nikon 35mm 1.4g vs 35mm 1.8g FX Why no comparisons?

I haven't seen much in the way of comparisons between these 2, any reason? I understand the 35mm 1.8g ed is newer and therefore sharper, but beyond that I have little to no information.

Anyone know of a good comparison they can link me to, or personal opinions form people who have used both?

I used to own both.

35/1.4G: best bokeh (IMO) of any 35mm lens, particularly around F/2. But it's not that amazlngly sharp at distance, and in the corners, compared to lenses that came after it, so on my D800E, I wasn't happy with it. Was seriously considering a Zeiss 35/2 but then the Sigma 35/1.4 Art came out, and after extensive testing, the Sigma became my 35mm lens and the 1.4G was sold.

35/1.8G: Bought and sold this one. Definitely sharper than the 35/1.4G, but bokeh not as nice. Focus is SLOW. At landscape distances it's essentially as good as anything out there, but in the studio distance range, it wasn't as good as the Sigma 35/1.4 Art, so, since I shoot both studio and landscape with a 35mm lens, I sold the 1.8G FX as well. If I *only* shot landscape, I'm pretty sure I would have kept it around.

I can, however, seeing a wedding shooter who values bokeh highly, even if they are using a high rez body, preferring the 35/1.4G, but that's not my use case, so it wasn't a good fit for me.

-m

anotherMike said:

, but in the studio distance range, it wasn't as good as the Sigma 35/1.4 Art, so, since I shoot both studio and landscape with a 35mm lens, I sold the 1.8G FX as well. If I *only* shot landscape, I'm pretty sure I would have kept it around.

Click to expand...

Mike - two questions:

1. What exactly are the requirements of studio? High resolution? Sharpness? Big prints? Reason I am asking is at the time of its introduction the D800/e were billed as studio cameras due to high resolution. I am curious to know why? Basically why does studio photography impose extremely high resolution/sharpness requirements (as opposed to reasonably high)?

2. What do you think of Thom's writings about Nikon's "new lens design philosophies"? I have linked & copy-pasted the key points in my post: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57498214. Please read my post for the key points or Thom's original article.

He has also mentioned this in the 16-80 review (http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/ni...-lens-reviews/nikon-16-80mm-f28-4e-vr-dx.html):

anotherMike said:

This brings up a subject that’s tough to describe, let alone illustrate: Nikon’s new lens design philosophies. Frankly, new Nikkors don’t perform all that well on flat field test charts shot at close range (exactly the way most lab tests are done). The so-called MTF numbers that get reported by other sites using Imatest, for example, tend to suggest that recent Nikkors aren’t top performers. I’d argue that such tests are being done in ways that don’t mimic use and are giving misleading results.

In actual shooting, things turn out a bit differently the way Nikon is designing these days.

Click to expand...

While waiting for Mike to answer you on the suitability of the D810 as a studio camera and what qualities make for a good studio camera, let me but in with my experience.

I was an art director for many years. Studio photography for advertising is a very competitive field. There is only so much advertising business in any given town and usually several photography shops are vying for the business. There is a widening gap between what is needed and what art directors are asking for. In talking about what is needed, generally a good clean file, @300dpi the size of publication. Magazines might be 8x10" Packaging usually no more than 400dpi 11x17" Outdoor not as much resolution is needed as you may think because of the distance at which outdoor is viewed. I guess my point is that ANY Nikon DSLR currently being manufactured can handle these requirements. Pro, enthusiasts, semi-pro, it doesn't matter, we passed the requirements a long time ago.

But, what are art directors demanding, that is another matter. It's very competitive, and one photographer gets a LEAF tethered system and then everyone wants to use him for awhile.

Today, I would say most art directors want a medium format sized digital file or at lease a full-frame file like Nikon's FX delivers. Why, because they hold up better as you run filters on them in Photoshop. But, outside of that I would say it is all marketing hype.

Regards,

Sol

Thanks for your answer. Makes sense.

Two quickly typed answers

1) For me, the goal is realism of textures. Prior to the D800E of mine, I was close to, but not quite happy with what I often call textural detail rendition. Things like hair look more realistic when the resolution is higher. Textures of fabrics look more realistic. What I found when I moved from lower rez bodies to higher rez bodies in the studio work is the ability to get things looking more realistic, which is a result of greater transparency and greater textural detail. But there is a gotcha: Only some lenses manage to get me to this point. The 35/1.4G didn't. The 35/1.8G got close, but didn't. The Sigma 35/1.4 Art does, the 35mm end of the Sigma 24-35/2 zoom does. The Sigma 50 art, the Zeiss 85 Milvus and Zeiss 135/2 Apo Sonnar and Nikon 200/2 do. The 24-70 doesn't quite, the 70-200 doesn't quite get there. So it's a fine line of demarcation for me. And it's not about just "sharpness", it's very much about making the image real - real depth, how subtle tonal differences are rendered. And to be clear, not every image *needs* this. There are times I could happily click away with the 24-70 zoom and be quite happy.

2) No need for me to look again at Thoms link. I've read it. I'm familiar with Nikons approach and much of that has been around for a while in addition to them involving their optia lens-simulation software a few years ago. Nikon, as a general rule, strives for aberration balance and a very balanced look. This is a good approach - many of their lenses are very good at a very wide range of things, but perhaps never "world class" at any *one* thing. Sometimes lenses designed this way do pass my personal line of demarcation involving resolution/transparency, some don't. I really like their 24/1.8G - the first of their wides that I feel matches up well with the generally better resolving (and hence also more realistic image producing) Sigma art wides. There still is enough lattitude within the designs/designers at Nikon that there will be differences. Luckily (for me anyway), the 24/1.8G design emphasized resolution (while still being a balanced lens) a bit more than the others (the test sites all show this too) and it ended up being tuned well for my tasks. There are times I prefer Nikons approach (say, some focal lengths I would prefer a bit more even across the frame performance as opposed to centrally great but the edges fall off quickly) and sometimes I prefer another manufacturers approach. It's why I own a mix of glass from Sigma Arts, Zeiss, Nikon and recently, believe it or not, even Tamron (!!), a brand I never expected to own or like.

As for test charts, anyone who knows me knows I tend to ignore what the flat test chart guys say; I'd rather see optical bench MTF, and I always want to shoot with a lens in my situations (which may not be others) to see how it behaves in real life - that's more important to me. It is unfortunate many will dismiss a Nikon lens because it doesn't test well, but that's more because far too many people don't think/look deep enough to realize what the test is actually testing. For example, I really like the new 24-70 - I don't need it so I'm unlikely to buy it - but in my evaluation of one, I was very impressed - it has a "look" that makes sense for what a mid range zoom is supposed to do (be very good at many tasks, if not a master of one), and was very sensibly designed. It's a lens many will skip over because lenstip and dxo and whomever slam it, yet in real world at real distances, it's quite good. Having said that, I don't think it would replace my primes for studio work either for the times I want rez, but it certainly would be an excellent travel and general purpose lens. Tool for task and all that.

You'll note I speak often of choosing tool to task. A lot of what I do, essentially I want that medium format to large format film look I remember from the 4x5 days of old - that ability to have real detail (but not over-sharpened, forced in your face edges), realistic depth and tonality, realistic differentiation of subtle tones and colors, a sense of transparency, but I want it in a portable, 35mm SLR sized body. The D8xx series of bodies can get me there, but only when I've made a real attempt to maximize every aspect of the image quality chain, and that includes being very picky about lens selection. So I'm selecting lenses (tools) that match what I'm trying to do.

Other folks obviously will have completely different goals.

-m

Hey Simon,

To clarify - I found my 35/1.4G to be slow to focus. The 35/1.8G was fine.

-m

dreyko said:

I haven't seen much in the way of comparisons between these 2, any reason? I understand the 35mm 1.8g ed is newer and therefore sharper, but beyond that I have little to no information.

Anyone know of a good comparison they can link me to, or personal opinions form people who have used both?

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/132181665@N03/

Click to expand...

anotherMike said:

Hey Simon,

To clarify - I found my 35/1.4G to be slow to focus. The 35/1.8G was fine.

-m

Click to expand...

Thanks Mike, that fits with my experience

All the best

Thanks for your answers Mike.

So it seems like the main difference is the 35mm 1.8g is sharper, but the 35mm 1.4g has better bokeh. Any other significant differences? Flare resistance?

dreyko said:

So it seems like the main difference is the 35mm 1.8g is sharper, but the 35mm 1.4g has better bokeh. Any other significant differences? Flare resistance?

Click to expand...

From Thom's review of 35mm f/1.4g (http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/ni...e-lens-reviews/nikon-35mm-f18g-af-s-lens.html):

dreyko said:

The 35mm f/1.8G is an excellent lens with only two things that are likely to cause you concern: the vignetting wide open and the lower performance at f/1.8 (resolved almost immediately at f/2). The vignetting is correctable in post processing (or even in camera with many Nikon DSLRs). But if you’re buying this lens for low light work, the f/1.4G might be a better (more expensive) choice.

Click to expand...

I think overall Thom seems to recommend the 1.8g series over the 1.4g series for price and weight (and good enough optical performance) - but not because optical performance is better than the 1.4g series. The dpreview forum folks here on the other hand seem to think that the optical performance (especially sharpness) is way better for both Sigma ART & the 1.8g series compared to the 1.4g series. To me - in my limited testing (against the 1.8g series, not tried the Sigma ART) and real world pictures - I don't see too much difference in the photo quality (with respect to things like sharpness). The 1.4g series (especially the 85mm 1.4g - and too some extent both my 24mm 1.4g & the 35mm 1.4g) provide a similar overall look (especially bokeh and smooth color transition) that my previous 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 VR II provided. The 200mm f/2 is better though - and the 300mm f/2.8 VR II to me looks same as the 200mm f/2 (hence sold the 200 when I got the 600).

I doubt you will be disappointed with the 1.4g series pictures (compared to the Sigma ART or the 1.8g series) - other than the value/price ratio. But then I reach for the primes more for the bokeh in portraits than the landscapes (where I find many lenses perform good enough).

I'd say flare resistance is close to equal, with the 1.8G perhaps having a slight edge, even despite that lenses lack of Nanocoating.

-m

Just a note: EVERY objective test I've seen so far, and many a subjective reviewer, thinks the 1.8G is sharper than the 1.4G. At some point we have to start looking at the consensus view on these sorts of things, and in this case, I think the answer is sorta staring us in the face. This doesn't mean the 1.4G can't be matched to the task - if you don't require the ultimate in sharpness (say you're using a D700 or DF) and/or prefer bokeh, obviously it's the better tool/task match.

-m

anotherMike said:

Just a note: EVERY objective test I've seen so far, and many a subjective reviewer, thinks the 1.8G is sharper than the 1.4G. At some point we have to start looking at the consensus view on these sorts of things, and in this case, I think the answer is sorta staring us in the face.

Click to expand...

If the consensus view is relying on reviews and if majority of the reviews are not done right or done with only flat field testing (that you yourself dismiss) - I am not sure the answer is staring at us straight in the face. Also a lot of single person opinions (including yours) are amplified over internet forums into a self fulfilling prophecy that a consensus falls around. Please note - I am not saying this disrespectfully when I say yours is a personal opinion - in fact it is a studied opinion & very well written.

On the other hand - the consensus view (even if based on somewhat suspect reviews) is quite likely to be right. Yet the sharpness differences may not matter enough - as many of the lenses are plenty sharp for a D810 resolution (I agree with Thom on this recommended lens list - http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses-2.html). I feel we are at the point that many of the better modern designed lenses are good enough for D8xx resolution - and I would rather go on the differences in the features of the lenses which may be important for my selected task (VR, build quality, lighter weight, focal length range, aperture, etc.).

I have no axe to grind here - I may even add the 35mm f/1.8g to my lens lineup (due to the lighter weight) - and may or may not sell the 35mm f/1.4G then. I don't use either the 24mm f/1.4g, 35mm f/1.4g or the 85mm f/1.4g much for the landscapes (especially on a tripod) - where ultimate sharpness is important. For those times (landscapes/cityscapes) I actually prefer the zooms like 14-24, 24-70 VR or 70-200 f/4 or 2.8, stopped down for optimal sharpness - preferably on a tripod. Reason: focal length flexibility & practicalities of carrying/changing multiple primes in the field vs a single zoom (or zooms mounted on 2 different bodies). Sure the peak sharpness of these lenses may not be to the ultimate level that some of the sharper primes can achieve - but I cannot tell the difference most of the time (and probably a majority of the ordinary people may not). To me the difference I can see is when I have used a tripod (and focused/exposed properly) and when I have not used a tripod - not whether I have used a supposedly sharper f/1.8g lens or a supposedly not as sharp f/1.4g lens.

I use the 1.4g lenses for portraits where I do care more about the better bokeh of the 1.4g. In those pictures I find the overall feel of the image more important than sharpness (including things like the subject's expression, pose). These days I am finding myself doing less portraits though.

anotherMike said:

This doesn't mean the 1.4G can't be matched to the task - if you don't require the ultimate in sharpness (say you're using a D700 or DF) and/or prefer bokeh, obviously it's the better tool/task match.

Click to expand...

That is a little strong statement if you are implying that the Nikon f/1.4G is not good enough to deliver sharp images on a D8xx (assuming technique is good, using a tripod, etc.). I find that hard to believe - I can understand some other lens is sharper - but I don't think that an f/1.4g lens can only be matched to a lower resolution body like the D700 or the DF.

Two final points.

1) I test exhaustively, and thoroughly, and completely, in a subjective sense. This includes making prints - and viewing them at normal viewing distances for the print size. My test prints range from 13x19 to A2, and mostly are 17x22. So the question is - if I actually took the time to do landscape scenario shots, printed them out to the sizes I print most (which sits around 16x20") and the 35/1.4G was disappointing in the corners and edges but the Sigma 35/1.4 Art was not, and the Sigma 35/1.4 Art was also a bit better at other things (tonal and color differentiation, a touch better in the central zone), then ask yourself why in the hell would I NOT want to change to a lens that produced the better print? I mean, yea, I lost money - I paid for the 35/1.4G with my own cash and I'm not some rich venture capitalist, but at the end of the day in my tests, including prints (my final output), one lens wasn't good enough, one lens was. So I arrived at the conclusion that the 35/1.4G was not good enough for me, on a D800E.

At the same time, given I owned the lens on a D700, and loved it there, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the lower rez bodies seem to work better with the lens than the higher rez bodies do. So yes, for the last point in your post, it's exactly as I stated. I personally do not find the 35/1.4G sharp enough at landscape distances and landscape apertures, on the D800E, because my tests showed that other lens options were better. Or course, one could argue over what the definition of "sharp enough" is, but I tend to think for users of the D8xx series, they are looking for resolution. Otherwise, whey even buy such a high rez camera? Pretty simple, honestly. Also remember that the central area is generally fine. The edges and corners, are usually the problem areas, particularly with wide angles.

I also would add that when the Sigma 35/1.4 art, I personally knew several people who traded out their Canon or Nikon 35/1.4 lenses for the Sigma and were happy as can be, and never looked back. I wasn't some outlier here, not by a long shot. (Note that this was before the L version II of Canons 35/1.4 came out, which is right up there with the Sigma easily)

2) As for Thom Hogan. Great writer. I'm a fan. But at the same time, I find his lens reviews a bit weak. I don't really "worship" any single reviewer out there, because frankly the odds are that I'm testing more completely and thoroughly than they are, particularly for my scenarios, in a subjective sense. For the objective side, I like to see if lens rentals has run any optical bench MTF on the lens because that tells me vastly more than the test chart sites do, and it's interesting to see if there is any correlation between what I see subjectively and what the MTF looks like. And from a subjective point of view, there are definitely a few fellow forum members (sgoldswo, lance b, andre yew, a few others as well) whom I'll absolutely listen to because I have read their writings over the years and "know" where they are coming from. Andres writings on the Tamron 85/1.8 VC, as an example, provided enough impetus for me to try and get one myself (and it's a hell of a lens, I might add). As for Thom - we also have to remember who his mentor was - Galen Rowell. The late, great, great Galen Rowell. I've been to the Rowell gallery in Bishop, CA, and I've looked at his prints. And when I do that, I'm clearly reminded of what a loss not having him around any longer is. But at the same time, I also realize his strength as a photographer was NOT "large format quality" goals, but rather, getting himself to the tricky places and finding a new shot. And that's important, for sure. But just as I can admire his work, love it, even while thinking there are some technical issues, I can also go look at, say, Jack Dykinga's great large format work, with that amazing, rich image quality that in days of old could only come from large format. One approach does not invalidate the other. So since Thoms mentor was one for whom true technical excellence wasn't likely the goal and "getting the shot" played more a role, it makes sense Thom isn't as picky about lenses. And that's fine, but just because he's Thom Hogan doesn't mean that he's the only authoritative voice on lenses either.

That's it for this. I'm outta this thread.

-m

The ergonomics/handling qualities of the Nikkor 35/1.4G, for shooting in a physically active situation, seem just about perfect for me. The diameter of the lens body, and the wide, shallow groove, are a very good fit for me. The heavier the camera, the more important it is for the lens to be a good fit in my left hand/fingers.

Of course, this will vary, with different individuals, so a different 35mm lens may be better for others, and not all shooters will find ergonomics/handling qualities to be important, anyway.

My D700 and D3s bodies are 12MP, and my wife shoots a Df, so high-resolutions sensors are not (yet) an issue.

anotherMike said:

That's it for this. I'm outta this thread.

-m

Click to expand...

I am out of this discussion as well - since we are obviously having different applications for an f/1.4 lens.

Just wanted to clarify one thing: You seem to think I am trashing your choice of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART - and I am not. All I am saying is that I find the 1.4G series good enough for my needs (even with a high rez camera) - and I find the sharpness differences between 1.4g and 1.8g series not a lot if any. I have not tested the Sigma ART series (since I have already had the 1.4g that I saw no reason to sell as for my application they are working out fine). Please go back and check my posts - and check if you are overreacting.

I have already provided my final points (that I will summarize):

1. I think sharpness differences between the lenses like 1.4g/1.8g/pro zooms are overblown. That is my real world experience using the lenses I own and have owned & sold - and with some testing between them.

2. My application of the f/1.4 lenses are not landscapes but portraits - as for landscapes I find lenses like 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 plenty sharp for D8xx resolution stopped down appropriately. BTW I would only buy an f/1.4 lens if it has a good bokeh.

The most reliable and objective comparison of these two Nikkors can be found on Lensrental Blog (second graph down; https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/variance-measurement-for-35mm-slr-lenses/ ). They generally test 10 copies of each lens and display the average and occasionally plots the variations among the lenses. The f/1.8 compares very well to the f/1.4.