You guys have a unique channel where you debate what to order and why. ..as if you were in my head :) That’s unique and worth 10x the subscribers. In your case, the number of subscribers is not related to the value of your content or your genuine personalities and presentation. I hope you will keep your videos coming as I value them as much as any other channel
@@DK-ys2cw thanks so much, we enjoy it too. We started this as we chatted like this anyway so thought we’d film it. It can be time consuming to make the videos but comments like this keep us going. 😊
Let's take a positive angle: this lens means Nikon is going to come out with new and exciting DX Z bodies. Because the softness and aberrations probably mostly happen at the edge, and so this wil be a great lens to have on a DX body. One can hope, right? :)
The only thing wrong with the 35mm f/1.4 is that it doesn't come in a SE version for my Z f for times I can't be bothered manual focusing my Voigtlaender 40mm f/1.2. However, for pro stuff, I really want a 35mm f/1.2 S and if it doesn't come I would use the 24-70 f/2.8 S or 35 f/1.8 S.
@@williambuford6136 an aperture control ring would be a nice bonus, but it isn't required. Using one of the modern dials to set the aperture isn't a deal breaker.
From my perspective, the 1.8 is a more technical, precise lens whereas the 1.4 is slightly has more character and “artistic”. Nikon would not do a 1.4s lens when the 1.2s is slated to launch. That would eat into the 1.2s sales…
@@n1ngnuo I agree more options are always better but not at this price point. When I was starting out this would have been too much. But when this and the z6iii comes down it’ll be a fair price
@@russandloz I disagree. I think price is fine. If you want cheaper, you have Viltrox and co. But for a Nikkor I am willing to pay premium, the quality is just so much better.
You know, I’m in the market for a 35. I was all set for the 1.8, but I think I’ll go for the new 1.4 - better bokeh (see Ricci’s recent vid), and there’s a control ring in addition to the large focus ring. IMO all the 1.8’s should have a proper control ring. So I’ll wait for sales / promos later this year and pick one up 👍🏻
I never use the control ring. If they make the inner control ring be able to use for focus control then I would start to use it. ISO, apeture and exposure compensation, I use them directly on buttons so my control ring is set to off.
@@Lon1an I believe there’s a setting to swap the control and focus rings, but it only works on certain lenses. For me when I’m in Auto-ISO, I use exp comp on the control ring. Or ISO when in full manual sometimes.
I wish this lens was out before I bought a used 35/1.8s. I am delighted that they have released a "cheap" 35/1.4 for those of us without much money to spend. Corner to corner sharpness is not something I worry about.
For me, the biggest question about the 35mm 1.4 is how it performs against the 40mm2.0. Matt Irwin’s video showed that the 35mm1.4 has a narrower field of view vs the 35mm1.8, so the 35mm1.4 is a bit punched in, making it like a 40mm. Not sure if that’s due to focus breathing (probably). Very interested in a 35mm1.4 vs 40mm2.0 video.
I totally agree with Russ. I would prefer an “S” version of a 35mm f/1.4 for a little more money, but I’m really (patiently) waiting for the f/1.2 version. Eventually, I’d love to see a Z-mount version of the 105mm f/1.4 (S of course).
I'm just about to upgrade my F mount Sigma Art glass. 35mm is next on list. No idea which way to go but rendering is key as don't care for sharpness for portraits and shoot lots B&W. Looks like it'll be 35mm F1.4Z over 1.8S. Anyone thinks I'm mad?
Yes, sold I my 35mm f/1.8 S lens yesterday. I shoot stills almost exclusively. The 28mm f1.4 E is my favorite! I suspect the new 1.4 will be much better than the old G equivalent.
The initial price of tech is sometimes defined to "milk" those that waited for the product which pay the price without hesitation and then the price goes down (this is a common pricing strategy).
For decades, the 35mm focal length lens has been my favorite for one-lens shooting on a full-frame camera. I have used the f/2 version and the f/1.4 version. Both work well.
Russ - I see where you are coming from, and also I feel that you might be missing some of the point here. First, keep in mind that the old 35mm 1.8 G F mount lens was almost $500 - so now for like $100 more we are getting a MUCH better lens in terms of IQ and a 1.4 to boot. This is by far the best 35mm 1.4 on the market for under $1000 - with the possible exception of the Tamron 35 1.4 SP lens - but that is a DSLR lens that needs to be adapted and it is bigger and much heavier - although it is really amazing. If you want a Canon 35mm 1.4 RF lens, you are looking at $1500 - nearly 3 times the price of this Nikon lens and it is bigger and heavier as well. Is the Canon better - yes - it is a more 'pro' lens in that it has more coatings etc, but it is NOT 3 times better - it may be 5-10% better (at most) for three times the price. If aberrations matter than much to someone there is still the 35mm 1.8 S lens that will fully compete in IQ with the Canon lens for half the price (maybe less now) just at 1.8. Ultimately, Nikon will release the 35 1.2 S, which I expect to be one of the best 35mm lenses made of all time by any manufacturer - but yes it will be expensive, large and heavy - Nikon has made it pretty clear that the 1.2 S line is a 'no compromise' line of lenses. I think this is why they are offering this new 1.4 non S line as a concession to those who feel as you do - that would prefer lighter and less expensive lenses but still need low light capability (and creamier bokeh). Lets be honest, you can shoot professional event/wedding work with the 40mm f/2 lens - the quality is there, and I know wedding photographers that use it and have awesome results. I expect the same is true (if not better) for the new 35mm 1.4. Also, it has a metal mount (unlike the 40mm f/2). Between that and 1.4 it should be more than the 40 f/2 - I think the price being 2 times that lens makes perfect sense and is still a great buy. this 35mm 1.4 would be an incredible lens for weddings - and no client will ever say "look at those aberrations" guaranteed. I think Nikon is changing the paradigm here by offering very affordable 1.4's to the mass market - these lenses in spite of not have the coatings are still as good or better IQ than the pro F mount lenses that we were all happy with only 4-5 years ago - but at a third the price of those F mount lenses - this is a massive bargain. If you are just of the mind that your use case is for 1.4's and thus you wish you could have the best in that category then I do understand. My advise is to wait for Sigma to release their Z mount FF line - coming soon. They have a 50 1.2 lens that is very small and light - not as good as the Nikon 50 1.2 S, but very close for $800 less and about half the size and weight so it remains very impressive. Sigma makes even smaller, lighter and cheaper 1.4's as well - all of these will be coming to Z mount and of course can already be adapted perfectly from Sony E mount. As far as native Nikon selection - a line of fully professional 1.8 S lenses for those that care about IQ more than low light/bokeh, a line of 1.2 S lenses for those that want no compromise and don't care about price, weight or size, and the goldilocks middle ground of relatively inexpensive light weight small 1.4's that still have excellent IQ - and top of class compared to only 5 years ago, and that travel really well - provides everyone something that really works for any use case. My tough decision now is whether I get all lenses in all three categories as I have use cases for each of the above, but I have to control my impulses if possible lol. Anyway, this is my take on the situation... -PD
100% agree, I wanted a 35 1.4-having rented the DSLR version and loved it. And you’re right, the price difference between the Z 35mm versions has me scratching my head. I don’t feel the need for a 1.2 in any version. What are the odds that Nikon will deliver a 35mm 1.4 S in the Z version? Really appreciate the back and forth you guys provide, helps clarify things for those of us on the fence.
They won't do a 1.4s, the 1.2's have taken that niche. The 1.4's will now be smaller, lighter, and more artistic. There is a whole chunk of shooters who the light 2.8's are it.
Sounds like you were looking forward to the 35mm 1.2 as many were, so this interim does not meet expectations. But many Vloggers and "I want a Character Lens" people will be happy. I personally really hope they create a new version of the 28mm 1.4E (Smaller and lighter than the 35mm 1.2) and then to make your choice harder a 28-70 F2 Zoom !
Maybe Nikon should have stayed with „normal f-stops“ for their primes. In that regard the 1.8 series could have been a bit smaller and I would argue that most professionals would be happy with a good and smaller/lighter 1.4 instead of the 1.2. For special stuff there are still the nocts and plenas around. Sure, cheaper primes are needed and welcomed, but I would also like to choose from good lenses (optical, size/weight, handling), economically balanced in a range of 750-1250€, that only differ in the f-stop 1.4, 2.0 and even 2.8.
Nikon is shifting the paradigm and marketing. They released the Zf first and then the Z6iii. If you want a half step up and you’re not a professional get the 1.4. I’m waiting on delivery of a new 35 1.8 knowing that it’s better than the 1.4 for pro work and will use it alongside my 85mm 1.8. You’re not being controversial, just don’t expect Nikon to use the old model of 1.4 is the best.
I have the 85 f1.8 great lens, but I took the plunge to the 85 f1.2. Love the photos from my shoot two nights back. Not sure I want a 35 f1.2. I'm not happy with the 35 f1.8. Love to see what this 35 f1.4 does. The 35 f1.8 left that focal length seem flat and dull for me, especially compared to the other 1.8 primes
Should we, at some point on RUclips photography channels, ban the expression « the less shallow depth of field » and replace it with « the more depth of field »… the overuse of « shallow depth of field »… « more » or « less » depth of field works without adding that bloody « shallow » in front that puts everything backwards. A part from that, nice take, interesting, good points 👍 makes me think too about which one to get… if any.
Interesting as on F mount, it was the 50 1.8G that was the softest of the bunch. Unless I pixel peep, I don’t see much difference between the 35 and 50 1.8S, though I’ve seen the comparison reviews to know there is a difference. I’m also shooting on a 24mp sensor, so maybe both are sharp enough that they both look great at that resolution.
The 35mm length is a weird space for Nikon. The 35mm 1.8S isnt the best, Some of the older third party F Mount 35mm are better like the Tamron SP 35mm 1.8, yet the cheaper 40mm F2 is stonking for the money. I'm in a weird position where I should sell my older F Tamron (which doesn't autofocus on Z mount with current firmware), to buy the newer Z mount which isn't as good and is going to cost me more, or just make do with the 40mm knowing its good enough for what I use it for. What really makes it odd is Nikon is trying to get into Video, and 35mm prime is such a key lense for that.
Also mind the 35mm f/1.8 would be over £1000 if it was released today based on the inflation we've had. £649 would have gotten you a lot more in 2018. The same is true for the 'overpriced' Nikon Z6iii and Canon R6ii vs the Z6 and R6.
I think that as long as we don't have a few more in depth explorations of this lens and a side by side comparison with an adapted 35mm Sigma 1.4 art, we won't have a full understanding of what this lens can do. Maybe the character and Bokeh will make it the "portrait" 35mm lens while the 1.8 and 1.2 will work better with Architecture. It is too early to judge, but, personally, I will try to borrow one to test alongside my beautiful old sigma, which, adapted, is heavier than a dead horse.
@@russandloz I have spent the last few days with the 35mm 1.4Z and the Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 f mount. The sigma is still sharper. The nikon will get even around f3.2 and probably peaks at f5.6. Corner sharpness is better for the sigma, if it matters to your work. The field of view is very slightly wider on the sigma, but it feels like an in-lens correction on the nikon side to correct the distortion. The sigma has slightly more contrast as well and has a cooler colour rendition. The purple fringing is there indeed in the nikon, but a slider move in LR corrects it. I guess we will soon have a lens profile. I personally find the bokeh quite pleasing on the nikon side. I guess it's a question of preference. The biggest benefit of the z lens is the weight. If you add up the sigma, its lens hood and the ftz adapter, it reaches 835g. The nikon is half the weight. For contextual portaits and street photography I think it is an interesting lens option with a different character. If you need a better corner sharpness it might not be the best tool.
@@prometheuslg interesting. I love my 28 1.4 but with the ftz is a pain. But interesting findings with the sigma but I guess sharpness isn’t all important as long as it’s sharp enough. When the z 35 1.4 gets reduced or on thr used market it’ll be a good deal
@@russandloz would you say the subject separation is the thing f/1.2 delivers, that makes it stand out against f/1.8? I mean, in your work, does that alone make difference enough to make it worth carrying 1.2 aroud? Money and size&weight wise. I'm living on my photography and so far have not touched 50mm f/1.2, but now that 35mm was not f/1.2, 50mm f/1.2 might return to the list of tools I should consider.
I've noticed with my Z lenses which are incredibly sharp, but that all the Z lenses I own feel like they produce the "same image" but at different focal lengths. I didn't understand exactly why I felt that way until I bought myself a Nikon F mount 58mm f1.4G lens and 105mm f1.4. Although the 58mm is not very sharp, it has a character that I love. I hope Nikon will give us a 50 or 58 Z mount f1.4 that can create similar results as the old 58 but a bit more sharper so you atleast can crop your images.
@@Lon1an Yes in a way having the same look is better when using two lenses for a continuous look for editing a collection. But sure they are very characterless sometimes
The s line lenses have seen described as “clinical”. Nikon is listening to us. We wanted fast lenses at a cheaper price. And the internal motor on this lens is said to have a modern STM motor. I’m not familiar with what’s in the s line but I imagine it’s the slower type.
There are a number of Chinese suppliers making ceap primes with fast apereture and even autofocus. So it is all about a marketing decsion to check if the chosen recent strategie will work to keep the new cheap suppliers out of the business. Time will tell. There will be always people available to pay for a "S" only.
@@russandloz Undercutting is not the target because it would kill the profit. But it is recognised as reasonable priced OEM equipment which makes looking for third-party suppliers less interesting.
Love you guys and the way the channel is going 👏 I think we all buy lenses for different reasons and the way I see it is that it’s better to have choices. I always try to keep an open mind and look forward to seeing some proper reviews but what I have seen and you’ve shown is that the bokeh is pleasing. At the end of the day we all have different views and therefore always a market for this kind of lens. For me I’d rather pay the extra to get this lens over the 40f2 on a plastic mount that’s not sealed. Would i buy this or the 35mm 1.8 well that’s a ? I’d have to see more reviews and example pictures to compare. More to the point we already own a 35 1.8 so will we buy this as well 🤔
@@russandloz fair enough and think we’ll get an idea quite quickly if it’s a winner or not. I’m intrigued though and await with excitement but I’m sure that my severe GAS problem will prevail 🫣
In the world of mirrorless f1.2 is the new f1.4. When DSLR/SLR was king, most camera systems had f1.4 as their top professional prime. Undoubtedly an f1.2 35mm will come and will be the premium S version of that focal length with the price and performance to match. The f1.4 lens has become the plastic fantastic/nifty fifty of the mirrorless world.😋
Though I'm a hobbyist - and I shoot mostly landscapes - I'm not a fan of normal/wide focal lengths... so the 35mm in any aperture doesn't appeal to me at all. Even the 50mm leaves me unimpressed. Recently, I scrapped a LOT of my set - mostly 1.8 primes, but also the Z 24-70 S 2/8 - to go with the 24-120 S f/4, 70-200 S f/2.8, and the 105mm S MC f/2.8. I wanted to trim my kit to make it easier to carry w/o deciding what to leave behind. I'd love to see more comparisons/discussions of the zooms (particularly the non-S lines and the 3rd party lenses) at the longer end. Thanks for the video!
I have the Nikon z 24-70 f2.8 and have tested and owned the Z 24-200 to see if it could be useful for landscapes. I tested it both at aps-c and full frame, but in the end I didn't like it compared to the 24-70 f2.8 Bought a Z 24-120 f4 a few months ago. I haven't decided yet if I like it or not. So far I haven't found any major errors. However, I will not get rid of the 24-70 f2.8, it is so valuable to have when you are indoors and I think the sharpness feels as if it were a prime lens you are shooting with. I am impressed every time I shoot portraits with it. With the 24-120 I will try more for landscapes, but I often take the 14-24 f2.8 with me and then I shoot more often with it.
This lens only makes sense as a video production tool to me. I think they wanted it to launch next to the Z6 III. I'm with you that I would have liked a serious S class 35 1.4 with all the element types and all the coatings.
I just want a 50, an 85 and a 105 f1.4. I don’t mind if they’re non S as long as they’re sharp and render the focus transition nicely without chroma… guess I want them to be s lenses then..
@@russandloz I’m not interested in 1.2’s. As you said they’re heavy and if I’m honest in my portrait work I never go that open anyways. Looking at my work, on average I’m at 2.8 and it’s enough. I sincerely think that 1.4 is the Goldilocks zone, I am still disappointed that Nikon didn’t give us our beloved 1.4’s. Even in the past, did we have a good enough 1.4? Sigma gave us one with their art lineup… come on Nikon. Give us what we deserve.
Ricci mentioned that the 1.4 non-S lenses are designed to be less sharp at their maximum apertures, while the S-line lenses are intended to be sharp when wide open. I find this interesting because one of the challenges with a lens that has a large aperture is that you need to stop down when taking portraits of two or more people. Given this, depending on your type of photography, S-Line lenses might not be ideal. If S-Linen lenses perform worse when stopped down, and the non-S lenses improve in the 2.8 to 5.6 range, wouldn’t non-S be ideal for events and weddings? Since I often shoot events, weddings, and family portraits, I think the non-S lenses might be a better fit for my needs.
@@MichaelSeneschal It all depends on your shooting style. I use the 50 1.2 at 1.2 for some group photos if they are on the same DOF line. S line lenses don’t get worse stopping down but are optimised wide open. I think it’s just Nikon justifying making cheaper lenses at higher price points.
@@russandloz I have Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art F-mount lens on adapter and I know how imperfection can be fabulous. Do you know how huge is this lens on FTZ adapter?
I will be buying the 35/1.4 as soon as I’m able. I love the wide aperture and I’m actually glad it’s not S because you (I) don’t want all that sharpness for portraits.
@@russandloz Yes Russ they are Z mount - sort of. I use an adapter and use M lenses on my Z5. I am not a pro and can take all the time in the world because nothing moves iIn my photos.The Z5 works very well for me with Leica M lenses. However there are a number of RUclipsrs that use M cameras and lenses for weddings. You may find that over time you could look at the Leica M system. But hang on to your wallet they equate to Faberge eggs. Cheers
@@thezeek2745 It’s all comparative, I found it very much weaker compared to the 50 1.8. I’ve heard this a few times with reviews too. But sure it’s sharp enough
This comparison is flawed on a few levels. The dollar value comparison of a used 1.8 vs a new 1.4 doesn't make sense. Compare the new pricing for both. Secondly, they haven't tested the 1.4 but they consider it inferior to the 4 year old 1.8 that they don't like on many levels. A brand new Z lens will undoubtedly be a better product than the first Z lens made. Finally, 1.2 Z lenses are heavy and expensive, not practical for many photographers. This 1.4 isn't heavy or expensive but offers sharpness, great bokeh and a compact size. I'm getting my 1.4 next week and it fits the bill as an inexpensive street lens or portrait or travel lens. I will be taking it to Eastern Turkey in a few months to photograph Kurdish villagers and ancient sites. Along with the 85mm ƒ1.8, 24-120mm, 40mm ƒ2, 100-400 and 14-30 I have a group of relatively light lenses that will deal with any situation. BTW, my wife and I both shoot, so its 2 bodies and 2 backpacks for 2 photographers with Z8 and Z9.
@@stanleykessanis373 Some interesting thoughts. Why shouldn’t people compare used prices to new when that’s the price we can get it for? We have also seen reviews from Nikon Ricci where he shows the sharpness and image rendition stating it’s designed to be flawed for a look. But otherwise sounds like you’ll have a good time and all that gear will make great results 😊
Can you share any outstanding shots you've got with it? I know the 35s is optically sound, but I looked at thousands of images when it came out and none moved me. Like a technically outstanding plate of food that just doesn't taste as satisfying as grandma's biscuts.
The Nikon 35mm f/1.4 lens was almost certainly made in partnership with Tamron, like the 17-28mm f/2.8 and 28-75mm f/2.8. The Tamron 35mm f/1.4 F-mount lens costs $700 USD, this 35mm f/1.4 Z-mount lens is $600. Russ, seriously, you're sounding really whiny lately, like a toddler who wants all the toys.
@@UnconventionalReasoning I’m confused and surprised with Nikons decisions and prices lately. But the Tamron deal makes sense. But I’m very happy with my z8 and my new 400 2.8 with a review in production. Also guess I’m balancing out with the bigger Nikon RUclipsrs who never really have balanced opinions.
@@russandloz When Nikon and Tamron announced their partnership a couple of years ago, giving Tamron access to the camera-lens connection, Nikon said that Tamron would only make lenses Nikon was not producing. The f/1.4 primes were an immediately obvious category, with Nikon concentrating on the f/1.8 S and f/1.2 S lenses.
Наука
![*SUPER RARE* THE PARADIGM IS BACK?!?!? Fortnite Item Shop [August 6th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ru6xSH1RaPw/mqdefault.jpg)
You guys have a unique channel where you debate what to order and why. ..as if you were in my head :) That’s unique and worth 10x the subscribers. In your case, the number of subscribers is not related to the value of your content or your genuine personalities and presentation. I hope you will keep your videos coming as I value them as much as any other channel
@@DK-ys2cw thanks so much, we enjoy it too. We started this as we chatted like this anyway so thought we’d film it. It can be time consuming to make the videos but comments like this keep us going. 😊
Thank you - very much appreciated!
Yes, you are unique and your thought process provides actionable info.
«Can’t beat twice as big balls» 😂
lol, who could argue
And Loz said it with a straight face without flinching 😂
Let's take a positive angle: this lens means Nikon is going to come out with new and exciting DX Z bodies. Because the softness and aberrations probably mostly happen at the edge, and so this wil be a great lens to have on a DX body.
One can hope, right? :)
@@starbase218 Yes that’s true. Will be interesting to see a new DX
The only thing wrong with the 35mm f/1.4 is that it doesn't come in a SE version for my Z f for times I can't be bothered manual focusing my Voigtlaender 40mm f/1.2. However, for pro stuff, I really want a 35mm f/1.2 S and if it doesn't come I would use the 24-70 f/2.8 S or 35 f/1.8 S.
Agreed That 35mm f1.4 should come in an SE version for the ZF and Zfc. (Clickable/Declickable Aperture (Control) ring even!)
@@williambuford6136 an aperture control ring would be a nice bonus, but it isn't required. Using one of the modern dials to set the aperture isn't a deal breaker.
For my Zf a 75 mm ( ish ) f2.5 in the SE range would be a really useful tool .
@@colinfeilen988 Yes that would be very cool option.
I say why not. If You use Older Nikon F Mount lenses and if it is faster in lower light. I see no problem with it. Cheers!
From my perspective, the 1.8 is a more technical, precise lens whereas the 1.4 is slightly has more character and “artistic”. Nikon would not do a 1.4s lens when the 1.2s is slated to launch. That would eat into the 1.2s sales…
@@fotoflorian But currently the same price, that’s what confuses me really 🤷♂️
I want a 28mm f1.4 S as well….Nikon, make that, and take my money!
@@davidroberts6766 looks like the 1.4’s will be non S. would that suit you?
Love this channel....and the quality of your videos is superb with great sound.
Thanks, the sound is very hard to get right and takes several upload tweaks. SO glad it's appreciated
Nobody’s forcing you to buy this lens. I love more options and more choice. The 35 1.4 on Zfc will be amazing.
@@n1ngnuo I agree more options are always better but not at this price point. When I was starting out this would have been too much. But when this and the z6iii comes down it’ll be a fair price
@@russandloz I disagree. I think price is fine. If you want cheaper, you have Viltrox and co. But for a Nikkor I am willing to pay premium, the quality is just so much better.
You know, I’m in the market for a 35. I was all set for the 1.8, but I think I’ll go for the new 1.4 - better bokeh (see Ricci’s recent vid), and there’s a control ring in addition to the large focus ring. IMO all the 1.8’s should have a proper control ring.
So I’ll wait for sales / promos later this year and pick one up 👍🏻
The rubber grip for the focus ring as well... I prefer it over the metal one for the 1.8's
I never use the control ring. If they make the inner control ring be able to use for focus control then I would start to use it. ISO, apeture and exposure compensation, I use them directly on buttons so my control ring is set to off.
@@Lon1an I believe there’s a setting to swap the control and focus rings, but it only works on certain lenses. For me when I’m in Auto-ISO, I use exp comp on the control ring. Or ISO when in full manual sometimes.
@@Lon1an The Control ring is more friendly to ZF and Zfc cameras. They need and SE edition for those cameras.
I wish this lens was out before I bought a used 35/1.8s. I am delighted that they have released a "cheap" 35/1.4 for those of us without much money to spend. Corner to corner sharpness is not something I worry about.
If it was cheaper it would be a good lens to get for that category, but as its stands its actually more expensive than a used 35mm 1.8
For me, the biggest question about the 35mm 1.4 is how it performs against the 40mm2.0. Matt Irwin’s video showed that the 35mm1.4 has a narrower field of view vs the 35mm1.8, so the 35mm1.4 is a bit punched in, making it like a 40mm. Not sure if that’s due to focus breathing (probably). Very interested in a 35mm1.4 vs 40mm2.0 video.
I totally agree with Russ. I would prefer an “S” version of a 35mm f/1.4 for a little more money, but I’m really (patiently) waiting for the f/1.2 version. Eventually, I’d love to see a Z-mount version of the 105mm f/1.4 (S of course).
Yeah, I feel the 1.2's are overkill, but the 1.8's are not enough. So looks like we'll have non S 1.4's.
I'm just about to upgrade my F mount Sigma Art glass. 35mm is next on list. No idea which way to go but rendering is key as don't care for sharpness for portraits and shoot lots B&W. Looks like it'll be 35mm F1.4Z over 1.8S. Anyone thinks I'm mad?
@@LukaszFrankowski I would wait until it comes down in price but I would do the same really
Cheers!
Great work guys!!
@@billmoyer3254 is this the lens for you?
Yes, sold I my 35mm f/1.8 S lens yesterday. I shoot stills almost exclusively. The 28mm f1.4 E is my favorite! I suspect the new 1.4 will be much better than the old G equivalent.
The initial price of tech is sometimes defined to "milk" those that waited for the product which pay the price without hesitation and then the price goes down (this is a common pricing strategy).
For decades, the 35mm focal length lens has been my favorite for one-lens shooting on a full-frame camera.
I have used the f/2 version and the f/1.4 version. Both work well.
Russ - I see where you are coming from, and also I feel that you might be missing some of the point here.
First, keep in mind that the old 35mm 1.8 G F mount lens was almost $500 - so now for like $100 more we are getting a MUCH better lens in terms of IQ and a 1.4 to boot. This is by far the best 35mm 1.4 on the market for under $1000 - with the possible exception of the Tamron 35 1.4 SP lens - but that is a DSLR lens that needs to be adapted and it is bigger and much heavier - although it is really amazing. If you want a Canon 35mm 1.4 RF lens, you are looking at $1500 - nearly 3 times the price of this Nikon lens and it is bigger and heavier as well. Is the Canon better - yes - it is a more 'pro' lens in that it has more coatings etc, but it is NOT 3 times better - it may be 5-10% better (at most) for three times the price. If aberrations matter than much to someone there is still the 35mm 1.8 S lens that will fully compete in IQ with the Canon lens for half the price (maybe less now) just at 1.8.
Ultimately, Nikon will release the 35 1.2 S, which I expect to be one of the best 35mm lenses made of all time by any manufacturer - but yes it will be expensive, large and heavy - Nikon has made it pretty clear that the 1.2 S line is a 'no compromise' line of lenses. I think this is why they are offering this new 1.4 non S line as a concession to those who feel as you do - that would prefer lighter and less expensive lenses but still need low light capability (and creamier bokeh).
Lets be honest, you can shoot professional event/wedding work with the 40mm f/2 lens - the quality is there, and I know wedding photographers that use it and have awesome results. I expect the same is true (if not better) for the new 35mm 1.4. Also, it has a metal mount (unlike the 40mm f/2). Between that and 1.4 it should be more than the 40 f/2 - I think the price being 2 times that lens makes perfect sense and is still a great buy. this 35mm 1.4 would be an incredible lens for weddings - and no client will ever say "look at those aberrations" guaranteed.
I think Nikon is changing the paradigm here by offering very affordable 1.4's to the mass market - these lenses in spite of not have the coatings are still as good or better IQ than the pro F mount lenses that we were all happy with only 4-5 years ago - but at a third the price of those F mount lenses - this is a massive bargain.
If you are just of the mind that your use case is for 1.4's and thus you wish you could have the best in that category then I do understand. My advise is to wait for Sigma to release their Z mount FF line - coming soon. They have a 50 1.2 lens that is very small and light - not as good as the Nikon 50 1.2 S, but very close for $800 less and about half the size and weight so it remains very impressive. Sigma makes even smaller, lighter and cheaper 1.4's as well - all of these will be coming to Z mount and of course can already be adapted perfectly from Sony E mount.
As far as native Nikon selection - a line of fully professional 1.8 S lenses for those that care about IQ more than low light/bokeh, a line of 1.2 S lenses for those that want no compromise and don't care about price, weight or size, and the goldilocks middle ground of relatively inexpensive light weight small 1.4's that still have excellent IQ - and top of class compared to only 5 years ago, and that travel really well - provides everyone something that really works for any use case.
My tough decision now is whether I get all lenses in all three categories as I have use cases for each of the above, but I have to control my impulses if possible lol.
Anyway, this is my take on the situation...
-PD
I agree. 35/1.4 S or at least 35/1.8 M2. I'd take that.
100% agree, I wanted a 35 1.4-having rented the DSLR version and loved it. And you’re right, the price difference between the Z 35mm versions has me scratching my head. I don’t feel the need for a 1.2 in any version. What are the odds that Nikon will deliver a 35mm 1.4 S in the Z version? Really appreciate the back and forth you guys provide, helps clarify things for those of us on the fence.
They won't do a 1.4s, the 1.2's have taken that niche. The 1.4's will now be smaller, lighter, and more artistic. There is a whole chunk of shooters who the light 2.8's are it.
I think it's the perfect walk around lens. Size and weight with a 35mm. I already pre ordered that sh*t already.
@@kristoffergo6294 not tempted by the 1.8 for a similar price
@@russandloz Not at all. 1.8 for me is too boring and too clinical. If the 1.4 isn't that sharp but has a character then count me in:)
The new 35 mm 1.4 is heavier
understandable with the 1.4 aperture would be heavier.@@_cyclofob8990
Good point.
Completely agree.
I will prefer a 35mm 1.4 “S”. :)
Sounds like you were looking forward to the 35mm 1.2 as many were, so this interim does not meet expectations. But many Vloggers and "I want a Character Lens" people will be happy. I personally really hope they create a new version of the 28mm 1.4E (Smaller and lighter than the 35mm 1.2) and then to make your choice harder a 28-70 F2 Zoom !
@@alanrenwick1652 Both those ideas sound great. I’d love a new 28 and megazoom!
@@russandloz What type of Megazoom?
Maybe Nikon should have stayed with „normal f-stops“ for their primes. In that regard the 1.8 series could have been a bit smaller and I would argue that most professionals would be happy with a good and smaller/lighter 1.4 instead of the 1.2. For special stuff there are still the nocts and plenas around.
Sure, cheaper primes are needed and welcomed, but I would also like to choose from good lenses (optical, size/weight, handling), economically balanced in a range of 750-1250€, that only differ in the f-stop 1.4, 2.0 and even 2.8.
I agree, 1.4 is the sweet spot for me too, smaller and more affordable.
Nikon is shifting the paradigm and marketing. They released the Zf first and then the Z6iii. If you want a half step up and you’re not a professional get the 1.4. I’m waiting on delivery of a new 35 1.8 knowing that it’s better than the 1.4 for pro work and will use it alongside my 85mm 1.8. You’re not being controversial, just don’t expect Nikon to use the old model of 1.4 is the best.
Very true, I guess I just wish they made it a S level for all the primes from 28 to 85mm 1.4's.
I have the 85 f1.8 great lens, but I took the plunge to the 85 f1.2. Love the photos from my shoot two nights back. Not sure I want a 35 f1.2. I'm not happy with the 35 f1.8. Love to see what this 35 f1.4 does. The 35 f1.8 left that focal length seem flat and dull for me, especially compared to the other 1.8 primes
@@williambuford6136 Just took it out last night at a restaurant and I’m super happy with it!
$600 USD is not cheap for me lol
@@rayrayg9 Exactly. Maybe in time it’ll come down 🤷♂️
the competitors are like +1000 lol
Should we, at some point on RUclips photography channels, ban the expression « the less shallow depth of field » and replace it with « the more depth of field »… the overuse of « shallow depth of field »…
« more » or « less » depth of field works without adding that bloody « shallow » in front that puts everything backwards.
A part from that, nice take, interesting, good points 👍 makes me think too about which one to get… if any.
Good point, will try and do that !
I like my 35 1.8S, no rush to replace
The 35 1.8S Does not seem to Match the 50 and 80 mm 1.8 in image quality.
@@williambuford6136 Agreed , but better than this new 35 lens so i'm wondering how bad it is...
Interesting as on F mount, it was the 50 1.8G that was the softest of the bunch. Unless I pixel peep, I don’t see much difference between the 35 and 50 1.8S, though I’ve seen the comparison reviews to know there is a difference. I’m also shooting on a 24mp sensor, so maybe both are sharp enough that they both look great at that resolution.
The 35mm length is a weird space for Nikon. The 35mm 1.8S isnt the best, Some of the older third party F Mount 35mm are better like the Tamron SP 35mm 1.8, yet the cheaper 40mm F2 is stonking for the money. I'm in a weird position where I should sell my older F Tamron (which doesn't autofocus on Z mount with current firmware), to buy the newer Z mount which isn't as good and is going to cost me more, or just make do with the 40mm knowing its good enough for what I use it for.
What really makes it odd is Nikon is trying to get into Video, and 35mm prime is such a key lense for that.
Still hilarious how Nikon broke so many brains with one affordable lens ;)
Also mind the 35mm f/1.8 would be over £1000 if it was released today based on the inflation we've had. £649 would have gotten you a lot more in 2018. The same is true for the 'overpriced' Nikon Z6iii and Canon R6ii vs the Z6 and R6.
@@codebunnies That’s true, but causes opportunities with older gear
I think that as long as we don't have a few more in depth explorations of this lens and a side by side comparison with an adapted 35mm Sigma 1.4 art, we won't have a full understanding of what this lens can do. Maybe the character and Bokeh will make it the "portrait" 35mm lens while the 1.8 and 1.2 will work better with Architecture. It is too early to judge, but, personally, I will try to borrow one to test alongside my beautiful old sigma, which, adapted, is heavier than a dead horse.
@@prometheuslg Yes f mount lenses are still nice to use for results but a growing pain to adapt. My 105 1.4 feels so front heavy
@@russandloz I have spent the last few days with the 35mm 1.4Z and the Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 f mount. The sigma is still sharper. The nikon will get even around f3.2 and probably peaks at f5.6. Corner sharpness is better for the sigma, if it matters to your work. The field of view is very slightly wider on the sigma, but it feels like an in-lens correction on the nikon side to correct the distortion. The sigma has slightly more contrast as well and has a cooler colour rendition. The purple fringing is there indeed in the nikon, but a slider move in LR corrects it. I guess we will soon have a lens profile. I personally find the bokeh quite pleasing on the nikon side. I guess it's a question of preference. The biggest benefit of the z lens is the weight. If you add up the sigma, its lens hood and the ftz adapter, it reaches 835g. The nikon is half the weight. For contextual portaits and street photography I think it is an interesting lens option with a different character. If you need a better corner sharpness it might not be the best tool.
@@prometheuslg interesting. I love my 28 1.4 but with the ftz is a pain. But interesting findings with the sigma but I guess sharpness isn’t all important as long as it’s sharp enough. When the z 35 1.4 gets reduced or on thr used market it’ll be a good deal
Could you elaborate why like to you use 50mm f/1.2 for events instead of 50mm f/1.8? It is so heavy to hold up all day.
I like the extra subject separation for the look, it's also nice for low light work when needed. But sure, the 1.8 is perfectly adequate most the time
@@russandloz would you say the subject separation is the thing f/1.2 delivers, that makes it stand out against f/1.8? I mean, in your work, does that alone make difference enough to make it worth carrying 1.2 aroud? Money and size&weight wise. I'm living on my photography and so far have not touched 50mm f/1.2, but now that 35mm was not f/1.2, 50mm f/1.2 might return to the list of tools I should consider.
I've noticed with my Z lenses which are incredibly sharp, but that all the Z lenses I own feel like they produce the "same image" but at different focal lengths. I didn't understand exactly why I felt that way until I bought myself a Nikon F mount 58mm f1.4G lens and 105mm f1.4. Although the 58mm is not very sharp, it has a character that I love.
I hope Nikon will give us a 50 or 58 Z mount f1.4 that can create similar results as the old 58 but a bit more sharper so you atleast can crop your images.
@@Lon1an Yes in a way having the same look is better when using two lenses for a continuous look for editing a collection. But sure they are very characterless sometimes
The s line lenses have seen described as “clinical”. Nikon is listening to us. We wanted fast lenses at a cheaper price. And the internal motor on this lens is said to have a modern STM motor. I’m not familiar with what’s in the s line but I imagine it’s the slower type.
There are a number of Chinese suppliers making ceap primes with fast apereture and even autofocus. So it is all about a marketing decsion to check if the chosen recent strategie will work to keep the new cheap suppliers out of the business. Time will tell. There will be always people available to pay for a "S" only.
Nikon won't undercut small manufactures because they aren't cheap! Some brands have lenses for half that price or less!
@@russandloz Undercutting is not the target because it would kill the profit. But it is recognised as reasonable priced OEM equipment which makes looking for third-party suppliers less interesting.
Love you guys and the way the channel is going 👏 I think we all buy lenses for different reasons and the way I see it is that it’s better to have choices. I always try to keep an open mind and look forward to seeing some proper reviews but what I have seen and you’ve shown is that the bokeh is pleasing. At the end of the day we all have different views and therefore always a market for this kind of lens. For me I’d rather pay the extra to get this lens over the 40f2 on a plastic mount that’s not sealed. Would i buy this or the 35mm 1.8 well that’s a ? I’d have to see more reviews and example pictures to compare. More to the point we already own a 35 1.8 so will we buy this as well 🤔
@@cotswoldphotographers For the expensive price point it doesn’t make sense to me. Even if it was £100 less I wouldn’t have much to say really.
@@russandloz fair enough and think we’ll get an idea quite quickly if it’s a winner or not. I’m intrigued though and await with excitement but I’m sure that my severe GAS problem will prevail 🫣
In the world of mirrorless f1.2 is the new f1.4. When DSLR/SLR was king, most camera systems had f1.4 as their top professional prime. Undoubtedly an f1.2 35mm will come and will be the premium S version of that focal length with the price and performance to match. The f1.4 lens has become the plastic fantastic/nifty fifty of the mirrorless world.😋
The price is to high, to be the Plastic fantastic/Nifty Fifty.
Though I'm a hobbyist - and I shoot mostly landscapes - I'm not a fan of normal/wide focal lengths... so the 35mm in any aperture doesn't appeal to me at all. Even the 50mm leaves me unimpressed. Recently, I scrapped a LOT of my set - mostly 1.8 primes, but also the Z 24-70 S 2/8 - to go with the 24-120 S f/4, 70-200 S f/2.8, and the 105mm S MC f/2.8. I wanted to trim my kit to make it easier to carry w/o deciding what to leave behind. I'd love to see more comparisons/discussions of the zooms (particularly the non-S lines and the 3rd party lenses) at the longer end. Thanks for the video!
@@CurtGodwin We only review lenses with either buy or get sent by third party manufactures. I’m interested to try the non s 2.8 trio
I have the Nikon z 24-70 f2.8 and have tested and owned the Z 24-200 to see if it could be useful for landscapes. I tested it both at aps-c and full frame, but in the end I didn't like it compared to the 24-70 f2.8
Bought a Z 24-120 f4 a few months ago. I haven't decided yet if I like it or not.
So far I haven't found any major errors.
However, I will not get rid of the 24-70 f2.8, it is so valuable to have when you are indoors and I think the sharpness feels as if it were a prime lens you are shooting with. I am impressed every time I shoot portraits with it.
With the 24-120 I will try more for landscapes, but I often take the 14-24 f2.8 with me and then I shoot more often with it.
@@russandloz Makes sense. Thanks again, and congrats on reaching 4K subscribers!
Optically, I believe it's just the Same as the 40mm f/2
@@nethbt yeah could well be in like with that. But the 40 is compact and 1/3 of the cost
Its better than the 40mm based on my Nikon product managers tests. The price differential should indicate a quality difference.
I have the 1.8 and will get the 1.4 from the reviews I’ve seen it gives a lovely rendition
Interesting, so you have a desire for both?
@@russandloz definitely, sometimes I want more of that dreamy look in my portraits than the clinical look. I’ll save the 1.8 for landscape.
This lens only makes sense as a video production tool to me. I think they wanted it to launch next to the Z6 III. I'm with you that I would have liked a serious S class 35 1.4 with all the element types and all the coatings.
It has more focus breathing tho, I want this more for photos.
I just want a 50, an 85 and a 105 f1.4. I don’t mind if they’re non S as long as they’re sharp and render the focus transition nicely without chroma… guess I want them to be s lenses then..
@@stephenspiteri_zunkus Yes you do! Lol. Looks like they won’t be unless you have the 1.2’s. Which are much more expensive, big and heavy
@@russandloz I’m not interested in 1.2’s. As you said they’re heavy and if I’m honest in my portrait work I never go that open anyways. Looking at my work, on average I’m at 2.8 and it’s enough. I sincerely think that 1.4 is the Goldilocks zone, I am still disappointed that Nikon didn’t give us our beloved 1.4’s. Even in the past, did we have a good enough 1.4? Sigma gave us one with their art lineup… come on Nikon. Give us what we deserve.
The 1.4 has a STM motor as well
Ricci mentioned that the 1.4 non-S lenses are designed to be less sharp at their maximum apertures, while the S-line lenses are intended to be sharp when wide open. I find this interesting because one of the challenges with a lens that has a large aperture is that you need to stop down when taking portraits of two or more people. Given this, depending on your type of photography, S-Line lenses might not be ideal. If S-Linen lenses perform worse when stopped down, and the non-S lenses improve in the 2.8 to 5.6 range, wouldn’t non-S be ideal for events and weddings? Since I often shoot events, weddings, and family portraits, I think the non-S lenses might be a better fit for my needs.
@@MichaelSeneschal It all depends on your shooting style. I use the 50 1.2 at 1.2 for some group photos if they are on the same DOF line. S line lenses don’t get worse stopping down but are optimised wide open. I think it’s just Nikon justifying making cheaper lenses at higher price points.
I think f1.2 is the new f1.4. The 35/1.4 might be first of a series of f1.4 E-like lenses. The 1.2s and 1.8s are Nikon’s premium lenses
@@jeffrey3498 Yes, problem with that is the price of the non pro ones and the big size and high cost of the pro ones. Nothing in between really
@@russandloz Yup, I was thinking if they introduce a 50/1.4 it needs to be priced lower than the 1.8S, maybe around 300 bucks.
Look at the Viltrox 28mm1.8. I use it for weddings and events.
@@intrinsicimagery Good quality then?
I think the S version might be 2 time's more expensive 😅 not just a little bit more expensive
@@lammysdv Yeah that’s ok with me. It then becomes professional and for everyday use 😊
Bought the 35mm 1.4 z and sent it back.. not sharp and slow AF. Not good enough for me.
@@DJJDBass It very much sounds like a low budget lens. But that’s how I found the 35mm 1.8 s version!
Only question is how bad this lens is for such good price and size.
@@mgotovac Yeah, well it shouldn’t have much wrong with it for £649!
@@russandloz I have Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art F-mount lens on adapter and I know how imperfection can be fabulous. Do you know how huge is this lens on FTZ adapter?
Not controversial, but whiny.
@@mikedfurman I see it as Constructive criticism? Surely better than hyping and loving everything they do like some RUclipsrs?
@@russandloz Agreed!
I will be buying the 35/1.4 as soon as I’m able. I love the wide aperture and I’m actually glad it’s not S because you (I) don’t want all that sharpness for portraits.
Its not just about sharpness, it's about loss of image containment and rendition issues such as CA, vignetting and flare control etc
@@russandloz I hear it’s better than the F 35/1.4, so that’s good enough for me. I don’t understand what you mean by “image containment”.
@@FandCCD I mean it has better contrast, colour and less damage from things like environmental factors
Russ, if you want small 50mm f1.2 lenses then you are secretly crying out for Leica M lenses. But they are not cheap even used.
@@PaulBingham-xs4mn Are they Nikon z mount?
@@russandloz Yes Russ they are Z mount - sort of. I use an adapter and use M lenses on my Z5. I am not a pro and can take all the time in the world because nothing moves iIn my photos.The Z5 works very well for me with Leica M lenses. However there are a number of RUclipsrs that use M cameras and lenses for weddings. You may find that over time you could look at the Leica M system. But hang on to your wallet they equate to Faberge eggs. Cheers
Sorry, I met yes russandloz.
I don’t know what they’re talking about with the 1.8. Not sharp? WTF? Mine is incredibly sharp
@@thezeek2745 It’s all comparative, I found it very much weaker compared to the 50 1.8. I’ve heard this a few times with reviews too. But sure it’s sharp enough
This comparison is flawed on a few levels. The dollar value comparison of a used 1.8 vs a new 1.4 doesn't make sense. Compare the new pricing for both. Secondly, they haven't tested the 1.4 but they consider it inferior to the 4 year old 1.8 that they don't like on many levels. A brand new Z lens will undoubtedly be a better product than the first Z lens made. Finally, 1.2 Z lenses are heavy and expensive, not practical for many photographers. This 1.4 isn't heavy or expensive but offers sharpness, great bokeh and a compact size. I'm getting my 1.4 next week and it fits the bill as an inexpensive street lens or portrait or travel lens. I will be taking it to Eastern Turkey in a few months to photograph Kurdish villagers and ancient sites. Along with the 85mm ƒ1.8, 24-120mm, 40mm ƒ2, 100-400 and 14-30 I have a group of relatively light lenses that will deal with any situation. BTW, my wife and I both shoot, so its 2 bodies and 2 backpacks for 2 photographers with Z8 and Z9.
@@stanleykessanis373 Some interesting thoughts. Why shouldn’t people compare used prices to new when that’s the price we can get it for? We have also seen reviews from Nikon Ricci where he shows the sharpness and image rendition stating it’s designed to be flawed for a look.
But otherwise sounds like you’ll have a good time and all that gear will make great results 😊
'isn't as good' -- respectfully, disagree, it's about character and niche space. A lot of these primes are over corrected, imo, including the 35 1.8s
1.8 s is the greatest lens i’ve ever used. So respectfully, disagree with you
Can you share any outstanding shots you've got with it? I know the 35s is optically sound, but I looked at thousands of images when it came out and none moved me.
Like a technically outstanding plate of food that just doesn't taste as satisfying as grandma's biscuts.
The Nikon 35mm f/1.4 lens was almost certainly made in partnership with Tamron, like the 17-28mm f/2.8 and 28-75mm f/2.8. The Tamron 35mm f/1.4 F-mount lens costs $700 USD, this 35mm f/1.4 Z-mount lens is $600.
Russ, seriously, you're sounding really whiny lately, like a toddler who wants all the toys.
@@UnconventionalReasoning I’m confused and surprised with Nikons decisions and prices lately. But the Tamron deal makes sense. But I’m very happy with my z8 and my new 400 2.8 with a review in production. Also guess I’m balancing out with the bigger Nikon RUclipsrs who never really have balanced opinions.
@@russandloz When Nikon and Tamron announced their partnership a couple of years ago, giving Tamron access to the camera-lens connection, Nikon said that Tamron would only make lenses Nikon was not producing. The f/1.4 primes were an immediately obvious category, with Nikon concentrating on the f/1.8 S and f/1.2 S lenses.
@@UnconventionalReasoning This is a Nikon design, not Tamron.
@@billmoyer3254 I said a partnership. Are you certain it isn't a partnership?
@@UnconventionalReasoning I’m happy they have that partnership but not at that price. I guess it’ll be a fair price in time
Nikon is ripping off their customers with their lens pricing policy.... Waiting for Sigma....