Hi Matt, fellow Australian photographer here. Watched your stuff for a long time, always really appreciate your perspective. I'm making a video comparing these two lenses at the moment, your work helped clarify a lot of my thinking. Thought this video was outstanding - thanks so much for taking the time to make it. Cheers! Jack.
I was 35/85 all day on DSLR, when nikon made the mirrorless move I became a 20/50/105 out of necessity -- never felt the magic from the 35 1.8S. I'm happy to say I, personally, see some spirit from the new 1.4 optics, and I am happy to embrace that over high fidelity. I should get mine in a couple days. Excited !
I still have my 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 AI converted lenses from the 70's. I bought 10 other Z Lenses before considering a 35mm for my Z's. After the 1.4 came out and the 1.8 was discounted $150, my decision was made ... 1.8 S is my latest lens.
35mm f/1.8s was my first native Z lens so has some extra nostalgia for me. No interest in the f/1.4 knowing the f/1.2 is still on the horizon but get why Nikon did this and would be a great choice for someone else as a first native prime Z lens.
I love the 35 f1.4 for wedding photography (looks great on people’s skin). I’m hoping Nikon surprises us again with the 85 f1.4 non-S lens; my God, that is would be a great combination ❤
Since I moved to mirrorless with the Z8 in December, I've purchased nothing but Nikkor S glass and am I ever happy! While I do have the FTZ adapter to use with my older lenses (and I kept my beloved D810), when I do use those older lenses, they don't stay on the Z8 for very long. I just can't wait to get back to. my S lenses. Old glass is nice. S lenses are better for me.
You have helped a lot with my lens decision making as I move to an all mirrorless Z set up. I look at the 35mm F1.4 differently now. I can see the benefits of a faster Fstop for low light photography. It’s interesting to see that Nikon is willing to explore the market by providing a lens for a specific application at an affordable price.
Hi Matt. I get it and totally agree with you. I think about how my perception has changed in the past 20 years as I have become more serious about photography and gain a greater understanding about light, aperture and composition. I think it's important that we retain a perspective of how those who are not so "taken" by photography view our work. I'm reminded of how a few years ago shooting with my Nikon D850 and a lovely Zeiss Milvus 100mm f2 Macro lens, I showed an image of a flower to a friend. She thought it was lovely, but, "Why was only part of the image in focus?" I also had the Sigma f-mount 40mm f1.4 Art and 85mm f1.4 Art lenses that rendered beautifully as well. A narrow depth of field can be quite lovely to us, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. As you imply, it's not right or wrong, it's just different. Now shooting with my Z8 and Z9, I have yet to experience a disappointing Z lens.
Hi Matt, thanks a lot for this very interesting review. When looking at the samples, especially the last one, for me the biggest difference is color rendition and contrast. Unlike somebody else in the comments I think the 1.4 has much stronger colors. The greens and reds in that last comparison have higher saturation than the 1.8. Here the colors seem to be a bit washed out. I expected the CAs to be a problem on the 1.4 due to missing coatings. So you can't have it both, high light gathering capabilities and perfect CA suppression. Unless Nikon creates a beast like the 50mm or 85mm 1.2 you have to choose. Those lenses are too chunky imho. Since you can always stop down to get around sharpness and CA issues, I will choose the 1.4. Thanks.
Just ordered 35mm 1.4, because I am not big fan of 35mm, but sometimes I miss my Sigma art 35mm when I had it. 35mm 1.2S probably will be about 2k euros and I already have 85 1.2, 50 1.2, and that's enough of 1.2s in my life This 35mm 1.4 gives so much softer bokeh than 1.8S. Thank you for 35mm 1.4 lens coverage, not that much reviews about this lens.
Thx for this comparison. There isn't much between them at all. Don't you think that many times the difference in sharpness is mostly due to the DOF? There is a considerable difference comparing f/1.4 and f/1.8. The scene at 15:15 comes to mind. How were they comparing when both were at f/1.8?
35mm is really not my favourite focal length but there are lots of people who like that perspective. In general, I tend to lean more and more towards „character“ than pure image quality or image fidelity as you call it. I love my AF-S 1.4/58mm G that is known for a lack of sharpness but famous for its rendering. It seems to me that the Z 1.4/35mm is closer to that philosophy than the 1.8 primes. P.s. I did some research on the quality of the 1.8/35mm and have to admit that I was a little premature with my statement last week. There were only two videos in German that were critical of the lens, all the other reviews were much more positive.
Yes, for me as well. I do like the 1.4 and the step down in sharpness isn’t a major problem, although contrast and coma/fringing isn’t ideal. Thanks Matt for making this video, was super helpful. Personally I’ve pulled the trigger on the 1.8 as I love my 50mm 1.8 and use the 28/40mm combo for less than perfect (but beautiful in its own right) rendering. This video showed really useful examples that helped with my decision. I can also see why many people would prefer the 1.4 over the 1.8 (and cost not being the most important one), very happy with the choices in the Nikon lens lineup.
Matt, as usual you parsed out the appropriate decision points between these lenses. We are fortunate to have both of these to choose from now, which adds to the analysis. As a prosumer with some budget flexibility, I lean towards S-Line lenses for my go to lenses, Non-S and third party for glass I want to own that meets my infrequent specific use cases.
Great video Matt. I have seen in various places, the bokeh rendering of this new Z 35mm 1.4 likened to that of the 135 Plena, a lens I have to really force myself to take off my Z8 to use something else! (Invariably when I get to the end of the shoot it’s somehow managed to sneak its way back on!). That has piqued my interest in this 135 so I was wondering if you observed a likeness to the bokeh rendering of the Plena in your time with this new 35mm? Thanks.
Thanks Matt for this great and really quite important review. I think these or at this moment "this" f1.4 lens is a great idea. I love the 1.8 primes for landscape, architectural and product shots etc where a crisp clinical shot is wanted from a light weight setup. However, for portraits, environmental shots etc a slightly softer, dreamy effect like some of the better f mount lenses is often preferred. Now we have choices where the suite of 1.8 and 1.4 lenses would not break the bank. We also have the amazing 1.2's but apart from the high costs the huge size and weight are not always easy to carry around but are their when the best is required for professional use or for discerning people who have the budget. To have such choice is a real luxury. I can see myself having a suite of each so that I can go out light, light portrait or full on with the f1.2's... Lucky..I would love to see some environmental portrait shots with the 1.4...😊
Hmm the 1.8S looks significantly clearer sharper… I will keep it after all and not change them. I can make the background more hazy and less distracting more easily while keeping the pop and details on the subject which draws on the eyes. That’s coming from a 58 1.4G lover. But that lens also has epic bokeh and other positives. This 1.4 doesn’t have significantly better bokeh or anything in a comparable way to this the 58 is a unique lens.
There’s something brilliant about my S lenses. The non-S lenses are great, like the 40 f2, 28 f2.8, and 180-600. But I can’t put it into words, just the my S lenses are “brilliant” (sharpness, color, contrast). I wanted to like the 35mm 1.4, but I’m holding off for the 35 1.2.
I’m wondering how different the 35mm1.4 is from the 40mm2.0 seeing that the field of view of the 35mm is a bit punched in. That 40mm2.0 is such a good deal, especially when I see if selling for around $250 used. I’d definitely pay for the additional stop of the 35mm 1.4, but am eagerly waiting for a 35mm 1.4 vs 40mm2.0 comparison video on RUclips first!
In my opinion the 1.4 is a phenomenal lens and for the price it’s staggering compared to the F mount 1.4 lens and hope there will be more of these like 28mm and 50mm. I think for your comparison the 1.8s would make more sense purely for the corners at 1.8 but think maybe event and wedding photography might be where the 1.4 will excel purely for its bokeh and rendering. Either way don’t think anyone can be disappointed with either of these very similarly priced lenses.
Well I do have to say that the Carl Zeiss Milvus Distagon 35mm f/2 Manual Focus F Mount Lens is pretty sharp. I do have almost of the Z Mount Glass and I still keep going back to this lens. Cheers!
