Nikkor Z 35/1.8 S vs. APO 35 Summicron-SL

[NRKstudio]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wonder if these summicrons are not testing as high as others because diffraction derived resolution losses occur at such a low f stop with them (f2.8 or f4 instead of f8 or f11)?  Thus if the difference in line pairs it can resolve at f2 versus f8 is a negative number compared to some lenses where this number would be positive.  Just a hypothetical calculation that in theory Would generate a misleading result: E.g. sharpness equals resolved  line pairs at f2 plus resolved line pairs at f8, here this calculation would make the Summicron look worse than a different lens that resolved more at f8.  

[BigBabyEarl]

This is a good thread to revisit. I picked up a Z9 with the 35 1.8 because I had been really curious about it. It’s an amazing camera and I’ve come away with some beautiful images so far, but there’s definitely something missing vs my M11 and 35 APO. The Leica images consistently have a something that makes me prefer them. I can edit and play with the Z9 and really move the files around whereas the Leica files require far less manipulation. I think I’m going to box the Z gear up. At the end of the day, it’s always really about the glass. But I do have to say, the Z 35 is a really nice lens. Very nice. The Z9 with a four way screen and speed does bring some things I’ve always liked from Fuji in that it’s a lot easier to frame up on my kids. But then I shoot with the Leica looking through an evf and look at the images and feel more and more confident that spending all this money on glass and gear isn’t purely insane, but tangibly worthwhile. The glass speaks for itself. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jon Warwick]

39 minutes ago, BigBabyEarl said:

This is a good thread to revisit. I picked up a Z9 with the 35 1.8 because I had been really curious about it. It’s an amazing camera and I’ve come away with some beautiful images so far, but there’s definitely something missing vs my M11 and 35 APO. The Leica images consistently have a something that makes me prefer them. I can edit and play with the Z9 and really move the files around whereas the Leica files require far less manipulation. I think I’m going to box the Z gear up. At the end of the day, it’s always really about the glass. But I do have to say, the Z 35 is a really nice lens. Very nice. The Z9 with a four way screen and speed does bring some things I’ve always liked from Fuji in that it’s a lot easier to frame up on my kids. But then I shoot with the Leica looking through an evf and look at the images and feel more and more confident that spending all this money on glass and gear isn’t purely insane, but tangibly worthwhile. The glass speaks for itself. 

I have a GFX100S, and perhaps similar to your Z9 and Nikon 35mm lens, I’m constantly drawn back to a rendering that I often prefer with the Leicas. It doesn’t really matter what Leica, the M11, M10M or SL2, but I generally prefer the feeling of depth to the images, the high amount of fine detail, but - quite importantly - all the while without being “too sharp”. Don’t get me wrong, I have got some images that I’m really really pleased with from the GFX, it’s a fantastic piece of equipment for some subjects, but the rendering is often quite different to Leica (to date I find the GFX files to be natively flatter and with more edge sharpness), and I haven’t consistently yet found what I need to tweak in ACR when processing the Fuji files to get them to always land where I want.  I’ve been processing some files recently from the GFX, M240, SL2 and drum-scanned 120 Portra 160, and flicking across the tabs for each image quickly I get a gut feel that the Leica shots remind me more of the 120 film. 
 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Jon Warwick

[Malabito]

I am an unhappy 35mm sl apo lens user

I truly find the lens to be amazing, it has pop, clarity, etc, however you want to call it, perhaps its placebo effect, but compared to my other lenses, images just pop. 

But....... It's heavy, slow to focus, relatively noisy, therefore i rarely take it out. i wish i use it more, but i prefer taking other lenses because of how practical they are. I prefer my Panasonic 1.8 lens over the leica, due to the reasons mentioned above and yes if you look close you can see the difference in image quality  But the weight and size to me lose over the image quality benefits.

Images below with the 35mm sl apo: 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

 

[tom0511]

Malabito,

the factors you dont like dont disturb me much. I really dont find the 35 APO SL loud or specially heavy. And while focus of the R5 Canon is certainly faster, for anything non-action the SL2 AF is fine for me. So it just shows how different people have different priorities/ perception.

More important: Great images you have posted! Very powerfull.

[Malabito]

54 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

Malabito,

the factors you dont like dont disturb me much. I really dont find the 35 APO SL loud or specially heavy. And while focus of the R5 Canon is certainly faster, for anything non-action the SL2 AF is fine for me. So it just shows how different people have different priorities/ perception.

More important: Great images you have posted! Very powerful.

thanks! yes indeed if you can live with the weight and clunckiness is an amzing piece of glass

I do think sometimes that perhaps i should sell it, but than i use it and open the images in the computer i am just amaze of how this lens renders and the results, so i give up on the idea.... hehehe

And to be fair, even though autofocus is slow, its not that terrible. In good light it focuses fast enough for portraits and documentary work, issue is mainly with low light.

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Malabito

[BigBabyEarl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So a year later. I bought the 35 SL APO as well as a SL2-S. Shot side by side sometimes for the same images. I had a lot of time to really analyze them. Here's the bottom line. The inadequecies of the Z 35 s are made up for by the Z9/Z8 systems. Meaning the ability to capture amazing moments trumps the optical superiority of the 35 SL APO and the less than capable SL2-S system. What I DO capture on the latter is amazing when its caught, outstanding- but the Z9/35 combo gives me a very substantial file to play with and its to the point that I am parting with Leica SL (for now, maybe could change my mind and stay 😶). I'm very hopeful for the SL3 is a triumph and I can revisit the system. The SL lenses are phenomenal, but the Z primes are not that far behind. I wish the L system played nice on the Z as I hear M lenses do, I haven't explored. In an AF world, eye tracking locked in with the ability to frame from various angles because of the tilt screen/ amazing evf is just more fun. Even the A1 has a one way tilt screen. The SL system deserves a truly updated camera system that frees up the photographer with contemporary tools. The M is simple. The SL should be state of the art. I'm extremely hopeful because those SL primes are worthy. And btw- the 1.2 Z primes closed down to say f2 really are no effing joke. I'd like some more fast SL primes/zooms as well. 

[EJS73]

I have the Z8 with the Z 35mm 1.8 lens (as well as the 400mm for which I bought the camera) and in terms of ability and output, it's prove an excellent combination. For me it left the SL2S stranded between the m11 and the Z8, and despite really enjoying the SL2S I sold it. The z8's main shortcoming is that it feels so cheaply made, it probably isn't but it feels that way, and there are days I simply wished I'd kept the SL2S over it purely for the fun of using it.

[huwm]

‘wished I'd kept the SL2S over it purely for the fun of using it’

Thats why I have 
 

[BLeventhal]

I'm nature photographer who shoots wildlife for about 70% of my work. As a result, I am a Nikon Z shooter (formerly F-Mount user). I have dabbled with the Leica SL. I recently replaced the SL for a CL Kit with Vario-Elmar 18-56, and will buy a 23mm Summicron in the coming weeks and leave that on my CL. I replaced the SL with the CL because I still wanted to own a Leica and enjoy the craftsmanship and build that only Leica can offer. While I truly enjoyed the SL for its build quality and image output, it just could not be substituted for what I like to shoot. If all I did was landscape and nature details, then I could easily replace the Nikon Z kit with an SL/SL2/SL2s kit. From a purely optical level, the SL mount Leica designed lenses are sublime. They are well suited to landscape work and are a pleasure to use. The UI design of the SL bodies are a pleasure because of their simplicity,... sadly, the continuous AF and capacity to find focus in poor light is primitive.

For the record, while the Z8 does feel "cheep" relative to the SL, the Z9 does not. However, both the Z9 and Z8 feel like computers, whereas the SL feels like a traditional camera in the hand. With all of that said, unless Leica drops a more responsive camera and some telephoto primes, the SL system will remain what it is... a fine camera for casual use, travel, landscape, portrait photography, and digitally integrated alternative to an M-camera. 

As for why the CL... well it has the SL2 UI, feels like a Leica, and can be the camera I use when I'm not being the nature photographer that I am.

regards,

bruce

http://btleventhal.com

[Cobram]

20 hours ago, BLeventhal said:

 The UI design of the SL bodies are a pleasure because of their simplicity,... sadly, the continuous AF and capacity to find focus in poor light is primitive.

 

Indeed. Focus in poor light is not up to modern standards. Maybe not even to standards in last two decades. I too really like optics and camera for its simplicity and overall feel of good quality, but yes, AF is not to write home about. Need to check in next weeks how it is responding to constantly moving (normal🙂) kids. AFs one point is somehow OK, but struggles with kids running towards you. Maybe face/pet detection option in AF menu will lead to better results.

 

[helged]

12 minutes ago, Cobram said:

Indeed. Focus in poor light is not up to modern standards. Maybe not even to standards in last two decades. I too really like optics and camera for its simplicity and overall feel of good quality, but yes, AF is not to write home about. Need to check in next weeks how it is responding to constantly moving (normal🙂) kids. AFs one point is somehow OK, but struggles with kids running towards you. Maybe face/pet detection option in AF menu will lead to better results.

Tip: Try iAF, medium frames per second. 

