Nikon 35mm f1.4

P

PeteStewardson

Messages
2,481
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Looks like this is pretty much definite for release in the next day or so :love:

So who's going to get a pre-order in for one?

Sounds as if it's a little more than the 85mm so I'm guessing it's going to be £1600

Pete
 
icecavern said:
Looks like this is pretty much definite for release in the next day or so :love:

So who's going to get a pre-order in for one?

Sounds as if it's a little more than the 85mm so I'm guessing it's going to be £1600

Pete
Click to expand...

mmmm.....nice. With that hole in the Nikon prime range filled I *might* be tempted to sell the 24-70 and add some primes
 
I think a 35, 50, 85 + the 70-200 would pretty much fill my needs for how I shoot. I wouldn't sell my 24-70 though, it's an awesome lens.
 
I was thinking add the 24 to that, and leave the 70-200 at home unless you really, really need it
 
Being honest I rarely use my 85/1.4 now I have the 70-200vr2. I never used to use my 80-200 at weddings but I'm finding I use the 70-200 a lot, and use it over the 85mm in most cases.

So actually I could get away with the 35, 50, 70-200 most of the time :D
 
icecavern said:
Being honest I rarely use my 85/1.4 now I have the 70-200vr2. I never used to use my 80-200 at weddings but I'm finding I use the 70-200 a lot, and use it over the 85mm in most cases.

So actually I could get away with the 35, 50, 70-200 most of the time :D
Click to expand...

its just me I guess, but I find I like being in close and the 70-200 hinders that, so I only use it during ceremonies now, then back in the bag
 
I know what you mean, but you can use the 70-200 close as well. I tend to use the 50mm the most along with the 24-70 because the 50mm isn't wide enough.

When I did an analysis of the focal lengths I use I found ~50mm and ~35mm were the top used. I found I didn't use near 24mm very much, and rarely use my 85mm now strangely.
 
icecavern said:
Looks like this is pretty much definite for release in the next day or so :love:

So who's going to get a pre-order in for one?

Pete
Click to expand...

Finally! Just announced this morning ;)

I've been eagerly waiting for the 35 1.4 but there's not a chance I'll be pre-ordering one though.

It'll be sometime before a steady flow of stock materialises, so the MSRP won't be dropping anytime too soon.

Don't fancy coughing up 1600 knicker, the 35 f2 I had last Christmas was only £150 :lol:

I've just noticed Nikon have updated the 200mm f2 too. No wonder the deal I got on one was so smoking a few weeks ago :lol:
 
I have got a nikkor 35mm f1.4, but the older manual focus lens, its totally superb

stew
 
I like that 200mm f2! Will be interesting to see how much that goes for in the UK..


Kev.
 
I think anyone wanting to sell a current 200/2 is quids in. The new one is well over £5000

The 35/1.4 is more than I thought too. Oh well best get saving while waiting for the street prices to fall.
 
If anyone is intersted in the 35mm F1.4 I will have pricing at some point today and I couldn't expect TPers to pay SRP :)

So if you are interested then drop me an email

stuart@digitaldepot.co.uk and once i have pricing ill give you a good price.

Stuart
 
icecavern said:
I think anyone wanting to sell a current 200/2 is quids in. The new one is well over £5000
Click to expand...

....and anyone wanting to buy one should get a real good deal too :naughty:

The updated version does seem to have a few bonuses, but by no means justifiable to sell your existing 200mm nor fall over oneself to upgrade.
 
In hindsight, I knew that the new 35mm would be a wallet destroyer, but I'm still chewin this over.....

The 50mm f/1.4G is around the £300 knicker regions m'kay...

The previous 35mm f/2 is around the £250 region...

and the the new 35mm f/1.4G is going to be £1600 to £1700?

Where the fudge is the reason behind that? :lol:

Maybe a 50mm f/1.2 is going to be on the cards? :shrug:
 
well you can get the 35 1.8 for 1/10th of the price, or the f2 FF version for £275, is it really worth approaching £1500 for an extra half stop r 1 stop on FF that has brilliant high ISO performance) and maybe a bit better quality that no one will notice

Maybe for a few but I am not amongst them!
 
Last edited:
Dave Pickett said:
Well you can get the 35 1.8 for 1/10th of the price...
Click to expand...

For DX only :)

Dave Pickett said:
or the f2 FF version for £275...
Click to expand...

..but your buggered if your a Lee Filters user, the weight of a Lee Filters rig (hood, holder and filters) on top of the focus motor sounds like something is going to burn out

Dave Pickett said:
is it really worth approaching £1500 for an extra half stop...
Click to expand...

The extra half stop plus the depth is certainly worth something extra but £1500? = :shake:

Trouble is, for me, it would be in the top three lenses of use.

In fact, I could probably get by perfectly with a 35mm, 50mm and the 200mm alone.

Maybe a super wide prime like a 14mm would also be nice but it'd be on the low usage end.

Dave Pickett said:
...or 1 stop on FF that has brilliant high ISO performance) and maybe a bit better quality that no one will notice
Click to expand...

Do folk really think that today's high ISO capability has become a total replacement for wide aperture? :shrug:

An alternative at the expense of nuance and depth maybe, but a replacement - no way.

The two elements are worlds apart :D We need both! :lol:
 
Last edited:
Do folk really think that today's high ISO capability has become a total replacement for wide aperture?
Click to expand...

Not at all, f1.8 vs f5.6 big difference, f2 vs f1.4 might easily be covered by better ISO performance without spending an extra £15oo!
 
I love the look of this lens but won't be buying one, the only prime on my list now is the 85 1.4 AF-D, my need for the 70-200 far outweighs anything else though, other than a second D700.

Looks a lovely lens though, I may get the f/2 version at some point.
 
Dave Pickett said:
Not at all...
Click to expand...

Phee-uuw :lol:


Dave Pickett said:
f2 vs f1.4 might easily be covered by better ISO performance without spending an extra £15oo!
Click to expand...

I disagree, 'easily' isn't the word I'd use Dave, for example - I've used a 200-400mm f/4 many times before now, it's reputation suggests it's one of the sharpest/versatile zooms out there and I would agree that it's certainly worth the rep, especially for outdoors shooters, sports, wildlife etc, but take it indoors with very tough lighting conditions and even with high ISO (D3) capability, I missed 2.8, both the cleaner ISO it offers and more importantly the depth of field.

f/2 and f/1.4 will never be substituted by cleaner ISO's, it's not just the grain and noise that become an issue due to less stops of light, it's loosing the depth of field. :thumbs:

Still, I'm pickled with the price tag. I've been waiting for this lens, I use 35mm a huge amount but honestly expected around the £700-800 region :(
 
Last edited:
I'm slowly getting to grips with the 35mm f2 and whilst the build quality isn't what I'd hope for I can't really grumble at the current price point.

The pro build quality, increased aperture size and new lens coating certainly would add to the price tag but I agree the difference is outrageous.

But the sad thing is I'd buy it if I had that kind of cash spare ;)
 
Tyke Tiler said:
In hindsight, I knew that the new 35mm would be a wallet destroyer, but I'm still chewin this over.....

The 50mm f/1.4G is around the £300 knicker regions m'kay...

The previous 35mm f/2 is around the £250 region...

and the the new 35mm f/1.4G is going to be £1600 to £1700?

Where the fudge is the reason behind that? :lol:

Maybe a 50mm f/1.2 is going to be on the cards? :shrug:
Click to expand...


The 50/1.4 is hardly a professional lens. It's as good as we have right now but it's not up to the same standard as the other pro lenses. I hope there is a 1.2 there to be released sometime soon :)

The 35/2 has a pretty average reputation, and people have been crying out for a 1.4 to compete with the canon version. And now we have one. Nikon have had a hard time for a while over people complaining the lens line up doesn't compete with Canon. Within the wedding community many people wanted to jump to Nikon for the focusing and low light ability, but didn't want to loose their fast glass. I think other than a 1.2 50mm we've got it all covered on the glass front now too :)
 
icecavern said:
The 50/1.4 is hardly a professional lens. It's as good as we have right now but it's not up to the same standard as the other pro lenses.
Click to expand...

It's my most favouritest lens that is :'(

icecavern said:
I hope there is a 1.2 there to be released sometime soon :)
Click to expand...

The prices of the new releases do suggest that it wouldn't be silly to expect one. ;)
 
Last edited:
icecavern said:
The 50/1.4 is hardly a professional lens. It's as good as we have right now but it's not up to the same standard as the other pro lenses. I hope there is a 1.2 there to be released sometime soon :)
Click to expand...

I'd disagree there. The 50 f1.4 is hardly off one body at a wedding now. Nikon would disagree with you too. Its on their list of pro lenses.
 
OK maybe I needed to re-phrase. It's also my most used lens at weddings. When I say professional, I mainly mean build quality wise. It's cheap plastic nothing substantial. It wasn't designed to be though, it was designed to be cheap, it even uses a cheap focus motor out of the consumer lenses ( I forget where but there was a breakdown of the lens somewhere I read.) . It's not quite as sharp as the latest batch of primes either, although I don't have any concerns there.

Pete
 
inkiboo said:
Not quite true. The 35 f1.8 will work with only a small amount of vignetting on a FX body.
Click to expand...

Thinking about it now, I do remember a Japanese chap writing about the DX 35mm on a full frame:

00VLSO-203917584.jpg


At F/8 it's quite far from a small amount too:

00Tvbq-154333684.jpg


Original link: http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VLHs?start=10

Still one can argue it's usable, but not a recommendable lens for FX is it really? The f/2 would be more sensible if you want a fast 35mm without paying the new price tag.
 
Last edited:
Depends what you use it for. If you use it in very low light scenes, which for me is the main point of a f1.x lens, the vignette is hardly noticeable.
 
inkiboo said:
Depends what you use it for. If you use it in very low light scenes, which for me is the main point of a f1.x lens, the vignette is hardly noticeable.
Click to expand...

Agreed, horses for courses ;). The main feature for an f/1.x lens for me is the depth of field, a little vignetting does no harm.



If you have both DX/FX formats and already own or have access to the 35mm 1.8 then fair enough, but I wouldn't buy one purposefully for an FX body.

Especially as the f/2 can be found cheaper :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top