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)
#11
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297877987' post='6175']

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

[/quote]



And the manual Nikkor 35/1.4 came with a 52mm thread.



A 40 year old lens design that don't have to hide from the new 35G, by the way... Surpassed, yes. But not outclassed by any means.

More like the new AF-S 50/1.4G surpassing the AF 50/1.4D: Quite visible in the f/1.4 to f/2.2 range, but from there on not mutch to write about...



Anw while I'm comparing: As mutch as I love my 85G, if someone own's a AF 85/1.4D already, optically it would be very hard to justify a switch, if one is using it in the real world and not to examine brick wall shot's at 100% in the corner's at f/1.4... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
#12
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1297839004' post='6147']

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.

[/quote]

Do you mean I "should've" tested for longer distances? I did test at close distances.



Personally I really see no point in using a fast wide lens for shooting things far away... other than for astro-photography maybe.



GTW
#13
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297858499' post='6161']

Lenstip finds the same, GTW.

...

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

...

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.

[/quote]



IMO both lenses are crap. The coma thing is probably the reason because I couldn't get a proper point of focus in the corner... it was really frustrating. The whole time I was checking them I was wondering whether the prices the manufacturers are charging are fair for the sorts of performance they give. Like Klaus said, maybe they're better at infinity... but who cares about shooting infinity at f/1.4 anyway?



GTW
#14
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297857367' post='6160']

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.

[/quote]



We had some debates over the 4*/HR rating so welcome to the club. :-)





#15
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1297916955' post='6181']

IMO both lenses are crap. The coma thing is probably the reason because I couldn't get a proper point of focus in the corner... it was really frustrating. The whole time I was checking them I was wondering whether the prices the manufacturers are charging are fair for the sorts of performance they give. Like Klaus said, maybe they're better at infinity... but who cares about shooting infinity at f/1.4 anyway?



GTW

[/quote]

Same thing goes for the Minolta/Sony one, and the Zeiss also appears to be of a similar optical design. I wonder what is so special about 35mm on 135 format that makes manufacturers not make any real progress? They keep being reruns of old designs.



Maybe Canon will surprise us when they update the 35mm f1,4 L USM (we know it is up for updating, it is one of the older L's and not sealed).
#16
Wow, thanks for the review. I didn't think it would do so well in the resolution!

The distortion doesn't look bad at all and I'd rather have slightly nervous bokeh than ringy bokeh!

Now I want this lens!
#17
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297944945' post='6189']

Same thing goes for the Minolta/Sony one,

[/quote]

The Sony 35 1.4 is a dog... in terms of optics, design and also price. Tried using it on an a900 or an a850 but was crap. The C and the N ones are far better, I have to say.



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297944945' post='6189']

and the Zeiss also appears to be of a similar optical design.

[/quote]

I don't know about that one... I think whenever Zeiss doesn't make a good lens, they say they just want to give a unique nostalgic feeling rather than creating a superb optic. For example, they don't say the same about the 100/2 or the 21/2.8 which are very good.





[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297944945' post='6189']

I wonder what is so special about 35mm on 135 format that makes manufacturers not make any real progress? They keep being reruns of old designs.

[/quote]

I have the same question about 50mm lenses...





[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1297944945' post='6189']

Maybe Canon will surprise us when they update the 35mm f1,4 L USM (we know it is up for updating, it is one of the older L's and not sealed).

[/quote]

I expect a 35L II to be sharper than the 24L II because it's the same aperture but easier to make because it's longer. This is good news because the 24L II is definitely and absolutely much better than the 35 1.4G in the corners.



GTW
#18
Wow, thanks for the review. It was one reason to buy the AFS 35mm/1.4 for my D3X and I'm very happy with the lens.



A friend of mine mounted the lens with an adapter to his 5D Mk.2 and the results are visibly better than the Canon 35/1.4L in direct comparison. Better in the center and corner from f/1.4 to f/4.0. Better render quality and the bokeh is first class for a wide angle lens.



The AF is not the fastest but I rarely use a 35mm lens for action photography.





best regards

Claus
#19
[quote name='Claus' timestamp='1298068376' post='6233']

Wow, thanks for the review. It was one reason to buy the AFS 35mm/1.4 for my D3X and I'm very happy with the lens.



A friend of mine mounted the lens with an adapter to his 5D Mk.2 and the results are visibly better than the Canon 35/1.4L in direct comparison. Better in the center and corner from f/1.4 to f/4.0. Better render quality and the bokeh is first class for a wide angle lens.



The AF is not the fastest but I rarely use a 35mm lens for action photography.





best regards

Claus

[/quote]



If the center is visibly better on the Nikkor it is likely that this EF 35L has a problem (focus or centering). They should be pretty much identical here.
#20
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1298068561' post='6234']

If the center is visibly better on the Nikkor it is likely that this EF 35L has a problem (focus or centering). They should be pretty much identical here.

[/quote]



Maybe he meant perceived sharpness for the center? I notice this with Nikon lenses with Nano coating, they seem to have more micro contrast, making the images look sharper than they really are.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)