[insideline]

Great thread! My personal experience is I was incredibly pleased with the SL APO lenses yet felt truly let down by the SL2. Now I shoot all my M lenses on the Z9 and my M10M and I can focus the Z9 and manual focus M lenses with focus peaking faster than I can my M10M and I have been a full time M shooter for over 50 years. Add to this the very capable new 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 lenses with the soon to be released 35 1.2 and now I don't miss the Leica SL APO glass quite as much. On top of this I own Nikon's 58mm Z .95 Noct lens which is the single finest piece of optics from any manufacturer that I have ever shot with, just too bad it's so heavy. I truly hope Leica's SL3 will be closer to the Z9 capabilities otherwise it will struggle. On 35mm lenses I find the Z 35 1.8 to be the weakest of the 1.8 series and not in the same league as the 35 APO, but I suspect the incoming Z 35 1.2 will be close or possible just as capable as the Leica APO. Soon we will know. 

[EJS73]

At least against those great but huge Nikkor 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 135/1.8 lenses on a Z9. the Leica SL system starts to look like a portable alternative . Despite its slightly bad rep I found the Nikon 35 to be very fine optically if not mechanically. By far my favourite 35s are the Sigma f2, and the M summilux FLE, which combine high IQ with premium feel and handling and small size (well the M lens is large compared to the earlier summiluxes, of course).

[Ken Abrahams]

On 9/5/2022 at 7:39 PM, Malabito said:

I am an unhappy 35mm sl apo lens user

I truly find the lens to be amazing, it has pop, clarity, etc, however you want to call it, perhaps its placebo effect, but compared to my other lenses, images just pop. 

But....... It's heavy, slow to focus, relatively noisy, therefore i rarely take it out. i wish i use it more, but i prefer taking other lenses because of how practical they are. I prefer my Panasonic 1.8 lens over the leica, due to the reasons mentioned above and yes if you look close you can see the difference in image quality  But the weight and size to me lose over the image quality benefits.

Images below with the 35mm sl apo: 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

 

Great images I must say. I love the one of the man in black beanie, the close up one. The sheep image is also fantastic. The very first image with man behind fence appears as though its been masked in PS and to a degree looks like its a "cut out". It's the nature of the lens to render subjects with great separation from foreground and background so it might just be that. 

I hear what you say about the weight factor. I have been an M shooter since 2012 and only recently come over to the "SLAF" side. The size and weight factor was noticeable at first but that quickly dissipated into the scheme of me becoming an SL Apo shooter. The lens becomes another tool for my perspective capturing the things I like. The SL APO 35 looks big when the lens hood is connected but other than that there are other SL lenses which are bigger I think. It's not a lens I use for street photography because of its size and the fact that it's not a rangefinder camera. All the best

Ken  

Edited September 28, 2023 by Ken Abrahams

[padam]

Z 35/1.8 measurements are up at OpticalLimits. Contrary to DXO or the Z 50/1.8, their ratings aren't that favourable, but still good in absolute terms.
Classic case of what one actually needs vs how it performs (above a certain level).

[laowai_]

On 1/26/2020 at 3:57 PM, NRKstudio said:

I wonder if these summicrons are not testing as high as others because diffraction derived resolution losses occur at such a low f stop with them (f2.8 or f4 instead of f8 or f11)? 

@NRKstudio,

It is impossible to build a lens that is sharper than a diffraction-limited lens. A diffraction-limited lens is one in which all other lens errors are negligibly small, and the only factor limiting resolution is diffraction. The smaller the aperture, the more diffraction occurs. This is why images taken at smaller apertures (such as f/8 or f/11) are typically sharper than images taken at larger apertures (such as f/2.8 or f/4).

If a lens is diffraction-limited at f/2.8 or f/4, it means that it is as sharp as it is possible to be at those apertures. Any other lens will be less sharp, even if it is diffraction-limited at a smaller aperture. In short, the statement that these summicrons are diffraction-limited at f/2.8 or f/4 is a very high compliment. It means that the lens is as close to perfect as any lens will ever be.

[jrp]

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-nikon-nikkor-z-35mm-f-1-8/  Good but not great imho. 

[matfer]

I saw no significant difference between the Nikon lens I tested at a dealer and the Distagon in M-mount 1.4/35mm at maximal aperture and infinity, both on my Z7's NEF images.

The Distagon was superior to the M-Summilux 35mm Asph. Vers. 1, that it replaced in my small bag long ago. I mostly shoot Velvia, being a hobbyist (and i15 Pro - bloody 24mm equivalent! I mostly crop to ca. 35mm).

Edited April 11 by matfer

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount