PZ nikon 35mm 1.4g

Ilkka Nissilä said:

It's funny how some think of a 35mm prime as something used for special occasions for bokeh or ultra-fast apertures etc. For me this is the most basic lens that I use for day-to-day people photography. I would rarely shoot it at f/1.4 but it's there when I need it..

Click to expand...

I don't think people think that at all. Most are wondering what the extra $$$ for the F/1.4 lens over an F/1.8 or F/2 goes into. That's the crux of the issue. If you're spending so much of a premium for an F/1.4 lens over an F/2 lens, you really need to be getting something awesome for all that money.

I also think the cost tends to bring out defensiveness in people. It seems that owners of the 35mm F/1.4G are less willing to consider that Lenstip got a bad copy than to think they screwed up somehow (not that anyone can state what that screw-up is, just that they "got it wrong").

But the bottom line is that there seems to be little to suggest why one should spend the extra $$$ for an extra stop of performance, especially when people (like you) suggest rarely shooting at F/1.4. If you don't shoot at F/1.4, what does this offer vs a good (but cheaper) F/2 lens? Bokeh? But you suggest that isn't it either. So what is it?

Maybe Nikon "got it wrong" and should have produced a $500 35mm F/2G that was equal to the F/1.4 from F/2.8 and higher =)

I am in the UK, Midlands based, it would be best to try the lens on a camera body where the fine tuning testing has been carried out, mine needed a +4 in my opinion, fitting the lens to another body may not give the best results without checking , I am not saying it will need fine tuning but for peace of mind I felt testing and fine tuning should be carried out before going out and shooting some real world subjects. This may be one of the reasons for the differing opinions on the review sites when testing the lens.
--

A selection of my images can be found at http://www.photo-genesis.net follow the galleries link then select the Jacks gallery

I finally received the Nikkor 35mm f1.4 AFS G IF FX lens (from Ritz). While waiting, I read the negative and marginal reviews and wondered if I should not cancel my order. I'm glad I did not. My sample is superb! I think that some lenses went out with AF problems, which limited resolution test results. I've done my own testing -- not scientific, but thorough and practical to field applications.

At f1.4, this lens is sharp and contrasty to the corners. It gives the illusion of having been shot at f2.8. Vignetting is not noticable in available light situations and is almost fully gone by f2.0. The sweet spot is f4, and the sweet range is f2.8 to f8, but performance rivals Leica-M lenses at f1.4 and f2. I don't understand the CA criticism. On my sample, CA shows up only in strong back-lite situations with over-exposure compensation, and it is mild at f1.4, milder at f2 and gone by f2.8. One can shoot landscapes at mid-apertures without worrying about CA effects surrounding tree leaves and branches which are against the sun. Flare is superbly controlled -- only slightly lower contrast in areas directly around the sun. There is no flare I can detect indoors in available light by very bright lamps. Bokeh is 3-D like, with no harsh shattering of the out-of-focus image: very Leica-like!

There are two minor problems. There is slight barrel distortion. It is automatically corrected in CS5. There is an AF problem only in dim light for low contrast objects. I simply AF the higher contrast rim of the object and recompose with perfect focus, or I move to MF. MF is fast and accurate becuase the wide-open image is so contrasty.

All and all, this lens is superb! I've owned the 35mm f1.4 AIS and there is no comparison wide-open. You can set the new AF lenas to f1.4 and forget it. It even performs exceptionally well in broad daylight and at infinity at f1.4. This is a lens I will never sell. I can't imagine that technology will be able to improve upon it in my life time. Tom P.

P.S.

If you order this lens, make sure you can return it for refund or exchange if it is a lemon. I think lemons went out early on, but that nikon is on top of quality control now.

Etruscello said:

I finally received the Nikkor 35mm f1.4 AFS G IF FX lens (from Ritz). While waiting, I read the negative and marginal reviews and wondered if I should not cancel my order. I'm glad I did not. My sample is superb! I think that some lenses went out with AF problems, which limited resolution test results. I've done my own testing -- not scientific, but thorough and practical to field applications.

Click to expand...

Glad you like your new lens! But whatever might have been wrong with the specimen tested by Lenstip, it was not the AF. This site, and all other serious ones too, use manual focus for their resolution tests.

hoof said:

Maybe Nikon "got it wrong" and should have produced a $500 35mm F/2G that was equal to the F/1.4 from F/2.8 and higher =)

Click to expand...

Or even equal from 2.0 onwards. When I have tried to look at it, I haven't found a whole lot of support for the notion that the lens needs to have an extra-wide aperture (say 1.4) to produce decent results at a wide aperture (say 2.0). Just look at macro lenses, which often start at 2.8 or even smaller apertures but are frequently as good (or better) wide open as faster glass stopped down to the same aperture.

