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!
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
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!
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.
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.
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?
@@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
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.
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 :)
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.
@@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
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@@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 🤙🤙
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.
@@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
