Info on 35mm FL lenses for Nikon?

Juan Valdenebro

Juan Valdenebro

Truth is beauty
Local time
4:27 AM
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
4,353
Hi,

Does anybody know where to find an article or review or comparison between 35mm FL lenses for use on Nikon bodies?

Basically I want to know which 35s are the ones with lowest distortion, including all brands, old and new lenses, and MF and AF ones..

Or any suggestions?

Thanks!

Cheers,

Juan
 
I know that Nikon's Thousand and One Nights site has an article about the 35 1.4 AIS - its development, and imaging characteristics. Ken Rockwell has also reviewed this lens and the 35 f/2. Bjorn Rorslett has reviews of many, many Nikon lenses and their variations.

Basically I've owned the 35 1.4, 35 2, and 35 2.8. They all have barrel distortion compared to say a Leica Summaron which has none. The 35 1.4 is soft with low contrast, wide open. Yet, this is actually a good thing in the contrasty low light situations, I've found. It has CRC to assist with close focusing, but it's not a macro lens. It's significant curvature of field makes it hard to keep a flat piece of paper in focus.
Stopped down to f/2.8 - 5.6, it is really sharp with very high resolution (see Bjorn Rorslett). This is the only 35 in Nikon that I still own.

I found the 35 2 to be a good lens. Rockwell seems to hate it. I can't remember his specific reason for hating it. I got rid of it when I got the 1.4, just because I like the quirks of the 1.4!

I personally hated the 35 2.8. That specification may make a great Summaron, but it's lousy in the Nikon SLR realm. It's dark and hard to focus. It's also fuzzy at all apertures (my copy).

These are all AIS lenses. I don't have much experience with Nikon's AF lenses - except for the Macro lenses, of which I have two. They are outstanding (60 2.8 AF, and 70-180 Micro Nikkor 4.5-5.6 the only true zoom Nikkor macro lens)
 
My f2.8 AIS was the sharpest lens I've owned, even wide open it was excellent, but it is an f3.7 lens. The f2 AF-D is well thought of, good color but older ones have an oil on the blades problem. I've never owned one, but if I we're in the market that would be one of the first I'd look at. My experience was quite different than Roslett's with the 35/2.8 AIS and the 28/2 AIS. Rockwell's OK by me.
 
Last edited:
I don't know of any one site that has all of the 35's in F mount, but your search should start (and probably end) with this short list:

  • Nikon 35/1.4 AFS G
  • Zeiss 35/2.0 ZF.2
  • Zeiss 35/1.4 ZF.2
 
Robert Lai said:
I found the 35 2 to be a good lens. Rockwell seems to hate it. I can't remember his specific reason for hating it.
Click to expand...

Coma. It has a relatively large amount of coma which makes it less than well-suited to night photography.

It's a decent lens — I've used it a lot — but there is nothing special about it, IMO. It's a rather modest performer at f/2, improved at 2.8, pretty good at 4, peaks at 5.6 or 8. Some barrel distortion. Doesn't flare too badly. Better on color film than on B&W in my experience.
 
I only have a 35 f/2.8 manual focus.
A while ago, I did some research on line to know what is said about it and it's competitors (f/2 and f/1.4) and reached the conclusion that none of them are really excellent, and I gave up on the idea of putting money in this FL.
I bought a 28mm f/2.8 that is on my way now to experiment with.
 
Thanks everyone!

sanmich: I think more or less the same: it's not the best focal length for SLR lenses... But as I own a 20 and a 50, I keep feeling I have that "precise hole" just in the middle of them for my Nikon bodies although I own two zooms covering the 35mm range... Yet I'd like to go out sometimes with a 35 prime, but I don't find a distortion one (or noticeable field curvature one) superior enough to my zooms as to buy it... I'll try to find more information on Zeiss ones... Thanks for your PM: I'll remember that!

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Thanks everyone!

sanmich: I think more or less the same: it's not the best focal length for SLR lenses... But as I own a 20 and a 50, I keep feeling I have that "precise hole" just in the middle of them for my Nikon bodies although I own two zooms covering the 35mm range... Yet I'd like to go out sometimes with a 35 prime, but I don't find a distortion one (or noticeable field curvature one) superior enough to my zooms as to buy it... I'll try to find more information on Zeiss ones... Thanks for your PM: I'll remember that!

