My readers know that among my favorite things in the world, not just in my photography, are lenses. I like old and new, heavy and light, complex and simple, and on and on. There are almost no lenses that don’t intrigue me.
One class of lenses I find the most satisfying to work with are prime lenses, so named because they have only one (“prime”) focal length, as opposed to zoom lenses, which let you “zoom” through a range of focal lengths. There are a lot of zoom lenses in this world, since their design has matured dramatically in the last 25 years.
I like prime lenses for several reasons. They tend to have larger maximum apertures, they tend to be lighter, and they tend to have great optics.
Flash forward to today, and an interesting collision of prime lenses. First, I brought my AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 to my Ada Sunrise Rotary meeting today, where our guest speaker was beekeeper Trudy Mills.
And second, PetaPixel posted a review of Nikon’s newest prime lens, their Nikkor 35mm f/1.2S.
Okay, since both these lenses are 35mm, they should be mostly the same, right? Well, yes, and no. They are both the 35mm focal length, which is a very popular focal length. In the years before zoom lenses began dominating the profession, news and sports photographers like me had this lens, often using it as our second-camera, everything-else lens at everything from the basketball court to the courthouse. It provides a slightly wide angle of view, and shows almost no foreshortening.
But my 35mm and the new 35mm from Nikon are two very different animals. My 35mm f/1.8 is very light and small, very easy to carry, and is remarkably affordable. I think I paid less than $200 for mine.
The new 35mm f/1.2, is none of that. It is huge, heavy, and – at about $2800 – is quite surprisingly expensive.
The obvious question is: what do I get for my $2800 that I don’t get for $200. The answer might be a little disappointing: not much.
The maximum aperture of f/1.2 is a real thing with real benefits, but those benefits are on a very thin margin, especially compared to the 35mm f/1.8, which is, of course, only one f-stop smaller than the f/1.2. Yes, if you live in the low-light concert world, or the police surveillance world, or the theater world, and constantly required the gaping f/1.2, this new lens might be on your radar.
But even I, as a news and sports photographer, can’t see a huge advantage to this big-ticket lens. I’m sure reviews will say it is “sharp, even wide open,” but so is my 35mm, and, for that matter, every 50mm lens I own.
If you want one of these are think you will use it, and have the money, sure, why not? But I’ll continue to be happy with my honey of a lens.
