The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 isn’t quite in the same category in terms of how it is viewed. It’s not Nikon’s premium zoom option but it is a really good one that covers an incredibly useful focal range. So the question here isn’t whether the zoom is as good as the primes, it’s not, but whether it’s worth buying the primes for those of us who own the 24-120mm. How much better is sharpness, how much difference does f/1.8 make vs f/4 actually make, and are there other benefits that make it worth spending the money to add primes to your kit. You can see how the zoom compares against the Nikon Z 50mm 1.8S here.

I purchased all the lenses mentioned in this article with my own money. Some of the links in this post are affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you decide to buy through them.

I’ve been shooting the 24-120mm f4 for months, I’ve owned the 1.8S primes for well over a year. I bought the primes while I was still living in the Philippines and used them for candid travel photography , family photos and some street photography. I’ve reviewed them all individually. In my collection I own the 20mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses. I also own the 14-30mm f/4 and 24-120mm f/4. I previously owned the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 (the original one) and found it to be an exceptional lens but sold it a couple of years back as I felt it sat in the middle ground between the more practical 24-120mm with its really useful focal range and the primes with their ability to isolate subjects and shoot in low light.

Now that I’ve been living on the edge of the Scottish Highlands for nearly 6 months, I’ve found myself appreciating good zoom lenses more than in recent years. So the aim of this series of articles is to see whether I would buy the primes again, if I had to start over and more importantly, whether it’s worth it for most people.

Size and weight

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 is not a small lens at 630 grams, it feels substantial, and really well matched to my Nikon Z8, it also handles well on my Z6III, on my Zf, it’s horrible. However, it is below the point where I feel the size and weight become a major factor. When it’s mounted on the Z8, it balances well, doesn’t feel front heavy and I happily clip it on to my Peak Design Capture Clip when hiking. It has a telescopic zoom design which extends the barrel as you zoom through the focal ranges but even fully extended, it never feels unweildy.

It has a 77mm filter size which is pretty common and allows me to use my existing filters.

The 35mm 1.8S lens on the other hand feels compact, considerably smaller and lighter than the zoom at 370 grams and in general is in a different ballpark altogether in terms of handling. However, both feel equally well made, being S line lenses.

I’m not going to add much to this as it’s pretty obvious that you’re paying a size and weight penalty in return for the flexibility of the zoom. Whether it suits your shooting style and priorities is very subjective but neither is too heavy nor too small, theyre just obviously different.

Methodology

To test the lenses I’ve looked through my Lightroom catalogue at the various shots I’ve taken with each lens over the last year as well as shot some test images for more technical comparisons. The test shots were taken on my Nikon Z8, on a solid tripod (Leofoto Summit LM-364C). I started by focusing the 24-120mm as close as I could to the test subject, then shooting images through the aperture range. I then replicated this with the 35mm lens at the same distance before testing the prime at it’s minimum focus distance. Finally, I shot them both from approximately 6 feet away from the subject in order to see whether this affected sharpness and also to show an actual example of the difference that f/1.8 vs f/4 makes in terms of subject isolation and bokeh at a mid-range focusing distance.

Image Quality

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S lens is a sharp zoom, even wide-open at f/4, its decently sharp. Stopping down to f/5.6 it gets sharper still where I’d call it excellent, not quite on the level of the f/2.8 pro zoom but still more than good enough for everything from posting online to prints. At f/5.6 there is more detail and contrast. Viewed at 100% in Lightroom, the differences are quite obvious. At normal viewing distances on anything less than an A2 sized print and I doubt most people would be able to tell.

What surprised me somewhat is that the 35mm 1.8S is noticeably sharper at f/1.8 than the 24-120mm f/4 is at f/4. Unlike the Fuji comparisons I recently wrote, there is a noticeable difference in centre sharpness between the zoom and the prime lens. I also noticed that even though I didn’t get the Zoom bang on 35mm (it was 33.5mm), the prime is giving a wider field of view. I double checked this and confirmed it was the case.

Once the 35mm 1.8S lens is stopped down to f/4, it sharpens up even more and increases the gap between itself and the 24-120mm lens. The prime is substantially sharper at f/4 than the zoom, showing a lot more detail and contrast.

Once the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 is stopped down to f/5.6 it sharpens up and closes the gap to the prime. At f/5.6 sharpness is excellent for the zoom and pin sharp with the prime. In my personal opinion, once we are at these levels of sharpness, which one wins almost becomes irrelevant as they’re both sharp enough to look great on screen or in print.

Nikon quotes the 24-120mm as having a minimum focus distance of 35cm compared with 25cm on the 35mm 1.8S. 10cm doesn’t sound much on paper and it’s hard to visualise the difference by looking at the numbers alone, so here is a comaprison of them both shot wide-open at their respective minimum focus distances.

I think the difference, when you actually see it in a shot is much more dramatic than the numbers would suggest. The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S, at roughly 35mm focal length simply will not focus as closely as the 35mm 1.8S. This has a profound effect, combined with the larger aperture of the prime on it’s ability to thow backgrounds out of focus in a way that the zoom cannot get anywhere near. I would note that the zoom is considered to have an impressive minimum focus distance, and of course you can zoom in further to throw the background out of focus more, if of course, you are able to step back and shoot from further away.

This kind of test is useful but how often do you shoot at such close distances? I can’t think of many times in the last 20 years that I’ve done this. So to see what f/1.8 vs f/4 looks like in a more likely scenario, I moved the tripod back to 6 feet away from the subject and shot both lenses wide open to give a more realistic idea of the difference.

Judge for yourself, but the 35mm 1.8S is able to isolate the subject and throw the background more out of focus than the 24-120mm. That was always going to be the case but at this kind of mid-range shooting distance, I’m actually a little underwhelmed with the difference between the two. Yes the prime looks better but I still wouldn’t exactly call it a blown out or creamy background. My thoughts on this are that it shows that the distance to subject and between the subject and background, would have more effect on the ability to blur backgrounds than simply going from f/4 to f/1.8.

Verdict

These two lenses are designed for completely different roles, but where they overlap, the prime is clearly better in terms of shrapness, ability to islolate subjects and of course, will perform better in low light. That was always going to be the case, but how much sharper it is was the real take-away from my testing. However, if you shoot landscapes, general photography, travel, then in this focal range, if you already own the zoom, I don’t see the case for saying the prime lens is worth it. Stopped down to f/5.6, the zoom is already showing excellent sharpness. 35mm is a storytelling focal length where often, we want all of the scene to be in focus so the brighter aperture isn’t as much of a benefit as it may be at longer focal lengths. And, of course, you can always shoot the zoom at a longer focal length in order to give more background separation if you want to. For landscapes, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 is already good enough if like me, you usually stop down to f/8 and beyond. In this particular comparison, the prime simply doesn’t offer enough of an advantage in every day shooting scenarios to justify the additional cost.

See the latest pricing for the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S

However, if you are a prime shooter, value all the things that primes offer, then the 35mm 1.8S is incredibly sharp, nice and compact, well built and can create photos that are not possible with a zoom. I really enjoy mine, particularly when I was shooting travel photography abroad but for most people, who own the zoom, I’d say save your money and consider a different focal length, if you are looking to compliment your zoom with a prime.

So would I buy the prime again now that I own the zoom? Well yes I would, but that’s because of my particular style of shooting, where I often prefer to slow down, simplify and shooting with prime lenses allows me to do that. 35mm also happens to be one of my favourite focal lengths.

See the latest pricing for the Nikon Z 35mm 1.8S.

Last Updated: May 2026

I’ve continued shooting extensively with both the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S and Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S across multiple Nikon bodies including the Zf, Z6III and Z8. Since originally publishing this article, I’ve used them for family photography, travel, everyday carry and landscape work here in Scotland as well as during earlier shooting in the Philippines.

My overall conclusion remains the same: the 50mm f/1.8 S is still the stronger first-prime purchase for most Nikon Z users coming from a zoom, while the 35mm f/1.8 S remains one of Nikon’s best lenses for immersive storytelling and documentary-style photography. Both continue to hold up extremely well, even on the high-resolution Nikon Z8 sensor.

