Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.8 S Review

[nerwin]

I've had this lens now since last summer and I'll be honest it was kind of an impulse buy. Nikon frequently runs good sales on the Z lenses and this one was $150 off at the time so I snagged one up. I've always wanted to try this lens because I heard many mixed reviews about this time and I think generally it comes down to the price not the overall performance. It is a bit pricey for what it is, I agree. But if you get one on sale or at a good used price, it's not so bad.

If you're looking for specs, this isn't that kind of review. I just want to share my experiences I had for several months of use. But to be honest, I didn't grab for it as much as I thought I would.

I'm going to be comparing this to the 50 1.8 S which is an outstanding 50mm prime - the best 50mm I ever used.

BUILD

When got the 35mm and unboxed it, the first thing I noticed was the weight, it was noticeable lighter than the 50mm. It also feels if I may say so myself a little bit cheaper in terms of quality and I don't know if it being made in China vs Taiwan has any difference - perhaps it's just because its a little lighter. I personally like the fact that it is lighter.

The focus ring has more movement and clunk in it than the 50mm, perhaps it's just my copy but something I noticed.

The lens hood is also a little bit bigger than the 50mm if that matters to you

But in general the lens feels fine, just like any other Z lens Nikon has made. I'm really nitpicking and these are ALL minor things.

AUTOFOCUS

This is where I see mixed reviews mostly. Some people have complained that it's the slowest focusing Z lens and others say its the fastest and I agree with the latter. It focus extremely quick on my Z6II. I think a lot of reviews are older reviews when they used early firmware Z6 models which was significantly slower or they reviewed the lens on a Z5 which is also slower to focus but on the newer bodies, it was extremely quick to focus and definitely a little bit faster than 50mm in my experience this far.

Now one thing that I did notice was the 35mm had a tendency to hunt more than the 50mm and this might be just because the lens is a little bit more wider and so the autofocus algorithm has more to process. I don't know. But generally, I don't have a problem.

Now one thing I really didn't like about this lens is the focus noise. It's the most loudest Z mount lens I've used yet. The new 26mm is pretty loud too but that's to be expected as its a pancake. Anyways the 35mm has a weird focus sound and vibration that can be heard easily and felt through the camera. Is it a big deal? No not really but I can't help but say it kind of annoyed me enough to the point I thought my lens was actually faulty but after research, this is normal sound. I even recorded a clip. One thing to note though, the lens does not make any focus noise during video recording it's completely silent. I feel like Nikon could possibly make a firmware to rectify this a little, but I don't know.



The lens doesn't exhibit any focus breathing so it's a good contender for a video orientated lens.

IMAGE QUALITY

Just like any other Nikon Z lens, especially the "S" line of lenses, the image quality is outstanding. It's probably one of the best 35mm 1.8 lenses out there. It's sharp edge to edge, corner to corner there is nothing to complain about at all. In fact, I believe this is the sharpest Nikon Z lens I own and the sharpest lens I ever had. It's almost too sharp, I find myself in Lightroom lowering the sharpness. The lens is well controlled for distortion, maybe a little bit of vignetting wide open which I like personally. Chromatic aberrations is basically non-existent however it can so some purple/green fringing in very high contrast extreme conditions wide open but it's easily fixable and quickly disappears even if you stop down to even f/2 or f/2.2.

I also find this lens to be the most contrasty lens I've used and the black & whites are beautiful from this lens. Some might find it too contrasty but you can always make it look less contrasty in post if you need to.

The bokeh is generally very clean, I don't really notice any onions. It's not distracting and can be creamy. The lens has that 3d separation effect that fast wide angle lenses tend to have. In some cases it can look a bit nervous depending how close the background is to the subject, I feel like this can be from any lens, even the 50mm. I don't really have any complaints about the bokeh, it looks fine to me.

CONCLUSION

Overall it's a wonderful lens with minor complaints. There isn't any other 35mm lens for the Z mount yet that's as good as this. I know people who hated this lens is looking forward to the new 35 1.2 S that is on the road map but it's going to be one expensive piece of glass!

My problem with this lens isn't really the lens itself, it's the focal length. I've always struggled with 35mm but I loved 35mm when I had the Fujifilm X100V. So maybe it's not the focus length perse but the fact that I see the 35mm focal length as kind of everyday-do-it-all kind of lens and I find it just too big me to use it in that manner so it often sits on my desk. I have to force myself to use this lens and when I do I just feel like its too wide or not wide enough most of the time. It's not the say I haven't made images I'm happy with it but I haven't made a lot with it either. According to Lightroom, it's my least used lens!!

I'm not sure what I want to do with this lens moving forward whether or not if I should give it more time or sell it for something else that I might more useful. But that was my review and experience of this lens this far. If you stumble upon this review, I hope it helps in some fashion.

Some photos I've taken with the Z6II and the Z 35mm 1.8 S below.

 

[RAZKY]

A quick Google search brought up quite a number of knowledgeable reviews.

 

[nerwin]

A quick Google search brought up quite a number of knowledgeable reviews.

Wow thanks. I was just sharing mine.

 

[adamhiram]

Overall it's a wonderful lens with minor complaints. There isn't any other 35mm lens for the Z mount yet that's as good as this.

I am curious if you have used the 40mm f/2 as well, and how they compare. I know on paper it is lower build quality, is more prone to CA and flaring, and only opens up to f/2. But in practice, I've been pretty happy with it, and always questioned whether it was worth getting the 35mm f/1.8 for better results. The actual focal length of the 40mm is more like 37mm, and the image quality is pretty good, so they may be closer than many realize.

 

[nerwin]

I am curious if you have used the 40mm f/2 as well, and how they compare. I know on paper it is lower build quality, is more prone to CA and flaring, and only opens up to f/2. But in practice, I've been pretty happy with it, and always questioned whether it was worth getting the 35mm f/1.8 for better results. The actual focal length of the 40mm is more like 37mm, and the image quality is pretty good, so they may be closer than many realize.

yep. I had the 40 f2 prior to the 35 1.8 S. It really wasn't a bad lens and I think I might have been too harsh on it because when you factor in the cost of the lens...right now under $300 its a quite a bargain.

Looking at my images in Lightroom that were taken with the 40mm I like them more than the 35 and I don't know why. The 40mm images are nowhere near as sharp as the 35mm and mine was particularly soft wide open up close...like the Fujifilm XF23mmF2 but not as bad. Could've been my particular copy, I'm sure the non-s glass isn't as well controlled in manufacturing but I don't know.

I noticed the purple fringing and CA and some odd flares sometimes but it didn't bother me THAT much. But for whatever reason, I can't explain this but on a number of occasions the colors the lens rendered was different than any other Z lens. I've tested this out before with the same settings, same picture profile etc and just changed lenses and the 40mm f2 always had this weird magenta shift maybe that had something to do with the lens coatings. I don't know. But when I put the 28 2.8 (no longer own) on, the image was noticeable warmer and pleasing to the eyes. When I put the 50 1.8 S on it was kinda in between but the colors were more richer and deeper and with the MC 105mm, the images was warmer than the 50mm.

But I digress.

Thinking about this now after having looked at the images, what I thought were flaws were actually character and I think that's why I liked the images more from the 40mm. The photos have a more filmic, organic...natural vibe whereas the 35mm 1.8 S just feels clinical and too perfect. The size of the 40mm made want to use the lens more, it was lightweight and compact and it made taking pictures fun.

One thing I really didn't like about the 40mm was the minimal focus distance. I wish it could focus a little bit closer like the 35mm 1.8 S can.

As I'm writing this, I'm almost tempted to pick up the 40mm again haha and sell the 35mm.

40mm f/2 images

 

[adamhiram]

It really wasn't a bad lens

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it, really appreciate it! Once of my few complaints about switching to mirrorless was that there weren't any compact primes, like the 35mm or 50mm on DSLR. I picked up the 40mm f/2 last year mostly because of its compact size, and I really wanted to like it, but I just couldn't get used to the focal length. I've had zero complaints about the image quality coming out of it, I just can't get used to 40mm. Almost every situation I found myself in while traveling, I either wanted something wider to capture a full scene or something very close, or something longer to fill the frame more. I suppose this is a limitation of all primes, but I just never never found the sweet spot with this one. For the price, I still held onto it, so perhaps I'll find it useful yet!

 

[nerwin]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it, really appreciate it! Once of my few complaints about switching to mirrorless was that there weren't any compact primes, like the 35mm or 50mm on DSLR. I picked up the 40mm f/2 last year mostly because of its compact size, and I really wanted to like it, but I just couldn't get used to the focal length. I've had zero complaints about the image quality coming out of it, I just can't get used to 40mm. Almost every situation I found myself in while traveling, I either wanted something wider to capture a full scene or something very close, or something longer to fill the frame more. I suppose this is a limitation of all primes, but I just never never found the sweet spot with this one. For the price, I still held onto it, so perhaps I'll find it useful yet!

I'm still fairly used to shooting with a 50mm lens, it kinda forces me to work with it and make it work you know? The 35 and 40, I struggle to find composition. When I looked through Lightroom from all the 35mm lenses (and equivalents) I typically have always cropped in to about 50mm (this could be considered a positive though. You can crop to 50 but you can't make 50mm any wider). But when I had 28mm or 24mm (and its equivalents) primes...I rarely cropped in.

It's a weird observation. The Fujifilm XF16mmF1.4 and the XF56 1.2 were amongst some of my favorite lenses I've ever used. So according to that I should have the 24 1.8 S and the 85 1.8 S hahaha.

I am considering though getting a smaller system. I'm really eyeing a used Panasonic GX85 from KEH and one of the smaller primes for the M43 mount. Like the Olympus 17mm 1.8 or the PanaLeica 15mm 1.7 just for the sake of everyday carry.