Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 | Why Pay More for a f/1.8?

[@babyboy1971]

They are the same price now. Which is wider? Lighter?

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@babyboy1971 they are both fairly light. Same width, 35mm. 1.4 allows more light in than 1.8, 1.8 is noticeably high quality optics. If I had to choose at the same price I would choose the 1.8 S

[@babyboy1971]

Trying to decide between this, the 28mm 2.8 and the 26mm pancake. I currently have the 40f2, 50 1.8S, 85 1.8S. What would you get? I want one more lens for environmental portraits and family photos that gives me a bit wider than the 40 but without too much distortion.

[@ZWadePhoto]

I'd go 26mm. Its just optically awesome. EXCELLENT contrast and color saturation. Color sat is nearly on par with 20mm f/1.8 S and thats saying something.

[@marleenvandam6931]

@@ZWadePhotoI have this lens and the IQ is very good for sure , but what disturbs me is it is loud while autofocus and hunts quite a lot in AF-C .

[@ZWadePhoto]

@ I think it’s just an “ok” lens 🤷‍♂️

[@brusselssprout1]

Thanks for the work and considerations. I get that this lens can feel a little "funky" @f/1.4 compared to the s @f/1.8 but what I still do not know is how it compares at f/1.8 -f/2.8 with the s version? I'd also love to see comparisons @f/1.4 with two F-mount workhorses: the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G and the Sigma 35mm Art. Any opinions on any of that?

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@brusselssprout1 I unfortunately do not have the f/1.8 anymore since I bought the f/1.2, and as far as comparing it to the other you mentioned, I don’t have access to those either, but I can guarantee that it goes come even close to either of them. The 35 1.4 G is an absolute amazing beautiful lens. The Tamron 35 1.4 too. Man they are built different

[@Ton-x4r]

I think that the Tamron 35mm f1.4 SP and the Zeiss distagon 35mm f2 ( both F mount) are very good options on a Z camera. That Tamron is just ridiculous sharp at f1.4 from edge to edge.

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@Ton-x4r I badly want a native Z version of that Tamron. It is SO pretty

[@PsychedelicChameleon]

Hi and Thank You ZWade, I have two comments/questions today: 1. I noticed some vignetting on some but not all of your shots. How can this be? Is it real vignette? 2. I already have two zoom lenses that cover this focal length and give me a little softness in the images they make; just two weeks ago a model told me that she likes the look of her skin better from my non-S line zoom lens than from my S line prime lens. I think most people already have a decent kit zoom lens that can do almost as well as this 35 mm prime, though they can't open to nearly as wide.

[@ZWadePhoto]

The RAW images are the RAW images where I don’t find vignette to be significant. When editing I always add some. I see where some of the RAWs look like they have some bits probably more scene and less lens. In the whitest corners where it should be obvious it’s not significant :)

[@PsychedelicChameleon]

@@ZWadePhoto Thanks!

[@johnfromconnecticut]

Thanks for your work with this lens. Sorry, but I'm not impressed with this lens at all. I'm sure there's a market for a faster and more "characterful" 35 but I'll stick with my 35 f/1.8S - much better optical quality and with quick, simple adjustments with Luminar Neo I can get the effects I want. At least Nikon is providing its customers with choices within different focal lengths. When the 1.8 goes on sale for $596 it approaches a "reasonableness" that should be considered. Now let's see what happens when the f/1.2 comes out!

[@ZWadePhoto]

I think it needs to be cheaper. Then I’d be on board. I see a consumer base for it, but not for a hundred bucks cheaper. That’s exactly why I do these videos. So people can get informed! Thanks for watching

[@thezeek2745]

Then you haven’t used it. It blows the S land away. S is like apples pro. It convinces people they’re getting better for WAY more money. They’re not. You’re not either. LMAO!

[@nathanielcashjr.732]

I like the look better than my 1.8. The 2/3rd stop difference makes a difference to me. It's subtle, but it's there. I did not use the 1.8 much. This one I'll use much more.

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@nathanielcashjr.732 right on my friend. If you decide to pick one up, consider using the link in description. I’m not even sure if I get credit for it, for all I know people are using them and I’m not getting a commission lol Thanks for watching 🤙🤙

[@MichaelMcNaughton]

I picked up this lens about a month ago - while it is definitely not as sharp as other primes, I find it to be really good in most use cases (e.g. good sharpness, not greatest sharpness). It's a fun walk around lens, and I don't mind its vignetting, which can be easily corrected. The bokeh is pretty great. But the fringing was pretty crazy at times. I think with its quirks, the price point makes sense. But I also have other lenses that are sharper/higher quality that cover the 35mm range, too.

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@MichaelMcNaughton thanks for watching brother. It was always going to be over priced for me haha the 35 1.8 should be the exact same price as the 50 1.8 from day one

[@MichaelMcNaughton]

@@ZWadePhoto I think that's a pretty spot on assessment.

[@wparo]

sometimes people use lenses to take videos

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@wparo this o e is significantly better that than the 1.8?

[@WhoIsSerafin]

Was able to play with this lens at my local camera shop and was considering over my 1.8 because its faster. But the 1.4 is so soooooooooffffttttttt!!! The 1.8 is a far better lens in every way. I could deal with the heavy purple fringing and huge flaring but the softness at 1.4 no i can't.

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@WhoIsSerafin I agree with it being softer. Thanks for watching

[@marleenvandam6931]

Stop pixel peeping and learn to look at a picture!

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@marleenvandam6931 🤨

[@GermanQuintero-mf7zq]

Zwade , which monitor are you using on the top of your cmera , mi

[@ZWadePhoto]

That’s an Atomos Nina V

[@DavidComdico]

I wish Nikon would make a 35mm 2/2.8 like the Sony Sonnar for street.

[@ZWadePhoto]

The 35 f/2 distagon is one of the finest lenses period

[@OriginalWatchcow]

Nikon is not saying this, but this lens really feels like it's target audience is as a "normal" for the crop sensor cameras, but will fill a full frame much like the old F-mount 35/1.8DX. I agree it seems overpriced.

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@OriginalWatchcow it kind of renders that way right?

[@bazdesh]

one thing that makes me sad - maybe even a bit angry - is the fact that these lenses are basically the same size as the AF-S G series lenses with the FTZ II adapter combined. i thought that going mirrorless meant smaller lenses, but no... im gonna keep dreaming that theyre gonna make a 50/1.4 - 35/1.4 with a simple 8/6 - 7/5 optical design thats comparable to the size of the nikkor 40/2. (they wont, but...)

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@bazdesh smaller and lighter is a lie that the industry told you buddy.

[@bazdesh]

@@ZWadePhoto haha yeah... but then you look at the voigtlanders... im gonna revert to manual lenses eventually :D

[@WhoIsSerafin]

Video ruined that all for photographers. That had to create lenses and cameras that can handle the demands of video, which include auto focus and heat distribution. Of course, that also means a ton more of R&D goes into these cameras and lenses, so the photographer gets screwed in the wallet even though you may not want those features. I know some will say it's not true, but nothing will convince me otherwise. especially the early days of m4/3 my main system when they were creating these true 1.7 true pancake lenses that were sharp. But because they were terrible at video, we no longer got those tiny lenses we were promised with mirrorless. Still far smaller than anything full frame can do but not m4/3 full potential.

[@TechGregNYC]

A little softness when it comes to people is pleasing. It helps with imperfections. Today's lenses are very sharp and we judge everything to an unneccessary standard. If I take a compelling, emotional photo, no one is going to say, but its not as sharp as it could be and if you zoom in you can see some purple fringing. I get the reasons for these tests, however, neither lens will make you a better photographer. Henri Cariter Bresson captured incredible images with equipment that is laughable by today's standards. I have an 85 1.8Z which is a terrific, super sharp lens. However, there is a quality about my 50 1.4Z that I find a little more pleasing. It comes down to personal preference. Both lenses can take beautiful shots if the moment is right. Whats better for me, might be worse for someone else. The right choice is subjective and for me, I'll take the flawed 1.4.

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@TechGregNYC thanks for watching!

[@richardyuen5786]

The 35mm 1.8 S has been out for years, and a lot of people already own that lens, including myself. You asked why pay more for a 1.8 ? Yes true, but if I sell the 1.8S, I won't get enough money to pay for the 1.4. And if I do not sell, why pay more for the 1.4 ? Makes no sense to own both unless your budget is big.

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@richardyuen5786 well sure, why pay more if you don’t have either already. I definitely didn’t say sell a 1.8 because you paid more for something you don’t have lmfao

[@richardyuen5786]

@@ZWadePhoto So "why pay more" applies only to people who are new in the Z system or don't already own any 35mm lenses. Does not apply to anyone else, right now? There's probably a lot of people who own the 35 1.8 already. If you own a Nikon Z full frame camera, probably one of the first lenses to buy is the 35 1.8S lens. For me, a1.4 S lens will appear to me. Not just extra 2/3 stop more of light, but better flare control, less colour fringing, better corner sharpness, etc. I would pay more for that.

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@richardyuen5786 Might be a little bit of a language barrier. That’s a common phrase and it would assume that someone does not have either either lens.

[@lemon58421]

It’s not that this f/1.4 lens is unique, it’s just that it’s not as good! Take two photos with both lenses at f/1.8, and you’ll see that the f/1.4 at f/1.8 performs much worse. I don’t see what’s unique about getting blurry images at f/1.4!

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@lemon58421 some people are tired of the clinical sharpness seen modern lenses. 🤷‍♂️

[@lemon58421]

@@ZWadePhoto In that case, I’ll go for manual Voigtländer lenses, which aren’t clinical...

[@ZWadePhoto]

@ more beautiful rendering too

[@thezeek2745]

Because the 1.4, is better

[@ZWadePhoto]

In what ways zeek?

[@babyboy1971]

I think this lens looks cool! But it’s overpriced.

[@ZWadePhoto]

Agree

[@zyxyuv1650]

This is horrible in every way. The MTF50 is a total fail, much less sharp than the 1.8 S, and the bokeh looks like $79 Chinese lens with edge outlining and distracting amateur looking transition zones. And horrid barrel distortion. It's F-tier all around.

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@zyxyuv1650 I just responded to this. Did you delete and repost? I don’t find it to be worth the money, but I wouldn’t call it a total dump. Totally worth 150-200 less

[@zyxyuv1650]

@@ZWadePhoto Sorry I reposted to fix a typo

[@TechGregNYC]

I disagree and if I took a compelling photo with it, no one would critique it like that. Don't get caught up in specs, focus more on the art of the craft

[@zyxyuv1650]

​@@TechGregNYC I've critiqued stuff like this many times. I would critique it if I saw your photo. The distracting bokeh looks like a cheap budget lens. It makes your photos look amateur. I notice this stuff and I do point it out to people. It's not some abstract thing, it's something obvious that I'm going to pick out easily every time.