #17 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Granted steps would make it better but it can still be used for aperture. With my 40mm/f2 I use the focus ring to control the aperture. The problem comes in when I want to focus manually and change the aperture.
My other system is Fujifilm and all the lenses I own for that system have the aperture on then lens. Controlling the aperture on the lens is much easier for me than using the command dials. Specifically I'm using a ZF and (trying) not to use the command dials. Shutter speed, ISO and Exp Comp with the dials on the body and aperture on the lens.
My most used lens is the Voigtlander 50mm/f2 and the camera is in either A or M mode. Fairly old school but it gets me more involved.
p.10 #18 · Official Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread
Got my 35mm 1.4 and I definitely like it! Definitely center sharp. Great portrait lens.. not so much for landscapes. If you look at the screen in the pics, look at the font and apps, you can see a how it falls off a bit. For example, look at Phone and Map text in the screen in the first pic
