What confuses me is the 50 vs 35 1.4 here in Japan. The 35 goes for essentially new price on the used market, while the 50/1.4Z is soooooo cheap. I think the 35 has been a big hit here.
The 50 is absolutely an amazing lens, and there's not another 1st party 50 that comes close. Blend of modern AF speed, super sharp, great optics that leans towards classic look. It's bigger than I would like, but that is my only complaint.
ISO1600 wrote:
What confuses me is the 50 vs 35 1.4 here in Japan. The 35 goes for essentially new price on the used market, while the 50/1.4Z is soooooo cheap. I think the 35 has been a big hit here.
Im convinced if Nikon had better marketing around it and put a V for vintage badge or something on it it would be insanely popular in the US
Thank God we have Viltrox 50/1.4 and 85/1.4... for the moment anyway, and they have no glaring issues with IQ while their cost isn't prohibitive like that of the Nikon's f/1.2 versions.
There's no Viltrox 35mm f/1.4 (yet?) but they have an f/1.2 that doesn't cost an arm and a leg either. I'm pretty sure they'll have an f/1.4 version too, sooner or later, and it will be even cheaper (as well as more compact). Whether there will be a Z-mount version in another question, given the current litigation between Nikon and Viltrox (and my crystal ball is away for servicing at the moment, so I can't tell you how that plays out in the end). But adapting E-mount lenses is always an option.
Viltrox will release 35mm f1.4 PRO, 50mm f1.2 LAB and 85mm f1.2 LAB this year.
35mm PRO will be around 550-600$ with dual VCM motors and probably 650-700g of weight...It will be a lot better optically than Nikon 35mm f1.4Z.
I hope Viltrox will just up the prices a little bit, just to earn more, so they can pay some fee to Nikon.
RustyRus wrote:
Im convinced if Nikon had better marketing around it and put a V for vintage badge or something on it it would be insanely popular in the US
sputnik wrote:
Or could it possibly as simple as people have different opinions from you of what lenses they like?
I find it more amusing that so many people feel the need to tell others that they are wrong or do not understand.
It’s ok to have a different opinion you know. Whatever floats your boat and all that.
Keep shooting and enjoy your lens choices and let others do the same!
And again a person who feels attacked
Read correctly and try to understand correctly: I didn't say that the 1.4 version was bad.
Some people just like visual shortcomings. It's nice if you like that too...
Jockel wrote:
And again a person who feels attacked
Read correctly and try to understand correctly: I didn't say that the 1.4 version was bad.
Some people just like visual shortcomings. It's nice if you like that too...
Maybe people feel attacked because the tone of your posts is confrontational and a bit condescending.
Jockel wrote:
And again a person who feels attacked
Read correctly and try to understand correctly: I didn't say that the 1.4 version was bad.
Some people just like visual shortcomings. It's nice if you like that too...
Who said I felt attacked? You have no idea what I shoot or don’t shoot or what my prefereces are.
I was just wondering why people (you in this case) feel the need to comment on how other people percieve or feel about their lenses. Just because two people feel different about a lens does not mean that one of them has to be wrong.
Personally I could not care less about what other people think about my lenses or my photography. I do it for me and for my own joy.
I really like that 35/1.4. If I didn't have 40SE, I would buy this one.
But I think having 40SE makes that 35/1.4 unnecessary purchase.
What do you guys think?
phinix wrote:
I really like that 35/1.4. If I didn't have 40SE, I would buy this one.
But I think having 40SE makes that 35/1.4 unnecessary purchase.
What do you guys think?
I think you need to work on thinking critically and making these decisions for yourself
Remember the blue or gold "Dress"? Human eyes have different perceptions.
Personally, I'm not a fan of Z 1.4 series. They tend to emphasize busy background to my eyes.. However, a lot of people love this type of rendering and feel it's smooth.
If you are shooting for personal enjoyment, buy the one you like. If you can't tell which one you like, buy the cheaper one.
n8rv wrote:
I have both. I think they are redundant and I have absolutely no practical reason to keep both. But that doesn't mean I can't. :shrug:
Same here. I have both the 40/2 and the 35/1.4, and unless I really want to go super compact (almost never), I take the 35/1.4 with me. Still, the CV 35/2 spends most of the time on the camera out of all my 35-ish lenses.
olegkin wrote:
Same here. I have both the 40/2 and the 35/1.4, and unless I really want to go super compact (almost never), I take the 35/1.4 with me. Still, the CV 35/2 spends most of the time on the camera out of all my 35-ish lenses.
Cmon, you've got so many left to collect!
I've got the Artralab 35/1.4, CV 35/2, Z 40/2, TTA 40/2, CV 40/2 Ultron, and have the CV 40/2 Septon preordered, with plans for the Sirui 35/1.4 somewhere down the line!!
The 50/1.8 is so good that I never really looked anywhere else in that focal length.
As for the 35, the 1.4 has a noticeably narrower angle of view than the 1.8 and 1.2, and given there's still no really solid 28 in the Z mount, that's a problem. But I think it makes sense for people using it for portraits given the image rendering and the obviously narrower depth of field from the slightly longer functional focal length in combination with the 1.4 aperture. Not so sure it makes sense for photojournalism type uses.
