Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.4 G (FX)
#1
Good one:



http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/59...rafs3514ff



This is just a lab test report so far. Sample images will follow later ... as soon as the weather here allows.



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#2
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1297815764' post='6145']

Good one:



http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/59...rafs3514ff



This is just a lab test report so far. Sample images will follow later ... as soon as the weather here allows.



-- Markus

[/quote]

Just the other day I compared the 35 1.4G and the 35 1.4L on a 5D2... I found the 35L being better in the corners. Will post my findings soon.



GTW
#3
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1297817302' post='6146']

Just the other day I compared the 35 1.4G and the 35 1.4L on a 5D2... I found the 35L being better in the corners. Will post my findings soon.



GTW

[/quote]



I reckon that you've used longer focus distances. If so the findings suggest that the Nikkor can keep its performance more constant throughout the range.
#4
A sharp-ish one. Can't compare the results with the Sony 35mm f1.4 G yet (although we already know that lens has great bokeh and is sharp too), but we can compare it with the Canon 35mm f1.4 L tested by Klaus.



The Nikon vignets (even) more, wide open. Its bokeh seems to be quite a bit more nervous, even for a 35mm lens. And it has horrible CA performance for a prime design. It is sharper in the corners wide open (at least at the tested distance, as Klaus points out above). And the Canon is even a tad sharper at certain settings.



With higher vignetting, worse bokeh and a LOT worse CA, I can't help but think that again you guys seem to mainly put the emphasis on corner sharpness wide open.

With the bokeh and CA, my guess is that the Canon might just be the nicer photographic tool, but it scores lower. And from some sample images from the Sony 35mm f1.4, that Sony might just be a nicer photographic tool as well (but with a lesser build quality). They won't mount on Nikon, though.
#5
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1297817302' post='6146']

Just the other day I compared the 35 1.4G and the 35 1.4L on a 5D2... I found the 35L being better in the corners. Will post my findings soon.



GTW

[/quote]

Lenstip finds the same, GTW.

They state (regardfing wide open performance):

"Trying to avoid what is unavoidable would be foolish so let’s state at once that the graph above doesn’t impress us much. The main reason is the performance at the maximum relative aperture. In the frame centre the lens reaches only 25 lpmm when the decency level is situated near 30-31 lpmm. It is a bit sad – after all we buy a very expensive, professional lens of this class in order to get a useful relative aperture. In the case of the Nikkor we are disappointed as the lens’s performance lacks a lot here. You can remind here that the Canon EF 35 mm f/1.4L USM didn’t have any problem with providing useful images by f/1.4."



And:

"It’s worth adding that the results we got on the D3x caused so much consternation among our editorial office staff that we decided to perform one more photo session – this time based on the Nikon D200. Unfortunately the results weren’t even slightly better, remaining in perfect accordance, within the margin of error, with the numbers we had got previously."



Lenstip blames the very high come measurements for the weak resolution results at f1.4 and f2.



They conclude:

"The mere comparison between the number of pros and cons and one glance at the price of the tested lens shows that our summary can’t be positive. If you buy an expensive, fast fixed-focal lens you have every right to expect resolution records and the Nikkor 1.4/35 provides these. However, you don’t expect weak quality of the maximum relative aperture, high level of chromatic aberration, significant coma and noticeable astigmatism along with huge vignetting. "



From the posted samples we really do get to see just how unattractive the bokeh is.



http://www.lenstip.com/286.11-Lens_revie...mmary.html



So maybe you are right, GTW. I have the suspicion that this lens may not deserve the high optical rating Markus have awarded it?



I might also point out that the Canon 35mm f1.4 did not excel in their (lenstip) test either, and it had a centering defect.
#6
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297858499' post='6161']

I have the suspicion that this lens may not deserve the high optical rating Markus have awarded it?

[/quote]



Well, if you compare all the available reviews so far, there's only one that's quite a bit off.



Personally, I'd question that one. However, please note that this is my very own personal opinion and it's the only statement you'll hear from me regarding that specific review. I'm certainly not willing to go down to their level and start useless bashing.



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#7
Thanks for the review!

It wouldn't guide my purchasing decision, since I took the first available 35/1.4G I could get my greedy hands on back in December. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />



I take the chance and sound like a fanboy, but regardless of the tests, I would rate the 35/1.4G as one of the very best fast wide angle lenses I used so far, that statement include the exeptionally good new Leica M 35/1.4 Asph on a M9, but unfortunatly I don't know the EF 35/1.4L or the Sony/Minolta. I still have the 14-24G, AF 28/1.4D and the definatly not impressive AF 35/2, though.



Shure, the bokeh is a bit nervous wide open, smoothing visibly stopping down ever so slightly, but I found this behaviour quite normal with most fast lenses. Vignetting is quite visible wide open, but not disturbing in my book. Sharpness and contrast are all I did hope for, and then some, at f/1.4.

I don't shoot testchards or brickwalls, but use my lenses rarely stopped down more than f/4 (mostly around f/2 to f/2.8) and quite often place my main subjects under the outermost AF points and beyond, so detail definition (or call it sharpness) at the far sides of the frame are important for me and the 35G don't disappoint here eather.



CA's are there (and I don't like them), but not in any way exessive for a superfast wide angle lens, I think.

Maybe it helps that I use a D700 and not a D3x, so some of the shortcomings of the 35G are a bit muted for me. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />



The price of the 35G is steep. It did hurt.

But the next best thing's I encountered so far are the equally expensive 28/1.4D (thats optically very good from f/2, but definatly not as good wide open) and the very tempting Leica M 35/1.4 Asph for twice the money (plus an M9!).



So far only two things bug me, the overall size of the lens and the very odd 67mm filter thred.

WTF was Nikon thinking, we now have four new f/1.4 lenses with three differend filter sizes (58mm, 67mm, 77mm) plus the 72mm of the 28/1.4D?!
#8
[quote name='Marc' timestamp='1297868437' post='6170']

Thanks for the review!

It wouldn't guide my purchasing decision, since I took the first available 35/1.4G I could get my greedy hands on back in December. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />



I take the chance and sound like a fanboy, but regardless of the tests, I would rate the 35/1.4G as one of the very best fast wide angle lenses I used so far, that statement include the exeptionally good new Leica M 35/1.4 Asph on a M9, but unfortunatly I don't know the EF 35/1.4L or the Sony/Minolta. I still have the 14-24G, AF 28/1.4D and the definatly not impressive AF 35/2, though.



Shure, the bokeh is a bit nervous wide open, smoothing visiby stopping down ever so slightly, but I found this behaviour quite normal with most fast lenses. Vignetting is quite visible wide open, but not disturbing in my book. Sharpness and contrast are all I did hope for, and then some, at f/1.4.

I don't shoot testchards or brickwalls, but use my lenses rarely stopped down more than f/4 (mostly around f/2 to f/2.8) and quite often place my main subjects under the outermost AF points and beyond, so detail definition (or call it sharpness) at the far sides of the frame are important for me and the 35G don't disappoint here eather.



CA's are there (and I don't like them), but not in any way exessive for a superfast wide angle lens, I think.

Maybe it helps that I use a D700 and not a D3x, so of some of the shortcomings of the 35G are a bit muted for me. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />



The price of the 35G is steep. It did hurt.

But the next best thing's I encountered so far are the equally expensive 28/1.4D (thats optically very good from f/2, but definatly not as good wide open) and the very tempting Leica M 35/1.4 Asph for twice the money (plus an M9!).



So far only two things bug me, the overall size of the lens and the very odd 67mm filter thred.

WTF was Nikon thinking, we now have four new f/1.4 lenses with three differend filter sizes (58mm, 67mm, 77mm) plus the 72mm of the 28/1.4D?!

[/quote]

Good to hear you like the lens. About filter threads, they used to be "standardized" but nowadays the filter thread just is teh size matching the design of the optics, you you will find many different filter sizes. Something I actually applaud (matching the filter thread size to the optics design, filter size has more to do with field of view than with the f1.4 figure)), even though I do understand your standpoint too.



I happen to have 2 lenses with 67mm filter size already, coincidentally: the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC and the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.
#9
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297870715' post='6171']

Good to hear you like the lens. About filter threads, they used to be "standardized" but nowadays the filter thread just is teh size matching the design of the optics, you you will find many different filter sizes. Something I actually applaud (matching the filter thread size to the optics design, filter size has more to do with field of view than with the f1.4 figure)), even though I do understand your standpoint too.



[/quote]



I know. I had between 40 and 50 lenses in the past 20 years and still own about a dozen...

The thing is, a 72mm thred would be perfectly fine for the 35G! Even the bajonet hood would still fit and 72mm would at least match other actual Nikkor lenses (105DC, 135DC, 180). I see no sane point in introducing the odd 67mm into the Nikkor fix focal lenght lineup...

I use a 67-77mm step-up ring with a perfectly fitting short 77mm metal hood now. The lens is not prone to flare anyway and the orginal bajonet hood is quite bulky.



I often think Nikon engeneers have no real clue how a photographer has to struggle to fit their oversized lenses in a decend bag. (I could rant on this for hours and have a closet full of bags to proove it... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> )
#10
[quote name='Marc' timestamp='1297877447' post='6174']

I know. I had between 40 and 50 lenses in the past 20 years and still own about a dozen...

The thing is, a 72mm thred would be perfectly fine for the 35G! Even the bajonet hood would still fit and 72mm would at least match other actual Nikkor lenses (105DC, 135DC, 180). I see no sane point in introducing the odd 67mm into the Nikkor fix focal lenght lineup...

I use a 67-77mm step-up ring with a perfectly fitting short 77mm metal hood now. The lens is not prone to flare anyway and the orginal bajonet hood is quite bulky.



I often think Nikon engeneers have no real clue how a photographer has to struggle to fit their oversized lenses in a decend bag. (I could rant on this for hours and have a closet full of bags to proove it... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> )

[/quote]

hmm.. The Canon 35mm f1.4 has a 72mm filter thread. The Sony 35mm f1.4 has a 55mm thread!
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)