A 35mm lens for a Nikon FM3A

[Shab]

Hi,

I'm looking for a 35mm lens for a nikon fm3a. I will use it with B/W film.

I have used a Zuiko OM 35mm 2.0 on my OM-1n in the last 15 years... someone has talk about the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 AIS... and there is the Zeiss 2.0/35 Distagon ZF.2... I used a 2.0/35 Biogon in a Zeiss Ikon ZM and it was a lovely lens. Is the Distagon near to the Biogon? Or these are very different lenses?

Which one would you use? Any other sugestion?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Freakscene]

Hi,

I'm looking for a 35mm lens for a nikon fm3a. I will use it with B/W film.

I have used a Zuiko OM 35mm 2.0 on my OM-1n in the last 15 years... someone has talk about the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 AIS... and there is the Zeiss 2.0/35 Distagon ZF.2... I used a 2.0/35 Biogon in a Zeiss Ikon ZM and it was a lovely lens. Is the Distagon near to the Biogon? Or these are very different lenses?

Which one would you use? Any other sugestion?

Thanks for your help!

I don't love the Zuiko 35/2 like a lot of people do. I found it one of the worst of the OM lenses. In that context . . .

The Zeiss 35mm f2 Distagon ZF.2 or the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2 are excellent. They are much better than any of the manual focus Nikkors. The Zeiss Milvus 35/2 and 35/1.4 lenses have the same design as the ZF.2 lenses but a different barrel and mechanical design and have good weather sealing. The best manual focus Nikkor 35s are the 35/2 Ai (not AiS) and the 35/1.4 AiS, but they stopped advancing these designs in the early 1980s. On film, particularly fast film, you're unlikely to see a huge amount of difference apart from flare. The Zeiss T* coating is amazing, and their lenses handle bad light better than the old Nikkors so they do produce better photos in difficult situations.

I don't have any samples on hand, but I loved both of these when I tested them back when they came out and I was reviewing gear for magazines.


This is taken with the Nikkor 35/2 Ai on (I think) a Nikon FM2n. Tri-X, Xtol 1+3.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I don't love the Zuiko 35/2 like a lot of people do. I found it one of the worst of the OM lenses. In that context . . .

The Zeiss 35mm f2 Distagon ZF.2 or the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2 are excellent. They are much better than any of the manual focus Nikkors. The Zeiss Milvus 35/2 and 35/1.4 lenses have the same design as the ZF.2 lenses but a different barrel and mechanical design and have good weather sealing. The best manual focus Nikkor 35s are the 35/2 Ai (not AiS) and the 35/1.4 AiS, but they stopped advancing these designs in the early 1980s. On film, particularly fast film, you're unlikely to see a huge amount of difference apart from flare. The Zeiss T* coating is amazing, and their lenses handle bad light better than the old Nikkors so they do produce better photos in difficult situations.

I don't have any samples on hand, but I loved both of these when I tested them back when they came out and I was reviewing gear for magazines.

View attachment 4863073
This is taken with the Nikkor 35/2 Ai on a Nikon FM2n, I think. Tri-X, Xtol 1+3.

Why is the 35mm f2 AiS inferior to the Ai version? Don't they have the same optical design?

 

[mrtoml]

Why is the 35mm f2 AiS inferior to the Ai version? Don't they have the same optical design?

I have the 35/2 AI and it is pretty sharp. They go for about £150 in the UK. I have just read that the only real difference is that the AI has 7 blades vs 9 for the AIS. Some of the later versions have a better coating.

Just searching my database I found a couple of examples using a D7100:

 

[Shab]

I don't love the Zuiko 35/2 like a lot of people do. I found it one of the worst of the OM lenses. In that context . . .

The Zeiss 35mm f2 Distagon ZF.2 or the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2 are excellent. They are much better than any of the manual focus Nikkors. The Zeiss Milvus 35/2 and 35/1.4 lenses have the same design as the ZF.2 lenses but a different barrel and mechanical design and have good weather sealing. The best manual focus Nikkor 35s are the 35/2 Ai (not AiS) and the 35/1.4 AiS, but they stopped advancing these designs in the early 1980s. On film, particularly fast film, you're unlikely to see a huge amount of difference apart from flare. The Zeiss T* coating is amazing, and their lenses handle bad light better than the old Nikkors so they do produce better photos in difficult situations.

I don't have any samples on hand, but I loved both of these when I tested them back when they came out and I was reviewing gear for magazines.

View attachment 4863073
This is taken with the Nikkor 35/2 Ai on a Nikon FM2n, I think. Tri-X, Xtol 1+3.

Thank you for your answer!

I'm not a very technic photographer and maybe so I love the pictures I make with the Zuiko OM 35mm 2.0:


I have a VM 35mm 1.7 Ultron on my M5 and this is a very different lens... absolut sharpness, contrast... and I also love the photographs I make with it but in a different way. Zuiko is "Soft", Ultron is "Clinic" (for me).



Your portrait with the 35mm 2.0 Ai is so good...

I think the Distagon 2.0 can be a great lens for the fm3a... I will continue in my search.

 

[Malcolm M]

My first-choice 35mm Nikkor.

 

[Freakscene]

Why is the 35mm f2 AiS inferior to the Ai version? Don't they have the same optical design?

The AiS is tweaked for better MTF at small image sizes, in the 10-40 lp/mm range, and for colour fidelity. On black and white film, particularly 400+ speed film, I like the Ai much better. The 5 lp/mm trace is higher and the near tonal range contrast is better.

 

[Freakscene]

Thank you for your answer!

I'm not a very technic photographer and maybe so I love the pictures I make with the Zuiko OM 35mm 2.0:
View attachment 4863083

I have a VM 35mm 1.7 Ultron on my M5 and this is a very different lens... absolut sharpness, contrast... and I also love the photographs I make with it but in a different way. Zuiko is "Soft", Ultron is "Clinic" (for me).

View attachment 4863085

Your portrait with the 35mm 2.0 Ai is so good...

Thank you. We’ve been together for 30 years now. There is a lot of hope in that photo.

Your photo with the Zuiko is great, and shows why photos beat lenses. I don’t like the field curvature or the directionally smeared look in the out of focus. It’s still a great photo.

I think the Distagon 2.0 can be a great lens for the fm3a... I will continue in my search.

If you are not very technical, and you want to save some money, buy an optically good Nikkor and go for it. Even the Series E 35/2.5 is pretty decent. If you like lens signatures and want the ‘best’ look at lots of photos online and decide whether you like the signature of the Zeiss 35 f2 or f1.4 ZF.2 and see if you like the ZF.2 or Milvus body designs, and go from there.

 

[wlewisiii]

I use the Nikkor 35/2 Pre-AI that I had cut to fit on the AI cameras. It's lovely and was cheap. It's on my F4 right now.

 

[skopar steve]

Here is a sample of the Nikon 35mm 1.4 AI on400speed film. HP5 most likely. Shot wide open.

 

[Shab]

After reading your posts I continue looking for a lens... and in the way I have read about the Voigtlander 40mm 2.0 Ultron... I know it isn't a 35mm, but... has anybody used it? Which is your opinion?

I have been thinking about the Zeiss 2.0/35 Distagon... but it seems is a "bit big/heavy" lens for a FM3A... and I can not go to a shop and try it in my FM3A to have my feelings... thank you for your words and time!

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I own 35/2.0 Nikkor lenses, AI and late pre-AI w/AI cosmetics.
They are my most often used lenses with my Nikon 35mm SLRs.

Chris

 

[Nitroplait]

35/2 is great (AiS for better coating and flare control) but I have also been happy with the pre ai (pre-k) version as well. I also love my 35/1.4 ais - probably marginally more when looking at the results, but it is big and that’s the major issue I have with that lens, and the reason it sees less use than the 35/2.

 

[Ljós]

Shab, I 'll chime in with my 35mm Nikkor and 40CV experiences in a minute, but I'm curious, so I gotta ask: how did the switch to/addition of a FM3A come about? For years you've been one of the most remarkable spirit-of-Maitani-ambassadors ;-) (I'm serious though) here on RFF, your pictures in the Zuikoholic-thread are just awesome. You have your own distinct style and a great eye. And the small, unobtrusive OM-bodies and the Zuikos you've been using seem to gel perfectly with that.

At the same time I understand the siren song of a camera with two more stops of shutter speed than OM-1 or OM-2, and the possibilities of the F-mount.

Here's my experience: I used a 35mm f2 Nikkor for many years as my main lens. I *think* it was the AI-S version, and I am pretty sure it had 7 iris blades, not 9. I'd say: it served me well, but it was not remarkable. Bokeh (overall) was not bad, but not great, it had trouble with ghosting during nighttime scenes, and while it was not unusably soft at f2, I never felt it had a truly great balance of sharpness, lens speed and size/weight. Compared to what's possible in the 35mm range with rangefinders, I found it lacking. (I switched to Leica M2 with 40mm Rokkor f2 and later 35mm f2.8 Summaron, and was much happier.)

I also had the CV 40mm Ultron f2 in F-mount for a short while, the very first version. I think it's a really good lens, and it's great to be able to buy a lens that's recently manufactured, and for a mount system that keeps being updated with new lenses (thinking of Voigtländer 28 2.8 or 58 1.4 etc.). But it did not floor me, and I did not gel with the FM2 I used it with. After shooting Leica M for a couple of years it felt clunky and unrefined. I checked out Olympus OM-1 (inspired, in part, by you and your pictures in the Zuikoholic-thread, Sir! 🙂) and liked the experience way more than with the FM2.

(I did even own the now unobtainable 40mm f2 Zuiko for a short while, sold it to a fellow RFF'er who was very happy with it and must have doubled or tripled his 'investment' in the meantime, this was about 10 years ago and prices have been climbing ever since. I really liked the lens and the focal length, it was the closest one could get to the Leica M with 40mm f2-experience in SLR-land, but I was wondering how the lens would hold up over the years if I used it every day (I'm talking about the filter ring being integrated in the moving aperture ring, I would not say it felt flimsy ... just not as confidence inspiring as I would have liked.)


If you're looking for a small walkabout 35mm for Nikon: have you considered one of the versions of the 2.8 35? The six element version maybe: NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights No.38 | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights | Nikon Consumer ? I know it has quite some fans here on RFF, and can be found for less than 200 Euro. But since you are considering the Distagon you're maybe looking for something more modern?

Since you're coming from the 35 f2 Zuiko, which has a certain look wide open:
If you are looking for a lens with a distinct fingerprint (and some imperfections which can be put to use creatively) I'd guess that you'll be happier with the 35 1.4 Nikkor than with other, more 'perfect' options. Are you looking for "soft" or "clinic"? ;-) The 35 1.4 could possibly give you both, as it is very sharp stopped down, but has a bunch of field curvature and sharpness falloff and vignetting wide open.

 

[rulnacco]

In real world use--shooting film, handheld, at middle apertures--you will probably not notice one single bit of real discernible difference between Nikkors of various apertures, Voigtlanders, or Zeiss optics. Now, if you're shooting brick walls wide open with your camera mounted on a tripod with Tech Pan and using a cable release, YMMV. But who the hell would actually do that? And what that's really useful does it accomplish?

I don't have an FM3a, but I do have several Nikon film bodies--FE (two of them), F2AS, F3, F4. For practical walking around use and shooting at F4 to F8 or so, the 35/f2.0 AIS does a wonderful job, and is reasonably small and light, as well as being extremely well built and very reasonably priced. The 35mm/f1.4 AIS (which I also have) has some interesting "character" wide open, but stopped down to F2.8 to F8, it's extremely sharp and is generally a pleasure to use. I don't own the Nikkor 35mm/f2.8, but I've heard it's pretty sweet, too--and I'm sure it will be lighter and more compact than either of the two that I own, and quite possibly sharper.

I wouldn't worry one bit about IQ from any of the three manufacturers I mentioned. If you're using the camera and lens to shoot anything that anyone would actually want to look at, any of them will be fine. Get the one that, ergonomically, gives you the most pleasure and ease of shooting, and makes you want to go out and take photos with it. Cameras and lenses are like guitars--you don't have to have technically "the best" one, you need to use the one that inspires you to play, to experiment, and to create. And that gives you the "feel" and look you want. Really, the ultimate last bit of sharpness in the corners is *not* what inspires those things.

I would hope.

 

[Out to Lunch]

the Voigtlander 40mm 2.0 Ultron... I know it isn't a 35mm, but... has anybody used it?

So far, I haven't been able to find one. Nikon Z shooters have bought them all?

 

[Freakscene]

(I did even own the now unobtainable 40mm f2 Zuiko for a short while, sold it to a fellow RFF'er who was very happy with it and must have doubled or tripled his 'investment' in the meantime, this was about 10 years ago and prices have been climbing ever since. I really liked the lens and the focal length, it was the closest one could get to the Leica M with 40mm f2-experience in SLR-land, but I was wondering how the lens would hold up over the years if I used it every day (I'm talking about the filter ring being integrated in the moving aperture ring, I would not say it felt flimsy ... just not as confidence inspiring as I would have liked.)

OM 40mm f2 prices crashed. They were going for over $3k, now they are ~$1k.

More sensible.

Marty

 

[Ljós]

OM 40mm f2 prices crashed. They were going for over $3k, now they are ~$1k.

More sensible.

Marty

Oh wow, I was aware that they were dipping into four digits ... never would have imagined that they made it to $3k territory. When I bought and sold it, it was still less than 400 USD, if I remember correctly.

 

[Freakscene]

Oh wow, I was aware that they were dipping into four digits ... never would have imagined that they made it to $3k territory. When I bought and sold it, it was still less than 400 USD, if I remember correctly.

There was a mania for that lens for a while, for sure. Happens!

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I have an early AI or possibly AI modified, 35mm f/1.4 and it is fantastic. It has a bit of the yellow tinge from a thoriated element. I don't grab it all the time as 35mm isn't a focal length I normally go for, but when I do, the images are great. It is a far better lens than I am a photographer.
Phil