35/1.8

[loneranger]

Hi, I am about ready to buy a 35/1.8 for my Nikon, but , having used leicas and zeiss lenses for a while, I still want to know how this lens compares in the
35mm world. I know there was that huge comparison done a few weeks ago by a member of many 35 lenses, but frankly, the thread was so huge that I could not get any conclusions out of it. Basicaly want to know how this lens compares to leica preasph 35/2 and to other well known 35's, in terms of color saturation, contrast, and sharpness.

 

[Tom A]

The original 35f1.8 was comparable to the early 35/2 Summicron (Version 1/2). I dont know about color saturation as I only shoor black and white. Resolution is high and contrast is medium . It depends very much on the condition of the lens. If it is an "original" lens and not the 2005 SP lens, it is 40+ years old and there is probably some light scratches on the front and/or light fogging. This will cut down on resolution marginally, but it will also make the lens more prone to flare. You do need a hood on it for that reason.
I have two of these lenses, an older one and the 2005 version. The later one is contrastier, but most likely that is because it has more modern coating and is less used. The older one picks up stray flare occasionally, but it is no slouch when it comes to highlight/shadow separation.
There are some samples of the lens quality if you go to "Rapidwinder.com" and go to the links for "pictures". It is a Flickr site "T & T and Mr B" and under the set for lenses you will find some pictures with both 35/f1.8's. You can also go to the "February Nikon Rangefinder month" set and there are some more. The resolution of the Flickr images is too low for critical evaluation, but it will show some of the contrast.
I know, I am supposed to post this stuff on RFf, but I have no idea how to do that, so for now Flickr will do.

 

[VinceC]

I use the 1950s version of this lens frequently. I would say color saturation is medium, certainly not as saturated as my modern 50/1.4 Nikkor Millenneum. High resolution, medium contrast.

Be aware that it uses Lanthium glass and so is "atomic." Brian Sweeney and I took our kids to a museum a few months ago, and they had a working Geiger-counter on display. The lens definitely registered radioactivity, though not enough to be a danger.

 

[loneranger]

Vow, why did they use lanthium ? Is there something special about it.

 

[dexdog]

Added to increase the refractive index of the glass.

 

[NIKON KIU]

Did you ever find one?
there is a nice one on the "bay with all the trimmings but the seller wants a grand.

Kiu

 

[loneranger]

Yes, I bought a mint one for less than a grand.
Sold the 28/3.5 to finance it. The worst 28 I've EVER had. Could not believe how soft everything was. I wish Nikon put as much emphasis on their lenses as they do on their bodies.

 

[VinceC]

Hmm. The Nikkor 28/3.5 is one of my sharpest lenses. It's my daily user, and I only reach for the 35/1.8 when there isn't enough light. Yours may have been out of adjustment or something.

 

[NIKON KIU]

Yes, I bought a mint one for less than a grand.
Sold the 28/3.5 to finance it. The worst 28 I've EVER had. Could not believe how soft everything was. I wish Nikon put as much emphasis on their lenses as they do on their bodies.

Believe it or not they do,and did.
Back in the early fifties when they came out with the "World's fastest 50mm lens" they put more emphasis on the lens that the camera.
Nippon Kogaku was an optical company before they started building cameras.

You must have had a bad example(yes it happens 😱)


Kiu

 

[raid]

Yes, it does happen. If I get a soft vintage lens, I would mail it first off for allignment and cleaning. Then only would I consider selling a lens if it still performs poorly while other lenses perform better.

 

[VinceC]

>>I wish Nikon put as much emphasis on their lenses as they do on their bodies.<<

Kiu is correct. For its first decade, Nippon Kogaku was first and foremost a lens maker. The lenses made Nikon famous, not the early cameras.

 

[ZivcoPhoto]

My vintage chrome 28mm F3.5 is very sharp also....I don't think there is too much that can go wrong with these lenses....other than having been taken apart by an amateur....and not properly reassembled and calibrated.

I prefer to spend my time taking pictures....I leave any repairs or adjustments to Pete Smith....the Nikon repair professional.