Well done, this was a very good comparison. Its nice to see a phtoographer on youtube that isnt only looking for sharpness and can actually see what they are looking at.
@@MartinCastein Martin, I watched your video before about this Z 35mm 1.4 lens. Great video btw and thank you for pointing out the benefits of not-so-sharp lenses for wedding and portrait photography. What do you think now, does this lens meet your expectations? Is that something you have been looking for?
At last a proper review of the 35mm 1.4. It's good when a lens that's not as sharp as the better lenses is still sharp by dslr standards when everyone was more than happy with the sharpness of those type of lenses not so long ago.
I have the 1.4 and 1.8. I agree with you on the inspired feeling I get from the 1.4. I have had the 1.8 for a couple years and rarely shoot with it. I'm excited about the 1.4. It does remind me of my vintage lenses.
Great video, I pre ordered this lens for portrait shooting and have been undecided whether or not to cancel. I think you did a great job showing the look of the lens across different subjects, its maybe a bad choice when shooting landscape or high detail shots but I think this is going to look awesome for less harsh portrait rendering. I think I’m gonna be happy when I pick it up later today from what you’ve shown. Thanks!
As long as a lens is decently sharp especially for portraits, character is more important I think. So many modern lens are just out for all out sharpness.
I bought the Nikkor 50 mm f 1.8 S last week for $526 US. Nikon was selling it for $529 but the camera store near me was competing with Prime Days, as well as a lot of other companies. I have been out with it twice. I don’t have the f 1.4 but I do have the F mount 50 mm f 1.4 G. Using the FTZ adaptor on it was nice but it is still blown away by the Z mount S lens, much sharper.
I have the Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 is more like the F Mount Version. Also having 40mm f/2 seems to be the same crop size as the newer glass. When Nikon decides to release their f/1.2 version it is going to be enormous and heavy. Cheers!
Great video, and commentary on 'character'. I'd imagine a lot of people, like me, are still holding onto the excellent Sigma 35/1.4 Art. Would love to see a comparison with that!
@@Cleverconveyence exactly! That’s my last F mount lens left and I wanna shed all the weight I can and get rid of the bulky FTZ adapter. I’d imagine the competition would be very close, just curious how close.
@@herry.with.an.e Many defend this new Nikon lens to the F version - which was soft wide open - but they indeed forget the classic Sigma 35 F1.4 ART which blew everyone out of the water (until Tamron dropped their 35/1.4, the ultimate 35/1.4 for F mount - but that was to celebrate and end their DSLR era). If this Nikon Z 35/1.4 performs the same as the Sigma Art, I don't see why I would sell the Art with a loss and get this Nikon... just for the FTZ. I'm currently leaning towards keeping it until it breaks or gets stolen. I love the Sigma and it has never let me down. And the fact that this Nikon 35/1.4 is closer to a 39mm is not helping either. I've only upgraded one lens partially because of the FTZ and that is my Tamron G2 70-200 F2.8 to the Nikon Z version. The Tamron is great, but it lacked a bit of contrast and AF speed. And it was just too long with the FTZ - although the Nikon version is not much shorter, even without the FTZ. To be fair, I'd much prefer an excellent pro level Nikon Z 35 F1.4. The F1.2 is going to be huge & heavy and priced like a another Z6III... Never understood why Nikon changed the completely logical choice of "good affordable F1.8 or excellent F1.4". It was a winning formula. I doubt people or going to reason "So no pro F1.4? That's fine, I'll buy the F1.2 at 5x the price and three times the weight, no biggie".
The pricing on this is all over the shop though. In the UK the 1.4 is priced at £650 (or $840). That's £180 more than this is going for in the states at today's exchange rate. The choice I had when this finally got announced was £650 for the 1.4 or £470 for a barely used 1.8S. With that sort of price difference the 1.8S was (at nearly £200 less) a total no brainer.... At the £470/$599 ish the stateside lot get to buy the 1.4 for it would have been a seriously difficult decision though.
It look pretty good...with a little bit of sharpening, dehaze, and removed CA, it looks nice... :) And this lens is not designed for Z8....45mpx is too much...I think this lens works great on 24mpx sensors :)
Thank you very much, Alex. I agree with your final reasoning. Sometimes perfection is boring. In fact, I have several lenses that look for that "beautiful" imperfection, like those from the Meyer Optik Gerlitz brand. I'm glad Nikon is also looking for that niche in the market. I have ordered this lens and I hope it arrives soon to enjoy it, for a very correct price.
A few illuminations with the video: The f/1.4 and the f/1.8 don't inform how "fast" these lenses are. You need their "T value" for that. And the "f" in f/aperture" is only valid at focusing distance infinity, except maybe for lenses that suppress focus breathing (prime lenses that can do that are in fact subtle zoom lenses). And with these two uncertainties we cannot make hard statements about Depth of Field either (we need the Circle of Confusion parameter for DoF but that's a mutt parameter that ties ~6 effects together in one number). [2] As the 35/1.8S has suppression of focus breathing it will retain its aperture value when we focus closer by than infinity - it zooms a bit and keeps the same focal length. The 35/1.4 likely has a less good T value so its transmission is less relative to 1.4 than the 1.8 lens's relative to 1.8 and then when you focus closer by than infinity the 35/1.4 will very quickly be 1.8 or worse. Coming from a Nikon DSLR, shooting with 1.4G primes, I was used to extreme sharpness and the Z 35/1.8S on Z 7 was not a shocking improvement in sharpness. Some other "S" primes are actually sharper. But I love this 35/1.8S. The "S" class prime lenses have silenced my recurring rant about (1) chromatic aberration and (2) tint differences between lenses. They are much better in this respect. No more poison green ears and magenta cheeks/noses. That rant started in about 1975 when I bought my first Nikon (F2), shooting Hasselblad 500 series and large format professionally. "Digital" added a third rant in the form of the OLPF - that I usually call "fuzzy filter" [1]. This is an extra filter grid over the sensor that disperses light travelling to photosite [x,y] so a fraction of it hits the direct neighbours. This makes the guessing of missing colours (raw files and the Bayer paradigm) easier. But, as it disperses light the OLPF is at some distance from the sensor and we can get total colour cast reflection between it and the sensor in stronger contrasty backlight. With a DSLR - I never chimp - I never saw that during the shoot and moved to ML's supposed WYSIWYG. [1] The Optical Low-Pass filter (OLPF) is also called Anti-Aliasing (AA) filter. As we get raw files that have only one colour per photosite data element, the two missing colours with each data element must be guessed after the shot in order to get to RGB pixels. There are two "challenges" (1) missing colours, (2) a perfect grid of square photosites that gives jagged lines or edges to rounded forms or lines/edges that are not parallel to the sensor grid. At very low resolutions the OLPF/AA is probably not needed and at higher it becomes a problem. In 2012, Nikon released the D800E version that Eliminated the OLPF from the D800 version. If you want to know the impact to sharpness of the OLPF, then go to DxO Mark website, find the sharpest F-mount lens in there, and compare its sharpness between mounted on the D800 (with OLPF) versus mounted on the D800E (no OLPF). That's shocking. The difference between 24MP and 36MP in sharpness with both camera with OLPF is not that exciting and the same applies between 36 and 45 without OLPF. [2] While you are at DxO Mark to verify [1], also search for 1.2L lenses of one brand and see what their T-value is for "fully open": t=1.5. The check out some 1.4G lenses from another brand and notice these also have T=1.5. This means these are equally fast. But, you will say, the 1.2 will have shallower Dof - no I will counter, they are less sharp, hence have a larger CoC and hence their DoF at f/1.2 may be even less that the 1.4G lens at f/1.4. They are soft a.o. because they're not so sharp.
@5:29 At the f/1.8 comparision shot, your model seems to be somewhat closer at the left/fov differs, which is probably the reason why the bokeh balls appear somewhat bigger on the f/1.4 lens, even stopped down. This also appears to be true in other comparision shots, like @5:55
I'd rather he shows the difference in real world usage where you clearly have a difference in viewing angle at the same focus distance. Few people are going to use either lens for landscapes.
I couldn't see the green fringing you were pointing out. I was tempted by this even though I have the 1.8. But I went and got the Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 and wow, wow, wow! Glad I did!
For those who do not need autofocus and/or like to do manual focusing, then get the excellent Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical, which have outstanding optical image quality, second to none ! The build quality are very high and the Voigtländer will last many years.
หลายเดือนก่อน +1
But get it now because Voigtlander stopped producing it! 😅
Honestly the 1.4 shows beautiful skin tones less yellowish and more magenta. And as you noticed it renders like a vintage lens...the bokeh reminds me of my old Nikkor 50mm Ai-s which I still own. Based on you review I would definitely pick the 1.4 over the 1.8S. Many thanks for the comparison ;-)
Many thanks for the video! Once upon a time, I shot with Nikon D700 and the classic nikkor 35/2. Got phenomenal pictures with the combo. The 1.4 reminds me of the rendering of the 35/2 but of course is better because it goes down to 1.4. When it came out, I thought the 40/2 would be a worthy replacement of the 35/2 but I’ve changed my mind in favour of the 1.4.
Alex I did a video on comparison of the 35mm to the 40mm and Beninsandiego7016 asked about my comment of the new Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 looked similar to my F mount 35mm. Also in the video I made the comment that I replied to your question when it was benninsandiego7156 actually. Sorry about that. Cheers!
Great comparison. I don't like clinical lenses, so the 1.4 has a more attractive output. I'm looking forward for a comparison with the Sigma 35mm 1.4 on an ETZ adapter
Good vid, Alex. It would be cool to see 35 APO in the mix. :) But I do prefer 1.4 precisely because of its "shortcomings", especially for the portraiture.
1.4 is 1/200 speed and iso 100, 1.8 is also 1/200 and iso 100, that's why 1.8 looks more contrasty, it's underexposed compared to 1.4. (I'm talking about the first image with the lady with pink dress)
I've had all of the S lenses and sold them. Went back to shooting weddings on the 28 1.4e and 85 1.4g Find me a bride who wants a sharper, more contrasty photo of her face and I will find you a gold pig. Good video, thanks
I think they should make a 1.4S that has character and sharpness without the image rendition issues. This is why I still use the 28mm 1.4, which has it all apart from the ftz bulk.
You say 1.8 is more contrasty, but you did not adjusted the exposure for the difference between 1.4 and 1.8, so maybe is just a little bit underexposed.
Great point about clinically sharp images across the companies. So I have been buying a lot of Nikon F Glass with Character (Imperfections, Flaws), but the images that they produce is a WOW factor or Vintage CDC Grainy type of look. Nice thing that I do is to buy adapters which I can share these type of lenses across the board in the camera world. Leica M to Z or E or L. Nikon F to M or L. Next week I will be getting the Brussels Prix Mir 1 37mm f/2.8 from Customs and the Bokeh off that lens has a swirly effect. We are living in great times. Buying used or new does help with the imagination of what You are able to do now for Enjoyment, Hobby or Professional. Cheers!
I have the 1.4 since a couple of days and shot it today for the first time before my daily work. I don't think it's completely out of plastic (exc. for the bajonet mount which luckily is metal), the rear area around the control ring should be made of metal whilst the focusing ring and the front zone is made of plastic elements. Ricci said in this comparison vid it's the opposite of the 1.8 S-Line lens (front area metal and rear area plastic)??? Anyway it's a fun to use it when you don't expect crisp sharp corners in the aperture range from 1.4 to 2.0. If that's ok for you, you don't have to wait for the expected big and expensive 1.2 S-Line version.
Thanks for the comparison. Two thoughts. First, although I very much preferred the 1.8, it was because of the colors and contrast. I really didn't see in the 1.4 some of the problems you described - particularly purple fringing . Perhaps they don't come through clearly over TH-cam. (However, based on my experience with other non S Nikon lenses I have no doubt chromatic aberration is a problem.) Secondly, I would also need to see these lenses at 2.8 or smaller for any final opinion about the 1.4. I suspect at 2.8 or smaller the lenses would be even closer, although one doesn't buy a 1.4 lens to shoot at 2.8 or smaller - anymore. Nonetheless, we do often shoot at smaller apertures, and I would be curious to learn how the 1.4 would then do compared to the 1.8. Thanks again. I have the Z 35 S 1.8 with no plans to pick up the 1.4.
I picked up the 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm f/1.8 lenses. While the 35mm isn't bad at all, I find myself reaching for it the least because it feels too clinical. On the other hand, both the 50mm and 85mm f/1.8 lenses have a lot more character. I'm considering trying the 35mm f/1.4 instead. Another lens I think delivers excellent photos for its price is the NIKKOR Z 26mm f/2.8. This pancake lens is my go-to for walk-around photography
For portrait you might want softer for sure, I prefer the bokeh for the f1.4. The wider shot is maybe the 35m f1.8 has a focus breathing. If you want sharpness the f1.8. My primes f1.4, 35 (tam), 50 (sig) and 85 (nik) are still good from the f mount. I might get one for video since the newer Nikon AF motor is quiet compared to the f-mount on the adapter.
The difference between f1.4 and f1.8 DOF is noticeable, probably because f1.4 is also a little longer focal length. In closeup shots at min 8:00 the chest of the girl is completely out of focus on f1.4 and only her face is in focus but on f1.8 face and chest are bot in focus
I got the 1.4 during summer where the 1.8 was discounted, so the price difference was not much. Since I have the 50mm 1.8 already, I felt the 1.4 would add more to my collection.
Do you think Nikon will release a 50mm 1.4 z mount similar to this one? It would be awesome to have something small and compact that has the character of the old 58mm 1.4. (the only F mount lens I haven't sold)
@@ABarrera hahaha. Touché I still call it inferior while my piers call it “Character” I must obey the Leica gods 🙏 It’s not a flaw it just Character worth my hard earned money 😂
the price is due to marketing. The actually plastic, glass and electronics to make lenses like this is gonna be very small part of the price. I'd bet they both cost the same to manufacturer.
In the UK on Amazon there is a £25 difference on these lenses? So confusing on what to go for, faster aperture or increased fidelity and weather sealing?
My take - the 1.4 has a more classic look, more 3D pop - or whatever you might call it. A little softer, less “clinical” less “digital razor” to it. I think this is an experiment we may see repeated . F1.8 and 1.2 S series lenses w a billion elements and lenses made w special glass from Mars. Complemented by f1.4 lenses that cast back to classic designs and produce images that look real.
Thanks for the great, real life comparison. I love macro photography, as one gebre, but I don't want macro detail in a portrait, especially an environmental portrait, so I love the look of the 1.4 too. I have a 50mm 1.2 S, it is fabulous because it's sharp and very clear at 1.2 but not that biting sharpness plus fantastic fsll-off and bokeh. Hopefully these new F1.4 lenses will give some of thst look at a more affordable price. Good on Nikon for trying this. As the 1.4 lens gathers more light, clearly looking at them both at the exact same settings, maybe increasing the shutter speed by a 1/3 stop or so will bring more contrast "detail" to the 1.4 lens?
i think atleast its better then older Dslr lenses which we are using with adapter such as 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 with lots of color fringing and shaeper at the center...these mirror less lenses are new in terms of glasses and technology so 9i think its may be cheap version with lil less good quality glass elements but its beetter to choose over Dslr version basic G lenses
You're forgetting the popular Sigma 35 F1.4 Art which was optically superior - like most Art lenses - to the Nikon G versions. And not too long a go, Tamron dropped their swan song lens for DSLR: their version of the 35mm F1.4. It's the sharpest 35/1.4 for F mount with butter smooth bokeh. But sold in low quantities so it's hard to find. I'd love to see a version for Z, even for a steep price just over $1000. But Nikon is clearly not allowing it.
@@caleidoo bro I am talking about Nikkor Lenses ...I know Art series lenses are far superior and gr8 value for money but it's not cheap compared to this lens
@@Jackourd Yes I know you're talking about Nikon lenses, that's the whole point of why I replied and mentioned the third party lenses - which were much cheaper than Nikon lenses at the time and still are today. A Sigma 35 F1.4 Art for Nikon F mount was about $600-800 while the Nikon version was double that. There are no comparisons out yet to check whether this lens is better than the old Sigma 35mm F1.4 ART for F mount.
It's an interresting strategy from nikon, most brand will have cheap ( bad... ) F1.8/2, costy but great F1.4 and very great F1.2 but because of that you often don't get anything great at around 800/1000€ therefore the need for 3rd party brand like sigma to fill the gap with some "affordable" F1.4. With nikon you have really great F1.8 for around 700/1000€, insane F1.2 for above 2000€ and now affordable F1.4 to prevent the need of 3rd party to get affordable F1.4 since people really like their F1.4.
You used to have excellent F1.4's from third parties (Sigma & Tamron) which in most cases were better than the Nikon versions, at the price between the Nikon F1.8 & F1.4 version. That options is gone now. So in the end, I don't think it's better for the end user. The F1.2's are huge, heavy and super expensive. People turn to F1.4. Which Nikon didn't offer until now, but it's clearly a budget lens optically. Not everyone wants to settle for F1.8, no matter how sharp they are. I don't think Nikon attracted many new users with this strategy. People don't want "cheap" F1.4's. They want to start with good starters lenses at F1.8 and upgrade to F1.4. The F1.2 line will remain a niche. Why change a winning formula? What was wrong with the classic prime line? I'm a pro, I want a F1.4 with all bells and whistles. Not a F1.8 or a F1.4 with inferior optics. Other brands are offering this. Nikon does not.
I don't know if the focus was missed, but the 1.4 looks better at th-cam.com/video/uUnVd_6gQGY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=UzzcNi2hBjvrjMJX&t=360 (no, the 1.8 does not look sharper on the eyelashes). And the area blurred around the focus point is much larger on the 1.4. I guess I'm going to sell my Sigma with the ETZ adapter
Why people say this is a Tamron lens?...everywhere is said that this is Nikon lens...Tamron had one of the best 35mm f1.4 ever...this is just lower quallity Nikon lens, and that's it :)
Is it just me??? I see no difference in Contrast and the sharpness difference is very very small. Maybe it's youtube video compression? Anyways 1.4 all the way baby. Pet peeve never say only 2/3rd of a stop more. that's 66% more light, it's not a linear scale.
@@USGrant21st it means no one cares excpet for pixel peepers. the 1.4 gives mroe blur and shorter exposures, no matter what your opiniion is. its fact.
I was waiting for Sony 35/1.4GM to drop in price to put it on adapter. Then Nikon 35/1.4 was announced and I thought that would be it for a lot less money. Now that the reviews are finally coming out, I'm back waiting for Sony to drop in price, this Nikon is absolutely terrible.
@@HikingWithMartin What a stupid comment to make. Let me explain, since you think that your stupid use case is the only way to use a lens. The S line is there for absolute perfection at 2.8 or F4 (unlike the low quality Canon 1.8 junks). So as a product photographer, if the 1.4 lens becomes as good at f5.6 as the 1.8S lens at f4, then I, like I am sure the many pros out there, can have one lens. Before acting like a smartass, next time maybe practice thinking. Oh but aren’t you too old to practice anything. Good fking day.
The sharpness and contrast of the 1.8 s lenses are not a strength to me. They are too digital looking and at times they look like phone photography. For example the wall photo shot reminds of a phone photo. Ppl need to get over sharpness and contrast and look at skin rendering and out of focus rendering.
This aint it for me. IMO Nikon needs to make some smaller, better lenses. Like a 35/2.0 S that is built like the 1.8 but smaller. Charge 1k idc. Releasing another huge plastic fantastic lens without weather sealing is baffling to me. I bought a Zf; if it weren't for the 105 Macro I'd have ditched it already in favor of my M stuff because all these lenses are way too big. At least the 1.8S lenses justify their size with performance. I'm sure this will make someone happy who wants a big aperture for a reasonable price but I already felt like the 1.8S delivered that?
I think the 1.8 would render finer veins in your biceps 🤷🏻♂️🫣 P.S.: the 1.4 doesn’t have only outlining of bokeh balls, it has a lot of doubling too, it hurts my eyes. The transition too is horrendous, not progressive. I can’t imagine how a portrait with leaves in the background would render. The 1.8 isn’t that clinical, I have this lens, and it has a lot of Microcantrast. You want a clinical lens, look what Sony is doing.
![[FULL EP.73] เปิดบ้าน 70 ล้าน "แป้ง Zbing" ยกมาทั้งญี่ปุ่น l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YBnJhTt07Pg/mqdefault.jpg)
Well done, this was a very good comparison. Its nice to see a phtoographer on youtube that isnt only looking for sharpness and can actually see what they are looking at.
@@MartinCastein Martin, I watched your video before about this Z 35mm 1.4 lens. Great video btw and thank you for pointing out the benefits of not-so-sharp lenses for wedding and portrait photography. What do you think now, does this lens meet your expectations? Is that something you have been looking for?
@@marijanbabic9742 I need to see it in backlight and more situations but so far so good, i will probably buy it
At last a proper review of the 35mm 1.4. It's good when a lens that's not as sharp as the better lenses is still sharp by dslr standards when everyone was more than happy with the sharpness of those type of lenses not so long ago.
This is THE best Nikon Z 35mm comparison video out right now. I was leaning towards the 1.4 already, but this sealed the deal.
This is the best review comparison so far for this lens + the input towards the end was great.
So what you are telling me is that I need to buy all of the lenses? Finally! Someone has given me permission to get more Nikon glass.
Bless you, sir.
Great comparison! Thank you. I prefer the rendering of the f/1.4 version on portraits.
I have the 1.4 and 1.8. I agree with you on the inspired feeling I get from the 1.4. I have had the 1.8 for a couple years and rarely shoot with it. I'm excited about the 1.4. It does remind me of my vintage lenses.
Thanks for your comparison. It might be interesting to compare those to lenses to the F-Mount 35mm 1.4,which is new at a much higher price point.
1.8's tone is warmer than 1.4.
By the way, I like your speaking speed, it's friendly for people who don't use English very often
Great video, I pre ordered this lens for portrait shooting and have been undecided whether or not to cancel. I think you did a great job showing the look of the lens across different subjects, its maybe a bad choice when shooting landscape or high detail shots but I think this is going to look awesome for less harsh portrait rendering. I think I’m gonna be happy when I pick it up later today from what you’ve shown. Thanks!
Great video Alex. The character on the 1.4 is 🤌🏻. Really like that Nikon is flipping the script on the 1.4 lenses.
As long as a lens is decently sharp especially for portraits, character is more important I think. So many modern lens are just out for all out sharpness.
Wish they had flipped the design language too. The Zf was so refreshing, a great marrying of classic and new. Why not bring that here?
Thanks for the comparison. I just got mine yesterday and plan on shooting a concert tonight with it 😊
I bought the Nikkor 50 mm f 1.8 S last week for $526 US. Nikon was selling it for $529 but the camera store near me was competing with Prime Days, as well as a lot of other companies. I have been out with it twice. I don’t have the f 1.4 but I do have the F mount 50 mm f 1.4 G. Using the FTZ adaptor on it was nice but it is still blown away by the Z mount S lens, much sharper.
Thanks so much for comparing them at f1.8, it helps a lot!!
I have the Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 is more like the F Mount Version. Also having 40mm f/2 seems to be the same crop size as the newer glass. When Nikon decides to release their f/1.2 version it is going to be enormous and heavy. Cheers!
You think it’s closer to 40mm than 35mm?
Great video, and commentary on 'character'. I'd imagine a lot of people, like me, are still holding onto the excellent Sigma 35/1.4 Art. Would love to see a comparison with that!
Excellent and MASSIVE. could you imagine if this Z 35mm 1.4 was even able to just trade blows with the ART?
@@Cleverconveyence exactly! That’s my last F mount lens left and I wanna shed all the weight I can and get rid of the bulky FTZ adapter. I’d imagine the competition would be very close, just curious how close.
@@herry.with.an.e Many defend this new Nikon lens to the F version - which was soft wide open - but they indeed forget the classic Sigma 35 F1.4 ART which blew everyone out of the water (until Tamron dropped their 35/1.4, the ultimate 35/1.4 for F mount - but that was to celebrate and end their DSLR era).
If this Nikon Z 35/1.4 performs the same as the Sigma Art, I don't see why I would sell the Art with a loss and get this Nikon... just for the FTZ. I'm currently leaning towards keeping it until it breaks or gets stolen. I love the Sigma and it has never let me down. And the fact that this Nikon 35/1.4 is closer to a 39mm is not helping either.
I've only upgraded one lens partially because of the FTZ and that is my Tamron G2 70-200 F2.8 to the Nikon Z version. The Tamron is great, but it lacked a bit of contrast and AF speed. And it was just too long with the FTZ - although the Nikon version is not much shorter, even without the FTZ.
To be fair, I'd much prefer an excellent pro level Nikon Z 35 F1.4. The F1.2 is going to be huge & heavy and priced like a another Z6III... Never understood why Nikon changed the completely logical choice of "good affordable F1.8 or excellent F1.4". It was a winning formula. I doubt people or going to reason "So no pro F1.4? That's fine, I'll buy the F1.2 at 5x the price and three times the weight, no biggie".
Sooooo good! I loved this video, especially the final thoughts! Thank you!
The pricing on this is all over the shop though. In the UK the 1.4 is priced at £650 (or $840). That's £180 more than this is going for in the states at today's exchange rate. The choice I had when this finally got announced was £650 for the 1.4 or £470 for a barely used 1.8S. With that sort of price difference the 1.8S was (at nearly £200 less) a total no brainer.... At the £470/$599 ish the stateside lot get to buy the 1.4 for it would have been a seriously difficult decision though.
I can't wait to try this lens. Building a lens with some character reminds me a lot of the first gen Fuji X lenses.
It look pretty good...with a little bit of sharpening, dehaze, and removed CA, it looks nice... :)
And this lens is not designed for Z8....45mpx is too much...I think this lens works great on 24mpx sensors :)
I already see the 1.8s not sharp enough on ny 24mp, the sigma 1.4 art is waay more sharp
Thanks Alex - Nice video, comparison and thoughts!
-PD
Just got my pre ordered 35mm 1.4. I am really enjoying the character so much!
thanks for providing raw files! I'd love to see more
I am very interested in the new 35/1.4 Z. Thank you for the beautiful examples.
Thank you very much, Alex. I agree with your final reasoning.
Sometimes perfection is boring.
In fact, I have several lenses that look for that "beautiful" imperfection, like those from the Meyer Optik Gerlitz brand.
I'm glad Nikon is also looking for that niche in the market.
I have ordered this lens and I hope it arrives soon to enjoy it, for a very correct price.
A few illuminations with the video:
The f/1.4 and the f/1.8 don't inform how "fast" these lenses are. You need their "T value" for that. And the "f" in f/aperture" is only valid at focusing distance infinity, except maybe for lenses that suppress focus breathing (prime lenses that can do that are in fact subtle zoom lenses). And with these two uncertainties we cannot make hard statements about Depth of Field either (we need the Circle of Confusion parameter for DoF but that's a mutt parameter that ties ~6 effects together in one number). [2]
As the 35/1.8S has suppression of focus breathing it will retain its aperture value when we focus closer by than infinity - it zooms a bit and keeps the same focal length.
The 35/1.4 likely has a less good T value so its transmission is less relative to 1.4 than the 1.8 lens's relative to 1.8 and then when you focus closer by than infinity the 35/1.4 will very quickly be 1.8 or worse.
Coming from a Nikon DSLR, shooting with 1.4G primes, I was used to extreme sharpness and the Z 35/1.8S on Z 7 was not a shocking improvement in sharpness. Some other "S" primes are actually sharper. But I love this 35/1.8S.
The "S" class prime lenses have silenced my recurring rant about (1) chromatic aberration and (2) tint differences between lenses. They are much better in this respect. No more poison green ears and magenta cheeks/noses. That rant started in about 1975 when I bought my first Nikon (F2), shooting Hasselblad 500 series and large format professionally.
"Digital" added a third rant in the form of the OLPF - that I usually call "fuzzy filter" [1]. This is an extra filter grid over the sensor that disperses light travelling to photosite [x,y] so a fraction of it hits the direct neighbours. This makes the guessing of missing colours (raw files and the Bayer paradigm) easier. But, as it disperses light the OLPF is at some distance from the sensor and we can get total colour cast reflection between it and the sensor in stronger contrasty backlight. With a DSLR - I never chimp - I never saw that during the shoot and moved to ML's supposed WYSIWYG.
[1] The Optical Low-Pass filter (OLPF) is also called Anti-Aliasing (AA) filter. As we get raw files that have only one colour per photosite data element, the two missing colours with each data element must be guessed after the shot in order to get to RGB pixels. There are two "challenges" (1) missing colours, (2) a perfect grid of square photosites that gives jagged lines or edges to rounded forms or lines/edges that are not parallel to the sensor grid.
At very low resolutions the OLPF/AA is probably not needed and at higher it becomes a problem. In 2012, Nikon released the D800E version that Eliminated the OLPF from the D800 version. If you want to know the impact to sharpness of the OLPF, then go to DxO Mark website, find the sharpest F-mount lens in there, and compare its sharpness between mounted on the D800 (with OLPF) versus mounted on the D800E (no OLPF). That's shocking. The difference between 24MP and 36MP in sharpness with both camera with OLPF is not that exciting and the same applies between 36 and 45 without OLPF.
[2] While you are at DxO Mark to verify [1], also search for 1.2L lenses of one brand and see what their T-value is for "fully open": t=1.5. The check out some 1.4G lenses from another brand and notice these also have T=1.5. This means these are equally fast. But, you will say, the 1.2 will have shallower Dof - no I will counter, they are less sharp, hence have a larger CoC and hence their DoF at f/1.2 may be even less that the 1.4G lens at f/1.4. They are soft a.o. because they're not so sharp.
For the type of casual photography that I do, this looks great at a nice price point. Thanks for the excellent review!
@5:29 At the f/1.8 comparision shot, your model seems to be somewhat closer at the left/fov differs, which is probably the reason why the bokeh balls appear somewhat bigger on the f/1.4 lens, even stopped down. This also appears to be true in other comparision shots, like @5:55
It's because the 35/1.4 is more like 39mm FL. Also some portraits show 35/1.4 is front focusing on nose not eyes.
I agree, I rather like the character of the 1.4. In fact, it might pair really well with the ZF! Retro feel and look! Thanks for this comparison!
Alex, in order to compare FOVs both lenses need to be focused at infinity. FOVs can be different because of the focus breathing.
I'd rather he shows the difference in real world usage where you clearly have a difference in viewing angle at the same focus distance. Few people are going to use either lens for landscapes.
I couldn't see the green fringing you were pointing out. I was tempted by this even though I have the 1.8. But I went and got the Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 and wow, wow, wow! Glad I did!
Well done! Great work!
For those who do not need autofocus and/or like to do manual focusing, then get the excellent Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 35mm 2.0 Aspherical, which have outstanding optical image quality, second to none ! The build quality are very high and the Voigtländer will last many years.
But get it now because Voigtlander stopped producing it! 😅
Honestly the 1.4 shows beautiful skin tones less yellowish and more magenta. And as you noticed it renders like a vintage lens...the bokeh reminds me of my old Nikkor 50mm Ai-s which I still own. Based on you review I would definitely pick the 1.4 over the 1.8S.
Many thanks for the comparison ;-)
Many thanks for the video! Once upon a time, I shot with Nikon D700 and the classic nikkor 35/2. Got phenomenal pictures with the combo. The 1.4 reminds me of the rendering of the 35/2 but of course is better because it goes down to 1.4. When it came out, I thought the 40/2 would be a worthy replacement of the 35/2 but I’ve changed my mind in favour of the 1.4.
Alex I did a video on comparison of the 35mm to the 40mm and Beninsandiego7016 asked about my comment of the new Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 looked similar to my F mount 35mm. Also in the video I made the comment that I replied to your question when it was benninsandiego7156 actually. Sorry about that. Cheers!
Great comparison. I don't like clinical lenses, so the 1.4 has a more attractive output. I'm looking forward for a comparison with the Sigma 35mm 1.4 on an ETZ adapter
I’ll be comparing to the Sony GM next 🙌🏼
Would love a comparison to the dslr Nikon 35 f1.4
@@ABarrera that would be awesome. I have 35GM on my sony system, but i look forward to get this on my ZF. Photography with sony is kinda boring :D
@@ABarrera Any chance to compare it with the new Canon RF 35 f/1.4L ?
Good vid, Alex. It would be cool to see 35 APO in the mix. :) But I do prefer 1.4 precisely because of its "shortcomings", especially for the portraiture.
1.4 is 1/200 speed and iso 100, 1.8 is also 1/200 and iso 100, that's why 1.8 looks more contrasty, it's underexposed compared to 1.4. (I'm talking about the first image with the lady with pink dress)
I've had all of the S lenses and sold them. Went back to shooting weddings on the 28 1.4e and 85 1.4g
Find me a bride who wants a sharper, more contrasty photo of her face and I will find you a gold pig.
Good video, thanks
I think they should make a 1.4S that has character and sharpness without the image rendition issues. This is why I still use the 28mm 1.4, which has it all apart from the ftz bulk.
You say 1.8 is more contrasty, but you did not adjusted the exposure for the difference between 1.4 and 1.8, so maybe is just a little bit underexposed.
Great point about clinically sharp images across the companies. So I have been buying a lot of Nikon F Glass with Character (Imperfections, Flaws), but the images that they produce is a WOW factor or Vintage CDC Grainy type of look. Nice thing that I do is to buy adapters which I can share these type of lenses across the board in the camera world. Leica M to Z or E or L. Nikon F to M or L. Next week I will be getting the Brussels Prix Mir 1 37mm f/2.8 from Customs and the Bokeh off that lens has a swirly effect. We are living in great times. Buying used or new does help with the imagination of what You are able to do now for Enjoyment, Hobby or Professional. Cheers!
I have the Brussels Mir and it's brilliant. Little jewel of a lens. Pair it with a Zf and Techart and just have fun with photography.
Great video. Maybe the 1.8 is wider due to the 1.4 focus breathing. The width may change with focus distance. I’m probably wrong
or in camera corrections
Great video.
