Ricci's Review of the Nikon 35mm f/1.4

 

Recently, YouTuber "Ricci Talks" reviewed the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 and compared it to the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 S-line lens. I find this review most remarkable in some respects, and wanted to share my thoughts here.

I never neither of those 35mm lenses. Like Ricci, I prefer the wider 28mm aspect. For this, I use either the 28-70 f/4 S kit lens or the 28mm f/2.8 if I want to stay light and small. If you say that neither can provide a smooth background like the f/1.4, you are correct. But read till the end.

What was that remarkable statement in Ricci's video? After asserting that the lenses are almost the same in look and feel, size and weight, and also almost in price, he claims that the difference lies in the kind of images you want from your lenses:

• On the one side, there is the S-line f/1.8 lens with all its coating, corrections, sharpness and overall optical quality and exactness.
• On the other side, there is the f/1.4 lens with its imperfections, chromatic aberrations, flares and softer look.

He calls the S-line look "sterile", and says photographers who want a more interesting rendering should go for the new f/1.4 lens, embracing imperfection as part of their photography. 

Now, this may sound as if the f/1.4 was on the imperfectness level of a Lensbaby. It is not. All its shortcomings are only relative to the great lenses that we have now. It is actually a better lens than the older 35mm designs. Moreover, it has a nice Bokeh, better than the f/1.8. So, I think Ricci is exaggerating the difference to the 35mm f/1.8 S quite a bit to get his point.

I think the imperfections of a lens which "make it special" should be called what they are, namely imperfections. I can only excuse them if the lens is cheaper or more compact or has other advantages. But this 35mm f/1.4 is not much cheaper at the current time, and it is just as bulky as the 35mm f/1.8 S. If I have to embrace the problems of a lens as "character", I want some compensation. And the only compensation the 35mm f/1.4 offers is the better Bokeh at f/1.4 with more rounded highlights.

On closer inspection, the Bokeh is only good at infinity. The transition between sharp and blurry is quite unattractive for me with sharp edges. It looks busy. I do not understand the reason for this phenomenon fully, but I see it and it makes me shy away from that lens.

It is always possible to make a good image more imperfect. Many photographers do this. They over-sharpen or soften, they exchange fine details for contrast, color in crazy ways, or add a strong vignette. This is artistic freedom. But if I start with a gear that can only produce imperfect images, I want a compensation in terms of compactness or price.

Let me repeat that this discussion is a bit out of place in case of the Nikon 35mm f/1.4. That lens is good enough to be able to produce perfect images, albeit not on the level of the best 35mm lenses we have now. It was Ricci's discussion of the lens which led me to this article.

Finally, let me discuss the need for a fast and wide lens. I think this is a special photographic style. Below, you see an example of this style, done on the Viltrox 20mm f/2. I have tried several of such images and it is not what I like to do, although I see that it can be attractive and look artistic.

For a contrast, the picture at the start of this blog page has been made with the beloved 50mm f/1.8 S lens. It clearly shows that there are enough "imperfections" in difficult light. The flare resistance and the sharpness of the lens allowed to capture the details in spite of the overwhelming stage light. I do not think this is possible with a worse lens.