I owned this for a few months and my conclusions probably run contrary to others’, but I ultimately sold the lens. Here are a few stray observations sort of in order of how much they mattered to me: 1) the purple fringing is an issue in real-world use. If you’re shooting a backlit subject against the sky it is likely to show up. Yes, the purple can be removed, but the halo it creates can’t. This is a lens aberration that really should be better corrected for $3k. 2) The vignette is very pronounced wide open. That usually doesn’t bother me as on some lenses it adds character (see the 85mm 1.2s). The issue here is that with the 35mm focal length you’re often including a decent amount of sky, but not quite enough to offset the vignette. What I mean is that the amount of sky in your frame will almost all be impacted by the vignette and thus it creates a much more distracting gradient. It’s kind of the worst focal length IMO for big vignette. Wider and tighter focal lengths “hide” it in the image more. 3) It’s just big. Most are going to be shooting this lens wide open, but say you’re using this for product photography in a studio and shooting at f4 where those corners look fantastic and are perfect for pixel shifted images that can resolve all that. This is a heavy lens, especially on an overhead rig. Similarly, if you’re shooting astro, it’s heavy for a portable tracker. 4) The astigmatism and coma aren’t great and you’ve got to stop down to far to ameliorate it. Thus, the only advantage of this lens for astro is its sharpness. If you’re going to shoot astro with a lens this big and heavy at a focal length that needs to start using a tracker, the simga 40mm art is a significantly better astro lens that can be shot with better results at a wider aperture and can be found used under $500 these days. I also spotted some decentering on my 35mm 1.2s when I used it for astro. Ultimately, the coma and astigmatism are middle of the pack for an astro lens. I would choose the voigtlander 35mm at f2.8 (which is where both lenses realistically need to be shot for best performance) over this every time. 5) The rendering is great, no doubt, but I prefer the rendering on the 28mm 1.4e. Maybe that’s a product of the 28mm’s field curvature. 6) I just prefer the 28mm focal length. That’s a personal preference, but other than the bonkers corner sharpness stopped down, this lens doesn’t do anything for me that the 28mm 1.4e doesn’t already do for $800 used or $1300 new in 2025. The 28mm has many of the same flaws such as purple fringing, and vignette (although I find that more manageable at the wider FL). Also, the 28mm sucks for astro, whereas the 35mm 1.2s is just average, but if you want to shoot astro in this focal length, but the 28mm 1.4 ART which sells new on BH all the time for $450. That lens is close to the performance of the 40mm ART. The 28mm 1.4e is the 35mm 1.2s closest competitor and even taking money out of the equation, I still prefer the 28mm 1.4e unless you absolutely need that corner sharpness. 7) Why doesn’t nikon put coatings on the front elements of these 1.2s lenses, especially given the price? In the field they pick up a lot of crap and are hard to clean. 8) All the above added up to me selling it. Ultimately though, as you might have noticed from my multiple mentions of more affordable alternatives for various uses, it just comes down to a price issue. If this were priced the same as the 50mm 1.2s it would be a no brainer. But at $1,000 more than the 50mm it doesn’t justify that cost. I do think the 85mm 1.2s better justifies its price tag, but that’s in part because it doesn’t really suffer from these issues and just creates images that no other Nikon lens does. It has a really unique rendering wide open while also being really well corrected.
Ircut
July 6, 2025 11:55 am
I bought the 35mm f/1.2 to avoid the tariffs since I’d been thinking about getting something in the range for awhile, and I have to say, if you can put up with its size and expense, it is damn near the perfect environmental portrait lens.
I’ve taken it on a few family outings and it never came off the camera. I’m usually a zoom fiend, but this lens is incredible. And it’s so sharp that on a 45 megapixel camera I can crop heavily and not feel like I’m losing significant quality.
Absolutely incredible lens.
I guess my two lens kit for portraiture is the 35mm f/1.2 and the Plena. Two lenses that elevate whatever they point at.
polizonte
June 30, 2025 8:11 am
Great review, images and choice of venue for a photo shoot! I wish I had access to such a lens but it is beyond my mean$. We visited Praha in 2017, with a group to make for a more affordable trip.. Beautiful city, so radically different from all the other European cities we visited during that summer trip. Due to luggage constraints, imposed by the group we traveled with, my Nikon stayed home, allowing me to carry a point & shoot. The photos still preserve our memories.
Pete A
June 23, 2025 5:37 am
Have you ever wondered what a 10 000 mm 𝑓/1.2 would be like?
Another excellent review, Libor and marries up perfectly with my thoughts on the lens. I’ve had mine for almost 2 months and love it. I also have the 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2 and Plena but this lens is the best of the lot as it can be used for anything, where the others are a little more specialized, except maybe the 50 f1.2. The Verdict states that it is flawless, although I would say that no lens is really flawless, but this lens is as close to being flawless as I have ever seen a lens.
kingone
June 20, 2025 2:07 am
Still looks pretty good
Kurtz
June 19, 2025 3:03 pm
I just got word from my dealer that my 35 got in today. That dealer is truly bleading me dry.
Martin
June 18, 2025 9:12 pm
Z 35mm f/1.2 S is really my lens! Before I had Z 50mm f/1.2 S which was truly a lens that I highly appreciate. And before that I had Z 35mm f/1.8 S.
For a long time I have longed for a lens with the optical qualities of 50mm f/1.2 S but with focal length 35mm. In my opinion the optical quality is even better with 35mm f/1.2 than 50mm f/1.2.
I owned this for a few months and my conclusions probably run contrary to others’, but I ultimately sold the lens. Here are a few stray observations sort of in order of how much they mattered to me:
1) the purple fringing is an issue in real-world use. If you’re shooting a backlit subject against the sky it is likely to show up. Yes, the purple can be removed, but the halo it creates can’t. This is a lens aberration that really should be better corrected for $3k.
2) The vignette is very pronounced wide open. That usually doesn’t bother me as on some lenses it adds character (see the 85mm 1.2s). The issue here is that with the 35mm focal length you’re often including a decent amount of sky, but not quite enough to offset the vignette. What I mean is that the amount of sky in your frame will almost all be impacted by the vignette and thus it creates a much more distracting gradient. It’s kind of the worst focal length IMO for big vignette. Wider and tighter focal lengths “hide” it in the image more.
3) It’s just big. Most are going to be shooting this lens wide open, but say you’re using this for product photography in a studio and shooting at f4 where those corners look fantastic and are perfect for pixel shifted images that can resolve all that. This is a heavy lens, especially on an overhead rig. Similarly, if you’re shooting astro, it’s heavy for a portable tracker.
4) The astigmatism and coma aren’t great and you’ve got to stop down to far to ameliorate it. Thus, the only advantage of this lens for astro is its sharpness. If you’re going to shoot astro with a lens this big and heavy at a focal length that needs to start using a tracker, the simga 40mm art is a significantly better astro lens that can be shot with better results at a wider aperture and can be found used under $500 these days. I also spotted some decentering on my 35mm 1.2s when I used it for astro. Ultimately, the coma and astigmatism are middle of the pack for an astro lens. I would choose the voigtlander 35mm at f2.8 (which is where both lenses realistically need to be shot for best performance) over this every time.
5) The rendering is great, no doubt, but I prefer the rendering on the 28mm 1.4e. Maybe that’s a product of the 28mm’s field curvature.
6) I just prefer the 28mm focal length. That’s a personal preference, but other than the bonkers corner sharpness stopped down, this lens doesn’t do anything for me that the 28mm 1.4e doesn’t already do for $800 used or $1300 new in 2025. The 28mm has many of the same flaws such as purple fringing, and vignette (although I find that more manageable at the wider FL). Also, the 28mm sucks for astro, whereas the 35mm 1.2s is just average, but if you want to shoot astro in this focal length, but the 28mm 1.4 ART which sells new on BH all the time for $450. That lens is close to the performance of the 40mm ART. The 28mm 1.4e is the 35mm 1.2s closest competitor and even taking money out of the equation, I still prefer the 28mm 1.4e unless you absolutely need that corner sharpness.
7) Why doesn’t nikon put coatings on the front elements of these 1.2s lenses, especially given the price? In the field they pick up a lot of crap and are hard to clean.
8) All the above added up to me selling it. Ultimately though, as you might have noticed from my multiple mentions of more affordable alternatives for various uses, it just comes down to a price issue. If this were priced the same as the 50mm 1.2s it would be a no brainer. But at $1,000 more than the 50mm it doesn’t justify that cost. I do think the 85mm 1.2s better justifies its price tag, but that’s in part because it doesn’t really suffer from these issues and just creates images that no other Nikon lens does. It has a really unique rendering wide open while also being really well corrected.
I bought the 35mm f/1.2 to avoid the tariffs since I’d been thinking about getting something in the range for awhile, and I have to say, if you can put up with its size and expense, it is damn near the perfect environmental portrait lens.
I’ve taken it on a few family outings and it never came off the camera. I’m usually a zoom fiend, but this lens is incredible. And it’s so sharp that on a 45 megapixel camera I can crop heavily and not feel like I’m losing significant quality.
Absolutely incredible lens.
I guess my two lens kit for portraiture is the 35mm f/1.2 and the Plena. Two lenses that elevate whatever they point at.
Great review, images and choice of venue for a photo shoot! I wish I had access to such a lens but it is beyond my mean$. We visited Praha in 2017, with a group to make for a more affordable trip.. Beautiful city, so radically different from all the other European cities we visited during that summer trip. Due to luggage constraints, imposed by the group we traveled with, my Nikon stayed home, allowing me to carry a point & shoot. The photos still preserve our memories.
Have you ever wondered what a 10 000 mm 𝑓/1.2 would be like?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…bservatory
Another excellent review, Libor and marries up perfectly with my thoughts on the lens. I’ve had mine for almost 2 months and love it. I also have the 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2 and Plena but this lens is the best of the lot as it can be used for anything, where the others are a little more specialized, except maybe the 50 f1.2. The Verdict states that it is flawless, although I would say that no lens is really flawless, but this lens is as close to being flawless as I have ever seen a lens.
Still looks pretty good
I just got word from my dealer that my 35 got in today. That dealer is truly bleading me dry.
Z 35mm f/1.2 S is really my lens! Before I had Z 50mm f/1.2 S which was truly a lens that I highly appreciate. And before that I had Z 35mm f/1.8 S.
For a long time I have longed for a lens with the optical qualities of 50mm f/1.2 S but with focal length 35mm. In my opinion the optical quality is even better with 35mm f/1.2 than 50mm f/1.2.
I was in Budapest and street photography a month ago with 35mm f/1.2, see:
martinbengtsson.com/sw/on…sWHMTDkK4g
Martin I love your style and photography…I think the 35mm 1.2 is perfect for what you do. Thanks for sharing, lovely photos!
Coma?
Covered on page 2.
Right! And it does eell.
Just a heavy sleeper.
The production of huge optically near perfect lenses makes me nostalgic for my Olympus 35mm film camera and its smaller and optically adequate lenses.
That’s where the Z 40mm f/2 comes in :)
I Agree! , not the sharpest wide open, but no color problems and at f/5.6 it renders very sharp with a beautiful 3D expression.