I love the look of the 50mm 1.4. Really love that Nikon has flipped the script on 1.4 glass and love that it has character. Great comparison as always Alex!
The customizable ring that's separate from the larger focus ring is a VERY welcome addition for me. Perhaps the 1.8 line should be refreshed with this same design, keeping the A/M switch and more metal materials to differentiate. I have the 50 1.8 and don't plan to move to the 1.4 (that 50 1.8 is magic), but I'm definitely picking up the 35 1.4 since I don't have a 35 prime. Next up... 85 1.4? 🤗
Hey Alex, love the vids (you convinced me to get the RF 50mm 1.2L wayyyy back when you were still a Canon shooter) - Thinking of getting a ZF, you did a video on the Megadap adapter with the Sony 50mm 1.4GM. Thoughts on that solution vs the Z 50mm 1.4?
Sony glass is the best in the industry imo that combo is incredible from a size to performance perspective. Only issue is AF is not as good as native but it’s good enough
For the 50 I am firmly in ... both camps. Had the 1.8 already, really like the (admittedly limited) time with the 1.4. Keeping both for different situations. For the 35 had already sold the 1.8, so for 35 only have the 1.4. Useful, succinct comparison, well done ... thx!
Great video! Thanks for taking the time to make these comparisons-it's clear a lot of effort went into it! I'm a fan of the 1.4 lenses. Maybe it's because I've been using F-mount lenses for years and am just used to them. Even if these new 1.4 lenses were more expensive than the 1.8’s, I'd still choose the 1.4’s. One thing I love is how they get sharper when you stop down the aperture. When photographing more than one person, like a group, I'm going to stop down anyway, so this feature really works for me. On the other hand, Nikon designed the S-line lenses to be sharpest at wide-open apertures. From what I've seen (and the test charts online), the sharpness either stays the same or slightly decreases when you stop down with S-lenses. Some people claim that stopping down always increases sharpness and say it's "just physics," but that’s not entirely true. Lens design plays a big role, and manufacturers can design lenses to be sharper at any aperture they choose, even wide open. I definitely prefer the S-line zooms to be designed this way, but large aperture primes I’d prefer to be sharper when stopped down. Everyone’s mileage varies, so it’s great Nikon offers these options.
Just got my 50 f1.4 yesterday! Blown away again by the beautiful character in these new f1.4! Pairs very nicely with the 35! I should add I plan to mostly do video work with these, and for that, they are incredible!
I'm really happy with what Nikon did with 50 f1.4 (although I shoot on Canon). I hope Canon also brings cheaper 1.4 lenses that gives the vintage look and that pop. The L and S lenses from both brands are too clinical.
is it me am I the drama? I tested both lenses on my ZF, but the 1.8S is just such a nice sharp lens. Feels like it just ticks all the check boxes for me. So I am keeping the 1.8! wish me luck.
First time I've run into your channel, but definitely a great review! I already have the 50mm f/1.8 and was curious about the f/1.4. This review is showing all the things I wanted to see. I think in the end it's a matter of preference and personally I will stay with the 50mm f/1.8. :-)
I own the 50mm 1.8 s and agree that it’s a fantastic 50mm. I don’t plan to get this 50mm 1.4 because I have my sight set on the Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO. For me, they provide the vintage/dreamy look that I love. Yes, they are manual only, but the rendering you get is just so incredibly pristine. 😍 I look forward to your review on anyone of Voigtlander Z mount lenses. In the meantime, great review, as usual.
So I have been shooting ladies fashion on the 50 1.8 since it came out. Client is happy for items that are say cut out or on a stand but less so when on a model. I bought both the 35 and 50 1.4 and shot models on the next day. Client just loves them.... what more can I say ?
Thanks for this comparison. Was really considering the 1.4 when I read its announcement. But at a difference of less than €100 right now and your comparison shots I'll take the 1.8s without thinking twice. Cheers
The 50mm f/1.8 gives more details to work with you can always denoise to make it softer for portraits. But all that aside, what we noticed the most from this video are the muscular arms of Alex, definitely the most muscular arms of any photographers we know 😂
Very informative comparison video. Thanks for all the work. Funny how optical defects are now called "character". I have the new Z-mount 35 1.4, and am appalled at the colour fringing in backlit situations. Horrendous. It is worse in that respect than the 40 f/2. it does perform better wide open than the antique 35 1.4 AIS but that one is really "characterial", with playful weirdnesses in the background. That old lens provides useful "vintage" rendering wide open that will be noticed as such by non-photographers. The bokeh of the Z-mount 35 1.4 is nothing special: not crazy enough to stand out, not smooth enough to flatter. I regret not having opted for the 35 1.8s instead, as it seems to give much less of a headache with colour aberrations. To go back to that "character" pitch, you can easily instill that in post, as you state in the video: take a good image and turn it funky/glowy to your taste. You cannot do the opposite without adding other artifacts. Anyway, I am keeping both my perfect 50 f/1.8s and my old 58 f/1.4G, the latter bringing superb bokeh rollout and a pleasing low intensity glow wide open where and when desired (just at the back of the plane of focus and with manageable colour fringing). I use that one for close quarter and environmental portraiture and have never been disappointed. Based on this video and other reviews, that new Z-mount 50 f/1.4 renders to my eyes a bit like the old F-mount 50 1.4: barely okay wide open with not much to write home about regarding bokeh, "3D pop" or other "character" markers. Thanks again for your very good comparison video.
Nice review Alex. This is a hard one - I already have the 50 1.8 S and the 50 1.2 S - I love them both and use them for different use cases - the only thing about the 1.2 S is its so big and relatively heavy, and that it doesn't fit easily in the bag - so I find myself not wanting to take it a lot, which is too bad because it is optically exceptional - slightly better even than the amazing 1.8 S but with even shallower DOF than the 1.4 - again size and weight are its downfall. And this is where this 50 1.4 has me thinking. If it were larger than the 1.8, I would not even consider it, but the fact that it is so small makes it attractive. i could see using it for when I travel but want shallow DOF - taking this instead of the 1.2 S. For now I will likely wait on getting this, but would not be surprised if I eventually buy it. -PD
Personally, I don't like the rendering of the 50mm f1.4. Yes, there are vintage lenses that have a unique rendering that looks amazing like for example the Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm f1.2 or the Nikon F 58mm f1.4 AF-S mount lens. There are also modern lenses with a nice vintage rendering like the Voigtlander Nokton 50mmm f1.2. But if you ask me, this Nikon Z 50mm f1.4 has the rendering of one of the many "not that great" vintage lenses of the 60s-80s.
My thoughts exactly. Not funky enough to stand out, not excellent enough to keep a discerning photographer satisfied. A middle-of-the-road type of offering.
Nice comparison. I have the 1.8 and will stick with it as I feel it makes more sense for client work but I do like the look of the 1.4, it renders space better.
Difficult decision but just the video I needed as I felt it was missing on RU-vid! You can already get the 50 f/1.8 for less than the 50 f/1.4 if you buy it second hand... Makes the decision even more difficult. I love that Nikon is doing this, but would also like to see a more compact line of lenses, ideally with an aperture ring! For me, the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 provides all the character I need in a lens :)
good review, man! but if i can tell... you can add up a long distance between the the object and camera so far away. i have afs 50mm 1.4g and afs 50mm 1.8g,,, on long distance 50mm 1.4 really blurry and doesnt sharp,,, in other side 50mm 1.8 give better sharp... i think this issue also happening on this z50mm 1.4...
50/1.2S owner here, and it's really astonishing at creamy bokeh. I was considering swapping my 1.2S into 1.4 for easier carry-outs(1000g vs 400g). But hence the bokeh performance isn't really standing out even compete with the 1.8S in this videos we can see, maybe I'll just stay in 1.2S lol. 50/1.4 still beats at the price level though.
The 1.8 has a better Highlight Roll off and tonal gradation. Thus produce almost 3D images. My money is on 1.8; Bokeh difference is negligible. Great review though!
I Just have feeling that 1.8 version of 35 and 50 are more perfect lenses. Build Quality are also important. Only a little smoother bokeh from 1.4 but general 1.8 are higher class lens.
When I heard about this new line-up for the first time, I said to myself that for sure I prefer S-line lenses, difference in price is too small to decide for non-S. But after watching side by side comparsions I'm sure I prefer these imperfections of 1.4, both of them. For sure I'll have them both in my collection in the future. When I was close to move from DSLR to mirrorless, watching samples of the modern lenses, I was a bit terrified how clinically sharp and perfect they are. And I didn't like it, it was so artificial. I'm adapting old Canon FD lenses to my Z camera, but now I'm glad there are more and more dedicated lenses delivering good quality and character, including these three cheap Viltroxes - 20/2.8, 40/2.5 and 56/1.7.
I would like to see a comparisen between the 50mm F1.4 and the 35mm F1.4 in crop mode (52.5mm field of view). I'm shooting on a Z8 so loss of pixel is immaterial. If the 2 lens are comparable I won't buy the 50mm lens.
I can certainly understand why some might like the 1.4 for the softness. Me, I think its no better than the kit lens that came with my D40 15 years ago. I Think Nikon missed the mark with this one. Having 4 systems, I compare it to the Sony GM 1.4. Say what you want but the sony is probably the sharpest on the market. This 50, way too soft. The extra control ring is nice to have but to be honest, the images are horrific. If youre in the market for the 50, go 1.8 and if you can swing it, the 1.2 is the new standard, albiet is a bruiser on my ZF.
I have a Vintage 50mm f1.4 Nikkor-S. BTW that -S means that this is a first edition lens dating to the 1960's and early 1970's. Roundabout 1974 Nikon phased out the letter designation for the basic lens design. In terms of Sharpness wide open it is horrible, the only real practical use would be for portraits of 90 year old subjects because it can mask Grand Canyon wrinkles. Of course eyes will be so blurred it will be difficult to make out the pupils. Yeah it's really that soft. Fact is the only reason I still have mine is that it's used as a body cap for one my Nikon F camera bodies. I have had later AIS multicoated versions and an AF Nikkor version and they were all very soft wide open. Never did get the AF-S version because after 30 years of dogs I gave up on the 50mm f1.4 lenses. This new version has absolutely EXCEPTIONAL sharpness compared to the older lenses so I already know I'll give this one a try. A little touch of softness wide open is a good thing, it can mask small skin defects or blemishes without being obvious about it. When I want some real sharpness it's just two f stops away. BTW, that antique of mine does sharpen up nicely at f5.6 where you really won't see much blur in the final image.
I am assuming for tge sake of expedience that you used two cameras and took the images at the same time. If not, then the rest of what I'm going to say is null and void. My comment is about the last image comparison, shooting into the sun. Assuming you shot with two cameras simultaneously, they would have to be placed side-by-side, which would/could create different effects when shooting directly into the sun. So I'm just wondering if the differences between the 1.4 and 1.8 that in that instance gave the 1.4 the edge were simply due to one camera being slightly to the right of the other. I'm not trying to troll you here. I'm just curious if that explains why in that one instance, especially shooting into the sun, the wider aperture that had been lagging in the other examples now shows a better result.
Oh well at least there's the crazily good f1.2S for those who want near perfection at wide aperture. At least the new 50 1.4 will have the advantage of a bit less vignetting .. and that's about it.
Once you have the 1.2 z or the Plena primes … the 1.8 z lens are pretty much useless and these 1.4 lens are a step below that. I tried the 35mm 1.4 z when it came out and sent it back because the results weren’t up to my standards, actually the looked like old DSLR images I use to get, where the keeper rates were not as high as the through outs, pretty sad. In short if you are in the market for a 50 just deal with the weight, deal with the price and get your self the real deal, the 50mm 1.2 z.
to me the 1.4 has unacceptable performance given its size. if it were half the size and had weather sealing it would have been an instant buy for me as a Zf owner. these f1.4 lenses have me dooming on the whole Zf thing, just absolute misses for me personally. gonna chuck it for the next high res body because Nikon seems uninterested in delivering small + good lenses. a big + bad lens? the fuck? the bigger lenses are good, I love the 105 macro it's such a winner and Canon/Sony's lenses don't deliver like that. The 135? crazy good. But none of those lenses work well with the Zf even with a grip. thank goodness I can afford to have more than one system Leica and Hasselblad both understand the value of comparatively small packages.
No sorry, the fringes in harsh light are just horrible with the 1.4 and lots of "cropability" is lost because of the softness. I can see the appeal and it can be good enough for some but if I want vintage I'd rather take an old cheap glass. Also I love aperture ring, but the classic with hard click and markings, that electronic wheel that spin endlessly is a bit annoying, it really needs a stop buttton.
The 1.4 rendering is awful. No way do I want those edgy bokeh or aberrations in my photos. If only they made it an S line, it would have cleared that up and still have character. Great video style by the way. Excellent
