The Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.8 S Over the Rainbow

Re my alleged "most complained about" camera, I should also point out that I drive an unpopular car. It reached not quite 18,000 units in total sales in 2014, which was considerably less than the car it's based on—the Civic—sold every month that year. And I have the "sporty" version, too, which accounted for only a small fraction of the model's total. My car was once named by a YouTube channel (The Fast Lane Car) as one of the top three most unpopular cars for males. Gak! Talk about giving it a Fredo kiss of death. And yet it's the only car I've had that I liked better after two years than I did when it was brand new. And I'm still okay with it seven years in. It's not a great car; it's a good car for me*. Today it has 96k miles and I'm hanging in there.

So maybe I like to like unpopular things. There's that to take into account.

Second data point: I'm sort of an expert on (read: nut about) ~35mm-to-45mm (or equivalent) lenses, which are my "home" focal length, and in addition to having tried a great number of them over many years—I have for sure tried over 40 of them and if it's more than 80 I wouldn't be surprised—I look at a lot of sample images online. And I've gotten good over many years at detecting from slender online evidence which lenses might be special; and if my skills don't fail me, which generally they don't, I'll bet the Nikkor-Z 35mm ƒ/1.8 S is an unusually nice lens.

Yet it's ranked last on a chart of highly technical appraisals by the analytical site dxomark.com (scroll down to "Image quality compared")—behind at least a couple of lenses I am fairly certain I would like less. Hmm. I actually felt a tad offended. That's one of the ones I like.

Why like the tenth lens on a list of ten lenses? Because I like the look of the pictures it makes. Internet doesn't understand this, or understands it very little, but, in my world, camera lenses make pictures. That's what they're for. (I'm a bit oddball, as I already admitted.) And, when making pictures, you get absolutely zero points for having a lens that fastidiously achieves slight distinctions in arbitrary scientific standards of alleged "quality." In fact, there's no such thing as image "quality" in a lens itself. It's only a matter of how the lens makes pictures look. Because that's the thing lenses do. And for that you must apply the dread standard of subjective aesthetics! There, I have named the Beast! Take that! Scream and flee, Internet. Clutch your precious über-expensive analytical/clinical monster talisman of hope to your bosom in a darkened closet and weep with rage.

(Whoops. Got carried away there. Reset.)

And there's another problem: what if Nikon deliberately made a lens that's better for pictures, but happens to test not so well? Well, that is exactly what Leica used to claim, way back in the '70s and '80s. It claimed that other lens makers built lenses to test well, while it built lenses deliberately designed to have more pleasing qualities for pictures. "Roundness" was a descriptive word the company liked for a while. But presently the Leitz family sold Leica, in 1986 I believe it was. Other managers took over, and that idea was bandied about no more**.

Nikkor Z 35mm ƒ/1.8 S sample by James***

Anyhoo, I hope to try that Nikkor Z 35mm ƒ/1.8 S someday. It has all the romance of an electric toothbrush—Nikon is severe, and indulges fanbois not—but if hundreds of online samples turn out to be any indication, it's possible it's a special lens. For pictures. Evidently not tests.

Mike

*My 2014 Acura ILX 2.4 is essentially a Civic Si from that year—same larger engine and stick shift—but in a cushier, more luxurious package with a smoother suspension. Ergo, a Civic Si for the aging hipster. Perfect.

**Another change was that Leica started to make zooms. The Leitz family had been allergic to zooms, and only grudgingly allowed sundry Minolta lenses to be rebadged as Leica lenses. Zooms back then were like SUVs and pickup trucks today: a thing sensible people at first assumed was only a passing fad of minor importance, yet which gradually, and inexorably, like invasive kudzu or Asian jumping carp, took over.

***Sample picture posted to B&H Photo by James, who in a rave review said it will "make you say wow every time."

Mike

Book o' the Week:

Ernst Haas: New York in Color 1952–1962. "When Haas moved from Vienna to New York City in 1951, he left behind a war-torn continent and a career producing black-and-white images. For Haas, the new medium of color photography was the only way to capture a city pulsing with energy and humanity. These images demonstrate Haas's tremendous virtuosity and confidence with Kodachrome film and the technical challenges of color printing."

This book link is a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Robert Roaldi: "Ignore web reviewers, the Acura ILX has always been a gem."

Andre Y: "Nikon's made some of other lenses that have given up technical qualities in favor of aesthetic qualities. The 35mm ƒ/1.4G and 58mm ƒ/1.4G, both designed by the same person, Haruo Sato, exemplify this. You'll find online discourse on the 58G to be polarized: too soft, too expensive, doesn't focus right, unmatched bokeh, incredible rendering, etc. Sato has said in various interviews (as well as in a Nikkor lens Facebook group he recently joined!) that they had a different metric by which they designed the lenses that he calls '3D Hi-Fi,' which is not about maximizing MTF. Here's an interview where they talk about this, and the Google translation is pretty readable.

"I won't try to explain what this means, because that way lies Internet arguments, but I will say that following the 35mm to 58mm to 105mm ƒ/1.4E line feels like seeing the Nikon designers' thought process about what a lens should do. As you go from the 35mm to the 105mm, which is the newest of the trio and also supervised by Sato, you find that the lenses' technical qualities improving greatly, while they refine the 3D Hi-Fi or rendering aspect of the lenses, with the 105 being perhaps the apotheosis of this concept in F-mount.

"In Z-mount, they seem to have taken this is to even higher levels. I haven't used the 35mm Z that much (I rented it to evaluate the Z system when it first came out), but the 85mm ƒ/1.8 S in Z-mount feels like the next step in this lineage. Shot at close distances, it has a beautiful (and blameless!) rendering, but turns into a technical monster at landscape or infinity distance. It is my favorite lens to use these days because it makes everything look so good, but it's also used in rotation with the 58mm G and 105mm E on the Z bodies. We're really spoiled for choice, and it feels like the Z-mount has really woken up the Nikon designers."

darlene: "Kudos for keeping photo/art appreciation front and center. Now I want to see more about that lens."

Thom Hogan: "I think you're pointing to the wrong list. If one were to place DxOMark on a ranking of accurate and reliable lens reviewers, they'd be last on my list. The Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 S tests just fine. It's not the best of the Z primes, but it's by far the best (reasonably) fast 35mm Nikon has made, and I'd put its images up against those of any other maker. No, it's not the best 35mm out there. But it's definitely in the top echelon. And yes, as someone who said my name and thus invoked me noted, the 35mm f/1.8 S renders a lot like most modern Nikkors do: there's a very distinct attention to the falloff from focus plane to out-of-focus that some find pleasing. That said, I'm not like you, Mike: 35mm isn't my cup of tea. Not even close. Now if you want to talk about the 20mm...."

Mike replies: I never bonded with ultrawides until I spent a number of months with the Fuji 14mm glued to my camera. I really like it now.

Simon Miles: "I have most of the ƒ/1.8 Z primes. They are, like most modern lenses, very sharp across the frame. This used to be a big deal. But now all lenses, particularly primes, above a certain price point are plenty sharp enough for actual photography (as opposed to lens tests). Much more important is the rendering. The Z primes have two things that for me make a lens special. First, a natural looking perspective without, for example, the obvious stretching into the corners that spoils the show with lesser wide angle lenses. And second, beautiful depth rendition, a sense of dimensionality, which can bring an image, and particularly a print, to life in a way nothing else can. Only the best lenses have this. The old Zeiss ZF lenses had it. And so does the 35mm ƒ/1.8 Z.

"You hardly ever see a lens test talking about these things, because they are qualitative and take making real photographs to discover. These are the things that matter. They are difference between a good lens and a great lens. Nikon has made a lot of great lenses over the years. The lenses they are making now for the Z system are some of the best they’ve ever made."

Luke: "Okay, I believe you can see this lens is 'special,' but I can't see anything at all in that 800 pixel thumbnail. Can you?

My monitor is 3840 x 2160. It's like a 32" print, except clearer and brighter. Would that be big enough to see 'special'? Or is Hi-Fi even necessary to see '3D Hi-Fi'?

Mike replies: Re "I can't see anything at all in that 800 pixel thumbnail. Can you?"

No. It's just for illustration. And perhaps not-so-subliminal suggestion.  :-)

Too much unrelieved text is called "gray matter," and although it's actually preferred for books—the illustrated book for adults has never really come back into fashion, more's the pity—it's long been considered a problem in the magazine industry (TOP being a "vertical magazine" in a friend's long-ago formulation). If you look at The New Yorker, which is one of the few magazines left featuring long-form writing, the famous cartoons are used mainly to break up the gray matter. They also use text breaks with initial caps, unrelated poems, and little inset decorations (that have a name I forget). The magazine also used to use little humorous anecdotes to take up extra space at the end of articles, but the current editor does not seem to favor those and they have mostly disappeared. 

In The New Yorker the gray matter is the point, but here you can see three of the ways they break it up to relieve the reader's eye. I had to black out part of the cartoon because I could be liable for $1,500 if I'm detected pilfering a New Yorker cartoon. (I'm still just a little nervous even so.)

TOP uses subheads, paragraphs with leading between them (again, I forget the real name for that), occasionally block quotes, and of course illustrations to break up the text. Therein lies a tale, because the internet has changed radically regarding the latter since I started out. But I won't get into that now.

Rob L.: "I am trying to avoid getting the 35mm, as I grabbed the wee 40mm as a way of getting a small camera when I needed one. The 50mm and 20mm Z lenses are very distinct; even the shots my Cub Scouts grabbed when I had to loan them my 'real' camera for a bit had a distinct character. I loved my Fuji gear, but the results I'm getting with the Z6 + S lenses is really something. I mean, my pictures still generally stink, but these make me smile a bit more, so, worth it!"

Comments

[James]

Mike, being a 'contrarian' is one of the things we love about you.
(Makes me wonder if TOPper and contrarian are interchangeable.)

Do you think that we have a different approach to lens results because we looked at older pics from prints in the past? (And still do)

[John McMillin]

This post really sums up my tastes in cars and other consumer items. Some people take in unwanted animals, and bless them for it. Others adopt unwanted kids. Instead, I've spent my own good money on these lesser-knowns and also-ran brands, in defiance of conventional wisdom, because I love variety and uniqueness.

- My first car, a 1965 Fiat Cabriolet. Body penned by a Ferrari designer, for $750 used. It had two essentials: a five-speed and a quick-working, well made top. I didn't mind the red paint, either. It was sexy, but not that sporty.

- My second and third cars. The 1970 NSU1000 TT was a rewrite of the VW Beetle with technology advanced by 25 years. It weighed just 1500 lbs, and an adult driver counterbalanced the one-liter engine. You wouldn't remember these; nobody remembers these dull-looking sedans now except for European hillclimb fans who watch these boxy buzz bombs storming up Alpine roads. During a decade scrounging parts for my daily driver, I spotted only about a half dozen fellow NSUs on the road. How much did I love that car? My mother offered to give me her Firebird 350 instead, but I wouldn't give up my NSU. The least sexy car ever, but the most agile and fun to drive.

- My current car, the Ford C-Max Energi. Actually the second-best selling hybrid of its time, but far behind the Prius. There's barely any online owner's community, and nobody mods them or praises them. They should, though, because it has the same combined horsepower and tire size as my last GTI. It's given me five years of quiet, smooth 65 mpg transportation, plus nightly recharges.

What cameras do I use? Pentax and Lumix MFT, naturally.

A streak of contrariness is obviously deep in my personality. I was an only child; I'm used to standing on my own, making up my own mind, and usually getting my way. That's kept me distant from cults and bandwagons, and I never mistake my car for another in the parking lot. Dare to drive different!

The biggest downside, though, is that you'll never know the fellowship of fans of the popular brands. When I drop names like "NSU" and "Cabriolet," I know that nothing registers. There's no owners clubs or meets (in English, anyhow). My early cars were truly rare, and I have good stories from them. But nobody else can really relate- until I add, "But I learned how to drive in an original Mustang."

[Albert Smith]

I guess the Nikon lens would not let you be competitive in the cut-throat world of test chart photographers.

[Ken Bennett]

I'm a fan of the ~35mm focal length, and have owned probably a dozen or more such lenses over the years. Probably a lot more, given that I shot both Canon FD and EF, m4/3, Fuji X and GFX, and various medium and large format film cameras. Yikes. But I find myself at the moment without any prime in that range.

I had the Fuji 23mm f/1.4 and liked it, then I sold that when I got the 23mm f/2. Which is a terrific little lens, but then I decided I had too many lenses and sold all my Fujicrons. So now I await delivery of the new Fuji 23mm f/1.4 mark II (or whatever they are calling it), and hoping for the best.

[SteveW]

Thom Hogan should chime in on this, he's talked about Nikon lenses not scoring well on tests, but making great pictures. I'm pretty sure you're on target about this.

And example is the Nikkor 58mm f/1.4. That lens is amazing, yet doesn't do well on the test scores and because of that is "controversial" in discussion online. I owned that lens for awhile, and I'm of a mind it's the best lens by far I ever used. Just amazing rendering. Not everything is sharpness, but once you get to f/5.6 it's plenty sharp if that's what you're after. But at f/1.4-f/2? It's just a special lens, at least in my opinion.

[I bought a Nikon (the Big Dragoon) just to use that lens. Ended up being too long for the way I see, but yeah, it's special. --Mike]

[Thomas Rink]

These sharpness/resolution tests and comparisons always make wonder what these figures amount to in the "real world"? I mean, if I printed a picture at the maximum size that my 17'' printer allows, would I be able to perceive a meaningful difference between 30"PMPix" and 36"PMPix" (or, say, 3000lp and 3500lp per picture height, for that matter)?

