I just bought the Z 35 f1.4 as my first 35 mm prime. I always liked the slightly wider 28mm prime, and also currently own the Viltrox 28mm f1.8 Z. In sharpness, the two lenses at the center seem comparable, but on the edges, vignetting is very noticeable on the Viltrox, which I attribute to its wider angle and its lens construction. My opinion of the Nikon is not yet solidified, but I look forward to testing it out on the street, when this winter weather goes away.
Teddy1201
January 20, 2025 10:04 am
I have been a Nikon fan since 2007. I bought this lens (Nikon Z 35mm f/1.4) in June 2024. I use Nikon Z7II camera. I live in Scotland, where it is mostly cloudy and there is not much sun. This lens is 100% satisfaction with photos. I have no doubt that it has enough advantages. I took it on trips to Poland and Belgium. I wore it all day without feeling tired. I absolutely recommend this lens. Respect to Nikon for its production.
gunther
January 20, 2025 3:58 am
I have the 35/1.4 Z in use and the rendering and colours are just wonderful!Sharpness is more than enough wide open!
Nikon and Olympus user
December 29, 2024 7:49 am
Great article on the Z 35mm/1.4. I am currently using Z5 and ZF, and the 40mm/2 is the lens I use most frequently, but your article deeply attracted me to the Z35/1.4. The article mentioned that the Z35/1.4 focuses slower than other Z lenses. Will it be slower than the 40/2? If there are some children running around, can they be photographed? Thanks again for your article.
I no longer have those two lenses in front of me, but off the top of my head, they are relatively comparable in focus speed. If you have one of the newer Z cameras with faster autofocus (Zf, Z50 II, Z6 III, Z8, Z9) then you should have no trouble photographing those situations, once you get your camera’s autofocus settings dialed in.
Thanks for your review. I bought a 35mm/1.4 yesterday. After trying it out, I found that the focusing speed of Z5 is average, but it will be faster with ZF.
Kamuran Akkor
October 24, 2024 1:20 pm
Thanks for the detailed review. I think distortion isn’t a huge problem if corrected version doesn’t have big optical problems. Maybe you’d like to go back and rewrite some lens reviews :) I’d love to see “but this isn’t a big problem” in other brands’ reviews as well.
Which review are you thinking of? I’ve tried to mention the correctable nature of distortion in all my reviews. Although if the level is especially high, corrections can come at the cost of a loss in corner sharpness when stretching those pixels back into place.
Fabrice
October 20, 2024 1:46 am
Thank you for the review. Considering the sharpness and bokeh quality of tamron 35mm f lenses, sure I won’t switch to z lenses on my hybrid! The 1.4 is stunning and the 1.8 vc, in addition to stabilisation and bokeh has near macro capabilities. I even don’t understand why Nikon and tamron do not produce equivalent models on z mount.
I have a Tamron 35 1.4 and I plan to buy a Z 35 1.4. Tamron 35 1.4 is a fantastic lens. But together with the adapter, it weighs a kilogram. That’s why I don’t take him on trips. These lenses do not compete. On a trip, I wear a fix when I shoot in the dark and have to raise the ISO. And when the ISO is raised, the detail decreases, respectively, the effect of the lens on the final result in terms of sharpness is leveled. Buying the Z 35 1.8S is less attractive due to the presence of the Z 40 f/2.
I bought a Nikkor Z35 f/1.4. And did my comparison with the Tamron 35 1.4 on the Z7. So the general conclusions on f/1.4, unless otherwise indicated. Contrast ratio: The central one is close, but Tamron is in the lead. Angular – Tamron is significantly better. The central sharpness is very close. The central sharpness in the vicinity at the same distance is very close!!! Angular sharpness – Tamron is not in competition. In real life, I needed sharpness in the corners only on one story shot on Tamron. But in general, the Tamron is 1.4 close to Nikon at f/8, provided that chromatic aberrations are suppressed!!! Distortion – it is much more serious for Nikon, but it is removed during processing. Dimming in the corners – Nikon has more of it, but it is removed during processing. The blur is different, in general, it is easier for Nikon to catch an unpleasant side. Lateral chromaticism – Tamron corners are head and shoulders better in particularly extreme situations. Nikon does not completely eliminate it even at closed values (it can be seen with magnification, when printing less than 40×60 cm, I doubt that anyone will notice). Spherochromatism – Tamron wins, but without defeat. Here I was pleasantly surprised by Nikon. I expected the worst. Glare. + Nikon: Smooth, no onion rings; In fact, there is no cat’s eye effect at the corners, you can even get round highlights on the edge of the practice frame. + Tamron: There is no color border. And now the results. Tamron + adapter = 1 kilogram of weight. I wear a softening filter for portraits. Nikon has 2.5 times less weight and significantly smaller dimensions, a softening filter is not needed. He shot a number of his best portraits at 35 f/2D. Previously, on trips in order to shoot in conditions of lack of light to the Z24-200, I took Z40 f/2 at the beginning, then Z50 f/1.8S, now I will take Z35 f/1.4. At high ISO values, the frame resolution drops and loss of sharpness is not important, as is chromaticism. The result, just the result. The Nikon Z35 1.4 is the smallest and lightest lens among the full-frame 35 mm with an aperture of 1.4! And at the same time it is also one of the cheapest. All. That could have been the end of it. The Z35 1.4 and Tamron 35 1.4 are not competitors. The Z35 1.4 competes with the 35 1.4G and defeats it almost everywhere. Especially in terms of price.
I have already found a buyer for Tamron and plan to sell it along with the adapter to the bayonet F.
Richard
October 17, 2024 10:51 am
I was looking for a good everyday lens for my Z5–for walking around with the family or on vacation. I like a faster lens that I can use indoors and in the evening and don’t like to carry too much gear around. I have typically used a fast 50mm for this, but one of the main reasons I upgraded to full frame was to go a little wider than what the DX lenses had to offer. I took this lens on a recent trip to Maine and I really enjoyed using it. Images with the ocean horizon needed some distortion correction (which was no big deal), but otherwise I was very happy with the results. Nighttime street pictures were especially good, and portraits with an expansive background were solid (and much more natural looking than with my 20mm lens). If you are looking for a super-sharp lens with a more technically perfect look, this is not your lens. Pictures have a similar feel to what you get from vintage and many AF-S primes, but with better sharpness and more image quality than older lenses. Unless I am planning on something specialized like portraits or long telephoto or super-wide pics, I feel perfectly fine walking out of the house with only this lens and nothing else—except maybe to add a circular polarizer for very bright sunny days.
You can divide the numbers in our full-frame MTF tests by 1.5 to see what the numbers would be on an APS-C camera with the same pixel density. (Look at the center for the APS-C center, and the midframes for the APS-C corner.)
I did actually test the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.7 in the lab already and published it on our Member Page. It’s not bad, but not really any better than the DX zooms.
I love prime lenses, but I only own the Sigma 56f1.4 DX right now. EXACTLY because the zooms are THAT comparable/impressive. If I could buy the 24F4 of the 24-120F4S as a <3" long prime I would. I could really use a 22f2 S prime, and I would like VR on ALL lenses for dragging the shutter on a DX body. I also own an FX body. I don't care too much about cost, diameter, or weight, but I don't want a prime longer than 3" or 3.5" with a hood. The 20-S and 85-S are the real standouts, but I can't justify them for as often as I would use them. You can't toss them in a pocket like you could the 24f2.8D or 50f1.4G.
So the Z50II with the 16-50DXVR (or 56mm) remains my compact kit with an SB-400 to bounce flash, or even a GoPro LED. I sure hope we have some more options.
Tony
October 16, 2024 2:04 pm
Great article on the Z 35/1.4. What also caught my interest was your use of the Z7 for your sample photos. With the various Z bodies that have succeeded the Z7, I’ve been tempted to “upgrade” but have resisted because, for the type of pictures I usually take (landscape, family, and street), I’m not convinced the new Zs would be a significant improvement. Obviously, I really like my Z7, but I’m curious about why you continue to use it for your articles like this, as opposed to other options.
Thank you, Tony! I still like my Nikon Z7 a lot as a landscape photographer. Great image quality and extremely nice files at ISO 64.
I’d be willing to upgrade to the Z7 II or the Z8, but for the money, I haven’t seen the need yet. If I did sports or wildlife, it would be a different story, and I’d get a Z8 yesterday.
As for the Z7 II, I considered it, but decided against. The main improvements for me would have been the clutter-free live view option, and the dual memory card slots. There are other advantages here and there, but a good lens will go further than a camera upgrade at this point in my photography.
Eddie Clark
October 16, 2024 10:07 am
Objectively, this is a very interesting lens, and I’d say a very good street photography lens. I’ve easily shot 100,000+ photos with the Nikon AFS 35mm 1.4G lens, and it was one of my very favorite F-mounts because of its wonderfully fast bright quality and the gentle feel of its bokeh. Yes, ‘feel’, lenses do have character and feel just like every tool has a special purpose. But, it sometimes takes thousands and thousands of photos to truly understand a lens- it’s something that an mtf chart will never definitively tell you. I was genuinely sad when I sold my 1.4G with the rest of my F-mount gear after converting to the Z system because I knew there wasn’t a Z lens that could replace it at that time. Change is a constant though, and I was cognizant and open to the new techincal possibilities of the Z system and had faith in Nikon’s new path.
That said, I’ve already taken thousands of photos with the new Nikon Z 35mm f1.4 lens. In fact, as soon as it was announced I placed my pre-order and got my NPS priority request in for it. I’ve since used it for work many times (action and event) and even took it as my only lens on a family trip to Scotland to really get acquainted it. The thing about this lens that most reviews seem to miss is that it’s a typical, and I think very good, street lens: light, inobtrusive and fast. For sure the bokeh isn’t as good as the older 1.4G, but at f1.4 it’s certainly better than the 1.8S. It also doesn’t have the clinical sharp feel of the 1.8S, which I think is a big plus. AF performance is also quite good to the point of splitting hairs in the difference between the 1.8S, but certainly not expectedly close to something like the 70-200 2.8S either. I wouldn’t grab it first if taking astro, studio work or landscape photos, but it’s also not what I think this lens is for either.
If you can wrap your head around what I’ve said so far about this lens, then you just might enjoy it, or you might not like the bokeh at all as that’s often a subjective assesment (yes, I know there are ideal bokeh qualities, but ‘feel and character’ are personal). Either way, the price is beyond competitive for a f1.4 lens. When I’m taking low light and environmental portrait style photo’s, I get just as excited to put this lens on my camera as I do my Z 24mm 1.8S and almost as excited as using my Z 50mm 1.2S.
Thanks for sharing this perspective, Eddie, it’s very useful! Especially coming from someone who’s shot with the AF-S 35mm f/1.4G so much. The Z 35mm f/1.4 is an excellent street photography lens for all the reasons you mention. And to your point about background blur, this lens probably proves the adage “bokeh is subjective” more than any other lens I’ve tested!
I just bought the Z 35 f1.4 as my first 35 mm prime. I always liked the slightly wider 28mm prime, and also currently own the Viltrox 28mm f1.8 Z. In sharpness, the two lenses at the center seem comparable, but on the edges, vignetting is very noticeable on the Viltrox, which I attribute to its wider angle and its lens construction. My opinion of the Nikon is not yet solidified, but I look forward to testing it out on the street, when this winter weather goes away.
I have been a Nikon fan since 2007. I bought this lens (Nikon Z 35mm f/1.4) in June 2024. I use Nikon Z7II camera. I live in Scotland, where it is mostly cloudy and there is not much sun. This lens is 100% satisfaction with photos. I have no doubt that it has enough advantages. I took it on trips to Poland and Belgium. I wore it all day without feeling tired. I absolutely recommend this lens. Respect to Nikon for its production.
I have the 35/1.4 Z in use and the rendering and colours are just wonderful!Sharpness is more than enough wide open!
Great article on the Z 35mm/1.4. I am currently using Z5 and ZF, and the 40mm/2 is the lens I use most frequently, but your article deeply attracted me to the Z35/1.4.
The article mentioned that the Z35/1.4 focuses slower than other Z lenses. Will it be slower than the 40/2?
If there are some children running around, can they be photographed?
Thanks again for your article.
I no longer have those two lenses in front of me, but off the top of my head, they are relatively comparable in focus speed. If you have one of the newer Z cameras with faster autofocus (Zf, Z50 II, Z6 III, Z8, Z9) then you should have no trouble photographing those situations, once you get your camera’s autofocus settings dialed in.
Thanks for your review. I bought a 35mm/1.4 yesterday. After trying it out, I found that the focusing speed of Z5 is average, but it will be faster with ZF.
Thanks for the detailed review.
I think distortion isn’t a huge problem if corrected version doesn’t have big optical problems.
Maybe you’d like to go back and rewrite some lens reviews :) I’d love to see “but this isn’t a big problem” in other brands’ reviews as well.
Which review are you thinking of? I’ve tried to mention the correctable nature of distortion in all my reviews. Although if the level is especially high, corrections can come at the cost of a loss in corner sharpness when stretching those pixels back into place.
