The Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E is a very specialized wide-angle lens specifically targeted at three groups of photographers – architecture photographers, landscape photographers and macro/product photographers. Architectural photographers often work with a lot of straight, often converging lines both indoors and outdoors and the “Perspective Control” or “Tilt-Shift” lenses (from this point on I will refer to them only as “tilt-shift”) give the ability to avoid the convergence of parallel lines by shifting the lens upwards or downwards. Landscape photographers need to be able to get everything in focus – from the closest foreground object to distant landscapes. While proper lens and camera techniques, along with good post-processing skills can help in getting sharp images for both foreground and background objects, normal lenses have certain limits landscape photographers have to work around with. For example, stopping down lenses beyond f/11 results in diffraction, which can impact the sharpness and overall quality of an image. With perspective control/tilt-shift lenses, landscape photographers can change the angle of the focus plane without having to increase aperture, putting both closest and furthest objects in focus. The same goes for commercial/product photographers that photograph jewelry and other items for product showcases – everything from the front to the rear of the object must often be in perfect focus. Again, stopping down does not always work and unless angles are changed and subject is on the same plane, there is no easy way to get everything sharp without focus-stacking images in post-processing software like Photoshop. By using tilt-shift lenses, photographers do not have to worry about lens aperture limitations and can achieve the desired effect with minimum effort. One other use that has been gaining popularity lately is to use tilt-shift lenses for portrait photography. Due to the ability to apply selective focus on a particular part of the image via lens tilting (also known as “anti-Scheimpflug“), portraits can appear more interesting and creative. Distant subjects can even appear “miniaturized”, although the effect can be easily reproduced in Photoshop through various plugins.

One thing I have to be clear about upfront – the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E, along with other PC-E lenses is not an easy lens to use. First, it is a manual focus lens, which means that you will have to learn how to adjust the focus while watching the focus indicator in the viewfinder. While the process is very intuitive and easy, it might seem awkward and even counter-productive when photographing moving subjects. In addition, when doing extreme tilting and shifting, the focus indicator might not work at all. I had a few situations like that during my field tests and I had to reset the tilt/shift, focus and then use tilt/shift again. Second, you will have to learn how and when to use a tilt-shift lens and get a good grasp on exactly what tilting and shifting do to the subjects or scenery you are photographing (a guide on how to use tilt-shift lenses will be published soon). Third, you will need to fully understand aperture and depth of field and how tilting can change the lens plane relative to the image plane (the “Scheimpflug principle“). Fourth, you will have to understand the limitations of a tilt-shift lens and learn how to work around those limitations. And last, but not least, you will have to know how to meter with your camera and learn how to shoot in manual mode. Does this sound like too much for you? If it does, then you might want to reconsider getting a PC-E lens.

I was fortunate to test all three current Nikon PC-E lenses side by side (Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E, Nikon 45mm f/2.8D PC-E and Nikon 85mm f/2.8D PC-E) and compare them against other normal Nikon lenses. While I wish I had more time to play with each of the PC-E lenses and test them in different scenarios, I decided to focus on landscape and portrait photography and see how applicable and useful these lenses would be for my everyday photography. I did experiment a little with Macro photography with the 45mm and 85mm lenses, but not much, as I am not into macro. I just thought it would be a good idea to see how useful these lenses would be for macro/product photography.

Note: The image above was shot at f/8, with the closest flowers at less than 1 meter. If I had not tilt the lens, only one portion of the image would have been in focus. To achieve a similar depth of field with a regular lens, I would have to stop down to f/32 and even then I would not be able to get everything in perfect focus.

Out of the three PC-E lenses, I found the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D to be the most useful for my needs – mostly due to the wide angle use for landscapes and portraits. It is a very sharp, colorful and “contrasty” lens, although as you will see below, it does have a few imperfections. Optically, it is superb even wide open, from center to corner. I compared it against the current sharpness king the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G and found it to be a close match. Let’s look at the lens in more detail.

1) Lens Specifications

Main Features:

1. Ultra-wide, Perspective Control (PC) lens featuring tilt, shift and rotation capability, perfect for architectural and nature photography.
2. Revolving capability of plus or minus 90-degrees, in 30-degree increments, for versatile tilt/shift shooting effects.
3. Three aspherical elements virtually eliminate coma and other types of lens aberration even at the widest aperture.
4. High-performance Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) offers superior color performance and substantially reduced ghosting and flare.
5. Wide shifting range, plus or minus 11.5mm, with a tilting range of plus or minus 8.5 degrees provides exceptional control.
6. Three ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass elements offer superior sharpness and color correction by effectively minimizing chromatic aberration.
7. Nikon’s Nano Crystal Coat virtually eliminates internal reflections across a wide range of wavelengths, for even greater image clarity.
8. Rounded 9-blade diaphragm for more natural appearance of out-of-focus image elements.

Technical Specifications:

1. Mount Type: Nikon F-Bayonet
2. Focal Length: 24mm
3. Maximum Aperture: f/3.5
4. Minimum Aperture: f/32
5. Format: FX/35mm
6. Maximum Angle of View (DX-format): 61°
7. Maximum Angle of View (FX-format): 84°
8. Maximum Reproduction Ratio: 0.37x
9. Lens Elements: 13
10. Lens Groups: 10
11. Compatible Format(s): FX, DX, FX in DX Crop Mode, 35mm Film
12. Diaphragm Blades: 9
13. Distance Information: Yes
14. Nano Crystal Coat: Yes
15. ED Glass Elements: 3
16. Aspherical Elements: 3
17. Super Integrated Coating: Yes
18. Minimum Focus Distance: 0.7ft.(0.21m)
19. Close Range Correction: Yes
20. Focus Mode: Manual
21. Filter Size: 77mm
22. Accepts Filter Type: Screw-on
23. Dimensions (Approx.): 3.2×4.3 in. (Diameter x Length), 82.5x108mm (Diameter x Length)
24. Weight (Approx.): 25.7 oz. (730g)
25. Supplied Accessories: HB-41 Bayonet Hood, CL-1120 Flexible Lens Pouch

2) Lens compatibility

Although the above lens specifications say that the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E is compatible with DX format, unfortunately, the lens cannot be fully shifted upwards on some DX cameras. The main problem is the built-in pop-up flash on many entry-level/older DX cameras that hangs too low and extends too much. Pro-level DX DSLRs like D300 and D300s do not have this problem, since the pop-up flash is elevated a little more to fit PC-E lenses (the same is true for D700 FX camera), but most lower-end DSLR models do. On some DX models you cannot even mount the lens with the shift knob on the top, so you would have to rotate it first. Is this a big problem and will it prevent you from being able to capture photographs? Landscape photographers do not care about lens shifting (rise/fall) for the most part, so it is only relevant for architectural photography and other rare situations. Other than that, the lens works perfectly fine on all DX cameras.

Changing aperture is also only available on modern Nikon DSLRs. If you own an older DSLR like Nikon D2x or D80, you will have to use the aperture ring on the lens to set aperture. With all current Nikon DSLRs, all you have to do is set the aperture ring on the lens to “L” position, then you can change the aperture directly from the camera. Another important issue to note is metering. When lenses move off-axis, it is normal for metering not to work reliably. If your camera can meter with PC-E lenses in normal position (without any tilting or shifting), you should use the meter before making any tilt and shift movements.

Nikon PC-E Lens Compatibility Chart

The maximum lens shift is ±11.5 mm and the entry-level/older Nikon DX cameras will limit the ability to rise the lens to a certain level. The tilt perspective control function is not limited on any of the above cameras, so you can tilt the lens easily ±8.5° on any DSLR camera. Although the lens can be rotated up to 90° left or right for perspective control adjustment, the proximity of the built-in pop-up flash might be a problem for rotating the lens after it is mounted on the camera.

2) Lens features and handling

Just like all Nikon professional lenses, the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D ED PC-E lens is built to last a lifetime. The outer barrel is mostly made of metal, except for the plastic focus ring and front filter thread. The tilt/shift parts are also all metal, including the control knobs. Weighing 730 grams, it is heavier than the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G by 110 grams, but still lighter than the monster Nikon 14-24mm and Nikon 24-70mm lenses. The lens feels very solid in hands and the focus ring is conveniently located in the front of the barrel, making it easy to manually focus with a thumb and index fingers while shooting images or video. The barrel does not rotate or extend, so you can easily use it with various filters. The outside seems to be well-protected against dust and moisture, but considering how the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E is constructed, there is no way to fully weather-seal the lens. It has a very complex optical design with a total of 13 lens elements in 10 groups, with 3 Extra-low Dispersion (ED) to minimize chromatic aberration and 3 aspherical elements to correct spherical aberration and coma. To reduce ghosting and flares, the lens elements are also coated with Super Integrated Coating (SIC) and Nano Crystal Coat (N). Those who are into close-up/macro photography will be pleasantly surprised by the short focusing distance of 0.21 meters and the maximum reproduction ratio of 1/2.7. An evenly shaped “HB-41″ lens hood is supplied with the lens.

All current Nikon PC-E lenses are very similar in size and control layout. Take a look at the lenses side by side:

Aside from a couple of differences, all three look alike. The 85mm PC-E is slightly shorter and has a reversed tilt/swing mechanism. The difference in height changes with the lens hoods though:

Due to the massive size of the hood, the Nikkor 85mm PC-E is the tallest of the group.

And here you can see how the PC-E lenses compare in size to the 24mm f/1.4G and 85mm f/1.4G prime lenses:

3) Lens sharpness and contrast

The Nikon 24mm f/3.5D is a very sharp lens (when not tilted/shifted), as can be seen from the second page of this review. This is mainly due to the larger image circle of PC-E lenses. The center frame is always sharp at all apertures, while corners are acceptably sharp at f/3.5 and get very sharp at f/5.6. The lens performance is also excellent when the lens is moved sideways (also known as “swing”) or tilted up or down. Shifting the lens is generally not a problem, although extreme shifting can result in plenty of vignetting (see below). The sharpness figures do drop as you get closer to the extreme corners though.

4) Bokeh

While the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D is a wide-angle perspective control lens, it sports a 9 blade diaphragm that can yield either pleasant or ugly-looking bokeh, depending on circumstances. When photographing a close subject without tilting or shifting, the lens can yield pleasant bokeh, as shown below:

Bokeh in parts of the image can also look good when the lens is heavily tilted. However, images with a slight tilt or areas of the image that are close to the sharpest part of a heavily tilted image can yield very ugly-looking bokeh, similar to the below:

5) Vignetting

There is some vignetting present when shooting wide open @ f/3.5 (around -1 stop in the extreme corners) without tilt/shift, but it is dramatically reduced by f/5.6 and almost gone by f/8.0. Here is an extreme example of vignetting at f/3.5:

Tilting the lens does not add any extra vignetting, but heavily shifting the lens does. When the lens is shifted all the way up or down (or to the sides, depending on how you got the lens set up), you will see a heavy amount of vignetting on one side. Therefore, avoid fully shifting the lens or get ready to crop in post-processing. The normal vignetting issues can be quickly corrected in Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom, while heavy vignetting can only be addressed by cropping.

6) Ghosting and Flare

The Nano-Coating glass inside the lens definitely reduces ghosting and flare, but does not completely eliminate it, especially at very large apertures:

As you can see, there is some magenta on the sun and both ghosting and flares are visible at f/32. If you are shooting against bright sources, try to keep your aperture below f/8.

7) Distortion

There is a slight amount of barrel distortion on the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D when the lens is not tilted or shifted:

This can be easily fixed by dialing +1 in Photoshop’s Lens Correction filter (under Geometric Distortion – Remove Distortion). The moment you start shifting the lens, the optical axis of the lens changes, so you have to make the necessary adjustments in Photoshop to compensate for the change in axis before attempting to remove distortion.

8) Chromatic Aberrations

In general, chromatic aberrations are controlled very well. The amount of CA can slightly increase when shifting the lens up and down, but the issue can be easily addressed in post-processing software.

Let’s now move on to the good stuff – Sharpness tests. Select the next page below.

Sharpness Test

Some technical junk:

1. White Balance: Custom, Temp: 4500, Tint: +11
2. ISO: 200
3. EXIF information is preserved in the images
4. Lens was mounted on Nikon D3s FX Camera and Gitzo tripod
5. Focusing was performed through Live-View Contrast Detect. After each successful focus acquisition, focus was switched to manual to prevent camera refocusing
6. Mirror Lock-Up mode with Exposure Delay set to “On” and remote cable release to completely eliminate camera shake
7. Long exposure NR: Off
8. Image Format: RAW
9. Lightroom settings: Default settings, but exposure had to be slightly adjusted for some images
10. Lightroom export: sRGB JPEG Quality 80
11. Testing was performed at f/3.5, f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22 and f/32 apertures
12. Nothing was moved during testing

9) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E Center Frame

As I have already pointed out in the first page of the review, the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E is a very sharp lens, even wide open. Take a look at these 100% crops at large apertures of f/3.5-f/4.0:

Stopping down the lens to f/5.6 and f/8 does not improve the performance at all, as can be seen below:

I normally do not publish crops from apertures above f/11 due to diffraction, but I decided to include all apertures in this sharpness test, to show you how much the PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5 can be pushed:

At f/11, the lens shows a very slight amount of diffraction, but it is almost negligible. At f/16, however, the effect of diffraction on image is evident. Stopping down the lens further more results in loss of detail and you will notice loss of contrast as well:

Just be careful when shooting above f/11, as diffraction will certainly affect the image as seen above.

10) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E Corner Frame

What about the corners? Let’s take a look:

Wide open, the corners start a tad softer compared to the center. There is also a slight loss of contrast that is visible at both f/3.5 and f/4.

The corners reach their peak performance at f/5.6 – that’s when the lens is the sharpest. Stopping down the lens to f/8 does nothing, so you can stay at f/5.6, unless you need to increase the depth of field.

Stopping the lens down to f/11 and f/16 shows signs of diffraction.

By f/22 and f/32 diffraction not only reduces the contrast, but also impacts the overall quality of the image, as expected.

11) Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E Sharpness Conclusion

As you can see from the above crop samples, the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E is one sharp lens that performs very well wide open. You do not need to worry about stopping it down at all, unless you need the best corner performance, in which case just stop the lens down to f/5.6 and you will get optimal sharpness across the frame. Landscape and architecture photographers will appreciate the quality of images this lens is capable of producing. Sharpness, colors and contrast are all top notch and optically I cannot find much to complain about.

I did not measure the performance of the lens when it is tilted or shifted in a lab environment for two reasons – there would be no way to compare the results with other lenses and I simply did not have a good methodology to test the lens in tilted or shifted position. One thing I am sure of though, is that the lens is equally sharp when it is slightly tilted/shifted. When the lens is tilted/shifted to maximum levels, there is a slight loss of sharpness and contrast, but it is expected, since we are dealing with extreme corners.

Compared to Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G

12) Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E vs Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G

How does the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E compare to my favorite landscape lens the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G? As I have pointed out in my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 Review, the 24-70mm is very sharp wide open. When I compared the 24mm PC-E against the 24-70mm, the results at 24mm were almost identical – both lenses performed flawlessly in the center. Therefore, I will skip posting crop samples for both lenses in the center. Instead, let’s see how the lenses compare in the corners wide open (Left: Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E @ f/3.5, Right: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G @ f/2.8):

As you can see, the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E is clearly superior wide open. Not only does it have less distortion, but also the image is much clearer, especially in the extreme corners. Let’s see what happens to both when stopped down to f/4:

The sharpness of the Nikon 24-70mm improves quite a bit when stopped down to f/4 and the images are now comparable.

Stopped down to f/8, both lenses perform equally well in the corners, but the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E seems to have a more pronounced color fringing.

In summary, the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E is sharper wide open, but performs about the same as the 24-70mm when stopped down to f/4 and beyond. Color and contrast on both lenses are very comparable. Both lenses handle ghosting and flares similarly as well, although the 24mm f/3.5D PC-E seems to add some purple to the light source. The bokeh on the 24-70mm seems to be a little busier and edgier than on the 24mm f/3.5D PC-E, although I have not performed a side-by-side comparison in different environments. The Nikon 24-70mm suffers from a lot more vignetting at large apertures. Chromatic aberrations are about the same on both, although the 24mm PC-E has plenty of purple and blue fringing when the lens is shifted upwards or downwards. Obviously, the above comparison is only showing one aspect of each lens, since the 24-70mm has the zoom range that the 24mm PC-E does not have and the PC-E has the tilt/shift capability the 24-70mm does not have.

Please note that these comparisons are only valid for when the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E is used as a “normal” lens and is obviously not an apples-to-apples comparison. The tilting and shifting capabilities of the PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D cannot be simulated by other non-PC-E lenses, including the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G.

Compared to Nikon 24mm f/1.4G

13) Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E vs Nikon 24mm f/1.4G

How does the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E fare against the legendary Nikon 24mm f/1.4G? Let’s take a look at the center frame at f/4.0 (Left: Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E @ f/3.5, Right: Nikon 24mm f/1.4 @ f/3.5):

Wide open, the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E is slightly sharper than the 24mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4. When both lenses are stopped down to f/3.5 (as shown above), the sharpness levels are about the same, which is great news for the PC-E. Let’s see if the situation changes when both are stopped down to f/8:

I cannot see any difference between the two. The Nikon 24mm f/3.5D seems a tad sharper, but that’s because it is slightly closer. I did not move my setup while performing these tests, so the difference in field of view is probably coming from the difference in lens size and front elements. Therefore, I can conclude that the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E matches the center performance of the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G.

Let’s take a look at the corners now with both lenses wide open (Left: Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E @ f/3.5, Right: Nikon 24mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4):

Both look very similar, but the 24mm PC-E seems to be a little sharper away from the extreme corner. What if we stop both lenses down to f/4?

This is where the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G starts to shine – it is much sharper when stopped down to f/4 compared to the PC-E.

By f/8 both lenses are somewhat comparable, but the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G is still sharper, with less chromatic aberrations as well.

In summary, the center performance of the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E is incredibly good, matching the legendary Nikon 24mm f/1.4G in sharpness and contrast. However, it is still no match to the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G in extreme corners at all apertures. As for other lens features, the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G yields a more pleasing bokeh than the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E (smaller aperture of the PC-E adds its share here). Color and contrast are top of the class on both lenses. Vignetting is a little more severe on the 24mm f/1.4G when using large apertures, but very comparable at f/4. Both lenses handle ghosting and flares similarly, although the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E seems to add some purple fringing to the light source, as illustrated on the first page of the review. The Nikon 24mm f/3.5D seems to handle distortion a little better – distortion levels are lower, especially when shooting at close range.

Please note that these comparisons are only valid for when the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E is used as a “normal” lens and is obviously not an apples-to-apples comparison. The tilting and shifting capabilities of the PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D cannot be simulated by other non-PC-E lenses, including the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G.

14) Summary

The PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED can be a very powerful and valuable tool in a photographer’s bag. It has many different uses – the lens can act as a normal 24mm lens for wide-angle photography, can swing left and right or tilt up and down and can be shifted in different directions at the same time (with some limitations, as described on the first page). The shifting capability gives photographers the ability to control converging lines, while tilting and swinging allow changing the lens plane to either bring everything in focus, or to selectively apply focus to certain parts of an image. These unique features make the 24mm f/3.5D PC-E a very specialized lens. They also add to complexity of using such a lens. It took me several weeks to fully understand how to work with PC-E lenses and even after using them for a while, I still had occasional issues with focus and depth of field.

Once I figured out how to use tilt/shift lenses, when and how to deploy them, I started realizing that the benefits of using such lenses far outweigh their complexity. Having used regular lenses for many years now, I have been frustrated by certain limitations when photographing landscapes. For example, if I had objects at a very close distance to my DSLR camera (flowers, stones, etc), I knew that I either had to step back and increase the space between my lens and my subjects, or I had to shoot multiple images at different focus points and then focus stack them in post-processing. And as you may already know, any time more than one photograph is used to create a single image, there is always a potential for error. Changes in weather, wind, lighting conditions and other factors could have an adverse effect on the final image. You could spend many hours trying to get everything aligned and fixed. Like the old view film cameras, PC-E lenses can deliver outstanding results directly on camera, without using any post-processing software. This means saving time and getting better results without having to mess with image editing software.

Out of the three PC-E lenses, I found the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E to be the most useful for my needs, primarily because of the 24mm focal length that is ideal on FX sensors for landscape and architectural photography. As you can see from this review, the lens is sharp across the frame and is very comparable to the legendary Nikon 24mm f/1.4G lens. It does have a couple of problems like excessive chromatic aberration when the lens is shifted all the way up or down, some distortion and vignetting at the largest aperture, but those all can be easily addressed in post-processing software like Lightroom. If Adobe releases camera profiles for this lens, you will be able to fix some of the issues with a single click, using the Lightroom Lens Correction. However, since the tilt/shift information is not stored in EXIF data, Lightroom will not correct issues that occur when the lens is tilted, swung or shifted. You would have to address those manually.

One major annoyance with most tilt/shift lenses, including the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E, is the factory default setting for tilt and shift movements. All Nikkor PC-E lenses are shipped in such configuration, where you can swing the lens left and right, but you cannot simultaneously shift the lens in the same parallel direction. If you tilt the lens, you can only shift to the left and right sides and if you swing the lens, you can only shift it upwards or downwards. To fix this issue, you have to send your lens to a Nikon service center for reconfiguration. Nikon does not sell these in parallel configuration, but if you buy a used unit, it might be already configured for parallel movements. If you are a landscape photographer, definitely get yours adjusted.

Overall, I am very pleased with this lens and I will be adding it to my gear list soon, primarily for my landscape photography needs. If you are an architecture or landscape photographer, I recommend adding the Nikon 24mm f/3.5D PC-E to your gear list as well, especially if photography is your bread and butter.

15) Where to buy and availability

You can order your copy of the PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED lens at B&H. The lens is currently selling for approximately $1,999 at all major retailers.

16) More image samples

All Images Copyright © Nasim Mansurov, All Rights Reserved. Copying or reproduction is not permitted without written permission from the author.

The Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 is a professional-grade fixed wide-angle lens targeted at enthusiasts and professionals that need high quality optics for different types of photography, including landscape, architecture, portrait and astrophotography. Similar to other Zeiss prime lenses, the lens is designed to work on both FX and DX sensor cameras (equivalent of approx 52.5mm on DX) and yields amazing clarity and contrast throughout the frame. The all-metal Zeiss 35mm has a very tough and high quality build and is sealed against dust and tough weather conditions. When compared to the latest generation Nikon AF-S lenses like Nikon 35mm f/1.4G with plastic exterior, it feels much more solid in hands – even the lens hood is made of metal. The focal length of 35mm is a good compromise between ultra-wide angle lenses and standard lenses. Thanks to the 9-blade diaphragm, the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 renders background highlights in round, circular shapes, making it a good candidate for portraiture and street photography.

In this review, I will provide a thorough analysis of the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 lens, along with image samples and comparisons against Nikon 35mm f/1.4G and Nikon 35mm f/2.0D lenses.

1) Lens Specifications

Technical Specifications:

1. Focal length: 35mm
2. Tested Mount: Nikon
3. Aperture range: f/2.0 – f/22 (1/2 steps)
4. Focusing range: 0.3m – infinity
5. Number of elements/groups: 9/7
6. Angular field, diag./horiz./vert.: 62°/53°/37°
7. Coverage at close range: 19 x 13cm
8. Filter thread: 58mm
9. Dimensions (with caps): 64mm x 97mm
10. Weight: 530g
11. Camera mounts: EF Mount (ZE), F Mount (ZF.2)

2) Lens Handling

Modern Zeiss prime lenses are all of a very high quality, all-metal build and the Zeiss f/2.0 is no exception. It feels rather heavy relative to its small size, and is designed to withstand tough weather conditions, including dust and moisture. I used the lens in very dusty and rainy conditions in Utah and it continued to function well without any problems. I carefully inspected the lens after the trip and saw no signs of dust inside, which indicates that the lens indeed has good sealing – and that’s with the extending front lens element. So if you shoot in extreme conditions a lot, you can certainly count on the Zeiss 35mm f/2 – it will surely survive and serve you well for years to come. The lens sports 9 optical elements in 7 groups and weighs a total of 530 grams, making it about 70 grams lighter than the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G. Here is how the lens compares against other 35mm lenses (Zeiss is second from left):

The focus ring is located in the middle of the lens barrel and feels very smooth while focusing. The provided barrel-shaped metal lens hood attaches easily and securely on the lens, which I recommend keeping on the lens at all times. Filter size is limited to 58mm, which is expected given the thinness of the lens barrel.

3) Lens Operation and Manual Focus

The Zeiss 35mm is equipped with electronic transmitters that provide metering capability and full lens information back to the camera, making it easy to use it with all modern Nikon and Canon DSLRs. Simply lock the aperture ring to the minimum aperture that is marked in orange and you can change the lens aperture on your camera without touching the aperture ring on the lens. One of the biggest concerns photographers have with lenses like the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2, is manual focus operation. Many photographers are either scared of manual focus, or just do not want to deal with it when using fast primes, especially when shooting handheld. Although manual focus can be challenging and frustrating for portraiture, especially when your subjects are fast-moving children or pets, focusing with this lens in all other situations is quite easy. The camera viewfinder gives an indication (a circle) if a subject is in focus and will show which way to rotate the focus ring if it needs to be adjusted.

Now let me talk about the real advantage of a manual focus lens. As photographers, we are often so spoiled by autofocus lenses and automated cameras, that we either inherit or develop the “point and shoot” mentality. Manual focus lenses require some extra work and I find myself putting a lot more thought to framing, composition, exposure, etc., instead of taking quick snapshots when using such lenses.

4) Lens sharpness, contrast and color rendition

As I reveal in my sharpness tests in the subsequent pages of this review, the performance of the Zeiss 35mm is outstanding. Center sharpness is top notch, even wide open, while the corners start out a tad weaker, but get much sharper by f/5.6 and beyond. Unfortunately, there is plenty of vignetting at maximum aperture and the distortion is certainly noticeable, but it is all fixable in post-processing. Contrast and colors are superb as can be seen from other image samples posted on this review. You can see many examples of lens sharpness taken in a controlled environment in the next page, along with comparisons against other 35mm lenses.

On the first day of trying out the Zeiss, I mounted it on my Nikon D3s and took a picture of my son Ozzy while he was watching TV. As he was sitting still, I moved the focus point on his right eye, set aperture to f/2.0 then started to move the focus ring until the camera set the image was in focus. I then snapped a picture and looked at the camera LCD:

Ozzy’s eye was indeed in focus and I got very impressed by the colors and the quality of the background this lens produced. Next, I zoomed in to 100% and saw this:

That’s one sharp manual focus lens!

5) Bokeh

The bokeh on the Zeiss 35mm looks pleasant for a lens of this class and focal length. While depth of field is not as shallow as on the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G, background highlights look circular and soft, with a slightly visible edge. Nothing to worry about though, because this type of behavior is expected from a wide-angle lens, so there are no surprises here. Here is an example of bokeh shot at f/2.0:

6) Vignetting

Similar to other Nikon 35mm lenses I tested, the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 has a heavy amount of vignetting at largest apertures, especially wide open at f/2.0. As you stop down to f/2.8 vignetting starts to disappear and by f/4.0 onwards it is almost completely gone. This type of behavior is expected from large aperture lenses, especially when they are mounted on full frame cameras. Take a look at lens vignetting at different apertures:

And here is how it compares against the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G:

The Zeiss at f/2.0 has more vignetting than the Nikon 35mm at f/1.4. When the Nikon 35mm is stopped down to f/2.0, Zeiss looks considerably worse.

7) Ghosting and Flare

The amount of flares and ghosting will depend on where you position the light source in the frame. Shooting directly at the sun, you will most definitely get some flares and ghosting if the sun is in the middle of the frame, as seen below. As you move the light source towards the corners, the size and length of ghosting/flares can get dramatically bigger, so take this into consideration when shooting outside. If you see a strong amount of ghosting and flares, try moving the light source in your frame to see where the effect is minimal and acceptable. Take a look at this shot of the Mesa Arch at f/13:

While Zeiss shows a minimal amount of ghosting and flares at largest apertures, stopping it down to f/8.0 and beyond can yield some nasty flares. Note the left bottom corner of the frame in the above shot, where you can clearly see a large orange blob that is taking almost half of the frame and changing the color of the rock. This is the worst case scenario – when an extremely bright and small source of light reflects off the internal lens elements. There are also some purple colors right under the star-shaped sun.

The coating on the Zeiss lens works great when the source of light is larger or slightly diffused though. Take a look at the following shot, with the sun behind the clouds:

As you can see, there is only one small ghost in the frame and no signs of nasty flares throughout the frame. Please note that both images were taken without any filters. Using UV and other filters can potentially introduce more flares and ghosting to your images.

8) Distortion

Distortion on the Zeiss is moderate, very comparable to that of the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G. If you use the latest version of Lightroom (3.4), it already comes with a lens profile for this lens and many other Zeiss lenses. Simply check “Enable Profile Corrections” in the Lens Correction sub-module of the Development module in Lightroom and all distortion + vignetting issues will be automatically taken care of. Here is an example of distortion on the Zeiss compared against the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G:

9) Chromatic Aberration

Lateral chromatic aberration is controlled well, but somewhat noticeable in high-contrast situations. Longitudinal chromatic aberration (which is the effect of color fringing in front of and behind the focused area) is very visible when shooting at large apertures:

See how the color on the front of the chart (where the number 6 is) is purple, while on the back of the chart it is green? That’s the effect of longitudinal chromatic aberration. While lateral chromatic aberration can be easily fixed in both Photoshop and Lightroom, this type of longitudinal CA is extremely tough to deal with in post-processing software due to different colors. But don’t worry – most wide-angle lenses including the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G have a similar problem, so once again, no surprises here.

Let’s now move on to the good stuff – Sharpness tests. Select the next page below.

10) Sharpness Test

Some technical junk:

1. White Balance: Auto, changed to “Custom”: 3100 Temp, +10 Tint in Lightroom
2. ISO: 200
3. EXIF information is preserved in the images
4. Lens was mounted on Nikon D3s Camera and Gitzo tripod
5. Focusing was performed manually through Live-View
6. Mirror Lock-Up mode with Exposure Delay set to “On” and remote cable release to completely eliminate camera shake
7. Long exposure NR: Off
8. Image Format: RAW
9. Lightroom settings: Default settings
10. Lightroom export: sRGB JPEG Quality 80
11. Testing was performed at f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8.0 and f/11.0 apertures
12. Nothing was moved during testing

11) Sharpness Test – Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 Center Frame

The Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 is a very sharp lens, even wide open. If it was not for vignetting, it would be tough to notice differences between different apertures:

Diffraction starts kicking in beyond f/8.0 and the image sharpness suffers as a result at the smallest apertures.

12) Sharpness Test – Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 Corner Frame

The corner performance of the lens is not as good as the center and starts out a little weak at f/2.0. Unfortunately, stopping down to f/2.8 and f/4.0 does not help as much either. The situation drastically improves at f/5.6 and the corner sharpness reaches its peak performance between f/5.6 and f/8.0, as shown below:

The darker images are the result of vignetting – I did not adjust the exposure on any of the above images.

These image crops are meaningless without a comparison against other lenses. Let’s move on to lens comparisons.

Compared to Nikon 35mm f/2.0 D

Let’s see how the Zeiss 35mm f/2 compares against the old classic Nikon 35mm f/2D. If you are impatient and want to see my conclusion, skip over to the bottom of the page.

13) Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 vs Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D Center Frame

Let’s take a look at how both lenses perform wide open (Left: Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 @ f/2.0, Right: Nikon 35mm f/2D @ f/2.0):

Right away you can see the sharpness difference between the Zeiss and the old Nikon optics – Zeiss is much sharper wide open. Let’s see what happens when both lenses are stopped down to f/2.8 (Left: Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 @ f/2.8, Right: Nikon 35mm f/2D @ f/2.8):

Nikon 35mm f/2D gets significantly sharper at f/2.8, but the Zeiss is still sharper. The performance of both lenses is about the same at f/4.0 and beyond. Here is how the lenses compare at f/8.0:

I cannot see any difference between the two at f/8.0.

14) Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 vs Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D Corner Frame

What about the corners? Let’s take a look at how both lenses perform wide open (Left: Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 @ f/2.0, Right: Nikon 35mm f/2D @ f/2.0):

The Nikon has much less contrast in the corners and is less sharp. Let’s see what happens at f/2.8:

Again, not much difference, although the Nikon has a tad more contrast. Let’s now see how both perform at f/8.0:

The Zeiss is clearly much sharper at f/8.0, while the Nikon 35mm f/2D only improves marginally. The situation for the Nikon 35mm f/2D does not get any better when stopped further down.

15) Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 vs Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D Conclusion

It should come at no surprise that the Zeiss is a much better lens than the Nikkor 35mm f/2D. As you can see from the above crops, the Zeiss is sharper in the center at large apertures, while the corner performance of the Nikon 35mm lags behind even when stopped down to f/8. While for normal photography this is not a big deal, landscape photographers should take the weak performance of the Nikon into consideration. Obviously there is a big difference in price, size and weight, so you have to decide what is more important for you. The wide open performance of the Nikon 35mm f/2D is rather weak both in the center and in the corners, so I cannot recommend it for portraiture. The Zeiss, on the other hand, is a superb lens for portraiture (as long as your subject does not constantly move), as it has impressive wide open performance in the center. Landscape and architectural photographers should stop down the Zeiss to f/8 for optimum sharpness in the corners. As for vignetting and distortion levels, both lenses have about the same amount of both. The Zeiss also handles chromatic aberrations better than the Nikon. Bokeh on the Zeiss looks better as well, due to the 9 blade diaphragm versus 7 on the Nikon.

Let’s move on to a comparison with the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G.

Compared to Nikon 35mm f/1.4G

If you are evaluating the Zeiss 35mm f/2 lens, you will most likely want to evaluate the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G lens as well, despite the big difference in price. Let’s see which one of the two is sharper in the center and corners, wide open and when stopped down.

16) Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 vs Nikon 35mm f/1.4G Center Frame

It is always nice to compare wide open performance between lenses. Here are both lenses at their largest apertures (Left: Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 @ f/2.0, Right: Nikon 35mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4):

Wide open, the Zeiss f/2.0 is slightly sharper than the Nikon f/1.4G. Let’s see what happens when both lenses are at f/2.0:

The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G gets sharper by f/2.0 and the performance of both is now about the same, with a slightly better performance by Nikon. Here are the results at f/2.8 and f/4.0:

Sharpness-wise, both lenses look good, with a slightly better performance by the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G. The Zeiss 35mm f/2 has some purple fringing in the center, as can be seen from the above crops. Let’s see how the lenses compare when stopped down:

By f/5.6, the purple fringing on the Zeiss starts to disappear. However, the Nikon 35mm is still a little sharper and clearer.

Stopped down to f/8.0, both lenses are very sharp. The contrast on the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G still seems to be a tad better though.

17) Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 vs Nikon 35mm f/1.4G Corner Frame

What about the corners? Let’s see how both lenses perform in the extreme corners wide open (Left: Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 @ f/2.0, Right: Nikon 35mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4):

Both look equally good wide open in the corners – I cannot see any difference. Now let’s see what happens with the Nikon 35mm stopped down to f/2.0:

The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G does not improve much by f/2.0 and both lenses still perform about the same at f/2.0. Now f/2.8 and f/4.0:

We can see a dramatic improvement at f/2.8 by Nikon, while the Zeiss clearly lags behind. Zeiss also has a pronounced effect of vignetting at f/2.8, which is quite noticeable.

At f/4.0, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is almost as sharp as in the center. Even the smallest details are clearly visible. The Zeiss 35mm f/2 on the other hand, is still weaker at f/4.0 and the effect of vignetting is still there. Let’s see what happens when both lenses are stopped down further more:

Stopped down to f/5.6, the Zeiss gets sharper, but still not as good as the Nikon.

At f/8.0, both lenses perform about the same, except the Zeiss 35mm f/2 has a little CA, which makes the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G look sharper.

18) Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 vs Nikon 35mm f/1.4G Vignetting

As can be seen below, the Zeiss f/2.0 has much more vignetting wide open, at least by half a stop:

25) Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 vs Nikon 35mm f/1.4G Distortion

When it comes to distortion, both lenses have about the same amount of distortion that can be easily fixed in Photoshop/Lightroom:

19) Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 vs Nikon 35mm f/1.4G Conclusion

Before I ran the lab tests, I had a feeling that both lenses would be very similar in performance, based on my impressions from using them for a month. As it turns out, both lenses are very similar in performance at largest apertures, but the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G certainly does perform better than the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 ZF2.0 when stopped down to f/2.8 and above. Distortion is about the same, but vignetting on the Zeiss is also worse, as can be seen from the examples above. Handling of chromatic aberrations, ghosting and flare is also better on the Nikon. All in all, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is a better lens in many ways and besides the tougher build of the Zeiss, my lab tests are showing that the Nikon is superior. However, lab tests and real life experience shooting lenses on the field can be different. And it certainly felt different for me – I certainly enjoyed the Zeiss, in some cases more than the Nikon. I don’t know what it was that made me like it so much. Perhaps it was the different colors that it renders, or the better feel of the lens on the camera, or the fact that I had to manually focus on every shot, think and compose before taking landscape pictures. And then I thought about the wedding that Lola and I shot. I remembered that I dismounted the Zeiss after a few shots when shooting indoors, because I just did not have the time to manually focus every time I shot and recomposed, or my subjects moved. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G autofocused very well in dim light and I quickly realized the benefits of autofocus in those kinds of situations. On top of that, the large aperture of f/1.4 on the Nikon also gave me more possibilities to isolate subjects and having a shallower depth of field was certainly beneficial, especially with a busy background. That’s when I realized that these two lenses are good for different purposes. If you photograph people, you definitely want to use the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G. For stationary subjects like landscapes and architecture, the Zeiss is definitely a good choice, especially given that it is $600 cheaper. Vignetting, distortion and chromatic aberrations are easy to fix in post-processing nowadays and the slightly inferior corner performance of the Zeiss is not worth the $600 difference in my opinion. Again, both lenses are very good, certainly in the top tier of lenses for the Nikon mount (I have not had a chance to test the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 yet, because it is currently unavailable). Pick either one based on your needs and you won’t go wrong.

20) Summary

As I have pointed out several times in the review, I really enjoyed working with the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 lens. It is a very sharp and beautiful lens to work with and it very closely rivals the excellent Nikon 35mm f/1.4G that has recently been announced by Nikon. I now understand why some photographers go so crazy about the Zeiss glass. After coming back from a trip to Utah, I discovered that I used the Zeiss more than any other 35mm lens I had with me, including the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G. I just did not want to take it off my camera! Besides a couple of small things (like vignetting wide open and 58mm filter thread), there is really not much to complain about – colors, contrast and sharpness are all superb. To my knowledge, it performs well on all Nikon and Canon DSLR bodies, although I would probably go for cheaper alternatives when using a crop-sensor camera. In addition, the lens will have an equivalent field of view of a 53mm lens on DX due to the 1.5x crop factor, so you might not find it wide enough for your photography. If you are a landscape or an architectural photographer, the Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 is an excellent choice with great value. With its all-metal body, the lens is built to last a lifetime and handles extremely well on the field. If you are into people photography and mainly work with models in controlled environments, the Zeiss 35mm is also a great portrait lens that can beautifully isolate your subjects from the background. However, if you photograph children, weddings and other similar events, the manual focus part might limit your ability to work quickly, especially if you have never worked with a manual focus lens before. For those situations, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G might be a better fit. On the other hand, you should not be scared to use manual focus lenses. In fact, if you have never done it before, try a manual focus lens or switch your autofocus lens to manual focus and give it a shot – you might find yourself taking better pictures and paying more attention to focus, composition and framing.

Overall, I am very pleased with the performance of the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 lens. Going forward, I am planning to review more Zeiss lenses and add them to my arsenal of lenses for landscape photography.

21) Where to buy and availability

B&H is currently selling the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 lens for $1,117 and has it in stock (as of 04/11/2012).

22) More Image Samples

All Images Copyright © Nasim Mansurov, All Rights Reserved. Copying or reproduction is not permitted without written permission from the author.

The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is a professional-grade lens for enthusiasts and professionals that need the highest quality optics of a fixed wide-angle lens with a large aperture of f/1.4 for low-light situations and shallow depth of field to isolate subjects from the background, making it an ideal candidate for many types of photography, including portrait, wedding, landscape and astrophotography. The lens incorporates the latest optical technology destined for both FX and DX sensors (equivalent of approx 52.5mm on DX), yielding amazing clarity and contrast in most challenging lighting conditions. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G follows the release of the excellent Nikon 24mm f/1.4G lens, having similar lens characteristics. Although the lens exterior and construction seem to be almost identical, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G has a simpler optical design when compared to the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G (more on this below). The focal length of 35mm is a good compromise between ultra-wide angle lenses and standard lenses – it is not too wide or too long. As for the lens interior and optics, Nikon integrated the latest technology into this lens, including AF-S silent-wave focus motor and Rear Focus (to eliminate front barrel rotation and lens length changes) and enhanced the optical formula of the lens by incorporating Nano crystal coating and Super Integrated Coating (SIC) to reduce ghosting and flares. The lens is of high quality build, similar to other AF-S Nikon primes and is sealed against dust and tough weather conditions. Thanks to the 9-blade diaphragm, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G renders background highlights in a round, circular shape and the maximum aperture of f/1.4 makes this lens a great portrait lens for both images and video, especially in low-light conditions.

In this review, I will provide a thorough analysis of the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G lens, along with image samples and comparisons against Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm F/2.0 ZF.2 and other Nikon lenses like Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS, Nikon 35mm f/2.0D and Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G.

1) Lens Specifications

Main Features:

1. FX-format, ultra-fast classic wide-angle lens.
2. Optimized for edge to edge sharpness on both FX and DX-format D-SLRs.
3. Rear Focus (RF) provides smooth and fast autofocus while eliminating front barrel rotation and lens length changes.
4. Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM) enables fast, accurate and quiet autofocus.
5. Rounded 9-blade diaphragm renders a more natural appearance to out-of-focus image elements.
6. Nano crystal coat further reduces ghosting and interior flare across a wide range of wavelengths for even greater image clarity.
7. Aspherical lens element virtually eliminates coma and other types of aberration, even when shooting at the widest available aperture.
8. M/A focus mode switch enables quick changes between manual and autofocus operation.
9. Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) enhances light transmission efficiency and offers superior color consistency and reduced flare.

Technical Specifications:

1. Mount Type: Nikon F-Bayonet
2. Focal Length: 35mm
3. Maximum Aperture: f/1.4
4. Minimum Aperture: f/16
5. Format: FX/35mm
6. Maximum Angle of View (DX-format): 44°
7. Maximum Angle of View (FX-format): 63°
8. Maximum Reproduction Ratio: 0.2x
9. Lens Elements: 10
10. Lens Groups: 7
11. Compatible Format(s): FX, DX, FX in DX Crop Mode, 35mm Film
12. Diaphragm Blades: 9
13. Distance Information: Yes
14. Nano Crystal Coat: Yes
15. Aspherical Elements: 1
16. Autofocus: Yes
17. AF-S (Silent Wave Motor): Yes
18. Minimum Focus Distance: 0.98 ft.
19. Focus Mode: Auto, Manual
20. Rear Focusing: Yes
21. Filter Size: 67mm
22. Accepts Filter Type: Screw-on
23. Dimensions (Approx.): 3.27×3.52 in. (Diameter x Length), 83×89.5mm (Diameter x Length)
24. Weight (Approx.): 21.2 oz. (600g)
25. Supplied Accessories: LF-4 Rear Lens Cap, LC-67mm Snap-on Front Cap, HB-59 Bayonet Lens Hood, CL-1118 Semi-Soft Case

2) Lens Handling

Just like other Nikon professional prime lenses, the new Nikon 35mm f/1.4 lens has a very high quality build. The outer barrel is made of plastic, but feels just like the expensive Nikon metal lenses, most likely due to the lens weight. It is designed to withstand tough weather and is well-protected on the outside against dust and moisture. I shot the lens in very dusty conditions in Utah with high winds and in one case ended up with plenty of dust and sand all over the lens during a hike through a sandy area of Arches National Park. It continued to function well without any problems. I wiped off the dust/sand with a regular brush and then thoroughly cleaned it with a wet piece of cloth after the hike, after which I used it for two more days without any mechanical or other failures. I also exposed it under light rain for a short period of time and it performed flawlessly throughout the photo shoot. So if you shoot in extreme conditions a lot, you can certainly count on the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 – it will surely survive. The only thing you have to be a little careful about, is changing the lens in very dusty/windy conditions. Since the lens is equipped with the Rear Focus feature, the front of the lens never moves or extends (which is good, especially for using filters), but then the rear element moves in and out during focusing. If you really need to change the lens in such conditions, I would get used to rotating the focus ring to infinity and then changing the lens. See the short review video below for more information.

The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G has a total of 10 optical elements with 1 aspherical element and weighs a total of 600 grams, which is almost what the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G weighs. In fact, side by side, both lenses look almost identical, as seen in the below photo:

The lens is much bigger and heavier compared to other Nikon 35mm lenses such as Nikon 35mm f/2D and Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS, making it the biggest and heaviest 35mm prime produced by Nikon to date. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4 feels very solid in hands and the focus ring is conveniently located in the front of the barrel, making it easy to manually focus with a thumb and index fingers while shooting images or video. The lens comes with the “HB-59″ lens hood, which is a little bulkier than the “HB-51″ that comes with the 24mm f/1.4G. It snaps on the front of the lens and sits tight without wobbling like some other Nikon lens hoods.

Here is the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G compared to other 35mm lenses, including the Zeiss Distagon 35mm ZF.2 (from left to right – Nikon 35mm f/1.4G, Zeiss 35mm f/2, Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS, Nikon 35mm f/2D):

As you can see, it is the biggest of the bunch – the Nikon 35mm f/2D is tiny in comparison.

My biggest complaint about the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is its non-standard 67mm filter thread. I don’t know why Nikon decided to push for 67mm instead of 77mm, but looking at the lens construction, I do not think that it was technically impossible to have a larger filter thread on this lens. The barrel size seems to be about the same as on the 24mm f/1.4G (which does have a 77mm filter thread), so all they had to do was increase the front of the lens to support 77mm filters. Since this is an expensive, pro-level lens, it should come with a standard 77mm filter thread.

3) Autofocus Performance and Accuracy

When it comes to autofocus performance, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G behaves very similarly to the 24mm f/1.4G and other recently announced Nikon primes. The lens snaps into focus fairly well even in low-light situations, but the speed clearly lags behind the AF-D counterparts (see the AF performance comparison in the video). If you compare AF performance to the Nikon 14-24mm or Nikon 24-70mm lenses, you will see the difference right away – the latter autofocus faster. When the lens focuses, it virtually produces no noise, due to the Silent Wave Motor (SWM) technology in the lens. You will only hear a short lens snap when it gets to infinity and minimum distance marks.

As for AF accuracy, I tested the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G with Lens Align Pro to make sure that it does not front focus or back focus on both D700 and D3s I was using during the tests. So far I have been pretty lucky when it comes to autofocus accuracy with lenses, but the 35mm had a very minor front focus issue, as can be seen from the below crop:

Once I dialed +2 in AF Fine Tune, the focus issue was taken care of and I had no problems with focusing on both camera bodies:

I tested the lens in both daylight and low-light situations and autofocus was quite accurate, even at maximum aperture of f/1.4. Focus tracking works very well, with the lens getting accurate focus almost every time in AF-C (continuous) mode. Here is a shot taken in low light, at 1/40th of a second @ f/2.8 ISO 1600 on Nikon D3s:

Click here to see the full JPEG version of the shot (80% Quality @ 3.6 MB).

As with any other lens, be careful when shooting at very large apertures in low light situations. If you cannot consistently get accurate focus, make sure that the lens sample you have does not have a front/back focus problem as shown above.

4) Lens sharpness, contrast and color rendition

As I reveal in my sharpness tests in the subsequent pages of this review, the performance of the 35mm is outstanding. Center sharpness is top notch, even wide open, while the corners start out a little weaker at f/1.4, but get much sharper by f/2.0 and beyond. Unfortunately, there is plenty of vignetting at maximum aperture and distortion can get a little weird when shooting close subjects (see Distortion), which is a nuisance, but more or less fixable in post-processing. Contrast and colors are superb as can be seen from other image samples posted on this review. You can see many examples of lens sharpness taken in a controlled environment in the next page, along with comparisons against other lenses.

Click here to download the full-size version of the file (5 MB).

5) Bokeh

When it comes to bokeh, the Nikon 35mm yields a pleasant bokeh, somewhat similar to the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G. Wide open, bokeh is not as pleasing with some harsher highlights, but stopping down to f/2.0 improves bokeh significantly. At f/2.8 and beyond, the background highlights look very nice and smooth. This behavior is expected from a wide-angle lens, so there are no surprises here. Here is an example of bokeh shot at f/2.0:

And here is another shot at f/2.8:

6) Vignetting

As for vignetting, the lens does show a rather heavy amount of vignetting wide open @ f/1.4 and the corners get considerably dark toward the edges. As you stop down to f/2.0, vignetting decreases significantly, but still remains visible. At f/2.8 vignetting starts to disappear and by f/4.0 onwards it is almost completely gone. Take a look at lens vignetting at different apertures:

This type of behavior is expected from large aperture lenses, especially when they are mounted on full frame cameras. Other Nikon 35mm lenses and the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2.0 also show heavy amounts of vignetting at maximum aperture.

7) Ghosting and Flare

When compared to previous generation Nikon 35mm lenses, ghosting and flare are controlled well, thanks to the Nano Crystal Coat. The amount of flares and ghosting will depend on where you position the light source in the frame. Shooting directly at the sun, you will most definitely get some flares and ghosting if the sun is in the middle of the frame, as seen below. As you move the light source towards the corners, the size and length of ghosting/flares can get dramatically bigger, so take this into consideration when shooting in the field. If you see a strong amount of ghosting and flares, try moving the light source in your frame to see where the effect is minimal and acceptable. Take a look at this shot of the Mesa Arch at f/8.0:

Unfortunately, I could not move around much to change the position of the light source due to the number of photographers that were there, standing pretty much shoulder to shoulder. I do, however, like how the lens renders the sun in a star shape when you shoot at smaller apertures.

When compared against the Zeiss Distagon 35mm ZF.2, Nikon handles ghosting and flares better, in my opinion. Take a look at a similar image shot with the Zeiss:

While Zeiss shows a minimal amount of ghosting and flares at largest apertures, stopping it down to f/8.0 and beyond can yield some nasty flares. Note the left bottom corner of the frame, where you can clearly see a large orange blob that is taking almost half of the frame and changing the color of the rock. There are also some purple colors right under the star-shaped sun.

Please note that both images were taken without any filters. Using UV and other filters can potentially introduce more flares and ghosting to your images.

8) Distortion

I noticed that the amount of distortion on the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is a little higher than on the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G, which is a little disappointing. I was expecting less distortion on a longer focal length lens, but unfortunately, it is not the case. There is a slight amount of barrel distortion that is clearly visible when photographing straight objects. Take a look at this image shot at a distance of 2 meters:

If you use Lightroom, dialing +7 in distortion under “Lens Corrections” will take care of the distortion problem. Hopefully Adobe will soon release a profile for the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G, so that both distortion and vignetting issues could be eliminated with a single click using Lightroom 3 Lens Correction, but meanwhile, you will have to manually fix the issues in Lightroom/Photoshop.

It is worth noting that in a couple of cases, specifically when shooting at close distances less than 10-15 meters, distortion did not seem to be symmetrical across the frame. While the effect was only barely noticeable, if you are into architectural photography, I recommend investigating this potential issue further more before you decide to keep the lens for professional work. This is not an issue for all other types of photography.

9) Chromatic Aberration

Lateral chromatic aberration is controlled well, but somewhat noticeable in high-contrast situations. There is a very noticeable longitudinal chromatic aberration (which is the effect of color fringing in front of and behind the focused area) present, especially when shooting at large apertures. Once again take a look at the Lens Align Pro crop:

See how the color on the front of the chart (where the number 6 is) is purple, while on the back of the chart it is green? That’s the effect of longitudinal chromatic aberration. While lateral chromatic aberration can be easily fixed in both Photoshop and Lightroom, this type of longitudinal CA is extremely tough to deal with in post-processing software due to different colors. But don’t worry – most wide-angle lenses have a similar problem, so once again, no surprises here.

Let’s now move on to the good stuff – Sharpness tests. Select the next page below.

10) Sharpness Test

Some technical junk:

1. White Balance: Auto, changed to “Custom”: 3000 Temp, +10 Tint in Lightroom
2. ISO: 200
3. EXIF information is preserved in the images
4. Lens was mounted on Nikon D3s Camera and Gitzo tripod
5. Focusing was performed through Live-View Contrast Detect
6. Mirror Lock-Up mode with Exposure Delay set to “On” and remote cable release to completely eliminate camera shake
7. Long exposure NR: Off
8. Image Format: RAW
9. Lightroom settings: Default settings, but exposure had to be slightly adjusted (-.20 to +.033) to make sure that all images have the same brightness level
10. Lightroom export: sRGB JPEG Quality 80
11. Testing was performed at f/1.4, f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6 and f/8.0 apertures
12. Nothing was moved during testing

11) Sharpness Test – Nikon 35mm f/1.4G Center Frame

As can be seen below, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is a tad softer at the maximum aperture of f/1.4, but gets much sharper at f/2.0 in the center. By f/2.8, the center sharpness stays the same all the way to f/11.0, which is excellent:

The first image looks darker and of different color due to heavy vignetting at f/1.4.

12) Sharpness Test – Nikon 35mm f/1.4G Corner Frame

The corner performance of the lens is extremely good. Wide open to f/2.8 the image is just a little softer, but at f/4.0 and beyond the corner performance is very close to center performance as can be seen below:

To make the comparison more usable, I had to adjust the exposure of the first shot by a good stop (due to vignetting) and even after that it appears darker than the other images.

These image crops are meaningless without a comparison against other lenses. Let’s move on to lens comparisons.

Compared to Nikon 35mm f/2.0 D

Let’s see how the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G compares against the old classic Nikon 35mm f/2D. If you are impatient and want to see my conclusion, skip over to the bottom of the page.

13) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D Center Frame

Let’s take a look at how both lenses perform wide open (Left: Nikon 35mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4, Right: Nikon 35mm f/2D @ f/2.0):

No need to compare both lenses at f/2.0 – as expected, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is sharper at f/1.4 than the Nikon 35mm f/2.0 D at f/2.0.

Let’s see what happens when both lenses are stopped down to f/2.8 (Left: Nikon 35mm f/1.4G @ f/2.8, Right: Nikon 35mm f/2D @ f/2.8):

Once again, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G clearly outperforms its AF-D counterpart at large apertures. What about stopping both down all the way to f/8.0? Let’s take a look (Left: Nikon 35mm f/1.4G @ f/8.0, Right: Nikon 35mm f/2D @ f/8.0):

Both look equally sharp to me.

14) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D Corner Frame

Just like in the center frame, the corner sharpness difference is very apparent at all apertures, especially wide open (Left: Nikon 35mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4, Right: Nikon 35mm f/2D @ f/2.0):

The situation does not improve for the AF-D at f/2.8 – it is still considerably softer than the AF-S:

Sadly for the AF-D, it never really gets very sharp in the corners, even when stopped down to f/8.0 and beyond:

15) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D Vignetting

When it comes to vignetting, both lenses show about the same amount of vignetting wide open:

Once the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is stopped down to f/2.0, it clearly takes the lead and shows significantly less amount of vignetting when both lenses are at f/2.0.

16) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D Distortion

Distortion on both lenses is about the same, with slightly more distortion on the 35mm AF-S:

The difference is negligible – both will look the same if you dial +7 for AF-S and +6 for AF-D in Lightroom.

17) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D Conclusion

As you can see from the above comparisons, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is clearly a much sharper lens than the Nikon 35mm f/2D. Wide open at f/1.4, it beats the 35mm D at f/2.0 in the center, while dominating the corners at all apertures, even when stopped down to f/8.0. Without a doubt, the 35mm AF-S is a much sharper lens than the AF-D version. When it comes to vignetting, both lenses show about the same amount of corner darkening, but the 35mm f/1.4G clearly takes the lead if compared at f/2.0. Distortion levels are about the same, with the 35mm f/1.4G having slightly more barrel distortion. As for chromatic aberration and flare/ghosting issues, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is again the winner, due to a better optical technology and Nano Crystal Coat. The same thing is with the background blur (bokeh) – as expected, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G takes the lead here too. The Nikon 35mm f/2D has a 7 blade diaphragm, which results in heptagon-shaped bokeh, while the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G has a 9 blade diaphragm, which yields more circular background highlights. On top of that, the overall bokeh on the AF-D looks rather busy and harsh in comparison. As for autofocus speed, as you have seen in the video, the Nikon 35mm f/2D focuses faster. If you are a portrait/wedding/astro photographer, you will certainly like the AF-S version much more, especially when using it at maximum aperture. For landscape photography when stopped down to f/8.0, the difference between the two lenses is not that big, with the exception of corners. If you need the best sharpness all around, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is the obvious choice. If slightly worse corners are acceptable, then the 35mm f/2D is a great value.

The major difference between the two lenses is obviously the price – the Nikon 35mm f/2D is almost five times cheaper than the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G. Considering the price/performance ratio, which lens is a better buy? I guess it depends. For everyday/family photography, I would recommend the Nikon 35mm f/2D for full-frame DSLRs and Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX for cropped-sensor DSLRs. If severe corner vignetting is not an issue, then the 35mm f/1.8G DX even works great on FX cameras (in “FX Mode”). If you are a pro and you shoot portraits, weddings or landscapes the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is going to give you the best results on both FX and DX cameras. Although it lags behind the AF-D model in terms of AF speed, the AF accuracy in low light situations on the new 35mm f/1.4G is better.

Let’s move on to a comparison with the classic Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS.

Compared to Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS

The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G replaces the classic Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS, which has been the only Nikon 35mm prime with a fast aperture of f/1.4 for many years. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS is a manual focus lens with an aperture ring, which can be painful to use on the field. Once you get used to changing aperture on the camera and using autofocus, doing everything manually can certainly feel awkward. Plus, none of the lens information such as lens type, focal length and aperture get communicated back to the camera, unless you set up the lens in “Non-CPU lens data” section of the camera setup menu (available only on advanced DSLRs). If you shoot with multiple AIS lenses, you will need to set each one up if you want to see accurate exposure information in Lightroom/Camera RAW. But all of this does not really matter if the lens performs well, so my objective was to run a thorough analysis of the 35mm AIS and comparison against the new 35mm f/1.4G.

When you look at all the crop comparisons, you will notice that colors from lenses are different. This is normal, since optics are obviously different and lenses have different types of coatings, which effect color. Although I could have adjusted the colors and white balance in Lightroom to compensate for the difference, I specifically did not touch any settings and left the same values for all images. Let’s start from sharpness tests.

18) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS Center Frame

Fast aperture lenses tend to be softer at maximum aperture and the older lenses are no exception – most of them actually have a significantly softer performance at large apertures. Let’s see how the new 35mm f/1.4G compares against the old 35mm AIS at f/1.4 (Left: Nikon 35mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4, Right: Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS @ f/1.4):

At maximum aperture, the old Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS looks horrible in comparison. While sharpness seems to be somewhat comparable, the AIS is very low in contrast, looking cloudy with a tint of blue in the center. I would certainly not want to use this lens at f/1.4. Let’s see what happens when the lens is stopped down to f/2.0:

The situation certainly does improve for the 35mm f/1.4 AIS when it is stopped down, but you can still see some blue fringing in the center. Sharpness-wise, the performance of both lenses is comparable. Here is what happens at f/2.8 and f/4.0:

The color fringing on the AIS starts to disappear, but the sharpness difference is now very noticeable – the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is much sharper when stopped down to f/4.0. The same is true for f/5.6 and f/8.0:

At smaller apertures, you would expect both lenses to be similar in sharpness, but as you can see from the above crops, it is not the case. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is clearly sharper than the AIS counterpart, even at f/8.0.

19) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS Corner Frame

Let’s see how the Nikkor f/1.4 AIS compares in the corners wide open:

Corners on the 35mm AIS look as bad as the center – see the bottom left corner, where you can notice the “shadow” effect from the lens and the obvious difference in sharpness. Sadly for the AIS, the situation does not really improve all the way to f/4.0:

And even then, you can see the difference in sharpness and color fringing. What about f/8.0:

Stopped down to f/8.0, the corners are still softer on the AIS and the blue/purple fringes are still there.

20) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS Vignetting

Vignetting on the 35mm f/1.4 AIS is a worse wide open than on the 35mm f/1.4G as can be seen below:

Vignetting on the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G only affects the corners, while on the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS it affects a larger area and darkens the corners even more by about half a stop.

21) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS Distortion

Distortion on both lenses is comparable, but the AIS has a more pronounced distortion. If you use Lightroom, using +7 for the 35mm f/1.4G and +9 for the 35mm f/1.4 AIS under “Lens Corrections” will take care of the distortion problem.

22) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS Conclusion

The difference between the two lenses is clear – the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS cannot stand against the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G, even when stopped all the way down to f/8.0. The 35mm AIS is optically inferior to the 35mm AF-S and as you can see from the examples above, its performance at large apertures is poor across the frame. In addition, the AIS suffers from contrast issues at maximum aperture, while the 35mm f/1.4G is not only good in contrast, but also has better colors. As I have pointed out in other lens reviews, Nikon’s Nano Coat certainly affects the colors produced by lenses. Distortion and vignetting are both better on the new Nikon 35mm f/1.4G, but not by a huge margin. Lastly, the extra setup and inability to change aperture on the camera, make it difficult to use the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS on modern camera bodies. All in all, the new Nikon 35mm f/1.4G outshines the old 35mm in every aspect. Old optics just cannot compete with the new optics and modern technology.

Compared to Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2

While most of what I feel about the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 is provided in a separate review, there are a few things I want to point out in this review, especially when compared against the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G. The Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 ZF.2 was the first Zeiss lens I used on a Nikon DSLR body. I always wanted to try one, but the fact that all Zeiss lenses for Nikon are manual focus was a show stopper. I just did not want to deal with manual focus on fast prime lenses, especially when photographing people. At the same time, I heard a lot of good things about Zeiss for landscape photography. Since 35mm is a good focal length for all kinds of photography, I decided to give Zeiss a try and see how I liked it. My first surprise was when I unboxed the Zeiss – it felt so different construction-wise. The all-metal body of the Zeiss makes it one heavy and tough lens – the plastic exterior of the Nikon 35mm feels cheap in comparison. Without much delay, I mounted the Zeiss on my Nikon D3s and took a picture of my son Ozzy while he was watching TV. As he was sitting still, I moved the focus point on his right eye, set aperture to f/2.0 then started to move the focus ring until the camera set the image was in focus. I then snapped a picture and looked at the camera LCD:

Ozzy’s eye was indeed in focus and I got very impressed by the colors and the quality of the background this lens produced. Next, I zoomed in to 100% and saw this:

That’s one sharp manual focus lens! Right there, I knew my journey with the Zeiss 35mm was going to be a pleasant one. After coming back from a trip to Utah, I discovered that I used the Zeiss more than any other 35mm lens I had with me, including the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G. I just did not want to take it off my camera!

Anyway, let’s see how the Zeiss compared against the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G in my lab tests.

23) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 Center Frame

It is always nice to compare wide open performance between lenses. Here are both lenses at their largest apertures (Left: Nikon 35mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4, Right: Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 @ f/2.0):

Wide open, the Zeiss f/2.0 is slightly sharper than the Nikon f/1.4G. Let’s see what happens when both lenses are at f/2.0:

The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G gets sharper by f/2.0 and the performance of both is now about the same, with a slightly better performance by Nikon. Here are the results at f/2.8 and f/4.0:

Sharpness-wise, both lenses look good, with a slightly better performance by the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G. The Zeiss 35mm f/2 has some purple fringing in the center, as can be seen from the above crops. Let’s see how the lenses compare when stopped down:

By f/5.6, the purple fringing on the Zeiss starts to disappear. However, the Nikon 35mm is still a little sharper and clearer.

