Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 announced

What is its price?

35mm f/1.4



40mm f/2



The MTF chart of the 35mm f/1.4 seems closer to the 40mm f/2 than to the S 35mm f/1.8

It seems Nikon places the two 35mm options differently. I will await real world reviews. While f/1.4 is very nice I don't think I will be in a hurry to sell the f/1.8 which I quite like.

I think it's $600 in the US

gladers said:

Kamil Z said:

The 35 1.8 isn't a good lens by the Nikkor Z standard. This one isn't an S lens and cheaper than the slower 35 1.8, so it must be optically significantly inferior to the already rather weak 35 1.8.

Click to expand...

The 35 1,8 is by no means weak. On the contrary: it’s an excellent lens. The rumour mill is wrong. Better believe facts and first hand experience than rumours. Then personal taste is another story. But weak? No way.

Click to expand...

I am in complete agreement. The S 35mm f/1.8 is a very solid lens.

fotosean said:

https://www.nikonusa.com/p/nikkor-z-35mm-f14/20126/overview

Click to expand...

Maybe it's just designed as a fast "normal" lens for a new DX camera

Will be interesting to see how it compares to the 35 1.8S. Sometimes I use the 35/85 combo and while I love the 85 1.8S, I've not been enthralled with the 35 1.8S. Don't get me wrong, it's sharp and contrasty and good colors etc, but just don't get magic out of it.

If this 35 1.4 is decent, may swap out to it.

Disappointed, party of 1 here.

They come out with a non-S line 35 when their S line 35 is quite possibly the (relatively speaking) weakest of their S line core primes. Doesn't make sense to me.

Hoping this is some stop gap measure until they get the 35/1.2S out, but no interest from me for this one, and I love 35mm lenses.

I get it, and it makes sense in the big picture. You have your S-Line, then a house-brand with similar spec's but not quite as robust/Tech/R&D intensive [the trilogy of rebadged 2.8 zooms, and now this 35/1.4], and then your built to a restrictive pricepoint line [28/2.8, 40/2, etc.] with truncated features but still quality on a level.

Pro = S-Line

ProSumer = House Brand

Anyone with a Z-mount anything = Budget line

It's awesome to have options for various needs and end user's budgets.

Aural said:

Kamil Z said:

The 35 1.8 isn't a good lens by the Nikkor Z standard. This one isn't an S lens and cheaper than the slower 35 1.8, so it must be optically significantly inferior to the already rather weak 35 1.8.

Click to expand...

Wow! Since you have it in hand, could you share some test shots, appreciate it!

Click to expand...

I think you're being a bit harsh. Not being an S lens you would expect it to be a bit less of a lens. I was expecting sharper performance at center. I'm not concerned with fall-off as long as the bokeh is nice.

From the MTF's, it isn't significantly inferior, maybe only a hair sharper (visible anyway) at center, but it isn't as good at center as the 26f2.8 or the compact zooms either. Other than the 20/85-S, I haven't seen a prime I'd prefer over the 24-70F4S. As much as I appreciate not having to "unlock" a lens.

I don't need the sharpness across the frame which the S lenses strive for. I'd like more lenses like the 26f2.8, which are similar to the 24f2.8D. I think it will sell well enough, but I'm headed in the Voigtlander MF direction.

--
SkyRunR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
TIPS: Be kind, RT#M, use gear not signature, limit/shorten replies with quotes!
'The first casualty, when war comes, is truth' - Hiram Johnson (1866-1945)

LTheWafflePWN said:

chambeshi said:

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2024/06/26/nikon-launches-their-weirdest-lens-let-us-explain/

Technical specifications

https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/nikkor_z_35mm_f14/spec.html

Click to expand...

I agree with thephoblographer's thoughts. Quite odd to be released right now, or to some degree at all, I'm not really sure where this is all going. Additionally, we already have a 40mm f/2.0, and while I understand that f/1.4 is much faster than f/2.0 (1 full stop) we still had a budget lens very near that focal length. If they were going to release a series of 'affordable' f/1.4's, I feel like 35mm is odd to start off with.

My wildest thoughts are that Nikon only released this because Canon released a 35mm f/1.4? I would think it would be highly unlikely given how long it takes to design and manufacture lenses, but on the other hand why else is there a custom control ring on this? The only other non-S lenses with a custom control ring are the rebadged Tamron f/2.8 lenses and the 180-600mm that I'm aware of, and I'm not sure those count because they don't have manual focus rings. Heck, the S line f/1.8's (minus Plena) don't even get a custom control ring. Just..... odd?

Click to expand...

I think 35mm makes for a pretty good general purpose lens and perhaps better suited to video than 50mm which would make sense coming out just after the Z6 III.

Would have liked to have seen this be a 1.4S followed by a 1.2S, similar to Sony’s good (1.8)/better(1.4)/best (1.2) type product flow. I don’t need a 1.2 prime but I’d be willing to pay for a 1.4 that’s 80-90% of the 1.2. Perhaps Nikon doesn’t have the market share to support my wishes.

Ideally the budget 35mm prime would be f/2 and as compact as possible.

--

Nikon Z8
Nikon D850
Nikon D500
Sony a7Cii

Berend Botje said:

The MTF chart of the 35mm f/1.4 seems closer to the 40mm f/2 than to the S 35mm f/1.8

Click to expand...

Definitely, though I expect the 35/1.4 MTF would cleanup a fair bit when stopped down to F/2 likely making it end up a bit more in between the 40/2 and 35/1.8 when all three lenses are shot at F/2.

Thanks for taking the time to post the comparison!

Berend Botje said:

It seems Nikon places the two 35mm options differently. I will await real world reviews. While f/1.4 is very nice I don't think I will be in a hurry to sell the f/1.8 which I quite like.

Click to expand...

I think I prefer the F/1.8S as well.

The two lenses are essentially the same size (within 2mm) and the F/1.4 is slightly heavier (45g/1.6oz). One complaint about the 35/1.8S is that some felt it was a bit big and the F/1.4 doesn't really change that (of course being wider aperture keeping about the same size is already pretty good).

I have the 40/2 and the 35/1.8S and I like that pairing as the 35/1.8S gives mean sharp corner to corner wide open for things like astro, while the 40/2 is super compact and is a good "character" lens wide open while still quite sharp stopped down for landscape. For me the 40/2 gets much more use than the 35/1.8S due to its size but I retain the 35/1.8S for more specialized use cases. The 35/1.4 would be an awkward middle ground for me I think - the same size as the 35/1.8 but without the corner performance.

Probably the big wildcard here is bokeh. If Nikon optimized this design for bokeh, rather than corner sharpness, there is the possibility it might perform better than the 35/1.8 in that regard. People have knocked the 35/1.8S bokeh, though to be honest it really is not objectionable compared to many other 35s. Will have to wait and see when there are more sample images. The Nikon sample images don't really seem to test the bokeh much, and even there I see hints of a busy bokeh already.

Market wise though, this could be a really sensible lens for Nikon to build.

chambeshi said:

Hilarious how this new lens gets condemned to death despite a dearth of real world data. The fate of many Nikon products

Click to expand...

Yes and no. I'm sure we'll see some very nice images here from this lens.

The bigger issue IMO is that the 24-70F4S zoom outperforms both 35mm primes. In real world use, the 24-70F4S matches the 35S at F4 (in my hands testing btw.) I have to have a better reason that a stop or two to switch away from my 24-70F4S.

If I could buy the 24mm on my 24-120F4S as a prime, with nice sun-stars, and better MTF's, I would, and I would pay as much for it as the 24-120F4S. If it was no more than 3" in length. I don't mind a larger diameter lens for manual focus or comfort either. It doesn't even have to be light weight, as weight can make you more stable. It should have VR just because it is 2024. I don't care if it is plastic or not. LensRentals put that debate to rest quite awhile ago. Just swap the bezel out if you want.

Unless I intentionally want nicer bokeh (super SOFT) lens, as I use the Samyangs, or f-mount glass for. It would be nice to have a z-mount Nikon version of these lenses, and I would be twice as much not to use an adapter.

I'm waiting for the SE's to go below $200 used to get them. So this 35mm, even though it is f1.4 should be priced around $400. Even the 28f2.8 is sharper at center but IMO, under 50mm you don't get nice bokeh unless you're around f1.2.

Also, I'll know what I want when I see it.

jmccas said:

Would have liked to have seen this be a 1.4S followed by a 1.2S, similar to Sony’s good (1.8)/better(1.4)/best (1.2) type product flow. I don’t need a 1.2 prime but I’d be willing to pay for a 1.4 that’s 80-90% of the 1.2. Perhaps Nikon doesn’t have the market share to support my wishes.

Ideally the budget 35mm prime would be f/2 and as compact as possible.

Click to expand...

I think we need an affordable 22f2 for video as well, maybe even something wider for flogging (Casey Camera Conspiracies.)

What a strange and unexpected offering. From what I can tell, there are really only two reasons to buy this lens over the 1.8 S:

- you want to save a little bit of cash

- you REALLY value 1.4 vs 1.8 (or at least you think you do)

Then for those relatively minor benefits (in my mind), you're giving up S-Line optics and build quality, plus adding slightly more size and weight.

I guess we'll see how much it goes on sale for compared to the 1.8 S, which is currently only $100 more (S-Line sale price is $699 while this lens not on sale is $599). I've been contemplating a nice 35mm for a while, but it's a pass from me on the 1.4 unless the reviews are more overwhelmingly positive than I expect.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's a fine lens; I just don't see myself buying it over the 1.8 S. The cash savings isn't much and I honestly tend toward narrower aperture shooting with wider lenses. For example, the opening sample shots from the Matt Irwin review are clearly wide open with pretty blurred out backgrounds, and that just looks so unnatural to my eye at this focal length for cityscape, etc. (I'm aware they're demonstration photos from him, so nothing against him at all, of course).

meh, too big, too heavy

give us a 40mm f2 sized 35mm, nikon

kenw said:

Berend Botje said:

The MTF chart of the 35mm f/1.4 seems closer to the 40mm f/2 than to the S 35mm f/1.8

Click to expand...

Definitely, though I expect the 35/1.4 MTF would cleanup a fair bit when stopped down to F/2 likely making it end up a bit more in between the 40/2 and 35/1.8 when all three lenses are shot at F/2.

Thanks for taking the time to post the comparison!

kenw said:

It seems Nikon places the two 35mm options differently. I will await real world reviews. While f/1.4 is very nice I don't think I will be in a hurry to sell the f/1.8 which I quite like.

Click to expand...

I think I prefer the F/1.8S as well.

The two lenses are essentially the same size (within 2mm) and the F/1.4 is slightly heavier (45g/1.6oz). One complaint about the 35/1.8S is that some felt it was a bit big and the F/1.4 doesn't really change that (of course being wider aperture keeping about the same size is already pretty good).

I have the 40/2 and the 35/1.8S and I like that pairing as the 35/1.8S gives mean sharp corner to corner wide open for things like astro, while the 40/2 is super compact and is a good "character" lens wide open while still quite sharp stopped down for landscape.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. I like the compactness of the 40mm f/2 and it also has a good image quality. But I added the 35mm f/1.8 instead because my 24-120mm f/4 already gives me a good 35mm f/4 option. Meanwhile at apertures larger than f/4 the IQ of the 35mm clearly beats the 40mm. So when I need to gather additional light or shallower DoF the 35mm comes out.

kenw said:

For me the 40/2 gets much more use than the 35/1.8S due to its size but I retain the 35/1.8S for more specialized use cases.

Click to expand...

If I add a Zf in the future I will want to pair it with the 40mm.

kenw said:

The 35/1.4 would be an awkward middle ground for me I think - the same size as the 35/1.8 but without the corner performance.

Probably the big wildcard here is bokeh. If Nikon optimized this design for bokeh, rather than corner sharpness, there is the possibility it might perform better than the 35/1.8 in that regard.

Click to expand...

We will have to see. I notice that most photos of both Matts (Irwin & Granger) are out of focus away from the center of the frame. That may be where this lens shines. We will see soon probably.

kenw said:

People have knocked the 35/1.8S bokeh, though to be honest it really is not objectionable compared to many other 35s. Will have to wait and see when there are more sample images. The Nikon sample images don't really seem to test the bokeh much, and even there I see hints of a busy bokeh already.

Market wise though, this could be a really sensible lens for Nikon to build.

Click to expand...

This new lens is probably one of the most affordable fast primes available, certainly compared to what Nikon makes and has made previously faster than f1.8.

I think with this 35 f1.4, Nikon plans to offer a new series of primes priced above the f2 consumer primes but under the S Line f1.8 and f1.2 primes. The Z Mount allows for this breadth of design space (as Thom Hogan just noted).

After all, there has been clamouring on forums for f1.4 primes. The MTF dara as well as published sample images suggests this new 35 f1.4 Z emulates the 35 f1.4G, which has many fans, although it's dismissed by some as too soft etc

Berend Botje said:

kenw said:

Berend Botje said:

The MTF chart of the 35mm f/1.4 seems closer to the 40mm f/2 than to the S 35mm f/1.8

Click to expand...

Definitely, though I expect the 35/1.4 MTF would cleanup a fair bit when stopped down to F/2 likely making it end up a bit more in between the 40/2 and 35/1.8 when all three lenses are shot at F/2.

Thanks for taking the time to post the comparison!

Berend Botje said:

It seems Nikon places the two 35mm options differently. I will await real world reviews. While f/1.4 is very nice I don't think I will be in a hurry to sell the f/1.8 which I quite like.

Click to expand...

I think I prefer the F/1.8S as well.

The two lenses are essentially the same size (within 2mm) and the F/1.4 is slightly heavier (45g/1.6oz). One complaint about the 35/1.8S is that some felt it was a bit big and the F/1.4 doesn't really change that (of course being wider aperture keeping about the same size is already pretty good).

I have the 40/2 and the 35/1.8S and I like that pairing as the 35/1.8S gives mean sharp corner to corner wide open for things like astro, while the 40/2 is super compact and is a good "character" lens wide open while still quite sharp stopped down for landscape.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. I like the compactness of the 40mm f/2 and it also has a good image quality. But I added the 35mm f/1.8 instead because my 24-120mm f/4 already gives me a good 35mm f/4 option. Meanwhile at apertures larger than f/4 the IQ of the 35mm clearly beats the 40mm. So when I need to gather additional light or shallower DoF the 35mm comes out.

Berend Botje said:

For me the 40/2 gets much more use than the 35/1.8S due to its size but I retain the 35/1.8S for more specialized use cases.

Click to expand...

If I add a Zf in the future I will want to pair it with the 40mm.

Berend Botje said:

The 35/1.4 would be an awkward middle ground for me I think - the same size as the 35/1.8 but without the corner performance.

Probably the big wildcard here is bokeh. If Nikon optimized this design for bokeh, rather than corner sharpness, there is the possibility it might perform better than the 35/1.8 in that regard.

Click to expand...

We will have to see. I notice that most photos of both Matts (Irwin & Granger) are out of focus away from the center of the frame. That may be where this lens shines. We will see soon probably.

Berend Botje said:

People have knocked the 35/1.8S bokeh, though to be honest it really is not objectionable compared to many other 35s. Will have to wait and see when there are more sample images. The Nikon sample images don't really seem to test the bokeh much, and even there I see hints of a busy bokeh already.

Market wise though, this could be a really sensible lens for Nikon to build.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Given that we do not yet have primes for Z mount from well regarded brands such as Sigma and Tamron, Nikon does need to make lower priced primes. So this is a step in the right direction.