The 35G isn't soft. It might be a hair softer than the 24G, but that's not saying anything. I don't think it's material in practice. To my eye, the apparent softness of some of the samples in this thread comes from the nature of the subjects (e.g., smooth skin) and very shallow DOF at close focal distances.
Similarly, IMO the 35G is not materially softer than the 35L--I own one (though no camera to do a head-to-head comparison with at the moment). Re: the 5D II test noted above, it's very hard to compare lenses when one camera has twice the resolving power of the other (assuming you weren't using a D3X). You really need to use an old 5D, and even then, it's important to note the 5D's weak AA filter.
Bottom line: the 24G, 35G, and 35L are all sharp lenses (assuming proper calibration, of course). There may be marginal differences, but I rather doubt they'll matter in practice.
i don't know if the 35 f/1.4g is worth the price tag either, but it's really the only AF option so i can't complain. i'm pretty happy with mine although i haven't put it up to the test just yet, that'll be tomorrow when i finally use it for a shoot. it's nice to not have to worry about heavy vignetting and distortion like i did when i was using the 35 1.8dx lens on my d700.
another buddy of mine is gonna be picking up the 24 1.4 and we'll be trading around every now and then, we already do that with our 105 f/2 and 135 f/2 lenses (:
Just received my 35 1.4 today. First thing I do with any new lens is check its focus and then compare it to other lenses. In this case, I'll check it against my 24-70 @ 35mm and my Leica 35 f2, all shot wide open. I'm certain that I'll prefer the Leica, but, every lens has its own feel. The 35 G's bokeh looks very good in the samples I've seen. I look forward to shooting Las Vegas at night next month, only using this lens--well, I'll most likely bring the M9 kit too.
Thanks to all those who posted their comments and pictures, you all contributed to my spending a bunch of money!!
Perhaps it's just me because I don't think Nikon's 35 1.4G gives me the WOW factor that I normally get when looking at samples shot by Contax Zeiss 35 1.4. You can view some of them here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/839374
Of course, we know Nikon's 35 1.4G is an outstanding ultrafast prime lens based on its official MTF.
How much of the "lack of sharpness" do you think has to do with the use of f/1.4 in situations where f/2 or so would be better? This is a general statement, not really limited or focused to anybody on FM.
screwdriver wrote:
nice image and colors JR but i see there is no sharp point of focus in this one , the eyes are not spot on . are you too close?
Honestly... i think this case you need to blame the photographer (ME) and not the lens... I was taking pictures with on-camera flash (SB-800) and this was a shot that the flash did not fire. I think the combination of a slower shutter speed (1/50) and my daughter bobbing back and forth caused the slight front focus; which i obviously did not catch... I am traveling this week, but the shots when the flash did fire i know are sharp... i just liked this image since i got her attention for a split second! haha
Exif:
Camera Nikon D700
Exposure 0.02 sec (1/50)
Aperture f/1.4
Focal Length 35 mm
ISO Speed 200
JR Magat wrote:
Honestly... i think this case you need to blame the photographer (ME) and not the lens... I was taking pictures with on-camera flash (SB-800) and this was a shot that the flash did not fire. I think the combination of a slower shutter speed (1/50) and my daughter bobbing back and forth caused the slight front focus; which i obviously did not catch... I am traveling this week, but the shots when the flash did fire i know are sharp... i just liked this image since i got her attention for a split second! haha
Exif:
Camera Nikon D700
Exposure 0.02 sec (1/50)
Aperture f/1.4
Focal Length 35 mm
ISO Speed 200
tnx for the clarification JR .
im saving up for this lens but it might take me to a point selling on of my roadbike - i might say bye to my pinarello ......
