Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Jim Keye Senior Member • Posts: 2,248
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?
1

Michiel953 wrote:

I disagree. Even at f4.0, oof rendering matters if, a big if, your in focus subject is close enough. Perceived DoF with 46Mp is still quite thin then.

You should try it sometimes.

Like a lot of other people, I have tried it, and moved on from it.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do or what works for you. I'm simply pointing out that there is a reason so many people don't use that lens, and why the Sigma Art was such a hit. A lot of other people have come to a different conclusion than you, that's all.

larrywilson
larrywilson Veteran Member • Posts: 6,689
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?
1

anotherMike wrote:

My gut feeling is that you're letting your dislike of me affect your reading comprehension.

Here's how I judge image quality, which includes resolution: I print. And I look at the print. At normal, not insanely-stupid pixel-peeping close, viewing distances. When I look on screen, it's 100% and never more. No need.

I'm the guy who has done blind print tests to see if the differences on screen equate to differences most people can see on print, and found out, they can. I look at MTF because I'm openly curious if there actually are some objective measures to correlate to what I see subjectively. That's it.

There's a wide span of what photographers look for technically. I like lenses that render transparently and are sharp to the edges, because that's what helps get me to my technical goals of getting images that look like large format film output. That doesn't mean you have to strive for those goals, or that anyone else does, and it likely is that there are people who lie in between various thresholds and goals. No need to knock those of us who look for really high image quality out of our gear.

Look, I admit I was a total ahole in our last exchange and I apologize for that - you deserved better than that. But I do think it's time to say this: get off my case and move on. We aren't going to see eye to eye much, let's just agree to disagree and call it that.

-m

Mike I guess I am still old fashion and the end product for my photography is produced as a print.  I print my own up to 13 X 19 size paper and have the local photo shop print anything bigger.  I had a print of an ocean scene printed at 36 X 54 inches for a meditation room for a person with cancer.  I could view it at around 3' and it was very, very sharp even though the calculated viewing distance is around 8'.  I shot it with my d810 and Zeiss 18mm f2.8 zf.2 lens mounted on a tripod at an f8.0 aperture.  The air was cool and clean.

This is how I think of lens sharpness needs.  If I am shooting an event with people or portrait type photography I am concerned with excellent center resolution but the edge resolution is usually not a concern and can be used to show the print as more 3 dimensional.

If I am shooting landscape photography then the center and edge sharpness is important and I want a lens that displays this.  I do not look at images at over 100% and with my new d850 75% is plenty to see the sharpness.  The frosting is on the cake though when I look at the print at the size I want to print at.  I am also concerned with landscape photography that the distortion of the lens is small so if I need to correct in post processing that it doesn't screw the sharpness up at the edges of the print.

For displaying on the internet lens quality means little to me.

Thanks Mike for your practical discussions that lead to better equipment choices and better photography.

Larry

 larrywilson's gear list:larrywilson's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm F4E FL ED VR Tamron SP 45mm F1.8 Di VC USD +7 more
camerosity Senior Member • Posts: 1,653
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?

anotherMike wrote:

Look, I admit I was a total ahole in our last exchange and I apologize for that - you deserved better than that. But I do think it's time to say this: get off my case and move on. We aren't going to see eye to eye much, let's just agree to disagree and call it that.

-m

OK, well to be honest, if we had had a disagreement in another thread I'd completely forgotten about it until your "get off my case" comment today in this thread. And again, I am not on your "case" and never have been. I honestly don't know where this all came from.

I've been a photographer for nearly 40 years now so I have opinions about it. You have yours. That's fine.

Go shoot some new photos and post them here!

 camerosity's gear list:camerosity's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Nikon Coolpix P7800 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 +13 more
Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,951
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?

anotherMike wrote:

<shrug> I loved my 35/1.4G on the D700. Wasn't quite happy with it, resolution wise when I moved to the D800E, even stopped down to F/9. So I picked up the Sigma 35/1.4 Art and spent a few weeks evaluating it properly - because at that point in time I had a strong bias against third party glass, but spent the time, ran comparison scenario after comparison scenario, studio work, moderate outdoor distance, longer range outdoor distance, different apertures, repeating tests to root out test error, and after it all was said and done, it was evident the Sigma Art was the sharper lens, and after some print testing, I could tell it in print as well. Not that the 35/1.4G was in any way "bad" or "horrible", but it was evident to me the Sigma was better - better edges in the outdoor stuff, better/more realistic rendition of textures in the studio work, and as such, it became my first ever serious third party lens and the Nikon got sold. Subsequent testing with similar seriousness with the Nikon 35/1.8G FX proved it to be a bit better than the 1.4G (resolution wise, certainly not bokeh wise) as well, and currently, the lens I use in its place, the Sigma 40/1.4 Art, is yet another step better than those.