Stopped down to f/8.0, both lenses are very sharp. The contrast on the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G still seems to be a tad better though.

24) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 Corner Frame

What about the corners? Let’s see how both lenses perform in the extreme corners wide open (Left: Nikon 35mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4, Right: Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 @ f/2.0):

Both look equally good wide open in the corners – I cannot see any difference. Now let’s see what happens with the Nikon 35mm stopped down to f/2.0:

The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G does not improve much by f/2.0 and both lenses still perform about the same at f/2.0. Now f/2.8 and f/4.0:

We can see a dramatic improvement at f/2.8 by Nikon, while the Zeiss clearly lags behind. Zeiss also has a pronounced effect of vignetting at f/2.8, which is quite noticeable.

At f/4.0, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is almost as sharp as in the center. Even the smallest details are clearly visible. The Zeiss 35mm f/2 on the other hand, is still weaker at f/4.0 and the effect of vignetting is still there. Let’s see what happens when both lenses are stopped down further more:

Stopped down to f/5.6, the Zeiss gets sharper, but still not as good as the Nikon.

At f/8.0, both lenses perform about the same, except the Zeiss 35mm f/2 has a little CA, which makes the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G look sharper.

25) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 Vignetting

As can be seen below, the Zeiss f/2.0 has much more vignetting wide open, at least by half a stop:

25) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 Distortion

When it comes to distortion, both lenses have about the same amount of distortion that can be easily fixed in Photoshop/Lightroom:

26) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 Conclusion

Before I ran the lab tests, I had a feeling that both lenses would be very similar in performance, based on my impressions from using them for a month. As it turns out, both lenses are very similar in performance at largest apertures, but the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G certainly does perform better than the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 ZF2.0 when stopped down to f/2.8 and above. Distortion is about the same, but vignetting on the Zeiss is also worse, as can be seen from the examples above. Handling of chromatic aberrations, ghosting and flare is also better on the Nikon, as I have demonstrated here and on the first page of the review. All in all, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is a better lens in many ways and besides the tougher build of the Zeiss, my lab tests are showing that the Nikon is superior. However, lab tests and real life experience shooting lenses on the field can be different. And it certainly felt different for me – I certainly enjoyed the Zeiss, in some cases more than the Nikon. I don’t know what it was that made me like it so much. Perhaps it was the different colors that it renders, or the better feel of the lens on the camera, or the fact that I had to manually focus on every shot, think and compose before taking landscape pictures. And then I thought about the wedding that Lola and I shot. I remembered that I dismounted the Zeiss after a few shots when shooting indoors, because I just did not have the time to manually focus every time I shot and recomposed, or my subjects moved. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G autofocused very well in dim light and I quickly realized the benefits of autofocus in those kinds of situations. On top of that, the large aperture of f/1.4 on the Nikon also gave me more possibilities to isolate subjects and having a shallower depth of field was certainly beneficial, especially with a busy background. That’s when I realized that these two lenses are good for different purposes. If you photograph people, you definitely want to use the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G. For stationary subjects like landscapes and architecture, the Zeiss is definitely a good choice, especially given that it is $600 cheaper. Vignetting, distortion and chromatic aberrations are easy to fix in post-processing nowadays and the slightly inferior corner performance of the Zeiss is not worth the $600 difference in my opinion. Again, both lenses are very good, certainly in the top tier of lenses for the Nikon mount (I have not had a chance to test the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 yet, because it is currently unavailable). Pick either one based on your needs and you won’t go wrong.

Compared to Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G

I always try to include the Nikon trinity – Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G, Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II in my tests, because they are good “reference” lenses for optical performance. In this case though, it is definitely an unfair battle, because we are comparing a zoom lens with a prime lens and prime lenses typically perform better than zoom lenses. Another thing to keep in mind, is that there is a two stop difference between the 24-70mm and the 35mm lenses.

27) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G @ 35mm Center Frame

Let’s see how these lenses perform wide open at 35mm (Left: Nikon 35mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4, Right: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G @ f/2.8):

The Nikon 24-70mm is an extremely sharp lens in the center frame at its largest aperture of f/2.8. As you can see, it beats the Nikon 35mm @ f/1.4 in the center. Let’s see what happens when both lenses are at f/2.8:

Now both look about the same in sharpness. As for all other apertures, above f/2.8 – there is nothing to say here, since I cannot see any differences at smaller apertures.

Both lenses are very sharp in the center and look the same from f/2.8 onwards. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G has a two stop advantage here, since it is a faster lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.4.

28) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G @ 35mm Corner Frame

Now let’s take a look at what happens in the corners. Here are two crops from both lenses wide open (Left: Nikon 35mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4, Right: Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G @ f/2.8):

When it comes to corner performance, my Nikon 24-70mm is very weak wide open at 35mm, as can be seen above. I don’t know if other 24-70mm samples have a similar problem, but 35mm corner performance is the weakest spot for mine – it just looks as bad as above. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G looks better at f/1.4 than the 24-70mm @ f/2.8. Let’s see what happens when both lenses are stopped down to f/4.0:

Again, the edge performance on the Nikon 35mm is much better, especially when the lens is stopped down.

By f/5.6, the Nikon 24-70mm gets much sharper and yet nowhere close to the 35mm f/1.4G performance.

And finally at f/8.0, the Nikon 24-70mm is even sharper, but still not as good as the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G. Clearly, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is a much better performer when it comes to corners. Note the yellow color fringing on the Nikon 24-70mm at all apertures.

30) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G Vignetting

Vignetting levels on the Nikon 24-70mm are pretty high at the shortest focal length of 24mm, but get much lower and better by 35mm, as seen below:

31) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G Distortion

As for distortion, the Nikon 24-70mm has a slight amount of pincushion distortion at 35mm, while the 35mm f/1.4G suffers from barrel distortion, as seen below:

32) Nikon 35mm f/1.4G vs Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G Conclusion

In terms of sharpness, both lenses yield approximately the same performance in the center frame at f/2.8. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G obviously has an advantage here, because its maximum aperture is f/1.4 versus 24-70mm’s f/2.8. As for corner performance though, my Nikon 24-70mm sample just cannot stand against the 35mm f/1.4G at the same focal length. It is very weak wide open and while it certainly does get much better by f/8.0, it still cannot reach 35mm f/1.4G’s sharpness levels. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4G has a cleaner image at all apertures with a minimal amount of chromatic aberrations. As for vignetting, the Nikon 24-70mm is better wide open (f/2.8) @ 35mm than the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G at f/1.4. Distortion figures are also different – the 24-70mm has a slight pincushion distortion, while the 35mm f/1.4G suffers from a much more pronounced barrel distortion. Again, both vignetting and distortion problems on these lenses can be easily fixed in post-processing. Besides differences in maximum aperture, lens construction and focal lengths (zoom vs prime), the biggest difference between the two lenses in my opinion is the AF performance. While autofocus accuracy is about the same on both lenses, the autofocus speed of the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is slower compared to the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G. As I have pointed out before, the AF speed of the 35mm f/1.4G is very similar to Nikon 24mm f/1.4G and Nikon 50mm f/1.4G lenses, which is fairly slow. The Nikon 24-70mm focuses instantly in comparison. In addition, the Nikon 35mm has a smaller 67mm filter thread, while the 24-70mm comes with a standard 77mm filter thread. As for colors and other lens characteristics, both lenses yield very similar results.

Similar to the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 ZF2.0, I believe these lenses serve different purposes. For landscape and architecture photography, the 77mm filter thread, zoom flexibility and stopped down performance of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G makes it a great choice. For portraits, weddings and other people photography, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is going to give the best results with its better subject isolation capabilities. bokeh and superb sharpness across the frame.

33) Summary

I was very excited when Nikon announced the 35mm f/1.4G, because the 35mm line desperately needed an update and considering how good the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G and Nikon 85mm f/1.4G are, I knew that this lens would not disappoint. While the 35mm focal length is not very popular among photographers, due to 35mm being not wide enough for tight shots and not long enough for portraiture, I actually really enjoyed working with this gem. I found the 35mm focal length to be a nice compromise on full-frame cameras, especially when shooting weddings. Lola and I shot a wedding with the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G and I was certainly impressed that some of the best images from the wedding were shot with it. Images came out beautiful and colorful, just like how our client wanted them. The lens does not feel too wide like the 24mm or too long like the 50mm or 85mm lenses – “just right” is probably a good way to define it. Optically, there is really not much to complain about – it is extremely sharp corner to corner and as you have seen from the previous pages, it surpasses most Nikon lenses at 35mm sharpness-wise, especially when stopped down to f/2.8. We used it heavily both indoors and outdoors and it did not disappoint – autofocus was dead on even in dim environments and I had very few images that were not in focus. While the autofocus speed is not as quick as on some of the Nikon zoom lenses like Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, I found the AF performance and accuracy to be very similar to that of the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G. I do wish that it had less distortion and vignetting at its maximum aperture of f/1.4, but then I also realize that those are easy to fix in post-processing. Once a lens profile is built by Adobe into Lightroom and Camera Raw, fixing lens issues will be very easy with a single click in Lightroom’s “Lens Corrections” sub-module.

As I have pointed out before, my biggest complaint is the 67mm filter thread. Nikon 24mm f/1.4G and Nikon 85mm f/1.4G lenses both have standard 77mm filter threads and the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G feels a little left out because of this. On the other hand, step-up rings are pretty cheap and I would just buy one and never remove from the lens. As for the cost of the lens, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G is obviously not a cheap lens at $1,799 MSRP. But then don’t forget that it is considered to be an exotic prime lens designed specifically for full-frame cameras. It decreases the gap between the 24mm and 85mm primes and it creates another lens trinity, this time with primes: Nikon 24mm f/1.4G, Nikon 35mm f/1.4G and Nikon 85mm f/1.4G. Now Nikon needs to add an exotic 50mm f/1.2G and the line will be complete :)

Lastly, I want to talk about using the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G on a DX body. Honestly speaking, I do not see much value on using an exotic lens like this on a cropped sensor camera. Why? First, it is the cost of the lens. The cost/performance ratio of the 35mm f/1.4G is just too low for DX. I would much rather get the excellent Nikon 35mm f/1.8G instead, which is a much more compact and lightweight lens that performs exceptionally well on DX cameras (it also works at full resolution on FX, but will yield extremely high levels of vignetting) and only costs a fraction of the 35mm f/1.4G. Second, it is the size of the lens; it is not only big, but also quite heavy for a 35mm prime. Third, why would you buy a lens with great edge performance characteristics, when you are not even going to see them on a DX camera? The only case where it makes sense to buy this lens for DX, is if you are planning to upgrade to FX very soon. And lastly, don’t forget about the 1.5x crop factor – the lens will have an equivalent field of view as a 53mm lens on DX, so you might not find it wide enough for your photography.

34) Where to buy and availability

B&H is currently selling the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G lens for $1,799.95 and has it in stock (as of 04/26/2011).

35) More image samples

Click here to download the full-size version of the file.

Click here to download the full-size version of the file.

Click here to download the full-size version of the file.

All Images Copyright © Nasim Mansurov, All Rights Reserved. Copying or reproduction is not permitted without written permission from the author.

The constant maximum aperture, mid-range Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR zoom lens is a major update to the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G VR that was released back in 2003. The older, variable-aperture 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 had some optical problems that did not make it a popular lens among photographers, so Nikon decided to address those problems by releasing this highly-anticipated Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0 lens. Why highly-anticipated? Because the 24-120mm focal range is very useful for photographers who use full-frame cameras like Nikon D700/D3s/D3x and who find the 24-70mm f/2.8 either too short on the long focal end, or too heavy for everyday use. In addition, having VR on a mid-range lens like the 24-120mm is crucial for low-light photography, even on the wide end.

Did Nikon address all problems the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G had in this new f/4 update? How does it compare to the legendary Nikon 24-70mm and the new 28-300mm lenses? Is it really on par with the 28-300mm when it comes to performance, making it a worse buy than the 28-300mm like some of the reviewers stated? In this review, I will do my best to provide a detailed analysis of the lens’ performance, including sharpness tests and comparisons against other mid-range lenses and answer the above questions.

The Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR is a constant maximum aperture lens with a 5x zoom range that is designed for professional and advanced amateur photographers that need a mid-range lens with image stabilization to be used for many types of photography, including street, nature, travel and wedding photography. Unlike variable-aperture lenses that typically have an aperture of f/5.6 when zoomed all the way in, the Nikon 24-120mm stays at f/4.0 throughout the focal range, giving a one-stop advantage to the 24-120mm f/4 over variable-aperture lenses on the long end. For example, the older Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G lens has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 beyond 85mm and the new 28-300mm is at f/5.6 beyond 105mm.

In addition, the lens comes packed with plenty of new optical features from Nikon, including the latest generation of VR II (vibration reduction) technology, which offers camera shake compensation equivalent to a shutter speed increase of approximately four stops. Thanks to the AF-S silent-wave focus motor, the lens focuses quietly and accurately in various lighting conditions, and the 77mm filter thread makes it easy to use specialized filters (polarizing, neutral density, etc) without having to mess with adapter rings. The complex optical formula of 17 elements in 13 groups with two ED, three aspherical elements and Nano Crystal Coat all contribute to great performance throughout the zoom range.

1) Lens Specifications

Main Features:

1. Compact and versatile 5X standard zoom lens with f/4 maximum aperture is perfect for landscapes, portraits, weddings and distant subjects offering a constant maximum aperture to maintain exposure settings throughout the entire zoom range and VR II Image Stabilization.
2. Nikon VR II (Vibration Reduction), engineered specifically for each VR NIKKOR lens, enables handheld shooting at up to 4 shutter speeds slower than would otherwise be possible, assuring dramatically sharper still images and video capture.
3. 2 Extra-low Dispersion (ED) elements offers superior sharpness and color correction by effectively minimizing chromatic aberration, even at the widest aperture setting.
4. M/A Focus Mode Switch enables quick changes between manual and autofocus operation.
5. Exclusive Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM) enables fast, accurate and quiet autofocus.
6. Rounded 9-blade diaphragm renders more natural appearance of out-of-focus image areas.
7. Nano Crystal Coat further reduces ghosting and interior flare across a wide range of wavelengths for even greater image clarity.
8. 3 Aspherical Lens Elements virtually eliminate coma and other types of aberration, even when shooting at the widest available aperture.
9. Internal Focus (IF) provides fast and quiet autofocus without changing the length of the lens, retaining working distance throughout the focus range.
10. Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) enhances light transmission efficiency and offers superior color consistency and reduced flare.

Technical Specifications:

1. Mount Type: Nikon F-Bayonet
2. Focal Length Range: 24-120mm
3. Zoom Ratio: 5.0x
4. Maximum Aperture: f/4
5. Minimum Aperture: f/22
6. Format: FX/35mm
7. Maximum Angle of View (DX-format): 61°
8. Minimum Angle of View (DX-format): 13°20′
9. Maximum Angle of View (FX-format): 84°
10. Minimum Angle of View (FX-format): 20°30′
11. Maximum Reproduction Ratio: 0.24x
12. Lens Elements: 17
13. Lens Groups: 13
14. Compatible Format(s): FX, DX, FX in DX Crop Mode, 35mm Film
15. VR (Vibration Reduction) Image Stabilization: Yes
16. Diaphragm Blades: 9
17. Distance Information: Yes
18. Nano Crystal Coat: Yes
19. ED Glass Elements: 2
20. Super Integrated Coating: Yes
21. Autofocus: Yes
22. AF-S (Silent Wave Motor): Yes
23. Internal Focusing: Yes
24. Minimum Focus Distance: 1.5ft. (0.45m)
25. Focus Mode: Auto, Manual
26. Filter Size: 77mm
27. Accepts Filter Type: Screw-on
28. Dimensions (Approx.): 3.3×4.1 in. (Diameter x Length), 84x103mm (Diameter x Length)
29. Weight (Approx.): 23.6 oz. (670g)
30. Supplied Accessories: HB-53 Bayonet Lens Hood, LC-77 Snap-on Front Lens Cap, LF-1 Rear Lens Cap, CL-1218 Soft Lens Case

2) Lens construction and handling

When compared to the older 24-120mm, the barrel of the 24-120mm f/4 is thicker, I would say about the same size as the barrel of the Nikon 28-300mm lens. Zoomed out to 24mm, it is certainly more compact than the 24-70mm or the 28-300mm lenses height-wise and also weighs much less than both. Here is how the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 compares against Nikon 24-70mm (left) and Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5-6G (right):

Nikon 24-70mm vs Nikon 24-120mm f/4 vs Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6

When extended to 120mm, the lens gets bigger and almost reaches the height of the fully extended 24-70mm (obviously not quite as tall as the Nikon 28-300mm):

Nikon 24-70mm vs Nikon 24-120mm f4 vs Nikon 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 Extended

The lens is built very similarly to the Nikon 28-300mm, with a plastic exterior and focus ring. The zoom ring is also made of plastic and is covered with rubber for resistance. Most of the recently-announced lenses by Nikon have a plastic exterior, which does not necessarily mean that the lenses are not solid – the interior of the Nikon 24-120mm contains plenty of metal (which obviously contributes to the weight) and the lens mount is also made of solid metal. When you zoom in, the first extension tube by the zoom ring is metal, while the second one that connects the front of the lens is plastic. The front part of the 24-120mm does not wobble when the lens is is fully extended either. In many ways, the construction of the lens is very similar to that of 28-300 – a very high quality build. The lens should be able to withstand cold and hot temperatures, but I would not leave it under rain, extreme moisture and dusty environments.

Weight-wise, it is not a heavy lens when compared to the Nikon 28-300mm or 24-70mm lenses. Weighing about 670 grams, it is 230 grams lighter than the latter, which is a big difference. The lens feels very solid in hands and the zoom action is smooth and easy to rotate from 24 to 120mm and vice versa – it takes a half turn to go from 24 to 120mm. The focus ring is made of plastic and is located on the back of the lens, which I find backwards. I am used to the zoom ring being close to the lens and the focus ring to be near the lens barrel. But if you have shot with other DX lenses before, you should have no problem with getting used to it.

The Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR lens comes with a relatively compact “HB-53″ bayonet lens hood that is specifically designed for the lens, which is about the same size as the “HB-25″ hood that comes with the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G VR. The lens is shipped with the newly-designed LF-4 rear lens cap, which I personally like better than the old LF-1. For some reason, only the new Nikon 55-300mm and the Nikon 24-120mm are shipped with this cap – Nikon 28-300mm and Nikon 85mm f/1.4G are both shipped with the old LF-1 rear cap. When changing lenses, try to do it with the lens fully zoomed out to 24mm. The rear lens element moves deeply into the lens when extended to 120mm and you could end up with a lot of dust/debris inside the lens if you are shooting in windy and dusty conditions. This is nothing to be scared of – even some of the professional fixed-width zoom lenses such as Nikon 16-35mm do this.

3) Focus acquisition speed and accuracy

Similar to other modern lenses, the autofocus motor of the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR is quiet and accurate even under challenging lighting conditions, thanks to the AF-S Silent Wave Motor. Autofocus speed is quick, certainly much quicker than on the 28-300mm lens. If you took 24-70mm, 24-120mm and 28-300mm lenses and tested AF speed on all three at the same time, the 24-70mm would be first (blazing fast), with the 24-120mm second (fast) and the 28-300mm last (slow). If you measure the AF speed and compare against the 24-70mm, the 24-120mm is about 2x slower, while the 28-300mm is about 3x slower than the 24-70mm. Focus tracking works very well, with the lens getting accurate focus almost every time in continuous mode. Unlike the turtle-speed AF on the Nikon 28-300mm, the lens reacquires focus instantly, I would say on par with the new Nikon 85mm f/1.4G. I took many shots of my fast-moving kids with this lens and I had no problems getting accurate focus.

4) Lens sharpness, contrast and color rendition

As I reveal in my sharpness tests in the subsequent pages of this review, the performance of the 24-120mm is outstanding. Center sharpness is top notch, even wide open, while the corners start out a little weaker at f/4.0, but get much sharper by f/5.6 and f/8.0, with the best results between f/8.0 and f/11.0. Unfortunately, there is plenty of vignetting and distortion at all focal lengths, which is a nuisance, but certainly fixable in post-processing. Contrast and colors are superb and the lens does not suffer from any major chromatic aberration issues. You can see many lens sharpness examples in the next page with comparisons against other lenses.

Click here to download the full-size version of the file (7.1 MB).

5) Vibration Reduction – VR II

I am a big fan of Vibration Reduction (VR) lenses – I wish every lens had VR in it, because it is one of the most useful lens features for low-light photography. VR certainly does work very well on zoom lenses and the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR comes with the latest version of Vibration Reduction called “VR II”, which is supposed to deliver sharp images up to four stops the shutter speed. What this means, is that you might be able to get sharp images at 1/8th of a second when shooting at 120mm (general rule of thumb is to keep your shutter speed at your focal length and 4 stops from 1/120th is 1/8th) – VR II certainly does work as advertised.

If you have used the Nikon 24-70mm in the past for hand-held, low-light work and try the 24-120mm, you will suddenly realize how useful VR would be on the 24-70mm. When Nikon released the 16-35mm lens (which was the first image-stabilized short-focal zoom lens in the world) so many photographers at first stated that VR for such short focal lengths would be useless. Those who tried out the 16-35mm quickly discovered that VR actually works great even for short focal lenses.

Here is a shot that I captured hand-held at 1/6th of a second zoomed out to 24mm with VR turned on:

Click here to download the full-size version of the file (4.8 MB).

6) Bokeh

When it comes to bokeh, the Nikon 24-120mm yields a somewhat busy bokeh, similar to how other zoom lenses render the background. Obviously, it is not a portrait lens and the lens’ maximum aperture of f/4.0 is very limiting in terms of subject isolation, but overall, the results are very comparable to those of the 28-300mm. Here is a quick comparison with the Nikon 24-70mm shot outdoors in daylight (50mm @ f/4.0 on both):

Looks about the same, doesn’t it? However, when shooting bright light sources in the background, the situation is a little different:

The Nikon 24-120mm here looks busier or “dirtier” than the 24-70mm.

Here is another example with some bokeh:

Click here to download the full-size version of the file (3.2 MB).

7) Vignetting

Another bad similarity to the Nikon 28-300mm is also in heavy vignetting that is visible throughout the zoom range. Here are some vignetting tests shot at 24mm, 35mm, 70mm and 120mm:

Vignetting seems to be worst at 24mm when shot wide open, but as you can see, it is quite evident at all focal lengths. At 35mm, it gets a little better, but the problem returns at longer focal lengths. Another thing you have to be careful with, is using filters when shooting at 24mm, just like on the Nikon 24-70mm. Take a look at what happens when I used a polarizing filter on the 24-120mm:

As you can see, the corners are even darker with a polarizing filter attached, so just be a little careful when shooting at the shortest focal lengths with thick filters attached (using a regular clear filter did not seem to make a difference). Please note that the Nikon 24-70mm also has a similar problem when using thick filters – if you want to shoot at the widest focal length with a polarizing filter, my advice is to use slim versions of polarizing filters. This problem is gone once you zoom in a little. At the 28mm focal length, I could not see much additional vignetting when using a thick filter.

8) Ghosting, Flare and Distortion

Ghosting and flare are controlled very well, thanks to the Nano Crystal Coat. I shot images with the sun in the center and different corners of the frame and could not get any images with nasty flare/ghosting. Take a look at this example with the sun on the right top:

Besides seeing two small ghosts on the top right and bottom left corners of the frame, I do not see anything else. No color changes due to flare either! Obviously, Nano Crystal Coat does not completely eliminate ghosting and flare, so you just have to be careful how you position the sun in your frame. Using filters might also potentially introduce more flare and ghosting.

As you can see form the last image above, barrel distortion is very noticeable at the widest focal lengths. Once you zoom in, like most other lenses, barrel distortion changes over to pincushion. Take a look at the following example at 58mm, where strong pincushion distortion is visible on the top:

These kinds of distortion issues are present across the focal range with the strongest effect at 24mm (barrel) and beyond 35mm+ (pincushion) and weakest at 28mm. Distortion is something that is easy to fix in post-processing. As of Lightroom 3.4 version, the Nikon 24-120mm lens profile is included in Lightroom Lens Correction sub-module, which means that you can quickly fix the above issues with a single click of a button.

9) Chromatic Aberration

Chromatic Aberration (CA) is controlled quite well, with a little bit of purple fringing present in the corners. Here is an extreme example with some purple CA in the corner frame:

Nikon 24-120mm Chromatic Aberration Example

Gladly, chromatic aberration can be quickly fixed in Lightroom or Photoshop.

10) Focus Breathing

This lens does NOT suffer from the focus breathing problem the Nikon 28-300mm has, which means that you get the “true” 120mm focal length on the long end. What this also means, is that if you were to shoot a very close subject with this lens at 120mm and with the 28-300mm at 300mm, you would only get a very marginally enlarged image with the 28-300mm…talking about usefulness of the long focal length of the 28-300mm! Obviously this is not true for subjects shot at infinity, so the comparison depends on how close you get to your subjects.

Click here to download the full-size version of the file (3.3 MB).

Let’s now move on to the good stuff – Sharpness tests. Select the next page below.

11) Sharpness Test on FX Sensor

Some technical junk:

1. White Balance: Auto, changed to “Custom”: 3100 Temp, +9 Tint in Lightroom
2. ISO: 200
3. EXIF information is preserved in the images
4. Lens was mounted on Nikon D3s Camera and Gitzo tripod
5. Focusing was performed through Live-View Contrast Detect. After each successful focus acquisition, focus was switched to manual to prevent camera refocusing
6. Mirror Lock-Up mode with Exposure Delay set to “On” and remote cable release to completely eliminate camera shake
7. VR on the Nikon 24-120mm was set to “Off” position
8. Long exposure NR: Off
9. Image Format: RAW
10. Lightroom settings: Default settings, but exposure had to be slightly adjusted (-.20 to +.033) to make sure that all images have the same brightness level
11. Lightroom export: sRGB JPEG Quality 80
12. Testing was performed at f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8.0 and f/11.0 apertures
13. Nothing was moved during testing

12) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24-120mm @ 24mm Center Frame

The center sharpness is outstanding at all apertures – I cannot see any difference between any of the below (top-left: f/4.0, top-right: f/5.6, bottom-left: f/8.0, bottom-right: f/11.0):

13) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24-120mm @ 24mm Corner Frame

Corners start off a little soft wide open, but get marginally better by f/5.6:

Beyond f/5.6, the corner sharpness is about the same, with a very slight improvement at f/8.0:

14) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24-120mm @ 35mm Center Frame

At 35mm, the sharpness again stays the same at all apertures:

Superb performance all the way!

15) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24-120mm @ 35mm Corner Frame

At 35mm, the corner performance gets slightly better, still a little softer at f/4.0, then getting much sharper by f/5.6:

At f/8.0 and beyond, there is no difference in sharpness:

16) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24-120mm @ 70mm Center Frame

Once again, I cannot see any differences between images shot at different apertures @ 70mm:

17) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24-120mm @ 70mm Corner Frame

Besides the obvious issues with visible vignetting and slight softness at f/4.0, the lens performs exceptionally well at all apertures beyond f/5.6:

18) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24-120mm @ 120mm Center Frame

Same story repeats itself once again – sharpness is equally good at all apertures, which means the lens delivers consistently good results at all focal lengths in the center!

19) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24-120mm @ 120mm Corner Frame

Again consistent results:

These image samples are meaningless without a comparison against other lenses. Let’s compare now!

Compared to Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

Let’s see how the Nikon 24-120mm compares against the Nikon 28-300mm. If you are impatient and want to see my conclusion, skip over to the bottom of the page.

20) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 28-300mm @ 28mm Center Frame

Let’s take a look at how both lenses perform at 28mm wide open (Left: Nikon 24-120mm, Right: Nikon 28-300mm):

Wide open in the center, the difference is very clear – the Nikon 24-120mm buries the Nikon 28-300mm. The Nikon 28-300mm clearly has less contrast and the sharpness difference is quite evident. What about stopped down to f/5.6? Let’s take a look:

Ouch, same story there. The situation does improve for the 28-300mm at f/8.0, where both lenses perform about the same:

21) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 28-300mm @ 28mm Corner Frame

Just like in the center frame, the corner sharpness difference is very apparent at all apertures, especially wide open and at f/5.6:

22) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 28-300mm @ 50mm Center Frame

Although the sharpness performance of the Nikon 28-300mm does get slightly better at 50mm, the difference at maximum aperture and f/5.6 is still visible, with the 24-120mm taking the lead:

At f/8.0, both lenses perform equally well:

The difference in corner sharpness @ 50mm is about the same as @ 28mm, with a slightly better sharpness by the 28-300mm this time around.

23) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 28-300mm @ 105mm Center Frame

Now here is an interesting comparison. As I have stated before, the Nikon 28-300mm quickly gets to f/5.6 at around the 135mm mark. At 105mm, the lens is at f/5.3 already. Take a look at the below comparison between the two lenses with a one stop difference (Left: Nikon 24-120mm @ f/4.0, Right: Nikon 28-300mm @ f/5.6):

Both images look about the same, which means that the 24-120mm at longer focal lengths has a one stop advantage over the 28-300mm. At smaller apertures beyond f/8.0, both lenses look almost identical, which is expected:

24) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 28-300mm @ 120mm Corner Frame

Due to the focus breathing issue on the 28-300mm, it was difficult to do proper testing and I had to move my setup back and forth and adjust focal lengths when necessary. Since I was testing so many lenses, I forgot to do a 120mm test on the 28-300mm, so I’m showing the below crops from 200mm on the 28-300mm (Left: Nikon 24-120mm, 120mm @ f/4.0, Right: Nikon 28-300mm, 200mm @ f/5.6):

Once again, the difference is very clear – the Nikon 24-120mm has sharper corners on top of having a one stop light advantage.

25) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 28-300mm Conclusion

As you can see, the difference is quite clear. Not only is the Nikon 28-300mm worse in both center and corner sharpness, but it also about a stop slower at the longer focal lengths. Wide open at f/4.0, the Nikon 24-120mm often beats the Nikon 28-300mm @ f/5.6. The performance at short focal lengths up to 50mm is also much better on the Nikon 24-120mm – take another look at the center performance at 28mm and compare the crops. And this is with a very good copy of the 28-300mm that one of our readers was kind enough to send me for testing!

The above test results are what I was expecting and there is nothing surprising about my findings. In fact, my test results are on par with the MTF results provided by Nikon and I’m sure other people that conduct their tests will reveal very similar results. Take a look at the following MTF charts provided by Nikon:

As my tests have confirmed, both center and corner sharpness on the 24-120mm should be better than on the 28-300mm.

Although the 24-120mm lens build and quality seems to be on the same level as the Nikon 28-300mm, here are eight key differences that make the 24-120mm a better lens:

1. Autofocus Speed – as I have pointed out earlier, the Nikon 24-120mm focuses much faster than the 28-300mm. Not only does it focus faster, but it also recovers from loss of focus much faster, where the 28-300mm simply crawls.
2. Autofocus Accuracy – not only is the Nikon 24-120mm faster, but it is also more accurate. My first sample of the 28-300mm had a hard time focusing at f/5.6 beyond 135mm and the 24-120mm always focuses dead-on, even in challenging light situations.
3. 4mm difference is huge – those 4mm of difference (it is actually a little more than that, because the wider side of the 28-300mm is more like 30mm) are significant, especially for landscape and architectural photography. The Nikon 24-120mm has the maximum angle of view of 84°, while the 28-300mm is 74° – a whopping 10 degree difference.
4. Nikon 24-120mm is coated with Nano Crystal Coat – after shooting for 3-4 weeks with both the 28-300mm and the 24-120mm, I can tell you that there is certainly difference between lenses that have and do not have Nano Crystal Coat. It seems to me that Nano Crystal Coat does not only reduce ghosting and flare – it certainly has an effect on colors too. I found the 24-120mm to be much more pleasing to work with for nature and landscape photography as well.
5. Sample variation – being a consumer lens, the quality of optics on the Nikon 28-300mm vary greatly from sample to sample. I have received many emails from photographers that complained about their 28-300mm sharpness and some of our readers even tried three different samples without much luck. The Nikon 24-120mm is made better than the 28-300mm, because I tested two samples and both of them performed equally well with a very minimal difference in performance. So far, I have received similar feedback from other 24-120mm owners.
6. Constant maximum aperture vs variable aperture – as you have seen from the above tests, the Nikon 24-120mm has about 1 stop advantage over the Nikon 28-300mm at longer focal lengths.
7. Nikon 24-120mm is sharper – as I have demonstrated above.
8. Nikon 24-120mm is a pro-level lens – there is a reason why Nikon put a gold ring around the front of the 24-120mm and did not on the 28-300mm. The Nikon 28-300mm is considered to be a high-quality consumer lens, while the Nikon 24-120mm is considered to be lower-end professional lens (due to its maximum aperture of f/4.0).

Lastly, do you really think Nikon would have announced the 24-120mm together with the 28-300mm if their performance was the same? :)

Let’s move on to a comparison with the legendary Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G.

Compared to Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G

This comparison is very important for those who are looking at both Nikon 24-70mm and Nikon 24-120mm to purchase or want to replace their 24-70mm with a smaller/lighter/more useful lens. Let’s see how the lens compares against the Nikon 24-70mm in terms of sharpness.

26) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 24-70mm @ 24mm Center Frame

Let’s see how both lenses compare wide open (Left: Nikon 24-120mm 24mm @ f/4.0, Right: Nikon 24-70mm 24mm @ f/2.8):

I cannot see any difference between the two images, which basically means that the 24-120mm @ 24mm f/4.0 in the center is as sharp as the Nikon 24-70mm @ 24mm f/2.8. The Nikon 24-70mm is so good in the center, that there is practically no difference in sharpness between f/2.8 and f/8.0. Since the sharpness is equally good on both lenses wide open, the Nikon 24-70mm has a one stop advantage over the Nikon 24-120mm. At f/8.0, both lenses again look the same:

Thus, the center sharpness on the 24-120mm @ 24mm is superb!

27) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 24-70mm @ 24mm Corner Frame

What about the corners? Let’s take a look at how these lenses perform wide open:

Now the corner performance at 24mm is not 24-70mm’s forte – as you can see the Nikon 24-120mm beats the 24-70mm when both are shot wide open. When both lenses are at f/4.0, they perform about the same:

A very impressive performance by the Nikon 24-120mm I must say! Here is what happens at f/8.0:

Both lenses perform about the same at f/8.0 in the corners.

28) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 24-70mm @ 35mm Center Frame

Let’s see how both lenses compare at 35mm focal length when shot wide open:

Once again, the performance is very similar to that of 24mm – both lenses look about the same wide open! The Nikon 24-70mm is superb at f/2.8 and stopping down to f/4.0 yields about the same sharpness. What about f/8.0?

This is getting boring! Once again, the Nikon 24-120mm looks very strong against the Nikon 24-70mm.

29) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 24-70mm @ 35mm Corner Frame

Similar to 24mm, the corners at 35mm wide open are sharper on the 24-120mm:

When both lenses are at f/4.0, the corners look about the same:

When stopped down to f/8.0, both lenses perform about the same sharpness-wise, but the 24-120mm has more visible color fringing:

Since Nikon 24-70mm needs to be stopped down to f/4.0 to match the 24-120mm at f/4.0, I would say there is no performance difference in the corners between the two. Another big plus for the Nikon 24-120mm!

30) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 24-70mm @ 70mm Center Frame

The last test is sharpness comparison at 70mm:

Similar to other focal lengths, both lenses perform about the same, with a very slightly better performance by the 24-70mm. When stopped down to f/8.0, the difference goes away:

31) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 24-70mm @ 70mm Corner Frame

The Nikon 24-70mm gets very sharp in the corners by 70mm. Let’s see how it compares to the 24-120mm wide open:

Besides having different levels of distortion, both look about the same to me in terms of sharpness, which means that the Nikon 24-70mm has a 1 stop advantage in the corners at 70mm.

At f/8.0, once again, the results are equally good.

32) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 24-70mm Conclusion

To be honest, I did not expect the Nikon 24-120mm to stand so well against the Nikon 24-70mm. The slower Nikon 24-120mm demonstrated exceptionally good results in my lab tests and I am very impressed about how well it compares to the 24-70mm both in the center and in the corners. The Nikon 24-70mm obviously has a one stop advantage, but if you add VR to the mix, I believe the Nikon 24-120mm actually has an advantage over the 24-70mm. One stop of light loss versus three to four stops of vibration reduction. Additional 50mm of focal length which I found to be very useful – I do quite often regret not having more than 70mm on my 24-70mm for my landscape work. During my last trip to San Juan mountains, I had to switch over to the heavy 70-200mm to shoot distant mountains at longer focal lengths. I then found out that the focal lengths I used the most were between 70mm and 135mm. If I had the Nikon 24-120mm with me, I could have easily worked with a single lens instead of carrying so much weight. Those 230 grams of difference between the 24-120mm and 24-70mm are huge for long and painful hikes, where every gram counts.

The Nikon 24-70mm obviously focuses much faster, but then the focus speed is not that critical for my photography. If you shoot concerts, the Nikon 24-70mm might serve you better, but for everything else, the AF speed is good enough. The Nikon 24-120mm has more distortion and vignetting than the 24-70mm, but ever since Adobe introduced the lens correction feature in Lightroom, it has been getting easier to address those problems without having to go through one image at a time. The biggest difference between the two lenses, where the Nikon 24-70mm has a big advantage is construction – the Nikon 24-120mm is built well, but if you shoot in challenging conditions or travel a lot, you would be better off with the 24-70mm that will survive pretty much any weather – the Nikon 24-70mm is built like a tank for all kinds of abuse. I don’t think the Nikon 24-120mm will live that long if you don’t take a good care of it.

Looking back at the images I shot outside compared to lab results, the Nikon 24-70mm seems to produce slightly sharper images in the corners when shot at infinity between f/4.0 and f/8.0. This could be a sample variation issue though, since most of the images I shot outside were done with a single lens (I only had the second sample for two days). I will wait for others to provide some feedback on this.

Compared to Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

Many of the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G owners are probably wondering how well the new Nikon 24-120mm compares against it and others might be considering and evaluating both lenses. Let’s take a look at how the lenses compare and see if Nikon was able to address many of the problems the older 24-120mm had.

33) Nikon 24-120mm f/4 vs Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 24mm Center Frame

The Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G suffers from sharpness issues when shooting at f/3.5. Let’s see how well it stands against the Nikon 24-120mm at f/4.0 (Left: Nikon 24-120mm f/4 @ f/4.0, Right Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 @ f/4.0):

Ouch, the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 does not stand a chance against the Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0 in the center. Let’s see if the situation changes by f/8.0:

Even at f/8.0, the older 24-120mm is not as sharp as the new 24-120mm in the center!

34) Nikon 24-120mm f/4 vs Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 24mm Corner Frame

What about the corners? Let’s take a look:

Similar to the center sharpness, the corners on the Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0 are also sharper. And the situation does not change for f/8.0 either:

35) Nikon 24-120mm f/4 vs Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 50mm Center Frame

At 50mm, the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 is at f/4.8, so here is how it compares against the 24-120mm f/4.0 wide open:

Again, the Nikon 24-120mm is much sharper wide open.

Even at f/8.0, the Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0 is still sharper.

36) Nikon 24-120mm f/4 vs Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 50mm Corner Frame

The Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 @ f/4.8 (wide open) gets much better by 50mm in the corners, matching the performance of the 24-120mm f/4.0 @ f/4.0:

37) Nikon 24-120mm f/4 vs Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 120mm Center Frame

Now here is where the new 24-120mm double shines over the old one – at 120mm, the Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0 @ f/4.0 beats the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 @ f/5.6:

And yet again, the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 just never gets sharp enough even stopped down to f/8.0:

The corner results at 120mm are good on both lenses, with slightly better results by the Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0.

38) Nikon 24-120mm f/4 vs Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 Conclusion

As you can clearly see from the above image samples, the new Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0 is much better than its predecessor. Not only does it beat the older 24-120mm at both center and corner frames, but it also provides up to 1 stop advantage at long focal lengths, outperforming it even at f/8.0. In addition, the Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0 focuses faster and more accurately than the older 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 and also renders better colors at all focal lengths. The Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G is kind of “cloudy” compared to the Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0. Size-wise, the older Nikon 24-120mm is not only shorter and thinner, it is also lighter – weighing about 95 grams less than the 24-120mm f/4.0. I personally do not mind the extra 95 grams and larger size for the added performance gain…

If you are trying to decide between the two, it all boils down to cost – the Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0 is currently selling for $1,299, while the older Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 is only $575 at B&H. If money is not an issue, I would certainly get the much better 24-120mm f/4.0.

Compared to Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

I am including this last test against the Nikon 70-20mm f/2.8G just to show you how well the Nikon 24-120mm performs at focal lengths above 70mm. Obviously, it is not a fair comparison, but I believe it could be interesting for those who tend to shoot more on the long end.

39) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 70-200mm @ 70mm Center Frame

Let’s see how both compare wide open (Left: Nikon 24-120mm @ f/4.0, Right: Nikon 70-200mm @ f/2.8):

The Nikon 24-120mm is as sharp as the Nikon 70-200mm at 70mm wide open, which means that similar to the Nikon 24-70mm, the Nikon 70-200mm has a 1 stop advantage over the Nikon 24-120mm. I’m obviously only counting differences in stops for sharpness – changes in apertures also mean shallower depth of field and other optical differences (see conclusion on the bottom of this page).

The center performance at f/8.0 is almost identical on both lenses.

40) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 70-200mm @ 70mm Corner Frame

Matching the field of view on the 70-200mm was a little difficult, since it also has a “lens breathing” problem like the 28-300mm does. Here is what I have with both lenses shot wide open:

I would say both perform about the same in the corners, with a slightly better performance by the Nikon 24-120mm. When stopped down to f/8.0, the Nikon 70-200mm is sharper.

41) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 70-200mm @ 120mm Center Frame

Here is what the situation looks like when both are shot at 120mm wide open:

Can you see any difference? Because I can’t – the Nikon 24-120mm looks as sharp at f/4.0 as the Nikon 70-200mm wide open at f/2.8. The same is true for smaller apertures such as f/8.0.

42) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 70-200mm @ 120mm Corner Frame

Let’s see what happens at longer focal lengths wide open:

While the Nikon 70-200mm seems to be a tad softer at f/2.8, stopping down the lens to f/4.0 makes it much sharper:

43) Nikon 24-120mm vs Nikon 70-200mm Conclusion

As you can see, the Nikon 24-120mm performs incredibly well against the ultra-sharp Nikon 70-200mm telephoto lens at focal lengths between 70mm and 120mm. The center frame is very sharp and the corners are quite comparable. Once again, I only provided this comparison to show you sharpness results. When it comes to practical use, the Nikon 70-200mm can do what the Nikon 24-120mm cannot do well – yield beautiful bokeh at large apertures. The Nikon 70-200mm is designed to be for portraiture/subject isolation, while the Nikon 24-120mm is an everyday lens for many different uses. When it comes to AF speed, the Nikon 70-200mm is obviously faster for both subject tracking and low-light work.

44) Summary

I am very impressed by how well the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR performs. It is a sharp lens that is very comparable to professional lenses such as Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, yielding great results throughout its focal range. During my lab and field tests, my goal was to see how well it performs against the Nikon 24-70mm lens, since many readers have been asking about it (I also wanted to find out for myself, whether I should be looking at potentially replacing my 24-70mm or adding it to my bag for travel and everyday use). After shooting with this lens for about 3 weeks and capturing over 1,800 images, I can say that the lens exceeds my expectations and I found it to be more useful than my favorite Nikon 24-70mm lens not only due to longer focal range, but also due to Vibration Reduction that is extremely useful for low-light situations. I managed to get sharp images hand-held while shooting at extremely slow shutter speeds of 1/2 seconds at 24mm – try that with the Nikon 24-70mm!

Click here to download the full-size version of the file (4.6 MB).

Lola and I shot a wedding with this lens and as you can see from some of the shots I posted here, the images are sharp and colorful. While the lens suffers from heavy vignetting problems, I actually found it to be quite pleasing for wedding photography. For other use, vignetting can certainly be a pain, especially when using thick circular polarizing filters. The extreme corners get too dark with such a filter. Distortion can be problematic, but don’t sweat over it too much – if you are shooting straight lines or a horizon, simply fix it in Lightroom or Photoshop and you are good to go. Sure, it would have been great if the lens did not have distortion and vignetting issues, but we also have to understand that it would have been much more expensive.

When compared to the older 24-120mm, the new 24-120mm is sharper at all focal lengths and apertures, so Nikon will probably discontinue the older variable-aperture version soon. Compared to the Nikon 28-300mm, as I have stated in the comparison page, the Nikon 24-120mm is a much better lens. Not only does it produce sharper images, but it also offers the extra 4mm of wider coverage, which is huge for me, since I use those 4mm a lot. The AF speed is also much faster and AF accuracy is dead-on, while the 28-300mm crawls and does not always focus accurately at long focal lengths.

Click here to download the full-size version of the file (8 MB).

45) Where to buy and availability

B&H is currently selling the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR lens and has it in stock. The Nikon 24-120mm is currently selling for $1,299.95, with free shipping.

46) More image samples

Please note that most of the images in this review are posted as examples of the lens performance only.

Click here to download the full-size version of the file (2.6 MB).

Click here to download the full-size version of the file (3.2 MB).

Click here to download the full-size version of the file (3.3 MB).

Click here to download the full-size version of the file (5.2 MB).

Click here to download the full-size version of the file (4.8 MB).

All Images Copyright © Nasim Mansurov, All Rights Reserved. Copying or reproduction is not permitted without written permission from the author.

1) Lens Overview

The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED lens is a truly versatile lens that can be used for many different kinds of photography needs – from wide-angle landscapes and panoramas, to portraits and events. With its constant aperture of f/2.8 (meaning the aperture does not change while zooming) and state of the art optics, the lens is targeted towards enthusiasts and professionals, who work in various lighting and weather conditions and need exceptional sharpness, color and contrast in their images – something the Nikon 24-70mm was designed to deliver. It replaced the older Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8D lens and its optics were completely redesigned for superior performance and extra coverage on the wide-end. Featuring 15 lens elements in 11 groups, 3 out of which are ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass elements that reduce chromatic aberration and increase sharpness, the lens is a heavyweight monster weighing a whopping 31.7 oz. (900 grams), which is heavier than the Nikon D300 DSLR! In addition to the Silent Wave Motor (SWM/AF-S) that provides fast and quiet auto focus, the Nikon 24-70mm also features the Nano Crystal Coating technology, which reduces ghosting and flare. When it comes to weather sealing, the Nikon 24-70mm is designed to be well-protected against dust, moisture and tough weather conditions (read more under Lens Handling below).

Along with the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G was specifically made for FX (full-frame) DSLR camera bodies like Nikon D700/D3/D3s/D3x, and is a part of the Nikon professional lens “Trinity” – Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G, Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II. Just like any other full-frame lens, the 24-70mm works well on any Nikon DX camera, but due to the 1.5x crop factor (equivalent to 36-105mm), it might feel a little “too long”.

Yosemite National Park - captured with Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G

Click here to download the full size version of the above image.

During the last three years, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G has been my #1 workhorse lens for my photography. Out of 32,500 images that I shot in 2009, over 15,000 (almost half) were taken with the 24-70mm lens. I have a wide array of lenses and no other lens was used as heavily as this one – my Nikon 50mm f/1.4 captured a little over 4,000 images and it is the second most used lens in 2009. The primary reason, is that I traveled a lot in 2009 and the 24-70mm was an essential part of every trip. Besides being my top travel and landscape photography lens, the Nikon 24-70mm has also served me well during various local photo sessions both in studio and outdoors environments. So, as you can see, it has seen a lot of abuse from me and knowing it inside out, I can speak of it with confidence.

In terms of optical performance, the Nikon 24-70mm delivers outstanding performance from center to corner above 28mm, especially between 35mm and 70mm. At its widest focal length of 24mm, the lens suffers from vignetting, corner softness and slightly decreased performance when shot at maximum aperture, but most of these problems are gone by f/5.6 and above (more on sharpness on the second page). You also have to be careful with filters, since this lens does not like stacked filters at 24mm – you will see heavy vignetting if more than one regular filter is used.

2) Lens Specifications

Main Features:

• Fast, wide-angle to medium Telephoto AF-S zoom lens optimized for edge-to-edge sharpness on both the Nikon FX (23.9 x 36mm) and DX format image sensors.
• Two Extra-low Dispersion (ED) elements and PGM aspherical lenses control chromatic aberrations while enhancing sharpness and contrast, even at the widest aperture settings.
• Nikon’s Silent Wave Motor (SWM) enables ultra high-speed auto focusing with exceptional accuracy and powerful, super-quiet operation.
• Focus as close as 14.9 inches.
• M/A focus mode switch enables quick response to changing situations between manual and auto focus operation.
• Enhanced optical formulas engineered to produce exceptional sharpness, contrast and color, rendering outstanding image integrity.
• Exclusive Nano Crystal Coat further reduces ghosting and flare for even greater image clarity.
• Internal Focus (IF) provides fast and quiet auto focusing without changing the length of the lens, retaining subject-working distance through the focus range.
• Rugged construction with professional-grade dust and moisture resistance.

Technical Specifications:

1. Mount Type: Nikon F-Bayonet
2. Focal Length Range: 24-70mm
3. Zoom Ratio: 2.9x
4. Maximum Aperture: 2.8
5. Minimum Aperture: 22
6. Maximum Angle of View (DX-format): 61°
7. Minimum Angle of View (DX-format): 22° 50′
8. Maximum Angle of View (FX-format): 84°
9. Minimum Angle of View (FX-format): 34° 20′
10. Maximum Reproduction Ratio: 0.27x
11. Lens (Elements): 15
12. Lens (Groups): 11
13. Compatible Format(s): FX, DX, FX in DX Crop Mode, 35mm Film
14. Diaphragm Blades: 9
15. Distance Information: Yes
16. Nano Crystal Coat: Yes
17. ED Glass (Elements): 3
18. Aspherical (Elements): 3
19. Super Integrated Coating: Yes
20. Autofocus: Yes
21. AF-S (Silent Wave Motor): Yes
22. Internal Focusing: Yes
23. Minimum Focus Distance: 1.2ft.(0.38m)
24. Focus Mode: Auto, Manual, Manual/Auto
25. Filter Size: 77mm
26. Accepts Filter Type: Screw-on
27. Dimensions (Approx.): 3.3×5.2 in. (Diameter x Length), 83x133mm (Diameter x Length)
28. Weight (Approx.): 31.7 oz. (900g)
29. Lens Case: CL-M3
30. Lens Hood: HB-40
31. Supplied Accessories: LC-77 77m snap-on front lens cap, LF-1 rear lens cap, HB-40 Bayonet Hood, CL-M3 Semi-soft Case

3) Lens handling

Just like the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G lens is made of metal and built like a tank. Unlike the 14-24mm, it can easily take 77mm filters and due to internal focus, the front of the lens does not rotate, which makes it a lens of choice for photographers that frequently use both rectangular filters and filter holder systems. It is also 70 grams lighter than the 14-24mm and longer in size when zoomed out at 24mm, without a hood. When it comes to weather sealing, I have used it in cold conditions way below freezing at -20 °F (-29 °C) and in extremely hot conditions above 110 °F (43 °C), as well as 100% humid and very dry conditions. I used it rain and snow and it never let me down, no matter where I was.

Nikon 24-70mm and Nikon-14-24mm Compared

It feels very solid in hands and the focus ring is conveniently located in the front of the barrel, making it easy to manually focus with a thumb and index fingers while shooting images or video. You don’t need to change any switches on the lens for manual focus – you can override autofocus any time by simply moving the focus ring while the lens is in M/A position. When you move the focus ring and reach the focus limit, the ring continues rotation with a little more resistance, instead of an abrupt stop, just like in Nikon 14-24mm. Zooming in and out is smooth, but a little stiffer when zooming out to 24mm. Overtime, the zoom ring got much smoother and unlike the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, does not suffer from lens creep when pointed up or down vertically. However, if zoomed out to 24mm and put down with the front element on a flat surface without the hood, the weight of the lens will bring the lens down until it gets to around 50mm (that’s when the lens is at its shortest physical length). While storing or transporting the lens, I highly recommend to keep the zoom ring at 50mm to prevent dust from getting into the lens through the front of the lens.

Although the lens is heavy, it balances quite well on heavier pro bodies like Nikon D700/D3s. The same is not true on entry-level cameras like Nikon D5000 – it certainly feels off-balance towards the front of the lens and awkward, due to its size and weight. While it works great on any DX camera, I would not recommend to use it on one, unless you like working in 36-105mm range. Cheaper and lighter alternatives like Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G DX or Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0G VR would be more useful in terms of focal length.

The HB-40 bayonet lens hood is very large and makes the lens looks enormous in size, almost like a telephoto lens. Despite its size, I highly recommend to keep it on the lens at all times, because it does help in dealing with lens flare and it certainly does a great job at protecting the front element. The HB-40 has a lock mechanism and therefore holds tightly and securely on the 24-70mm, unlike other hoods that come off by rotating the hood. While storing or transporting the lens, you can conveniently reverse the hood and it won’t take up any additional space.

4) Focus acquisition speed and accuracy

As I have pointed out above, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G is equipped with Internal Focus (IF), which drives the AF performance to its limits. The lens snaps into focus instantly and silently, thanks to the Silent Wave Motor. It is often difficult to get correct focus in low-light conditions and many lenses start to hunt, but not the 24-70mm – it produces exceptional results at all apertures in challenging lighting conditions.

5) Lens sharpness and contrast

The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED is a wicked sharp lens in the center of the frame throughout the zoom and aperture range (until f/11, after which diffraction starts to negatively affect the image), even wide open. Corner performance is not as great by comparison though, especially at the wide end at 24mm and near maximum aperture of f/2.8. This behavior is the result of field curvature – an optical effect in most ultra-wide angle lenses, where the focus plane is spherically bent rather than staying flat. When large apertures such as f/2.8 are used, the center frame appears sharp (assuming center focus), but everything else looks softer, because it is outside the focus plane. Unfortunately, there is no cure to this problem and the only way to minimize field curvature is to stop down the lens to f/5.6 and higher, where the increased depth of field decreases the effect.

But despite the above corner softness issues, the Nikon 24-70mm has one major advantage – it consistently delivers sharp images both in the center and in the corners between apertures of f/5.6 and f/11 at all focal lengths, something no other mid-range lens can even come close to. That is why it has such a high demand and popularity among landscape and architectural photographers – we rarely shoot at large apertures, and maximum sharpness, resolution and depth of field are what we are primarily after. Speaking of resolution, the Nikon 24-70mm resolves lots of details on FX bodies, especially on D3x’s 24 Mp sensor. In terms of contrast and colors, the Nikon 24-70mm is a top class performer. The images are vivid and beautiful, definitely the signature of pro-level lenses.

6) Bokeh

The bokeh on the Nikon 24-70mm looks surprisingly smooth and good at f/2.8, so you could occasionally use it to isolate subjects at 50-70mm. Why occasionally? Because it is not a strong portrait lens and was never really designed to be one. While the out of focus areas look good wide open, the bokeh circles have a visible outlining in them due to aspherical elements in the lens. If you are looking for a good portrait lens, try the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G instead.

7) Vignetting

Vignetting is moderate and quite visible at 24mm, as seen in many other wide angle lenses. I would say that it is very comparable to the amount of vignetting the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G produces when shooting wide open at shortest focal lengths. Take a look at the following two images:

The image on the left is how it came out of the camera and the image on the right is after correcting vignetting in Lightroom. Vignetting issues can be quickly corrected in Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom, so it is not a big problem. In Lightroom 3.0, there is an option to “Enable Profile Corrections” under “Lens Corrections”, which almost completely removes vignetting and distortion problems on images taken with the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G.

8) Ghosting and Flare

The Nikon 24-70mm is equipped with the Nano Crystal Coat, which certainly helps in reducing flares and ghosting. Shooting against the sun almost always results in some flares and ghosting and the 24-70mm is no exception, so you have to decide whether you want to include the sun in the frame or not. The nice thing about the HB-40 hood, is that it does a great job at blocking the sun when you do not want to include it in the frame, so you will rarely see ghosting in your images. Here is an extreme example of shooting directly at the sun:

9) Distortion

Barrel distortion is rather heavy at 24mm, which then transforms to pincushion distortion at 35mm and then disappears by 70mm. I personally do not worry about distortion problems on my lenses, because they are very easy to fix in Photoshop and Lightroom. In fact, Lightroom 3 already has a lens profile for the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, which is nice, since all you have to do is check “Enable Profile Corrections” under “Lens Corrections” and all distortion will be automatically removed from your images, as I pointed out in my Lightroom 3 Lens Correction article. Take a look at the following image and move your mouse over and out to see the original distorted image versus a fixed image in Lightroom 3:

10) Chromatic Aberrations

Chromatic aberrations are non-existent in the center and well-controlled near the edges. Here is the worst case scenario, 100% crop taken from the left edge of the image:

Again, chromatic aberrations are very easy to fix in post-production and Lightroom 3 can easily take care of it in via Lens Corrections.

Let’s move on to lens comparison and sharpness tests. Select the next page below.

Sharpness Test

Some technical junk:

1. White Balance: Auto
2. ISO: 200
3. EXIF information is preserved in the images
4. Lens was mounted on Nikon D3s FX Camera and Gitzo tripod
5. Focusing was performed through Live-View Contrast Detect. After each successful focus acquisition, focus was switched to manual to prevent camera refocusing
6. Mirror Lock-Up mode with Exposure Delay set to “On” and remote cable release to completely eliminate camera shake
7. Long exposure NR: Off
8. Image Format: RAW & JPEG
9. Lightroom settings: Default settings, but exposure had to be slightly adjusted for some images
10. Lightroom export: sRGB JPEG Quality 80
11. Testing was performed at f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6 and f/8.0 apertures
12. Nothing was moved during testing

11) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24-70mm @ 24mm Center Frame

Either hover your mouse or click on each image to see the aperture settings. Top left: f/2.8, Top right: f/4.0, Bottom left: f/5.6, Bottom right: f/8.0.

As I have said before, the performance in the center is stellar, even wide open at f/2.8. Take a look at the f/2.8 and f/8.0 and see if you can spot a difference – they look identical. The center is equally sharp at all apertures.

12) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24-70mm @ 24mm Corner Frame

What about the corners? The situation in the corners, unfortunately, is not the same as in the center. Take a look at the following 100% crops:

At 24mm @ f/2.8, the corners suffer from heavy vignetting, softness and distortion. By f/4.0, the situation gets much better and we can see immediate improvement in sharpness and much less vignetting. When we get to f/5.6 and beyond, vignetting is almost completely gone and the image is sharper. However, there is a slight amount of color fringing present (see left bottom side of numbers 5 and 6).

13) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24-70mm @ 35mm Center Frame

Let’s now take a look at 35mm in the center:

Just like at 24mm, the 24-70mm shows superb performance in the center at 35mm. Every single image is extremely sharp and I cannot see any difference between f/2.8 and f/8.0 – truly remarkable performance.

What about the corners? For my lens sample, the situation in the corners at 35mm is actually worse than at 24mm. Although there is less vignetting, sharpness-wise, the lens suffers the most between 35 to 40mm.

14) Sharpness Test – Nikon 24-70mm @ 50mm Center Frame

How about 50mm and beyond?

Just like I have stated before, this lens delivers consistently sharp results at all focal lengths and apertures in the center! For the sake of saving bandwidth, I am not going to post crops from the corners at different focal lengths, because they all look very similar, with sharpness getting better above 35-40mm.

Compared to Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0G VR

16) Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G vs Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0G VR

So, how does the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G compare with the newly released Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0G VR? Let’s take a look at 24mm and 35mm – the focal lengths I use the most for landscapes.

The lenses both perform extremely well in the center frame, so there is no point to provide sample images. Let’s see how the lenses compare at 24mm in the corners @ f/4.0 (the image on the left is Nikon 24-70mm and the image on the right is Nikon 16-35mm):

With Nikon 24-70mm stopped down to f/4.0, the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 still outperforms it in the corners. As we get to f/8.0, sharpness on both lenses increases to an optimum level, but the Nikon 24-70mm still loses:

And here are the corners at 35mm @ f/4.0:

At 35mm, the Nikon 16-35mm has a little more distortion, but still performs better in the corners than the Nikon 24-70mm. Let’s take a look at 35mm @ f/8.0:

Sharpness-wise at f/8.0, both lenses perform equally well, with better distortion on the Nikon 24-70mm.

When compared to the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D, both lenses perform similarly at maximum aperture, but the Nikon 24-70mm has more noticeable vignetting than the 17-35mm.

Compared to Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G

17) Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G vs Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G

Here is a comparison between 24-70mm and 14-24mm @ 24mm in the extreme corners (24-70mm on the left and 14-24mm on the right):

The Nikon 24-70mm is much softer in the corners @ f/2.8 and suffers from heavy distortion and vignetting.

Even at f/8.0, the Nikon 24-70mm is softer than the 14-24mm at 24mm, so the 14-24mm wins big time here.

Compared to Nikon 24mm f/1.4G

18) Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G vs Nikon 24mm f/1.4G

This one is a totally unfair comparison, because the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G is currently the sharpest lens in the market, even sharper than the legendary 14-24mm! Let’s see how the lens compares at 24mm:

I warned you that it was an unfair comparison! The Nikon 24mm f/1.4G rips the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G apart at f/2.8.

At f/8.0, the Nikon 24-70mm looks a little better, but nothing like the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G!

19) Summary

Despite having corner softness, vignetting and distortion issues, the Nikon 24-70mm is still one of my favorite landscape photography lenses – mainly because of the following reasons:

1. The mid-range focal length of 24-70mm is extremely useful for landscape photography.
2. The Nikon 24-70mm works great with circular filters and filter systems.
3. When stopped down to f/5.6-f/8.0, the lens produces extremely sharp images and the corner sharpness is also very good. Vignetting and distortion also almost disappear beyond f/5.6.
4. Minimum aperture of f/22 is great for situations where maximum depth of field is needed.
5. Contrast and color are superb.
6. Autofocus is very reliable and dead-on under almost any lighting conditions.
7. Solid build and pro-grade weather sealing against extreme temperatures and weather conditions.

Overall, the Nikon 24-70mm has been serving me well and I am very happy with its performance. I took it with me to dusty Sand Dunes, to Florida during the 90 degree rainy days and 100% humidity, to the peaks of Colorado Rockies where the temperatures went below 20 degrees, and it has survived it all, still delivering outstanding results. I sure wish that corner softness, vignetting and distortion at large apertures were not so evident, but I also understand that it is unrealistic to design zoom lenses that would perform perfectly at all apertures/focal lengths that would not cost an arm and a leg or weigh a ton. One feature that would certainly be nice to have on this lens though, is Vibration Reduction (VR). If you try out the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR, you will quickly understand that VR definitely helps to get sharper images at very slow shutter speeds, even on ultra-wide angle lenses. It would be nice to be able to shoot images or video on the Nikon 24-70mm hand-held at low ISO levels – that’s another reason why I prefer the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR over the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G for my photography lately.

20) Where to buy and availability

You can order your copy of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED lens at B&H – they frequently have it in stock.

21) More image samples

Click here to download the full version of the file in JPEG format (2.9 MB).

Click here to download the full version of the file in JPEG format (3.9 MB).

Click here to download the full version of the file in JPEG format (1.8 MB).

All Images Copyright © Nasim Mansurov, All Rights Reserved. Copying or reproduction is not permitted without written permission from the author.