I recently purchased this lens and am very very pleased with it.

Like the new AF-S 85mm f/1.4G,I also purchased last year to replace a broken AF/D version - the new AF-S prime lenses are large and heavy, but really really solid performers - very very sharp and very fast.

Having bought a Zeiss 21mm ZF.2 last year (an unbelievable lens)- I did not think I needed the 24mm - but as soon as I tried the 85 and then the 35mm I had to have them.
They are both rock solid.

A few test shot with each can be found here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajm057/sets/72157625498286609/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajm057/sets/72157625830012488/

I own an AF-S 50mm F/1.4 - but it is very weak compared to the Ziess equivalent - It would not surprise me to see a new version of this standard lens come out with N coatings and a new build soon.

Having recently sold my 80-400 - I am keen to see the replacement. There have been rumors of a AF-S Nikkor 120 to 450mm ED VR II 4.5/5.6 - this would be interesting, particularly if it came with N-coat and great glass.

Art said:
Just my opinion but when choosing a lens irrespective of price I would be more concerned with the results it produces that about what it is made of.

I just find it odd that Nikon isn't consistent with its lens construction techniques. The 105 macro is mostly metal, while I think the 35mm 1.4, a lens nearly twice as expensive I think is mostly plastic (other than the mount and internals).

I'm sure the optics are amazing, I just find it odd.

i rented the 85 1.4D the day before i got the 35 1.4G (i didn't realise my wife was about to say "what was that lens you wanted?, oh here you go") so i had both at the same time.

the 85 1.4D is a nice lens, and made from very solid metal, even the hood is metal (which makes a cool sound when you tap it). the 35 1.4G is made from the new composite, whatever that is. if I had to say which one would break frist, i would almost certainly say I thought the all meatl 85 1.4D felt as though it wouldm't take too much to break it, however, the 35 1.4G, well, i'm not going to drop it for fun, but it feals very solid, i have no doubt it would take a lot of punishment to break it.

It you have the chance to test it (as i did in the second shot) i'm sure you won't hesitate to buy it. I literally walked across the road and bought it straight away.

By the way, if you are in Osaka, go to Ohbayashi. It is across the road from Nikon plaza and they have plenty of copies of lenses in stock and they always seem to be having a sale. I got mine for 169000 walk in price. That's the cheapest I have seen in Japan, even cheaper than online!

Art said:
Just my opinion but when choosing a lens irrespective of price I would be more concerned with the results it produces that about what it is made of.

Well, my cheapo, $100, AF-S 18-55mm VR refurb was one of the sharpest lenses I owned. I really liked it for its superb image quality, and lightweight, compact form-factor. But, the 18-55's fragile plastic barrel broke after just a few light uses. I would really like another one, but I'm afraid another copy would be destined for the same fate.

As for the new AF-S 35mm f/1.4G, for a lens costing $2K USD, I'd like it to be built like a tank, preferrably, out of metal. Anyone know what the lens barrel is actually made of?

Just my opinion but when choosing a lens irrespective of price I would be more concerned with the results it produces that about what it is made of.

Just curious- is this lens plastic?

For close to $2000 I would expect nothing but a full metal lens. The 50mm 1.4 I would excuse just because it's just around $500.

dazey said:
I have a converted pre-AI 35mm f1.4 (the radioactive thorium glass one!) which I love. I have been waiting for the AF version to arrive for ages, but at the price of the new one, I am not sure I can justify upgrading. The samples don't really look that much better than mine.

We're in nearly the same exact situation . . . I own a mint-condition, used Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI-S. Would LOVE to have the AF-S version. I bought the AI-S version, mainly for making movies, but maybe I should serously reconsider using it for stills as well, instead of the uber-pricey new AF-S 35mm.

Abhinav said:
. . . you mean to say I one should get Nikon 50mm 1.4D instead of 50mm AF-S? Isn't 50mm 1.4 AF-S optically better than the older version?

Your mileage may vary, but, FWIW, my new AF-S 50mm f/1.4G from B+H was softer than my old D lens, so, I returned it. When I told my local Nikon dealer, he replied that he had other customers tell him the same. But, I'm still going to buy another AF-S 50mm f/1.4G someday (hopefully, a sharper sample), because my fingers keep catching on my D lens' focus ring. I much prefer the ergonomic advantages which internal-focus, AF-S lenses provide.

Flam said:
35mm is perfect on FX for street photography. The 35mm is in very high demand due to photojournalists seeking it.

Yup. That's why it's one of my all-time, favorite FX focal lengths--it's a great street/photojournalism lens!

Flam said:
[The AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G's] AF is not fast. It could be the slowest lens in terms of AF speed that I own.

Weird, isn't it? Especially in light of its high price. The AF-S 50mm f/1.4G is very pokey as well--slower than my AF 50mm f/1.4D on a D90. Thanks for your report!

Segura said:
I am lucky enough to have all three 24, 35, and 85mm 1.4G lenses (including the step-child 50mm as well).

I have to admit, my 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 are very neglected now

Wow! You are lucky! The three new f/1.4 Nikkor 'G' lenses all happen to be in my most-favorite FX focal lengths. I really want all three as well (plus, the new AF-S 50mm 1.4 "stepchild," just to round out the set). It's serious money, but damnit, I just LOVE those focal lengths on full-frame bodies. And, boy do I love speed! Shooting with "slow" f/2.0 and f/2.8 lenses are killing me! I'll likely end up shooting with the AF-S 35mm f/1.4G the most--it's just so damned "shootable."

maybe this will help you understand

exif in image. f/1.6

exif in image. f/1.4

almost every other photo i have involves people and the best ones i don't have permission to put up. these are just test shots. the second was in the nikon plaza in osaka, the first was at school, both lit horribly.

this is a wide angle lens (all be it only 35mm), so that is very shallow DOF!

To me having a fast lens is about the options it gives me to choose how much and to what degree I am able to throw the background OOF or not ! With my previous 17-35 and 17-55 on DX i found it difficult even wide open to meaningfully blur the background unless the subject was very close to the camera. Something not often mentioned is the extra viewfinder brightness you get at 1.4 you may have no intention of exposing at that aperture but in dimly lit situations it makes composition a much simpler task, a hefty price tag I will agree but being old school I still try to shoot everything at the lowest ISO that is practical even though I know the D700 has excellent performance at higher ISO s, as a result I have moved up from my d200 base ISO of 200 to ISO 400 on the D700 !

Pierre, it is a well known condition that lenses are not their best wide open. Add 3-4 stops and that should be ideal, so the 35mm would be perfect at f/4-5.6.

Vignetting decreases as you stop down. 3 stops it is gone
Chromatic Aberration decrease as you stop down from wide open. Typically 2 stops.
Sharpness goes the last 2-3 stops, so f/8 - 16
Diffraction goes the last 2-3 stops, so f/8 - 16
So for the best of everything, shoot f/4 - f/5.6.

Now compare that to your 24-70mm, same principle.
Vignetting (first 3 stops)
Chromatic Aberrations (first 2 stops)
Sharpness (last 2-3 stops)
Diffraction (last 2-3 stops)
So with a f/2.8 lens, you need to shoot at f/8 . . .

Do some reading on those conditions. Take a look at this link for an idea of how it works. It is a Canon 24mm 1.4
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=54&fullscreen=true&av=1&fl=24&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F2

Paperman said:
Maybe it is best to have a look at this recent argument first - before jumping in to go for f1.4's ...

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/11/06/is-f1-4-at-iso-200-really-f1-4-at-iso-200.aspx

I zipped through the ISO cheating posts and I can't say I understood everything the smart ones were saying but the point about the 1.4 wide-open not necessarily being sharper than a 1.8 or even a 24-70 F/2.8 zoom caught me by surprise and seem to both confirm and contradicts what some of you are saying. So, based on your experience guys, what would be a significantly sharper solution over my present 24-70 f/2.8?

Would slowing down the AF-S 35 f/1.4G a bit make it much sharper?

Also, what would I loose if I was to buy the AF-S 50mm f/1.4D over the f/1.4G version?

What’s about other vendors?

Big price drop in the UK for the AF-S 35mm f/1.4G, in October 2010 it was £1700 and it's now selling for £1400 (although still difficult to find in stock)...have prices elsewhere changed ?

I havehad mine for about a week. Added a stepup ring and protective filter (77mm). It seems razor sharp on a D3s without any adjustments. It may be the only thing that will make me take off the 85mm f/1.4G off from time to time. Serioiusly, it is incredible in sunset situations.

had mine since Saturday and am very happy. I didnt need to fine tune at all. I prefer on the d700 ungripped with a black rapid. Don't want to take it off. Find the continuous tracking a bit slow, so much better at faster shutter speeds, but very sharp at 1.4 in most situations. makes me realise the 50 1.4g wasn't that bad.

will post a few pics soon.

I have owned one for 2 weeks, initial 1.4 shots concerned me as they just seemed very slightly soft, was it me or the lens ? I spent some time going through various fine tuning tests both charts and out in the real world situations, analaysing all my test shots I found a +4 solved my perceived problem, as a result I am very happy with my investment. I moved up from a D200 17-55 combo, I owned a 17-35 from my D100 days but most of my shots ( I am a keen amateur ) were taken in the range of 35 to 60 ( FX equivalent ) so I was carrying a heavy lens and not making much use of the short end, the 24-70 would seem the logical choice as a replacement but when trying it at the dealer the weight and size gave me concerns, so the 17-35 went in part ex against the 35. I now use the 35 as my main everyday lens with my old pre D 60 AF macro lens in a coat pocket for when I need something longer.
As a unit a D700 with grip and the 35 makes for a well balanced ( handling wise ) outfit, I have been able to hand hold below 1/20 sec shutter speeds without problems, working with primes after many years with a zoom takes a little getting used too but I think the extra thinking time involved is beneficial to the end result. I will never see a return on the amount I paid but you cannot put a price on the satisfying results the lens produces.

I am lucky enough to have all three 24, 35, and 85mm 1.4G lenses (including the step-child 50mm as well).

I have to admit, my 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 are very neglected now

Also, the last time I was this excited about shooting with a lens is when i got the 85mm f/1.4 AFD. I don't feel the need to upgrade to AFS, I would rather get the 24mm f/1.4 first.

I just got my copy two weeks ago and the lens lives up to the hype. It is razor razor sharp across the frame. Nice contrast and color rendition balances very well on a d3 or gripped d700. Whether the $1800 price tag is worth it only depends on your budget and your shooting style.

35mm is perfect on FX for street photography. 24mm is just a tad too wide for me. You need to able to get close with a 24mm and that isn't easy sometimes with people. The 35mm is in very high demand due to photojournalists seeking it. I don't see the price dropping on this one for a while. It's hard to find at the store and most online retailers lack a consistent stock. I'm very glad that i waited to get the 24mm since it's now $200 lower on amazon. I may get it but it would be a specialty lens for me while the 35mm would serve as an everyday lens...much easier to carry around vs the 24-70. For others, the 24mm may be the better choice. It just depends on how you like the two point of views.

AF is not fast. It could be the slowest lens in terms of AF speed that i own. However, it is accurate even in low light.

For those who can afford it and have been curious, it's a ridiculous lens. There haven't been many reviews online due to low supply so i hope this helps.

Lots have purchased . . . or should I say, preordered. I do not think they have shipped yet . . . but my thought to describe the pics from this lens would probably be awesome.

Has anyone here purchased and used this lens yet? I would like to hear what you think and see some shots.

For the whiners complaining about the price of the 1.4, the canon model is about $1400 street, so the Nikon is in line with this. When it is more available, you will be able to pick it up for about $1600 instead of $1800.

Here are some launch/current prices for comparision:
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII $2400/$2159 (+$400 rebate with body purchase)
Nikon 24mm 1.4G $2200/$2089
Nikon 16-35mm f/4G $1299/$1109

Compared to the 35mm f/2D, the 1.4 weighs 3 times as much (205g to 600g). Shocking that 1 stop of gained light weighs 3 times more. Not to mention going from a 52mm filter size to a 67mm, that is a 30% increase in the diameter size, but this translates to a lens area from 2123 mm2 to 3525 mm2, which is actually over 60% larger front element.

The 50 1.4 is much cheaper to make since a normal lens does not need to bend and correct light the way a wide angle lens needs to.

I think the cost is also related to the dollar being low compared to other international currencies (YEN)

lol that argument

my 50 1.4G may not have fast af, or even be sharp at 1.4 (it's very sharp by f2). i will tell you it has shallower depth of field and lets in more light when i shoot it at 1.4, than 2.8.

if it is "artificially" pumping up my iso i don't notice more noise. I do however notice siginificantly reduced depth of field.

it works for me, so for me there is no discussion.

Maybe it is best to have a look at this recent argument first - before jumping in to go for f1.4's ...

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/11/06/is-f1-4-at-iso-200-really-f1-4-at-iso-200.aspx

just realsied that canon has had a great 35 1.4 for ages, so, in order to make me want the nikon version even more, i jst spent the last half an hour looking through pixelpeeper.

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=21&camera=1113&perpage=30&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3&p=1

shivaswrath said:
I was also thinking, another "advertised" comparison of this lens is this Noct-Nikkor something or the other. . .did you see that sample shot on the website, at night, very little coma and ghosting. . . .so did they add extra nano coating to this?

Is the Noct-designation that HUGE of an advantage? The point of a wide-prime for me are evening shots. . .sounds like the the 35 1.4>24 1.4 in that manner, no?

you mean that first sample image

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/singlefocal/wide/af-s_35mmf_14g/sample.htm

if I remember there was some old lens from Nikon that was named 58mm noct-nikkor .

edit
ok found it here :Ken dada praising about it:

"The Noct-NIKKOR is especially well suited to photographing points of light against dark backgrounds, be they streetlights at night, stars, or tracking space-based weapons platforms over large visual fields as seen from Earth"

kenrockwell.com/nikon/58.htm

not sure how much image quality difference you will see without noct-nikkor and or you gonna use that lens for wide angle astrophotography with EQ mount:)