I have owned both these lenses and used the F2 as well as 1 previous iteration of this lens for many years on film and digital. It had a nice bokeh rendering but was very flare prone with the sun in the shot although for video that seems to be popular today. I kept the 1.4 and gave the F2 to my son which guickly became his favourite lens. The 1.4 is sharper than the F2 at f2 and is better in the sun. They are both really good up close but the F2 Ais is very easily converted with a dandelion chip and epoxy which makes it very useable on modern digital cameras. The back element of the F1.4 is too big so can’t be chipped easily. I looked for the 1.4 for years and finally found one for $300 Canadian in mint condition. Previously I never saw one for under $550. It has become one of my favourites. The bokeh is beautiful on not so busy subjects. However the F2 is better in reverse mode where it becomes a 1 1/2 life size macro lens. Enjoyed your video extolling this great optic, thanks for sharing and I agree with your findings . Regards Gerry
Hi, thank you for the video. Which lens do you recommend for landscape photography? I know I should not buy f/1.4 lenses if I usually shoot at f/8 or smaller, but the 1.4 has more image plasticity? Thank you
The 35mm 1.4 is reputed to be at its optimum aperture one of the sharpest SLR lenses Nikon ever made, but it also is said to have some tricky optical performance. Personally, I was never drawn to use of 35mm lenses, so I was never willing to put up the huge price required. I do have the 35mm 2.0 in AF and the 35mm "shift" lens, which is a whole different situation.
For decades, 35mm has been my personal favorite focal length. For years, I used a 35mm f/2 Nikkor on my F, F2, F3, and F4 Nikon SLRs. In 2002, I replaced the 35 f/2 with a 35 f/1.4 Nikkor. The 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor has been my personal favorite ever since.
Nice review. I’ve always found the Nikkor O 35mm f2 to be a much better performer. If you don’t need the speed it’s the way to go. What are your thoughts?
Don’t sleep on the Samyang 35 1.4 UMC. They’re cheap, a bit big, have FoV shift as you focus but are truly sharp and bright (closer to most f1.2s than 1.4s).
I don't think the rendering is average or good or very good... it's of higher interest, it's rich & immersive, it's really special. And I'm for it for filming. So, is it me not understanding the 35mm 2.0 is as special ? I don't understand your conclusion. You have a way superior tool, anything like it... And you say, maybe the 35mm 2.0 is OK ??? What ?
Very enjoyable video with several good photographs. Thank you. RS. Canada
Very helpful, thorough and perfectly timed review! Thank you!
No worries 😃 glad to hear it was helpful
I have owned both these lenses and used the F2 as well as 1 previous iteration of this lens for many years on film and digital. It had a nice bokeh rendering but was very flare prone with the sun in the shot although for video that seems to be popular today. I kept the 1.4 and gave the F2 to my son which guickly became his favourite lens. The 1.4 is sharper than the F2 at f2 and is better in the sun. They are both really good up close but the F2 Ais is very easily converted with a dandelion chip and epoxy which makes it very useable on modern digital cameras. The back element of the F1.4 is too big so can’t be chipped easily. I looked for the 1.4 for years and finally found one for $300 Canadian in mint condition. Previously I never saw one for under $550. It has become one of my favourites. The bokeh is beautiful on not so busy subjects. However the F2 is better in reverse mode where it becomes a 1 1/2 life size macro lens. Enjoyed your video extolling this great optic, thanks for sharing and I agree with your findings . Regards Gerry
Hi, thank you for the video. Which lens do you recommend for landscape photography? I know I should not buy f/1.4 lenses if I usually shoot at f/8 or smaller, but the 1.4 has more image plasticity?
Thank you
The 35mm 1.4 is reputed to be at its optimum aperture one of the sharpest SLR lenses Nikon ever made, but it also is said to have some tricky optical performance. Personally, I was never drawn to use of 35mm lenses, so I was never willing to put up the huge price required. I do have the 35mm 2.0 in AF and the 35mm "shift" lens, which is a whole different situation.
I have the 1.4 but for some reason I miss focus often and I can't figure out why.
Enjoyable video
Thanks Lewis! Great hearing your thoughts on the glow/softness at 1.4 and how that could be beneficial for video. Very cool. Cheers!
thank you. I'm happy it was helpful to you
Trying to decide between the f/2 and the zeiss distagon 35mm zf2. This video helps a ton. Thank uuuuu
nice photos
For decades, 35mm has been my personal favorite focal length.
For years, I used a 35mm f/2 Nikkor on my F, F2, F3, and F4 Nikon SLRs. In 2002, I replaced the 35 f/2 with a 35 f/1.4 Nikkor. The 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor has been my personal favorite ever since.
Yes, I really understand this. I don't understand his conclusion at all.
What color film were you using especially in the first photo?
That was portra 160. The colour photos are mainly portra and some ultra max and Ektar
Thank you Lewis. I enjoyed the photos.
Nice review. I’ve always found the Nikkor O 35mm f2 to be a much better performer. If you don’t need the speed it’s the way to go. What are your thoughts?
Don’t sleep on the Samyang 35 1.4 UMC. They’re cheap, a bit big, have FoV shift as you focus but are truly sharp and bright (closer to most f1.2s than 1.4s).
I don't think the rendering is average or good or very good... it's of higher interest, it's rich & immersive, it's really special. And I'm for it for filming.
So, is it me not understanding the 35mm 2.0 is as special ? I don't understand your conclusion. You have a way superior tool, anything like it...
And you say, maybe the 35mm 2.0 is OK ??? What ?