Nikon 35mm f/1.4G By Nasim Mansurov 68 CommentsLast Updated On October 28, 2020«1. Overview and Specifications2. Optical Features3. Lens Comparisons4. Summary5. More Image Samples6. Reader Comments»
This is my favourite lens. Before that, I had Nikon 35mm f / 1.8G ED, great lens, but not as good like this. I understand that it is quite expensive and relatively heavy for many. In the backlight is the best, unlike the Nikon f1.8G ED or Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art.
Hi Team Mansurovs,
Any chances to do a comparison of the new 35 f1.8G (FX version) with the 35 f1.4G? I’m dying to know as the recent Nikon f1.8 primes are really good performer for the price (such as the 50 f1.8g vs 1.4g, the 85 f1.8g vs 1.4g.)
I bought a Nikon DF (body only) and the only lens I have left (after selling all the huge 2.8 zooms that rarely gets used) is the 24 f1.4 (which I tend to use all the time, but the wideness can be a problem for certain types of shots, hence thinking of the 35mm).
I’m now contemplating whether to get the 35 f1.8g.
As for longer FL, I will likely get the 85 f1.8g (after selling my much under-used 105 VR).
I would love to hear how the 35mm 1.4g compares to the 16-35mm f4 VR, at landscape f-stops like f8. Which is sharper in the corners and center? Which has less distortion? Sunstar performance, etc.
First of all, a huge thank you for putting in the enormous hours to conduct your very thorough reviews. I have spent a lot of time reading them, and I realize how much longer it must have taken to create them. Огромное спасибо.
Partially on the basis of your reviews, I just bought a D800 (to add to my D200 and D3) and a 35mm f/1.4G, taking advantage of Nikon’s recent promotion on some bodies and lenses. No sooner did I get my package from B&H than I read a recently-released review on DXOMark website of the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM in combination with D800. Their review basically says that the Sigma is superior to the Nikon lens in every respect, except for the lack of weather sealing, even if price is not considered. The Sigma/D800 gets a DXOMark score of 39, whereas the Nikon/D800, 33. But when one does consider the price difference ($1450 for the Nikon, on sale, vs. $900 for the Sigma, not on sale), then the Sigma becomes a very compelling alternative.
So my questions are as follows.
1. To what extent should one take DXO scores into account as reliable guidelines as to lens image and construction quality?
2. How significant is the difference between 39 and 33?
3. Depreciation: my experience with regard to Nikon fast/pro lenses is that they hold their value very well. In fact, I sold two (85mm f/1.4D and 12-24 f/4 DX) for higher prices than I paid for them new, after several years of use. Now, with Sigma improving their designs and gaining in quality on the Nikon/Canon/Sony, can one expect that their best products, such as this 35mm lens, would hold their value equally well — or will they continue to depreciate faster by the virtue, or the bane, of being a third-party supplier? (If not, then the Nikon might still be a better value over the long haul.)
Great review and some stunning images! I shot my first wedding with the 35mm 1.4 here: I absolutely loved it and shot wide open for most of the day. 35mm is definitely my favourite focal length.
I really enjoy all your reviews. Clearly this 35mm f1.4 seems fantastic to me, but expensive and heavy. I like better using a 35 mm rather than a 50 or a 28. I agee with you when you say that 35 mm is just the right lens for indoor photography and landscape. Do you think that Nikon will ever produce a 35mm f1.8 in order to complete their 1.8 line ?
Hi Nasim, I have been using my Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G for 9 months now and find myself not able to get satisfactory iamges out of it (I know the major problem is me not being a good enough photographer). My original thought of buying this lens was mainly for snap shots and street photography. However, its slow focusing speed is rather annoying that I keep on failing to capture images on the street quick enough. I find myself using my 2470mm f/2.8G much more often despite it is much bigger and heavier eventually. Recently I have had a chance to play with my friend’s 24mm f/1.4G for a few days and it seems to suit me more. It also allows me to capture a wider scene on the frame than my 35mm (of course). Do you think it is a wise move for me to trade my 35mm f1.4G for a 24mm f/1.4G? Is the focusing speed of 24mm f/1.4G faster than that of 35mm f/1.4G (according to my hand-on experience, it seems to be a bit faster)? What are the specific/ distinctive uses of these two lenses in your opinion?
Hey Nasim, any update about how the 35mm f/1.4 perfoms on D800/D800E? There have been comments regarding how this lens is not as good on the new bodies. I desperately want this lens to be good on the D800e because I need an auto-focus counterpart to my beloved Zeiss 35/2, but have not dared to buy it due to negative comments. It’d be great if you can provide another reference point here. Thanks!
Hi Nasim, as a wedding photographer, if you had a choice, 24 1.4G or 351.4G which would you choose?
Those lenses let you get close, but they are not macro lenses. Consider the 40mm DX, 60mm, or 105mm macro lenses.
Thax MATT……for your valuable suggestion…