p.8 #1 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Looks excellent. Not small dimensions nearly identical to the 50 1.2 S and thank goodness without the tacky OLED panel. I think the L.FN buttons are better positioned for vertical shooting.
p.8 #2 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
DWOfPaul wrote:
As other people have mentioned, different lens manufacturers have a different look in the images their lenses produce. It's usually subtle things like color, contrast, and flare. It's mostly an artistic difference rather than a technical difference. If you want to jump down the rabbit hole of lens rendering / look I recommend looking at Flickr groups of specific lenses. For example, compare the Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 vs the Sony 24-70 and 70-200. Eventually, you will start to see some trends in how a manufacturer's lenses handle and render images. For example, most Sony lenses render cooler colors than Nikon lenses. Every company has some outlier lenses too, so you need to compare many lenses.
BTW I am in no way nocking Sigmas rendering. I own a few Sigma lenses, and there are a few others I am interested in. Overall though, I do prefer Nikon's look.
----------
That's interesting B&H has the Sigma 35mm f1.2 as discontinued. I wonder if they're about to update it. It's not listed on Sigma's discontinued lens page, they made a 50mm f1.2 last year, and it was a well regarded lens. https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/discontinued/...Show more →
my point is that there isn't really a "sigma" look or "nikon" look as it just depends on the lens model. Sigma has LOTS of lens and the "look" can vary. The BEST example I can think of is the sigma 40mm f1.4 art vs 35mm f1.2. The 40mm art rendering is sooo harsh because sigma optimised it for sharpness and literally no CA. The 35mm f1.2 has much softer rendering with a little CA.
Nikon has less lens but the look can vary DRASTICALLY like between the s-line f1.8 vs f1.4.
I have owned many 35mm over the years, and I am mainly looking for rendering of background as it was hard to do soft bokeh at the transition zone. Sigma 35mm f1.2 was probably one of the best with no other optical issues.
p.8 #3 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Jman13 wrote:
But I do think comparing to other high end f/1.4 lenses is valid. We have seen that high end 85mm f/1.2 lenses are around $2800, but we also see that high end 85mm f/1.4 lenses are generally in the $1800 range. High end 50mm f/1.4s are in the $1400 price range, while high end 50mm f/1.2s are in the $2000 price range. Since high end 35mm f/1.4 lenses tend to be in that $1400-$1500 price range, you would expect high end 35mm f/1.2 lenses to be closer to their 50mm brethren rather than their 85mm brethren.
Well, nobody can tell the difference between photographs captured with the Z 35mm f1.4 and the GM 35mm f1.4 in real world production. Yet the Nikon is 3 times cheaper. And it is a better lens than the F mount 35mm f1.4 that many considered the gold standard in terms of look a few years ago.
You artifically call the Sony lens high end to avoid the comparison... but then have no issues to compare a f1.4 lens to an f1.2 one.
Am I the only one to see obvious double standards here?
p.8 #4 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
bernardl wrote:
Well, nobody can tell the difference between photographs captured with the Z 35mm f1.4 and the GM 35mm f1.4 in real world production. Yet the Nikon is 3 times cheaper. And it is a better lens than the F mount 35mm f1.4 that many considered the gold standard in terms of look a few years ago.
You artifically call the Sony lens high end to avoid the comparison... but then have no issues to compare a f1.4 lens to an f1.2 one.
Am I the only one to see obvious double standards here?
Cheers,
Bernard
As someone who owned the Z 35/1.4 and returned it after getting the 35 GM I wholeheartedly reject your initial premise. The 35GM is a SIGNIFICANTLY better lens than the Z 35/1.4. Notably sharper at wide apertures, with higher contrast, less color aberration, massively better spherical aberration correction at close focus and therefore a huge increase in sharpness up close, not to mention significantly smoother bokeh, which IMO is the biggest differentiator. The Z 35/1.4’s bokeh is very rough at wide apertures and while you can enjoy that character if it’s your thing, it can also be quite distracting. Meanwhile the 35GM’s bokeh is very smooth and pleasing.
p.8 #6 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Ok, well in that case there is no reason for the 35/1.2S either, because the 35GM and the new Nikon 35 are a heck of a lot closer in performance and rendering than the Z35/1.4 and the GM are. The Z 35/1.4 is a fine lens for a good price, but it is not in the same league with the others mentioned here. That is why it isn’t being used in these comparisons. It’s the same reason comparing Nikon, Canon and Sony’s 50mm f/1.8s isn’t a valid comparison when talking about price because Canon and Sony have bargain 50/1.8 lenses with the compromises you’d expect for a cheap 50, while Nikon’s is a high end S class prime. And the differences between the RF 50/1.8 and the Nikon 50/1.8S are very similar in scope to what the Z35/1.4 and the Sony GM are.
p.8 #7 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Could be very interesting. I used to ignore Viltrox until they issued the 16mm f/1.8. It is a professional quality lens that far out kicks its $580 price point. It has become a darling of night sky shooters.
pemanja93 wrote:
As I see on photorumors, Viltrox will announce 35mm f1.2(and 50mm and 85mm f1.2) in 2 months, and 35mm will be lighter, and almost 4x cheaper than Nikon(around 700$), which is insane...but we will see...even if they put 1000-1200$ for 35mm, it will be a great price.
I just hope AF will work as it should, and we know Viltrox will make it really good optically, so this will be exciting year for us.
p.8 #8 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
JadedWriter wrote:
I honestly think Joe is on modern photographer Mt. Rushmore. I have nothing but respect for him regarding the craft and his hustle. That man will die with a camera in his hand and I mean that in the nicest way possible.
To be fair, he seems to also have a bunch of staff that do all the lighting changes......some of which he directs. That said, he's one of my favourites for sure.
p.8 #9 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
RustyRus wrote:
This video just shows how good the Sigma is- Crazy how good that lens looks in a side by side-
For half the price, if you don't mind the adapter, the Sigma looks impressive. If I was Nikon, I wouldn't let that become a native mount lens. Seems a bit odd honestly to compare it when its an initial launch video.
Hey look at this new Nikon lens, also check out this Sigma that looks just as good-
Unsponsored video where all thoughts are her own. I agree that it's surprising they gave her a copy without limiting comparisons but I think the plena vs Sigma comparison was awfully early in the launch too.
What I struggle with is the comparisons of both lenses when shooting in tight. That's fine and also helpful, but to really compare them it would be helpful to see a wider range of shots.
p.8 #10 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
urbanwild wrote:
To be fair, he seems to also have a bunch of staff that do all the lighting changes......some of which he directs. That said, he's one of my favourites for sure.
The upper crust of photography is like that. The photographer is as much as choreographer of assistants to bring a scene together as they are the monkey pushing the button. Running a team like that takes WAY more talent than just photography chops.
p.8 #11 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
The upper crust of photography is like that. The photographer is as much as choreographer of assistants to bring a scene together as they are the monkey pushing the button. Running a team like that takes WAY more talent than just photography chops.
Absolutely. He's living the dream of many of us on here I suspect. To be that successful that you can make money while having a full team of folks bringing everything together.
I also love the fact that his images look professional without ever looking over-baked. Really interesting shots with likely some basic editing. The work is done in the field.
p.8 #14 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
wind30 wrote:
.... i just say your standards are pretty low. I can probably tell the z f1.4 vs the gm f1.4 in a blind test assuming there is bokeh shot at f1.4.
The comparison between the Sigma f1.2 and z f1.2 will be much closer and harder
I don’t think they are. The bokeh of the 35mm f14 Z is very pleasing in many situations. Zooming at 100% on a worst case scenario is not representative of the vast majority of images.
And the gap is clearly smaller than the price difference would suggest.
p.8 #15 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Jman13 wrote:
And off axis near MFD comparison….
Damn, still not sharp in the corners at f/8 is wild. I realize it's not nearly as expensive as the 1.2 S lenses, but for this result it's still kinda expensive. Did you try more than one sample? Almost looks like this has to be tilted.
p.8 #16 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Jman13 wrote:
The Z 35/1.4’s bokeh is very rough at wide apertures and while you can enjoy that character if it’s your thing, it can also be quite distracting. Meanwhile the 35GM’s bokeh is very smooth and pleasing.
The Z 35/1.4’s bokeh shows outlining, similarly to my AI 50/1.4, i.e., a lens designed half century ago for reflex cameras.
As for performance in corners, the problem was highlighted in Cameralabs' review ("Close-up shots near minimum object distance suffer from a rapid drop in resolution and contrast outside the center"); at long distances the issue is mitigated although a sort of ‘standard kit zoom’ performance in the corners still persists ("The FX-corners also show a blue-ish halo at high contrast edges which does not go away even stopped down to f8.0"). https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-35mm-f1-4-review/2/
"If you pay too much for something, they have stolen some of your money; if you pay too little, they have stolen all your money" [anonymous economist]
p.8 #17 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
It was very even across the frame. The result is definitely worst at mfd and it does become notably better further out, but it’s still soft at the edges wide open. It does become sharp at the edges stopped down at normal distances. I posted those to refute the “no one can tell them apart” claim. There are a lot of differences between a budget 35 like the Z f/1,4 and the Sony GM.
Ultimately, the 35/1.4 Z is a decent enough lens for the price but it isn’t in the discussion with the GM, the Sigma 1.2 or the new 35/1.2S. It really is very similar to the Nikon 40/2 (at the same apertures), but twice the price for that extra stop of speed (though worse at that faster aperture). Now, a cheaper lens that IS in that discussion is the DSLR Tamron 35/1.4 SP, which is every bit as good as these other top 35s.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Damn, still not sharp in the corners at f/8 is wild. I realize it's not nearly as expensive as the 1.2 S lenses, but for this result it's still kinda expensive. Did you try more than one sample? Almost looks like this has to be tilted.
p.8 #18 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Jman13 wrote:
It was very even across the frame. The result is definitely worst at mfd and it does become notably better further out, but it’s still soft at the edges wide open. It does become sharp at the edges stopped down at normal distances. I posted those to refute the “no one can tell them apart” claim. There are a lot of differences between a budget 35 like the Z f/1,4 and the Sony GM.
Ultimately, the 35/1.4 Z is a decent enough lens for the price but it isn’t in the discussion with the GM, the Sigma 1.2 or the new 35/1.2S. It really is very similar to the Nikon 40/2 (at the same apertures), but twice the price for that extra stop of speed (though worse at that faster aperture). Now, a cheaper lens that IS in that discussion is the DSLR Tamron 35/1.4 SP, which is every bit as good as these other top 35s.
If I may ask, why did you feel the need to pick images of corners shot at mfd to refute the claim that results from the 35mm f1.4 Z and GM in actual photographs taken with the 2 lenses would be difficult to tell apart in the real world when used for actual photo applications?
Nobody is going to use this lens for semi macro photography right? And if ever you do once in a while a 30s trip to PS and application of lens blur will fix the issue easily.
The reality is that the Z lens is far better than decent in the most frequent used shooting envelope. It’s a very good lens for most usages. And my opinion remains that it will be hard to tell apart in most photographs. Had you selected samples reasonably mainstream this is exactly what your results would have shown.
And anyways, need a technically near perfect lens that is also much cheaper? The f1.8 S is there as well.
The point never was that the GM isn’t better. The point was that the large price difference doesn’t buy you much in many cases. At least not more than what the price difference btwn the GM and new f1.2 S does. Factoring in the fact that getting closer to perfection usually has an exponential cost I find the f1.2 S very reasonably priced.
p.8 #19 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Why did I choose that example? It was the clearest way to show that the Z 35/1.4 does not have high levels of correction. I also posted a link to my 35Z review where I show more direct comparisons, including one at a fairly normal environmental portrait distance.
You're claiming there was minimal difference between these two lenses. There is not. When viewing at massively reduced images on the web, sure, there's little difference between most lenses when looking at sharpness, from the $200 kit zoom to the $2500 24-70/2.8S. It's where it performs in the extremes where the real differences show, and there are of course other differences that are quite visible on any good size print or enlargement, which is why people pay for premium glass. If you want detailed comparisons in a variety of situations, I posted many of them in what is now the Official Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread on here (originally was my first impressions post). A few pages in is where the direct comparisons come.
A couple, here....this first is just a test shot, but shows sharpness near the edges wide open at around 1.5-2m distance (very common focus distance for these lenses):
The bokeh shots in my original post are crops from a similar distance.
For me, the reason the 35/1.4Z didn't hold water for me was because I found the rendering to be too harsh for what I want in a 35mm lens. The backgrounds, especially in mid distance such as this, become very distracting to me:
At f/2 it's a little better, but still has some character: thing is, the even cheaper 40mm f/2 has almost the identical rendering and sharpness (actually very slightly sharper), so there was no incentive for me to spend $600 for a look I could get for half that.
And I find it disingenuous and frankly fanboyish to be sitting here saying these rather significant differences in rendering (and sharpness, and chromatic aberration) are irrelevant when comparing between the 35GM and the 35/1.4Z, but then you go around and say that the 35/1.2S is very reasonably priced, when the 35GM and the 35/1.2S do NOT have a large gulf in image quality. I do think the 35/1.2S is better...but as you say, it's incremental.
So in your eyes: $600 to $1300 with a large jump in image quality is comparable, but it isn't good to compare $1300 to $2800 with a minimal jump in image quality. I really don't understand the logic. In any case, I'm quite bored with this discussion, so you can keep having it if you want, but I'm out.
p.8 #20 · Nikon Z 35mm 1.2 S - Official Image Thread
Jman13 wrote:
Why did I choose that example? It was the clearest way to show that the Z 35/1.4 does not have high levels of correction. I also posted a link to my 35Z review where I show more direct comparisons, including one at a fairly normal environmental portrait distance.
You're claiming there was minimal difference between these two lenses. There is not. When viewing at massively reduced images on the web, sure, there's little difference between most lenses when looking at sharpness, from the $200 kit zoom to the $2500 24-70/2.8S. It's where it performs in the extremes where the real differences show, and there are of course other differences that are quite visible on any good size print or enlargement, which is why people pay for premium glass. If you want detailed comparisons in a variety of situations, I posted many of them in what is now the Official Z 35mm f/1.4 Image Thread on here (originally was my first impressions post). A few pages in is where the direct comparisons come.
A couple, here....this first is just a test shot, but shows sharpness near the edges wide open at around 1.5-2m distance (very common focus distance for these lenses): https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/35ZvGM_edge.jpg
The bokeh shots in my original post are crops from a similar distance.
For me, the reason the 35/1.4Z didn't hold water for me was because I found the rendering to be too harsh for what I want in a 35mm lens. The backgrounds, especially in mid distance such as this, become very distracting to me: https://www.jordansteele.com/2024/ghost_boner2.jpg
At f/2 it's a little better, but still has some character: thing is, the even cheaper 40mm f/2 has almost the identical rendering and sharpness (actually very slightly sharper), so there was no incentive for me to spend $600 for a look I could get for half that.
And I find it disingenuous and frankly fanboyish to be sitting here saying these rather significant differences in rendering (and sharpness, and chromatic aberration) are irrelevant when comparing between the 35GM and the 35/1.4Z, but then you go around and say that the 35/1.2S is very reasonably priced, when the 35GM and the 35/1.2S do NOT have a large gulf in image quality. I do think the 35/1.2S is better...but as you say, it's incremental.
So in your eyes: $600 to $1300 with a large jump in image quality is comparable, but it isn't good to compare $1300 to $2800 with a minimal jump in image quality. I really don't understand the logic.
