Zeiss is coming with 35mm 1.4 But owning the 35mm 2.0, I would be hard pressed for the extra $ to justify that difference in aperture. Yes, the current 2.0 in my bag requires I set my camera non-CPU lens data, but I am really ok with that. Since all my Zeiss are V1, I am very used to dialing in the non-CPU lens setting before shooting with them. The 35mm Zeiss is really impressive. Why would I pay 1800 bucks for a Nikon with AF? I can't justify that.
3D.Doug wrote:
Zeiss is coming with 35mm 1.4 But owning the 35mm 2.0, I would be hard pressed for the extra $ to justify that difference in aperture. Yes, the current 2.0 in my bag requires I set my camera non-CPU lens data, but I am really ok with that. Since all my Zeiss are V1, I am very used to dialing in the non-CPU lens setting before shooting with them. The 35mm Zeiss is really impressive. Why would I pay 1800 bucks for a Nikon with AF? I can't justify that.
I agree. The Zeiss 35 f/2 is overall one of the best lenses out there. Manual focus is fine for most situations (and I would say preferred for landscape/portraits) once you practice enough
The new 35G is a nice lens, tack sharp but it lacks the micro-contrast of the zeiss. You already know this. This is where your decision sits, a balance of micro-contrast vs AF. But The scenes you describe are not critical for AF at this FL, you know this too.
You also know that any advice you are given you will consider and then in a mad twist go against so I will follow what is likely to be your path.
Keep the zf35 and keep the 35/1.4G. NAS on its own without any logic is a body without a head. If you pine for the zf35/1.4 don't worry a Nikon 28G is likely on its way and you can do this all again.
3D.Doug wrote:
Zeiss is coming with 35mm 1.4 But owning the 35mm 2.0, I would be hard pressed for the extra $ to justify that difference in aperture. Yes, the current 2.0 in my bag requires I set my camera non-CPU lens data, but I am really ok with that. Since all my Zeiss are V1, I am very used to dialing in the non-CPU lens setting before shooting with them. The 35mm Zeiss is really impressive. Why would I pay 1800 bucks for a Nikon with AF? I can't justify that.
the AF is not only about using it for autofocus, but also in scenarion where you just cannot focus your self. For example, even on FX, when it is pitch dark with disco lights, you cannot MF on fast moving persons. It just leads to many missed shots and lot of own hair loss. I MF for 90% of my work, but there are cases where i just cannot MF with the keepers ration i am now accustomed to. nikkor 35f2 was perfect in this case, it is one of fastest AFing lenses ever produced and damn fine night machine too. I just hope that 35G will top it in all aspects. Especially for that price.
Kittyk wrote:
the AF is not only about using it for autofocus, but also in scenarion where you just cannot focus your self. For example, even on FX, when it is pitch dark with disco lights, you cannot MF on fast moving persons. It just leads to many missed shots and lot of own hair loss. I MF for 90% of my work, but there are cases where i just cannot MF with the keepers ration i am now accustomed to. nikkor 35f2 was perfect in this case, it is one of fastest AFing lenses ever produced and damn fine night machine too. I just hope that 35G will top it in all aspects. Especially for that price. ...Show more →
OneAnt wrote:
Keep the zf35 and keep the 35/1.4G. NAS on its own without any logic is a body without a head. If you pine for the zf35/1.4 don't worry a Nikon 28G is likely on its way and you can do this all again.
Well, this is what I am afraid to do, to keep both :-) But if Zeiss 35/1.4 will show even better character than 35/2 (I have little faith that this is possible) I will probably go for it!
As for me I do not have any temptation for a 28mm lens. 24 - 35 - 50 - 85 - 105 -180 are my critical FLs. But I'd be in trouble if next G would be 50/1.2 AF-S and my crystal globe says so! Because Nikon does not offer any modern pro lens on 50 - the 50/1.4 G being a consumer one.
Kittyk wrote:
the AF is not only about using it for autofocus, but also in scenarion where you just cannot focus your self. For example, even on FX, when it is pitch dark with disco lights, you cannot MF on fast moving persons.
I agree 100% with this... And this is one reason for my headache. Because I can do with Zeiss at least 80% from the images at the top quality, with that special microcontrast but in some situations MF does not work properly and the AF ability of a f1.4 become a great feature.
abam wrote:
what's the MFD of the 35/2 nikkor? looks to be pretty short.
it is few cms from front of the lens. I use it occassionally for macro as i have only 60 and 105 macro lenses and they are sometimes too long to make some drama. here are some examples
some of them are cropped, but well, i have yet to sold some wedding macro canvas print...
EDIT: looked it up, Macro is 1:4.2, 20cm from front lens (7,8") which represents scene about 15cms (5,9") wide on FX. I used before 35-70 in macro mode and never though about it being worse so they have to be close to same in that regard.
35G is sadly worse (1:5) but at least this is not huge deal for me, well i will have next season 18-24Mpix (probably)
Mishu01: you are right, the AF is one of huge reasons i use it. Mine AFs in almost no light at all without any AF assist light or preflash or other disturbing things. It is still wide enough to even at f2 give some headroom in sharpness (for example when you are tracking shirt/neck contrast instead of eyes). I sure would love it to be better. In daylight it is still slower focusing then 24-70 and is wide open lower IQ then say 24G, but it is overall so good that i will jump to 35G only if it improves ALL of the aspects. Wide open performance was never really problem on mine.