Interesting! I have the 30/1.4 Art (a DX lens) and did own the 35/1.4 Art some time ago (when they were brand new on the market), but never seen any comment about the 40 Art before! Any further comments?!

The issue always is of course, is when "good enough is good enough" and that answer is different for everyone. You might find no reason to go with a better lens, while I certainly did.

I do think if I shot outdoor portraiture or event or things where textural detail rendition was not important yet bokeh rendition was important, then I would have stayed with the 35/1.4G, which has tremendous bokeh/OOF rendering. Tool for task and all that.

-m

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,951
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?

Michiel953 wrote:

Yes, mostly agree I think. I took some portraits but, more importantly in this context, some "landscape" images with my 58/1.4G today, and at 200% on my monitor (f5.6 at infinity, ISO 64) the detail was jaw dropping. As it should be with any decent lens obviously, but I don't see any useful room to improve on that.

Bokeh wasn't relevant, Rotterdam port area, distant haze etc...

Would be interesting to see that shot, Michiel!

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,951
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?

Michiel953 wrote:

Thanks!

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,951
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?
2

camerosity wrote:

anotherMike wrote:

[deleted the useless comparison of the Sigma 35 Art to the Nikon 35 1.4G]

Realistically, the Nikon just doesn't resolve that amazingly at higher frequencies - we can see this in the gold standard of optical tests, bench MTF and for some of us, it's quickly apparent in real life tests too. That aspect may mean a lot, or little, to different photographers, even though is has good bokeh. Thus, it's not going to be a universally perfect tool for every photographer. Choices are good, dogmatic opinions that only one lens could be good, really aren't.

Off my usual soapbox...

-m

"Realistically, the Nikon just doesn't resolve that amazingly at higher frequencies"

Can we just move on from finding "the sharpest lens" out there? I do zoom my images up to 100 percent (called "actual pixels" by some) but never beyond that, and I am completely satisfied with the Nikon 35mm f1.4G. Do you MTF test shooting fanboys really zoom in to 200-400 percent to find "sharpness"??

It's like the audiophiles, some who might spend $1800.00 on a pair of interconnects for their equipment, because "the upper mid bass is amazing with these cables".

Geez, I just can't stop throwing up when I hear people like this.

Reminds me of a visit from a leading sound guy, who came visiting some years back, during a short visit back to Sweden.

He's a friend of my son, who also is overseas, and we talked about this and that. In the background, our pretty basic 7.1 system we have was playing a Runrig record, and suddenly he stood up and said up and said 'there is something wrong here'.

He has an uncanny music ear and designs gear for radio stations (got an Oscar some years back for his skills), so he soon found the problem: The transceiver was in night mode since we had used it late a couple of nights before, which cuts off some of the low frequencies.

He returned to his seat, listened and smiled.

Our living room is very oddly designed, not was is a typical, rectangular listening room, but then he said the heartwarming words:

'I very rarely enjoy listening to people's gear, no matter how many thousands of dollar they have invested, but this I could actually listen to all day long!'

I haven't built any of it, just bought, and connected the parts, and, in all, invested around $5,000 over the years. The youngest part, a Danish woofer, is soon 10 years old!

For a gear-headed audiophile, none of it would be of interest, but he liked it a lot.

That's how I like my lenses and cameras; they should be enjoyable to use, and produce results I'll enjoy as well. Don't care what brand they are, nor do I care what size of sensor the cameras use, but I do prefer 1" and bigger ;-)!

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
anotherMike Veteran Member • Posts: 9,665
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?
2

I might  get around to a review of the 40 art at some point. Possibly September.

It's a very ,very serious lens, one so good, in some ways it almost embarrasses even it's own brands lenses near the focal length, but at the serious "expense" of being absolutely huge and heavy. It also does not render like any other Sigma; it has it's own look.

Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,951
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?

anotherMike wrote:

I might get around to a review of the 40 art at some point. Possibly September.

It's a very ,very serious lens, one so good, in some ways it almost embarrasses even it's own brands lenses near the focal length, but at the serious "expense" of being absolutely huge and heavy. It also does not render like any other Sigma; it has it's own look.

Sounds thrilling!

I have been in mind to become a SIgma only guy ...

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
Jim Keye Senior Member • Posts: 2,248
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?
2

camerosity wrote:

anotherMike wrote:

[deleted the useless comparison of the Sigma 35 Art to the Nikon 35 1.4G]

Realistically, the Nikon just doesn't resolve that amazingly at higher frequencies - we can see this in the gold standard of optical tests, bench MTF and for some of us, it's quickly apparent in real life tests too. That aspect may mean a lot, or little, to different photographers, even though is has good bokeh. Thus, it's not going to be a universally perfect tool for every photographer. Choices are good, dogmatic opinions that only one lens could be good, really aren't.

Off my usual soapbox...

-m

"Realistically, the Nikon just doesn't resolve that amazingly at higher frequencies"

Can we just move on from finding "the sharpest lens" out there? I do zoom my images up to 100 percent (called "actual pixels" by some) but never beyond that, and I am completely satisfied with the Nikon 35mm f1.4G. Do you MTF test shooting fanboys really zoom in to 200-400 percent to find "sharpness"??

Can we just move on from finding "the best rendering" lens out there?

Different people have different tastes and different requirements/needs. I can't stand soft images and I can't stand harsh bokeh. The 35 f1.4G catered too far to the rendering side of the equation for my taste. And guess what, I didn't even have to throw up to come to that conclusion.

But when someone says "it's sharp (often included with "wide open"), corner to corner," there is either an eyesight problem or an education problem. It's as simple as that. But if some says "hey, I like what it does and it works for me," then we have someone who's at least showing some signs of cognizance.

It's like the audiophiles, some who might spend $1800.00 on a pair of interconnects for their equipment, because "the upper mid bass is amazing with these cables".

If you can't or don't see it (or hear it), it doesn't matter. If you can, it might matter. And it might not. And no, the level you zoom in PS has nothing to do with it.

Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,951
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?

Jim Keye wrote:

camerosity wrote:

anotherMike wrote:

[deleted the useless comparison of the Sigma 35 Art to the Nikon 35 1.4G]

Realistically, the Nikon just doesn't resolve that amazingly at higher frequencies - we can see this in the gold standard of optical tests, bench MTF and for some of us, it's quickly apparent in real life tests too. That aspect may mean a lot, or little, to different photographers, even though is has good bokeh. Thus, it's not going to be a universally perfect tool for every photographer. Choices are good, dogmatic opinions that only one lens could be good, really aren't.

Off my usual soapbox...

-m

"Realistically, the Nikon just doesn't resolve that amazingly at higher frequencies"

Can we just move on from finding "the sharpest lens" out there? I do zoom my images up to 100 percent (called "actual pixels" by some) but never beyond that, and I am completely satisfied with the Nikon 35mm f1.4G. Do you MTF test shooting fanboys really zoom in to 200-400 percent to find "sharpness"??

Can we just move on from finding "the best rendering" lens out there?

Different people have different tastes and different requirements/needs. I can't stand soft images and I can't stand harsh bokeh. The 35 f1.4G catered too far to the rendering side of the equation for my taste. And guess what, I didn't even have to throw up to come to that conclusion.

But when someone says "it's sharp (often included with "wide open"), corner to corner," there is either an eyesight problem or an education problem. It's as simple as that. But if some says "hey, I like what it does and it works for me," then we have someone who's at least showing some signs of cognizance.

It's like the audiophiles, some who might spend $1800.00 on a pair of interconnects for their equipment, because "the upper mid bass is amazing with these cables".

If you can't or don't see it (or hear it), it doesn't matter. If you can, it might matter. And it might not. And no, the level you zoom in PS has nothing to do with it.

;-)!

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
camerosity Senior Member • Posts: 1,653
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?
1

Jim Keye wrote:

camerosity wrote:

anotherMike wrote:

[deleted the useless comparison of the Sigma 35 Art to the Nikon 35 1.4G]

Realistically, the Nikon just doesn't resolve that amazingly at higher frequencies - we can see this in the gold standard of optical tests, bench MTF and for some of us, it's quickly apparent in real life tests too. That aspect may mean a lot, or little, to different photographers, even though is has good bokeh. Thus, it's not going to be a universally perfect tool for every photographer. Choices are good, dogmatic opinions that only one lens could be good, really aren't.

Off my usual soapbox...

-m

"Realistically, the Nikon just doesn't resolve that amazingly at higher frequencies"

Can we just move on from finding "the sharpest lens" out there? I do zoom my images up to 100 percent (called "actual pixels" by some) but never beyond that, and I am completely satisfied with the Nikon 35mm f1.4G. Do you MTF test shooting fanboys really zoom in to 200-400 percent to find "sharpness"??

Can we just move on from finding "the best rendering" lens out there?

Different people have different tastes and different requirements/needs. I can't stand soft images and I can't stand harsh bokeh. The 35 f1.4G catered too far to the rendering side of the equation for my taste. And guess what, I didn't even have to throw up to come to that conclusion.

But when someone says "it's sharp (often included with "wide open"), corner to corner," there is either an eyesight problem or an education problem. It's as simple as that. But if some says "hey, I like what it does and it works for me," then we have someone who's at least showing some signs of cognizance.

It's like the audiophiles, some who might spend $1800.00 on a pair of interconnects for their equipment, because "the upper mid bass is amazing with these cables".

If you can't or don't see it (or hear it), it doesn't matter. If you can, it might matter. And it might not. And no, the level you zoom in PS has nothing to do with it.

LMAO. Can we just move on from asking each other to move on, and stop bashing people who think differently than you do? God you people are so uptight.

 camerosity's gear list:camerosity's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Nikon Coolpix P7800 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon Df Nikon D810 +13 more
Dibyendu Majumdar Contributing Member • Posts: 548
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?

Michiel953 wrote:

This is something you read every now and then on the net. I've had mine for nine years now, starting on a D700, now on my D850, with all '8' iterations inbetween.

It's my most used lens, mainly (as all my primes) at f4.0, and I find it perfectly satisfactory, sharpnesswise and of course renderingwise.

Any other feelings? I it "too old, obsolete"? Is my eyesight failing?

Haven't you already answered your question? Since you find it perfectly satisfactory, I would suggest just ignore what anyone says.

Regards

Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,951
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?
1

Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:

Michiel953 wrote:

This is something you read every now and then on the net. I've had mine for nine years now, starting on a D700, now on my D850, with all '8' iterations inbetween.

It's my most used lens, mainly (as all my primes) at f4.0, and I find it perfectly satisfactory, sharpnesswise and of course renderingwise.

Any other feelings? I it "too old, obsolete"? Is my eyesight failing?

Haven't you already answered your question? Since you find it perfectly satisfactory, I would suggest just ignore what anyone says.

Regards

Dibyendu,

I think you hit the nail on the head.

But if the owner is satisfied, then no problem!

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +24 more
Toby43 Contributing Member • Posts: 521
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?
1

well I have been round the houses a bit with 35mm and have settled on the 1.8g for reportage work. Its a reasonable balance of weight, ergonomics, size, IQ etc. I think the colour is very good, that is if you like Nikon colour, which I do. Very sharp as we all know, but I like the swift move to OOF transitions wide open. I think Nikon have got this right for this focal length at a very good price. Worth a try if you havent yet.

 Toby43's gear list:Toby43's gear list
Ricoh GR II Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D +3 more
Michiel953
OP Michiel953 Forum Member • Posts: 76
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?

Tord S Eriksson wrote:

camerosity wrote:

anotherMike wrote:

[deleted the useless comparison of the Sigma 35 Art to the Nikon 35 1.4G]

Realistically, the Nikon just doesn't resolve that amazingly at higher frequencies - we can see this in the gold standard of optical tests, bench MTF and for some of us, it's quickly apparent in real life tests too. That aspect may mean a lot, or little, to different photographers, even though is has good bokeh. Thus, it's not going to be a universally perfect tool for every photographer. Choices are good, dogmatic opinions that only one lens could be good, really aren't.

Off my usual soapbox...

-m

"Realistically, the Nikon just doesn't resolve that amazingly at higher frequencies"

Can we just move on from finding "the sharpest lens" out there? I do zoom my images up to 100 percent (called "actual pixels" by some) but never beyond that, and I am completely satisfied with the Nikon 35mm f1.4G. Do you MTF test shooting fanboys really zoom in to 200-400 percent to find "sharpness"??

It's like the audiophiles, some who might spend $1800.00 on a pair of interconnects for their equipment, because "the upper mid bass is amazing with these cables".

Geez, I just can't stop throwing up when I hear people like this.

Reminds me of a visit from a leading sound guy, who came visiting some years back, during a short visit back to Sweden.

He's a friend of my son, who also is overseas, and we talked about this and that. In the background, our pretty basic 7.1 system we have was playing a Runrig record, and suddenly he stood up and said up and said 'there is something wrong here'.

He has an uncanny music ear and designs gear for radio stations (got an Oscar some years back for his skills), so he soon found the problem: The transceiver was in night mode since we had used it late a couple of nights before, which cuts off some of the low frequencies.

He returned to his seat, listened and smiled.

Our living room is very oddly designed, not was is a typical, rectangular listening room, but then he said the heartwarming words:

'I very rarely enjoy listening to people's gear, no matter how many thousands of dollar they have invested, but this I could actually listen to all day long!'

I haven't built any of it, just bought, and connected the parts, and, in all, invested around $5,000 over the years. The youngest part, a Danish woofer, is soon 10 years old!

For a gear-headed audiophile, none of it would be of interest, but he liked it a lot.

That's how I like my lenses and cameras; they should be enjoyable to use, and produce results I'll enjoy as well. Don't care what brand they are, nor do I care what size of sensor the cameras use, but I do prefer 1" and bigger ;-)!

Fully agree Tord! Hope you enjoyed the Rotterdam port pic; probably looks better as a processed raw on my laptop than it does exported to DPR.

-- hide signature --

I'll play it first, and tell you what it is later

 Michiel953's gear list:Michiel953's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G
Michiel953
OP Michiel953 Forum Member • Posts: 76
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?

Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:

Michiel953 wrote:

This is something you read every now and then on the net. I've had mine for nine years now, starting on a D700, now on my D850, with all '8' iterations inbetween.

It's my most used lens, mainly (as all my primes) at f4.0, and I find it perfectly satisfactory, sharpnesswise and of course renderingwise.

Any other feelings? I it "too old, obsolete"? Is my eyesight failing?

Haven't you already answered your question? Since you find it perfectly satisfactory, I would suggest just ignore what anyone says.

Regards

Why ignore other opinions? I might actually learn something. Tbh, when first using the 35/1.4G, years ago, I thought it was plagued by hellish field curvature. Turned out it had more to do with accurate AF finetuning.

Anyway, I found some of the comments nuanced and useful, so thanks for that.

Michiel

-- hide signature --

I'll play it first, and tell you what it is later

 Michiel953's gear list:Michiel953's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G
Dibyendu Majumdar Contributing Member • Posts: 548
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?
1

Michiel953 wrote:

Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:

Michiel953 wrote:

This is something you read every now and then on the net. I've had mine for nine years now, starting on a D700, now on my D850, with all '8' iterations inbetween.

It's my most used lens, mainly (as all my primes) at f4.0, and I find it perfectly satisfactory, sharpnesswise and of course renderingwise.

Any other feelings? I it "too old, obsolete"? Is my eyesight failing?

Haven't you already answered your question? Since you find it perfectly satisfactory, I would suggest just ignore what anyone says.

Why ignore other opinions? I might actually learn something. Tbh, when first using the 35/1.4G, years ago, I thought it was plagued by hellish field curvature. Turned out it had more to do with accurate AF finetuning.

I think that every person's need is unique and the best way to find out is to try the lenses yourself and see which one works for you.

But my point was that you are already happy with the lens. So don't be unhappy because of what you read on the Internet. Go by your own experience.

Regards

Michiel953
OP Michiel953 Forum Member • Posts: 76
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?
1

Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:

Michiel953 wrote:

Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:

Michiel953 wrote:

This is something you read every now and then on the net. I've had mine for nine years now, starting on a D700, now on my D850, with all '8' iterations inbetween.

It's my most used lens, mainly (as all my primes) at f4.0, and I find it perfectly satisfactory, sharpnesswise and of course renderingwise.

Any other feelings? I it "too old, obsolete"? Is my eyesight failing?

Haven't you already answered your question? Since you find it perfectly satisfactory, I would suggest just ignore what anyone says.

Why ignore other opinions? I might actually learn something. Tbh, when first using the 35/1.4G, years ago, I thought it was plagued by hellish field curvature. Turned out it had more to do with accurate AF finetuning.

I think that every person's need is unique and the best way to find out is to try the lenses yourself and see which one works for you.

But my point was that you are already happy with the lens. So don't be unhappy because of what you read on the Internet. Go by your own experience.

Regards

I'm not unhappy. I was just wondering about so many negative comments about what is an almost ten years old lens.

-- hide signature --

I'll play it first, and tell you what it is later

 Michiel953's gear list:Michiel953's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G
Dibyendu Majumdar Contributing Member • Posts: 548
Re: Nikkor 35/1.4G not up to high res sensor demands?

Michiel953 wrote:

I'm not unhappy. I was just wondering about so many negative comments about what is an almost ten years old lens.

The 35mm f1.4 was designed by Mr Haruo Sato who also designed the 58mm. He mentioned somewhere that the 35mm f1.4 was his first attempt to create a lens with interesting imaging characteristics, but compared to the 58mm this lens prioritized sharpness more. I haven't used this lens but I would guess it tries to achieve nice bokeh at max aperture at the expense of sharpness in the image plane.

So it really depends on what you are after. The unique characteristics of this lens may or may not be what you like; it seems you do.  It appears you also own the 58mm? If you go by Internet talk you better get rid of that at once too!

Regards

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads