Just noticed Zeiss is coming out with their version. same price as the nikon but (of course) manual focus. And I remember the post for the other 3rd party 35/1.4 coming out too. At least we have options in this range. For what I would be shooting with a lens like this I don't think the lack of auto focus would be a big deal.
New Nikon 35mm 1.4G discussion
(67 posts) (21 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
So would getting a 35 1.4 make my 50 1.4 useless?
Whys a 50 1.4 $400 and 35 so much more? I just don't get it....
Posted 2 years ago # -
shivaswrath said:
So would getting a 35 1.4 make my 50 1.4 useless?Whys a 50 1.4 $400 and 35 so much more? I just don't get it....
i dont get it either.... I own the 50 1.4 and find it quite slow in my opinion. If the 35 is faster autofocus then i kind of see. But not 1200$ more
Posted 2 years ago # -
i am wondering the same thing about the 50 1.4. we will see. i will sell it if it is useless.
why does the 35 cost so much more than the 50?
50 has no aspherical elements
50 has no nano coated elements
50 has 8 elements, 35 has 10
50 is standard and easier to makeis it really THAT much harder to make, probably not.
Posted 2 years ago # -
shivaswrath said:
So would getting a 35 1.4 make my 50 1.4 useless?Whys a 50 1.4 $400 and 35 so much more? I just don't get it....
what I understand is right now Nano coating is patented by Nikon, and Nikon can charge anything what it thinks is fair .
they priced it for $1800 and people will still buy it .
I wish for poor people like me Nikon comes with a 35mm 1.4 without nano .
Posted 2 years ago # -
I wish for poor people like me Nikon comes with a 35mm 1.4 without nano .
would def be nice
Posted 2 years ago # -
I agree with you guys. I seriously conidered the 50mm D version over the G version. Fron what I read the D version would focus faster on my camera (D700) over the G. I know they wont do it, but a 35/1.4 non-Nano (D type version) would suit me just fine.
Posted 2 years ago # -
noxin said:
I agree with you guys. I seriously conidered the 50mm D version over the G version. Fron what I read the D version would focus faster on my camera (D700) over the G. I know they wont do it, but a 35/1.4 non-Nano (D type version) would suit me just fine.you mean to say I one should get nikon 50mm 1.4 D :o instead of 50mm AF-S ? isn't 50mm 1.4 afs optically better than the older version ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I am dissapointed sometimes in the 50 1.4 AF-S. Maybe next year were see a bumped up nano 50 1.2?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I wonder why the filter size is 67mm instead of 77mm like the 85mm f/1.4? I did order one when they went on sale at Amazon. I do have the 50 and the 85 and I like the 85 much more than the 50 but i dont know if it is the nano coating.
Posted 2 years ago # -
smarterchild said:
I am dissapointed sometimes in the 50 1.4 AF-S. Maybe next year were see a bumped up nano 50 1.2?.
again that 50mm 1.2 will be out of my budget :|.I do lure for those lenses ,but I don't have enough apples to buy then .unless I do some serious robbery lol,Only nano glass that I can buy at the moment is either 105mm vr or 60mm vr at the moment .I know my gear isn't upto what you guys have ,but I know what I can do with them whatever I have at the moment .
anyway ,time to cheer up :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
There would be other lenses id rather have then a 50 1.2 :). its not THAT bad of a lens. So far its either the 24-70 2.8 or 50 1.4 on my D3 at all times
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
it just doesnt focus the best of the nikkors. The best focusing lens ive had or tried is the 24-70. that is a beast
Posted 2 years ago # -
Abhinav said:
you mean to say I one should get nikon 50mm 1.4 D :o instead of 50mm AF-S ? isn't 50mm 1.4 afs optically better than the older version ?I'm just saying the 50mm D is a pretty good lens. But optically the AF-S is a just a bit better. The D version will focus faster on a D700, D3 and maybe D300 than the AF-S version, but I think they are about the same on the other model DLSRs. I decided I wanted the better image over the focus speed on the 50mm lens and got the AF-S version (that and I had a gift card to make the purchase a little easier).
If I had the same choice on a 35mm lens, I would think the price difference would be much more than on the 50mm and would probalby get a D version of the 35mm and save about a grand. Unfortunately, I don't have that choice. I'm thining a nice used manual focus 35 1.4 might make me happy enough. Might have to see more pics from the new one to see if I want to start saving.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I do understand what you guys are saying : .I'm just getting over-worried for no reason.
Time to pick up the lens soon before Commonwealth Games starts off and markets are closed .
Posted 2 years ago # -
Abhinav said:
what I understand is right now Nano coating is patented by Nikon, and Nikon can charge anything what it thinks is fair .they priced it for $1800 and people will still buy it .
I wish for poor people like me Nikon comes with a 35mm 1.4 without nano .
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?
Posted 2 years ago # -
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:)
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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/$1109Compared 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)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Has anyone here purchased and used this lens yet? I would like to hear what you think and see some shots.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