After reading many posts in various threads regarding this lens the impression I am getting is that the people who have actually purchased and are using the lens are satisfied with the performance, those who do not own it or have have not tried it seem to be building discussions regarding their misgivings about the lens based on lens testing sites.

I fully understand the cost angle and the oft quoted law of diminishing returns but we all decide how we spend our disposable income, you may prefer an expensiive car compared to my more budget item, that's freedom of choice, I certainly would not criticise anyone's choice on the basis of cost.

I can assure you that if my 1.4 lens was not performing to my expectations it would have been back with the dealer without delay, I bought mine before any of the tests were published on the basis of my experience of using Nikon equipment for over 35 year but I am not blinkered or looking through rose tinted spectacles, if there were problems the lens would have been rejected.
--

A selection of my images can be found at http://www.photo-genesis.net follow the galleries link then select the Jacks gallery

----------------------------------------------
best wishes and always good light
Kurt

Art Jacks said:

(snip)those who do not own it or have have not tried it seem to be building discussions regarding their misgivings about the lens based on lens testing sites.

Click to expand...

So those who have not used it are trying to find out how good it is by reading professional reviews and discussing the results in this forum?
Yes, that is wierd!

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Samples! Curiously we don't seem to have been given many in the posts I've followed.

They look good too. I can't see the vignetting that at least one review referred to and I quite like the bokeh.

I need to see more (low light, fussy backgrounds) but the lens is still on my list as a possability.
Thanks for the samples.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Art Jacks said:

After reading many posts in various threads regarding this lens the impression I am getting is that the people who have actually purchased and are using the lens are satisfied with the performance, those who do not own it or have have not tried it seem to be building discussions regarding their misgivings about the lens based on lens testing sites.

Click to expand...

This is true for quite a few lenses not just this one. It can mean at least two things (not mutually exclusive), (i) people by very consiously, ie they by the product that fit their needs, and (ii) when you have spent the money, it is hard to admit that it disappoints.

I myself am contemplating the new 24-120 f4. The reviews are also mixed, but the people posting here and elswhere that have the lens really like it. So where does that leave me? Sure, I need to try it out myself, but reading about peoples motivation to buy a lens and then describing how this motivation matched (or not) this motivation and expectation is very very useful for a lot of us.

Cheers,

bas

I don't know of many FF F/2 lenses that are sharp wide open, and don't cost a pretty penny. The Zeiss Planars and Sony-Zeiss 24mm are the only sharp one I know of.

Anders W said:

hoof said:

Maybe Nikon "got it wrong" and should have produced a $500 35mm F/2G that was equal to the F/1.4 from F/2.8 and higher =)

Click to expand...

Or even equal from 2.0 onwards. When I have tried to look at it, I haven't found a whole lot of support for the notion that the lens needs to have an extra-wide aperture (say 1.4) to produce decent results at a wide aperture (say 2.0). Just look at macro lenses, which often start at 2.8 or even smaller apertures but are frequently as good (or better) wide open as faster glass stopped down to the same aperture.

Click to expand...

On the threads I have contributed to I have added some images which have been totally ignored as the discussion continued to centre around the results from various lens testing sites.

If you look at my gallery working from the top down to the lady in the red hat ( my wife ) all these images were taken with the 1.4, some have been PP'd but I was asked to post some OOC images which I have done, the nef file has just been straight converted to jpeg to allow posting here, this image and the three preceding it are OOC images shot at 1.4 to show the narrow DoF. You can see the vignetting in this image, the purpose of this post is to show it like it is

To me is seems like some people are just not interested in sample images that do not agree with their preconceived opinion of the performance of the lens.





--

A selection of my images can be found at http://www.photo-genesis.net follow the galleries link then select the Jacks gallery

not to be rude, art, this picture here may reveal how the lense works to some extent eg vignetting, resolution. the pics on a frozen river were not that helpful i'm afraid.

Jon Rty said:

I don't know of many FF F/2 lenses that are sharp wide open, and don't cost a pretty penny. The Zeiss Planars and Sony-Zeiss 24mm are the only sharp one I know of.

Anders W said:

hoof said:

Maybe Nikon "got it wrong" and should have produced a $500 35mm F/2G that was equal to the F/1.4 from F/2.8 and higher =)

Click to expand...

Or even equal from 2.0 onwards. When I have tried to look at it, I haven't found a whole lot of support for the notion that the lens needs to have an extra-wide aperture (say 1.4) to produce decent results at a wide aperture (say 2.0). Just look at macro lenses, which often start at 2.8 or even smaller apertures but are frequently as good (or better) wide open as faster glass stopped down to the same aperture.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well, I think I'd be hard pressed to separate lenses into just two groups: those which are sharp wide open and those which are not. Sharpness is after all a rather gradual thing. The question I raised was more relative: Do ultra-fast lenses (say 1.4) really tend to do better ithan moderately fast ones (say 1.8 or 2.0), when the ultra-fast is stopped down enough to allow a comparison at the same aperture?

I don't follow the FX market so closely, and not a whole lot of lenses of the kind we're talking about here have so far been systematically tested on full-frame sensors. But as far as APS-C is concerned, I'd say that the Nikkor 35/1.8G and the Tamron 60/2 macro are both examples of moderately fast lenses that do very well already at 1.8/2 and don't cost a fortune (about 200 and 400 USD, respectively).

slimandy said:

So those who have not used it are trying to find out how good it is by reading professional reviews and discussing the results in this forum?

Click to expand...

But as is typical for free internet content, most review sites don't really know what they are doing. Calling them "professional" is clearly wrong. What you need to do to make a professional review is find 1) someone who is an excellent photographer in a field which the particular lens has been designed for, in this case a PJ, documentary photographer, wedding photographer or some such thing, 2) have someone who is a professional lens designer do meticulous testing of the lens, to characterize its properties. Both 1 and 2 are needed to complete the review. Then the reader would purchase the review by paying a reasonable sum for the considerable effort involved, i.e. 200 USD.

That's what would be a professional review. Magazines don't have them, internet doesn't have them. Basically the manufacturers themselves are the only ones that do this level of testing and they're not allowed to speak up.

bjzwaan said:

I myself am contemplating the new 24-120 f4. The reviews are also mixed, but the people posting here and elswhere that have the lens really like it. So where does that leave me? Sure, I need to try it out myself, but reading about peoples motivation to buy a lens and then describing how this motivation matched (or not) this motivation and expectation is very very useful for a lot of us.

Click to expand...

This is a bit off topic, but I'll add my comments on the 24-120/4. I purchased it to allow myself to make tight close-up portraits as well as environmental (wide angle) portraits without switching lenses to do both. The lens didn't answer this demand since I needed it to be reasonably free of issues at f/4. Two stops of vignetting is just not acceptable against white office walls and there's nothing that can correct that level of artifact fully IMO. Also at f/4 the definition of the image is like it had been shot through an extra window, a little unclear that hurts my eyes.

Second app was travel and here the distortion was the main problem; the FX cameras do not have built-in correction and the pincushion with this lens is so strong that correction without being able to field preview the result basically chops off so much of the image that precise composition is not possible, especially since my other lenses don't have such issues (in mixed lens use I'd have to remember to leave extra space around the edges with this one particular lens).

Also it's really quite good at f/5.6-8 but outside of this narrow aperture window, i.e. f/4 or f/11, the detail falls quite far behind the top lenses.

So after two months of motivated testing and trying to make it work, I sold it. I think I have to agree with Lloyd Chamber's review which basically says that it's a consumer lens with a pro price. It's a big improvement over similar lenses made in the 1990s, but nowhere near primes or f/2.8 zooms in image quality.

Those who like it are probably one or several of the following: 1) not experienced with really good lenses, 2) can't see well, 3) do not make prints, or 4) are willing to forgive image quality issues due to the fact that the lens has a 5x range, instead of judging it on absolute merits.

I cannot myself put myself of accept image quality issues just because a lens has a huge zoom range. For me to want to use it, it has to be either the best lens I have for a particular shot, or so close that the difference is not bothersome. But your mileage may vary (sometimes a lot!) ;-)

I recommend the 17-55 for DX users and 24-70 for FX users rather than this so-so f/4 lens.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Those who like it are probably one or several of the following: 1) not experienced with really good lenses, 2) can't see well, 3) do not make prints, or 4) are willing to forgive image quality issues due to the fact that the lens has a 5x range, instead of judging it on absolute merits.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with your views on this lens as you already know but saying that @ f4 it is like shooting through an extra pane of glass is an exaggeration. Ok, it doesn't meet your needs but I'm impressed it does so well for a 5x zoom and sold my 28~70. I don't fit into any of the categories you outlined above. If it doesn't meet your needs that's fine. There is no need to suggest people who do like it don't know what they're talking about.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Love your pictures - looks sharp and with great bokeh

Doesn't saying "but I'm impressed it does so well for a 5x zoom " make you a part of category 4?

slimandy said:

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Those who like it are probably one or several of the following: 1) not experienced with really good lenses, 2) can't see well, 3) do not make prints, or 4) are willing to forgive image quality issues due to the fact that the lens has a 5x range, instead of judging it on absolute merits.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with your views on this lens as you already know but saying that @ f4 it is like shooting through an extra pane of glass is an exaggeration. Ok, it doesn't meet your needs but I'm impressed it does so well for a 5x zoom and sold my 28~70. I don't fit into any of the categories you outlined above. If it doesn't meet your needs that's fine. There is no need to suggest people who do like it don't know what they're talking about.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Click to expand...