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Hey Juan,
Sure, my pleasure.

I was thinking:
Why not go for the Voigtlander 40mm f/2?
In opposition to the Nikkor it is supposed to be really good.
 
my only experience is with the e series 35/2.8. i really like it for color film; FE2, memories 200 ...
U35015I1286459926.SEQ.0.jpg


U35015I1286376317.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well, as other times during these last two years, I feel just like leaving it, and I mean forever... Looks like for low distortion and some speed, 35s for SLRs are huge: I don't want that... The Zeiss 1.4 and the Samyang 1.4 are really enormous... I guess RFs make us think great lenses can be small and fast too, but that's not true with SLRs unless we talk about 50s...

Michael: Could be a good option... I really like the 40 2; great for its size and sharpness... Maybe a bit too close to my 50 1.4, or especially too far from my 20 2.8... And owning the small 40 1.4 for my AE R3A, it can be easily used (just focus) so I've considered it but in the last moment (a couple times) I just never felt like going for the 40 2 as the RF set is thinner and faster than the SLR kit... But I think the 40 2 is the best all around lens option for any SLR...

Paul: those shots look pretty good... I see focusing close you get some selective focus by 2.5, that's nice... Maybe I'll go for it as it's small and I always end up preferring that to any other specifications... I'd do it just to go out with a small 35 on my FE2: years wanting that! With my 28 3,5 I get higher sharpness with smaller size and more DOF for one kind of shooting, though, and with the 40 1.4 a lot more selective focus and speed for the other kind of shooting... I just don't know... But there are no better small 35mm options by any brand for SLRs...

Another "RFs are the best" case...

Thanks a lot!

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
Dilemmas like this are why I stopped shooting Nikon. I look for lenses I like regardless of brand, and buy a body to go with them. I mainly like 35 and 50 so it's not hard to do.
 
I agree with this idea completely! The 40mm SLII is an outstanding lens. Really excellent sharpness, color saturation, and I never noticed any distortion. Check out the lens at photozone.
 
won't add a lot of new material, but having shot with all three (1.4, 2, 2.8, all ais) i can confirm some of the opinions expressed above. 1.4 flares like a witch and can be annoyingly soft at wider apertures; you have to like its "special" oof, too. 2 is a competent all-rounder, sharp center, pleasant oof--not much bad to say about it, nothing to write home about either. 2.8 is very similar in (lack of) character to the 2, only slower, noticeably so in actual use

i didn't keep any of them eventually. if i were pressed to choose again, i'd go with the 2 without thinking too hard
 
The two gems of the Nikkor 35's are the old N or N.C 1.4 with the radioactive elements and the K or very early Ai 2.8. I have all versions of the 35mm focal length in multiple copies and these two are the best, the 2.8 has zero distortion and the 1.4 has a very unique look. Both have visual differences from the more common 1.4 Ai or Ais and every other version of 2.8 (there were 4, the one I listed was made for a very short time. Roland Vink site states there were many made but my thoughts are that there were not as many made as indicated by serial numbers, its kind of a harder lens to find.)
Otherwise the other posters comments mirror mine, excepting the versions I mentioned.
 
I own a whole range going back to single coated 35 2.8 single 35 2.0 35 2.8 multicoat
35 2.0 AF and the latest 35 1.4 G.

None except the G are decent at wide stops where the G is way above the others. It has some vignetting full open which should not be objectionable at night shots. At 4.0 it is nearly perfect. Never tried 2.8 or 2.0 so far. It is expensive, large, & a bit heavy. You need a camera that can control the G lens aperture.

For a camera that can not control a G diaphragm, I would look at a Zeiss ZF 35.

All have distortion that Leica lenses do not have.

There are no cheap hidden gems in the line .
 
I didn't include the G, of which I have extensively tested 2 samples and often borrow to use.
It is an amazing improvement over the 1.4, but the K/early Ai 2.8 still bests it in distortion. And, it is a cheap hidden gem, just have to find one. The older S or the newer Ais are common and not bad but don't rise to the level of the K/early Ai 2.8. Distortion of my 2 examples have compared favorably to my own Summicron 35mm and tested well against the Asph Summicron as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom