I have to disagree with you on this one. This lens is amazingly sharp and bokeh is beautiful. My best shots have been taking with this lens. The price is justified for this particular lens. It’s just brilliant! And I’m coming from R5 and Sony A9
I owned both the 50 mm and the 35 mm primes. I end up selling the 50mm although it is sharper. For me the 35 mm is more usable focal length. The 50mm is slightly sharper though, but not much. This lens is great.
I have the 85mm and 35mm. Use 35mm like 90% of the time. If I need more zoom, I typically just set I'm the camera to DX node then it looks like a 50mm.
A decisive selling point of this lens for me was its sun-star effect. I paid somewhere around at 650 Euro which was totally worth it solely due to this character. This is my go-to lens for night-photography :)
You the man! I remember trying this lens out at Henry's (Canada) about a year ago. I had a z6 and was using an adapted Nikkor 35G at the time. Given the price of the 35 f1.8 S, i was expecting a little bit more. It left me underwhelmed as well. It wasn't bad, but it felt overpriced for what it is.
Thank you! I mostly agree with your review, though I found that in practice the AF on this lens tends to do a lot of pulse-hunting in AF-C, very noticeable with the eye-AF.
The Nikkor 35/1.8S is head and shoulders over the Canon RF 35mm f1.8. The price reflects that quite fairly I think. I feel more premium f1.8 lenses are very much under appreciated. The Zeiss Batis line and the Leica f1.8 SL lenses also go for highly corrected but slightly dimmer in order to keep down size. Brighter lenses (f1.2-f1.4) that are similarly corrected to this family of f1.8 optics are commonly very large and/or expensive.
I disagree. According to Chris, this lens is only “a little sharper” vs RF equivalent. If you watch the RF equivalent review below, it’s a tough sell to say, this lens is just a smidge(viewed at 200%) sharper, especially at twice the price($850). The RF equivalent has IS(4 stops) and 1/2 macro capability at 1/2 the price. IMO, this is a specialty lens for landscapers with sturdy tripods, while the RF covers a boarder spectrum of photographers(wedding, landscape, beginner, videographer and travel). Normal buyers will always look at price first, then performance and finally stand out features(IS + 1/2 macro). Most buyers(not all) don’t mind not having weather sealing or hypersonic lens motor drive(if body can’t track properly). At $850, a young up coming photographer can pick up two RF f1.8s in 35 and 50 while saving $200. AGAIN in the sharpness department, Nikon is just a “little sharper”(viewed at 200%). That’s Canon’s secret in amassing over 45%(#1) of the market share, by providing cheap with very good optical performance in f1.8-2 line up. ruclips.net/video/biOM5bVoqBw/видео.html
@@vivalasvegas702 um, no. The rf 35 is a slow focusing, softer, non weather sealed, loud lens thats costs $500...so much more than half of this lens. The rf is not a professional lens and I know, because I tried using it and the autofocus motors are veery distracting. The nikon on the other hand is weather sealed, quiet, sharper, and has more contrast. It costs $350 more and it is $350 better than the canon. In both cases you get what you pay for. I wish canon made a pro quality affordable lens but apparently nikon is the only company out there (other than fuji) willing to do that
@@burritobrosvideos8060 Let’s see, Z6ii + Z35 f1.8 vs R6 + RF35 f1.8 in any stills or video AF tracking(eye, animal, bird, insect) test, guess who’s producing more keepers, hint, the BODY w/h a better AF? Now it’s after sunset, getting dark, guess which lens with higher keeper rate, hint, the one w/h 4 stop of IS? As you can see, having better lens motor is not necessarily means it’s a better lens. It doesn’t matter how sharp your lens is(optical elements), if it’s producing soft images due to the lack of IS, especially after dark. BTW Canon R5 & R6 are using magnets in their IBIS, to move their sensor, it’s more accurate/reliable, according to patents. Unlike Nikon, it’s the good old leaf spring method, 2-3 stops maybe. I own pro grade lenses with weather sealing, once it starts raining, I take cover, mother nature will eventually win. I’ll jump to Canon eco system in about a year or two, as soon as body prices stabilizes. Their bodies are well sorted out. Excellent AF, IBIS, video, ergonomics, service, pro grade bodies/lens are still made in Japan, warrantee has no regional bias, canon printers, DR is right up there now(it’s now negligible) and of course the RF glass will eventually have more innovative line up vs completing brands.
@@vivalasvegas702 i owned the r6, 600mm f11, 70-200 f2.8, 85mmf2 and 35mm f1.8 and I can tell you...its just not worth it. I love the r6 but all of the lenses under 2k are cheap and are not built to last. The ibis is great but the loud, slow focusing lenses are just awful. Also, I dint stand in the rain with my gear haha its the dust, sand, dirt, and other part of the world that the weather sealing keeps out. The 70-200f2.7 was a fantastic lens as far as build and weight but still, not worth the cost. I jumped over to nikon and there mid to lower end stuff is built to last. Its a better approach imo and I like it more than canon. The ibis works great on the nikon z6 and I get great pictures, just as good as the r6...if not better. The lenses are sharper than canons and the contrast is fantastic. I honestly can't believe I didn't consider nikkn before buying the canon. The ONLY lens I miss from canon is the 600mmf11. That lens was so much fun. Problem was it wasn't weather sealed, started getting dust inside of it... so I left canon in the dust
Vegas, I have used both. The Canon is a fine lens but nowhere near the Nikkor. The he Canon RF is a typical budget f1.8 lens with cheap build quality to match. The Nikkor feels and operates far more premium and the cost reflects this. The Nikon is not only sharper but has less CA, prettier bokeh and considerable more mojo, in my opinion. I’ve used plenty more expensive f1.4 pro primes that are worse than the Nikkor S lens.
Thank you very much Mr. Frost for your interesting and well developed analysis. Do you think the Tamron 35mm 1.4 is better than this Nikkor z? I personally don't mind using the FTZ adapter if I have a better lens.
@@livejames9374 I was about to return it for the Nikon 1.8, do you find that it focuses well with the Z6ii, I had a lot of trouble with the eye auto focus in low light, and have you done the firmware update for the lens? Thanks
Nice review. I hope a review of the Viltrox AF 35mm 1.8 soon to compare it to the Nikkor S. For know I don't know what lens should I choose, both are really similar in their weak points. The Nikkor is better because its weather sealing but for me that's it.
That lense price is not low and the colors don’t pop as with low element zeiss lenses, but is there any other mirrorless full frame lens that is better priced and that performs as well and as quietly with video and eyey-tracking AF ?
Yeah, I'd have to agree, the DX lens is probably the way to go on a Z50, especially price-wise. Everyone I've seen has said the DX 35 handled nicely and is great value for money. On the other hand, just to play devil's advocate... the Z lens will be about the same size as the DX lens + FTZ, without the ergonomically awkward "hump" that the FTZ brings into the mix (at the tripod mound). Also, if you have to buy the FTZ, that's at least $150 if you can find it used, likely more. The Z lens will still likely have the better sharpness and performance, especially at DX corners (no vignetting!). But hey, I'm biased, because I spent the money on the S lens and don't want to feel bad about about it ;). With certain shots, I've felt a real "wow" for the lens, but probably "ok" is a good descriptor, because what Nikon improved most (compared with the FX 1.8 and 1.4) were aberrations, focus breathing, and autofocus motors; not necessarily the most exciting, just removing distractions. Worth it? I hope so. But I've been happy anyway.
I'm wondering if the extra $400 is worth it for this lens over the Viltrox version...? I mean in some respects there is a bit more contrast and the flaring is better on the Z lens, but is it $400 better? I'm torn between saving $450 and getting the Viltrox or getting this one for $850 now... I mean since the price went on up on this lens by $50 last year, it makes the Viltrox a bit more appealing as it's now less than half the price.
Now, I suppose, those of us who follow Christopher will be waiting for his comparison with Nikon Z 1.4 35mm. I imagine the idea has already passed through his cortex. I wonder whether he would say this lens goes 'highly recommended' due to its lower price! I can here his voice!
Where this is a decent lens, for almost the same price, you can pick up Tamron's SP 35 f/1.4 and slap it onto the FTZ. I've noticed that combo consistently sharper, faster, and focuses every bit as well as the native S lens. For those of us who recently traded in DSLRs for mirrorless and already had that lens, switching out for the 35 f/1.8 S would be a downgrade. Now, when the 85 f/1.2 S comes out... I'll probably be splurging on that one.
I was about to return it for the Nikon 1.8, do you find that it focuses well with the Z6ii, I had a lot of trouble with the eye auto focus in low light, and have you done the firmware update for the lens? Thanks
Nice review as always, thank you. I do agree it’s not cheap but there again third party manufacturers like say the Tamron 35mm 1.8 is £650 which is only very slightly cheaper. Ok that lens does have image stabilisation but even so it’s a third party so you’d expect native lenses to be more expensive.
I always enjoy your reviews! Also appreciate your strength showing Christian values. Thank you! Not sure about 35mm 1.8? I’m leaning towards the Voigtlander 35mm f2??? Difficult finding Z mount.
Hi Christopher. I've been coming to your unbiased reviews for a long time now and always appreciate your effort. Thank you. I know you do lens comparisons but of course have to use the bodies too. All in,. Which brands whole package (bodies and lenses) would you have if you could only have one? Considering value too. I currently shoot Fuji but am thinking between the Nikon Z6ii and canon R6. I know it may depend on my use case but I'd just be interested to hear from you as you have such a vast experience with the brand's as a whole. It's pretty rare to find someone with such in depth use of the lens ranges combined with the bodies. Thanks for your time.
If you need an opinion from experience, I gotta tell you that the Z6ii is a powerhouse and it is excellent for both photography and filming and the lenses are the best in the market, gorgeous tones and image quality, super and very sharp, specially the primes. Just my personal opinion, I'm very happy with it. I hope this helps.
@@felm.974 Thanks. That's valuable. I've been so close to pulling trigger on the z6ii (especially as I can get it with 24-70f4 and adapter) for same price as body only R6. The only sticking point for me is the articulated screen (I shoot portrait orientation and close to the ground alot) and the animal eye AF on the Canon just seems to be incredible. I am going to be doing dog portraits so want to have a reliable AF system. I know Z6ii probably isn't that for behind but it's tough to choose it when there is something that is more reliable out there. Have you done much high speed eye AF stuff with your Nikon?
@@adamwhittingham86 My pleasure! Hmm, to be super honest, I haven't tried the Canon R6, so I don't want to give you a bad advice.. The Z6ii is amazing in a big part because of the glass, ergonomics, menus etc... Nikon glass is amazing even though out here on the internet and social media, Sony and Canon seem to be doing a lot better at marketing and hyping their products and attracting influencers to persuade people into buying their products and to hate Nikon, so Nikon needs to improve in that regard. The Z cameras are great but the Sony and Canon ones seem to be a slight step ahead since they adopted mirrorless a little earlier than Nikon but thanks to firmware updates, Nikon is quickly catching up, they also recently sent out a new firmware update which greatly improved the eye autofocus and face detection (and a few other improvements) on both the Z6ii and Z7ii... No, I haven't done any high speed eye AF yet.. but I should try that soon... all I can really say is that I'm happy, love the camera and the files and image quality that come out of the camera.. sometimes I have trouble focusing but I think it can happen with any other camera brand.. just to be honest, if possible, I would try them both out and see which one you like best... you could maybe rent them or borrow one, also, opinions here on the internet can be super bias that's why I say you should maybe try them first.. but yeah, I'm sorry that I can't give you an answer to your questions, just want to wish you the best with whatever system you choose and that you are ultimately happy with your decision.
@@adamwhittingham86 In regards to the Z cameras, beside this channel, you can watch these other guys: ruclips.net/video/GcAyzLRrdws/видео.html ruclips.net/user/MattIrwinPhotographyvideos
@@felm.974 Thanks so much. I really appreciate your time. It is a difficult choice and I should try get them in my hands but I live quite remotely so it's quite difficult. I'll figure it out eventually haha. Thanks again for the help and happy shooting. 👍
I have the 35 1.8g DX ... I believe it is the only prime available for DX and surprisingly it might be the only lens that is designed for cropped sensors and yet can be used on full frame camera 📷
liked the video.. could you advise if I buy this or retain my 35mm 1.8 DX lens and use that with a FTZ adapter? is there any loss due to the extra interface (adapter)
@@0lars0887 I think I read/watched that it isn't as fast autofocusing as it would feel if it was a native mount but I think autofocus does work with FTZ.. It's just not as fast.. I wanted to know if the FTZ adapter itself adds noise, chromatic aberrations, loss of quality, loss of details on the edge, loss of sharpness, color, etc...
Would you recommend this lens on the z50 considering it doesn’t have built in stabilization? I know Nikon makes the z mount dx lenses with VR but I’d like to eventually upgrade to a full frame camera and have the lenses already
Well, stabilised primes have always been a rarity and we managed quite well without VR when there were only DSLRs. These days we also have the bonus of high ISO performance which compensates a bit for the need for faster shutter speeds. If you're comfortable with being a few years behind the curve in that regard then I'd go for it. Although I think the best value option right now is buying used or discount G-series DSLR primes and using them with the FTZ adapter. DX primes are said to be coming but it will be a year or so from what I've heard. But even then they will be budget lenses so I wouldn't count on Nikon including VR on them since they tend to prioritise image quality. I reckon they'll make an IBIS DX body instead.
Don't exaggerate: 23/2 Fuji is soft, but 1.4 is much better, not to say about other focal lengths, 16mm 1.4 being one of the most astonishing pseudo-macro lenses :)
@@mattbite I used to have the 16 1.4 and it's absolutely fantastic glass, practically without parallel of everything I've tried so far. Amazing build, rendering, usability/handling.
Thank you for this review… even though it is a heavy beast, I will stick with my adapted Sigma 40 mm F1.4 Art… it is a wonderful lens but it is so very large🥴
It would be nice to compare it to the inexpensive Yongnuo 35mm f2:for F mount ( easily adapted with the FTZ adapter). This is way too pricey. Maybe if it will go below 500 USD, even as refurbished.
I have both, and have to say: when I only had the Yongnuo, I assumed all 35mm lenses were awful. It had dreadful bokeh, autofocus that was incredibly noisy, yet the manual focus throw was too short to be workable; and to top it all, nothing ever seemed sharp. Of course, that was my mistake, because there are plenty of nice 35mm lenses. The Nikon Z 35mm 1.8 S is a really nice lens, period, but compared to the Yongnuo, it's the best thing in the world. I felt that I wasted my money on the Yongnuo. With the Nikon, yes it was expensive, but it was worth it. I also hope it goes on sale or people can find a good copy used, but the Z lenses are much rarer on the used market still
Video idea: top 5 worst lenses you have reviewed in the last 3 years. No need for new footage, just a talk along on why you wouldn’t pick them is enough
Decent, but perhaps it should be a bit better for that price, counterpart lens from Canon is maybe slightly worst optically, while also much more versatile.
Is this actually better than Canon's 35mm f/1.8? To my eye it's not noticeably better, and Canon's lens has IS, 1:2 macro-ish capability, and costs $300 less.
I have both. Nikon is sharper wide open especially on edge of frame. Much sharper stopped down. Silent focus. Barely any focus breathing. Better build with weather seal and internal focus. Less fringing and CA. Smoother bokeh. Is that worth $300 🤷♂️ it is to me because I have a true macro lens and body has ibis. My favorite 35 is tamrons 35 1.4 with my dslr - I don’t like using adapters.
Nikon 18-35 ED price used : 300€ Nikon FTZ adapter price used 150€, so that makes a total of 450€ for a lens that is 4 times darker, a lot less sharp, and not corrected as well (especially for distortion and CA). The nikon 35 1.8S is now worth 600€ used, so the 150€ difference is quite worth it IMO.
@@muhammedsaeed1484 There are a few here on youtube, Matt Granger has a few videos on it for example, and you can look at DPreview samples if you don't want to wait on Chris. If you want my opinion too, i found it pretty affordable used, plenty sharp even wide open for 24MP cameras, autofocus is not that fast but accurate that depends more on the camera. Handles backlighting very well, some color fringing is visible wide open. Also it's weather sealed which works i used it in snow and light rain.
Hm. That looks positively gigantic compared to the Canon equivalent. And the Canon has optical stabilisation and a decent macro range. Sort of defeats the point of an F1.8 lens imo, but it looks pretty good.
@@woodnymph7393 No, that's not true. I own it and use it professionally all the time. Focus is pretty much instant (better than any Nikon Z lens I've tried) and I can't hear any motor noise even with the mic attached to the hot shoe. That's kinda the point with STM motors. It's a good idea to try gear before slagging it off. I will try the Nikon, but I still think it's over-priced.
@@thedondeluxe6941 nah, you're the only one saying that. I've read many people who say the opposite is true. Be honest you didn't try any Z lenses yet.
I think you miss the point on bokeh. You seem always to look for bokeh by getting close to subjects. But what makes this lens gorgeous is its velvety out of focus transitions at medium distances. This lens is the best among the new Z 1.8s, maybe not as sharp as the 50 but has smoother bokeh, and it has more character than the 85.
@@christopherfrost Not loads of them 😉 I know bokeh is subjective, yet you’re so accurate on other technical assessments of lenses, but bokeh. 🙄 I compared the Nikon 35 f1.8s to the Sigma 35 f1.4 A, the latter has smooth bokeh like a gaussian filter applied but it’s short of the Nikon character and superb transitions. The same applies to the difference between Sigma 50 f1.4A and the Nikon 58 f1.4G. My Sigma 50A is gathering dust.
That lens price is not low and the colors don’t pop as with a low element zeiss lenses, but is there any other mirrorless full frame lens that is far better priced and that performs as well and as quietly with video and eye-tracking AF as nikon ZS ?
It's a great 35 1.8 , the best 1.8 on the market. It also renders beautifully.
Not by this test, kinda soft wide open and has some CA.
I had this lens it was so soft I was so pissed and returned it
For sure not the best, but possibly the most overpriced 35mm f1.8 😅
I have to disagree with you on this one. This lens is amazingly sharp and bokeh is beautiful. My best shots have been taking with this lens. The price is justified for this particular lens. It’s just brilliant! And I’m coming from R5 and Sony A9
@@Bardamu3000 Z7ii
Maybe he got a bad copy
@@BigBoss-gb4cx yes, I think he got somewhat of a bad copy, unfortunately.
Why did you switch from canon & sony to nikon? Thanks!
Great lens for photos and videos. Way better than the Canon and Sony variants.
I owned both the 50 mm and the 35 mm primes. I end up selling the 50mm although it is sharper. For me the 35 mm is more usable focal length. The 50mm is slightly sharper though, but not much. This lens is great.
I have the 85mm and 35mm. Use 35mm like 90% of the time. If I need more zoom, I typically just set I'm the camera to DX node then it looks like a 50mm.
So you are the 20-35-85 type. Im 24-50-100 type
A decisive selling point of this lens for me was its sun-star effect. I paid somewhere around at 650 Euro which was totally worth it solely due to this character. This is my go-to lens for night-photography :)
You the man!
I remember trying this lens out at Henry's (Canada) about a year ago. I had a z6 and was using an adapted Nikkor 35G at the time. Given the price of the 35 f1.8 S, i was expecting a little bit more. It left me underwhelmed as well. It wasn't bad, but it felt overpriced for what it is.
$700-$750
Thank you! I mostly agree with your review, though I found that in practice the AF on this lens tends to do a lot of pulse-hunting in AF-C, very noticeable with the eye-AF.
Please review the Nikon NIKKOR Z 20mm f/1.8 S. Thanks.
The Nikkor 35/1.8S is head and shoulders over the Canon RF 35mm f1.8. The price reflects that quite fairly I think.
I feel more premium f1.8 lenses are very much under appreciated. The Zeiss Batis line and the Leica f1.8 SL lenses also go for highly corrected but slightly dimmer in order to keep down size. Brighter lenses (f1.2-f1.4) that are similarly corrected to this family of f1.8 optics are commonly very large and/or expensive.
I disagree. According to Chris, this lens is only “a little sharper” vs RF equivalent. If you watch the RF equivalent review below, it’s a tough sell to say, this lens is just a smidge(viewed at 200%) sharper, especially at twice the price($850). The RF equivalent has IS(4 stops) and 1/2 macro capability at 1/2 the price. IMO, this is a specialty lens for landscapers with sturdy tripods, while the RF covers a boarder spectrum of photographers(wedding, landscape, beginner, videographer and travel). Normal buyers will always look at price first, then performance and finally stand out features(IS + 1/2 macro). Most buyers(not all) don’t mind not having weather sealing or hypersonic lens motor drive(if body can’t track properly). At $850, a young up coming photographer can pick up two RF f1.8s in 35 and 50 while saving $200. AGAIN in the sharpness department, Nikon is just a “little sharper”(viewed at 200%). That’s Canon’s secret in amassing over 45%(#1) of the market share, by providing cheap with very good optical performance in f1.8-2 line up.
ruclips.net/video/biOM5bVoqBw/видео.html
@@vivalasvegas702 um, no. The rf 35 is a slow focusing, softer, non weather sealed, loud lens thats costs $500...so much more than half of this lens. The rf is not a professional lens and I know, because I tried using it and the autofocus motors are veery distracting. The nikon on the other hand is weather sealed, quiet, sharper, and has more contrast. It costs $350 more and it is $350 better than the canon. In both cases you get what you pay for.
I wish canon made a pro quality affordable lens but apparently nikon is the only company out there (other than fuji) willing to do that
@@burritobrosvideos8060 Let’s see, Z6ii + Z35 f1.8 vs R6 + RF35 f1.8 in any stills or video AF tracking(eye, animal, bird, insect) test, guess who’s producing more keepers, hint, the BODY w/h a better AF? Now it’s after sunset, getting dark, guess which lens with higher keeper rate, hint, the one w/h 4 stop of IS? As you can see, having better lens motor is not necessarily means it’s a better lens. It doesn’t matter how sharp your lens is(optical elements), if it’s producing soft images due to the lack of IS, especially after dark. BTW Canon R5 & R6 are using magnets in their IBIS, to move their sensor, it’s more accurate/reliable, according to patents. Unlike Nikon, it’s the good old leaf spring method, 2-3 stops maybe. I own pro grade lenses with weather sealing, once it starts raining, I take cover, mother nature will eventually win.
I’ll jump to Canon eco system in about a year or two, as soon as body prices stabilizes. Their bodies are well sorted out. Excellent AF, IBIS, video, ergonomics, service, pro grade bodies/lens are still made in Japan, warrantee has no regional bias, canon printers, DR is right up there now(it’s now negligible) and of course the RF glass will eventually have more innovative line up vs completing brands.
@@vivalasvegas702 i owned the r6, 600mm f11, 70-200 f2.8, 85mmf2 and 35mm f1.8 and I can tell you...its just not worth it. I love the r6 but all of the lenses under 2k are cheap and are not built to last. The ibis is great but the loud, slow focusing lenses are just awful. Also, I dint stand in the rain with my gear haha its the dust, sand, dirt, and other part of the world that the weather sealing keeps out. The 70-200f2.7 was a fantastic lens as far as build and weight but still, not worth the cost.
I jumped over to nikon and there mid to lower end stuff is built to last. Its a better approach imo and I like it more than canon. The ibis works great on the nikon z6 and I get great pictures, just as good as the r6...if not better. The lenses are sharper than canons and the contrast is fantastic. I honestly can't believe I didn't consider nikkn before buying the canon. The ONLY lens I miss from canon is the 600mmf11. That lens was so much fun. Problem was it wasn't weather sealed, started getting dust inside of it... so I left canon in the dust
Vegas, I have used both. The Canon is a fine lens but nowhere near the Nikkor. The he Canon RF is a typical budget f1.8 lens with cheap build quality to match. The Nikkor feels and operates far more premium and the cost reflects this. The Nikon is not only sharper but has less CA, prettier bokeh and considerable more mojo, in my opinion.
I’ve used plenty more expensive f1.4 pro primes that are worse than the Nikkor S lens.
@Christopher : I'd love to see your tests of the older AF/AF-D, like the 35mm F/2 or my favorite focals 24 and 85mm 😊
Thank you very much Mr. Frost for your interesting and well developed analysis. Do you think the Tamron 35mm 1.4 is better than this Nikkor z? I personally don't mind using the FTZ adapter if I have a better lens.
The tamron is the best 35 ever made IMO
@@livejames9374 Thank you very much, I appreciate your comment
@@livejames9374 I was about to return it for the Nikon 1.8, do you find that it focuses well with the Z6ii, I had a lot of trouble with the eye auto focus in low light, and have you done the firmware update for the lens? Thanks
I use the Tamron 1.4 on my Z6ii and love it.
Nice review. I hope a review of the Viltrox AF 35mm 1.8 soon to compare it to the Nikkor S. For know I don't know what lens should I choose, both are really similar in their weak points. The Nikkor is better because its weather sealing but for me that's it.
That lense price is not low and the colors don’t pop as with low element zeiss lenses, but is there any other mirrorless full frame lens that is better priced and that performs as well and as quietly with video and eyey-tracking AF ?
Kind of a 'ok' performance at this price level. Would be interesting to see how it compares on APS-C with the super-cheap 35/1.8 DX F-mount.
Yeah, I'd have to agree, the DX lens is probably the way to go on a Z50, especially price-wise. Everyone I've seen has said the DX 35 handled nicely and is great value for money. On the other hand, just to play devil's advocate... the Z lens will be about the same size as the DX lens + FTZ, without the ergonomically awkward "hump" that the FTZ brings into the mix (at the tripod mound). Also, if you have to buy the FTZ, that's at least $150 if you can find it used, likely more. The Z lens will still likely have the better sharpness and performance, especially at DX corners (no vignetting!).
But hey, I'm biased, because I spent the money on the S lens and don't want to feel bad about about it ;). With certain shots, I've felt a real "wow" for the lens, but probably "ok" is a good descriptor, because what Nikon improved most (compared with the FX 1.8 and 1.4) were aberrations, focus breathing, and autofocus motors; not necessarily the most exciting, just removing distractions. Worth it? I hope so. But I've been happy anyway.
I'm wondering if the extra $400 is worth it for this lens over the Viltrox version...? I mean in some respects there is a bit more contrast and the flaring is better on the Z lens, but is it $400 better? I'm torn between saving $450 and getting the Viltrox or getting this one for $850 now... I mean since the price went on up on this lens by $50 last year, it makes the Viltrox a bit more appealing as it's now less than half the price.
Never been this early. Thanks for making these videos. I love them regardless of the camera platform!
Now, I suppose, those of us who follow Christopher will be waiting for his comparison with Nikon Z 1.4 35mm. I imagine the idea has already passed through his cortex. I wonder whether he would say this lens goes 'highly recommended' due to its lower price! I can here his voice!
Where this is a decent lens, for almost the same price, you can pick up Tamron's SP 35 f/1.4 and slap it onto the FTZ. I've noticed that combo consistently sharper, faster, and focuses every bit as well as the native S lens. For those of us who recently traded in DSLRs for mirrorless and already had that lens, switching out for the 35 f/1.8 S would be a downgrade.
Now, when the 85 f/1.2 S comes out... I'll probably be splurging on that one.
I was about to return it for the Nikon 1.8, do you find that it focuses well with the Z6ii, I had a lot of trouble with the eye auto focus in low light, and have you done the firmware update for the lens? Thanks
@@felm.974 I think I'd stick to native lenses
@@markshirley01 thank you, I should probably sell this one and get a native asap, thank you 🙏🏾
Enjoy your Tamron cinderblock
I'd love if you'd now test Nikon's old 35mm F/2 in F-mount
😊
Nice review as always, thank you. I do agree it’s not cheap but there again third party manufacturers like say the Tamron 35mm 1.8 is £650 which is only very slightly cheaper. Ok that lens does have image stabilisation but even so it’s a third party so you’d expect native lenses to be more expensive.
What I want to see it the viltrox 85mm 1.8 for z mount vs Nikon's
Is viltrox making that lens for the z mount?
@@lyaxedm1825 they make an 85 1.8 the Z Mount and it's a big deal because of the first autofocusing third-party lens
@@sessesty if it performs just like it does on the sony system then its a no brainer. Love that viltrox 85
I have this, stopped down to about 2.2 it is already amazingly sharp in the centre. The price is unquestionably high.
Great job as always, thanks for your hard work
Tanks man for this review 😃
How do you make the test? What is the name of the charts you use and where can I find information about how to use it? Thanks a lot
Is the Nikon 35mm 1.8 S better than the sigma 35mm 1.4? sharpness, speed, and bokeh.
I always enjoy your reviews! Also appreciate your strength showing Christian values. Thank you! Not sure about 35mm 1.8? I’m leaning towards the Voigtlander 35mm f2??? Difficult finding Z mount.
Hi Christopher. I've been coming to your unbiased reviews for a long time now and always appreciate your effort. Thank you.
I know you do lens comparisons but of course have to use the bodies too. All in,. Which brands whole package (bodies and lenses) would you have if you could only have one? Considering value too.
I currently shoot Fuji but am thinking between the Nikon Z6ii and canon R6. I know it may depend on my use case but I'd just be interested to hear from you as you have such a vast experience with the brand's as a whole. It's pretty rare to find someone with such in depth use of the lens ranges combined with the bodies.
Thanks for your time.
If you need an opinion from experience, I gotta tell you that the Z6ii is a powerhouse and it is excellent for both photography and filming and the lenses are the best in the market, gorgeous tones and image quality, super and very sharp, specially the primes. Just my personal opinion, I'm very happy with it. I hope this helps.
@@felm.974 Thanks. That's valuable. I've been so close to pulling trigger on the z6ii (especially as I can get it with 24-70f4 and adapter) for same price as body only R6. The only sticking point for me is the articulated screen (I shoot portrait orientation and close to the ground alot) and the animal eye AF on the Canon just seems to be incredible. I am going to be doing dog portraits so want to have a reliable AF system. I know Z6ii probably isn't that for behind but it's tough to choose it when there is something that is more reliable out there. Have you done much high speed eye AF stuff with your Nikon?
@@adamwhittingham86 My pleasure! Hmm, to be super honest, I haven't tried the Canon R6, so I don't want to give you a bad advice.. The Z6ii is amazing in a big part because of the glass, ergonomics, menus etc... Nikon glass is amazing even though out here on the internet and social media, Sony and Canon seem to be doing a lot better at marketing and hyping their products and attracting influencers to persuade people into buying their products and to hate Nikon, so Nikon needs to improve in that regard. The Z cameras are great but the Sony and Canon ones seem to be a slight step ahead since they adopted mirrorless a little earlier than Nikon but thanks to firmware updates, Nikon is quickly catching up, they also recently sent out a new firmware update which greatly improved the eye autofocus and face detection (and a few other improvements) on both the Z6ii and Z7ii... No, I haven't done any high speed eye AF yet.. but I should try that soon... all I can really say is that I'm happy, love the camera and the files and image quality that come out of the camera.. sometimes I have trouble focusing but I think it can happen with any other camera brand.. just to be honest, if possible, I would try them both out and see which one you like best... you could maybe rent them or borrow one, also, opinions here on the internet can be super bias that's why I say you should maybe try them first.. but yeah, I'm sorry that I can't give you an answer to your questions, just want to wish you the best with whatever system you choose and that you are ultimately happy with your decision.
@@adamwhittingham86 In regards to the Z cameras, beside this channel, you can watch these other guys:
ruclips.net/video/GcAyzLRrdws/видео.html
ruclips.net/user/MattIrwinPhotographyvideos
@@felm.974 Thanks so much. I really appreciate your time. It is a difficult choice and I should try get them in my hands but I live quite remotely so it's quite difficult.
I'll figure it out eventually haha.
Thanks again for the help and happy shooting. 👍
Will you review the Nikon Z50? I’m still deciding if I am purchasing it
I am really curious how it compets to 35. 1.8G FX lens.
Just bought one new 35 1.8 G lens for 1/3 of the price of the S lens, which seems overpriced.
I have the 35 1.8g DX ... I believe it is the only prime available for DX and surprisingly it might be the only lens that is designed for cropped sensors and yet can be used on full frame camera 📷
I had that one also. It's the best value lens for crop nikon@@estoylisto
I was thinking about 35 1.8G FX ED lens for full frame
The 35 1.8 S blows the 35 1.8 G out of the water.
In what exactly@@jtes1442?
Did you do the comparison?
@@stefan6642 I've had both. The G is a good lens and there's nothing wrong with it. However, it's not on the same level.
I like your definition of "soft"...😂
Awesome i want this lens :3
liked the video.. could you advise if I buy this or retain my 35mm 1.8 DX lens and use that with a FTZ adapter? is there any loss due to the extra interface (adapter)
In my opinion, you'd lose the autofocus when you put de DX on with the FTZ adapter... Not really ideal.
@@0lars0887 I think I read/watched that it isn't as fast autofocusing as it would feel if it was a native mount but I think autofocus does work with FTZ.. It's just not as fast..
I wanted to know if the FTZ adapter itself adds noise, chromatic aberrations, loss of quality, loss of details on the edge, loss of sharpness, color, etc...
Would you recommend this lens on the z50 considering it doesn’t have built in stabilization? I know Nikon makes the z mount dx lenses with VR but I’d like to eventually upgrade to a full frame camera and have the lenses already
Well, stabilised primes have always been a rarity and we managed quite well without VR when there were only DSLRs. These days we also have the bonus of high ISO performance which compensates a bit for the need for faster shutter speeds. If you're comfortable with being a few years behind the curve in that regard then I'd go for it. Although I think the best value option right now is buying used or discount G-series DSLR primes and using them with the FTZ adapter. DX primes are said to be coming but it will be a year or so from what I've heard. But even then they will be budget lenses so I wouldn't count on Nikon including VR on them since they tend to prioritise image quality. I reckon they'll make an IBIS DX body instead.
That’s still the close-up image quality of this Fuji shooter’s dreams...
Don't exaggerate: 23/2 Fuji is soft, but 1.4 is much better, not to say about other focal lengths, 16mm 1.4 being one of the most astonishing pseudo-macro lenses :)
@@mattbite the 23mm fuji isn't this good
This lens is veeeery overpriced
@@burritobrosvideos8060 23 1.4 is better than 23 2 for sure. But not better than this here Nikkor.
@@mattbite I used to have the 16 1.4 and it's absolutely fantastic glass, practically without parallel of everything I've tried so far. Amazing build, rendering, usability/handling.
Thank you for this review… even though it is a heavy beast, I will stick with my adapted Sigma 40 mm F1.4 Art… it is a wonderful lens but it is so very large🥴
I want to buy a 50mm but my zfc is cropped, should I buy this instead? I usually take cosplay portraits
Same.
Glad to see the apostle John also gets a place in your review 😀
It would be nice to compare it to the inexpensive Yongnuo 35mm f2:for F mount ( easily adapted with the FTZ adapter). This is way too pricey. Maybe if it will go below 500 USD, even as refurbished.
I have both, and have to say: when I only had the Yongnuo, I assumed all 35mm lenses were awful. It had dreadful bokeh, autofocus that was incredibly noisy, yet the manual focus throw was too short to be workable; and to top it all, nothing ever seemed sharp. Of course, that was my mistake, because there are plenty of nice 35mm lenses. The Nikon Z 35mm 1.8 S is a really nice lens, period, but compared to the Yongnuo, it's the best thing in the world. I felt that I wasted my money on the Yongnuo. With the Nikon, yes it was expensive, but it was worth it. I also hope it goes on sale or people can find a good copy used, but the Z lenses are much rarer on the used market still
How bout that Noct lens haaaah I’m sure you’re itching to try it
I'm testing it right now. It's in my camera bag, on my Nikon Z7 :-)
I think the price is fair considering the image quality. It has NO chromatic aberration (and very low LOCA at wide open compared to other 35mm 1.8s)
$750 would be perfect
👏🏻
Video idea: top 5 worst lenses you have reviewed in the last 3 years. No need for new footage, just a talk along on why you wouldn’t pick them is enough
I just bought a replacement for mine coz I think I bought a faulty copy.
Decent, but perhaps it should be a bit better for that price, counterpart lens from Canon is maybe slightly worst optically, while also much more versatile.
We're not really seeing the stellar optical performance we were assured the new mount would bring.
The new Sigma i series 35/2 looks like a very similar performing lens while being smaller, lighter, and cheaper.
let's hope sigma lenses finally come to Z mount
I believe it has bad focus breathing tho, if that's a concern
DX mode testing on Z7 is joke, right?
It ok it like a Z50
waiting for the f/0.95 lens to be reviewed
You don't have long to wait
Canon 35mm are $599,899 and $2000, Sigma is $899……. How is Nikon not competitive?
It looks like a Zigma 30mm 1.4 C DN lens...
Is this actually better than Canon's 35mm f/1.8? To my eye it's not noticeably better, and Canon's lens has IS, 1:2 macro-ish capability, and costs $300 less.
I have both. Nikon is sharper wide open especially on edge of frame. Much sharper stopped down. Silent focus. Barely any focus breathing. Better build with weather seal and internal focus. Less fringing and CA. Smoother bokeh. Is that worth $300 🤷♂️ it is to me because I have a true macro lens and body has ibis. My favorite 35 is tamrons 35 1.4 with my dslr - I don’t like using adapters.
What about comparing it to sony's 35 1.8?
This really is an extremely average lens in every way. I don’t see how the price is justified.
Nikon prices are just insane.
Really overpriced. Use an adapter and the Nikon 18-35 ed for €200 second hand and you are good to go.
Nikon 18-35 ED price used : 300€ Nikon FTZ adapter price used 150€, so that makes a total of 450€ for a lens that is 4 times darker, a lot less sharp, and not corrected as well (especially for distortion and CA). The nikon 35 1.8S is now worth 600€ used, so the 150€ difference is quite worth it IMO.
From what I see here, the 35 f/1.8G would be my choice.
Nice lens but hugely over priced.
For beeing 1.8 ?
I disagree with your sexiness analysis. Looks plenty sexy to me.
We need nikon 85mm 1.8g
I have it, it's great for both APS-C and FullFrame.
@@InterMaus ok but i need review
@@muhammedsaeed1484 There are a few here on youtube, Matt Granger has a few videos on it for example, and you can look at DPreview samples if you don't want to wait on Chris.
If you want my opinion too, i found it pretty affordable used, plenty sharp even wide open for 24MP cameras, autofocus is not that fast but accurate that depends more on the camera. Handles backlighting very well, some color fringing is visible wide open. Also it's weather sealed which works i used it in snow and light rain.
Check out Ricci Talks video on the 85mm G vs S. He has great comparisons on the F mount vs. Z mount lenses
@@shlawchablaas thanx bro
Nikon "zad" mount was what I heard😂
'Zed'. That is the proper English pronunciation for the letter 'Z'
@@christopherfrost agree on that,i was just relating to nikon's financial struggles with 'sad'.
overpriced
Hm. That looks positively gigantic compared to the Canon equivalent. And the Canon has optical stabilisation and a decent macro range. Sort of defeats the point of an F1.8 lens imo, but it looks pretty good.
stop comparing the canon rf 35 f/1.8. its just a plastic non weather sealed, slow focusing with loud motors lens.
@@woodnymph7393 It's plastic and not weather sealed, everything else in that comment is not true. And the Nikon is plastic too.
@@thedondeluxe6941 so its not true that its slow focusing with loud motors? Everyone is saying that it is that way lol.
@@woodnymph7393 No, that's not true. I own it and use it professionally all the time. Focus is pretty much instant (better than any Nikon Z lens I've tried) and I can't hear any motor noise even with the mic attached to the hot shoe. That's kinda the point with STM motors.
It's a good idea to try gear before slagging it off. I will try the Nikon, but I still think it's over-priced.
@@thedondeluxe6941 nah, you're the only one saying that. I've read many people who say the opposite is true. Be honest you didn't try any Z lenses yet.
Lens is so overpriced
Why so big?? its only a 35mm lens. Looks like a zoom one 👎
After 50 1.8Z ..... 35Z did not impress much ..... optically it is worse ..... also decently more expensive .....
I'm so sick and tired of Nikon giving us over priced mediocre stuff
Rip off. Goodbye nikon. I have dslr nikons BTW.
I think you miss the point on bokeh. You seem always to look for bokeh by getting close to subjects. But what makes this lens gorgeous is its velvety out of focus transitions at medium distances. This lens is the best among the new Z 1.8s, maybe not as sharp as the 50 but has smoother bokeh, and it has more character than the 85.
If that's your priority, then take a look at my sample pictures within this video that are shot at medium distances, and you can see for yourself :-)
@@christopherfrost Not loads of them 😉 I know bokeh is subjective, yet you’re so accurate on other technical assessments of lenses, but bokeh. 🙄 I compared the Nikon 35 f1.8s to the Sigma 35 f1.4 A, the latter has smooth bokeh like a gaussian filter applied but it’s short of the Nikon character and superb transitions. The same applies to the difference between Sigma 50 f1.4A and the Nikon 58 f1.4G. My Sigma 50A is gathering dust.
@@HossDiaph when it comes to bokeh I think the 35mm 1.4g is champion. I sold my 35mm 1.8s for it.
That lens price is not low and the colors don’t pop as with a low element zeiss lenses, but is there any other mirrorless full frame lens that is far better priced and that performs as well and as quietly with video and eye-tracking AF as nikon ZS ?