Larry Cloetta
Veteran
I have been unable either through a forum search or an extensive Google search to find any definitive comparisons between these two lenses, even with realizing that it is a fairly subjective question.
Mostly finding lots of praise for each lens, but don't know if the person giving the opinion has sufficient experience with both lenses. My impression is that both the 1.8 and the 2.5 are very nice lenses, but what I would like to know, from those here who own and use both lenses, is which one they feel is "better", and why. I know it's subjective, but anything would help. I've looked at as many picture examples as I could find, and those would lead me to prefer the 1.8, but there are too many other factors which go into the final result besides the lens.
Money always a factor, but assuming they were both the same price, which one would people rather have? I can afford a 2.5 now and would have to save for a 1.8, but that's ok. For me, "character" is a plus, and nice bokeh matters, and it is probably a good idea to sidestep the issue of what 'nice' means in the context of bokeh. And subject separation is always good.
I've seen some sample shots comparing the original 1.8 to the 2005 reissue 1.8, and I actually preferred the original, if that helps.
Anyway, thanks in advance for any help/opinions anyone could offer.
Best wishes,
Larry
Mostly finding lots of praise for each lens, but don't know if the person giving the opinion has sufficient experience with both lenses. My impression is that both the 1.8 and the 2.5 are very nice lenses, but what I would like to know, from those here who own and use both lenses, is which one they feel is "better", and why. I know it's subjective, but anything would help. I've looked at as many picture examples as I could find, and those would lead me to prefer the 1.8, but there are too many other factors which go into the final result besides the lens.
Money always a factor, but assuming they were both the same price, which one would people rather have? I can afford a 2.5 now and would have to save for a 1.8, but that's ok. For me, "character" is a plus, and nice bokeh matters, and it is probably a good idea to sidestep the issue of what 'nice' means in the context of bokeh. And subject separation is always good.
I've seen some sample shots comparing the original 1.8 to the 2005 reissue 1.8, and I actually preferred the original, if that helps.
Anyway, thanks in advance for any help/opinions anyone could offer.
Best wishes,
Larry
raid
Dad Photographer
I could compare these two lenses. From what I have read online on them, it seems that the 35/1.8 is similar to the first version Summicron, while the 35/2.5 is like the Summaron .35/2.8. I don't know (yet) if such statements are correct or not. The 35/2.5 is a recent purchase, while I have used the 35/1.8 well this year.
Corran
Well-known
I had a vintage 3.5cm f/1.8, and I currently have a 3.5cm f/1.8 2005 edition and an f/2.5 (black barrel) lens. I also have the 3.5cm f/3.5, with original brass/chrome barrel
The f/1.8 definitely has some busy bokeh at wide stops - see this shot, wide-open:
However everything else about the lens is fantastic. I haven't noticed anything different between the two f/1.8 lenses except the newer one has more accurate color due to the elements not having some staining from the radioactivity or whatever. Some spherical aberrations wide-open but not bad.
The f/2.5 has smoother bokeh and seems just about as sharp, but I don't rigorously test that kind of thing. If counting lp/mm charts are your thing...well sorry, they aren't mine. It's very sharp though, especially getting away from wide-open. I would probably default to this lens...but another stop of light sure is nice at times!
I know you didn't ask but the f/3.5 has a gorgeous rendering, very "classic" looking. But it has poor bokeh (worse than the f/1.8). Still sharp though at moderate f/stops.
PS - on my to-do list, probably for this upcoming year, is a full comprehensive test on the M9 of all three of these lenses, as well as all 3 versions of the 10.5cm/105mm lenses (S and F mount).
The f/1.8 definitely has some busy bokeh at wide stops - see this shot, wide-open:
However everything else about the lens is fantastic. I haven't noticed anything different between the two f/1.8 lenses except the newer one has more accurate color due to the elements not having some staining from the radioactivity or whatever. Some spherical aberrations wide-open but not bad.
The f/2.5 has smoother bokeh and seems just about as sharp, but I don't rigorously test that kind of thing. If counting lp/mm charts are your thing...well sorry, they aren't mine. It's very sharp though, especially getting away from wide-open. I would probably default to this lens...but another stop of light sure is nice at times!
I know you didn't ask but the f/3.5 has a gorgeous rendering, very "classic" looking. But it has poor bokeh (worse than the f/1.8). Still sharp though at moderate f/stops.
PS - on my to-do list, probably for this upcoming year, is a full comprehensive test on the M9 of all three of these lenses, as well as all 3 versions of the 10.5cm/105mm lenses (S and F mount).
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Thanks, that helps. I had previously seen, somewhere, the same night shot made with both old and new versions of the 1.8, subject in the foreground and a string of lights in the background, and the bokeh, if looking at the lights, was a little smoother on the older lens, or maybe it was just spherical aberration. And I don't know the aperture. Thanks for the sample, and the comparison. Also, thanks for putting in a word for the 3.5. I was trying to narrow it down to one, in order to just acquire the one I was sure I wanted above all the others, so I would not have a GAS attack later, but that has never worked for me in the past, so not sure why I am thinking I can be that sensible now.
Thanks to you both for the help.
Thanks to you both for the help.
IMO you can't go wrong with either a W-Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 or F2.5. They're both great lenses, and I found them to be quite similar in shots I've taken with both. The biggest difference between them is the maximum aperture, so if you don't need F1.8 buy the F2.5 lens and be happy.
A while back, I also did a comparison between the vintage F1.8 and reissue F1.8 lenses, and again the differences weren't huge. The thread is here but unfortunately I've long since deleted the photos from flickr. The colour balance is more natural with the modern version, and its sharper wide open and more flare resistant, but the vintage version does pretty well too.
Here's a few shots taken with a reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8
Here's a few shots taken with a vintage W-Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5
A while back, I also did a comparison between the vintage F1.8 and reissue F1.8 lenses, and again the differences weren't huge. The thread is here but unfortunately I've long since deleted the photos from flickr. The colour balance is more natural with the modern version, and its sharper wide open and more flare resistant, but the vintage version does pretty well too.
Here's a few shots taken with a reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8
Here's a few shots taken with a vintage W-Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Thanks, that helps, as well. It is great to get the benefit of someone else's personal experience. And I appreciate the photos. ( Nice shot of the water lilies.)
Highway 61
Revisited
I have both (the 1.8 is a classic version, not the reissue) and like them equally. Like Jon I can't see the least bit of difference between the two on the photos shot from f/2.8 onwards and I will say that the only difference regards the max. aperture you can use the lens at. The 2.5 has my favour as for a 24/24 carry-over (always in my daily bag). It's a black one and I like its small size and weight.
As I began photography at a time when concepts like bokeh and lens rendition hadn't been invented yet, I don't care much about this re. my lenses. As far as they don't exhibit huge distorsion and/or vignetting and are sharp enough everywhere in the frame, that's OK for me and both are just as good as they get in that respect with even some stunning resistance to flare (they're single coated).
Some shots with the 1.8 :
Now the 2.5 :
Both will delight you I reckon.
As I began photography at a time when concepts like bokeh and lens rendition hadn't been invented yet, I don't care much about this re. my lenses. As far as they don't exhibit huge distorsion and/or vignetting and are sharp enough everywhere in the frame, that's OK for me and both are just as good as they get in that respect with even some stunning resistance to flare (they're single coated).
Some shots with the 1.8 :
Now the 2.5 :
Both will delight you I reckon.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I had both for a time. Both are now gone. I wish I had kept the f2.5 version.
It could be very wild wide open and up close.
Look at the two MFD samples below. Both with same exposure values applied.
The f2.5 version at f2.5 and at MFD is almost feral but in a beautiful way. It shows so much aberations it's as if it's a different lens.
But then you see at wide open closer to infinity it is remarkablly good and quite natural.
Below are a few samples at different f-stops and distances as indicated.
All HP5 at 1600. Samples in Tmax Dev. Last couple in Rodinal 1:100.
f2.5 at 1 meter (MFD)
f2.5 at 1 meter sample by Adnan W, on Flickr
F4 at 1 Meter (MFD)
f4 at 1meter sample by Adnan W, on Flickr
f2.5 at 3 meters
f2.5 at 3 meters sample by Adnan W, on Flickr
f2.5 near infinity
f2.5 near infinity sample by Adnan W, on Flickr
One more from another HP5 roll.
jbp by Adnan W, on Flickr
A Grainy Selfy with HP5
Yo by Adnan W, on Flickr
It could be very wild wide open and up close.
Look at the two MFD samples below. Both with same exposure values applied.
The f2.5 version at f2.5 and at MFD is almost feral but in a beautiful way. It shows so much aberations it's as if it's a different lens.
But then you see at wide open closer to infinity it is remarkablly good and quite natural.
Below are a few samples at different f-stops and distances as indicated.
All HP5 at 1600. Samples in Tmax Dev. Last couple in Rodinal 1:100.
f2.5 at 1 meter (MFD)
f2.5 at 1 meter sample by Adnan W, on FlickrF4 at 1 Meter (MFD)
f4 at 1meter sample by Adnan W, on Flickrf2.5 at 3 meters
f2.5 at 3 meters sample by Adnan W, on Flickrf2.5 near infinity
f2.5 near infinity sample by Adnan W, on FlickrOne more from another HP5 roll.
jbp by Adnan W, on FlickrA Grainy Selfy with HP5
Yo by Adnan W, on Flickr
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
As I began photography at a time when concepts like bokeh and lens rendition hadn't been invented yet,
I began with a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, so I understand. Bakelight being the poor man's 'black paint version'.
Corran
Well-known
Another thought...
It seems like I've seen several bargain f/1.8 lenses pop up in the last year. Lenses for under $600, or even less, while newer black-barrel f/2.5 lenses continue to command a premium.
I only got an f/2.5 lens to pair with my Leica (the f/1.8 doesn't fit on the camera w/ an Amedeo adapter), and then that f/3.5 lens fell in my lap for under $100. But if I were to choose only one, for an S-mount Nikon RF, I'd get the f/1.8 for sure considering the small difference in price lately between a good black-barrel f/2.5 and bargain f/1.8.
It seems like I've seen several bargain f/1.8 lenses pop up in the last year. Lenses for under $600, or even less, while newer black-barrel f/2.5 lenses continue to command a premium.
I only got an f/2.5 lens to pair with my Leica (the f/1.8 doesn't fit on the camera w/ an Amedeo adapter), and then that f/3.5 lens fell in my lap for under $100. But if I were to choose only one, for an S-mount Nikon RF, I'd get the f/1.8 for sure considering the small difference in price lately between a good black-barrel f/2.5 and bargain f/1.8.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Thanks, that helps since one of my favorite lenses is the Nikkor 50 1.2 Ais for this same reason; two lenses in one with the aberrations wide open being a feature, not a bug, for me, at least.
I'm thinking I will go for the 2.5 at this point, though I had been leaning to the 1.8 before all the input. Money always a factor. Maybe later. I appreciate all the help.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have the LTM version of the 35/1.8. It is a great lens overall. It is amazing with the M9 for color images.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Nikon S2, Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 vintage, Tmax400.
Erik.
Erik.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Both are great lenses.
Nikon S2, Nikkor 35mm f/2.5, Tmax400.
Erik.
Nikon S2, Nikkor 35mm f/2.5, Tmax400.
Erik.
shimokita
白黒
Here's a few shots taken with a reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8
very nice composition...
Casey
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Thanks to everyone who replied. So you know it was not an idle question, I bought a 2.5 I had been looking at. Had been looking at a couple of 1.8s as well, but will wait on the 1.8 until a better deal presents itself. The comments helped.
Larry
Larry