Nikon Z 35mm F1.8 S sample gallery

Setting aside the first 2 bodies, the A7 and the A7R:

Sony full framed M-ILC's have excellent image quality, provided you use a good lens and shoot full 14 bit raws.

Sony's full framed M-ILC line has some body lay out and menu problems, but the A7 IV is an improvement in the body regard.

@wats0n.... that is nonsense. Sony has more quality lenses than Nikon Z for obvious reasons and they just released a 35 f1.8 lens. All of this before you even consider the Zeiss lenses. Saying they are put to shame in overall IQ is wishful thinking and not anywhere close to reality.

Yes, i think 'Critical Thinker' is quite right. Very many people want a 35 mm lens for environmental portraiture, unfortunately, the images in the selection do not really cover that genre. They 'play around' with close ups and standard portraiture to show something of the bokeh, but don't have any decent examples of environmental portraiture, and control of d.o.f. . Really, it is a very poor show by the photographer - something someone bored could have knocked of in 20 minutes of shooting. What's the point? A 35/1.4 or 1.2 is likely to be a far more versatile tool in the hands of someone competent - pity the new Sigma is such a beast.

My understanding of environmental portraits is they are portraits taken in the subjects usual environment and the resulting image reflects this.

That is the subjects environment is a key element of the shot.

How exactly is F1.2 or F1.4 useful in achieving this? The DoF is so shallow if the subject is close to the camera you aren't going to see much of the environment.

^ who takes environmental portraits with the subject being a few inches away from the camera?

" FF f/1.8 is still not enough for actual environmental portraits. f/1.2 is more ideal, like the recent Sigma 35/1.2 mirrorless."

@Critical. Environmental portraits imply you also capture the environment of the subject so deeper depth of field is far more useful than f1.2; you might be thinking of regular portraits where you don't want to capture the subject's environment. I already find f1.4 on APSC to be a bit too shallow for that kind of photography.

You do know with an f/1.2 lens you arent permanently stuck with it at f/1.2? You can stop it down.

When shooting subjects even just a few meters away with a FF 35mm at f/1.8, you still arent able to get a strong isolation on the background. And just because you blur out a background, doesnt mean it magically dissappears. If you want the 'everything in focus iphone' look... shoot with an iphone. And 24mm f/1.4 on APS-C is still not enough for proper portrait background seperation at that focal length for anything thats not extremely close to you.

f/1.2 is hardly necessary for "environmental portraits". By far the most exterior portraits are shots stopped down from 1.4/1.8 to get all head and extremity features in focus. "environment" implies scene, not just subject, so if there is a relevant background (arch, flower garden, rock climbing face) you'll see even greater DOF. Historically, f/1.2 lenses were hardly ever used. There was no need. They've only become a recent fad.

@Critical. The fact that you said that f1.2 is more ideal than f1.8 for environmental portraits means you prioritize blurring away the environment from environmental portraits which just makes them portraits.

Have any of you actually used a camera? Theres a difference between f/1.8 and f/1.2. Try shooting FF f/1.8 at 35mm for subjects that are a few metres+ away, and youll suddenly realize that the area in focus is not razor thin at all. Even at f/1.8 youre still going to get alot of background in focus. F/1.2 youll start to get much more distinct seperation. Remember were talking about shooting FF at 35mm, not 85mm 🤦

No, none of us have ever used a camera.

^ i suggest try shooting with an f/1.8 and f/1.2 lens first.

^ I've shot f/1.2 lenses since 1980 including professional work. You? I think not. You've just joined DP Review within a year and have no experience or body of work to understand wither the optics and their real world application. You spout nonsense and use a term like "environmental portrait" which is virtually unknown in professional terminology. Perhaps stop embarrassing yourself. Good luck.

Youve never heard of an environmental portrait? LOL enough said.

Funny that you mention the 50 1.4D. I actually like that lens as it gives me a different look compared to more modern options. I find the way the highlights "glow" when shooting wide-open appealing in some specific situations (e.g., portraits with a dreamy, surrealistic look).

Not really,
image 13 - perfect focus on the left eye
Image 14 - again. Might be a tad on the far side of the eye, but still you can follow the focus on the eyebrow, just that DOF is to narrow to have the whole eye sharp.
Image 15 - both eyes in perfect plane of focus, also this time aligned with the plane of focus, which is what you probably want to do.
Image 16 - again, perfect focus on the right eye
(etc)

The image you refer to as "in focus" is actually shot at F2.8, where you also have enough DOF (at that shooting distance) to render both eyes totally sharp, as well as the lens is sharper stopped down a full stop. At 1.8 it is nicely sharp, but not outstandingly so.

@Joed yes that photo is perfectly in focus, and on most photos, it seems like the focus missed, or maybe there was a slight motion blur, not sure yet.

The Z 35mm f1.8 S doesn't sell for €850 but €650-700. Great f1.8 is better than both mediocre f1.4 (some Canon fast lenses, or older Nikon F) or boat anchor f1.4 (Sigma). S lenses are relatively affordable, easy to shoot and offer phenomenal results from wide open.

Yes, I'd like them to be half price too. But in relative terms they are very high price-performance.

The Canon lens is nowhere near as nice as this Nikkor. This S lens corresponds with Canon’s L series. The cheap Canon has no weather sealing, not as good optically, not as good build quality or performance at different distances. You get what you pay for.

@fprime.... you can’t say it’s overpriced. Compared to what? Art? L? Sony? Canon’s 35 1.8 is not an L equivalent. Canon’s L is $1000 more. Their RF 35 1.8 is a lesser lens. 35 Art? Similarly priced but requires an adapter and is twice the weight and front heavy. Sony? No. Their GM line is the equal to Nikon’s S line. Nikon is the cheaper of the two. For what you get, performance for price, this is the best value at the moment.

mgblack74, I own the Canon 35L so I do get your point. What we disagree on is if the Z 35/1.8S is the equivalent of an L prime. My opinion is that it is a kit 35mm lens for the Z much like the DX 35/1.8 or FX 35/1.8 are kit primes for Nikon's DSLR's.

The Canon 35L is an f/1.4 lens which is in an aperture range that none of the S primes have reached yet. If the Z camera line isn't orphaned for lack of sales and Nikon actually release a 35/1.2, then you'll have a stronger case that Nikon has an L equivalent worthy of a price premium. Until then the 35/1.8S is just a plastic-fantastic kit lens for Z in my book.

fprime, how can you make that comment without having used it? Have you compared both at f/1.8? F/2, f/2.8? Double blind. How often do you use it at 1.4? Does it get sharper stopped down? What if I told you this “plastic 1.8” (which it isn’t) is sharper than many other 35’s at 1.4? These 1.8S lenses are challenging old thinking about what a 1.8 lens is. The price tag says under $1000. The image quality says otherwise. Who cares about 2/3 aperture. Don’t be an aperture snob.

Nikon Z S lens quality. I own the Z 50mm f1.8 S. In fifties, I either own or actively shot for a long time:

1. Canon 50mm f1.4
2. Canon 50mm f1.8 STF
3. Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art
4. Leica Summicron R 50mm f2

The Nikon Z 50mm f1.8 S is sharper than any of them with bokeh which compares with the Summicron. The Sigma image offers muddy rather than creamy bokeh, although it is sharp wide open for an f1.4 lens. The Canon 50mm f1.4 is quite soft until f2.2. I have lots of Canon L lenses here as well. They are not sharper nor do they offer better bokeh or imaging than the Nikon Z 50mm f1.8 S. The Canon 135mm L f2 in particular is not as sharp though the bokeh compares nicely with the Nikon S 50mm.

35mm on a FF is not good for head shots. You are correct.

This is what the Leica 28mm fixed lens people know so well. They say 28mm is perfect. You just take full body and crop the head out later. Its a lot of money to crop heads out of photos but whatever.

No, no no no. I tell you over and over again, that it is the upper RIGHT corner that is most important!!!

Sony's 35mm f1.8 lens is so much better...

There you have it. Happy?

I'm guessing most people would be happy with either lens from their camera maker and most people wouldn't be able to pick either out of a lineup.

Haha, thanks, ZeB. Now it's a proper thread. 😉

My pleasure! LOL

"bokeh" is a much misunderstood phenomenon, as in this case by vFunct.

Well, yes and no. Lenses can definitely amplify the subject impact as easily as they can diminish it.

Take image 16 for example. A very pretty girl but the lens makes her look like she's a cardboard cut-out from the rest of the image. Dare I say it almost looks like an iPhone portrait image with fake bokeh enabled. It's just not a natural-looking rendering to my eyes.

That's the photography you're complaining about, not the lens.

Looking back at the photos a second time I am not seeing any purple or green fringing at all on the photos. I see it all the time with 85mm 1.8G. What photos are you seeing any on. It's not on any edges, shiny items and whites as you would see from other lenses.

Seriously? Look at the purple fringing surrounding the mid-air scooter rider in image 2 then you’ll see it repeated throughout even when stopped down to f/2.8.

Check the letters on the typewriter ... that's a lot of LoCA.

Or the water drops shot ... but that's probably worst case.

DXO is just theoretical results. Sometimes reality surpasses the theoretical values. This is also what is wrong with all those that adore just the DXO scores and don't do any further research.

In short imho DXO is highly overrated.

@Mared...... just curious... what is the standard percentage of "I own it/I want it" for a FF camera to 35 f1.8 lens?

@Mared
25% attachment for a 35mm lens seems very good and extremely high.
I doubt any other manufacturer has a 25% attachment rate on a 35mm focal length in their system.
Nice try at trolling though...

Let's not forget that with FTZ the 35mm f1.8G (FX) and f1.4G are fully-compatible. Some Z photographers may already have those lenses.

However, as others have inferred, the 35mm length is kind of in a battle with the 28mm length. Kind of either/or, and generally not both. Some may be waiting around for the 28mm, or more zooms. It really would be nice to see some Z lenses priced for mortals...

My personal preference is 28mm. As i have a 28mm f1.8G and really love it, i probably wouldn't even buy the Z version (when it becomes available) when i get my first Z body.

Most people are actually not buying a prime. They want a zoom for their next lens in order to maximize their photo dollar.
Most people are not actually into ultimate IQ chasing despite what one may feel about it here.

I don't think I've ever clicked an own/want.

DPRs 'own/want/had it' is as bogus as DxO.

Magically many people always 'had it' before its even been released. I only skimmed this thread but I hope no one is basing anything from that feature.

@Michiel953

Yeah I missed that. Shot 52 shows some LoCA. That said I think the Sony also isn't LoCA free

That is a fairly generous amount of CA. I could stand to look at some comparisons to other similar offerings but initially it seems high although seems to clean up well upon stopping down a tad.

The 1.4G primes I use on my D850 (24, 35, 58 and 85) exhibit, in some circumstances, quite heavy fringing as well. It usually goes away in pp, but it's obviously not ideal.

Try photographing a row of bicycles with chromed handlebars in sunlight, and show me a lens that can do that without fringing.

@Michiel - exactly. I would be interested to see how these stack up wide open and as you stop down in comparison to the other lenses. (Sony and Nikon F mount). I would hope these are a little better. But I don't think we can expect Otus APO performance for $846.

Overall, the Nikons are proving to be better than the Sonys. The 24-70/4, 24-70/2.8, 50/1.8, and now possibly the 35/1.8.
Between these lens and all the F lenses that work near perfectly on the Z cameras, you just can't go wrong with this system.

@Michiel - chrome in sunlight is a big test, but also winter branches against a bright sky.

+1 for the Leica. Pretty please ?