35mm Nikkors?

[rover]

OK, for those who have been around for a while, you know I have slowly been drifting to the dark side. I could have, should have bought an FM3a so many years ago when I was looking to replace my EOS 10s after 15 years of hard use, but this whole Bessa thing happened, and.... well I still want that FM3a.

So, I am again thinking, very seriously, about building a little kit, 2 lenses to start. I have never liked any 50mm Nikkor, but the 58/1.4 Nokton is pretty impressive to me. I will add a 105/2.5 and 28 or 24mm at some point, but I want to start with a 35 and the 58.

My question is what 35mm AI or AIS or other lens do you prefer. (note I didn't say BEST because that is too subjective). Reviews of all, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 2.5e are all mixed, I don't see any consensus of opinion about any of them. The way out option is to go all CV and grab the 40 Ultron too, but if I can save a few $$$ that would be nice too.

So, some help from my Nikon user friends.

Thank you.

 

[jonmanjiro]

The only F-mount 35mm Nikkor I've owned is the Ai-S 35/1.4. Wide open, it was pretty soft, had lots of light falloff, and had harsh ni-sen bokeh. It also has major barrel distortion (when focusing close of course) that puts the CV Nokton 35/1.4 and CV Nokton 35/1.2 to shame. It was pretty sharp when stopped down to f2.8 and beyond (as you'd expect).

If I was to buy another manual focus 35mm for my F-mount cameras, I'd probably get the Zeiss ZF 35/2, or maybe a very late serial no. Nikkor Ai-S 35/2. The Nikkor 35/2 is less "funky" wide open and probably just as sharp as the Nikkor 35/1.4 @ f2. Just my two yen worth 😉

P.S. I'm a fan of the Nikkor 50/1.4 too. I have one from the post 2006 serial no. range and kept it over the Ai-S 50/1.2, AF-S 50/1.4, and ZF 50/1.4.

 

[James24]

I don't think you can go wrong with the 35mm f2 Nikkors. The AIS version, which I currently have, will match perfectly with your FM3a. I used to own an old AI'd 35mm f2 OC which produced really good results. I have also had a 35mm f1.4AI, but never liked it quite as much. That said, I may get an AIS version as well one day!

 

[former member]

Nikkor-O 35mm F2, factory AI'd. Is my keeper.

I also have the Nikkor-S 35/2.8 and Nikkor 35/2.8 Perspective Control lens. Sold off the 35/2 Multi-coated lens.

Bteween the 24 and 28: Get the 24/2.8 Nikkor-NC.

 

[kshapero]

I have the CV 40 and CV 58 and I love it. Looking to get the CV 90 soon. All being used on my FM3a. CV 40 pancake is on the body 80% of the time. Me happy.

 

[mawz]

I'd take the 58mm Nokton or the ZF 50/1.4 Planar over the Nikkor 50/1.4, the latter is my least liked Nikkor 50mm. I've owned the f2, the f1.8 pancake and the 1.4, and shot a fair bit with the 1.2, when I had the 1.4 it stayed in my bag and the Series E f1.8 got used instead, aside from the speed the f1.8 and f2's are better than the 1.4. I've also owned the Nokton and it was my go-to normal for a couple years before I sold all my Nikon kit.

As to 35's, I've owned the 1.4, f2 (AI-S), f2.5E and f2.8. I'd rate them f1.4, f2.5E, f2, f2.8. They're all good lenses but both the f2 and f2.8 have essentially no signature, I went back to the 2.5E from the f2 because of the nicer rendering of the f2.5E (it's also by far the most compact of the non-AF 35's). The f1.4 is a lens with a very distinct signature from f1.4-f2.8 and changes completely at f4 becoming the best general use 35 at smaller apertures. The Ultron is nice, small, sharp and boring. Excellent lens but somewhat lacking in character.

 

[StevenJohn]

I've got a 35mm f/2 AI. It is my favorite MF Nikon lens and lives permanently on my FE2. The 50mm f/1.4 gives me the shallow DOF, but the harsher bokeh doesn't give me the same separation between background and subject. I find it pairs well with my 105mm f/2.5.

 

[Stuart John]

Well I prefer the 35mm 2.5 E because that is the one I could afford and was available at the time and I like it as it turns out. However I would have bought the 35mm F2 "O" that was in my local store for 2 years and when I went to buy it it was gone so not wanting to miss another 35mm manual focus I grab the 35mm F2.5 E. I also have the 105 2.5 ( Sonnar version) and the 105 with the 35 make a great combo with an FM2.

 

[Stuart John]

I see Steven John like a 35, 105 combo

 

[StevenJohn]

A 35mm f/2 shot from the Smoky Mountains...

 

[newspaperguy]

My fave w/a is the Nikkor 28/3.5, but my best lens of all in the N category is my original Nikkor-S 50/1.4 bought used in 1971, that was ai'd several years ago by John White. Lives on my Chrome F. serial # 651XXXX.

FWIW- despite all the raves about the 105, my choice in the short tele is the Nikkor-Q 135/2.8 with the built in hood. (Again a JW ai.)

 

[rover]

Thanks for all the comments so far.

I really like the pairing of a 35 and 58 or 55mm lenses which is what really draws me to the Nokton, besides that I really like it (I have one in Pentax mount I will be selling). If I were going to go with a Nikkor 50 it would be the 1.8 I guess which seems to be a real good performer for a reasonable $$$.

I like 24 with a 35 too rather than a 28, but the reviews are sooo good for the AIS 28/2.8, but I am sure I will go for the 24/2.8. And 135mm is too long for me, 85mm too short, 105.... just right.

 

[semilog]

I used the 35/2 AIS for about 15 years for probably 80% of my work. It's very good at f/4-11 — it's fairly well-corrected and has reasonable but not stellar bokeh. At wider apertures it's low contrast and there's considerable coma, and the lens does exhibit a bit of barrel distortion. The best thing about this lens is that its behavior is very predictable. It's easy to learn what this glass will do across its aperture and focus range. Mechanically, it's superb. Ergonomically, it's outstanding.

Lembert Dome and climbers, Tuolumne Meadows, Yosemite, c. 1991. Kodachrome 64, 35/2 AIS, probably f/8.

All that said, any of several RF lenses are considerably better at wide apertures, including the 1.2 Nokton, both of the 35 Biogons, and (of course) the Summicron and Summilux ASPH's. The 35 Summilux is as good at f/2 as the AIS is at f/5.6. But the AIS, used correctly, is capable of delivering superb results.

Currently I use F mount solely for short telephoto (85mm), but if I were going to get a 35 for the F mount today, it would be the ZF 35/2 Distagon. Only downsides to that lens are its size, weight, and price — all of which are large. The new (AF) Nikkor 35/1.4 lens is even bigger and heavier and more expensive, but it might be the best 35 available for any lens mount.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Get a 50/1.8 Series-E with the metal ring around the barrel. Cheap enough to be a no-brainer, and it 'draws' so beautifully, i don't have need/want of anything else. I've had Summicrons and Summiluxes, ASPH and Pre- and i still love the Series-E. I'm not sure i get the appeal of the 58mm lens. 50 + 35, to me, is a pretty significant separation, especially with an SLR. For 'people,' i'd want a 35+50+85 combination....

Glad you asked about the 35s. I have an FE2 and F100, and want to add a 35, if not the 28/2.8. I have a Soviet Mir-24 with Nikon mount now, so it's not a rush. The Mir-24 is not built exceptionally, but when you can find them, they're cheap. Excellent bokeh. Said to be modeled after an old Nikkor 35/2, but i'm not sure which version.

http://flickrhivemind.net/flickr_hv...tingness&textinput=MIR-24&.submit=Search+Tags

 

[semilog]

If you can deal with the FL's, I think the ultimate Nikon kit is 28/2.8 — 55/2.8 micro or 50/1.8 (both much better than the 1.4 AIS or AF-D) — 105/2.5.

I rather strongly prefer the 35/85 pairing. So my kit for years was 24/2.8 — 35/2 — 85/2 — 180/2.8 ED. All AIS, all on FE2's, usually. I used the 35 and 85 the most, but loved the 24 and 180 most.

 

[StevenJohn]

I have a 24mm f/2.8 AIS I'll part with. I never got along with the wide angle look. I find I never go wider than 28mm and even that is pretty rare. 35mm is typical for me. I must have gotten a gem of a 35mm. My AI trounces my AFD.

 

[semilog]

The other option in this FL range is the Cosina-Voightlander 40/2 (second version). It is better optically than any of the Nikkor f/2 35's, and it's smaller, and it pretty much rocks in almost every way.

For sheer performance, the ZF. For overall utility, the C-V.

Another way of looking at it: if I was shooting a big body like the F3, I'd probably get the ZF. If I were shooting a smaller body (FM3a, FE2, etc.), the C-V.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I have a Nikkor 35/2 ais and the only real complaint I have is that it gives me haloes around lights in night shots. The 35/2 AF I have is much better in that regard. The Nikkor 24/2.8 is also good but the Nikkor 28/2.8 ais I think a little sharper from my use of them both. I like pairing the 35/2 with either the 24/2.8 or 28/2.8 ais and a 85/1.8 but a good 85/2 would be a more compact option.

Bob

 

[ERV]

I recently started playing with my F3 that I bought as a present to myself after grad school in the mid 80's.
I'm intrigued by a lens that I use wide open and have been thinking about the nikon 50mm f1.2.
Any users or opinions?

Beautiful image of Yosemite!

 

[kxl]

It's by no means "little" but the ZF 35/2.0 is what I would buy if I were in the market for a manual focus F-mount lens (and had the budget for it). Or, if money were no object and you can wait for a couple of months, Zeiss will be coming out with a ZF.2 35/1.4 in the next 2-3 months. Needless to say, optical quality remains to be seen and at an expected price of ~$1800, it's not cheap, but it is an intriguing option.