35mm Nikkors?

[semilog]

The best is 35 2.0 and 2.8 manual focus AiS Nikkors.

Lenses are more complicated than that.

Having spent 15 years using the 35/2 AIS as my main lens, I think that I can say a thing or two about its strengths and weaknesses.

It's a good-to-very-good lens, but "best" depends on how you're using the lens, and for what. Many people think the pre-ASPH 'lux is the "best" 35 ever, despite the fact that it is far from the "best" in purely quantitative terms.

The 35/2 AIS is poor for night photography due to reflections and coma. More generally, it's adequate but not fantastic at f/2 and f/2.8, especially in the corners. The Summilux ASPH blows the 35/2 AIS into the weeds at wide apertures; I say that having owned both for nearly a year before finally selling the AIS, sometimes shooting both side-by-side.

Depending on the application, several lenses may be better, including the ZF Distagon 35/2, the 35/2 AF-D, the C-V SLII 40/2, and the brand-spankin'-new 35/1.4, which might just be the best 35 ever shipped — even when compared vs. the Leica ASPH's and ZM Biogons.

All that said, the venerable 35/2 AIS gets the job done.

Marsh and eucalyptus trees, Natural Bridges State Park, California.
35/2 AIS @ f/5.6, 1/15 sec. handheld, Kodachrome 200.

 

[mawz]

I think that the consensus long ago formed around the 35 1,4, as being not just faster but BETTER than its slower sisters.

Which is true, except at f2-2.8 where the 35/2 has better cross-frame performance. The f1.4 is better at f4 and smaller and has a very distinct look at f1.4-2. At f2.8 it's just in the middle of changing from the wide-aperture 'look' to the great cross-frame performance and kinda sucks.

 

[mawz]

Testing the 35/1.4 AIS on my D700 (FX format) really surprised me in that resolution tests were fairly consistent stop for stop from f/1.4 through f/5.6 at 100%. The only difference other than comatic flare wide open was increased DOF and contrast. Both center and edge sharpness at f/1.4 was very close to that at f/5.6. My 35-70/2.8 AFD did about as well at respective apertures and focal length. Testing on my F100 with fine grain film naturally revealed higher resolution at f/2.8 to f/5.6.

That's very different from my experience. My experience was that from f1.4-2.8 centre sharpness was excellent but edge performance was poor to mediocre, starting around f4 the edge performance caught up to the centre and the lens became an excellent performer across the frame.

This results in a very distinctive look at f1.4-2 (sharp centre, soft corners, very '3D') and a simply excellent lens at f4 and smaller, but f2.8 performance that was neither.

 

[Calzone]

35/2.0 Nikkor-O for B&W. Perfect contrast with this single coated lens. Sturdy build with a beautiful metal scalloped focusing ring. Get an AI'ed version. Prices are cheap because Nikon made lots of them. It was a popular lens for a reason.

Cal

 

[awilder]

Mawz, my experience with earlier AI and AIS 35/1.4 Nikkors was similar to yours, excellent center, mediocre edge and corner until about f/4. The lens I have appears to be a relatively late one and I suspect over the years, Nikon has tweaked the types of glass or made minor changes to the formula to even out the performance (maybe). We know they tweaked the glass from earlier versions that used radioactive Thorium but that was decades ago. Unlike digital, testing on film does reveal higher resolution at the center than the edge/corner but only becomes more obvious from f/2.8 and smaller. On film, I would rate the center as excellent and the edge/corner as fair-good until f/5.6 where the edge/corner becomes good-very good.

 

[not_in_good_order]

Here is one more shot. The previous images I posted were on film, this is how the 35 2 AIS looks when used wide open on a D700:

 

[tomnrides]

Just ran a roll with Brand new Factory refurb AF35mm f2D on eBay thanks to this Thread. I was looking for a manual body when my FG died and though I have an F2S the archaic light meter display and the weight keep the camera as an ornamental piece.

 

[Gumby]

Ditto posts 4 & 8

 

[jarski]

would not rule out Kiron lenses either. havent tried myself (yet), but read positive comments about them.

 

[KoNickon]

It figures there'd be a lot of strongly held opinions on the 35mm focal length on a rangefinder forum! I'll say this, the 35/1.4 is great, and of course has an extra stop over the f2. But it's a heavy lens for the FM3A.

The 105/2.5 is of course a classic lens, but nobody has mentioned one of Nikon's great sleepers, the 100/2.8 Series E. This is a wonderful and lightweight lens, highly recommended.

 

[Vincent.G]

If you like and insist on 35, then the 1.4 is a great lens. Otherwise skip the 35 and 24 altogether and go for the 28 f2.8 ais. Pair it with either the 50f1.4ais or 55f2.8ais. My opinion is the slower nikkors are generally better so choose only fast ones if you truly need it and can live with their imperfections.

I use the 50f1.4 ais and 28f2.8 ais a lot, you browse my Flickr for sample shots.

 

[Mister E]

In a world with the very small 24/2 why get the 24/2.8?

 

[kxl]

In a world with the very small 24/2 why get the 24/2.8?

1) Flare - it is BAD

2) @ f2.0, the 24/2.0 is soft - stopped down it gets A LOT better.

If I'm going to stop down anyway, I might as well get the slower lens and save a couple of dollars.

 

[semilog]

It figures there'd be a lot of strongly held opinions on the 35mm focal length on a rangefinder forum! I'll say this, the 35/1.4 is great, and of course has an extra stop over the f2. But it's a heavy lens for the FM3A.

All true.

The 105/2.5 is of course a classic lens, but nobody has mentioned one of Nikon's great sleepers, the 100/2.8 Series E. This is a wonderful and lightweight lens, highly recommended.

I doubt that Nikon has *ever* made a bad lens in the 85-105mm range. This is, I think, their core competence — along with great camera body ergos.

 

[rover]

Thank you again for all your comments. I have secured a body and will order a lens shortly. It will be either the 35/2 or maybe if I stretch things 35/1.4. I love the discussion though, keep it coming.

 

[Nikon Bob]

would not rule out Kiron lenses either. havent tried myself (yet), but read positive comments about them.

I have used the 24/2 Kiron and it was very sharp stopped down on film using an FM2n. I think I had trouble focussing it wide open so the results wide open were not as sharp. The lens is built very well too. I have to thank Roger Hicks for the tip on that lens which was in a book of his that I read. The jury is still out on it's performance on digital as I have not used it much on the D700.

Bob

 

[awilder]

Here are some quicky test shots of the 35/1.4 AIS on digital wilth a D700 (FX format). The first shot at f/1.4 is simply included for as an uncropped reference. The second is a tight crop of the same shot and the 3rd a similar crop size at f/2. Stopping down further is only marginally better for center frame subjects.

 

[awilder]

To better appreciate the lens' ability to render fine detail, this is the same setup as the pevious post but using the 35/1.4 adapted to an Olympus EP-2. Cropping plus the camera's inherent 2x crop factor shows twice the detail since both cameras are around 12 MP. The first is at f/1.4, second at f/2 and the last at f/2.8. Unlike Nikon DSLR's, the full time live view feature of the E-P2 makes it very easy to see the effect of stopping down just 1 stop to eliminate the flare evident at f/1.4.

 

[Harry Lime]

I have the 2/35. I'm pretty sure it's an AIS, but it's buried in a bag somewhere.
It's not the curled focus ring type, but has the diamond rubber.

Pretty weak at f2 - 2.8. It sharpens up around f8. F16-f22 is also quite soft,
but scale focusing at f22 is something else. You get a massive amount of focus.

My example suffered from horrible color fringing on the D700.

A Summicron will slaughter it at pretty much any stop...

But what I do like about it is the silky smoothness of it's tonality in black and white...
It draws light very nicely. Nice glow, low to medium contrast. Vintage look.


One of these days I will replace it with the Zeiss ZF 2/35 or ZF 1.4/35...

 

[semilog]

A Summicron will slaughter it [Nikkor 35/2] at pretty much any stop...

This is a wild exaggeration.

My comparisons were made side-by-side at multiple distances with focus bracketing on heavy tripods, and Kodachrome, back in 1998 when I had both lenses. I might have also done some trials with Velvia. I was using a 35/2 AIS and a Summilux ASPH. Inspection of the results was done using a Leica binocular microscope (20X and 40X) and also projection.

Wide open there is simply no comparison. The ASPH is better at 1.4 than the AIS is at 2.8. Up to 2.8 the ASPH destroys the AIS.

At f/4, the ASPH is pretty much at its maximum. Field curvature still limits the corners until f/8. Now the AIS is rapidly improving. AIS at f/4 is as good as the ASPH wide open or perhaps at f/2.

At f/5.6 the AIS pulls almost even with the ASPH. In a typical scene you would not be able to tell which slides came from which lens, unless the scenes were shot using really exacting technique. Field curvature is still an issue with the ASPH. For these lenses at f/5.6, failure to damp your tripod or focus accurately will obliterate any remaining differences. Failure to use mirror lockup on the SLR will do the same.

At f/8 the results are indistinguishable, except that the two lenses are susceptible to different types of flare and reflection.

At f/11 and above both lenses are diffraction-limited. You can't fight quantum mechanics, even if your name is Walter Mandler.

In summary, a best-of-class Leica lens bests the AIS up to maybe f/4. Not at every stop. And the AIS is really only "slaughtered" at f/2 and f/2.8.

HOWEVER, in my hands the results obtained with an M at marginal shutter speeds are generally sharper than with a typical '70s or '80s Nikon SLR, due to reduced camera vibration with the M bodies — particularly at 1/125 and slower. The combination of lower vibration and better performance at wide apertures can make a BIG difference in overall IQ.