Nikkor 35/1.4 AI(S) - worth the money?

[kivis]

I hear this is a great lens. I am looking for a fast medium wide angle. Is this lens worth the $600 or so I see listed?

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I also had one briefly, but sold it and kept my 35mm f/2.0 AI, as I much preferred the f/2.0's general look.

No doubt the f/1.4 was very sharp in the centre stopped down a bit, but it didn't convince me.

For that kind of money, you could get the Zeiss f/1.4 or a Leica Summicron f/2.0 (albeit both not in Nikon mount - but having fantastic 3-d look and signture, just what was missing in the Nikkor f/1.4), or maybe the Zeiss ZF f/2.0 (haven't used that one personally).

 

[perkeleellinen]

I had one briefly also. I sold it because of the size and weight, it was much larger than I thought it would be. Perhaps visit a shop to try it out first.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I have 3, of the older N and N.C radioactive versions. I would be a must replace if I didn't have one. I also have 3 f2 versions and a fine 2.8 version, as well as a ver. 3 Summicron so I can and do compare and contrast

The above comments are very accurate, but sometimes I feel that the truly interesting parts about this lens are sometimes overlooked. It has a very unique optical signature, one that can be used effectively. Its fast, small (especially next to the improvement the G which I just tested) relatively light. I tend to use mine at moderately close in distances, available light, with middle f-stops on my modified aperture ring, around in-between 2.8 and 4, gives to me the best balance of sharp and bokeh. I have repaired and tested a number of Ais versions which have optical differences, and I prefer the older ones since I do mostly B&W, in color the older ones have the yellow cast (one of mine is going thru the de-yellowing UV treatment) which can be nice at times but a bit of a drag to color match. The newer Ais version seems to me to have a sharper, crispy look while the older has more of a fuller, robust look to the negs.

BTW if you can use the newer G, it is really a fantastic lens, I was skeptical but yes it actually is an improvement on the older lens while maintaining it's own unique look. Pricey yes, but you won't be lacking in the preformance area.

 

[Hops]

Absolutely love mine, an AI-S. Has interesting "swirly" bokeh when focused closely, which is a pretty neat effect. Also useful for wide-angle macro on a K1 ring.

 

[JayGannon]

I find the 1.4 very poor in comparison with the 2.0 (Both AIS), the 2.0 has more pleasing bokeh and is sharper overall in real world use.

 

[benjiboy]

I find the 1.4 very poor in comparison with the 2.0 (Both AIS), the 2.0 has more pleasing bokeh and is sharper overall in real world use.

Speaking generally aperture for aperture many lenses of more modest maximum aperture are superior in performance to the more extreme versions because in some cases the design has been stretched to make them faster and lenses of extreme speed are not always "better".

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

In most cases you might be right but this lens was designed from the ground up to be a high-performance optic, not merely a 'stretched' version of a slower lens. Other than the optical redesign when they took out the thorium glass it has remained in production for 30 years. See the article about it at http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n27_e.htm.
Used with an awareness of what it can do amazing results are possible. Although I have the option of choosing from many fine 35 the 1.4 keeps making it on the camera, fast, small, light, sharp with character. Sure sure, the f2 is a fine lens on its own, but close up performance is less, bokeh is good if not a bit boring, can work with f2 in low light, but I now find myself taking the 35mm 2.8 along if the weather is nice and I need a very light small lens, rather than the f2.
I think if I only could have one and didn't find a compelling need for speed then the f2 would be an ideal lens.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

In most cases you might be right but this lens was designed from the ground up to be a high-performance optic, not merely a 'stretched' version of a slower lens. Other than the optical redesign when they took out the thorium glass it has remained in production for 30 years. See the article about it at http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n27_e.htm.
Used with an awareness of what it can do amazing results are possible. Although I have the option of choosing from many fine 35 the 1.4 keeps making it on the camera, fast, small, light, sharp with character. Sure sure, the f2 is a fine lens on its own, but close up performance is less, bokeh is good if not a bit boring, can work with f2 in low light, but I now find myself taking the 35mm 2.8 along if the weather is nice and I need a very light small lens, rather than the f2.
I think if I only could have one and didn't find a compelling need for speed then the f2 would be an ideal lens.

 

[benjiboy]

In most cases you might be right but this lens was designed from the ground up to be a high-performance optic, not merely a 'stretched' version of a slower lens. Other than the optical redesign when they took out the thorium glass it has remained in production for 30 years. See the article about it at http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n27_e.htm.
Used with an awareness of what it can do amazing results are possible. Although I have the option of choosing from many fine 35 the 1.4 keeps making it on the camera, fast, small, light, sharp with character. Sure sure, the f2 is a fine lens on its own, but close up performance is less, bokeh is good if not a bit boring, can work with f2 in low light, but I now find myself taking the 35mm 2.8 along if the weather is nice and I need a very light small lens, rather than the f2.
I think if I only could have one and didn't find a compelling need for speed then the f2 would be an ideal lens.

I did write "in some cases"

 

[narsuitus]

The 35mm f/2 manual focus was the very first lens I purchased for my Nikon F. For years, this lens was my favorite 35mm film lens. When I bought the 35mm f/1.4, I did not expect it to perform as well as my f/2 but was surprised that it performed better. The f/1.4 soon replaced my f/2 as my favorite 35mm film lens. I did, however, keep the f/2 as a back-up lens.

Is it worth the price? For me the answer was yes because I needed the extra f/stop.

Is the new Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G auto focus worth the price? For me the answer is no because I need a lens with an aperture ring.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Which is precisely why I made the effort to get an F5 for my stable of bodies, the rental shop down the street has far too many G lenses for me not to test!! Trying an 85mm 1.4 G at the moment, and have used the new 35mm 1.4 G, very very nice but so much bigger, it needs it for the full size AF-S motor. Hard to believe, but its really better than my older 35mm 1.4, yes sharper a bit especially wide open but also has less curvature and still has a clean unique bokeh. Tempting...