Thinking about buying a 35mm 1.4G...

I've used the Nikkor 35f/1.4G for a few weddings (Not as the main 'tog, just a happy snapper who is lucky to have access to a lot of Nikon kit to borrow!)

The actual lens is great, feels solid (I think it has a little too much plastic around the front which felt a bit cheap, but that's nit picking).
The bokeh is nice, it's sharp (well sharper then the f/1.8G and on par with any other 35mm I've used).

I would say that despite all that, I found for me, doing a few weddings and other similar events it didn't quite pan out as expected, it tends to be a little too 'smooth', I think it has 9 aperture blades which might be not helping this, but it almost gives this too low contrasty kind of look with very smooth DOF transitions that just didn't quite look right when working in low light in the usual wedding poses.

I've also had the D300s with the 35 f/1.8G, and that actually seemed to perform better in this area, it's not quite as sharp (to my eyes), it certainly didn't seem as smooth, but that really looked to have that little more contrast and overall the roughness of the DOF actually seemed to be more pleasing..

Of course, that might just be a sign of my quite amateur skill level and one I've improving on all the time, but I sense I struggled to get the best out of that lens..
 
An Exception said:
Thanks Demon, but what do you mean about the 'smoothness', do you have any samples?
Click to expand...

I think it's a combination of the lenses lower contrast (only wide open, it's stellar when you stop it down), f/1.4 shallow DOF and it's very smooth bokeh..

For example, the shots of the bride or groom in the church all looked artificially soft because the background (20 feet+ behind) looked exactly as smooth as the OOF areas of the main subject, With the other 35mm lenses I've used, the subject will get that nice smooth in-focus to out of focus shallow DOF look, but the background will have some obvious roughness to it's bokeh giving it some seperation between the subject and background. That and an inherent low contrast just meant it produced images that looked 'too smooth'.

As I said that might be my lack of skill, I'll see if I can find some non portraiture shots (I'm not sure if they subjects would give me permission), but I should have some test shots of static objects when I was just learning the lens..

I would have thought that since you have a 50mm f/1.4 that you fully understand working with very large apertures, just imagine the bokeh is silky smooth on the 35 f/1.4G and you will pretty much know if that would in any way affect your style, the actual lens (apart from it's quite high price) is well built, very sharp when stopped down and obviously well reviewed.
 
Last edited:
It's good but not great. It produces nice looking 'contrasty' images in isolation and it's sharp in the centre particularly but optically it has plenty of small issues...

- no ED glass is a big bugbear of mine, which means CA, modern Nikon's can remove it in camera but...it annoys me on such an expensive lens.

- it's got a lot of vignetting wide open, for how most people will use a lens like this it won't matter too much and it's fairly correctable but, again, it's an expensive lens.

- *if* you care, it has rather more distortion than a prime really should. I didn't notice often in the real world and, again, it's correctable but it might bother you if you shooting anything with straight lines frequently.

Build quality is good but, like most modern Nikons, heavy on (high quality) plastic.

Bokeh is...difficult to describe, good but not great sums it up really, it's smooth but something about it isn't the easiest on the eye.

I should say, it's excellent in almost all respects if you stop down but Nikon have a million good 35mm options at f/4 or so...

I spent a while with one and decided against buying it (or given the current availability, trying to) as while it produce nice images it's not worth the asking price currently (by not worth it I mean 'not as good the Nikon 24/1.4' which shows they can make better fast primes than this)

*If* it comes down to 35L prices I'll have another think. Then again, if you want a fast 35, you've got sod all other options with Nikon. It's another reason why the 5DIII is attractive to me right now...
 
An Exception said:
Might wait to see how this turns out...

New Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G
Click to expand...

Sweet sounding lens. f/1.8 is plenty for me. For many this one lens would replace the need for the 24 and 35 in a single cheaper lens.


As to the original question, I used the 35f/1.4G in a shop a few times and it is a stunning lens. On release it was a little pricy, as all newly released gear seems to be. Prices now seems to be much more reasonable (1379.00 and I have spotted it for less before)


The Nikon 35f/1.4G i is actually a lot sharper than the Canon equivalent, and the CA, distortion, vignetting are basically identical between the Nikon and Canon versions. The Canon version has a reputation for excellent Bokeh but this isn't really founded in any reality. Both the Canon and Nikon have a slight bit of nervousness due o the wide angle design and aspherical elements. There is no real difference between the Canon and Nikon in these regards.


Photozone.de has good reviews and rates the Nikon slightly higher than the famed Canon.


The only reason I don't have the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 (and the 24 f/1.4, 85f1/4) is money...:D My 24-70 f/2.8 is not a million miles away but works out a lot cheaper.
 
If I stick with Canon the 35L is a lens I'll be picking up rather then renting every now and then. I haven't used the Nikon, but in reading user reviews the AF isn't seen as fast as the 35L either. Second hand prices are still high as well, £1200 recently on TP whereas I could pick up a 35L for £800. From user samples I'm not convinced personally the Nikon is worth any premium over the Canon.

If Sigma do release the rumoured 35 prime this year...
 
^^^
Sounds like it might be a nice lens, as lens to plug another gap in the Nikon line-up.
Just don't know why Nikon think the 35 1.4 is worth so much, no wonder it isn't that widely available unlike the 35L...
 
As D.P. has pointed out in other threads, Nikon lenses are perceived as being more expensive than Canon equivalents but that isn't necessarily the case. The 35 f1.4 is a bit of a sore point though! The price of the new Canon 24-70 is nuts as well, I just hope it isn't setting a trend!
 
The Nikon 35mm f/1.4 is about 300GBP more than the Canon. It is hard to compare the 2 price wise because the Canon is much older (which doesn't mean worse, just means the prices can be lower).


You can be sure that if Canon release a new 35mmL tomorrow it will be at least as expensive if not more than the Nikon. Case in point is any of the new Canon L releases such as the 24-70, ll quite a lot more than the Nikon counter parts.


Of course as an end user, the Canon 35L is a relative bargain but I wouldn't count on that being forever (don't know exactly how old the Canon 35L is but it may be replaced in the next few years with the price hike).


Interestingly, the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 is more expensive than the Nikon but no where near the quality and MF only. In this sense, the Nikon is relatively a bargain!


It is interesting that the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX is so cheap. It actually more or less covers the FX frame wide open and is very sharp. A shame that adding a little more frame coverage and half of a stop increases the price by several factors.
 
^^^
Nikon really shot themselves in the foot keeping the 35mm 1.8 design DX only, as the Nikon lens lineup is really missing a decent affordable 35mm. Not keen on the 35 F2, 1.8 is about the slowest I would want to go for a prime, and even then, I want it to be sharp at 1.8...
 
Seen on Canon rumours that a replacement 35mm f/1.4 L is due this year, I would bet money that it will be more expensive than the Nikon and offer similar performance.
 
Rojin said:
The way Canon pricing is going?... I wish I had 4 kidneys...
Click to expand...

It seems both Canon and Nikon are using new releases to significantly increase prices. A large part of this is exchange rates but still, the price changes for some of the Canon lens is mind boggling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom