AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G - good? bad?

haring

Does anybody have the Nikon 35mm 1.4? I have found a few reviews but considering that it is a relatively new lens, I don't find the reviews particularly useful. I want to have somebody's opinion who really uses it. ( I don't like reviews based on a sample copy which is tested in studio conditions.)

So is it worth buying it? Sharp wide open? Is AF fast AND accurate? Is it useful?

Thanks!

catspaw

haven't bought it - yet! - but I got to play with one last weekend and I can at least say that YES, it is sharp as anything wide open. As in, WOW. sharp sharp sharp. I want to buy this lens and randomly shoot bands in concert up by the stage just to see what it can do (which I imagine is a LOT).

Nothing about the AF seemed sluggish, but I wasn't tracking anything rapidly moving, so I'll let someone else chime in on that one

If in doubt, I know BorrowLenses got a few in stock for renting!

haring

Compare - Nikon 35mm 1.4 vs. Nikon 24mm 1.4
Are there any photos on the internet which compare these two lenses? I have found a few of them but I haven't seen real life photos (people, events, etc) which compare these two gems.
Is the bookeh the same wide open? Which AF is faster and more accurate on FF cameras?
Are they accurate in low light situation?

Thanks!

ziggy53

I've combined these two similar threads. Unfortunately, I have experience to relate.

r3t1awr3yd

Does this help?

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f14-afs.htm

Matthew Saville

haring wrote: »

Are there any photos on the internet which compare these two lenses? I have found a few of them but I haven't seen real life photos (people, events, etc) which compare these two gems.
Is the bookeh the same wide open? Which AF is faster and more accurate on FF cameras?
Are they accurate in low light situation?

Thanks!

I can confidently say that, considering the tests I've done myself, and considering the more in-depth reviews done by trusted photographers such as Bjorn and Ken, AND lastly considering the PRICE, ...It is safe to say that both the 24 and the 35 are pure perfection in almost every way. Their sharpness and other image quality aspects are nearly flawless. Their general quality, construction and "feel" make you realize that they're worth every penny. And finally, their uncanny accuracy and precision in low light totally makes up for the slightly slower sheer speed of focusing. They are truly amazing lenses.

BTW if anyone is interested, I've also had a chance to test the 85 1.4 AFS, on a D3s, and have all the same great thing to say about it. AMAZING lenses, all three of them. It is clear to me that Nikon has truly entered into direct competition with Canon's previously legendary primes, and in 2011 I fully expect to see a 50mm f/1.2 of equal or greater size, performance, and maybe price, compared to the 35 1.4...


Now, as to whether or not you should buy it? Honestly, I don't think ANYONE should spend that much money on such a specialized prime unless they KNOW it's the lens for them. Otherwise a 35 f/2 or a 24 f/2.8 will do just fine. I would only buy such an expensive, HEAVY lens if I knew exactly what my style of photography was, and how such a lens would help me make those style-defining images. So, maybe rent / borrow a few things before you plunk down ~$2K... Rent or borrow a 35 f/2, or a 24 2.8, and see if you at least like that range of prime. Rent or borrow the 1.4's, and see if you like their heft, their image qality, etc...

THEN make a decision. :-D

Good luck!
=Matt=

haring

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

Does this help?

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f14-afs.htm

I don't think he is using them in real situations. I better read Nikon's website then. Real life experience is the BEST!

haring

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I can confidently say that, considering the tests I've done myself, and considering the more in-depth reviews done by trusted photographers such as Bjorn and Ken, AND lastly considering the PRICE, ...It is safe to say that both the 24 and the 35 are pure perfection in almost every way. Their sharpness and other image quality aspects are nearly flawless. Their general quality, construction and "feel" make you realize that they're worth every penny. And finally, their uncanny accuracy and precision in low light totally makes up for the slightly slower sheer speed of focusing. They are truly amazing lenses.

BTW if anyone is interested, I've also had a chance to test the 85 1.4 AFS, on a D3s, and have all the same great thing to say about it. AMAZING lenses, all three of them. It is clear to me that Nikon has truly entered into direct competition with Canon's previously legendary primes, and in 2011 I fully expect to see a 50mm f/1.2 of equal or greater size, performance, and maybe price, compared to the 35 1.4...


Now, as to whether or not you should buy it? Honestly, I don't think ANYONE should spend that much money on such a specialized prime unless they KNOW it's the lens for them. Otherwise a 35 f/2 or a 24 f/2.8 will do just fine. I would only buy such an expensive, HEAVY lens if I knew exactly what my style of photography was, and how such a lens would help me make those style-defining images. So, maybe rent / borrow a few things before you plunk down ~$2K... Rent or borrow a 35 f/2, or a 24 2.8, and see if you at least like that range of prime. Rent or borrow the 1.4's, and see if you like their heft, their image qality, etc...

THEN make a decision. :-D

Good luck!
=Matt=

I want to use the 24mm and the 35mm during weddings. Is the AF accurate while tracking moving objects??? It is totally useless for me if all the photos are out of focus and blurry.

r3t1awr3yd

haring wrote: »

I don't think he is using them in real situations. I better read Nikon's website then. Real life experience is the BEST!

But if you read his writeup, he does... dunno

Matthew Saville

haring wrote: »

I want to use the 24mm and the 35mm during weddings. Is the AF accurate while tracking moving objects??? It is totally useless for me if all the photos are out of focus and blurry.

Nikon engineers are quite insulted, hehehe! Again, for $2200 and $1800, you get perfection. Fear not!

Okay, to give you a more comforting and less ambiguous answer to your question: YES! That is exactly what the new AFS primes are AMAZING at. Tracking in pitch-black, or ANY light. That's what all the fuss has been about; the speed of the original AFD primes when compared to the new AFS primes. The AFD primes are noticeably faster by 10-20%, when it comes to simply "racking focus". HOWEVER, all the new AFS primes are AMAZINGLY accurate, and great at tracking.

I don't know if you've upgraded to the new 85 AFS yet, but if you're satisfied with that lens, trust me when I say you'll be blown away but the others. With the 85 1.4 AFS I was even able to track FLYING skateboarders, in light low enough to require ISO 6400 on a D3s.

(A Nikon rep was in town plugging the new 1.4 primes. I could never afford all those lenses right now!)


Again, you will NOT be let down. They're the best damn f/1.4 primes any (autofocus) 35mm SLR mount has ever seen.

=Matt=

Matthew Saville

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

But if you read his writeup, he does... dunno

Ken doesn't shoot weddings, though. ;-)

FLam

I agree with Matthew. I purchased this lens a week ago and it is absolutely amazing. Razor, razor sharp. Perfect focal length for a walk-around lens on FX amd the shallower depth of field make it interesting for this perspective. I passed on the 24mm primarily because its just a tad too wide for everyday use and I already have two lenses that cover 24mm. Also, the 35mm is very hard to find right now and from what I understand it could limited in production. NPS is getting the bulk of these lenses and that isn't much to begin with.