Nikon officially announces the Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 at $599
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
My Review is not Ready and Published yet. Will be on the same YouTube Channel Name as my User Name here.
Upvote
0
I'm the first person outside of Canon Germany HQ that has this particular Lens in Hand.
Upvote
0
RF L 50/1.2, RF L 85/1.2, RF L 100/2.8 Macro, RF 135/1.8 L, as far as I know are all RF L Primes except White Whale ones.
Also had every RF non L STM Primes here for testing.
I do not just test Canon Lenses, I can also compare to SONY and SIGMA pretty well. The RF 35mm 1.4 is small, it's sharp and it has no breathing. Thats everything positive to say about this lens.
Upvote
0
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Not that I plan to buy the RF 35/1.4L, but I will wait for reviews from sources I trust (i.e., not you) before forming an opinion of the lens (beyond basic expectations based on it's specs and MTF curves).
Upvote
0
The 35/1.8 is an S series lens and this one is not. Why is it surprising that a consumer-grade lens is cheaper than a professional grade lens, even if the former is faster?
An older example, but the EF 100/2 was cheaper than the EF 100/2.8L, and that wasn't surprising back then, either.
Upvote
0
For clarification because I'm sure someone will dissect this statement and infer something different: I think that it's an interesting strategy that Nikon would have a "professional" grade f/1.8 lens to begin with and then introduce a faster aperture f/1.4 model with inferior autofocus motors and potentially worse optical quality (on paper). It's just a very peculiar move in the current lens landscape. I'm sure Nikon shooters were eagerly awaiting a "professional" grade f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens like Canon shooters were. This model is not a "professional" S-line lens and muddies the waters a bit and may create confusion within the Nikon lineup. Typically and historically, faster aperture models are more expensive. This is not always the case, but it most certainly isn't normal to see the opposite. Also, to announce this the day before Canon ships out its new, long-awaited $1500 RF 35mm f/1.4L lens is most certainly deliberate.
Upvote
0
Nikon seems to make a mistake again.
Do they just release a cheap lens let their fans to troll other brands on internet.
Even they didn't announce with Z6 iii, they were worry that would their Z6 iii feedback.
If Canon release 50 1.4 L this year, Nikon will release 50 1.4 non S again.
Do they just release a cheap lens let their fans to troll other brands on internet.
Even they didn't announce with Z6 iii, they were worry that would their Z6 iii feedback.
If Canon release 50 1.4 L this year, Nikon will release 50 1.4 non S again.
Upvote
0
roby17269
R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini & Mavic 3 Pro, GoPro 10
Well, I do know what the real issue is here... Nikon releasing this lens means they will release a 35 1.2 S eventually.
Therefore Canon is dooooomed, there I have said it
As per the RF 35 1.4L, my Adorama order is preparing for shipment so I should get it in a couple of days. I will form my own opinion on it after using it.
And I will still whine for a RF 35 1.2... don't think I will ever forget about that!
Therefore Canon is dooooomed, there I have said it
As per the RF 35 1.4L, my Adorama order is preparing for shipment so I should get it in a couple of days. I will form my own opinion on it after using it.
And I will still whine for a RF 35 1.2... don't think I will ever forget about that!
Upvote
0
Canon hasn’t let you down yet, after some shots I believe you will forget the 1.2L and sing the 1.4 to high heaven.Well, I do know what the real issue is here... Nikon releasing this lens means they will release a 35 1.2 S eventually.
Therefore Canon is dooooomed, there I have said it
As per the RF 35 1.4L, my Adorama order is preparing for shipment so I should get it in a couple of days. I will form my own opinion on it after using it.
And I will still whine for a RF 35 1.2... don't think I will ever forget about that!
Upvote
0
roby17269
R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini & Mavic 3 Pro, GoPro 10
I can forget (and have forgotten) lenses that I have used in the past (some bad ones and even some good ones that have been supplanted by better ones)... but I cannot "forget" a lens that does not exist (yet?) and it's, essentially, a twinkle in my own eyes
Upvote
0
Wow, that's interesting. What is so bad about the canon RF 35mm f1.4?From where do you have the Information about the "better image quality" ?
RF 35 1.4 L VCM is the worst RF L Prime I tested so far.
Upvote
0
Hi David,
I’m in your corner and await your review.
I watched pretty much all your RF lens reviews recently. I understand your checks, don’t agree with your digital distortion correction aversion (only relevant for raw video workflows) but like that you’re more recently (eg rf10-20) a bit more softening on it.
Only thing is your sharpness test setup with real world photo of Jena is pretty much at infinity and can be affected by haze (partially mitigated as you almost always compare to another lens). Other reviewers look at test chart photos and only capture performance from 0.5 to a couple of meters. That can be a source of discrepancy. Also you’re not using a high res body, eg RF10-20 has around 1px CA, doesn’t show on the R6mk2 (if you believe optical limits)
Upvote
0
Yes, the Nikon version is much cheaper, but I have heard many complaints from Nikno users. Why? Because from the professional point of view, this lens is a crap. Its chromatic is huge, even huger than Sony 35 1.4 GM, which is well known as a chromatic abbreviation.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
