W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5, Amedeo and M 240

[wlewisiii]

I picked up this lens primarily for use with my S4 but haven't finished the first roll with it yet (and the lab was closed today anyway). So I mounted it on my M 240 and went for an early evening drive today. Since it's an M Amedeo and I mostly use it for 50's anyway, I put a 35 finder in the M 240's shoe and had at it.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Nice images.

While the 3.5cm f2.5 isn't a 3.5cm f1.8, it's still a darn nice piece of glass and can render some beautiful images. I'm fortunate to have three versions, the one you have pictured above, the LTM version, and the Nikonos version for underwater photography. Nikon liked that design well enough to use it across multiple platforms.

Best,
-Tim

 

[splitimageview]

The 2.5 is no slouch. I once did a direct comparison with the Summaron 35/2.8 and the results were indistinguishable.

 

[raid]

I have a Nikon 35mm 1.8, but I have seen many images posted online that were taken with the Nikon 35mm 2.5. It is an excellent lens overall.

 

[Bingley]

I have this lens in LTM, S, and Nikonos mounts. It is a stellar performer. Here’s a sample:

In S-Mount, with an Amedeo adapter, Cinestill 400d @ 320:

Coastal plain from Purisima by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

On a Leica CL digital (where it gives the effective focal length of a 50mm lens in 35mm film format):


Iona by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

 

[Ken Ford]

Interesting - I never considered adapting my S mount glass to M. I may need to try this!

 

[Bingley]

Interesting - I never considered adapting my S mount glass to M. I may need to try this!

The S-mount W-Nikkor C 35mm f2.5 is a somewhat chunky and heavy lens, and using it w/ an Amedeo adapter makes for a heavy kit in rangefinder terms. But optically it works just fine. If you can find the LTM version of this lens (I bought mine on the ‘bay from a seller in Japan), you’ll appreciate the more compact construction and lower weight and it may be worth the extra bucks to get it. But either way, this is a superb lens, very likely outclassing other 35mm lenses from the 1950s.

 

[brusby]

The S-mount W-Nikkor C 35mm f2.5 is a somewhat chunky and heavy lens, and using it w/ an Amedeo adapter makes for a heavy kit in rangefinder terms. But optically it works just fine. If you can find the LTM version of this lens (I bought mine on the ‘bay from a seller in Japan), you’ll appreciate the more compact construction and lower weight and it may be worth the extra bucks to get it. But either way, this is a superb lens, very likely outclassing other 35mm lenses from the 1950s.

Ditto

 

[brusby]

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 M mount. M9

L1008090 by Brusby, on Flickr




W-Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 S mount with Amadeo, M9
L1001071 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[Ken Ford]

The S-mount W-Nikkor C 35mm f2.5 is a somewhat chunky and heavy lens, and using it w/ an Amedeo adapter makes for a heavy kit in rangefinder terms. But optically it works just fine. If you can find the LTM version of this lens (I bought mine on the ‘bay from a seller in Japan), you’ll appreciate the more compact construction and lower weight and it may be worth the extra bucks to get it. But either way, this is a superb lens, very likely outclassing other 35mm lenses from the 1950s.

Ah, but I already have the lens and a few others in S mount - adapting is a quick and easy thing.

However, I think back to the only LTM Nikkor I’ve ever owned - a 85/2 that I was a fool to sell thirty years ago. I can see picking up a few screw mount Nikkors for adapting to my digital Ms.

 

[splitimageview]

The Amedeo adapter does add a bit of weight compared to using the LTM version of the lens, but I find it's of little impact. The S mount lens uses commonly available 43mm filters and lens shades and it's nice being able to use the same lens on screw and M-mount Leicas, Nikon RFs, and Contax IIa.

 

[splitimageview]

 

[raid]

Is the Nikon 35 2.5 optically closer to the Leica Summicron 35 2 or Summaron 35 2.8?

 

[splitimageview]

Summaron. I did a direct comparo of these two a while back and looking at the images I couldn't determine which was which.

@das published this which has comparison images:

Profile: The W-Nikkor 35/2.5 (1951) & the Leica Summaron 35/2.8 (1958) – davidde.com

davidde.com

 

[Bingley]

The Amedeo adapter does add a bit of weight compared to using the LTM version of the lens, but I find it's of little impact. The S mount lens uses commonly available 43mm filters and lens shades and it's nice being able to use the same lens on screw and M-mount Leicas, Nikon RFs, and Contax IIa.

Point taken. My sample of the LTM version (purchased from a seller in Japan) came with a step-up ring to 43mm, so filter size is not an issue. I use a number of lenses with 43mm filter rings. As far as weight goes, I agree w/ you with regard to M-mount cameras, but the weight difference does show itself if you're using a Barnack Leica.

 

[Bingley]

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 M mount. M9

L1008090 by Brusby, on Flickr




W-Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 S mount with Amadeo, M9
L1001071 by Brusby, on Flickr

Beautiful work, Bruce!

 

[brusby]

Beautiful work, Bruce!

Thank you, Steve! Much appreciated. It is a lovely lens in both M mount and S.

 

[Ken Ford]

An inexpensive S to M adapter is being delivered soon, so I’ll be able to try my 35/2.5 on one of my digital Ms. (My 105 and 135, too!)