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 Agree! , not the sharpest wide open, but no color problems and at f/5.6 it renders very sharp with a beautiful 3D expression.
David
June 18, 2025 7:40 am
Nikon will hate you ^^ Anyways, thanks for the review i was awaited the most ! I have the Tamron 35mm 1.4 & the Z 35mm 1.4, there’s a gap between them two in term of bokeh rendering and sharpness wide open (stopped down it’s may in favor of the nikkor). So the comparison between the 3 lenses is very usefull & convince me to pass on that lens and conserve the Tamron : weight & price issue for similar result expected. May we will see other differences in night time photography but i doubt.. So Sad that tamron did not produce in the dslr time a 85mm 1.4 as same as their 35mm ^^.
I have the opposite situation, and it’s quite interesting. After I purchased the Z35 f/1.4 lens, I decided to sell my Tamron 35 f/1.4. This was not an easy decision, as Tamron is generally optically superior to many competitors, including the Z35 f/1.4. However, despite its optical advantages, Tamron has its drawbacks, such as onion the rings. Besides, when I thought about weight, it became a crucial factor. The Tamron, combined with the adapter, weighs more than twice as much as the Z35, and this significantly affects user-friendliness. I’ve always aspired to lightness and mobility, especially when I go outside with a camera. Considering that the total weight with Tamron is about 2 kilograms, I began to notice that I take it with me less often. This has become a real obstacle to spontaneous photo shoots and travel, where every gram counts. Despite all my love for Tamron, its weight and bulkiness forced me to look for lighter and more convenient alternatives. And so, when I tried the Z35 f/1.4, I realized that this is exactly what I need. This lens is not only lighter, but also provides excellent image quality, making it an ideal choice for everyday photography. Also, if I need maximum sharpness and smooth sideways movement, then I have the Z50 f/1.8S for that. This lens also has its characteristic onion rings, but its lightness and compactness make it a great addition to my arsenal. With the Z50, I can easily work in a variety of conditions without feeling tired from the equipment. It allows me to experiment with depth of field and create really impressive images that are pleasing to the eye. I have learned to appreciate not only the quality of optics, but also the comfort of use.
I’m agree with you about the weight/comfort of use about the Nikkor Z35mm1.4 : it’s a joy to use ! What is a dilemma is about the bokeh in the nikon Z 35mm 1.4 : it is rendering really nice in the center & middle portion of the photo, but all the corner are really odd…. I’m surprised you talk about onion rings in the bokeh of Tamron 35mm 1.4, i’m agree that the tamron 35mm1.8 have strong one, but the Tamron 1.4 no, and it give really smooth bokeh transition and it is still the best 35mm option in F mount, i had the sigma 35 art, the nikkor 1.4g, the heavy beauty sigma 40mm 1.4 (but too big finally ; in weight & volume), and even the Samyang 35mm 1.4 (beautiful rendering but manual focus). One thing to notice also, i found the Af quicker on the tamron even with the FTZ adpater. It would be really interesting to compare the both anyway.
The Tamron 35 f/1.4 has an onion ring effect. It’s weak, but it’s there. I’m not too bothered by it, but I’m a “specialist” in finding them. Most people don’t notice them until you point them out. The Tamron’s bokeh is the best among all lenses with a focal length of 35 mm and a maximum aperture of f/1.4. But the weight! 2 kilograms for a fixed-lens kit. I bought the lightweight Z40 f/2 and Viltrax 40 f/2.5 as an alternative, but I sold them along with the Tamron after purchasing the Z35 f/1.4. The Z35 f/1.4 has issues with bokeh due to the curvature of its field of view, resulting in low sharpness measurements when testing at the edge of the frame. However, in reality, if objects are within the ГРИП, there is no significant loss of sharpness. However, in the scenarios where I use it, it only interferes with about one in ten shots. The remaining nine are good or even excellent. Most importantly, it has a 3D pattern. But statistics are stubborn. When I go outside for a walk or visit a place, I rarely take a set of Tamron 35 f/1.4 and Z7. Yes, this lens is close to the resolution of the sensor and optically excellent for a 35mm lens. But the total number of frames is significantly lower than when I used the rather large and heavy Z28-400. And the saddest thing is that this hyperzoom, which is very compromising in terms of its optical characteristics, allows me to take many more excellent frames per unit of time.
Pieter Kers
June 18, 2025 7:27 am
I have used this f/1.2 lens for a week and tried it against the 40mm F/1.4 Sigma that I own and consider one of my very best lenses; The nikkor is clearly better at f/1.2 than the Sigma at f/1.4. Sharpness, contrast, flare resistance, all better, especially the contrast. You can make a perfect 46MP photo at f1/2. I noticed a not perfect flat field at far distance , needed two images combined with one focusstep to make it perfect.( might be this copy or my camera) Wide open also no purple fringing, nor longitudinal chromatic aberration, a thing the 85mm f/1.2 does show. a very fine lens , but a bit big and heavy. In dark situations of almost no light its AF performed really well .
Paul
June 18, 2025 7:13 am
Quick correction — the Nikkor 35/1.2 S does *not* have a fluorine coating on its front element. (Source: imaging.nikon.com/imagi…_35mmf12s/ )
(It would be a surprise if it did — the entire f/1.8 line (including the Plena), the 50/1.2, and the 85/1.2, also lack this coating. Amongst Nikon’s portrait primes, only the Noct has a fluorine-coated front element.)
I’ve removed the reference from the review, but I’m not 100% sure. For example, the Z 35mm f/1.8 S does have a fluorine coating according to Adorama and various other sources (www.adorama.com/nkz3518.html), but Nikon doesn’t mention it on the Nikon Imaging site that you link. Same with the 135mm f/1.8 Plena and many of these other lenses.
I think there’s a high chance that you’re right and that only the Noct has the coating among these primes. But I also think it’s possible that Nikon just didn’t mention it on their site for whatever reason, and that all or most of these lenses have it (or have some comparable anti-dust coating that may not technically be “fluorine”).
Martin G
June 18, 2025 1:18 am
The 1.2 looks exceptionally good but your images also show that the F1.4 version has a lot to offer The 1.2 is capable of isolating the subject amazingly well and offering dreamy bokeh. Clearly I had not paid enough attention to reviewers who had pointed out that the 35 F1.4 is a great little lens in its own right. Hmmmm, lots to think about here. This is a very interesting review which makes me completely rethink what i thought abot the 35mm focal length and surprisingly, my interest in the F1.4 rather than the 1.2.
Always interesting how tastes vary! I had decided, based on my infrequent use of 35mm compared to 50mm, that the 1.4 would be more than enough — and then this review arrived, and showed me that the 35/1.2 has that same jaw-dropping magic the 50/1.2 has, and that the 35/1.4’s bokeh looks like broken sticks in comparison, and that my 35/1.8S is actually closer to what I want.
Time to save up, I guess. The 35/1.8 will do in the meantime. Thanks, PhotographyLife! I mean, kinda.
It is always interesting to think about how the lens collection one already has influences how a new lens will be evaluated. It often depends whether you are looking for a similar look or a contrast. See: youtu.be/WwF-u…b_rYonvFsl I am not looking for ultra smooth bokeh from this lens in every shot. For me the F1.2 is out of my reach anyway. I do own a Plena and that used up most of my budget. I have other plans for a 35 F 1.4. anyway.
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
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.
Nikon will hate you ^^ Anyways, thanks for the review i was awaited the most ! I have the Tamron 35mm 1.4 & the Z 35mm 1.4, there’s a gap between them two in term of bokeh rendering and sharpness wide open (stopped down it’s may in favor of the nikkor).
So the comparison between the 3 lenses is very usefull & convince me to pass on that lens and conserve the Tamron : weight & price issue for similar result expected.
May we will see other differences in night time photography but i doubt.. So Sad that tamron did not produce in the dslr time a 85mm 1.4 as same as their 35mm ^^.
I have the opposite situation, and it’s quite interesting. After I purchased the Z35 f/1.4 lens, I decided to sell my Tamron 35 f/1.4. This was not an easy decision, as Tamron is generally optically superior to many competitors, including the Z35 f/1.4. However, despite its optical advantages, Tamron has its drawbacks, such as onion the rings.
Besides, when I thought about weight, it became a crucial factor. The Tamron, combined with the adapter, weighs more than twice as much as the Z35, and this significantly affects user-friendliness. I’ve always aspired to lightness and mobility, especially when I go outside with a camera. Considering that the total weight with Tamron is about 2 kilograms, I began to notice that I take it with me less often. This has become a real obstacle to spontaneous photo shoots and travel, where every gram counts.
Despite all my love for Tamron, its weight and bulkiness forced me to look for lighter and more convenient alternatives. And so, when I tried the Z35 f/1.4, I realized that this is exactly what I need. This lens is not only lighter, but also provides excellent image quality, making it an ideal choice for everyday photography.
Also, if I need maximum sharpness and smooth sideways movement, then I have the Z50 f/1.8S for that. This lens also has its characteristic onion rings, but its lightness and compactness make it a great addition to my arsenal. With the Z50, I can easily work in a variety of conditions without feeling tired from the equipment. It allows me to experiment with depth of field and create really impressive images that are pleasing to the eye.
I have learned to appreciate not only the quality of optics, but also the comfort of use.
I’m agree with you about the weight/comfort of use about the Nikkor Z35mm1.4 : it’s a joy to use ! What is a dilemma is about the bokeh in the nikon Z 35mm 1.4 : it is rendering really nice in the center & middle portion of the photo, but all the corner are really odd…. I’m surprised you talk about onion rings in the bokeh of Tamron 35mm 1.4, i’m agree that the tamron 35mm1.8 have strong one, but the Tamron 1.4 no, and it give really smooth bokeh transition and it is still the best 35mm option in F mount, i had the sigma 35 art, the nikkor 1.4g, the heavy beauty sigma 40mm 1.4 (but too big finally ; in weight & volume), and even the Samyang 35mm 1.4 (beautiful rendering but manual focus).
One thing to notice also, i found the Af quicker on the tamron even with the FTZ adpater.
It would be really interesting to compare the both anyway.
The Tamron 35 f/1.4 has an onion ring effect. It’s weak, but it’s there. I’m not too bothered by it, but I’m a “specialist” in finding them. Most people don’t notice them until you point them out. The Tamron’s bokeh is the best among all lenses with a focal length of 35 mm and a maximum aperture of f/1.4.
But the weight! 2 kilograms for a fixed-lens kit. I bought the lightweight Z40 f/2 and Viltrax 40 f/2.5 as an alternative, but I sold them along with the Tamron after purchasing the Z35 f/1.4.
The Z35 f/1.4 has issues with bokeh due to the curvature of its field of view, resulting in low sharpness measurements when testing at the edge of the frame. However, in reality, if objects are within the ГРИП, there is no significant loss of sharpness.
However, in the scenarios where I use it, it only interferes with about one in ten shots. The remaining nine are good or even excellent. Most importantly, it has a 3D pattern.
But statistics are stubborn. When I go outside for a walk or visit a place, I rarely take a set of Tamron 35 f/1.4 and Z7. Yes, this lens is close to the resolution of the sensor and optically excellent for a 35mm lens. But the total number of frames is significantly lower than when I used the rather large and heavy Z28-400. And the saddest thing is that this hyperzoom, which is very compromising in terms of its optical characteristics, allows me to take many more excellent frames per unit of time.
I have used this f/1.2 lens for a week and tried it against the 40mm F/1.4 Sigma that I own and consider one of my very best lenses; The nikkor is clearly better at f/1.2 than the Sigma at f/1.4. Sharpness, contrast, flare resistance, all better, especially the contrast.
You can make a perfect 46MP photo at f1/2. I noticed a not perfect flat field at far distance , needed two images combined with one focusstep to make it perfect.( might be this copy or my camera) Wide open also no purple fringing, nor longitudinal chromatic aberration, a thing the 85mm f/1.2 does show. a very fine lens , but a bit big and heavy. In dark situations of almost no light its AF performed really well .
Quick correction — the Nikkor 35/1.2 S does *not* have a fluorine coating on its front element. (Source: imaging.nikon.com/imagi…_35mmf12s/ )
(It would be a surprise if it did — the entire f/1.8 line (including the Plena), the 50/1.2, and the 85/1.2, also lack this coating. Amongst Nikon’s portrait primes, only the Noct has a fluorine-coated front element.)
I’ve removed the reference from the review, but I’m not 100% sure. For example, the Z 35mm f/1.8 S does have a fluorine coating according to Adorama and various other sources (www.adorama.com/nkz3518.html), but Nikon doesn’t mention it on the Nikon Imaging site that you link. Same with the 135mm f/1.8 Plena and many of these other lenses.
I think there’s a high chance that you’re right and that only the Noct has the coating among these primes. But I also think it’s possible that Nikon just didn’t mention it on their site for whatever reason, and that all or most of these lenses have it (or have some comparable anti-dust coating that may not technically be “fluorine”).
The 1.2 looks exceptionally good but your images also show that the F1.4 version has a lot to offer The 1.2 is capable of isolating the subject amazingly well and offering dreamy bokeh. Clearly I had not paid enough attention to reviewers who had pointed out that the 35 F1.4 is a great little lens in its own right. Hmmmm, lots to think about here. This is a very interesting review which makes me completely rethink what i thought abot the 35mm focal length and surprisingly, my interest in the F1.4 rather than the 1.2.
Always interesting how tastes vary! I had decided, based on my infrequent use of 35mm compared to 50mm, that the 1.4 would be more than enough — and then this review arrived, and showed me that the 35/1.2 has that same jaw-dropping magic the 50/1.2 has, and that the 35/1.4’s bokeh looks like broken sticks in comparison, and that my 35/1.8S is actually closer to what I want.
Time to save up, I guess. The 35/1.8 will do in the meantime. Thanks, PhotographyLife! I mean, kinda.
It is always interesting to think about how the lens collection one already has influences how a new lens will be evaluated. It often depends whether you are looking for a similar look or a contrast.
See: youtu.be/WwF-u…b_rYonvFsl
I am not looking for ultra smooth bokeh from this lens in every shot. For me the F1.2 is out of my reach anyway. I do own a Plena and that used up most of my budget. I have other plans for a 35 F 1.4. anyway.