I use an adapted Sony 35/1.4 GM and it’s been great. Compact, brilliantly sharp and a wonderful rendering. I also have the 40/2 (and the CV 35/2 APO).
The Z 35/1.4 is just OK in my opinion. It’s a bit rough wide open and by f/2 it’s pretty decent, but is nearly identical to the 40/2 at that point in quality and rendering, so if you want that look, just use the 40/2.
The Viltrox 35mm f/1.2 LAB should also be available for Z-mount in the foreseeable future.
The E-mount version that has already been released is receiving excellent reviews.
The fact that the reviewer, in this case Dustin Abott, would still prefer the Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB to the Sony 35/1.4 GM even if the latter were priced identically to the Viltrox, i.e., significantly cheaper, shows how good this lens is for the price.
But not only optically, but also in terms of AF speed/motors.(four Hyper VCM” motors (Voice Coil Motor)).
At least in this review, the Viltrox beats the 35mm/1.4 GM not only in most optical criteria, but also in AF speed thanks to the 4 VCM motors.
Vento wrote:
The Viltrox 35mm f/1.2 LAB should also be available for Z-mount in the foreseeable future.
The E-mount version that has already been released is receiving excellent reviews.
The fact that the reviewer, in this case Dustin Abott, would still prefer the Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB to the Sony 35/1.4 GM even if the latter were priced identically to the Viltrox, i.e., significantly cheaper, shows how good this lens is for the price.
But not only optically, but also in terms of AF speed/motors.
I'm also keeping an eye on this, especially since I already have a perfect, really compact solution in the 35/2 Apo Lanthar, which is particularly good for landscape/architecture and fine details.
The Viltrox would be a great addition for portraits, people, environmental portraits, and anything where f/1.2 and AF is simply helpful.
The Z 35/1.2 S is definitely too expensive for me as a hobbyist, especially since the Viltrox delivers far above its price range.
Here in the EU, the Nikon Z 35/1.2 S costs the equivalent of US$3,500 including VAT.
The Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB for E-mount costs the equivalent of US$1,062 including VAT and the Z mount version should be priced very similarly.
Very promising. $3000+ is bananas for me. I earn a very small side income from photography and usually using a 24-120.
I’ve been avoiding the Chinese stuff as much as possible but if Nikon doesn’t put out what I want and Viltrox is a good product…..
Vento wrote:
I'm also keeping an eye on this, especially since I already have a perfect, really compact solution in the 35/2 Apo Lanthar, which is particularly good for landscape/architecture and fine details.
The Viltrox would be a great addition for portraits, people, environmental portraits, and anything where f/1.2 and AF is simply helpful.
The Z 35/1.2 S is definitely too expensive for me as a hobbyist, especially since the Viltrox delivers far above its price range.
Here in the EU, the Nikon Z 35/1.2 S costs the equivalent of US$3,500 including VAT.
The Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB for E-mount costs the equivalent of US$1,062 including VAT and the Z mount version should be priced very similarly....Show more →
Tamron 35mm f/1.4 for Nikon F mount with FPZ adapter is worth cross shopping. It is the 35mm I use after trying an adapted G master, and the Nikon Z 1.8. According to Tamron this lens is their benchmark creation. It provides a nice render, looks great wide open, stops down for landscape beautifully, and is strong for astrophotography. Drawback is it’s bulky. The only 35 I’ve liked better is Leica S Summicron.
A very instructive video. DA did a fine job of removing extraneous factors in his facial self portrait comparisons, which as a street people shooter, I found so fascinating I used them in a comment in the burgeoning 3D Pop thread, where of course everyone has expert status.
If you do as much examination and retouching as I do, you become familiar with nuances in face photography. Most times similar lenses produce similar results, but here the V lens has it all over the GM - people forget you are photographing light that strikes subjects, so how lenses handle that light in terms of tonal variation, color variation, focus fade, focal plane performance and contrast - all are of vital importance. GM 35mm images mostly look like a weak flash was used. It may be why there are so few portraits in the image thread:
These are the things that separate our lenses in a viewing instant. The GM 35mm is one of the flattest lenses in the modern era for portraiture. Many do like this uniformity and happily it works for them. The lens has other attributes that are popular, but these traits do rob it off drama, life and sparkle. It even shapes the face differently, which is not surprising given the above.
Maybe Viltrox should make an f1.4 version and concentrate strongly on size and weight reduction. It would sell more as a general fast lens, where this one goes up against the OEM f1.2 class, and all of them are heavy units.
What are your thoughts on what’s available for Z mount thats not crazy expensive?
philip_pj wrote:
A very instructive video. DA did a fine job of removing extraneous factors in his facial self portrait comparisons, which as a street people shooter, I found so fascinating I used them in a comment in the burgeoning 3D Pop thread, where of course everyone has expert status.
If you do as much examination and retouching as I do, you become familiar with nuances in face photography. Most times similar lenses produce similar results, but here the V lens has it all over the GM - people forget you are photographing light that strikes subjects, so how lenses handle that light in terms of tonal variation, color variation, focus fade, focal plane performance and contrast - all are of vital importance. GM 35mm images mostly look like a weak flash was used. It may be why there are so few portraits in the image thread:
These are the things that separate our lenses in a viewing instant. The GM 35mm is one of the flattest lenses in the modern era for portraiture. Many do like this uniformity and happily it works for them. The lens has other attributes that are popular, but these traits do rob it off drama, life and sparkle. It even shapes the face differently, which is not surprising given the above.
Maybe Viltrox should make an f1.4 version and concentrate strongly on size and weight reduction. It would sell more as a general fast lens, where this one goes up against the OEM f1.2 class, and all of them are heavy units....Show more →
Sounds good but I rather not adapt if I do t have to. Sold my f to z after I sold a cv 58 (kind of wish I didn’t)
woodstork wrote:
Tamron 35mm f/1.4 for Nikon F mount with FPZ adapter is worth cross shopping. It is the 35mm I use after trying an adapted G master, and the Nikon Z 1.8. According to Tamron this lens is their benchmark creation. It provides a nice render, looks great wide open, stops down for landscape beautifully, and is strong for astrophotography. Drawback is it’s bulky. The only 35 I’ve liked better is Leica S Summicron.
It if had a S label on it people would love it. Adapting a lens from Sony or another brand is 100% unnecessary IMO-
Nikon has 3 amazing options and the cheapest is IMO the best one out there. Really beautiful character wide open for portraits, great classic OOF rendering and plenty sharp for anything you need to do. You can watch YouTube videos all day. If you like any sort of vintage like rendering on a modern lens, the 35 1.4 is about as good as it gets. I would own it over the 35 1.2 any day of the week due to it size, price and I really love the rendering-
My Z 35 is the first generation 7artisans 35mm f1.4. it's small, sharp in center frame wide open, and as you stop down it gets better across the frame. Very cheap and quite small.
Yeah, I definitely prefer native Z mount too. Tamron’s timing on this release was horrible, just as mirrorless was really taking off. It remains a top performer at low price for what it delivers. While I don’t prefer using the FTZ, I deem it worthwhile to make exception for this lens.
Dustin Abbott and others have older, more detailed reviews on the lens too. I was debating getting it, the Viltrox 35/1.2 (pending Z mount issue), or the Z f/1.2 and decided on the Tamron for its strong color, pleasing out of focus render, strong acutance across the frame, proven abilities for night sky wide open, and price. So far no disappointment at all. I just like the look I can get from it.
newyork wrote:
Sounds good but I rather not adapt if I do t have to. Sold my f to z after I sold a cv 58 (kind of wish I didn’t)
Had the Tammy 35 adapted on Sony before the GM existed, it's a hell of a lens. Realistically it's every bit as good as the 35GM if not sharper, though whether that is a good or bad thing is down to the shooter.
Unfortunately, it becomes pretty large and heavy on something like the Zf once adapted (pushing 1000g). The Viltrox is 100g lighter and will be native (when it finally shows up).
The Z 35/1.4 is...what it is.
I’d probably adapt the GM if I wanted a fantastic 1.4 without the heft of F>Z adapting. I’d certainly do that before buying a Z 1.4.
I had a moment of weakness and bought yet another 35mm lens recently, the Z 35/1.4. It matches up with the CV Z 35/2 APO very well, in my opinion, offering a different look wide open, plus autofocus and the ability to focus well in darker environments. My current thinking is to use the 35/1.4 for portraits and the 35/2 for nature and urban shots.
I recently got the Z 50/1.4 when I came across a local deal. I really need to try out the 35, because if it's anything like the 50 I'll love it.
I never used the Tamron 1.4, but the 1.8 VC impressed the hell out of me on Canon. I would love to see them reimagine those two lenses for mirrorless.
I simply do not want to mess with FTZ, ETZ, or similar adapters. When you factor the size of the adapter (FTZ), how it effects handling, and the cost, in many cases it just makes more sense to get a native Z lens.
I've been trying to decide whether it would be silly to get a Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 with a Techart adapter, or if I should just go for a 35mm S1.8. I do feel the size of the Voightlander fits my discreet street photography better, so I'm leaning towards it. I do feel strange about buying a lens for the sake of adapting.
ISO1600 wrote:
I recently got the Z 50/1.4 when I came across a local deal. I really need to try out the 35, because if it's anything like the 50 I'll love it.
I never used the Tamron 1.4, but the 1.8 VC impressed the hell out of me on Canon. I would love to see them reimagine those two lenses for mirrorless.
I simply do not want to mess with FTZ, ETZ, or similar adapters. When you factor the size of the adapter (FTZ), how it effects handling, and the cost, in many cases it just makes more sense to get a native Z lens. ...Show more →
The cost of the FTZ is trivial if you intend to adapt multiple F mount lenses, dumb or smart. It opens a huge back catalog of excellent glass.
The part I mostly dislike is, as you say, the handling and weight shift forward.
There is an excellent back catalog of f glass, but most of those options are, to be blunt, of zero interest to me. The only "big" lenses I like are telephotos, of which Nikon has made a billion fantastic examples, but even when you start sticking the smaller f-mount glass onto the FTZ, it's no longer a small lens...
I just haven't enjoyed the ergos of any SLR lenses adapted to mirrorless.
RoamingScott wrote:
The cost of the FTZ is trivial if you intend to adapt multiple F mount lenses, dumb or smart. It opens a huge back catalog of excellent glass.
The part I mostly dislike is, as you say, the handling and weight shift forward.