As photographers, we love to pretend we’re being sensible. We tell ourselves we need to choose between two lenses — one or the other, that’s it. We can’t justify owning both… at least, that’s what we say out loud. But the truth is we’re already quietly picturing both in the bag — it’s just a matter of timing and justification.

And that’s where the real tension lies: when you’re not choosing between kit lenses and overpriced exotics, but between two genuinely excellent primes — proper tools that could shape the look of your images for years. That’s exactly the position many Z shooters find themselves in when deciding between the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S and the 50mm f/1.8 S. I rounded up the best lens kits for the Nikon Z6III here. Both lenses pair really well with the Nikon Z6III as I saw in my review of the Z6III but they also perform incredibly on higher resolution bodies like the Z8. If you’re unsure whether to get the Nikon Z6III or Z8 then see my comparison of the two. I also recently wrote about why the Nikon ZF is so important to Nikon.

I own both along with the 85mm 1.8s. I’ve shot both in real situations — travel, family, daily carry. In this article, I’m not just going to compare specs; I’m going to help you figure out which one will actually make the bigger impact first. One of these Z primes along with a few of the best accessories for the Nikon Z6III and you will be ready to make some great photos. I also recently compared the 35mm 1.8S against the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S to see how close zooms get to primes these days.

For a look at another excellent Nikon Z prime lens but with a completely different character, I’ve been shooting with the Nikon Z 20mm 1.8S lately.

After shooting extensively with the Nikon Z system, I’ve pulled together a comprehensive Nikon Z lens guide based on what genuinely works in real-world use.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. This comes at no extra cost to you and helps support the work that goes into creating these articles.*

Nikon Z 35mm 1.8 vs 50mm 1.8 – What the technical differences are in real life

Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S — Optical Performance

Wide open, the 35mm is sharp in the centre — sharp enough to define individual eyelashes if you’re close. There is a touch of vignetting at f/1.8, but it clears up quickly when stopped down and is easily corrected in post, so it’s not an issue in practice. The corners soften slightly at f/1.8, but from f/2.8 onwards they tidy up nicely.

In actual images, I’ve seen no trace of visible chromatic aberration, flare or distortion. Nikon has clearly put their premium coatings and optical recipe into these 1.8 primes — these are not cheap, compromised lenses pretending to be affordable primes. They are professional in everything but price and size.

Bokeh isn’t usually what people expect from a 35mm, but this lens surprised me. Out-of-focus areas are smooth, transitions are clean, and there’s no nervousness or distracting texture. There is a touch of cat-eye effect towards the edges, but it’s subtle and only noticeable if you go looking for it. For a 35mm f/1.8, the rendering is genuinely impressive.

Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S — Optical Performance

The 50mm takes everything the 35mm does well and pushes it further. It is sharper wide open — in fact, it’s one of the sharpest lenses I’ve owned at f/1.8. Like the 35mm, it shows a bit of vignetting at f/1.8, but again, it’s mild, clears up by f/2.8 and is trivial to correct. The centre is pin sharp, and the corners — if you care about corner sharpness at f/1.8, which I generally don’t — are also very strong.

Yes, it’s sharper than the 35mm wide open, but we’re talking about the difference between excellent and exceptional here. Stopping down adds a fraction more bite, but it’s already so strong at f/1.8 that it doesn’t really matter.

Like the 35mm, there are no issues with flare, chromatic aberration or visible distortion in real-world use. Nikon has opted for strong optical correction rather than relying on software profiles, and it shows. The bokeh is smooth and creamy, again with only a slight hint of cat-eye shape towards the edges. In terms of pure optical performance, this is one of the best lenses I’ve shot with — and that includes more exotic and expensive glass.

How These Lenses Change the Way You Shoot

On paper, 35mm and 50mm don’t seem far apart. In practice, they change your shooting behaviour in noticeably different ways.

The 35mm is a storytelling focal length. It encourages you to step in, to be physically present in the moment, and to place elements within your frame to create depth. It’s wide enough to give a sense of place, but not so wide that it distorts or feels forced. You can step back and take in a landscape, or lean in and document family life without feeling cramped. Movement is easier to work with thanks to the wider field of view, and for travel or everyday shooting, it feels like a very natural focal length for documenting life as it unfolds. With the right subject-to-background distance, it can absolutely deliver soft, pleasing backgrounds — but it’s not a portrait lens in the traditional sense.

The 50mm, by contrast, tells a slightly tighter story. It still has storytelling ability, but it trims away more of the surrounding context — think a weaver’s hands rather than a weaver in their environment. It naturally encourages you to look for details and gestures rather than entire scenes. It also opens up more portrait possibilities: you can isolate a subject from further away than you can with a 35mm, making half-body and full-body portraits feel more natural. This lens is bitingly sharp and its rendering has a beautiful clarity to it. It brings emotion forward in the frame, directing attention more forcefully to your subject. The perspective often feels like you are peering into a scene rather than being immersed in it.

Where the 35mm invites you into the scene, the 50mm lets you stand just back far enough to observe with intention. The 35mm can create depth, the 50mm can compress perspective.

So Which One Should You Buy First?

The title of this article is which one should you buy first, so let’s answer it clearly.

If you already know that you prefer shooting at 35mm or 50mm, then the choice is simple — choose the focal length that matches how you naturally see. Both lenses are good enough optically that you won’t make a wrong decision.

But if you’re unsure and this will be your first prime lens — and I’m assuming you already own a zoom like the 24–70mm f/4, 24–120mm f/4, or 24–200mm f/4-6.3 — then I’m not going to sit on the fence:

Buy the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S first.

Here’s why:

• It delivers a bigger visible jump in image quality over your zoom.
  The difference between 50mm at f/4 and 50mm at f/1.8 is far more dramatic than 35mm at f/4 vs 35mm at f/1.8. You’ll feel the upgrade more.
• Subject separation is more pronounced at 50mm.
  Even with the same f/1.8 aperture, the compression and background blur at 50mm simply look more “prime-like” than at 35mm.
• Your zoom already covers 35mm comfortably.
  At 35mm, you’ll often be stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8 for depth of field anyway — right where your zoom is already working well. At 50mm, you’re much more likely to actually use f/1.8 wide open.
• If you’re using a variable aperture zoom (like the 24–200mm f/4–6.3), the difference is even more dramatic.
  At 50mm that zoom is probably closer to f/5 or f/5.6, — so dropping to f/1.8 on a prime feels like a real upgrade. At 35mm, the zoom is faster, so the jump doesn’t feel as significant.
• And finally — it’s the cheaper of the two.
  The Z 50mm f/1.8 S delivers a bigger perceived improvement for less money. That matters.

In short, the 50mm gives you more of that “prime lens look” straight away, and that’s exactly what people are hoping for when they step beyond a standard zoom for the first time.

When the 35mm f/1.8 S Makes More Sense as Your First Prime

The 50mm is the stronger first-prime choice for most photographers coming from a zoom — but there’s a specific type of shooter who will be better served by starting with the 35mm f/1.8 S instead.

You should buy the 35mm first if:

• You shoot in tighter spaces — family life around the home, documentary-style travel, small interiors, street work where backing up isn’t always possible.
• You prefer to feel “in” the scene rather than observing it. The 35mm keeps you physically closer to your subjects, which changes the energy of your images in a way that some photographers naturally connect with.
• You value context over compression. If you like to include environment, layers and storytelling elements rather than isolating a single subject, 35mm rewards that style better.
• You shoot movement or candid moments. The wider field of view is simply more forgiving, and it feels more responsive when documenting life as it unfolds.

The difference between the two lenses isn’t just technical — it’s philosophical.
50mm isolates; 35mm involves.

If you’re still finding your shooting style and want a prime that lets you experiment freely, the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S is the best starting point. It hits the sweet spot between focal length, image quality and handling, and it’s one of the most affordable Nikon Z primes — which makes it a low-risk, high-reward upgrade.

The 50mm is also a very forgiving focal length. It flatters subjects, isolates cleanly and delivers that “prime look” with very little effort. There’s a reason photographers have recommended a 50mm as a first prime for decades — and nothing about these two Z lenses changes that advice.

Start with the 50mm, learn how it changes your images, and you’ll quickly understand what you’re missing — which makes choosing your second prime much easier. In my case, owning both has made complete sense. They do different jobs, create different types of images, and that’s exactly why both earn a place in my kit. And eventually, most Nikon Z shooters end up in the same place.

Whichever prime you decide to buy, you can find the latest pricing below:

To find out, I paired it with the Nikon Z6 III and spent a few days shooting around Dumaguete — street scenes, family moments, low-light cafés, and fast-moving subjects — to see how it performs in real-world use. Now that I’m living in Scotland I’ve also been shooting more zooms and recently compared the 35mm vs the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4S to see if the primes are really that much better.

Why the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S Matters in the Lineup

One of the main reasons I chose the Z system as my full-frame setup was because of the prime lenses — particularly Nikon’s coherent and high-quality 1.8 lineup. Nikon has given photographers a consistent set of lightweight, weather-sealed primes (20mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm) that cover all the major focal lengths without jumping into oversized f/1.2 territory. The 35mm f/1.8 S is a key part of that system, and because 35mm is one of my most-used focal lengths, it instantly became an important lens for me. If you’re trying to decide which prime lens to buy first I compared the Nikon Z 35mm 1.8S against the 50mm 1.8S.

For how I shoot, 35mm is the walkaround focal length. It lets me wander the streets of places like Dumaguete and move fluidly between scenic frames, environmental portraits and quiet candid moments. It rewards thoughtful composition — giving you enough space to work with foreground and background elements — yet still allows just enough subject separation to guide the eye and tell a story.

The Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S is a lens that simply lets you get on with the job. It doesn’t shout for attention with extreme specs or oversized glass. There’s no aperture ring, no custom function buttons — just a nicely damped focus ring and an AF/MF switch. I’d still like to see Nikon include aperture rings on these primes to enhance the tactile experience, but on the Z6 III and Z8 — cameras designed to remove friction from shooting — it’s not a deal-breaker.

And because you’re not getting those extra on-lens controls, image quality and autofocus performance become even more important. That’s where the Z 35mm f/1.8 S has to prove itself.

Build & Handling on the Z6 III / Z8

Coming from the Fuji X-T5 with lenses like the XF 23mm f/1.4 WR, I’m used to a setup that feels compact, balanced and made for real-world shooting. That combo — especially with a SmallRig grip — feels purpose-built for documenting life and moving fluidly through streets, family moments and travel environments without drawing attention or causing fatigue.

The Nikon Z6 III or Z8 paired with the 35mm f/1.8 S lands in the same sweet spot. It feels near-perfect in the hand: not front-heavy, not awkwardly compact, and crucially, it has that intangible balance that makes you want to keep shooting. The lens itself, while mostly constructed from high-quality plastics, feels dense and purposeful. Nothing about it gives the impression of being a cost-cutting “budget prime.”

The focus ring is smooth and nicely damped, and although control layout is minimal (no aperture ring, just an AF/MF switch), the execution feels deliberate rather than sparse. What impresses me most about the 35mm f/1.8 S — and really the whole Nikon Z 1.8 prime lineup — is Nikon’s decision to treat these lenses as professional tools rather than entry-level glass. Other brands often position their f/1.8 primes as cheap gateway options; Nikon has instead delivered a range that balances portability with genuine premium build quality.

As someone who doesn’t want to lug oversized f/1.2 lenses while travelling but still demands a professional feel and output, this design philosophy makes complete sense.

Autofocus Performance – Fast, Quiet and Reliable

This section is going to be short and to the point, because — much like I found with the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 S — the autofocus on the 35mm f/1.8 S simply gets the job done without drawing attention to itself.

• Single AF (AF-S) – Lightning fast and locks instantly.
• Continuous AF (AF-C) – Keeps up with constant subject movement and readjusts without hesitation.
• Tracking Mode – I tested it on passing trikes, scooters and cars in Dumaguete and it stayed locked without drifting or pulsing.

I also shot with it in a restaurant in the evening under harsh white lighting — the kind that makes people look ghostly and often causes AF systems to wobble. The 35mm f/1.8 S didn’t slow down or lose accuracy. Across all my time using it — in Dumaguete and back home — I didn’t experience a single notable focusing error.

For this kind of real-world use, it’s basically perfect at this point. No drama, no hesitation — it just focuses and lets you concentrate on the moment.

Image Quality – Sharpness, Rendering and Bokeh

Image quality is what matters most to me with this lens, because 35mm is a focal length I use constantly. I’ve shot everything from the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 to the Fuji GFX 45mm f/2.8 and Sony’s 35mm f/1.4 GM, so my expectations are high. For a lens to earn its place as a daily 35mm, it needs to be sharp wide open, well controlled for chromatic aberration, and capable of rendering with good micro contrast and pop — without drifting into that overly clinical look.

Wide open at f/1.8, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 S is sharp — not quite as surgically sharp as the 50mm f/1.8 S, but well within what I’d consider excellent. Eyelashes are clearly defined, textures hold together beautifully and even in backlit situations, I didn’t see any hint of chromatic aberration. Turning off software corrections in Lightroom makes no noticeable difference, which tells me the lens is optically corrected rather than heavily fixed in software.

What really sold me on this lens is its rendering style. It’s sharp, but not clinical — there’s still a natural feel to the images. Skin tones look great, and subjects have a subtle 3D separation even at f/1.8. Stopping down to f/2.8 brings an increase in sharpness, but it’s already so good wide open that the gains don’t change real-world usage.

Bokeh performance is also excellent for a 35mm lens. The background blur is smooth with no signs of nervousness, and the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas is subtle and refined. There’s some slight cat-eye shape to the bokeh highlights towards the edges — similar to what you see on the 50mm f/1.8 S — but it never becomes distracting. For a 35mm lens, the bokeh is extremely nice, and paired with its natural rendering, it gives images a gentle depth that encourages storytelling rather than just blur-for-the-sake-of-blur.

Compared to my Fuji XF 23mm f/1.4 WR — one of my favourite lenses of all time — the Nikon performs very similarly, both are more than sharp enough wide open but the Nikon renders slightly cooler. Do I have any complaints? Honestly, no. It’s not magical in the same way the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 S can sometimes be, but it’s simply consistently excellent, which in a daily lens is exactly what I want.

Who Should Buy the Nikon Z 35mm f/1.8 S (And Who Shouldn’t)

This is a lens for photographers who want that sweet spot between performance and weight — except there’s actually very little compromise here. It’s sharp wide open, shows no meaningful optical flaws, focuses fast and won’t weigh you down. Yes, it’s a little more expensive than the typical f/1.8 primes you see on other systems, but it’s also a noticeably better lens than most of those.

If you’re the kind of shooter who likes a light setup that still feels professional in output and build, this lens makes complete sense. It suits travel photographers, street shooters, documentary photographers and anyone who wants a single prime they can trust to handle almost anything.

The only people I can see not wanting this lens are those who either don’t use the 35mm focal length or prefer to shoot with zooms. For everyone else, it’s a no-brainer.

Conclusion – Will It Stay in My Kit?

As with the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S, the 35mm f/1.8 S continues in the same vein — offering excellent image quality, solid build and fast, reliable autofocus in a package that remains easy to carry and use all day. The price feels justified when you consider what Nikon has done here: you’re getting a professional-grade lens without being forced into the oversized f/1.2 category or settling for a “budget” 1.8.

This lens — along with the rest of the Nikon Z 1.8 prime series — is a big part of why I chose the Z system as my full-frame platform. It delivers consistency, quality and usability in a way that makes sense for real-world photographers. And yes — this one stays in my kit.