I have the 1.4 since a couple of days and shot it today for the first time before my daily work. I don't think it's completely out of plastic (exc. for the bajonet mount which luckily is metal), the rear area around the control ring should be made of metal whilst the focusing ring and the front zone is made of plastic elements. Ricci said in this comparison vid it's the opposite of the 1.8 S-Line lens (front area metal and rear area plastic)??? Anyway it's a fun to use it when you don't expect crisp sharp corners in the aperture range from 1.4 to 2.0. If that's ok for you, you don't have to wait for the expected big and expensive 1.2 S-Line version.
Thanks for the comparison. Two thoughts. First, although I very much preferred the 1.8, it was because of the colors and contrast. I really didn't see in the 1.4 some of the problems you described - particularly purple fringing . Perhaps they don't come through clearly over TH-cam. (However, based on my experience with other non S Nikon lenses I have no doubt chromatic aberration is a problem.) Secondly, I would also need to see these lenses at 2.8 or smaller for any final opinion about the 1.4. I suspect at 2.8 or smaller the lenses would be even closer, although one doesn't buy a 1.4 lens to shoot at 2.8 or smaller - anymore. Nonetheless, we do often shoot at smaller apertures, and I would be curious to learn how the 1.4 would then do compared to the 1.8. Thanks again. I have the Z 35 S 1.8 with no plans to pick up the 1.4.
I picked up the 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm f/1.8 lenses. While the 35mm isn't bad at all, I find myself reaching for it the least because it feels too clinical. On the other hand, both the 50mm and 85mm f/1.8 lenses have a lot more character. I'm considering trying the 35mm f/1.4 instead. Another lens I think delivers excellent photos for its price is the NIKKOR Z 26mm f/2.8. This pancake lens is my go-to for walk-around photography
For portrait you might want softer for sure, I prefer the bokeh for the f1.4. The wider shot is maybe the 35m f1.8 has a focus breathing. If you want sharpness the f1.8. My primes f1.4, 35 (tam), 50 (sig) and 85 (nik) are still good from the f mount. I might get one for video since the newer Nikon AF motor is quiet compared to the f-mount on the adapter.
thank u , for video , it help us to understanding the difference betwin the to good len's
Děkuji.
very well done! Thx! 👌🏼
The difference between f1.4 and f1.8 DOF is noticeable, probably because f1.4 is also a little longer focal length. In closeup shots at min 8:00 the chest of the girl is completely out of focus on f1.4 and only her face is in focus but on f1.8 face and chest are bot in focus
I got the 1.4 during summer where the 1.8 was discounted, so the price difference was not much. Since I have the 50mm 1.8 already, I felt the 1.4 would add more to my collection.
i think its great strategy: great professional f1.8 and f1.2 for those who actually need wider than f1.8. and f1.4 budget lens.
i choose f1.8 lol
Good stuff. Any thoughts on AF performance comparisons?
I didint notice a difference but then again I haven’t been shooting moving objects.
Do you think the difference in field of view between the 1.4 and 1.8 is due to in-camera distortion correction on the 1.4?
Not sure, I know other reviews have pointed this out. I genuinely think they have a different FOV, not uncommon in the space.
I wouldnt mind the lack of sharpness, but the extremely busy bokeh in the corners is quite terrible…
I can live with lower resolution and contrast, but such an ugly bokeh also marked by huge astigmatism is a non-starter
Do you think Nikon will release a 50mm 1.4 z mount similar to this one? It would be awesome to have something small and compact that has the character of the old 58mm 1.4. (the only F mount lens I haven't sold)
Would rather go for the Sigma L 2,0 35 mm with an adapter on the Nikon Zf
So the price of the 1.4 is reflected on the overall construction and inferior optical design?
I wouldn't call it inferior, you pay $5k minimum for a character Lens with Leica :)
@@ABarrera hahaha. Touché I still call it inferior while my piers call it “Character” I must obey the Leica gods 🙏 It’s not a flaw it just Character worth my hard earned money 😂
the price is due to marketing. The actually plastic, glass and electronics to make lenses like this is gonna be very small part of the price. I'd bet they both cost the same to manufacturer.
In the UK on Amazon there is a £25 difference on these lenses? So confusing on what to go for, faster aperture or increased fidelity and weather sealing?
My take - the 1.4 has a more classic look, more 3D pop - or whatever you might call it. A little softer, less “clinical” less “digital razor” to it.
I think this is an experiment we may see repeated . F1.8 and 1.2 S series lenses w a billion elements and lenses made w special glass from Mars. Complemented by f1.4 lenses that cast back to classic designs and produce images that look real.
nice video, thank you
Could you review the lumix s5iix?
Thanks for the great, real life comparison. I love macro photography, as one gebre, but I don't want macro detail in a portrait, especially an environmental portrait, so I love the look of the 1.4 too. I have a 50mm 1.2 S, it is fabulous because it's sharp and very clear at 1.2 but not that biting sharpness plus fantastic fsll-off and bokeh. Hopefully these new F1.4 lenses will give some of thst look at a more affordable price. Good on Nikon for trying this. As the 1.4 lens gathers more light, clearly looking at them both at the exact same settings, maybe increasing the shutter speed by a 1/3 stop or so will bring more contrast "detail" to the 1.4 lens?
can you compare the nikon 35mm f.4 vs Sigma art 35mm f.14 because sigma 35 have 3D looks, ??
i think atleast its better then older Dslr lenses which we are using with adapter such as 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 with lots of color fringing and shaeper at the center...these mirror less lenses are new in terms of glasses and technology so 9i think its may be cheap version with lil less good quality glass elements but its beetter to choose over Dslr version basic G lenses
You're forgetting the popular Sigma 35 F1.4 Art which was optically superior - like most Art lenses - to the Nikon G versions. And not too long a go, Tamron dropped their swan song lens for DSLR: their version of the 35mm F1.4. It's the sharpest 35/1.4 for F mount with butter smooth bokeh. But sold in low quantities so it's hard to find. I'd love to see a version for Z, even for a steep price just over $1000. But Nikon is clearly not allowing it.
@@caleidoo bro I am talking about Nikkor Lenses ...I know Art series lenses are far superior and gr8 value for money but it's not cheap compared to this lens
@@Jackourd Yes I know you're talking about Nikon lenses, that's the whole point of why I replied and mentioned the third party lenses - which were much cheaper than Nikon lenses at the time and still are today. A Sigma 35 F1.4 Art for Nikon F mount was about $600-800 while the Nikon version was double that. There are no comparisons out yet to check whether this lens is better than the old Sigma 35mm F1.4 ART for F mount.
@@caleidoo you are still not getting my point...leave it
It's an interresting strategy from nikon, most brand will have cheap ( bad... ) F1.8/2, costy but great F1.4 and very great F1.2 but because of that you often don't get anything great at around 800/1000€ therefore the need for 3rd party brand like sigma to fill the gap with some "affordable" F1.4.
With nikon you have really great F1.8 for around 700/1000€, insane F1.2 for above 2000€ and now affordable F1.4 to prevent the need of 3rd party to get affordable F1.4 since people really like their F1.4.
You used to have excellent F1.4's from third parties (Sigma & Tamron) which in most cases were better than the Nikon versions, at the price between the Nikon F1.8 & F1.4 version. That options is gone now. So in the end, I don't think it's better for the end user. The F1.2's are huge, heavy and super expensive. People turn to F1.4. Which Nikon didn't offer until now, but it's clearly a budget lens optically. Not everyone wants to settle for F1.8, no matter how sharp they are. I don't think Nikon attracted many new users with this strategy. People don't want "cheap" F1.4's. They want to start with good starters lenses at F1.8 and upgrade to F1.4. The F1.2 line will remain a niche. Why change a winning formula? What was wrong with the classic prime line? I'm a pro, I want a F1.4 with all bells and whistles. Not a F1.8 or a F1.4 with inferior optics. Other brands are offering this. Nikon does not.
I don't know if the focus was missed, but the 1.4 looks better at th-cam.com/video/uUnVd_6gQGY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=UzzcNi2hBjvrjMJX&t=360 (no, the 1.8 does not look sharper on the eyelashes). And the area blurred around the focus point is much larger on the 1.4. I guess I'm going to sell my Sigma with the ETZ adapter
Thanks, but I’ll stick with my 50mm Summicron. On my Leica M3. Yep, film.
I think zf better suited with 35/1.4
Focal length wider than 40, with f wider than 2 only useful in low light only. Right now i prefer more expensive, highest iq quality f2 ie worse f1.2
Guessing it's a Tamron, so Nikon's controlling image and build quality as Sony does for e-mount, get what you pay for
Why people say this is a Tamron lens?...everywhere is said that this is Nikon lens...Tamron had one of the best 35mm f1.4 ever...this is just lower quallity Nikon lens, and that's it :)
Definteily not Tamron. Tamron doesn't produce such low quality lenses anymore.😁
Is it just me??? I see no difference in Contrast and the sharpness difference is very very small. Maybe it's youtube video compression? Anyways 1.4 all the way baby. Pet peeve never say only 2/3rd of a stop more. that's 66% more light, it's not a linear scale.
It's significantly less that 66% difference due to heavy vignetting.
@@USGrant21st vignetting is not that bad and is automatically fixed if you use lens profile in camera.
@@southbridgeforestHOA what does correcting has to do with it? Vignetting means lost light, there is nothing you can do about it.
@@USGrant21st it means no one cares excpet for pixel peepers. the 1.4 gives mroe blur and shorter exposures, no matter what your opiniion is. its fact.
I was waiting for Sony 35/1.4GM to drop in price to put it on adapter. Then Nikon 35/1.4 was announced and I thought that would be it for a lot less money. Now that the reviews are finally coming out, I'm back waiting for Sony to drop in price, this Nikon is absolutely terrible.
At least for some images you could have stopped down to f5.6 to see if the image quality matches!
yeah everyone using this lens at 5.6...
@@HikingWithMartin What a stupid comment to make. Let me explain, since you think that your stupid use case is the only way to use a lens. The S line is there for absolute perfection at 2.8 or F4 (unlike the low quality Canon 1.8 junks). So as a product photographer, if the 1.4 lens becomes as good at f5.6 as the 1.8S lens at f4, then I, like I am sure the many pros out there, can have one lens. Before acting like a smartass, next time maybe practice thinking. Oh but aren’t you too old to practice anything. Good fking day.
All modern lenses are sharp at F5.6.
The sharpness and contrast of the 1.8 s lenses are not a strength to me. They are too digital looking and at times they look like phone photography. For example the wall photo shot reminds of a phone photo. Ppl need to get over sharpness and contrast and look at skin rendering and out of focus rendering.
Looks like a Tamron to me (1.4)
Tamron 35mm f1.4 is one of the best 35mm lenses....it's not even close...it's totally different lens. :)
It's just another "totally not tamron" lens, that's why it's so cheap. After few months we'll see this lens from tamron for sony mount
This aint it for me. IMO Nikon needs to make some smaller, better lenses. Like a 35/2.0 S that is built like the 1.8 but smaller. Charge 1k idc. Releasing another huge plastic fantastic lens without weather sealing is baffling to me. I bought a Zf; if it weren't for the 105 Macro I'd have ditched it already in favor of my M stuff because all these lenses are way too big. At least the 1.8S lenses justify their size with performance. I'm sure this will make someone happy who wants a big aperture for a reasonable price but I already felt like the 1.8S delivered that?
Talk nonsense only 1 lens for review
I think the 1.8 would render finer veins in your biceps 🤷🏻♂️🫣
P.S.: the 1.4 doesn’t have only outlining of bokeh balls, it has a lot of doubling too, it hurts my eyes. The transition too is horrendous, not progressive. I can’t imagine how a portrait with leaves in the background would render. The 1.8 isn’t that clinical, I have this lens, and it has a lot of Microcantrast. You want a clinical lens, look what Sony is doing.