I do a lot of event work and I honestly pack the 50 1.2 over it. I like the Viltrox, but I kind of don't like this thing for video work with the Z6III for example. The eye AF with it is just daft. newyork wrote:
Surprised how few pics and user experience is posted on the 35 Lab in the thread.
If the 35 1.2S wasn't priced what it is I'd have it already. I'm still very tempted to trade the Viltrox in for it, but resale on Viltrox stuff is dog meat. RoamingScott wrote:
I haven't used a Viltrox yet I'd trust with paid work. It is what it is.
That said, I am curious to try the 35 Pro some day on Z just to see how much better their linear motors are compared to their kinda middling STMs.
I have used the 1.2 for jobs, I just don't like it for video because I find the eye AF to be inconsistent. If you don't have any intention of doing video work I think the 1.2 should be fine. newyork wrote:
So that’s leave only the 35 1.8 and 1.4 for those not willing to go $3k on a 35
I don't shoot video, but I would have no problem using the Viltrox lenses that I have for a job. I just got the 35/55 EVO lenses, but the 50/85 Pro lenses have been very reliable on the Z8, Zf and recently acquired Z6 III.
I tried the 35 Lab, but wasn't a fan of the control dial and prefer the Pro line, although they released a 35 Lab for Sony with the actual aperture ring, so maybe it will come to Nikon.
RoamingScott wrote:
It's already been announced for Z.
Where are you seeing that? The announcement was only for the FE mount version, and apparently the "N" in the name is for "No Screen." Other Viltrox lenses use a "Z" in their name for Z-mount.
"April 23, 2026 — Viltrox today announces the launch of its AF 35mm F1.2 LAB N FE, a full-frame ultra-large-aperture autofocus prime lens for Sony FE mount cameras." No mention of Z-mount.
Wezre wrote:
And likewise, there are many of us that hate unmarked, lightly clicked or smooth, endlessly rotating rings on our lenses that get accidentally bumped resulting in settings changing without much indication. I'll take a well-clicked aperture ring over a function ring any day. I turn off the function rings on all of my Nikon lenses.
Do you turn off the much larger, much more sensitive focus ring also?
I hear this argument often, but I don't understand how someone doing serious work "bumps" the ring on something they're intentionally touching. The 70-200/2.8S's focus ring sits directly where one's support hand goes, yet it's never mentioned as a concern — but the recessed, up-against-the-body multifunction ring is a problem?
I don't buy it.
The other thing is that the Viltrox 35/1.2's multifunction ring is stiff. It does have a clicker, or a de-clicking switch if you're one of those video types.
I'll give you that it's unmarked, but my Z8 has no less than three places it tells me what my settings are. Plus, y'know, that screen right there. Even for astrophotography, I never look at the marks (or the screen) on the 16/1.8.
These just sound like "It's different than my Dad's F3 was, so I don't want it" objections. And none of it justifies removing functionality on the v2 lens, while charging the same for less. Hard pass for me.
RoamingScott wrote:
I haven't used a Viltrox yet I'd trust with paid work. It is what it is.
That said, I am curious to try the 35 Pro some day on Z just to see how much better their linear motors are compared to their kinda middling STMs.
I'm with you on both of these points, with the exception of the 16/1.8. It's the only Viltrox I've paid for, and it's every bit as good as the Nikkor 20/1.8. Shockingly good for the price.
The Nikkor 35/1.2 is just as magic as the rest of the 1.2+Plena line, but it's a focal length that is a luxury for me. The 35/1.4 is solid, retains those "Aww, photography!" flaws we call "character", weighs nothing, fits in a pocket.
But when I played with the Viltrox 35/1.2, I have to say it almost got me. Maybe when I see a used one for $600. But not with a dedicated aperture ring in 2026. So silly.
