next lens in 1.4 series we predict it could be 85mm, some longer prime.
But what could be made next?
Is it possible to make f1.4 28mm, 24mm or even 20mm in same/silimar shape and size of those 35mm and 50mm 1.4?
24GM is kinda same size, so it must be doable.
Same 24Art
msadat wrote:
the problem with 1.4 lenses for me is that nikon went cheap. both the new lenses are subpar when compared to the 1.8 lenses
That is not a problem, that is absolutely fine. 1.8 series is the perfection Nikon made. 1.4 is cheaper series, more affordable for amator photographers. This is exactly what it is.
I'm planning potentially to buy 35/1.4. Fantastic lens with character for really good price and 1.4
msadat wrote:
the problem with 1.4 lenses for me is that nikon went cheap. both the new lenses are subpar when compared to the 1.8 lenses
I guess it really depends what you are looking for-
Some would say (me) the 35 1.4 is one of the best 35's you can get on any mount right now for something that is character rich and a great price point.
Is it cheap because it doesn't have an S badge? They didn't prioritize sharpness? I think Nikon actually gave you choices instead of 3 highly corrected pieces of glass that lack any real differetiaion over each other.
Again though- The 35 1.4 is a fantastic lens- Its to bad people over look it.
On one hand, I like how Nikon made the 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2 Z lines. Persoanlly my biggest complaint is I would like to see the 1.8 line built out. I would definitely like to see a 28mm and 40mm f1.8 lenses, and something wider and longer, such as a 14mm f1.8 and 105mm f1.8 would be nice too.
On the other hand, I do see how photographers looking for good f1.4 lenses that are smaller and cheeper then the f1.2 lenses feel left out, and how photographers looking for compact primes feel left out. In theory, the compact primes are a bit easier from a marketing perspective because they could make an f2 line. But having two f1.4 lines may be a bit hard to market side by side.
I am also kind of surprised we have yet to see any more lenses to pair with the 28mm f2.8 and 40mm f2 lenses.
I hope they fill out the 1.4 line. I prefer the more character rich look of the 1.4 lenses to the more optically perfect 1.8 line, and would definitely not call them subpar.
Maybe first a 85mm or 105mm, then a 21mm. That's all I would need.
DWOfPaul wrote:
On the other hand, I do see how photographers looking for good f1.4 lenses that are smaller and cheeper then the f1.2 lenses feel left out, and how photographers looking for compact primes feel left out. In theory, the compact primes are a bit easier from a marketing perspective because they could make an f2 line. But having two f1.4 lines may be a bit hard to market side by side.
This is me. Perhaps it's just the years of conditioning, but I'd much prefer the S like to be the 1.4 lenses, and the 1.8 ones to be the cheaper, characterful ones. I don't have the interest (or the budget) for the large 1.2 lenses.
85/1.4Z has to be the next of that line.
I would love to see a 28/1.4Z. I don't think they would do a 2.0 or 2, too close to the 28 they already have.
A fast 105 would be cool, but I'm not sure if that a gap they need to fill yet.
I don’t think Nikon will launch 85mm f1.4 in budget non S lineup.
It’s very hard to make an average 85mm lens, it’s a focal length which even unknown Chinese manufacturers have perfected. Yongnuo, Tokina and recently Viltrox Evo are testament to that.
I think the f/1.4 lenses are both fairly good. The 35/1.4 is a bit too characterful for my taste, but it is still a solid lens, and I don’t find the 35/1.8 to be especially better, especially given its high LoCA.
I own both the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8S and I’ve been debating the last several months which to keep. The 1.8 is a slightly better lens, but the differences with both at f/1.8 are actually quite small, and while at f/1.4 there’s a slightly rougher rendering, it still is better than most 50/1.4 lenses from the DSLR era, and still quite sharp across the frame wide open. It’s quite a good lens, and I am leaning towards keeping the f/1.4.
I think an 85/1.4 will be even better, and hopefully will be a great sweet spot.
Yes, I also think that Nikon should make more compact lens to add few to SE series, especially for Zf.
If they cannot make 20/24/28mm 1.4 is same size as other 1.4 lens, then make it f2.0
I would love 20/2, or even 20/2.8, but then when going further, 24mm or 28mm should be done in 1.4
24GM has similar size, so Nikon should make 28/1.4 and 24/1.4, easy.
But first, give us 20/2 or even 20/2.8 SE for Zf!
P.S.
Please nobody mention Viltrox 20/2.8 or I'm gonna puke...
phinix wrote:
Yes, I also think that Nikon should make more compact lens to add few to SE series, especially for Zf.
If they cannot make 20/24/28mm 1.4 is same size as other 1.4 lens, then make it f2.0
I would love 20/2, or even 20/2.8, but then when going further, 24mm or 28mm should be done in 1.4
24GM has similar size, so Nikon should make 28/1.4 and 24/1.4, easy.
But first, give us 20/2 or even 20/2.8 SE for Zf!
P.S.
Please nobody mention Viltrox 20/2.8 or I'm gonna puke...
phinix wrote:
Yes, I also think that Nikon should make more compact lens to add few to SE series, especially for Zf.
If they cannot make 20/24/28mm 1.4 is same size as other 1.4 lens, then make it f2.0
I would love 20/2, or even 20/2.8, but then when going further, 24mm or 28mm should be done in 1.4
24GM has similar size, so Nikon should make 28/1.4 and 24/1.4, easy.
But first, give us 20/2 or even 20/2.8 SE for Zf!
P.S.
Please nobody mention Viltrox 20/2.8 or I'm gonna puke...
I'm going to mention the Viltrox 20/2.8 by saying I'd definitely replace it with a significantly better Nikon version . I don't mind the Viltrox, it's fine for casual shooting, but it's not the best for landscapes.
In general I wish Nikon and other manufacturers would give us more compact options at the expense of slightly slower lenses. f/2-2.8 is often good enough and that could keep things small, light, and relatively cheap.
Jockel wrote:
It's amusing how some members justify the optical shortcomings of the 1.4 versions (35mm and 50mm) with the term "character"
Its also amusing that some members only look at lens shaprness to determine if a lens is good or not-
Character is a trait of a lens- Call it spherical aberration, LoCa etc - Call it whatever you want but looking at a comparison like this-
The "spherical aberations" show great character on a few of these with the 35 1.4 which is easy to pick out.
Or even in pictures- So call it what you want SA, BS, Character etc but Nikon did a great job of giving 3 distinct options all with differnt goals in design. Sorry if you can't see that or get hung up on words.
The to tie it off- If you want smooth, modern rendering, with mostly a lack a "character" (can I use that here?) The 35 1.2 - Great lens but very modern, very smooth rendering- Some prefer that. I usually don't
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 lens35mmf/1.41/10000s100 ISO-0.3 EV
NIKON Z6_3NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 lens35mmf/1.41/40s100 ISO+1.0 EV
NIKON ZRNIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.2 S lens35mmf/1.21/125s8000 ISO+0.3 EV
Jockel wrote:
It's amusing how some members justify the optical shortcomings of the 1.4 versions (35mm and 50mm) with the term "character"
It's not so much a justification than a reality check.
I didn't personally care for the 35/1.4, but it's not a bad lens. It's reasonably sharp wide open, and very sharp stopped down, but I didn't care for the rough bokeh at f/1.4, though I think the look at f/2 and smaller is fairly decent, though the background rendering does have character here. It's not perfect, but I also don't think it's purely unattractive and is a decent option for someone who doesn't want a clinical lens. For me, the 35/1.4 didn't work for me because the 40mm f/2 exists, and while slower, it gives very much the same look as the 35/1.4 at f/2 and smaller, and costs significantly less.
The 50/1.4 I praise because I think it's legitimately a good lens. The bokeh isn't perfect at f/1.4, but it's better than the vast majority of DSLR 50mm f/1.4s that we used for years and years, while being significantly sharper than those lenses too. And at f/1.8, I find the rendering of the 50/1.4 to be nearly identical to the 50/1.8S. The 1.8S is still very slightly sharper, but it's quite close. The only real down side of the 50/1.4, IMO, is that it can bloom a bit on backlight subjects wide open, though I've only had one situation where that actually posed a real problem. The only thing is that it isn't a lens that is near perfect like the Sony 50mm f/1.4GM, but it also costs a fraction of what that lens costs, so I think it fits in well.
There is always some hand waving away of compromises the cheaper a lens gets, you see that all the time.
Unfortunately, Nikon priced the 1.4 line at the same basic level as the exceptional 35 and 50/1.8 S and failed to deliver a similar level of IQ, which makes it very hard for me to accept the rendering out of the 1.4 line to this point.
They could have priced the lenses lower to reflect their sub-par optics. They could have added something unique to the line like *GASP* an aperture ring, but failed to do that too.
It's a confluence of factors that makes the 1.4 line a headscratcher while the IQ itself does the lenses themselves no favors in the larger market. You get a not-small lens with not-great rendering at the same price of "better" lenses.
Currently, the 35mm f1.8 Z is $896.95 and the 35mm f1.4 Z is $676.95. $220 is definitely enough to sway someone's decision, especially outside of gear forms.
Also, I don't know if "character" is necessarily a bad thing. How many people on this site are happy with "character" lenses like the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2. I definitely enjoy mine, but I would never claim it's sharp edge to edge at f1.2. There are definitely people looking for a softer and more vintage look.
. I don't mind the Viltrox, it's fine for casual shooting, but it's not the best for landscapes.