I don't even dare to imagine how my ancient 35mm f/2.8 PC Nikkor ranked on this list. The edges of the frame are never really sharp regardless of aperture, and it seems to have lots of field curvature. Yet I find that the pictures it produces look pleasing. The color rendition is very nice, the contrast is to my liking and the prints often look somewhat 3D.

Best, Thomas

[I have one of those to sell, if anyone's interested. --Mike]

[Gordon Lewis]

Considering how long you've been practicing photography and how much equipment you've used over the years, surely you've earned the prerogative to decide for yourself what you like and what you don't. Being overly concerned about what's popular is important only if your main goal in life is to be like everyone else.

[Wouter Willemse]

Yes! More recognition for the notion that lenses are for making images rather than shooting test charts and brick walls. The obsession with high objective scores like dxo leaves us wit many photos that might be technically perfect, but that don’t look as good as they could. It fits with the gazillions of camera reviews focusing only on resolution and autofocus modes, rather than solid ergonomics. Technology and features, over good tools designed for the job.
The already mentioned Nikon 58mm is a perfect example… I love that lens. And no matter how fuzzy the Leica claims sound, the Mandler design lenses have something incredibly charming to my eyes.
Lab test aren’t useless, but sample images are what make me decide to spend money or not.

[Alan]

Hi Mike,
A few of my favorite lenses were/are the Nikkor 20mm f/4 and the Nikkor 24mm F/2.8 AIS lenses.
I always thought they rendered very beautiful images and these days they hardly make any kind of great lens lists.
I believe the late great Galen Rowel used pretty much inexpensive wide angle Nikkors to make many of his great iconic images.

Speaking of cars, probably the car at the bottom of any list for a Guy is the Fiat 500. Especially in bright red with the white and red leather seats, and the sunroof. My best friend drives it and I make good natured fun of him.
The cars looks good for Jaylo but my buddy is over 6ft tall and it just looks weird him driving it.

BTW I think your Acura is a great car especially 2.4 engine and especially if it's the manual 6 speed.
I think they were over 200 HP if I remember correctly.
Let me know if you ever decide to sell the car. Seriously.
96K is low mileage.....

[Frank Field]

I have been a fan of Honda products for over 30 years. Honda has a track record of being first to market but frequently failing to capitalize on their innovation. To wit: first Japanese company with a luxury car division (Acura), first with all wheel steering (NSX), first hybrid. In the case of Acura, they’ve pretty much failed to maintain product distinction from Honda branded products and thus the lion's share of sales go to Honda, rather than Acura. Of all the vehicles I’ve owned, my favorite was my 2003 Acura TL Type S, an Accord but with power and handling performance not available with the Honda badge at the time. Today, Acura dealers are few and far between. Hard to believe there is a path forward for the Acura brand.

[Henning]

As another fan of 35-40mm lenses (I've had/used about 50) I can empathize. About every two years I look at dxomark and shake my head. Their rankings only correspond to mine when the table is viewed at 30ft.

I just looked at them again, and see that the Leica Summicron APO f/2 is ranked about the same as the Nikon, and 'worse than the Canon EF f/2 and all the f/1.4 lenses. Faster lenses are automatically given a higher score.I see the same Sigma lens in different mounts scoring the lowest in resolution with one mount and the other one scoring one of the higher marks. I don't have any of those lenses, so I can't comment further, but the table looks absurd.

There are many better test sites, but still, testing as you pointed out has little to do with picture taking. I like the latter a lot better as well.

[Patrick Perez]

Speaking of unloved cars, when I bought my 2006 Acura TSX, I had not yet learned of the wonders of a station wagon. Acura offered the TSX in wagon form then, but I didn't learn until I got a 2015 Golf Sportwagon TDi 6 weeks before the diesel scandal was exposed.

The TSX was perfect for me, like a nice pair of dressy sensible shoes. It did everything well, and nothing flashy. It was like the Vandersteen 2Ci speakers I owned in the 1900s, when I was chasing audiophilia. I've since self-cured that affliction.

Patrick

[Earl Dunbar]

LPs sound better than digital files. Tubes (valves) sound better than sand. I said it.

And speaking of 40mm-ish lenses, this might prompt me to compare the ones I have. It’s no small feat, of course, given the various cameras/mounts involved. There is widely divergent Internet “wisdom” on the Hexanon-AR 40/1.8 but I have found it to be at or near the top of my 40mm heap.

https://flic.kr/p/76myzC

[Earl Dunbar]

My favourite car is my current ride, a 2009 (Gen3) Honda CR-V EX. I didn’t even buy it new, and at first I didn’t think I’d like it as much as my 2004 CR-V, Gen2. But it is a much better vehicle, and from what I can discern, it might be superior (at least in the most important aspects) than subsequent CR-V models.

It has not been without its problems, but nothing devastating or ultimately off-putting. My mechanic has told me the engine is one of Honda’s best ever, and I believe him. It’s not a hot rod, not an “exciting” vehicle, but we get along very well indeed. I upgraded the radio to a unit with Apple Car Play built in and life is good. Even if the CR-V weren’t one of the most popular vehicles on the road (Rochester/Monroe County is full of them) I would still be happy with it. Maybe even more smug.

[Earl Dunbar]

@ Patrick Perez: There is no cure for audiophilia. You are simply in remission.

[Mark L]

Well Good luck getting a good copy, I've used Nikon's since 1976 and am moving to leica SL as every Z lens including three 35/1.8's and one 24/1.8 have been so badly decentered they would look appalling on a postcard print. Dreadful quality control.
It was not a camera problem, it worked fine with my adapted F lenses.
I find the whole Z system very plasticy and the lenses just dreadful despite all the PR.
All the best, Mark

[D B]

Andre Y is right on the money, methinks.

Through bottom-up experimentation and lots of looking, the same set of recent Nikons have ended up with permanent spots in my palette: the 58/1.4G, the 85/1.8S, and the 105/1.4E.

They are lovely.

[s.wolters]

Besides, for the Nikon Z mount there are not many 35mm alternatives yet. Two toy lenses from Lensbaby and two cheap ones from 7artisans. There is an f/0.95 from Venus Laowa without autofocus.
https://www.juzaphoto.com/lens.php?l=en&m=nikon_z&size=ff

If you have Nikon Z with an APS-C sensor you can’t even buy a 35mm equivalent prime at all.
https://www.juzaphoto.com/lens.php?l=en&m=nikon_z&size=apsc

[hugh crawford]

The original 3-cam Leica Vario-Elmar-R F3.5/4.5 28-70 lens was made by Sigma.
I understand that Sigma is making some lenses for Leica today.

[Christer Almqvist]

On the subject of lens rendering: yes, it was important in the film days. I had both the Summicron 35mm ASPH and its non ASPH predecessor at the same time but preferred the ASPH. I was careful not to mention that to dyed in the wool Leica fans. But I was more of a Ralph Gipson than a Cartier Bresson follower. Horses for courses.

But perhaps lens rendering is less important now with so many sliders to move in programs like Capture 1. So many possibilities to manipulate the look of an image.

I like sharp lenses but the $500 Sony 40mm f/2.5 is sharp enough for me even when cropping a lot.

[Bill Tyler]

I'm shocked, shocked to see that you and so many of your readers think that lenses are for making photographs. What sort of collective insanity have you all succumbed to?

[Speed]

I'm on my third Honda Hot Hatch -- two were Acuras --and they all were/are terrific. Fast, spirited, reliable (!), fun to drive and ... far less expensive to buy and maintain than the competition.

And they started every morning no matter how hot or cold.

[Jeff1000]

Hey Mike, you should somehow check out the 299 dollar Nikon Z 28/2.8 on a Z50, that is if you like a 42mm lens dripping with "character."

[David Saxe]

I have never seen a good picture ruined by an inferior lens.

[Doug C]

I am glad to hear the Nikon Z lenses are getting praise. I think I am going to keep on my Nikon Z track, and not buy any more Sony stuff or Nikon SLR lenses.

I have not really seen as much lens differences in digital as I did in film. I can spend time getting a look I like in digital as long as the lens and other technique was not really flawed. But I am a slow learner, it took me the longest time to really appreciated the look of my Leica M lenses on film, and then I really found it hard to use my Nikon stuff.

But putting those lenses in front of digital sensors has not impressed me in the same way.

I am probably missing something or just relying on photoshop tricks to get the look I think I am after. Digital is so different than film

[John Robison]

Regarding DxOmark ratings….. I have, and love, the worst lens they ever tested. That 15mm f8 body cap lens made by Olympus for their micro 4:3 cameras.
Why?
Because it’s free (not monetarily, paid $40 for it.) But free, no auto focus, no talk to the camera, no nuttin, just point it and shoot. Like Ron Popeil was fond of saying ‘just set it, and forgot it’.

That and it makes my EM10 a jacket pocket camera.