Thank you for the review. Considering the sharpness and bokeh quality of tamron 35mm f lenses, sure I won’t switch to z lenses on my hybrid! The 1.4 is stunning and the 1.8 vc, in addition to stabilisation and bokeh has near macro capabilities. I even don’t understand why Nikon and tamron do not produce equivalent models on z mount.
I have a Tamron 35 1.4 and I plan to buy a Z 35 1.4. Tamron 35 1.4 is a fantastic lens. But together with the adapter, it weighs a kilogram. That’s why I don’t take him on trips.
These lenses do not compete. On a trip, I wear a fix when I shoot in the dark and have to raise the ISO. And when the ISO is raised, the detail decreases, respectively, the effect of the lens on the final result in terms of sharpness is leveled.
Buying the Z 35 1.8S is less attractive due to the presence of the Z 40 f/2.
I bought a Nikkor Z35 f/1.4. And did my comparison with the Tamron 35 1.4 on the Z7.
So the general conclusions on f/1.4, unless otherwise indicated.
Contrast ratio:
The central one is close, but Tamron is in the lead.
Angular – Tamron is significantly better.
The central sharpness is very close.
The central sharpness in the vicinity at the same distance is very close!!!
Angular sharpness – Tamron is not in competition. In real life, I needed sharpness in the corners only on one story shot on Tamron. But in general, the Tamron is 1.4 close to Nikon at f/8, provided that chromatic aberrations are suppressed!!!
Distortion – it is much more serious for Nikon, but it is removed during processing.
Dimming in the corners – Nikon has more of it, but it is removed during processing.
The blur is different, in general, it is easier for Nikon to catch an unpleasant side.
Lateral chromaticism – Tamron corners are head and shoulders better in particularly extreme situations. Nikon does not completely eliminate it even at closed values (it can be seen with magnification, when printing less than 40×60 cm, I doubt that anyone will notice).
Spherochromatism – Tamron wins, but without defeat. Here I was pleasantly surprised by Nikon. I expected the worst.
Glare.
+ Nikon:
Smooth, no onion rings;
In fact, there is no cat’s eye effect at the corners, you can even get round highlights on the edge of the practice frame.
+ Tamron:
There is no color border.
And now the results.
Tamron + adapter = 1 kilogram of weight. I wear a softening filter for portraits.
Nikon has 2.5 times less weight and significantly smaller dimensions, a softening filter is not needed.
He shot a number of his best portraits at 35 f/2D.
Previously, on trips in order to shoot in conditions of lack of light to the Z24-200, I took Z40 f/2 at the beginning, then Z50 f/1.8S, now I will take Z35 f/1.4. At high ISO values, the frame resolution drops and loss of sharpness is not important, as is chromaticism.
The result, just the result.
The Nikon Z35 1.4 is the smallest and lightest lens among the full-frame 35 mm with an aperture of 1.4! And at the same time it is also one of the cheapest. All. That could have been the end of it.
The Z35 1.4 and Tamron 35 1.4 are not competitors.
The Z35 1.4 competes with the 35 1.4G and defeats it almost everywhere. Especially in terms of price.
I have already found a buyer for Tamron and plan to sell it along with the adapter to the bayonet F.
I was looking for a good everyday lens for my Z5–for walking around with the family or on vacation. I like a faster lens that I can use indoors and in the evening and don’t like to carry too much gear around. I have typically used a fast 50mm for this, but one of the main reasons I upgraded to full frame was to go a little wider than what the DX lenses had to offer. I took this lens on a recent trip to Maine and I really enjoyed using it. Images with the ocean horizon needed some distortion correction (which was no big deal), but otherwise I was very happy with the results. Nighttime street pictures were especially good, and portraits with an expansive background were solid (and much more natural looking than with my 20mm lens). If you are looking for a super-sharp lens with a more technically perfect look, this is not your lens. Pictures have a similar feel to what you get from vintage and many AF-S primes, but with better sharpness and more image quality than older lenses. Unless I am planning on something specialized like portraits or long telephoto or super-wide pics, I feel perfectly fine walking out of the house with only this lens and nothing else—except maybe to add a circular polarizer for very bright sunny days.
That sounds like precisely the intended use case of this lens. Glad you’re enjoying it so far!
Can’t wait to see how the 24mm 1.7 stacks up for us apsc shooters.
You can divide the numbers in our full-frame MTF tests by 1.5 to see what the numbers would be on an APS-C camera with the same pixel density. (Look at the center for the APS-C center, and the midframes for the APS-C corner.)
I did actually test the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.7 in the lab already and published it on our Member Page. It’s not bad, but not really any better than the DX zooms.
I love prime lenses, but I only own the Sigma 56f1.4 DX right now. EXACTLY because the zooms are THAT comparable/impressive. If I could buy the 24F4 of the 24-120F4S as a <3" long prime I would. I could really use a 22f2 S prime, and I would like VR on ALL lenses for dragging the shutter on a DX body. I also own an FX body. I don't care too much about cost, diameter, or weight, but I don't want a prime longer than 3" or 3.5" with a hood. The 20-S and 85-S are the real standouts, but I can't justify them for as often as I would use them. You can't toss them in a pocket like you could the 24f2.8D or 50f1.4G.
So the Z50II with the 16-50DXVR (or 56mm) remains my compact kit with an SB-400 to bounce flash, or even a GoPro LED. I sure hope we have some more options.
Great article on the Z 35/1.4. What also caught my interest was your use of the Z7 for your sample photos. With the various Z bodies that have succeeded the Z7, I’ve been tempted to “upgrade” but have resisted because, for the type of pictures I usually take (landscape, family, and street), I’m not convinced the new Zs would be a significant improvement. Obviously, I really like my Z7, but I’m curious about why you continue to use it for your articles like this, as opposed to other options.
Thank you, Tony! I still like my Nikon Z7 a lot as a landscape photographer. Great image quality and extremely nice files at ISO 64.
I’d be willing to upgrade to the Z7 II or the Z8, but for the money, I haven’t seen the need yet. If I did sports or wildlife, it would be a different story, and I’d get a Z8 yesterday.
As for the Z7 II, I considered it, but decided against. The main improvements for me would have been the clutter-free live view option, and the dual memory card slots. There are other advantages here and there, but a good lens will go further than a camera upgrade at this point in my photography.
Objectively, this is a very interesting lens, and I’d say a very good street photography lens. I’ve easily shot 100,000+ photos with the Nikon AFS 35mm 1.4G lens, and it was one of my very favorite F-mounts because of its wonderfully fast bright quality and the gentle feel of its bokeh. Yes, ‘feel’, lenses do have character and feel just like every tool has a special purpose. But, it sometimes takes thousands and thousands of photos to truly understand a lens- it’s something that an mtf chart will never definitively tell you. I was genuinely sad when I sold my 1.4G with the rest of my F-mount gear after converting to the Z system because I knew there wasn’t a Z lens that could replace it at that time. Change is a constant though, and I was cognizant and open to the new techincal possibilities of the Z system and had faith in Nikon’s new path.
That said, I’ve already taken thousands of photos with the new Nikon Z 35mm f1.4 lens. In fact, as soon as it was announced I placed my pre-order and got my NPS priority request in for it. I’ve since used it for work many times (action and event) and even took it as my only lens on a family trip to Scotland to really get acquainted it. The thing about this lens that most reviews seem to miss is that it’s a typical, and I think very good, street lens: light, inobtrusive and fast. For sure the bokeh isn’t as good as the older 1.4G, but at f1.4 it’s certainly better than the 1.8S. It also doesn’t have the clinical sharp feel of the 1.8S, which I think is a big plus. AF performance is also quite good to the point of splitting hairs in the difference between the 1.8S, but certainly not expectedly close to something like the 70-200 2.8S either. I wouldn’t grab it first if taking astro, studio work or landscape photos, but it’s also not what I think this lens is for either.
If you can wrap your head around what I’ve said so far about this lens, then you just might enjoy it, or you might not like the bokeh at all as that’s often a subjective assesment (yes, I know there are ideal bokeh qualities, but ‘feel and character’ are personal). Either way, the price is beyond competitive for a f1.4 lens. When I’m taking low light and environmental portrait style photo’s, I get just as excited to put this lens on my camera as I do my Z 24mm 1.8S and almost as excited as using my Z 50mm 1.2S.
Thanks for sharing this perspective, Eddie, it’s very useful! Especially coming from someone who’s shot with the AF-S 35mm f/1.4G so much. The Z 35mm f/1.4 is an excellent street photography lens for all the reasons you mention. And to your point about background blur, this lens probably proves the adage “bokeh is subjective” more than any other lens I’ve tested!