Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Two lens kit for a Nikon manual focus: ZF 35mm f2.0 & Nikon 105 f2.5 Ai-S.
35mm Nikkors?
- Thread starter rover
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 84
- Views 10K
awilder
Alan Wilder
For Nikkors, if you want nice performance at f/2 anf f/2.8, the 35/1.4 AI/AIS is the way to go and isn't much bigger than the 35/2. I suspect the 35/2 AF-D will do just as well closely followed by the 35/2 AI/AIS. If optimal performance is required, the 35/2 ZF beats them all if size is secondary.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^--- The 35/2 AF-D is reputed to be optically superior to the AIS.
But mechanically, ick. I'd much rather use the 35/2.5 Series E (a shockingly good value, BTW).
But mechanically, ick. I'd much rather use the 35/2.5 Series E (a shockingly good value, BTW).
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
If size is secondary, I'd guess that this is even better. Provided, of course, that you don't need a manual aperture ring...
F
former member
Guest
The eight element Nikkor-O 35/2 is reputed to have the smoothest Bokeh. For a while the single-coated sold for more than the multicoated "OC" at KEH.
When asking questions like this, it is often best to state what qualities in a lens that you are looking for, and a price range to stay within.
When asking questions like this, it is often best to state what qualities in a lens that you are looking for, and a price range to stay within.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I have a 35mm f2 AF-D and it is sharp and hasn't got too much distortion. Some of the distortion visible in the photo below is actually the old building, which is sagging and whose walls are not perfectly straight anymore.
dbarnes
Well-known
I'm with semilog -- have tried 20/28/50/105/200 but strongly prefer 24/35/85/180/300. Don't see much point in 35/50, just too close. Maybe if you absolutely need f1.4 and have a super tight budget pushing you to the 50.
In the 35s, I've owned and used the f2AIS and f2.5E. I'd take the former for anything serious, although the E is small and light and pretty sharp.
In the 85s there's the f1.8 that's big but excellent and cheap and there are two f2 models, both petite compared to the f1.8 -- one with a long focus throw and one with much quicker focusing. I'd take the latter.
FWIW. Have fun.
In the 35s, I've owned and used the f2AIS and f2.5E. I'd take the former for anything serious, although the E is small and light and pretty sharp.
In the 85s there's the f1.8 that's big but excellent and cheap and there are two f2 models, both petite compared to the f1.8 -- one with a long focus throw and one with much quicker focusing. I'd take the latter.
FWIW. Have fun.
Vilk
Established
35/2 AIS all the way, very good lens (1.4 was giving me consistently unusable results and i moved on rather quickly)
ps. when you say you never liked any of the 50s--you did try the longnose 1.8 AIS, right? this guy singlehandedly exiled my 'cron DR to permanent closet storage
😎
ps. when you say you never liked any of the 50s--you did try the longnose 1.8 AIS, right? this guy singlehandedly exiled my 'cron DR to permanent closet storage
😎
Brian Legge
Veteran
I'm about to have a little shootout myself. I picked up the 24mm f2.8 a while ago. Great quality but the lens is just slightly too wide for me.
I picked up a 35mm f/2 AIS and a partially AI'd 28mm f/2. I haven't had a chance to do much shooting with them yet, but my intent is to keep one of the three lenses. Thanks to a few recent craigslist deals, I've got way more Nikon lens than I really need.
I haven't had to deal with much planning in the past when it came to lenses like this as I've been shooting with a 50mm and 85mm for a while. At this point I have:
24mm 2.8 AI
28mm 2.0 AI'd
35mm 2.0 AIS
50mm 1.8 D (autofocus)
50mm 1.4 AI'd (low light)
50mm 2.8 Sigma (macro lens)
85mm 1.8 D (autofocus)
105mm 2.5 AIS
Ideally I'd have perhaps 3 lenses to cover focal lengths, but since I'm bottom feeding a bit, I'll probably end up with more to cover different roles. The 85mm and 50mm 1.8 are great autofocus lenses for times when it is useful. The Sigma is a great macro lens. I always am short on light, so the 1.4 makes sense unless I keep taking the lynx for those times instead.
Aside from selling two of the first three lenses, I also need to decide if the 105 2.5 is worth keeping given the close 85mm lens. I picked it up on a trade and wanted to try it given its stellar reputation. It would have to be incredible for me to keep it over the 85mm, but who knows.
I'm leaning towards the 35/85 pairing, with a few 50s for special uses. I need to give the 28 and 105 a few uses before making up my mind for sure, but this seems like the best variety per lens mix. After shooting with 40mm rangefinders, 50mm feels like a zoom.
I picked up a 35mm f/2 AIS and a partially AI'd 28mm f/2. I haven't had a chance to do much shooting with them yet, but my intent is to keep one of the three lenses. Thanks to a few recent craigslist deals, I've got way more Nikon lens than I really need.
I haven't had to deal with much planning in the past when it came to lenses like this as I've been shooting with a 50mm and 85mm for a while. At this point I have:
24mm 2.8 AI
28mm 2.0 AI'd
35mm 2.0 AIS
50mm 1.8 D (autofocus)
50mm 1.4 AI'd (low light)
50mm 2.8 Sigma (macro lens)
85mm 1.8 D (autofocus)
105mm 2.5 AIS
Ideally I'd have perhaps 3 lenses to cover focal lengths, but since I'm bottom feeding a bit, I'll probably end up with more to cover different roles. The 85mm and 50mm 1.8 are great autofocus lenses for times when it is useful. The Sigma is a great macro lens. I always am short on light, so the 1.4 makes sense unless I keep taking the lynx for those times instead.
Aside from selling two of the first three lenses, I also need to decide if the 105 2.5 is worth keeping given the close 85mm lens. I picked it up on a trade and wanted to try it given its stellar reputation. It would have to be incredible for me to keep it over the 85mm, but who knows.
I'm leaning towards the 35/85 pairing, with a few 50s for special uses. I need to give the 28 and 105 a few uses before making up my mind for sure, but this seems like the best variety per lens mix. After shooting with 40mm rangefinders, 50mm feels like a zoom.
Last edited:
W
wlewisiii
Guest
(Madly scribbles notes onto my Nikkor information list)
Sounds like this Nikkor-O is one I'll need to save up for. Hows it do with B&W? Compared to, say, a Canon FD 35/2 or 50/1.4?
Brian Legge
Veteran
Keep in mind that the Nikkor-O is pre-AI. Great if you are shooting an earlier body or you'll need to get it converted.
Roninman
Established
Nikon F, 35mm Nikkor-O Auto f/2
Misty
Misty
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I'm only just now buying my first Nikon - a F2 Photomic (that is still enroute) so pre-AI is what I want & usually cheaper at that. Having an idea about which lenses in that pile of Nikkors that I'd like is a different problem entirely for me as I've spent all my SLR time with Canon.
My last high quality 35mm lens was a Canon FD 35/2 Chrome Nose with thorium glass which is a difficult lens to compare to. Brian S or Raid are folks who likely can make that comparison. Even if not, Brian's recommendation of it speaks volumes to me. Roninman's photo doesn't hurt it's chances, either :angel:
For now, I have a 28/3.5 H coming from KEH in the knowledge that it's "good enough" and "cheap enough" for me right now. A more expensive and (hopefully) better lens will be possible later and for now the 35/2 O joins the 105/2.5 P on my "save for" list.
ornate_wrasse
Moderator
As far as the 24 focal length goes, a friend of mine had the Nikkor 24/2.8 lens at about the same time as I bought a Zeiss 25/2.8. We were interested in which lens was better, i.e. sharper in the corners, etc and did some tests.
We carefully used both my Zeiss and his Nikkor to capture images of exactly the same scenes. When we compared the images, my friend was so impressed by the Zeiss, that he immediately sold his Nikkor and bought the Zeiss.
I bought the Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 lens before going to Buenos Aires Argentina last year so I could have a wide angle lens to use with my FM2N. I was very impressed with the results. I mostly used Ektar 100 film on that trip.
Ellen
ian_w
Member
Probably not what you want to hear, but the reason I use rangefinders is that I wasn't happy with the 35mm lenses I found on the SLRs I used to shoot.
For Nikon, I had an FM2n with 24/2, 35/1.4 and 105/2.5 that I traded for an M6TTL with 50/2. I only ever miss the 105 and longer lenses that are available, and that's pretty seldom. I was also working at a camera shop at the time and had access to just about anything to trial. In the Nikon 35mm lenses I found that I only really liked the results from the 35/2 AFD, but the lens is prone to oil leakage onto the aperture blades (had a few sample come through second hand that had this issue) and felt very frail next to the FM2n. The 35/1.4 produced great results from about f4 onwards, but then you have to ask why own it if the others are also good from that point? It's expensive to buy compared to the others and offers little further utility. The 24/2 was similarly soft until closed a couple of stops from wide open, but that had an interesting character that made me want to keep it.
All in all, I would suggest you try the 35/2 AFD or go jump on the CV40mm. I've heard good things about it, but not used one personally.
Ian
For Nikon, I had an FM2n with 24/2, 35/1.4 and 105/2.5 that I traded for an M6TTL with 50/2. I only ever miss the 105 and longer lenses that are available, and that's pretty seldom. I was also working at a camera shop at the time and had access to just about anything to trial. In the Nikon 35mm lenses I found that I only really liked the results from the 35/2 AFD, but the lens is prone to oil leakage onto the aperture blades (had a few sample come through second hand that had this issue) and felt very frail next to the FM2n. The 35/1.4 produced great results from about f4 onwards, but then you have to ask why own it if the others are also good from that point? It's expensive to buy compared to the others and offers little further utility. The 24/2 was similarly soft until closed a couple of stops from wide open, but that had an interesting character that made me want to keep it.
All in all, I would suggest you try the 35/2 AFD or go jump on the CV40mm. I've heard good things about it, but not used one personally.
Ian
not_in_good_order
Well-known
The 35 2 AIS isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but I think it is easy to handle and has pleasant rendering. Here are a few shots:
awilder
Alan Wilder
The 35/1.4G mentioned earlier is a non-starter on an FM3A. The lack of an aperture ring for G series makes it effectively an f/16 lens on older MF bodies. However, it is is hands down the best 35 Nikon's ever made from a performance standpoint and given the price of a used F100 would be great for film shooting not to mention digital. I recently picked up a clean used 35/1.4 AIS and tested it on film. Compared to earlier versions of this lens I owned 25 years ago, this one performs reasonably well from wide open on down with the biggest exception being flare wide open from under-corrected comatic aberration. This flare was well tamed by f/2. Naturally, if your work requires tack sharpness from corner to corner, stopping down to f/2.8 or f/4 is needed due to some curvature of field inherent in this design, but even at f/1.4 it is reasonably sharp out to the frame's edge. In fact dead center, it was a little sharper wide open than f/2 but the flare issue make f/2 the default maximum aperture unless the subject has minimal strong highlights where flare is not a big issue.
I didn't realize there was a 2nd verion of the CV 40/2 but I once tried it when released about 10 years ago. Very sharp due to the aspheric element but the bokeh was harsh and distracting. Additionally, the ergonomics were not to my liking and I returned the lens.
I didn't realize there was a 2nd verion of the CV 40/2 but I once tried it when released about 10 years ago. Very sharp due to the aspheric element but the bokeh was harsh and distracting. Additionally, the ergonomics were not to my liking and I returned the lens.
Last edited:
Mister E
Well-known
The 35/1.4 AIS is plenty sharp, but not up to modern standards for sure. The 35/2 AIS has a ton of ghosting, the 35/2 AF-D is much, much better and focuses very close.
F
former member
Guest
Nikkor 24/2.8 AIS, Wide-Open on the Leica M8:
