Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G vs 35mm f/1.8G

jdeg

^ broke something
Staff member
The price difference between these two lenses is about $1600!

I realize the 1.4G is an FX lens, has nano-crystal coat, and is crazy fast, but is it really worth the $1800 when you can get the f/1.8G for less than $200? Can someone explain a situation where you would even use such a high aperture?

51GPoAwKBML._SL500_AA300_.jpg

41CEOa4NmTL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
If you are shooting full frame it is. . . an extra 2/3'rds of a stop on a D3x/D3s/D700 would really provide amazing lowlight capabilities!
 

LensWork

Senior Member
In the "old" days, the MF 35mm f/1.4 could be found in most every photojournalist's bag. It was a staple for low-light news work. Of course, back then, Tri-X pushed to 1600, or maybe 3200, was about the limit for usable low-light images, so every stop counted, and the 35mm f/1.4, while actually not very good at 1.4, was the fastest wide-angle lens available. The maximum aperture of 1.4 was also valued for the increased viewfinder brightness that aided manual focusing in low light. With the D3 & D700 having ISO capabilities of 12,800 and 6400 respectively, and AF, I feel the need for this super fast lens is not what it was in the days of film. In the FX line, there is still the AF 35mm f/2.0D:

NK352AFDU.JPG

At $360 new, is the extra stop, AF-S, and "N" coating of the f/1.4 worth $1,400 more? Not to me. If you REALLY need f/1.4, a used MF 35mm f/1.4 can be had for $350-$400.
 
Last edited:

jdeg

^ broke something
Staff member
I've actually seen that lens being used by pros before. I would get it if I didn't already have the f/1.8G
 

eurotrash

Senior Member
As we all know, lenses perform their best stopped down a few from their max aperture. So a 1.4 is (or rather, SHOULD BE) sharper at 1.8 than a 1.8 is at it's max aperture. I know my 50 1.4 is sharper than my 35 1.8 at f/1.8..

Reason 2 would be to sqeeze some creamy bokeh out of a shot.
Reason 3 would be to bump the shutter speed up a little bit if you need it.

​I'm not saying it's definitely absolutely worth the money, but those are some prime reasons why they exist.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
I've actually seen that lens being used by pros before. I would get it if I didn't already have the f/1.8G


​Thing is the 1.8 won't cover the FX sensor... And right now, all Nikon has to offer is the 1.4 which is very if not extremely expensive, compared with the Sigma or Rokinon manual focus...
 

crycocyon

Senior Member
Nikon has focused a lot on zooms in the past years (and the quality of some of the zooms are equal to the previous line of primes) so their prime lineup has lagged a bit, hence the few recent nice primes are really intended for the pro crowd, while they have the DX lineup for the serious amateur. I've seen more hype about the 24 1.4G than the 35. Does anyone here have a 35 1.4 G?
 

piperbarb

Senior Member
I have both the AF 35mm f/2 and a pre-autofocus AIS 35mm f/1.4. I love the 35 f/1.4. I will use it over the autofocus one. It is super easy to focus and produces super sharp images.

​I have to admit, thought the AF 35 f/2 is a lot more compact. :)
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
I'm a believer with these f1.4G primes except for the 50mm f1.4G. I would get one if I needed that focal length. Although the Sigma received a higher score, I do not like the bokeh that it renders but that is just my personal opinion.
 

Akiviri

New member
For me when price is the deciding factor I get the cheaper one and use it under the conditions I bought it for. If I can't make it work acceptably I sell it back and get the other one. You shouldn't lose any money (except return shipping) using Adorama with their return policy, and may actually come out ahead if you use Fleabag (Ebay) and get lucky both times (although I doubt it with all the fees charged + shipping). I use Adorama these days as Ebay is more of a hassle than it's worth to me and far slower.
 
Last edited:

JDFlood

Senior Member
I have ended up with both f1.4 and f2 (actually two of these). My 35mm is my normal. I am really happy with it. I shoot a lot of low light. But probably the most important is psychologically. It looks great on the D800... Makes the the camera look like a pro camera. Okay, fine so that's stupid... It's a hobby... I like the way it looks, sue me.
 

Epoc

Senior Member
I bought a new 35/2 for under $300 delivered. It is a great bang for bucks lens. I gave it a real good very low light work out the other night and it nailed every shot I took. With a bit of PP, the shots are sharp all over. Super fast AF, but it scares me every time it focuses though, as it is one noisy lens :D
 
Top