From an economic point of view, making cheaper 1.4 lenses - I guess there are more to come - is a brilliant move by Nikon. If they made 1.4 S lenses, fewer people would buy the more expensive 1.2 S lenses. If they made 1.8 non S lenses, fewer people would buy the S version. The non S 1.4 lenses however will cost more or less the same as the 1.8S. Nikon doesn't care which one they sell and the customer is still happy to have different options. Well done.
As a Nikon working user I’d love a 1.4 S version. 1.8 hasn’t enough pleasing separation, there isn’t a 1.2 but that would be too big and heavy. Again a 1.4 s would be the sweet spot for me but with those image rendition issues it’s not something I’m excited about getting.
@@RussandLozExactly. Nikon's F1.2 lenses will always remain a niche, given their price, size and weight. If this move was brilliant, every brand would be doing it. I must say, as a 15 year Nikon user, I'm jealous of the 35/1.4's the other brands are offering. I can't remember ever hearing someone say " Entry level affordable F1.8 primes, mid pro level F1.4 lenses? Who needs this clear, predictable and consistent distinction? We need expensive but not fast 1.8 glass and inferior F1.4 lenses instead. Lens makers were wrong, the past decades." With this Nikon 35/1.4, I have no sane reason to give up my final F mount lens with FTZ, the classic Sigma 35/1.4 Art. Because it has the same or even better image quality. It's just ridiculous that my only option is this budget Nikon 35/1.4, if my Art dies. And no, I don't want a huge and heavy F1.2.
@russandloz Exactly. Nikon's F1.2 lenses will always remain a niche, given their price, size and weight. If this move was brilliant, every brand would be doing it. I must say, as a 15 year Nikon user, I'm jealous of the 35/1.4's the other brands are offering. I can't remember ever hearing someone say " Entry level affordable F1.8 primes, mid pro level F1.4 lenses? Who needs this clear, predictable and consistent distinction? We need expensive but not fast 1.8 glass and inferior F1.4 lenses instead. Lens makers were wrong, the past decades." With this Nikon 35/1.4, I have no sane reason to give up my final F mount lens with FTZ, the classic Sigma 35/1.4 Art. Because it has the same or even better image quality. It's just ridiculous that my only option is this budget Nikon 35/1.4, if my Art dies. And no, I don't want a huge and heavy F1.2.
@@caleidoo You can adapt Sony or Canon EF to the Z-body. They do work very well, so there are many more lenses available for the z-mount, than just native lenses. I still have a lot of the classic vintage f-mounts here, like the 135 f2DC, 85 1.4D, 180 2.8D, and others, and even I do have the 135 Plena, 50 1.2 S, there are instances where I prefer vintage rendering over the clinical sharpness of something like the 135 Plena. Great to have options, and don’t be afraid to cross over to other brands’ lenses, if you’re after something specific.
I bought this lens and I am quite happy with it. I prefer the slightly wider focal length compared to the 40mm f/2 and the lens performance is interesting. It behaves more like a lens designed 20 years ago and has some character. It is certainly not a clinical lens but it does have character that can be exploited.
I would not be surprised if it was another Tamron design (to go with the 28-75mm, 70-180mm, and 180-600mm). (edit - just got to the part where Christopher said this, lol)
@@totallynotmyeggalt6216 I can't say I agree with you and Chris, this lens has a lot of Nikon DNA from their AF-S/G line, particularly the 35/1.4 and 58/1.4.
@@totallynotmyeggalt6216 If it was a Tamron design, it would have been on the E-mount first. Sony is a major shareholder of Tamron. They would never allow Tamron lenses to appear on other systems first.
@@salami99 I haven't heard that but wouldn't be too surprised. They have the 50mm 1.8S and 50mm 1.2S as well as the bonkers 58mm 0.95 S Noct manual focus lens. It probably would make sense to fill the hole with a 50mm 1.4 aimed at the advanced amateur market.
Excellent review - as always! I've had this lens for a couple of weeks now and I must say I'm delighted. It's full of character and renders colour superbly!
In Latvia both 35mm's costs the same (~700 euros), I went for 35 1.4, its great lens, but do need to keep in mind soft corners and focus could be more precise on moving subjects, I am using Z8 . Much better sharpness, bokeh then 40mm f2. Side by side comparison with sigma art 35 would be interesting, Sigma probably will be sharper, but bokeh will be smoother on Nikon, maybe. :)
This is a cheaper budget prime from Nikon. Sigma 35 1.4 is much better than this lens in every way. Frost has a video on it as well. You will see that this lens doesn't really come close to the Sigma
this is nikon old school F-mount type lens, soft on the edge. This is really for porttrait. I own the tamron 35 f1.4, it is big and heavy plus the ftz adaptor. A lot of the photographers are going soft 80s portrait style again. The reflection or glow looks artsy. I even bought a uv filter and tried to smear grease, didn't work too well. But somebody I talked to did it perfectly.
I have spent the last few weeks 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 correction 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. But the overall experience is pretty satisfying. I ended up selling the Art lens. The weight was starting to take the joy out of the experience.I had no joy in trading it but the reality is that my 50 1.8s and the 105 2.8 s macro are doing the precision job for me. Sometimes you have to make some choices. But Sigma is missing on a lot of business by not getting into the full frame z line up.
Aside from the distortion it's kind of nice to see something from a first party that's in line with a third-party lens both performance and price-wise.
Hi! Love the review. Would you recommend the lens with Nikon Z50? I am doubting it because the camera isn’t full frame but I do want to capture more light and this might be the best option lens wise. Please let me know what you think :)
Christopher! Could you do a comparison with Sigma Art 35 1.4 via FTZ? It would be good to get some reference for 35mm lens, which has been on the top for Nikon shooters through many years.
Yes, this is a cheap and plastic lens, but what amazing optical quality, considering the price and target market. Stop it down to 2.8 and it truly starts to shine.
Nice review! I think this might make really nice portrait lens, it would have been nice to see some portraits in the video. The type of rendering should suit portraits good.
Definitely an interesting release by Nikon. It can double as a high speed “normal” lens for the APS-C bodies and at a lower price point than the 35/1.8s . Judging from other reviews it seems to have nicer boke at the equivalent wider apertures. If I didn’t already have the 1.8 lens I would choose this one instead.
I suspect Nikon is planning an upgrade to the Z5/Z50 bodies, and is probably busy creating a lens subsystem that will be cheap and can work on both FX and DX. If so, will be a pretty smart move.
I deeply support Nikon‘s decision to build more compact, yet bright lenses. Reviews usually stress the importance of wide open corner sharpness but seriously, who cares? At f/1.4, my image corners are out of focus anyway. Who cares about high coma levels? Astro photographers might, but this is definitely not this lens‘ target audience. As a Fuji shooter I‘d love to see Fuji release some compact offerings with bright apertures. Their lenses have grown bigger and bigger to make them incredibly clinical but in practical shooting I‘d be happy to compromise on some aspects to have a more light weight setup. Nikon shows the way, and hopefully many will follow!
Been waiting for specifically your review on this lens since it was announced. Thanks! I have the 40mm f2 and am considering trading it in for this lens to gain an extra stop of light, and to gain sharpness while shooting at f2.
@@ValtersPelns Do you have both lenses? I’m asking because I haven’t seen a comparison video between the two. I was hoping someone would make a comparison video (40mm f2 vs 35mm f1.4) seeing that the lenses are so similar in specs.
@@MichaelSeneschal I had 40mm f2, but sold it. This is much better. U can consider Sigma art 35mm 1.4 that would be sharper lens, but bigger, heavier with ftz.
@@ValtersPelns Nice. Thanks for the info. Funny you mention that Sigma, I had it with my D750 and really loved it. I was looking at old photos taken with the Sigma Art to try to convince myself that this new 35mm 1.4 is a worthy upgrade over the 40mm f2. I also think that the upcoming Nikon 35mm 1.2 lens will probably be a $2k additional cost over the 1.4. Not sure I want to hold out for that. LOL Thanks again for the great input!
From what I understand, Nikon doesn't have any true profile corrections for vignetting. Only Low, Normal and High control settings. Lightroom doesn't have Z profiles to correct it either as Adobe relies on Nikon's in-camera corrections.
I wondered how you’d consider this lens… How the judgment criteria would define its value. In my opinion, It’s a perfect option for those who consider the overall image drawing vs the technical qualities. Use one, take photos, then decide if you are happy.
I think its time for you to start testing with the Z8. You constantly mention the lens doesnt have a fast autofocus. Perhaps you have a 7 year old camera.
I tested it on the Z7II before and after updating the software (an update that was not supposed to be related to autofocus). It was a totally different experience. Before the update the sigma art on the ftz was smoking the new 35. It completely changed once updated. Even better on the Z6III
The 35/1.4 Z has only one AF motor, while the 35/1.8 Z has two motors. There is going to be a difference and a more expensive camera is not going to change that.
Maybe Chris can work with Nikon to get a long term Z8 loaner. I have been following Dustin Abbott recently and he has started testing Z mount lenses with his Nikon Z8.
Thank you for this frank review, Christopher. My favourite Nikon (Z) lens is the 85mm f/1.2, which I feel is a gamechanger. I'd like something equally good that's wider. From what you infer, this isn't it. So do you think Nikon will still release a Z 35mm f/1.2 S lens? Or should I consider buying the now fairly old Z 50mm f/1.2? Is the optical quality of that lens superior to this new 35mm f/1.4?
I was thinking about this a bit, but i realised that my 40mm f/2 Z already does what i need to in this range. (Which i got used for 190 euros so an even better deal).
Why are the Z-mount lenses so huge! Just compare them to the AF-D equivalents and you know what I mean. I rese to upgrade to the Z-mount system precisely because of this issue.
I would love to see Sony adopted this strategy, but altering it a little for their camera line-up. Doing the GM primes at 1.4 for full-frame, while building G primes at 1.4 for aps-c would make perfect sense to me. Also I am quite desperately looking for a highly recommended small 35mm f1.4 for my Sony a6700. That'll be my nifty fifty. Sort of.
I'm a little underwhelmed with the 35mm and 50mm f1.4 lenses and wish they were even a little better than the f1.8 lenses. And yes, I would be willing to pay a little more for it.
I'm fine with most of the compromises made here, but the bokeh on this lens rubs me the wrong way in most situations. It's really weird, busy and sharp. I feel like this would be a perfect lens for video because at 4K, many of the problems of the lens aren't captured by the sensor.
It's the pixel density that matters. 45mp cropped to DX gives about 20mp, which is what the current DX cameras have. So really this test already gives a sufficient impression of the DX performance too.
@@fotografalexandernikolis But not of the mid-frame performance that the corner test on DX reveals. Mid-frame performance is very important for rule-of-thirds compositions.
Appears to me that the people who control the camera manufacturers have been working hard to try to ensure Nikon returns to decent sales 😎👍after a few lean years .
While the price is appealing, sometimes the 35 1.8 S does go on sale for as low as $650 and I'd say get that if you can at that price, as it's almost a no-brainer. Yes you do lose 2/3 of a stop but I think the improved sharpness across the frame (or most of it) greatly out weights the 2/3 stop loss. I wonder if this is perhaps an effort to discourage people from going to third party lenses without locking them out completely, making budget friendly fast lenses that perhaps compromise a little on optics, but not to a point where they are useless or just not sharp for anything. That being said, I had some hopes for this lens but might just wait for the 35 1.8 S to go on sale again for $650 and grab it then. I mean if someone is really on a budget, the 40 f/2 is also a good option that's about half the price of this lens, although it's a narrower field of view and 1-stop slower but the price / performance is hard to beat and I'd almost call the 40mm perhaps a better value.
I got this lens over the 1.8 for one reason: round bokeh corner to corner. The 1.8 is sharper and has more contrast, for sure. But I have enough lenses that do that ;)
It’s quite a lot better than what I expect from its price, except for the barrel distortion. The distortion is a lot for a prime lens, which doesn’t need to do a range of focal length like a zoom lens.
With mirrorless, lens makers have generally stopped caring about distortion since it's easy to correct (you'll never put the lenses on film or see them in an OVF). Better to sacrifice the easy to correct issues than to increase size, weight, cost, or decrease sharpness.
As much as I love Nikons cameras their lack of good f1.4 24 35 50 85mm lenses stopped me switching from Sony. Not sure I would get a f1.4 lens you have to stop down to f2.8 to get decent results over a f1.8 thats good wide open.
@@caleidoo So you don't value weight? Some do. Other compromises are: price, USD focus noise, the need for an adapter, and the potential for compatibility issues (being third-party). And if one likes the smoother rendering of some undercorrected SA at closer focussing distances then that is a compromise for the Tamron too.
£600 is still considered “lower budget” and this is everything wrong with modern photography. Camera bodies have essentially peaked with tech so the money is in lenses. Think I should just stick with the 40mm Nothing negative on you Chris, great review as always.
My thoughts too, they make an inferior lens than the current one which you can get for the same price on promo or used. The 40 f2 and 28 2.8 are lower budget lenses and worth the price
@MTBD80 f mount has a 28mm f/1.4 D lens. You need a DSLR with an autofocus screw motor though. Or you can manual focus on the Z bodies. But it's very nice. Part of the reason why I still have D850. But yes I would like a Z mount equivalent that's not $2,500 dollars 😊
@@bailey.nt86 I have the F 28/1.8G and Z 28/2.8 but would like a Z 28/1.8 to ditch the adapter and the Z 2.8 not fast enough. Viltrox 28/1.8 is nice though.
This lens seems to be an f/2.8 lens as that is where it seems to be a pretty solid performer all around but there are likely as good or better options for less.
Hello Sir. Please if it is possible can you make a full review of the Nikon FTZ Mark II adapter, on RUclips no one has a real informative review of this product. it will be interesting to see how F-mount lenses from any brand can perform on a Nikon Z mount Camera, how accurate the autofocus is how fast is it, and so on. I think it will be interesting for a lot of people because right now a lot of people are considering buying a Nikon mirrorless camera but Nikon does not offer affordable Z-mount lenses and also there are no real good alternative lenses from other brands like Sigma or Tamron. for example, you can find a lot of perfect lenses for Sony E mount like the latest Sigma24-70mm f/2.8 mark II lens. to make a long story short You know better than me that you can find a lot of good half-price lenses for E mount but not for R mount or Z mount and there are a lot of people including myself want to know if we can buy Nikon Mirrorless camera and adapt F mount lenses without any problem with FTZ adapter and be happy.
It performs exactly the same as the first version FTZ. The FTZ II is only needed for the Z9. Nikon G lenses (not AF-D) work flawlessly and so do most recent Tamron & Sigma lenses. For Tamron, mostly "G2" lenses. G1 can be problematic. Some require a firmware update. All my Sigma ART lenses (20 f1.4, 35 14. and 50 f1.4) al worked BETTER on the FTZ on Z camera than on Nikon D750. All the AF problems (back focus, front focus) were gone. Being a pro, I have upgraded to Z lenses now and sold most of my Sigma Art lenses. Except for the Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, because there is no good Z alternative. And the Nikon 105 F1.4 because it is an exceptional lens and no Z version yet.
I think Nikon is testing the market with this one. Samyang makes a lot of cheap 1.4 lenses and they are very popular for Sony E mount. Nikon is seeing if that market would buy first party lenses if they had the opportunity. I do think they missed the mark on price though. I think it should have been about $150 cheaper. They might drop the price on sales though.
I'm thinking the exact same thing. This seems like it would be much more useful for video, especially those who went that soft and dreamy look and sharpness isn't as crucial. Then you could also use it for stills if needed.
Another review signaling to me not to go for this lens. I hate a Bokeh that looks as busy as this in the transition zones. Concerning IQ, this is rather an f/4 lens. I have such a lens already.
Nikon’s pricing is confusing me. You can get a used 35 1.8 a bit cheaper than this built with flaws lens. I remember your review of the 35 1.8 wasn’t impressive either as was my findings and this lens is even worse for rendition. So maybe when it’s reduced on the used market or promo this will be a justifiable price.
Character lenses like this and the 40 f2 are becoming more popular. If you want a better performing 35 there’s the 1.8 (it’s the best performing 1.8) or wait for the 1.2 which will be 4x the price.
I wonder if you guys could try out the old f-mount Tamron 35mm f1.4, the latest (and their greatest) lens? I have not found a z-substitute in that focal length bearing the Tamron. It is a chubby sucker though, as I know how much you guys prefer lighter lenses. But worth a look, if you’re after a quality 35mm lens. Yeah yeah, you need the FTZ, but a worthy sacrifice, imho.
@@livejames9374 Ha, I am ok, not really a 35mm shooter. I go slightly longer with 40mm generally. My favourite lens in the F/L is my Voigtländer 40 1.2 z-mount MF. But yeah, the GM is pretty decent, good advice.
Is it so hard to make 35, 50 and 85mm f/1.8 at $500? And the f/1.4 at $999 and actually make the lenses quality compatible with the price? I mean the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is better than this Nikon.
@@victorlim5077 Nikon and Nikon fanboys assuming "everyone wanting a nice 35/1.4 will just go and buy the huge and expensive F1.2" is just wrong. The F1.2's will remain a rarity. The 35/1.4 was a pro photographers sweet spot lens. And still is, but apparently not according to Nikon.
@@caleidoo Some wedding photographers like Taylor Jackson are using this 35mm F1.4 lens. Seems fine for them. This lens isn't for astro or landscapes based on the reviews. Doesn't mean it can't be used for other photographic genres.
@@victorlim5077 RUclipsrs buy and review the latest stuff because it gets them views. Also, if he wanted more subject isolation, he has no other choice but to go for the 35/1.4. It doesn't make this inferior 35/1.4 suddenly a great lens. My Sigma Art version is 12 years old and is optically better. Way more 3D pop. It doesn't have the wide open aperture glow and layer of softness. And lastly, this 35/1.4 is closer to a 38-39mm.
It’s targeted at a specific demographic. This cheap lens will outperform almost any 35mm Nikkor fx lens. The only one O can imagine better than this cheap z-mount is the last version of the Tamron 35 f1.4. But that is a big bulky beast and Tamron’s best lens they ever made, imho. Let’s focus on being photographers and not digital image technicians.
@@bsc001 Even the F mount Sigma 35 f1.4 ART is sharper wide open and has more contrast than this Z 35/1.4. And that lens is more than a decade old. I don't see the appeal in a 35/1.4 that has less 3D pop because of soft and glowy in focus areas. The only advantage this lens has over the FTZ & Sigma Art, is weight.
Couple of years ago when I lamented the lack of F1.4 full-frame Z-mount lenses, Nikon fanboys called me names and berated me saying they are completely unnecessary and the bokeh would be identical to F1.8. I wonder what they think now.
Honestly, I fail to see the point of this lens. The Z 35mm f/1.8 is vastly superior, and today the price is pretty much the same (even cheaper used). When you consider the lousy transmission on the f/1.4, their light gathering is probably about the same. For real cheapskates, a used Sigma 35mm ART or the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 represent better value. The Tamron in particular is a stunning lens that sells for bargain prices used.
The transmission is much the same between the 1.8 and 1.4 lenses from my tests. However, I use the 1.4 because the bokeh is circular throughout the frame. This isn't so with the 1.8 or the Sigma Art (never tried the Tamron).
@00:50 can someone explain how f1.8 is 66% darker than f1.4 ? As it doesn't make sense to me at all . A real life example is if we had 10 kg of apples and we add 1 more kg ( that is the extra one stop of light) that's 10% increasing at best .so where did the 66% came from ? We measure the extra to the whole amount. Not just the last stop
@@A.Edilbiwell your example isn't how light and apertures work. Each stop is doubling or halving the amount of light. So it wouldn't be adding 1kg to 10kg. A stop would be going from 10kg to 20kg
@JuanSanchez-zz3me still doesn't make sense. If we have 10 stops of light and gained 1 more stop .which is going to double the amount of light. The shutter speed or iso will only change by 1 stop .and not 10
@@A.Edilbi Going from f/1.4 to f/1.8 is 2/3 of a stop. Your exposure will be 2/3 of a stop darker. If you are shooting at a shutter speed of 1/1000s, compensating for that darker exposure means you must shoot at a shutter speed of 1/640s instead. 1 stop is doubling or halving the amount of light. It's exponential. Thus, no matter how much light you are currently receiving, a 2/3 of a stop difference is a 66% difference in light. If you were going from f/5.6 to f/7.1, that's still a 2/3 stop difference, and you'd also be receiving 66% less light in that case too.
Fiiiinally! Was waiting for this review (which is the only one I really trust due to it's consistency) since the lens was announced! 💜 .....addon: uuuh. too much of a compromise on quality for me. thank you very much for the honest review! 💜
hahahaha where r those ppl who say shit about canon rf 35 1.4 about its distortion with in camera correction, nikon even have slower AF performance and poor corner sharpness and contrast wide open at 1.4
Didn't Canon release a 35mm f1.4 right at the start of its entrance into the mirrorless market? With a similar price point but also an added feature with the semi macro functionality and pretty much the same passable image quality. It's ridiculous that nikon is only releasing this now with such dreadful quality as this. What a shame
Some of you fellas probably have never been to China. The quality of their industry where 1st world market exports are concerned, is better than anything outside of China, with the exception perhaps of some niche industries in Taiwan and Korea. Peeps need to jump off of this particular high-horse, and do some investigation about the scale and quality of operations where 1st world market exports are concerned.
@@Bayonet1809 Don’t be deliberately obtuse. Read my reply. There’s always a dig at Chinese Manufacturing capabilities and quality. My point simply was that whilst the low-cost products leaves a lot to be desired, their top-tier doesn’t have to stand back for anyone in this world. Often, the quality exceeds what I have seen coming out if the USA, for example. I did design pcb’s and have assembly done there in China, and quality is world-leading. It’s all about scale of economics, labor-cost and other factors.
@@bsc001 I was replying to the OP, not you. My point was that products we once thought of as cheap knockoffs can, due to accumulated experience through mass-production, become even better in some ways than the original. No professional would trust a German Leica over a Nikon/Canon these days. I have heard horror stories of Leica Wetzlar repairs taking six to twelve months. I for one hope to see someone like Viltrox enter the camera body market, as I am sure they will surpass the Japanese in short order.
From an economic point of view, making cheaper 1.4 lenses - I guess there are more to come - is a brilliant move by Nikon. If they made 1.4 S lenses, fewer people would buy the more expensive 1.2 S lenses. If they made 1.8 non S lenses, fewer people would buy the S version. The non S 1.4 lenses however will cost more or less the same as the 1.8S. Nikon doesn't care which one they sell and the customer is still happy to have different options. Well done.
As a Nikon working user I’d love a 1.4 S version. 1.8 hasn’t enough pleasing separation, there isn’t a 1.2 but that would be too big and heavy. Again a 1.4 s would be the sweet spot for me but with those image rendition issues it’s not something I’m excited about getting.
@@RussandLozExactly. Nikon's F1.2 lenses will always remain a niche, given their price, size and weight. If this move was brilliant, every brand would be doing it. I must say, as a 15 year Nikon user, I'm jealous of the 35/1.4's the other brands are offering. I can't remember ever hearing someone say " Entry level affordable F1.8 primes, mid pro level F1.4 lenses? Who needs this clear, predictable and consistent distinction? We need expensive but not fast 1.8 glass and inferior F1.4 lenses instead. Lens makers were wrong, the past decades."
With this Nikon 35/1.4, I have no sane reason to give up my final F mount lens with FTZ, the classic Sigma 35/1.4 Art. Because it has the same or even better image quality. It's just ridiculous that my only option is this budget Nikon 35/1.4, if my Art dies. And no, I don't want a huge and heavy F1.2.
@russandloz Exactly. Nikon's F1.2 lenses will always remain a niche, given their price, size and weight. If this move was brilliant, every brand would be doing it. I must say, as a 15 year Nikon user, I'm jealous of the 35/1.4's the other brands are offering. I can't remember ever hearing someone say " Entry level affordable F1.8 primes, mid pro level F1.4 lenses? Who needs this clear, predictable and consistent distinction? We need expensive but not fast 1.8 glass and inferior F1.4 lenses instead. Lens makers were wrong, the past decades."
With this Nikon 35/1.4, I have no sane reason to give up my final F mount lens with FTZ, the classic Sigma 35/1.4 Art. Because it has the same or even better image quality. It's just ridiculous that my only option is this budget Nikon 35/1.4, if my Art dies. And no, I don't want a huge and heavy F1.2.
@@caleidoo You can adapt Sony or Canon EF to the Z-body. They do work very well, so there are many more lenses available for the z-mount, than just native lenses. I still have a lot of the classic vintage f-mounts here, like the 135 f2DC, 85 1.4D, 180 2.8D, and others, and even I do have the 135 Plena, 50 1.2 S, there are instances where I prefer vintage rendering over the clinical sharpness of something like the 135 Plena.
Great to have options, and don’t be afraid to cross over to other brands’ lenses, if you’re after something specific.
It’s pretty brilliant. It’s better than canons and canon charges $1500 for theirs lol
I bought this lens and I am quite happy with it. I prefer the slightly wider focal length compared to the 40mm f/2 and the lens performance is interesting. It behaves more like a lens designed 20 years ago and has some character. It is certainly not a clinical lens but it does have character that can be exploited.
I would not be surprised if it was another Tamron design (to go with the 28-75mm, 70-180mm, and 180-600mm).
(edit - just got to the part where Christopher said this, lol)
@@totallynotmyeggalt6216 I can't say I agree with you and Chris, this lens has a lot of Nikon DNA from their AF-S/G line, particularly the 35/1.4 and 58/1.4.
@@totallynotmyeggalt6216 If it was a Tamron design, it would have been on the E-mount first. Sony is a major shareholder of Tamron. They would never allow Tamron lenses to appear on other systems first.
intresting to hear, i heard their making a 50 mm 1.4 just like this one it might have the same style going on
@@salami99 I haven't heard that but wouldn't be too surprised. They have the 50mm 1.8S and 50mm 1.2S as well as the bonkers 58mm 0.95 S Noct manual focus lens. It probably would make sense to fill the hole with a 50mm 1.4 aimed at the advanced amateur market.
Excellent review - as always! I've had this lens for a couple of weeks now and I must say I'm delighted. It's full of character and renders colour superbly!
In Latvia both 35mm's costs the same (~700 euros), I went for 35 1.4, its great lens, but do need to keep in mind soft corners and focus could be more precise on moving subjects, I am using Z8 . Much better sharpness, bokeh then 40mm f2. Side by side comparison with sigma art 35 would be interesting, Sigma probably will be sharper, but bokeh will be smoother on Nikon, maybe. :)
This is a cheaper budget prime from Nikon. Sigma 35 1.4 is much better than this lens in every way. Frost has a video on it as well. You will see that this lens doesn't really come close to the Sigma
@@MOTOJendays except round bokeh, and weight. I don't like the circular look from catseye bokeh.
Always love your content! Cannot tell you the amount of videos I've watched for camera systems I don't even own.
this is nikon old school F-mount type lens, soft on the edge. This is really for porttrait. I own the tamron 35 f1.4, it is big and heavy plus the ftz adaptor. A lot of the photographers are going soft 80s portrait style again. The reflection or glow looks artsy. I even bought a uv filter and tried to smear grease, didn't work too well. But somebody I talked to did it perfectly.
I have spent the last few weeks 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 correction 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. But the overall experience is pretty satisfying. I ended up selling the Art lens. The weight was starting to take the joy out of the experience.I had no joy in trading it but the reality is that my 50 1.8s and the 105 2.8 s macro are doing the precision job for me. Sometimes you have to make some choices. But Sigma is missing on a lot of business by not getting into the full frame z line up.
I had the sigma. It also has chromatic aberration. The Nikon has more character. The sigma is sharper but a bit sterile.
@@carlosandreviana9448 True about the chromatic aberration. It's about the same.
Thank you Mr Frost for another wonderful video.
Aside from the distortion it's kind of nice to see something from a first party that's in line with a third-party lens both performance and price-wise.
Hi! Love the review. Would you recommend the lens with Nikon Z50? I am doubting it because the camera isn’t full frame but I do want to capture more light and this might be the best option lens wise. Please let me know what you think :)
Really nice sample images, Chris. Thanks for the review.
This might be the perfect lens for an eventual Z5 II
Lol, they have made a Z6 III before making a Z5 ii
Thank you. I'd say that, in the real world, this will do 99% of the time.
Thank you Chris for this review of the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.4. When will you test 'the living daylights out of' the new Nikon Z 50mm f/1.4?
Christopher! Could you do a comparison with Sigma Art 35 1.4 via FTZ? It would be good to get some reference for 35mm lens, which has been on the top for Nikon shooters through many years.
Thanks for this review chris, please do review on fuji 8-16 f2.8 as well that's the only lens remaining. please
The 40mm f2 is the one to go for if you are on a budget
This 35/1.4 is closer to 40mm than 35mm anyway.
Yes, this is a cheap and plastic lens, but what amazing optical quality, considering the price and target market. Stop it down to 2.8 and it truly starts to shine.
No, this is incorrect. I own that lens, it is not the same optically.
I can vouch for the 40mm f2. Great lens for the price and the size is huge plus.
Nice review! I think this might make really nice portrait lens, it would have been nice to see some portraits in the video. The type of rendering should suit portraits good.
Definitely an interesting release by Nikon. It can double as a high speed “normal” lens for the APS-C bodies and at a lower price point than the 35/1.8s . Judging from other reviews it seems to have nicer boke at the equivalent wider apertures. If I didn’t already have the 1.8 lens I would choose this one instead.
I suspect Nikon is planning an upgrade to the Z5/Z50 bodies, and is probably busy creating a lens subsystem that will be cheap and can work on both FX and DX. If so, will be a pretty smart move.
@@bsc001 I wish they would have remade the z50 sooner. I think a stronger z50 might be the perfect camera for me.
Do you prefer the Nikon 1.4 or 1.8S? Which has the better sharpness/ contrast?
Would you recommend this over the 40mm 2.0?
I deeply support Nikon‘s decision to build more compact, yet bright lenses. Reviews usually stress the importance of wide open corner sharpness but seriously, who cares? At f/1.4, my image corners are out of focus anyway. Who cares about high coma levels? Astro photographers might, but this is definitely not this lens‘ target audience. As a Fuji shooter I‘d love to see Fuji release some compact offerings with bright apertures. Their lenses have grown bigger and bigger to make them incredibly clinical but in practical shooting I‘d be happy to compromise on some aspects to have a more light weight setup. Nikon shows the way, and hopefully many will follow!
Been waiting for specifically your review on this lens since it was announced. Thanks!
I have the 40mm f2 and am considering trading it in for this lens to gain an extra stop of light, and to gain sharpness while shooting at f2.
Do it, wont regret it.
@@ValtersPelns Do you have both lenses? I’m asking because I haven’t seen a comparison video between the two. I was hoping someone would make a comparison video (40mm f2 vs 35mm f1.4) seeing that the lenses are so similar in specs.
@@MichaelSeneschal I had 40mm f2, but sold it. This is much better. U can consider Sigma art 35mm 1.4 that would be sharper lens, but bigger, heavier with ftz.
@@ValtersPelns Nice. Thanks for the info. Funny you mention that Sigma, I had it with my D750 and really loved it. I was looking at old photos taken with the Sigma Art to try to convince myself that this new 35mm 1.4 is a worthy upgrade over the 40mm f2. I also think that the upcoming Nikon 35mm 1.2 lens will probably be a $2k additional cost over the 1.4. Not sure I want to hold out for that. LOL
Thanks again for the great input!
Helpful video…..I certainly won’t be adding it to my wish list!
From what I understand, Nikon doesn't have any true profile corrections for vignetting. Only Low, Normal and High control settings.
Lightroom doesn't have Z profiles to correct it either as Adobe relies on Nikon's in-camera corrections.
The lenses have built-in profiles which are recognised by Adobe.
I wondered how you’d consider this lens…
How the judgment criteria would define its value.
In my opinion, It’s a perfect option for those who consider the overall image drawing vs the technical qualities. Use one, take photos, then decide if you are happy.
I think its time for you to start testing with the Z8. You constantly mention the lens doesnt have a fast autofocus. Perhaps you have a 7 year old camera.
@@FMJP camera also affects the autofocus speed
I tested it on the Z7II before and after updating the software (an update that was not supposed to be related to autofocus). It was a totally different experience. Before the update the sigma art on the ftz was smoking the new 35. It completely changed once updated. Even better on the Z6III
The 35/1.4 Z has only one AF motor, while the 35/1.8 Z has two motors. There is going to be a difference and a more expensive camera is not going to change that.
Maybe Chris can work with Nikon to get a long term Z8 loaner. I have been following Dustin Abbott recently and he has started testing Z mount lenses with his Nikon Z8.
Thank you for this frank review, Christopher. My favourite Nikon (Z) lens is the 85mm f/1.2, which I feel is a gamechanger. I'd like something equally good that's wider. From what you infer, this isn't it. So do you think Nikon will still release a Z 35mm f/1.2 S lens? Or should I consider buying the now fairly old Z 50mm f/1.2? Is the optical quality of that lens superior to this new 35mm f/1.4?
Yes.. it has been confirmed that the 35mm 1.2 still is in the Nikon's lens roadmap.. so it will be released eventually...
@@quikee9195 much appreciated
A Great review Chris. I would like to see how this performs on the Z50 or Z fc.
I was thinking about this a bit, but i realised that my 40mm f/2 Z already does what i need to in this range. (Which i got used for 190 euros so an even better deal).
That 40mm f2 looks fantastic. Really would love one of those on all camera systems.
Waiting for Viltrox. They'll probably have a better aperture ring than the control ring on Nikon lenses.
They will definitely have it. Nikon's decision to make the control ring smooth turning is probably their most stupid design choice ever.
Why are the Z-mount lenses so huge! Just compare them to the AF-D equivalents and you know what I mean. I rese to upgrade to the Z-mount system precisely because of this issue.
Main strengths:
- good enough optical and build quality
- compact and portable
- affordable
This used to be the case for €200-400 Nikon AF-S F1.8 primes.
@@caleidoo Back to the roots...
My only worry with this lens is the non true 35mm focal length, maybe slightly too long compared with it? Would it be already too close to a 50mm?
I would love to see Sony adopted this strategy, but altering it a little for their camera line-up. Doing the GM primes at 1.4 for full-frame, while building G primes at 1.4 for aps-c would make perfect sense to me.
Also I am quite desperately looking for a highly recommended small 35mm f1.4 for my Sony a6700. That'll be my nifty fifty. Sort of.
I'm a little underwhelmed with the 35mm and 50mm f1.4 lenses and wish they were even a little better than the f1.8 lenses. And yes, I would be willing to pay a little more for it.
All I need to know about this lens is here, great review!
I'm fine with most of the compromises made here, but the bokeh on this lens rubs me the wrong way in most situations. It's really weird, busy and sharp. I feel like this would be a perfect lens for video because at 4K, many of the problems of the lens aren't captured by the sensor.
Centre sharpness absolutely fantastic. Not sure why this lens costs more than 1.8S version in India whereas all over world it is reverse.
I was hoping for a DX test!
It's the pixel density that matters. 45mp cropped to DX gives about 20mp, which is what the current DX cameras have. So really this test already gives a sufficient impression of the DX performance too.
@@fotografalexandernikolis But not of the mid-frame performance that the corner test on DX reveals. Mid-frame performance is very important for rule-of-thirds compositions.
@@Bayonet1809
Yes, Christopher probably should add that test to all lenses regardless, instead of this FX/DX thing.
@@fotografalexandernikolis It doesn't show the performance on the DX corners.
Appears to me that the people who control the camera manufacturers have been working hard to try to ensure Nikon returns to decent sales 😎👍after a few lean years .
While the price is appealing, sometimes the 35 1.8 S does go on sale for as low as $650 and I'd say get that if you can at that price, as it's almost a no-brainer. Yes you do lose 2/3 of a stop but I think the improved sharpness across the frame (or most of it) greatly out weights the 2/3 stop loss. I wonder if this is perhaps an effort to discourage people from going to third party lenses without locking them out completely, making budget friendly fast lenses that perhaps compromise a little on optics, but not to a point where they are useless or just not sharp for anything. That being said, I had some hopes for this lens but might just wait for the 35 1.8 S to go on sale again for $650 and grab it then. I mean if someone is really on a budget, the 40 f/2 is also a good option that's about half the price of this lens, although it's a narrower field of view and 1-stop slower but the price / performance is hard to beat and I'd almost call the 40mm perhaps a better value.
I got this lens over the 1.8 for one reason: round bokeh corner to corner. The 1.8 is sharper and has more contrast, for sure. But I have enough lenses that do that ;)
Field curvature or not?
It’s quite a lot better than what I expect from its price, except for the barrel distortion. The distortion is a lot for a prime lens, which doesn’t need to do a range of focal length like a zoom lens.
With mirrorless, lens makers have generally stopped caring about distortion since it's easy to correct (you'll never put the lenses on film or see them in an OVF). Better to sacrifice the easy to correct issues than to increase size, weight, cost, or decrease sharpness.
As much as I love Nikons cameras their lack of good f1.4 24 35 50 85mm lenses stopped me switching from Sony. Not sure I would get a f1.4 lens you have to stop down to f2.8 to get decent results over a f1.8 thats good wide open.
Compare to F mount tamron 35 1.4 ?
Best AF 35/1.4 for F mount, so no contest. I'd pick the Tamron over this compromised lens, even with the FTZ.
@@caleidoo All lenses are compromised in at least one (and often more than one) respect.
@@Bayonet1809Yeah, the Tamron is a bit heavier. Come on.
@@caleidoo So you don't value weight? Some do.
Other compromises are: price, USD focus noise, the need for an adapter, and the potential for compatibility issues (being third-party).
And if one likes the smoother rendering of some undercorrected SA at closer focussing distances then that is a compromise for the Tamron too.
£600 is still considered “lower budget” and this is everything wrong with modern photography.
Camera bodies have essentially peaked with tech so the money is in lenses.
Think I should just stick with the 40mm
Nothing negative on you Chris, great review as always.
My thoughts too, they make an inferior lens than the current one which you can get for the same price on promo or used. The 40 f2 and 28 2.8 are lower budget lenses and worth the price
If you consider it an f/2 lens with the option of going wider when really necessary, I think it works just fine.
well the 35 1.8s is sharper wide open
Need 50mm 1.4 for nikon z it will be launche soon or no 😍
They make two 35mm primes but no s line 28mm!
I know, I want a 28/1.8 prime!
@MTBD80 f mount has a 28mm f/1.4 D lens. You need a DSLR with an autofocus screw motor though. Or you can manual focus on the Z bodies. But it's very nice. Part of the reason why I still have D850. But yes I would like a Z mount equivalent that's not $2,500 dollars 😊
Just buy viltrox 28mm f1.8…it’s really good lens… :)
@@bailey.nt86 I have the F 28/1.8G and Z 28/2.8 but would like a Z 28/1.8 to ditch the adapter and the Z 2.8 not fast enough. Viltrox 28/1.8 is nice though.
@@MTBD80 They have patented such a design, but obviously see their manufacturing priorities elsewhere.
This lens seems to be an f/2.8 lens as that is where it seems to be a pretty solid performer all around but there are likely as good or better options for less.
Some people like the low-contrast look at f/1.4.
The choice is clear as mud. F1.4 worse than F1.8 is confusing to the market
That's what this review is here for - to help customers understand and make their choice :-)
What is better for you might not be for others, like me
我觉得这个镜头还是很有意义的，先解决有无问题，让大家能以想对便宜的价格体验到1.4光圈
this is the only 35mm they giving us for a long time
Honestly, even at f/2.8, your corners are probably going to be out of focus anyway. Having said that, I think I’d prefer the 1.8 S.
Depends on the subject; stars are at infinity focus no matter where they are in the frame.
hope we could get a 35mm f1.2s in 2024. I don't mind having a 1kg 35mm lens if nikon provide us a plena level product.
Hello Sir. Please if it is possible can you make a full review of the Nikon FTZ Mark II adapter, on RUclips no one has a real informative review of this product. it will be interesting to see how F-mount lenses from any brand can perform on a Nikon Z mount Camera, how accurate the autofocus is how fast is it, and so on. I think it will be interesting for a lot of people because right now a lot of people are considering buying a Nikon mirrorless camera but Nikon does not offer affordable Z-mount lenses and also there are no real good alternative lenses from other brands like Sigma or Tamron. for example, you can find a lot of perfect lenses for Sony E mount like the latest Sigma24-70mm f/2.8 mark II lens. to make a long story short You know better than me that you can find a lot of good half-price lenses for E mount but not for R mount or Z mount and there are a lot of people including myself want to know if we can buy Nikon Mirrorless camera and adapt F mount lenses without any problem with FTZ adapter and be happy.
It performs exactly the same as the first version FTZ. The FTZ II is only needed for the Z9. Nikon G lenses (not AF-D) work flawlessly and so do most recent Tamron & Sigma lenses. For Tamron, mostly "G2" lenses. G1 can be problematic. Some require a firmware update. All my Sigma ART lenses (20 f1.4, 35 14. and 50 f1.4) al worked BETTER on the FTZ on Z camera than on Nikon D750. All the AF problems (back focus, front focus) were gone. Being a pro, I have upgraded to Z lenses now and sold most of my Sigma Art lenses. Except for the Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, because there is no good Z alternative. And the Nikon 105 F1.4 because it is an exceptional lens and no Z version yet.
@@caleidoo Thank you for detailed respond
I think Nikon is testing the market with this one. Samyang makes a lot of cheap 1.4 lenses and they are very popular for Sony E mount. Nikon is seeing if that market would buy first party lenses if they had the opportunity. I do think they missed the mark on price though. I think it should have been about $150 cheaper. They might drop the price on sales though.
It makes absolutely no sense that Nikon make a "cheap" 35mm 1.4 non S Lens and an expensive 35mm 1.8 S Lens, it should had been the opposite !
Lensbaby review please!😊
wish theyd do a good 28mm 1.4, 35mm is a boring focal length
I think this is not a photo lens. This is a video lens that can also be used for stills.
I'm thinking the exact same thing. This seems like it would be much more useful for video, especially those who went that soft and dreamy look and sharpness isn't as crucial. Then you could also use it for stills if needed.
Was the AF-S 35mm f/1.4 G not a photo lens? They perform similarly.
@@Bayonet1809 No, because its autofocus and diaphragm are louder than this lens. And it has no silent way to control the aperture.
@@Bayonet1809 also the AF-S 35mm f/1.4G is $1,100 more than this lens. You could nearly buy three Z 35mm f/1.4 lenses for that price.
@@FawfulDied I wasn't asking whether they were comparable video lenses, but whether they were comparable photo lenses.
Another review signaling to me not to go for this lens. I hate a Bokeh that looks as busy as this in the transition zones. Concerning IQ, this is rather an f/4 lens. I have such a lens already.
Canon…take notes.
Why? They have a two-three times bigger market share.
40 F2 still dominating the cheap lightweight okish battlefront
Nikon’s pricing is confusing me. You can get a used 35 1.8 a bit cheaper than this built with flaws lens. I remember your review of the 35 1.8 wasn’t impressive either as was my findings and this lens is even worse for rendition. So maybe when it’s reduced on the used market or promo this will be a justifiable price.
Character lenses like this and the 40 f2 are becoming more popular. If you want a better performing 35 there’s the 1.8 (it’s the best performing 1.8) or wait for the 1.2 which will be 4x the price.
I wonder if you guys could try out the old f-mount Tamron 35mm f1.4, the latest (and their greatest) lens? I have not found a z-substitute in that focal length bearing the Tamron. It is a chubby sucker though, as I know how much you guys prefer lighter lenses.
But worth a look, if you’re after a quality 35mm lens. Yeah yeah, you need the FTZ, but a worthy sacrifice, imho.
@@bsc001 may as well adapt the Sony GM if you want a premium 1.4
@@livejames9374 Ha, I am ok, not really a 35mm shooter. I go slightly longer with 40mm generally.
My favourite lens in the F/L is my Voigtländer 40 1.2 z-mount MF. But yeah, the GM is pretty decent, good advice.
@@bsc001 I’ve heard great things about that voightlander lens
Love you sir
He might like it even better if You told him You loved GOD?
If i dont own z35/1.8 i will get this lens.
Is it so hard to make 35, 50 and 85mm f/1.8 at $500? And the f/1.4 at $999 and actually make the lenses quality compatible with the price? I mean the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is better than this Nikon.
Just checked. Sony's 35 1.4 is USD1298 and Canon's 35 1.4 is USD1499. I guess Nikon is going to make their 1.2 line their premium line.
@@victorlim5077 Nikon and Nikon fanboys assuming "everyone wanting a nice 35/1.4 will just go and buy the huge and expensive F1.2" is just wrong. The F1.2's will remain a rarity. The 35/1.4 was a pro photographers sweet spot lens. And still is, but apparently not according to Nikon.
@@caleidoo Some wedding photographers like Taylor Jackson are using this 35mm F1.4 lens. Seems fine for them. This lens isn't for astro or landscapes based on the reviews. Doesn't mean it can't be used for other photographic genres.
@@victorlim5077 RUclipsrs buy and review the latest stuff because it gets them views. Also, if he wanted more subject isolation, he has no other choice but to go for the 35/1.4. It doesn't make this inferior 35/1.4 suddenly a great lens. My Sigma Art version is 12 years old and is optically better. Way more 3D pop. It doesn't have the wide open aperture glow and layer of softness. And lastly, this 35/1.4 is closer to a 38-39mm.
uh oh this lens is too new. its still 550 used at best, needs 3 more years to come down to 400ish 3/450 ish
seems like a lens canon would release. weird.
Not very impressed. In fact very disappointed Nikon would sell a lens in this day and age with so many flaws.
It’s targeted at a specific demographic. This cheap lens will outperform almost any 35mm Nikkor fx lens. The only one O can imagine better than this cheap z-mount is the last version of the Tamron 35 f1.4. But that is a big bulky beast and Tamron’s best lens they ever made, imho.
Let’s focus on being photographers and not digital image technicians.
@@bsc001 Even the F mount Sigma 35 f1.4 ART is sharper wide open and has more contrast than this Z 35/1.4. And that lens is more than a decade old. I don't see the appeal in a 35/1.4 that has less 3D pop because of soft and glowy in focus areas. The only advantage this lens has over the FTZ & Sigma Art, is weight.
@@caleidoo I think you probably didn’t read my comment as well as you could have.
i think it's a waste of money.
Couple of years ago when I lamented the lack of F1.4 full-frame Z-mount lenses, Nikon fanboys called me names and berated me saying they are completely unnecessary and the bokeh would be identical to F1.8. I wonder what they think now.
Honestly, I fail to see the point of this lens. The Z 35mm f/1.8 is vastly superior, and today the price is pretty much the same (even cheaper used). When you consider the lousy transmission on the f/1.4, their light gathering is probably about the same. For real cheapskates, a used Sigma 35mm ART or the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 represent better value. The Tamron in particular is a stunning lens that sells for bargain prices used.
The transmission is much the same between the 1.8 and 1.4 lenses from my tests. However, I use the 1.4 because the bokeh is circular throughout the frame. This isn't so with the 1.8 or the Sigma Art (never tried the Tamron).
@@FawfulDied
Good to know, thanks.
@00:50 can someone explain how f1.8 is 66% darker than f1.4 ? As it doesn't make sense to me at all .
A real life example is if we had 10 kg of apples and we add 1 more kg ( that is the extra one stop of light) that's 10% increasing at best .so where did the 66% came from ?
We measure the extra to the whole amount. Not just the last stop
Are you serious ? :)
@@philmtx3fr you don't have an answer?
@@A.Edilbiwell your example isn't how light and apertures work. Each stop is doubling or halving the amount of light. So it wouldn't be adding 1kg to 10kg.
A stop would be going from 10kg to 20kg
@JuanSanchez-zz3me still doesn't make sense. If we have 10 stops of light and gained 1 more stop .which is going to double the amount of light. The shutter speed or iso will only change by 1 stop .and not 10
@@A.Edilbi Going from f/1.4 to f/1.8 is 2/3 of a stop. Your exposure will be 2/3 of a stop darker. If you are shooting at a shutter speed of 1/1000s, compensating for that darker exposure means you must shoot at a shutter speed of 1/640s instead.
1 stop is doubling or halving the amount of light. It's exponential. Thus, no matter how much light you are currently receiving, a 2/3 of a stop difference is a 66% difference in light.
If you were going from f/5.6 to f/7.1, that's still a 2/3 stop difference, and you'd also be receiving 66% less light in that case too.
Now this is what I expect from a Canon designed lens!
Nikon's nod to videographers. Is this not obvious?
The 1.4 lenses are worse than the 1.8 ones. Makes no sense. Should have made the 1.8 worse and 1.4 better.
Fiiiinally! Was waiting for this review (which is the only one I really trust due to it's consistency) since the lens was announced! 💜 .....addon: uuuh. too much of a compromise on quality for me. thank you very much for the honest review! 💜
hahahaha where r those ppl who say shit about canon rf 35 1.4 about its distortion with in camera correction, nikon even have slower AF performance and poor corner sharpness and contrast wide open at 1.4
They’re essentially the same lens except canon charges $1000 more for theirs
The problem is that Canon markets their 35/1.4 as an "L" lens, and at a much higher price, so expectations are higher for it.
nikon just sell their mistake for cheap.
The optical performance of this lens is very bad.
Its a Tamron hehe
It is not actually.
No, it's not. This lens is designed by Nikon.
@@darrenp.9490 Theres nothing wrong with Tamron tgey are currently at the top of there game.
@@marknathan7744 I’m ok with Tamron lenses but this one is designed by Nikon.
This lense is a marketing joke from Nikon.
Total junk.
@christopherfrost please an you do a 35mm best of video
Didn't Canon release a 35mm f1.4 right at the start of its entrance into the mirrorless market? With a similar price point but also an added feature with the semi macro functionality and pretty much the same passable image quality. It's ridiculous that nikon is only releasing this now with such dreadful quality as this. What a shame
Nikon is now a Chinese knockoff, that's all
It really feels like it with that one
Some of you fellas probably have never been to China. The quality of their industry where 1st world market exports are concerned, is better than anything outside of China, with the exception perhaps of some niche industries in Taiwan and Korea.
Peeps need to jump off of this particular high-horse, and do some investigation about the scale and quality of operations where 1st world market exports are concerned.
They always were a knock-off, of German products, so nothing has changed by your estimation then.
@@Bayonet1809 Don’t be deliberately obtuse. Read my reply. There’s always a dig at Chinese Manufacturing capabilities and quality.
My point simply was that whilst the low-cost products leaves a lot to be desired, their top-tier doesn’t have to stand back for anyone in this world.
Often, the quality exceeds what I have seen coming out if the USA, for example. I did design pcb’s and have assembly done there in China, and quality is world-leading.
It’s all about scale of economics, labor-cost and other factors.
@@bsc001 I was replying to the OP, not you. My point was that products we once thought of as cheap knockoffs can, due to accumulated experience through mass-production, become even better in some ways than the original. No professional would trust a German Leica over a Nikon/Canon these days. I have heard horror stories of Leica Wetzlar repairs taking six to twelve months.
I for one hope to see someone like Viltrox enter the camera body market, as I am sure they will surpass the Japanese in short order.