Today Nikon announced the release of the NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4, a wide-angle prime lens that is compatible with Z mount full-frame/FX format mirrorless cameras. This fast, versatile lens offers a natural angle of view, popular among street and portrait photographers, with the creative freedom provided by a bright maximum aperture of f/1.4–all at an affordable price.

Not only does the NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 allow users to enjoy beautiful soft bokeh and three-dimensional rendering at wide apertures, its versatile 35mm focal length and short minimum focus distance of 10.6 in. (0.27 m) make it ideal for capturing a wide variety of scenes and subjects. From landscapes and street photography to portraits and photos of flowers and pets, photographers and filmmakers will enjoy outstanding sharpness, beautifully-blurred backgrounds and exceptional versatility in low light.

Despite its large f/1.4 maximum aperture the NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 is a great “carry everywhere” lens for day-to-day shooting, weighing just 14.6 oz (415 g) and measuring only 3.4 in. (86.5mm)in length.

The superior optical performance unique to NIKKOR Z lenses allows for clear images with outstanding clarity including close-up portraits that emphasize the subject with a pleasant background blur. Stopping down the aperture when photographing landscapes realizes incredible sharpness. As a wide-angle prime lens with superior cost performance, the NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 supports the capture of a wide variety of scenes and subjects, and will appeal to a wide variety of enthusiast creators.

Primary features of the Nikon NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4:

  • Beautiful bokeh: Max aperture of f/1.4 allows photographers and filmmakers to achieve smooth, creamy out of focus backgrounds while precisely controlling depth-of-field for ideal subject and background separation.
  • Versatile focal length: The 35mm focal length is close to that of human vision, making it ideal for capturing a wide range of scenes and subjects. On DX format Z cameras, the NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 becomes a 52mm equivalent prime lens, close to the classic “standard” 50mm.
  • Close minimum focus: Close focus of just 10.6 in (0.27 m) is ideal for capturing details in food and flowers with a beautifully blurred background.
  • Compact and well-balanced: The NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 weighs just 14.6 oz (415 g), making it is easy to carry and comfortable to use for hand-held shooting.
  • Fast and quiet autofocus: The use of a stepping motor (STM) for autofocus ensures fast and quiet autofocus for both stills and video.
  • Clickless control ring: Easily control key exposure settings including aperture, ISO sensitivity and exposure compensation.
  • Suppressed focus breathing: Advanced optical design means the NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4’s focal length stays consistent during focusing, which is ideal when recording video.2
  • Dust and drip-resistant: Seals throughout the design help prevent dust and water droplets from entering the lens.3

Price and Availability

The new Nikon NIKKOR Z 35mm f/1.4 lens will be available in mid July 2024 for a suggested retail price of $599.95.

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

Go to discussion...

53 comments

  1. What's Canon offering for 1k more
    The Canon lens is an L lens, therefore the quality should be consistent with their premium/professional line. The Nikon lens is not an S lens, therefore the quality will likely not be up to the level of their premium/professional line.

    But I'm guessing you knew that before you asked the question. If getting a cheap lens is all that matters to you, I presume you're already using the 7artisans 35/1.4 that costs under $200.
    • 0
  2. A better focusing motor, at least in theory, and hopefully significantly better image quality?
    Also the Canon has a stylish red ring ;)

    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.
    • 0
  3. Typical. People bitch and complain that Canon doesn't offer a 35/1.4. Then when they do, people bitch and complain that Nikon offers a cheaper, non-professional version. I wonder if those people also go on Nikon forums and bitch and complain that Nikon doesn't offer a cheaper FF UWA zoom like the 15-30, or lenses like the RF 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11. I'm guessing no.
    • 0
  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.
    I did say 'hopefully'. No information required for hope.

    Worse than other RF Ls is not really a relevant qualifier in a comparison with the Nikon lens, though.
    • 0
  5. From where do you have the Information about the "better image quality" ? :)
    Read better. He said 'hopefully' so why would you think there are comparative data? Having said that, given that the Canon is a professional series lens and the Nikon is not, it's a very reasonable expectation. Time will tell.

    RF 35 1.4 L VCM is the worst RF L Prime I tested so far.
    That could mean you haven't tested many lenses, that your testing is poor, or that you have a bad copy of one or more lenses.

    Objectively, looking at the MTFs, the RF 35/1.4 is clearly optically better than the RF 50/1.2, for example. The RF 35/1.4L is also significantly better than the RF 35/1.8.
    • 0
  6. Funny thing is, on Nikonrumors some people are sh*tting on this lens as it is too cheap, optically bad etc. etc. compared to the Canon 35 1.4 lens. The grass is always greener on the other side :LOL:
    • 0
  7. That could mean you haven't tested many lenses, that your testing is poor, or that you have a bad copy of one or more lenses.
    A bit off topic, but I believe that a ‘bad copy’ should not be deemed an acceptable excuse. If Canon’s quality assurance has permitted the sale of a lens, then it is only fair to subject it to testing. Quality invariably exists on a spectrum, but I see no justification for rating products based on the best possible copy, rather than the one a customer might receive in reality.

    Not everyone possesses the time or the ability to thoroughly test every lens they purchase. Moreover, in certain countries, returning an item once bought is not a straightforward process. But, that’s just my perspective.
    • 0
  8. Read better. He said 'hopefully' so why would you think there are comparative data? Having said that, given that the Canon is a professional series lens and the Nikon is not, it's a very reasonable expectation. Time will tell.


    That could mean you haven't tested many lenses, that your testing is poor, or that you have a bad copy of one or more lenses.

    Objectively, looking at the MTFs, the RF 35/1.4 is clearly optically better than the RF 50/1.2, for example. The RF 35/1.4L is also significantly better than the RF 35/1.8.

    An MFT Chart doesn't say anything about the overall Optical Quality of a Lens, it says something about it's sharpness, thats one part nothing more.

    I test Lenses and Cameras for a Living. Have to be over 200 Lenses so far. But what do I know. :LOL:
    • 0
  9. A bit off topic, but I believe that a ‘bad copy’ should not be deemed an acceptable excuse. If Canon’s quality assurance has permitted the sale of a lens, then it is only fair to subject it to testing. Quality invariably exists on a spectrum, but I see no justification for rating products based on the best possible copy, rather than the one a customer might receive in reality.

    Not everyone possesses the time or the ability to thoroughly test every lens they purchase. Moreover, in certain countries, returning an item once bought is not a straightforward process. But, that’s just my perspective.

    I really doubt that mine is a Bad Copy since I got it from Canon Germany itself, it's a press sample that was tested by Canon before.
    • 0
  10. I just pray that it is not that sharp so I will not be tempted :cool:
    I have an ongoing love/hate relationship with my RF35/1.8
    This is just so confusing due to the fact that Nikon already has a Z 35 f/1.8 S.
    • 0
  11. A bit off topic, but I believe that a ‘bad copy’ should not be deemed an acceptable excuse. If Canon’s quality assurance has permitted the sale of a lens, then it is only fair to subject it to testing. Quality invariably exists on a spectrum, but I see no justification for rating products based on the best possible copy, rather than the one a customer might receive in reality.
    I agree that ratings should not be based on the best possible copy. But that just highlights the fact that basing decisions on reviewers who test one copy of a lens is not wise. Since that's almost all reviewers, the only viable approach is effectively a meta-analysis of multiple reviews for a particular lens. The one exception to that is when LensRentals runs optical bench testing on ~10 copies of a given lens and reports those data.

    Not everyone possesses the time or the ability to thoroughly test every lens they purchase. Moreover, in certain countries, returning an item once bought is not a straightforward process. But, that’s just my perspective.
    Agreed. Personally, I do have the time and ability to properly test a new lens, and I do so with every one that I purchase. That's how I choose to deal with the problem of reviews based on one copy – I evaluate the one copy that is shipped to me, since that's really the only one that matters.

    All of the Canon lenses I have bought have met my expectations for image quality. I did get a poor copy of a Rokinon 14/2.8 that I exchanged for a better one. But that doesn't mean bad copies don't exist. Even in places where a return is not feasible, Canon provides a warranty and the lens can be sent for evaluation and service. As an example of that, Bryan at TDP ended up testing 4 copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L II, because the first two had unexpectedly poor performance at one end of the zoom range or the other.
    • 0
  12. An MFT Chart doesn't say anything about the overall Optical Quality of a Lens, it says something about it's sharpness, thats one part nothing more.

    I test Lenses and Cameras for a Living. Have to be over 200 Lenses so far. But what do I know. :LOL:

    Can you provide a link to your web site por favor? (A PM is fine) It'd be nice to see results and testing methodology.
    • 0
  13. An MFT Chart doesn't say anything about the overall Optical Quality of a Lens, it says something about it's sharpness, thats one part nothing more.
    Well, sharpness and contrast. But I get your point.

    I test Lenses and Cameras for a Living. Have to be over 200 Lenses so far. But what do I know. :LOL:
    I don't know what you know. Personally, I've tested only about 50 lenses (all Canon save two).

    But if you've tested a range of Canon RF primes and are saying that the 35/1.4L is the worst, I question your judgement. Perhaps you can clarify what other RF L primes you have tested. [Apologies, I missed the 'L' in your original post. Ignoring the supertele L primes and the dual fisheye, there are only the 35L, 50L, 85Ls, 100L, and 135L. So I suppose it's at least feasible that the 35L is the worst of the bunch, except for the macro lens it's also the cheapest of the bunch. But being the worst of a set of really excellent lenses doesn't mean it's a bad lens, and your initial implication that the Nikon 35/1.4 is better is entirely unfounded.]
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment