I'm shooting mostly events in available light (corporate, concerts, conferences, etc) using a combo of D700 / D300 and mostly fast primes.
For a long time I was dreaming for Nikon to produce a 35mm AF-S fast prime... I love shooting with fast primes and 35mm is a very necessary focal length for me.
Almost a year ago, tired to wait anymore, I purchased a copy of Zeiss Distagon 35/2... Because is a MF lens I used it mostly in some landscapes, not in events.
Recently, after Nikon announced the new 35mm G, excited for the dream that's so close, I considered to put the Zeiss lens in my bag for a series of three events. Then I was stunned to see the way this glass is rendering the light in concerts or such as settings where is a bunch of mixed coloured lights on the scene and how sharp is this lens wide open in such as conditions... I really think that it renders complicate lights in a nicer way than Nikkor 24/1.4G which is probably my top preferred lens. I know this may sound as heresy... do not crucify me, please!
Discovering this I've got tons of lead in my shoes... 35mm f1.4 G is almost at the door... What to do? To take it just because of the further stop and for AF? On the other hand Zeiss is producing a new 35/1.4 lens in F mount that could be very promising too. I already have three 50s and a total of 7 primes covering 40-58mm range I really do not want a 35mm collection...
In the meantime I am tempted to consider to wait for Zeiss 35/1.4 as a replacement for Zeiss 35/2 if it will share the same qualities and I believe so and to add an inexpensive Nikon 35/2 AF-D just for situations when I need AF. But this means to renounce at the lens I was dreaming and waiting more than for any other by now... I feel that I do not have enough determination for such as decision.
I really have a conflict of interests in my brain and every morning I wake up with different scenarios. This drives me REALLY crazy.
Please give me some ideas... What would you do in my shoes?
Thanks in advance for any suggestion and be sure I appreciate your patience to read this long post.
Were I you,
I would buy the Nikkor 35 and test it out, and if I wasn't happy id return it at no cost to me. That way you can never have that regred or that shadow of a doubt that you had made the wrong decision.
Riley
the 35 and a 24 render things differently. stop the presses! only you can decide this, for me the focal lengths are so vastly different I would never compare the 2
Yeah, you just have to shoot with it to be sure. If you like the rendering of the Zeiss better, than IMO the extra stop and AF wouldn't be worth it. But you may well end up liking the Nikkor best.
yep it would be ultimate solution, except it is not same and also DOF not, but i hope that 35G will be also (much) faster focusing then 24G. For that price i dont want any compromise against 35f2
I'm wearing the same shoes, and I'm keeping my ZF 35. Had I never bought it, the Nikkor would be the most interesting lens ever. But I really, really doubt that it will "do the Zeiss thing". You probably know what I'm talking about.
Thanks to Zeiss, I've finally come to the point where I'm totally satisfied with the IQ of my gear. NAS is gone. I don't care a bit about the 35/1.4 G.
The ZF 35/2 was great! So, if you're happy with it and don't NEED AF... then save the $1000 and don't bother with the 35G! (easier said than done.. i know...)
On the otherhand... it sounds like you're not in a HURRY... so i'd wait it out and see how the 35G and Zeiss 35 1.4 look/perform!
It's first time when I ask for help on FM and I do not receive it... Some says to try 35 G in the same settings with Zeiss... are you thinking that if I buy it I can have THAT determination to send it back? Even I'll prefer the Zeiss effect always are justifications... like the need of AF and of 1.4 when shooting events... I know I can lie myself a lot in order to keep a toy! Chestnut offers me a compromise... 24 on DX and that's a FAKE 35 because my main camera is D700 and one day, probably when the successor of D700 would be produced, I will shoot with two FX bodies... Kittyk add salt in my wounds saying that 35 is the right FL for docu... and Makten thinks that Zeiss healed him of NAS but that's NOT true for me Anybody else to help?
I wouldn't take the Zeiss effect in to account on this decision. The Zeiss can not shoot at f/1.4 and therefore can not be compared. If you need f/1.4 then you buy the Nikkor. If you need auto focus then you buy the Nikkor. If you don't need f/1.4 and don't need auto focus, then give more consideration to keeping the Zeiss and not spending the money on the Nikkor.
it is simple. If the 35G will be optically as good as 24G, go Nikon - especially since AF performance is not killer deal for you. So far all i seen from that lens was not really able to convince me, i need to pay over my 35f2 which i like, hadn't yet chance to play with it long enough to judge.
Save yourself the headache, buy the Nikkor, keep the Zeiss ... end of story. Were I so conflicted that is ... normally I wouldn't make a suggest such a thing. That being said, I have owned up to 3 lenses of the same focal length at one time.
Interesting, read diglloyd's comparison of the ZF 35 / Nikon 35 1.4 and Nikon 24-70. I don't know how much I can repeat....but the ZF 35 sure looks like a winner, even wide open when the 35 1.4 is stopped down to f/2
rsolti13 wrote:
Interesting, read diglloyd's comparison of the ZF 35 / Nikon 35 1.4 and Nikon 24-70. I don't know how much I can repeat....but the ZF 35 sure looks like a winner, even wide open when the 35 1.4 is stopped down to f/2
If this will be confirmed by other users, I will keep the Zeiss and I'll add a Nikon 35/2 AF-D just for the situations when I need AF and I'll save the remainder funds for the replacement of D700. Again, if this will be confirmed, I dunno if I have to be happy or to be sad...
Mishu01 wrote:
If this will be confirmed by other users, I will keep the Zeiss and I'll add a Nikon 35/2 AF-D just for the situations when I need AF and I'll save the remainder funds for the replacement of D700. Again, if this will be confirmed, I dunno if I have to be happy or to be sad...
I tried looking for it on the site but it looks like he has not reviewed the lens yet. I'm not sure where rsolti is getting this info but maybe the comparison was with the 35 ai-s.
Tommy_D wrote:
I tried looking for it on the site but it looks like he has not reviewed the lens yet. I'm not sure where rsolti is getting this info but maybe the comparison was with the 35 ai-s.
Correct, I don't see a review either, but I do see a comparison...see here
do not crucify me, please!
