loneranger
Well-known
I am thinking about getting a 35/2.5 for my Nikon s3. Basically my choices are the older nikkor or newer VC. Which one do you guys prefer. Are there any side by side tests out there. thanks for your help.
DxPhoto
Established
I have one for sale. It's very compact (mine is classic, not the pk version) and gives a very good image. Only I like 50mm more so I switched to nokton then eventually summicron.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...duct/10741/cat/2/limit/recent/date/1208133375
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...duct/10741/cat/2/limit/recent/date/1208133375
loneranger
Well-known
Actually I was looking for a comparison with the older nikkor before I buy one; also yours looks like LTM version, I'm looking for SC mount.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The optical cell is the same as the LTM/Version II so you can use that as guideline. The Nikon mount has the added benefit that the long focus throw makes it easier to pin-point focus. Great lens and works very well with the S3.
As for which one is the sharpest, the Nikkor 35/2.5 or the SC 35f2.5 SC I dont know. Sufficient to say, neither one has let me down. The contrast is higher in the VC lens (but is also a 50 year newer design). Aperture ring is easier to handle on the VC and though the front element in the Nikkor 35/2.5 is deeply recessed. you shoud consider a hood as they can flare if you get direct light on to the front.
Oh. the VC lens is considerably lighter too. Not that the Nikkor is heavy though.
As for which one is the sharpest, the Nikkor 35/2.5 or the SC 35f2.5 SC I dont know. Sufficient to say, neither one has let me down. The contrast is higher in the VC lens (but is also a 50 year newer design). Aperture ring is easier to handle on the VC and though the front element in the Nikkor 35/2.5 is deeply recessed. you shoud consider a hood as they can flare if you get direct light on to the front.
Oh. the VC lens is considerably lighter too. Not that the Nikkor is heavy though.
DxPhoto
Established
ah, sorry. my mistake 
loneranger
Well-known
Well if there is not much difference in picture quality (sharpness, bokeh , contrast etc) I would rather get a new VC, which is probably cheaper too.
loneranger
Well-known
I completely forgot about the Zeiss 35/2.5 lens; I guess that would be another choice, does anyone have experience with that lens?
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The Biogon is actually a f2.8 - not much of a difference. The prewar version is HEAVY with the scariest rear element ever. It just sits there out in the open! It is a much lower contrast than either the Nikkor or VC as well as much more sensitive to flare. Resolution is very good, i.e damned sharp!
The postwar version is lighter and has T* coating. Not as flare sensitive and, again very sharp.
There is a small shift in focus between the Zeiss/Nikkor's - particularly in close focus. In most instances the depth of field takes care of it though.
If you go to our Flickr site (see below) and look for the set tagged "Zeikon project" you can see some stuff done with these lenses.
Also. if you tag Flickr "Nikkor 35mm f2.5" and "Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm f2.5" there should be plenty of images from these two lenses to peruse. Not the ideal medium for checking resolution, but it will give you an idea.
The postwar version is lighter and has T* coating. Not as flare sensitive and, again very sharp.
There is a small shift in focus between the Zeiss/Nikkor's - particularly in close focus. In most instances the depth of field takes care of it though.
If you go to our Flickr site (see below) and look for the set tagged "Zeikon project" you can see some stuff done with these lenses.
Also. if you tag Flickr "Nikkor 35mm f2.5" and "Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm f2.5" there should be plenty of images from these two lenses to peruse. Not the ideal medium for checking resolution, but it will give you an idea.
I went with a near mint black Nikkor. The Voigtlander was more expensive ($399 new) and the Nikkor has a shorter rear element, which means it can also be used on M bodies with an adapter.
Last edited by a moderator: