Nikkor 35/1.4 AI(S) - worth the money?

I've always wanted one but never heard anything too great about it. I think if you're a rangefinder user and you're used to a plethora of awesome 35mm glass, you will be disappointed. For $600, you would do much better with a Zeiss ZF 35mm f/2.
 
I do not own one so I don't have a ton of experience but I did borrow one for a couple rolls a while back. Unfortunately, those negatives along with most of the others from that time in my life (college) where destroyed, so I cannot post examples. From what I remember, it was a very nice lens which gave me excellent results and importantly had the ability to go to f/1.4 when it was needed. As a college student I was a one lens one body kind've guy. All extra money went to...uhh, maybe I dont want to get into that here 😉

This lens gets a ton of crap for being soft, distortion, etc. To me, and maybe its due to what I shoot, none of that bothered me at all. I still dont understand why for some lenses defects are called "character" yet for others they are grounds to label a lens junk. In the end, if you are exacting about having the utmost quality 100% of the time then this lens might not be for you. If you can deal with some shots having some "character", some softness wide open and at the edges of the frame, you'll probably love it.
 
Last edited:
Unless you really need f1.4, not really worth it. Its performance is significantly better stopped down, and if you'll be stopping down, why not just get a less expensive 35mm/2.0 AIS? For $600, I'd rather get a 35/2 ZF. Also, the 35/2 ZF.2 lenses should comedown in price when the 35/1.4 ZF.2 hit the stores in the US (next month?)
 
A very nice lens. I've had one for nearly 20 years and been very pleased with it shooting black and white for newspapers - yes, we still do that. It is, however, somewhat fragile and won't stand too much knocking about. The first indication of problems is that it won't stop down. I've been told it's due to the thin walls of the barrel. But when it works, and it does well if cared for, it's a superb lens that produces in all kinds of light.
 
The Zeiss 35mm f2.0 is a fantastic lens. Occassionally, it does come up used for about the same as the Nikkor lens. The Nikkor lens (35mm f1.4 ai-s) was made over along period of time and there were some quality issues involved (so I have read). I do not believe that the Nikkor 35mm f1.4 ai-s is currently in production and it availability is as a used lens.
 
I would love to have a Nikkor 35mm f1.4. I had and sold my Nikkor 35mm f2. Just never cared for the size. I just ordered and am waiting for the Voigtlander 40mm f2. I hear it's pretty sharp and I think I will like the slim design.
 
It's a nice lens, well built and probably the sharpest of the 35 AIS Nikkors, but I wouldn't pay $600. I bought a nice clean late one on this forum for around $450 and that's about as much as I think it's worth given today's competition. The 35/2 AFD is cheaper and would probably outperform it but a few of these reportedly leak lubricant on the aperture blades, so make sure you check it for this potential problem. If you need f/1.4 and have the money the AFG version is the best ever but won't work on MF bodies due to the lack of an aperture ring.
 
Last edited:










The Nikkor 35 1.4 AIS is fantastic. In my hands it's equal to any Zeiss 😀.

Worth $600 you bet.

Please flame me so I'll post more sample images 😀.

Nothing I like better than getting under the skin of a Zeiss fan 😉.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people complain about it ("a lot" is a relative expression I guess), but I enjoy it. I use it with an adapter on my 5D and find it to be a great performer. A bit big, but good. Bokeh can be a little strange at times.

I got mine for $300 locally, so I think $600 is a bit much. Shop around a bit and you can get a good deal.

Some samples, f/1.4:


IMG_1063 by Patrick Trautfield, on Flickr


IMG_1056 by Patrick Trautfield, on Flickr


IMG_6905-2 by Patrick Trautfield, on Flickr


IMG_1101 by Patrick Trautfield, on Flickr


IMG_0356_g_web by Patrick Trautfield, on Flickr


IMG_0675 by Patrick Trautfield, on Flickr


IMG_0892 by Patrick Trautfield, on Flickr
 
was given one on a perpetual loan ("keep it as long as you want")

returned it after a week: flare and distracting background artifacts

35/2 here
 
The big advantage of the Nikon 35/1.4 over Zeiss is that it's relatively compact. "Back in the day", it also retained the quite popular 52 mm filter size, a big plus with pros that carried several popular Nikkors that also took 52 mm filters. Zeiss' approach has always optimized the lens for optical performance and this sometimes required larger filter sizes than their competition. Of course, Zeiss has only been making lenses in Nikon mounts relatively recently, so the 52 mm thread isn't as big deal now that the most poular Nikkors require larger filters.
 
Last edited:
kshapero said:
I hear this is a great lens. I am looking for a fast medium wide angle. Is this lens worth the $600 or so I see listed?
Click to expand...

Depends, I had two. Both were super soft wide open. Note the bold letters.

The 35/2.0 AIS is technically superior.
 
Not really, the camera with MD is probably worth no more than $350 as is the lens assuming it's glass and mechanics are nice. Judging from the moderate barrel cosmetic wear, I'm guessing there is at least some dust internally, something very common with this lens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

p.giannakis
Agrrr... AF Nikkor 50f/1.4 delamination
Replies
4
Views
333
p.giannakis
p.giannakis
Shab
A 35mm lens for a Nikon FM3A
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
Dogman
Dogman
jaredangle
Nikon FA focusing screen with fast primes?
Replies
6
Views
1K
jaredangle
jaredangle
R
The Medium Format Semi-Fisheye Lens: something the rangefinder never approaches
Replies
0
Views
159
RJ-
R
W
Frankenlens: Nikkor 105/2.5 AI hacked to Pentax K mount
Replies
6
Views
526
Disappointed_Horse
Disappointed_Horse
Back
Top Bottom