Great video Matt - what a pro you are!!! I own the 35 1.8S and have since very close to the beginning of Z mount. As you well know, it is a workhorse of a lens providing excellent IQ and it works great in video being super silent and have nice focus transitions. The 1.4 is tempting to me however, as I also have the Tamron 1.4 SP lens for F mount which adapts perfectly with the FTZ adaptor. It has excellent IQ (my guess is that it is better than the Nikon 1.4 - but it is also bigger, heavier and more expensive so you would expect that - and it was Tamron's 40 year anniversary lens for the SP line (pro line for Tamron) and they indicated that they threw the kitchen sink at this lens. I will say that it is marvelous but as previously noted it is fairly big and heavy and with the FTZ it is very long on the body - I find that I do not take it much - especially if I am traveling and so the 35 1.8S gets lots of use. I was/am waiting for the 35 1.2S which we know is still coming and was confirmed to my by a Nikon Rep. That said, I think we all know that the 35mm 1.2S is goinig to be an optical masterpiece but at the expense of size and weight and of course cost. It seems to me there are many use cases for me at play: 1) what 35mm do I want to use for my outdoor environmental portraiture? 2) What lens am I willing to take if I have to travel on a plane? 3) What might be the best compromise of IQ and size and weight should the result being sought be more about overall IQ (like landscape or cityscape) versus when bokeh is more important like in environmental portraiture - especially outside? Seems to me for the answer to #1 - this depends on where I am. If in my home city, I expect the 35mm 1.2 S to be the best choice here. Size and weight are less relevant when traveling somewhere by car than by plane and in this use case I would want the best IQ with the best bokeh possible - this is how I currently use the Tamron 1.4 SP lens. For #2, I think the answer would be the 35mm 1.4 Nikkor lens as it is small and light enough to easily travel in my bag - something that the Tamron struggles to do and undoubtedly the 35 1.2 S will also struggle to do. On the road, I think for outdoor environmental portraiture the bokeh and lowlight characteristics would outweigh the slightly better IQ of the 1.8 S. For #3, I think the obvious choice is the 35 1.8 S - in situaltion where stopping down is advantageous there may be no reason to use either the 35 1.2 S or the 35 1.4 since after f2 or say certainly by f/4 I doubt very much that the 1.8 S won't be as good as any lens. So for trips to scenic places, and or when technical sharpness is needed but at f/4 to f/8 the 35 1.8 S would likely be the best choice. As such, I have a use case for all of these lenses lol. For now, I think (but I might go ahead and get the 1.4 sooner - we'll see) am going to stick with the Tamron until the 1.2 S arrives - use the 1.2 S and the 1.8 S to compare my theory and then decide if I want the 1.4 simply for travel that involves outdoor environmental portraiture. To me though, it seems clear that if money were no object (which sadly it is for must of us) one would simply get them all. But then again, the same might be said for all Z lenses period - if money were no object you'd probably get them all! 😂 Thanks for the very informative and well crafted video! -PD
The Tamron 35mm F1.4 is in a class of its own. I use that 95% of the time for portraits in my smallish studio on my D850. I have ZERO need for mirrorless in that setting.. Out of all my glass, it's my fave. And I have top notch glass. Having said that, I just got a Z6iii and absolutely love it.
@@71whitey Agreed that the Tamron is exceptional. That said - in a studio situation where you are likely shooting at f/5.6 - f/11 there probably isn't a big difference between any of the lenses that I discussed. Yes the Z6III is amazing - as is the Z8 and Zf - all of which I have and use. D850 is a great camera, but at this point mirrorless is just better for so many things that it is truly worth the switch. One small example is that F.mount glass is literally better on the Z system than it is native on the DSLR's. Your Tamron 35 1.4 SP lens on a Z camera with FTZ enjoys 3 axis IBIS which the D850 has none and also focusing points across the entire frame not just in the middle - this says nothing of the advantages of the EVF and the advanced focusing system, video capabilities and on and on and on... It is truly time to move to mirrorless if you are a Nikon shooter. The D850 was great (still is for what it is) but the Z8 is better in every respect and frankly so is the Z6III with the exception of resolution. -PD
@@photographydiscourse1185 I don't need stabilization on a tripod. I would NEVER sell my last D850 because as I said, mirrorless is pointless to me in my individual situation. Also, depends on how you shoot a portrait. Yes, I often use F4-5.6 but I also use the 35 wide open if I want fall off. I don't stick to the boring rules that a lot of boring photographers use. And as I said, I love the Z6iii for event photography and low light situations. Cheers.
@@71whitey Sure - I think you are missing my point, but I'm glad you are happy with the Z6III and your D850 - both great cameras for their use cases! -PD
The difference of FOV seems to be 5%, almost 2mm, which is not a major difference, but people have very strong preferences in the 28/35/40 range. So without any drama I think it would be helpful to know which way it changes, just as a piece into consideration, 35mm being the quintessential prime lens focal length.
Most of my f1.4 glass are Sigma Art series primes, the size difference between a F1.2 to 1.4 and 1.8 is significant, 1.8 even though are slightly slower, are easy to travel with when packing several lens. Early in September I am planning a trip to Asatigue Island on the coast of Virginia's Eastern Shores. The main attraction is Asatigue and Chincoteague Island, both are connected and have a wide variety of birds and wild horses. My wild life camera is a Fujifilm XH2 and the 100-400mm lens and for general photography I will have a Panasonic S5 MKII with a variety of zoom and primes and a second bag that ì will use for evening photography on Chincoteague Island where I will be staying at a Marina hotel. The evening bag will have a Nikon ZF and a couple of Voightlander and Viltrox primes. I will be driving from the Hudson Valley of NYS and this will allow me to pack a variety of gear plus a Cannondale city bike, the island and wildlife refuge is very bike friendly.
Matt, thank you for this video! I’ve been anxiously awaiting any additional information about this lens since your last two videos and you didn’t disappoint! While there’s a bit more flaring on this lens than I’d prefer, I still think it would make an excellent portrait lens. It’s there any way you can share some portrait examples taken with this lens? And maybe compare them with the 1.8 S lens? Anyway-I’m very excited about this lens and plan to buy it as soon as Amazon offers it with their 5 payment plan. Greetings from Mesa AZ USA!
You should have increased the speed on the camera with the 1.4 Differences in exposure, specially if overexposed,can affect the apparent sharpness because of the loss of contrast
I've watched Matt break the shutter speed rule in his videos a lot in favor of using NDs; I'm sure he did here to keep same iso. I don't see much of a difference in exposures. Maybe 1/3 or less in some shots, but most look pretty damn near the same.
@@northofbrandonthere are shots with a clear difference. He even mentioned it. The one with a very similar exposure, there was no visible difference in sharpness. And he used a tripod. Same iso could be used by simply changing speed
One thing that I noticed is the white balance was not the same on the two photos. The 1.4 had a more yellow hue. Not sure what would be the cause of that.
Slightly tighter framing, 2/3rds stop brighter, arguably a bit more "character" due to the optical flaws. Enough differences to merit a shopping comparison, and for the 35mm shooter, reason to own both. With the 35/1.2S out there floating in limbo, Nikon Z is eventually looking at 3 different 35mm lenses, which is interesting. What would be even more interesting, is if the 35/1.4 was the first of a series of lower cost, non S primes. Knock on wood.
Great video Matt! I didn't consider 35mm focal length until I started shooting video, ended up being a focal length I use for my talking head videos. Considered getting the Milvus 1.4/35 after using the Otus 1.4/55 but, it is actually heavier than the Otus. I was hoping for an S line 1.4 but the 1.8 S line is probably better value for me, as the 35mm 1.2 S line is probably going to be heavier and pricier.
Thanks Matt! I don't yet own a Z 35mm lens. I was holding out for the (maybe) f/1.2 but am I being foolish? Both of these lenses are awesome, after all.
I need to decide between these two lenses. I usually shoot in low-light environments, without flashes, with high ISO. Which of the two lenses will give me the sharpest image with the most details? The 1.4 lens at ISO 3200, for example, or the 1.8 lens at ISO 5000? Does the 1.4 lens at 2/3 of a stop lower ISO beat the 1.8, or does the quality of the 1.8 lens beat the ISO difference? I don't mind the difference in depth of field.
So, which one would as over/under exposed? Surely, it's a good idea to alter the alter settings of the 1.4 to mimic the 1.8? The 1.4 looks over exposed compared to the 1.8, therefore not a true comparison?
Mmmm, To be honest, If they were priced the same, I still think I would opt for the f1.8 Of course, I'm / we are looking at a screen shot of a screen? .. However, I can clearly see the differences you are pointing out. And to be said, .. I trust your judgment. My first 35mm was the Ftn Photomic and yes! I still have it. I have always loved Nikkor glass and the fact they didn't change the mount on the CEO,s mother's birthday meant that I could confidently invest in very good glass that mostly didn't become obsolete. (apart from my 40mm GN lens) As always, a very informative review. No BS.
For coma distortion, get out in the dark country side and do a wee bit of astro photography. Check the shape of the stars up in the corners. The trick here is to shoot at a fast enough speed so you don't get star trails (or use a tracking mount). If you have an astronomy club near by folks could lend a hand in the mount department. Astro photography is very demanding on optics and you can't get away with some things like you could in, say landscape photography. From what little I've followed it, the 20mm S lens is very good. For my use case, the 35mm's are not on my radar. Good video for those folks that are looking.
@@margot6041 I may have 2-3 years ago; so if I did I didn't remember a thing about it. LOL I've pretty much limited my astro work to comets and the Moon.
Beautiful footage! I would prefer a 28mm 1.4. I sold for my original F mount $3K(I paid $1,700 a decade before that) more than a decade ago because it wasn't as sharp as internet lore claimed and sounded like a pepper grinder. 28 is my favorite field of view! My 35mm F mount never comes out of my bag.
Matt, you make the comparison between 1.4 F mount glass and this new 1.4 Z mount. The table of F's did not include the 35 F1.4G F mount. Would you still say the 35mm 1.4 Z is better than the 35mm 1.4 F? I have been spoiled by the 85 f1.2 Z and the Plena and was really hoping that a 35mm F1.2 would be offered by now. If it will still be released, I suspect like the lenses I already have, it will have the best of both the 1.8's sharpness and exceedingly light gathering and bokeh from a 1.2. The tradeoff being cost and weight, both significant. I have seen videos comparing the 35mm f1.4 G being more of a character lens than the 35mm f1.8 Z. A 35mm F1.4G in mint condition is relatively the same price as a brand new 35mm f1.4 Z lens. I'm sure that varies but if the new 1.4 Z performs better that the 1.4G, it seems like a no-brainer to acquire the new lens and not deal with the FTZ. I will use such a lens for street and event photos and probably pair it with either the 85 1.2 or the Plena 1.8 for such efforts. I have to also wonder if the 35 1.2 will be released that it wont be until after sales of this 1.4 Z settle out. Other 1.4 Z's could further the delay of the niche 35mm f1.2 Z. That is speculation of course but the cost of the new 1.4 would make for a good alternative until a 1.2 is released and evaluated. Thoughts on the 35mm f1.4 G?
I’m on the fence between these… Thanks you so much for the review ❤ I think it would be very useful to see a f1.8 vs f1.8 on these two. The 1.4 clearly wins when it comes to light gathering so at 1.4 vs 1.8 I feel like it’s not an apples to apples comparison anymore. If the 1.4 clean up at 1.8 to match the 1.8 I’d rate the 1.4 higher than the 1.8 as it has the “superpower” of opening up to 1.4 😅 I also kind of get the impression that these examples were exposed to fit f1.8 and not 1.4, but that isn’t necessarily true 🫣
Hello Matt, I know this 35mm f1.4 will be an ok lenses, but the 35mm f1.8 gives a better image. Now for me I would it would always be the lenses fault if the image was not as I would like. The S line lenses are just amazing so an F1.2 or f1.4 s line would now be in my bag. So I will wait as I think Ricci said there may well be one more s line lens coming, I will now just wait I know it will cost more but then I will just blame myself if the images are bad.
The Z 35mm f/1.8 S has Better Color Fidelity, is Sharper, with More Clarity, and is Cleaner overall, with Little to No CA. The Z 35mm f/1.4 has only a little more Bokeh than the Z f/1.8 S. But how much do you want to sacrifice overall for that tad bit more Bokeh? Also, stopping down to f/2 or f/2.8 to achieve more sharpness, reduces the light gathering and bokeh…eliminating the advantage of both. Consequently, unless one’s budget is a strong consideration, and saving to makeup the difference in price for the Z f/1.8 S is not an option, then, indeed, the Z 35mm f/1.4 is good enough, and here to accommodate. However, I do see a greater difference between these two lenses than you do Matt…I would choose the Z 35mm f/1.8 S quality, as a key part of the Z f/1.8 S trinity… Always. P.S. Matt; your 'Melbourne Night Scape’ images are stunning as always. They make me feel Melbourne may become the new contender for the title: 'City of Lights'. Cheers, Catherine O
To me, just show me two eye shots from both lenses wide open, if the sharpness in f/1.4 is acceptable I am going for f/1.4, as straight forward as that.
To me you've demonstrated that there's only a tiny image diffrence between these 1.4s and 1.8Ss. I'd like to have been in the Exec tent when they decided to produce this new line of primes which are a triplicate of what we already have - WHY? Was it that Tamron wanted to release them, and Nikon agreed if they carried the Nikon brand? Who knows. Can we please have some new primes that aren't in the Z range? 12 or 14mm f1.8, 16 or 18mm f1.8, 19mm T/S, 24mm f1.4S plesae. What about the promised 35 1.2?
These look pretty SOOC in Flat to me. The mirrorless era is spitting out some great images right from the cam. Other than exposure adjustments, I don't have to touch the sliders much.
Hi Matt, I have a Z6III question for you. I came across a video talking about “pulsing” in shadows. I’ve since tested my cameras and have discovered the same issue. Here’s the original video: ruclips.net/video/9EWPmvbIyYo/видео.htmlsi=sL5SjYFyXm-1rRHk I’m trying to find out how widespread this is, whether it’s a small batch of chips or something affecting a lot of cameras. Is your Z6III acting this way as well?
Kinda hard to tell watching on my phone. Will have to pull your video up on a proper computer screen. Hopefully for most users it’s a small batch of bad chips. I’ve seen postings from a few others who have noticed the problem but so far it’s just a few. Thing is I did some very low light testing when I first got the camera and the footage played back cleanly. Yet now 2+ weeks later this pulsing thing has emerged. Reminds me of the artifacts you could get in older video equipment after it’s been banged around a lot. No one at the camera store had seen a problem like this before. So let’s see if Nikon comes up with a few answers. Fingers crossed. I was looking forward to having the Z6III for a long time.
@@MattIrwinPhotography Here’s another video about it. ruclips.net/video/k9fm6Kk412c/видео.htmlsi=NjRR9D1t60CRJr15 I don’t think anyone has done a complete breakdown of it yet but I was having the problem in NRAW and others in 10-bit N-log.
1:33 I don't understand the statement "Nikon has given us.... a choice". Like it's some new concept, or F mount didn't offer options at 35mm or other brands don't offer a choice to their users. How is offering an afforable mid range 35/1.8 and a more expensive pro grade 35/1.4 not "offering a choice"? No amount of stylistic editing is going to make this true. The choice is there, like it always has been. But it's different, the features are now mixed. Instead of one lens with somewhat slightly inferior image quality, lesser build, less coating and lesslight gathering and another one that excells on all this aspects.... you now have two lenses with a mixture of good & inferior. So whatever you pick, there is always a negative aspect. While Nikon is perfectly capable of making a 35/1.4 without a compromise.
Nobody said a more expensive 35 would not be choice (in fact the 35nn 1.2 should still appear at one point). But where's the biggie? They didn't give you the choice you wanted?
Nikons Z lineup has seen some truly dumbass decisions. Prime top of the line s lenses are f1.8 and the budget version is f1.4 wtf?.in what universe does that make sense😂
It's not necessarily the sharpness... it's the contrast and the colors, both of which are way better on the 1.8 S. Just watch at 4:45 and it's an immediate difference.
So this is a €300 China lens packaged as a Nikon lens if we're honest... probably even worse if we look at the latest lenses from China budget brands. Doesn't mean it's not usable, but neither are the China lenses for half the price
@@carlosandreviana9448 do you write that under every comment? What do you think the comment section is for other than opinions? Regardless of my opinion, the lens has soft corners and tons of CAs and ghosting, that’s a fact everyone can see, not an opinion
@@drchtctI only wrote under yours. I own several Chinese lenses and two are my favorites. They have character. They are not boring like modern lenses. If 100% sharpness is your concept of a great lens, good for you. Just keep shooting the same repetitive boring Bokeh, super sharp photos.
@@carlosandreviana9448 seems like you didn’t understand my comment. I said China lenses are *not* unusable, I like them, but they are half the price. Nikon commands a higher price, so higher quality is expected. A lens with soft corners and lots of CA can be had much cheaper as a China lens, and often they even perform better than that nowadays.
Hi Matt, with this comparison it becomes even more questionable why Nikon stoops to this level with such poor 1.4 quality just to offer the Chinese something in competition. I find this development terrible. And an ambitious photographer hardly needs to buy such a lens.
You cannot compare lenses with one overexposed!!! Futile "review"... you talk about things you could've show in video, but you didn't. It's a shame to see this, as a great effort was put into this video, and all you needed to do is compensate by shutter speed. I know you know, but the question is - what were you trying to achieve with this video?
You probably thought I was pedantic about fabs and foundries and logical chip design versus "printing" chips, when I kept pointing to these. Then you went to Japan, asked around, and came back an educated man. Here we go again. (1) Both the 1.8 and 1.4 are meaningless with respect to "how fast they are" as long as we don't know their "transmission" or T-value. (2) We cannot say anything concrete about Depth of Field (DoF) without reference to the Circle of Confusion (CoC). In several comments elsewhere and maybe here too, I have pointed to - as per DxO Mark - some 1.2L lenses from one brand having the same T-value as 1.4G lenses from another brand. Both these examples are T=1.5 when fully open and that is their speed. Saying that you bought those 1.2L lenses because they are so fast makes you look like a fool. Saying that you bought those 1.2L lenses because of their shallow depth of field also makes you look like a fool. But they are so softy, you then say? Yes, true, because they're not sharp. They're big and heavy and cost a lot of money. The CoC in DoF is about as challenging as the general theory of relativity and it's all relative too. So, no, DoF does not solely depend on distance, focal length and aperture, but also the CoC. CoC is like a mutt parameter that bundles some 6 different ones. (1) camera/sensor/film resolution - better means smaller CoC means shallower DoF (2) lens resolution - better means smaller CoC means shallower DoF (3) processing - better means smaller CoC means shallower DoF (4) display resolution - better means smaller CoC means shallower DoF (5) display size - larger means smaller CoC means shallower DoF (6) viewer-display distance - shorter means smaller CoC means shallower DoF Note that DoF is a perception thing that can be measured and expressed in the CoC number. Note that DoF can only be discussed when we take all of these 6 into account. The consequence is that - generally - the DoF scale on your lens is a lie. The consequence is that - generally - your DoF app is a lie. Add to this that the "number" in f/number may also be a lie as well as your lens's focal length. The DoF formula wants no lies, but "effective" aperture and "effective" focal length and for you the challenge to enter the proper numbers. Good luck with that. Still, we can reason about DoF and CoC very well, as thought experiment. And you can play with numbers in a spreadsheet that has the formula with the numbers. Simply put, if we assume that out of (1) .. (6) only (2) varies and the others (ceteris) remain the same (paribus) then we can also appreciate that the 1.2L in my example above that is not so sharp in DxO Mark, may have a CoC that makes it have the same DoF at 1.2 as the 1.4G lens at 1.4 - ceteris paribus (or even worse). Or, between the 35/1.8S and the 35/1.4 we know neither the T value nor the CoC. Assumptions about DoF and "fast" are totally ambiguous. As long as we don't make comparisons that try to isolate a T-value effect as wel as DoF. Note that 24MP Nikon cameras have an OLPF (fuzzy filter, I call that) and 45 MP don't. Also note that (3) processing is a lot less in movie as well as in JPEG than in raw at full resolution.
Thank you for your effort but this comparison is completely useless and i think you completely missed the point of a 35 1.4 You chose literally the worst light and the worst subjects to test these lenses, with the wrong use case. Who in hell is going to take a fast 35, put it on a tripod and shoot at base iso on a 24 mm camera ?! These are portrait lenses, event lenses meant to be focused at 1-3 meter range in adequate lighting, hand held, possibly on a large mp sensor, It s like you went toally backwards You should have used a Z8, shot a model, perhaps a couple, in good light, focused fairly closem maybe shoot some cars, some lanfscape. You should have compared focusing, close focus sharpness, subject tracking You should of used a sigma art as a comparison, beceause that s the lens we currently use with an adapter, to see if we can ditch it for this new one. Throw in the old G for the folks that use it What a waste of my time watching this
?? I am sorry, but there is not one way to use a 35mm lens. Indeed you have your use case and specific needs. But to suggest there is only one way, and to suggest it is a 'portrait lens only "These are portrait lenses' you wrote. I would respectfully suggest you take into account that I am not you. LOL "You should of used a sigma art as a comparison ..." I don't own one, I don't have access to one. Nicolaie I think you have completely lost sight of the fact that videos like these which take 20-30 hours to make, are made with near on zero budgets with a channel of this size, from the passion of the person making them. To have this level of negativity from you, when it sounds like I owned you something, just completely bemuses me. There was no promise made, no thumbnail misdirect, no title about people. RUclips is an open forum, a library of information. You are the one the chooses the books you read in the 'library', you can't blame the book or the library. You made a choice, seemingly based upon assumptions, on how you think this lens should be used. That is your world, it is not mine. Interestingly 35mm is often sighted as a street / landscape lens. Here is something B+H wrote on the subject. Which you can find here www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/buying-guide/exploring-street-photography-lenses-your-guide-to-capturing-the-unexpected#:~:text=The%20legendary%2035mm%20focal%20length,for%20indoor%20and%20outdoor%20settings. Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens The legendary 35mm focal length is a go-to choice for street photographers worldwide, due to its exceptional versatility. It strikes a balance, neither too wide nor too tight, making it ideal for indoor and outdoor settings. Sigma's 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is an excellent option, equipped with a lightning-fast Hyper Sonic AF Motor for quick subject acquisition, along with manual override for added control. The f/1.4 aperture is perfect for low-light conditions and achieving pleasing shallow depth of field with beautiful bokeh, thanks to its nine-blade diaphragm. If you're new to street photography and uncertain about your preferred focal lengths, starting with a 35mm lens is an excellent choice, due to its wide-to-intermediate focal length range.
@nicolaiecostel, Here’s what I have learned from this review: 1. Has more fringing, 2. As sharp at 2.8, 3. Slightly less contrasty, 4. Also no distortion. 5. Better bokeh and possibly softer bokeh too. 6. Has a narrower field of view! That’s a lot! Also there are no portraits lenses. There are macro, telephoto, tilt shift, wide angle, prime and zoom and fast and slow lenses, but lenses are not categorised basis use case, because that’s personal. Now, I know that as a creator Matt is not the model shoot type of guy. Whereas there are those who just put a beautiful woman in front of the camera and be done. I much prefer the former. And without a tripod how will YOU do a 1:1 frame to frame analysis??
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi Matt, fellow Australian photographer here. Watched your stuff for a long time, always really appreciate your perspective. I'm making a video comparing these two lenses at the moment, your work helped clarify a lot of my thinking. Thought this video was outstanding - thanks so much for taking the time to make it. Cheers! Jack.
I was 35/85 all day on DSLR, when nikon made the mirrorless move I became a 20/50/105 out of necessity -- never felt the magic from the 35 1.8S. I'm happy to say I, personally, see some spirit from the new 1.4 optics, and I am happy to embrace that over high fidelity. I should get mine in a couple days. Excited !
I still have my 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 AI converted lenses from the 70's. I bought 10 other Z Lenses before considering a 35mm for my Z's. After the 1.4 came out and the 1.8 was discounted $150, my decision was made ... 1.8 S is my latest lens.
@@kennygeorgeonline Nice! I have a 35 1.8G and a 35 F2 as well as 50 1.8E, 135 F2 DC. Retro lenses are fun
@@kennygeorgeonlineI use a set of pre ai nikkors on my mirrorless. 35mm 50mm 85mm 105mm and 135mm.
@@Mike_to_the_k do all of them have metering and AF?
@Matt - I'm noticing a big step up in your productions. I am truly being wowed by it. See you in the next one.
35mm f/1.8s was my first native Z lens so has some extra nostalgia for me. No interest in the f/1.4 knowing the f/1.2 is still on the horizon but get why Nikon did this and would be a great choice for someone else as a first native prime Z lens.
The field of view difference may be related to the automatic distortion correction...
I love the 35 f1.4 for wedding photography (looks great on people’s skin).
I’m hoping Nikon surprises us again with the 85 f1.4 non-S lens; my God, that is would be a great combination ❤
Agree. The 1.8 is a lens for pixel peepers, the 1.4 for happy clients.
Since I moved to mirrorless with the Z8 in December, I've purchased nothing but Nikkor S glass and am I ever happy! While I do have the FTZ adapter to use with my older lenses (and I kept my beloved D810), when I do use those older lenses, they don't stay on the Z8 for very long. I just can't wait to get back to. my S lenses. Old glass is nice. S lenses are better for me.
Matt, thank you so much for the videos. You are becoming well known here in the states. Keep at it. You are very good at what you do.
I appreciate that! Thank you so much Bill :)
You have helped a lot with my lens decision making as I move to an all mirrorless Z set up. I look at the 35mm F1.4 differently now. I can see the benefits of a faster Fstop for low light photography. It’s interesting to see that Nikon is willing to explore the market by providing a lens for a specific application at an affordable price.
Hi Matt. I get it and totally agree with you. I think about how my perception has changed in the past 20 years as I have become more serious about photography and gain a greater understanding about light, aperture and composition. I think it's important that we retain a perspective of how those who are not so "taken" by photography view our work. I'm reminded of how a few years ago shooting with my Nikon D850 and a lovely Zeiss Milvus 100mm f2 Macro lens, I showed an image of a flower to a friend. She thought it was lovely, but, "Why was only part of the image in focus?" I also had the Sigma f-mount 40mm f1.4 Art and 85mm f1.4 Art lenses that rendered beautifully as well. A narrow depth of field can be quite lovely to us, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. As you imply, it's not right or wrong, it's just different. Now shooting with my Z8 and Z9, I have yet to experience a disappointing Z lens.
Hi Matt, thanks a lot for this very interesting review. When looking at the samples, especially the last one, for me the biggest difference is color rendition and contrast. Unlike somebody else in the comments I think the 1.4 has much stronger colors. The greens and reds in that last comparison have higher saturation than the 1.8. Here the colors seem to be a bit washed out. I expected the CAs to be a problem on the 1.4 due to missing coatings. So you can't have it both, high light gathering capabilities and perfect CA suppression. Unless Nikon creates a beast like the 50mm or 85mm 1.2 you have to choose. Those lenses are too chunky imho. Since you can always stop down to get around sharpness and CA issues, I will choose the 1.4. Thanks.
Just ordered 35mm 1.4, because I am not big fan of 35mm, but sometimes I miss my Sigma art 35mm when I had it. 35mm 1.2S probably will be about 2k euros and I already have 85 1.2, 50 1.2, and that's enough of 1.2s in my life This 35mm 1.4 gives so much softer bokeh than 1.8S. Thank you for 35mm 1.4 lens coverage, not that much reviews about this lens.
Thx for this comparison. There isn't much between them at all.
Don't you think that many times the difference in sharpness is mostly due to the DOF? There is a considerable difference comparing f/1.4 and f/1.8. The scene at 15:15 comes to mind.
How were they comparing when both were at f/1.8?
35mm is really not my favourite focal length but there are lots of people who like that perspective. In general, I tend to lean more and more towards „character“ than pure image quality or image fidelity as you call it. I love my AF-S 1.4/58mm G that is known for a lack of sharpness but famous for its rendering. It seems to me that the Z 1.4/35mm is closer to that philosophy than the 1.8 primes.
P.s. I did some research on the quality of the 1.8/35mm and have to admit that I was a little premature with my statement last week. There were only two videos in German that were critical of the lens, all the other reviews were much more positive.
Thank you for this wonderful and detailed comparison, and also for your explanation of the wider mount difference to the F lenses.
Hi Matt, thank you for all the power you put in your video! 👍
The coma and color fringing @15:21 killed the 35/1.4 for me ;)
Yes, for me as well. I do like the 1.4 and the step down in sharpness isn’t a major problem, although contrast and coma/fringing isn’t ideal. Thanks Matt for making this video, was super helpful. Personally I’ve pulled the trigger on the 1.8 as I love my 50mm 1.8 and use the 28/40mm combo for less than perfect (but beautiful in its own right) rendering. This video showed really useful examples that helped with my decision. I can also see why many people would prefer the 1.4 over the 1.8 (and cost not being the most important one), very happy with the choices in the Nikon lens lineup.
Matt, as usual you parsed out the appropriate decision points between these lenses. We are fortunate to have both of these to choose from now, which adds to the analysis. As a prosumer with some budget flexibility, I lean towards S-Line lenses for my go to lenses, Non-S and third party for glass I want to own that meets my infrequent specific use cases.
Great video Matt. I have seen in various places, the bokeh rendering of this new Z 35mm 1.4 likened to that of the 135 Plena, a lens I have to really force myself to take off my Z8 to use something else! (Invariably when I get to the end of the shoot it’s somehow managed to sneak its way back on!). That has piqued my interest in this 135 so I was wondering if you observed a likeness to the bokeh rendering of the Plena in your time with this new 35mm? Thanks.
Thanks Matt for this great and really quite important review. I think these or at this moment "this" f1.4 lens is a great idea. I love the 1.8 primes for landscape, architectural and product shots etc where a crisp clinical shot is wanted from a light weight setup. However, for portraits, environmental shots etc a slightly softer, dreamy effect like some of the better f mount lenses is often preferred. Now we have choices where the suite of 1.8 and 1.4 lenses would not break the bank. We also have the amazing 1.2's but apart from the high costs the huge size and weight are not always easy to carry around but are their when the best is required for professional use or for discerning people who have the budget. To have such choice is a real luxury. I can see myself having a suite of each so that I can go out light, light portrait or full on with the f1.2's... Lucky..I would love to see some environmental portrait shots with the 1.4...😊
Hmm the 1.8S looks significantly clearer sharper… I will keep it after all and not change them. I can make the background more hazy and less distracting more easily while keeping the pop and details on the subject which draws on the eyes.
That’s coming from a 58 1.4G lover. But that lens also has epic bokeh and other positives. This 1.4 doesn’t have significantly better bokeh or anything in a comparable way to this the 58 is a unique lens.
There’s something brilliant about my S lenses. The non-S lenses are great, like the 40 f2, 28 f2.8, and 180-600. But I can’t put it into words, just the my S lenses are “brilliant” (sharpness, color, contrast). I wanted to like the 35mm 1.4, but I’m holding off for the 35 1.2.
Don't see any difference and I own S and non S. What matters to me are satisfied clients.
I’m wondering how different the 35mm1.4 is from the 40mm2.0 seeing that the field of view of the 35mm is a bit punched in. That 40mm2.0 is such a good deal, especially when I see if selling for around $250 used.
I’d definitely pay for the additional stop of the 35mm 1.4, but am eagerly waiting for a 35mm 1.4 vs 40mm2.0 comparison video on RUclips first!
Good idea. I will have to try and get hold of the lens again.
Would love a z35 1.4 vs the old 35mm 1.4g comparison!
In my opinion the 1.4 is a phenomenal lens and for the price it’s staggering compared to the F mount 1.4 lens and hope there will be more of these like 28mm and 50mm. I think for your comparison the 1.8s would make more sense purely for the corners at 1.8 but think maybe event and wedding photography might be where the 1.4 will excel purely for its bokeh and rendering. Either way don’t think anyone can be disappointed with either of these very similarly priced lenses.
wise words born of experience
Well I do have to say that the Carl Zeiss Milvus Distagon 35mm f/2 Manual Focus F Mount Lens is pretty sharp. I do have almost of the Z Mount Glass and I still keep going back to this lens. Cheers!
Great video Matt - what a pro you are!!!
I own the 35 1.8S and have since very close to the beginning of Z mount. As you well know, it is a workhorse of a lens providing excellent IQ and it works great in video being super silent and have nice focus transitions.
The 1.4 is tempting to me however, as I also have the Tamron 1.4 SP lens for F mount which adapts perfectly with the FTZ adaptor. It has excellent IQ (my guess is that it is better than the Nikon 1.4 - but it is also bigger, heavier and more expensive so you would expect that - and it was Tamron's 40 year anniversary lens for the SP line (pro line for Tamron) and they indicated that they threw the kitchen sink at this lens. I will say that it is marvelous but as previously noted it is fairly big and heavy and with the FTZ it is very long on the body - I find that I do not take it much - especially if I am traveling and so the 35 1.8S gets lots of use.
I was/am waiting for the 35 1.2S which we know is still coming and was confirmed to my by a Nikon Rep. That said, I think we all know that the 35mm 1.2S is goinig to be an optical masterpiece but at the expense of size and weight and of course cost.
It seems to me there are many use cases for me at play: 1) what 35mm do I want to use for my outdoor environmental portraiture? 2) What lens am I willing to take if I have to travel on a plane? 3) What might be the best compromise of IQ and size and weight should the result being sought be more about overall IQ (like landscape or cityscape) versus when bokeh is more important like in environmental portraiture - especially outside?
Seems to me for the answer to #1 - this depends on where I am. If in my home city, I expect the 35mm 1.2 S to be the best choice here. Size and weight are less relevant when traveling somewhere by car than by plane and in this use case I would want the best IQ with the best bokeh possible - this is how I currently use the Tamron 1.4 SP lens.
For #2, I think the answer would be the 35mm 1.4 Nikkor lens as it is small and light enough to easily travel in my bag - something that the Tamron struggles to do and undoubtedly the 35 1.2 S will also struggle to do. On the road, I think for outdoor environmental portraiture the bokeh and lowlight characteristics would outweigh the slightly better IQ of the 1.8 S.
For #3, I think the obvious choice is the 35 1.8 S - in situaltion where stopping down is advantageous there may be no reason to use either the 35 1.2 S or the 35 1.4 since after f2 or say certainly by f/4 I doubt very much that the 1.8 S won't be as good as any lens. So for trips to scenic places, and or when technical sharpness is needed but at f/4 to f/8 the 35 1.8 S would likely be the best choice.
As such, I have a use case for all of these lenses lol. For now, I think (but I might go ahead and get the 1.4 sooner - we'll see) am going to stick with the Tamron until the 1.2 S arrives - use the 1.2 S and the 1.8 S to compare my theory and then decide if I want the 1.4 simply for travel that involves outdoor environmental portraiture.
To me though, it seems clear that if money were no object (which sadly it is for must of us) one would simply get them all. But then again, the same might be said for all Z lenses period - if money were no object you'd probably get them all! 😂
Thanks for the very informative and well crafted video!
-PD
The Tamron 35mm F1.4 is in a class of its own. I use that 95% of the time for portraits in my smallish studio on my D850. I have ZERO need for mirrorless in that setting.. Out of all my glass, it's my fave. And I have top notch glass. Having said that, I just got a Z6iii and absolutely love it.
@@71whitey Agreed that the Tamron is exceptional. That said - in a studio situation where you are likely shooting at f/5.6 - f/11 there probably isn't a big difference between any of the lenses that I discussed. Yes the Z6III is amazing - as is the Z8 and Zf - all of which I have and use.
D850 is a great camera, but at this point mirrorless is just better for so many things that it is truly worth the switch. One small example is that F.mount glass is literally better on the Z system than it is native on the DSLR's. Your Tamron 35 1.4 SP lens on a Z camera with FTZ enjoys 3 axis IBIS which the D850 has none and also focusing points across the entire frame not just in the middle - this says nothing of the advantages of the EVF and the advanced focusing system, video capabilities and on and on and on...
It is truly time to move to mirrorless if you are a Nikon shooter. The D850 was great (still is for what it is) but the Z8 is better in every respect and frankly so is the Z6III with the exception of resolution.
-PD
@@photographydiscourse1185 I don't need stabilization on a tripod. I would NEVER sell my last D850 because as I said, mirrorless is pointless to me in my individual situation. Also, depends on how you shoot a portrait. Yes, I often use F4-5.6 but I also use the 35 wide open if I want fall off. I don't stick to the boring rules that a lot of boring photographers use. And as I said, I love the Z6iii for event photography and low light situations. Cheers.
@@71whitey Sure - I think you are missing my point, but I'm glad you are happy with the Z6III and your D850 - both great cameras for their use cases!
-PD
The difference of FOV seems to be 5%, almost 2mm, which is not a major difference, but people have very strong preferences in the 28/35/40 range. So without any drama I think it would be helpful to know which way it changes, just as a piece into consideration, 35mm being the quintessential prime lens focal length.
Most of my f1.4 glass are Sigma Art series primes, the size difference between a F1.2 to 1.4 and 1.8 is significant, 1.8 even though are slightly slower, are easy to travel with when packing several lens. Early in September I am planning a trip to Asatigue Island on the coast of Virginia's Eastern Shores. The main attraction is Asatigue and Chincoteague Island, both are connected and have a wide variety of birds and wild horses. My wild life camera is a Fujifilm XH2 and the 100-400mm lens and for general photography I will have a Panasonic S5 MKII with a variety of zoom and primes and a second bag that ì will use for evening photography on Chincoteague Island where I will be staying at a Marina hotel. The evening bag will have a Nikon ZF and a couple of Voightlander and Viltrox primes. I will be driving from the Hudson Valley of NYS and this will allow me to pack a variety of gear plus a Cannondale city bike, the island and wildlife refuge is very bike friendly.
Great informative review. So thank you much desrved!
thanks for the video, which one would you choose for astrophoto ? Sharpness vs aperture it seems ? On a Z6III
dang it! thanks Matt , now I am even more unsure if I'll get the 1.4 :D
Matt, thank you for this video! I’ve been anxiously awaiting any additional information about this lens since your last two videos and you didn’t disappoint! While there’s a bit more flaring on this lens than I’d prefer, I still think it would make an excellent portrait lens. It’s there any way you can share some portrait examples taken with this lens? And maybe compare them with the 1.8 S lens? Anyway-I’m very excited about this lens and plan to buy it as soon as Amazon offers it with their 5 payment plan. Greetings from Mesa AZ USA!
You should have increased the speed on the camera with the 1.4
Differences in exposure, specially if overexposed,can affect the apparent sharpness because of the loss of contrast
I've watched Matt break the shutter speed rule in his videos a lot in favor of using NDs; I'm sure he did here to keep same iso. I don't see much of a difference in exposures. Maybe 1/3 or less in some shots, but most look pretty damn near the same.
@@northofbrandonthere are shots with a clear difference. He even mentioned it. The one with a very similar exposure, there was no visible difference in sharpness.
And he used a tripod. Same iso could be used by simply changing speed
@@carlosandreviana9448 I think it's marginal personally
One thing that I noticed is the white balance was not the same on the two photos. The 1.4 had a more yellow hue. Not sure what would be the cause of that.
Slightly tighter framing, 2/3rds stop brighter, arguably a bit more "character" due to the optical flaws. Enough differences to merit a shopping comparison, and for the 35mm shooter, reason to own both. With the 35/1.2S out there floating in limbo, Nikon Z is eventually looking at 3 different 35mm lenses, which is interesting.
What would be even more interesting, is if the 35/1.4 was the first of a series of lower cost, non S primes. Knock on wood.
Great video Matt! I didn't consider 35mm focal length until I started shooting video, ended up being a focal length I use for my talking head videos. Considered getting the Milvus 1.4/35 after using the Otus 1.4/55 but, it is actually heavier than the Otus. I was hoping for an S line 1.4 but the 1.8 S line is probably better value for me, as the 35mm 1.2 S line is probably going to be heavier and pricier.
Well done, fella.
Thanks Matt! I don't yet own a Z 35mm lens. I was holding out for the (maybe) f/1.2 but am I being foolish? Both of these lenses are awesome, after all.
I think that 1.4 would be enough for me… small and light is nice.
Could the difference in focal length be due to the 1.4 having more distortion that is being corrected automatically by Capture one?
I need to decide between these two lenses.
I usually shoot in low-light environments, without flashes, with high ISO.
Which of the two lenses will give me the sharpest image with the most details?
The 1.4 lens at ISO 3200, for example, or the 1.8 lens at ISO 5000?
Does the 1.4 lens at 2/3 of a stop lower ISO beat the 1.8, or does the quality of the 1.8 lens beat the ISO difference?
I don't mind the difference in depth of field.
So, which one would as over/under exposed? Surely, it's a good idea to alter the alter settings of the 1.4 to mimic the 1.8? The 1.4 looks over exposed compared to the 1.8, therefore not a true comparison?
Probably not in the same class. ... How would they be compared to 40 mm F/2. By curiosity.
Is there a difference in the color temperature rendering of the two? Seems hard to be sure with the way artificial lights can pulse.
You made me get a 1.4 right now! Thanks :D
Mmmm, To be honest, If they were priced the same, I still think I would opt for the f1.8
Of course, I'm / we are looking at a screen shot of a screen? .. However, I can clearly see the differences you are pointing out. And to be said, .. I trust your judgment. My first 35mm was the Ftn Photomic and yes! I still have it. I have always loved Nikkor glass and the fact they didn't change the mount on the CEO,s mother's birthday meant that I could confidently invest in very good glass that mostly didn't become obsolete. (apart from my 40mm GN lens)
As always, a very informative review. No BS.
For coma distortion, get out in the dark country side and do a wee bit of astro photography. Check the shape of the stars up in the corners. The trick here is to shoot at a fast enough speed so you don't get star trails (or use a tracking mount). If you have an astronomy club near by folks could lend a hand in the mount department.
Astro photography is very demanding on optics and you can't get away with some things like you could in, say landscape photography. From what little I've followed it, the 20mm S lens is very good.
For my use case, the 35mm's are not on my radar. Good video for those folks that are looking.
The 20 1.8 is great, did see a RUclips on the 351.8 for smaller slices of astro work.
@@margot6041 I may have 2-3 years ago; so if I did I didn't remember a thing about it. LOL I've pretty much limited my astro work to comets and the Moon.
Where you able to test the AF capability for both? I'd like to know which one has better AF.
1.8 for me, definitely. If I were in the market for such a lens. :)
Thanks Matt n Joe !!! :) :) :)
Beautiful footage! I would prefer a 28mm 1.4. I sold for my original F mount $3K(I paid $1,700 a decade before that) more than a decade ago because it wasn't as sharp as internet lore claimed and sounded like a pepper grinder. 28 is my favorite field of view! My 35mm F mount never comes out of my bag.
the 28mm F/1.4 E is stunning. They can be had used for as little as $750 US.
4.18, back of Cookie bar. Oh my god spent 15 years there.
Matt, you make the comparison between 1.4 F mount glass and this new 1.4 Z mount. The table of F's did not include the 35 F1.4G F mount. Would you still say the 35mm 1.4 Z is better than the 35mm 1.4 F? I have been spoiled by the 85 f1.2 Z and the Plena and was really hoping that a 35mm F1.2 would be offered by now. If it will still be released, I suspect like the lenses I already have, it will have the best of both the 1.8's sharpness and exceedingly light gathering and bokeh from a 1.2. The tradeoff being cost and weight, both significant. I have seen videos comparing the 35mm f1.4 G being more of a character lens than the 35mm f1.8 Z. A 35mm F1.4G in mint condition is relatively the same price as a brand new 35mm f1.4 Z lens. I'm sure that varies but if the new 1.4 Z performs better that the 1.4G, it seems like a no-brainer to acquire the new lens and not deal with the FTZ. I will use such a lens for street and event photos and probably pair it with either the 85 1.2 or the Plena 1.8 for such efforts. I have to also wonder if the 35 1.2 will be released that it wont be until after sales of this 1.4 Z settle out. Other 1.4 Z's could further the delay of the niche 35mm f1.2 Z. That is speculation of course but the cost of the new 1.4 would make for a good alternative until a 1.2 is released and evaluated. Thoughts on the 35mm f1.4 G?
Cool graphics🫡🔥 the dynamic range is stunning too🔥
1.8, easy choice. BTW, I'd definitely have stopped down the shot at 3:55 - those OOF people in the foreground make me nervous.
what lens shot the intro???? -i want that one
Out of interest, how does the 1.4 compare to the 1.8S in terms of weather sealing?
Outstanding video Matt, greetings from Spain🎉
I’m on the fence between these… Thanks you so much for the review ❤
I think it would be very useful to see a f1.8 vs f1.8 on these two. The 1.4 clearly wins when it comes to light gathering so at 1.4 vs 1.8 I feel like it’s not an apples to apples comparison anymore. If the 1.4 clean up at 1.8 to match the 1.8 I’d rate the 1.4 higher than the 1.8 as it has the “superpower” of opening up to 1.4 😅
I also kind of get the impression that these examples were exposed to fit f1.8 and not 1.4, but that isn’t necessarily true 🫣
Yes, a comparison of the image quality, sharpness etc. makes only sense when you use the exact same aperture and all other settings.
I was also hoping that he was going to make some comparisons with both lenses at 1.8
And beyond to 2.8 etc. I wa a bit disappointed he didnt show examples of this @womz8203
Hello Matt, I know this 35mm f1.4 will be an ok lenses, but the 35mm f1.8 gives a better image. Now for me I would it would always be the lenses fault if the image was not as I would like. The S line lenses are just amazing so an F1.2 or f1.4 s line would now be in my bag. So I will wait as I think Ricci said there may well be one more s line lens coming, I will now just wait I know it will cost more but then I will just blame myself if the images are bad.
You should not pixel peep so much
You're confusing "image that are bad" with "somewhat less tack sharp in the corners if you zoom in to 200%"
Great video Matt! Very informative 👏
The Z 35mm f/1.8 S has Better Color Fidelity, is Sharper, with More Clarity, and is Cleaner overall, with Little to No CA.
The Z 35mm f/1.4 has only a little more Bokeh than the Z f/1.8 S. But how much do you want to sacrifice overall for that tad bit more Bokeh? Also, stopping down to f/2 or f/2.8 to achieve more sharpness, reduces the light gathering and bokeh…eliminating the advantage of both.
Consequently, unless one’s budget is a strong consideration, and saving to makeup the difference in price for the Z f/1.8 S is not an option, then, indeed, the Z 35mm f/1.4 is good enough, and here to accommodate. However, I do see a greater difference between these two lenses than you do Matt…I would choose the Z 35mm f/1.8 S quality, as a key part of the Z f/1.8 S trinity… Always.
P.S. Matt; your 'Melbourne Night Scape’ images are stunning as always. They make me feel Melbourne may become the new contender for the title: 'City of Lights'. Cheers, Catherine O
To me, just show me two eye shots from both lenses wide open, if the sharpness in f/1.4 is acceptable I am going for f/1.4, as straight forward as that.
Melbourne is so pretty.
1.4 for half the price gets my money
The 1.4 has a little more crop than the 1.8. Cheers!
To me you've demonstrated that there's only a tiny image diffrence between these 1.4s and 1.8Ss. I'd like to have been in the Exec tent when they decided to produce this new line of primes which are a triplicate of what we already have - WHY? Was it that Tamron wanted to release them, and Nikon agreed if they carried the Nikon brand? Who knows. Can we please have some new primes that aren't in the Z range? 12 or 14mm f1.8, 16 or 18mm f1.8, 19mm T/S, 24mm f1.4S plesae. What about the promised 35 1.2?
Agree Geoff, it would be great to see some Z wide primes, TS and many of us are waiting for the 35 1.2 S.
I'm assuming the video samples from both lenses are post processed, it would be nice to see what comes straight out of camera
These look pretty SOOC in Flat to me. The mirrorless era is spitting out some great images right from the cam. Other than exposure adjustments, I don't have to touch the sliders much.
For me, it would be the 1.8 hands down.
for pixel peepers, yes. If you want character, no
1.8 for me
No comparison at F1.8 or F2. 😔
Coming later today. 😀
Hi Matt, I have a Z6III question for you. I came across a video talking about “pulsing” in shadows. I’ve since tested my cameras and have discovered the same issue. Here’s the original video: ruclips.net/video/9EWPmvbIyYo/видео.htmlsi=sL5SjYFyXm-1rRHk I’m trying to find out how widespread this is, whether it’s a small batch of chips or something affecting a lot of cameras. Is your Z6III acting this way as well?
I have not seen it. Can you see it in this vid?
Kinda hard to tell watching on my phone. Will have to pull your video up on a proper computer screen. Hopefully for most users it’s a small batch of bad chips. I’ve seen postings from a few others who have noticed the problem but so far it’s just a few. Thing is I did some very low light testing when I first got the camera and the footage played back cleanly. Yet now 2+ weeks later this pulsing thing has emerged. Reminds me of the artifacts you could get in older video equipment after it’s been banged around a lot. No one at the camera store had seen a problem like this before. So let’s see if Nikon comes up with a few answers. Fingers crossed. I was looking forward to having the Z6III for a long time.
@@waveland I have not seen it, and this is the first time I’ve heard about it. All codecs all circumstances?
@@MattIrwinPhotography Here’s another video about it. ruclips.net/video/k9fm6Kk412c/видео.htmlsi=NjRR9D1t60CRJr15 I don’t think anyone has done a complete breakdown of it yet but I was having the problem in NRAW and others in 10-bit N-log.
Everyone is disappointed to not to see a f1.8 to f1.8 comparision especially when the f1.4 is cheaper.. 😅
Everyone?
@MattIrwinPhotography haha ok my apologises, some of us then..😁
Tested both today..strongly disappointed by the new lens, very busy and ugly bokeh …ill send it back on monday…
1:33 I don't understand the statement "Nikon has given us.... a choice". Like it's some new concept, or F mount didn't offer options at 35mm or other brands don't offer a choice to their users. How is offering an afforable mid range 35/1.8 and a more expensive pro grade 35/1.4 not "offering a choice"? No amount of stylistic editing is going to make this true. The choice is there, like it always has been. But it's different, the features are now mixed. Instead of one lens with somewhat slightly inferior image quality, lesser build, less coating and lesslight gathering and another one that excells on all this aspects.... you now have two lenses with a mixture of good & inferior. So whatever you pick, there is always a negative aspect. While Nikon is perfectly capable of making a 35/1.4 without a compromise.
Nobody said a more expensive 35 would not be choice (in fact the 35nn 1.2 should still appear at one point). But where's the biggie? They didn't give you the choice you wanted?
Nikons Z lineup has seen some truly dumbass decisions. Prime top of the line s lenses are f1.8 and the budget version is f1.4 wtf?.in what universe does that make sense😂
It's not necessarily the sharpness... it's the contrast and the colors, both of which are way better on the 1.8 S. Just watch at 4:45 and it's an immediate difference.
So this is a €300 China lens packaged as a Nikon lens if we're honest... probably even worse if we look at the latest lenses from China budget brands. Doesn't mean it's not usable, but neither are the China lenses for half the price
That's your opinion. Nothing else
@@carlosandreviana9448 do you write that under every comment? What do you think the comment section is for other than opinions? Regardless of my opinion, the lens has soft corners and tons of CAs and ghosting, that’s a fact everyone can see, not an opinion
@@drchtctI only wrote under yours. I own several Chinese lenses and two are my favorites. They have character. They are not boring like modern lenses. If 100% sharpness is your concept of a great lens, good for you. Just keep shooting the same repetitive boring Bokeh, super sharp photos.
@@carlosandreviana9448 seems like you didn’t understand my comment. I said China lenses are *not* unusable, I like them, but they are half the price. Nikon commands a higher price, so higher quality is expected. A lens with soft corners and lots of CA can be had much cheaper as a China lens, and often they even perform better than that nowadays.
Hi Matt, with this comparison it becomes even more questionable why Nikon stoops to this level with such poor 1.4 quality just to offer the Chinese something in competition. I find this development terrible. And an ambitious photographer hardly needs to buy such a lens.
You cannot compare lenses with one overexposed!!! Futile "review"... you talk about things you could've show in video, but you didn't. It's a shame to see this, as a great effort was put into this video, and all you needed to do is compensate by shutter speed. I know you know, but the question is - what were you trying to achieve with this video?
You probably thought I was pedantic about fabs and foundries and logical chip design versus "printing" chips, when I kept pointing to these. Then you went to Japan, asked around, and came back an educated man.
Here we go again.
(1) Both the 1.8 and 1.4 are meaningless with respect to "how fast they are" as long as we don't know their "transmission" or T-value.
(2) We cannot say anything concrete about Depth of Field (DoF) without reference to the Circle of Confusion (CoC).
In several comments elsewhere and maybe here too, I have pointed to - as per DxO Mark - some 1.2L lenses from one brand having the same T-value as 1.4G lenses from another brand.
Both these examples are T=1.5 when fully open and that is their speed.
Saying that you bought those 1.2L lenses because they are so fast makes you look like a fool. Saying that you bought those 1.2L lenses because of their shallow depth of field also makes you look like a fool. But they are so softy, you then say? Yes, true, because they're not sharp. They're big and heavy and cost a lot of money.
The CoC in DoF is about as challenging as the general theory of relativity and it's all relative too.
So, no, DoF does not solely depend on distance, focal length and aperture, but also the CoC.
CoC is like a mutt parameter that bundles some 6 different ones.
(1) camera/sensor/film resolution - better means smaller CoC means shallower DoF
(2) lens resolution - better means smaller CoC means shallower DoF
(3) processing - better means smaller CoC means shallower DoF
(4) display resolution - better means smaller CoC means shallower DoF
(5) display size - larger means smaller CoC means shallower DoF
(6) viewer-display distance - shorter means smaller CoC means shallower DoF
Note that DoF is a perception thing that can be measured and expressed in the CoC number.
Note that DoF can only be discussed when we take all of these 6 into account.
The consequence is that - generally - the DoF scale on your lens is a lie.
The consequence is that - generally - your DoF app is a lie.
Add to this that the "number" in f/number may also be a lie as well as your lens's focal length.
The DoF formula wants no lies, but "effective" aperture and "effective" focal length and for you the challenge to enter the proper numbers. Good luck with that.
Still, we can reason about DoF and CoC very well, as thought experiment.
And you can play with numbers in a spreadsheet that has the formula with the numbers.
Simply put, if we assume that out of (1) .. (6) only (2) varies and the others (ceteris) remain the same (paribus) then we can also appreciate that the 1.2L in my example above that is not so sharp in DxO Mark, may have a CoC that makes it have the same DoF at 1.2 as the 1.4G lens at 1.4 - ceteris paribus (or even worse).
Or, between the 35/1.8S and the 35/1.4 we know neither the T value nor the CoC.
Assumptions about DoF and "fast" are totally ambiguous.
As long as we don't make comparisons that try to isolate a T-value effect as wel as DoF.
Note that 24MP Nikon cameras have an OLPF (fuzzy filter, I call that) and 45 MP don't.
Also note that (3) processing is a lot less in movie as well as in JPEG than in raw at full resolution.
Are you like this at parties?
Thank you for your effort but this comparison is completely useless and i think you completely missed the point of a 35 1.4
You chose literally the worst light and the worst subjects to test these lenses, with the wrong use case. Who in hell is going to take a fast 35, put it on a tripod and shoot at base iso on a 24 mm camera ?!
These are portrait lenses, event lenses meant to be focused at 1-3 meter range in adequate lighting, hand held, possibly on a large mp sensor, It s like you went toally backwards
You should have used a Z8, shot a model, perhaps a couple, in good light, focused fairly closem maybe shoot some cars, some lanfscape. You should have compared focusing, close focus sharpness, subject tracking
You should of used a sigma art as a comparison, beceause that s the lens we currently use with an adapter, to see if we can ditch it for this new one. Throw in the old G for the folks that use it
What a waste of my time watching this
?? I am sorry, but there is not one way to use a 35mm lens. Indeed you have your use case and specific needs. But to suggest there is only one way, and to suggest it is a 'portrait lens only "These are portrait lenses' you wrote. I would respectfully suggest you take into account that I am not you. LOL "You should of used a sigma art as a comparison ..." I don't own one, I don't have access to one. Nicolaie I think you have completely lost sight of the fact that videos like these which take 20-30 hours to make, are made with near on zero budgets with a channel of this size, from the passion of the person making them. To have this level of negativity from you, when it sounds like I owned you something, just completely bemuses me. There was no promise made, no thumbnail misdirect, no title about people. RUclips is an open forum, a library of information. You are the one the chooses the books you read in the 'library', you can't blame the book or the library. You made a choice, seemingly based upon assumptions, on how you think this lens should be used. That is your world, it is not mine.
Interestingly 35mm is often sighted as a street / landscape lens.
Here is something B+H wrote on the subject.
Which you can find here www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/buying-guide/exploring-street-photography-lenses-your-guide-to-capturing-the-unexpected#:~:text=The%20legendary%2035mm%20focal%20length,for%20indoor%20and%20outdoor%20settings.
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
The legendary 35mm focal length is a go-to choice for street photographers worldwide, due to its exceptional versatility. It strikes a balance, neither too wide nor too tight, making it ideal for indoor and outdoor settings. Sigma's 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is an excellent option, equipped with a lightning-fast Hyper Sonic AF Motor for quick subject acquisition, along with manual override for added control. The f/1.4 aperture is perfect for low-light conditions and achieving pleasing shallow depth of field with beautiful bokeh, thanks to its nine-blade diaphragm. If you're new to street photography and uncertain about your preferred focal lengths, starting with a 35mm lens is an excellent choice, due to its wide-to-intermediate focal length range.
@nicolaiecostel, Here’s what I have learned from this review: 1. Has more fringing, 2. As sharp at 2.8, 3. Slightly less contrasty, 4. Also no distortion. 5. Better bokeh and possibly softer bokeh too. 6. Has a narrower field of view! That’s a lot! Also there are no portraits lenses. There are macro, telephoto, tilt shift, wide angle, prime and zoom and fast and slow lenses, but lenses are not categorised basis use case, because that’s personal.
Now, I know that as a creator Matt is not the model shoot type of guy. Whereas there are those who just put a beautiful woman in front of the camera and be done. I much prefer the former. And without a tripod how will YOU do a 1:1 frame to frame analysis??
Glad you know it all.
@@chrisdees7052 it’s not that at all. The only thing Matt hasn’t spoken about here is the amount of distortion. It probably doesn’t have much.
@@FramesTM Sorry, it was not a comment to you, but to the “I know it all” guy in the first post 😊