Meleica
Well-known
I know the longer the lens, the larger the variance is using a Nikon made, Contax Mount Nikkor....but I came across a CHEAP Nikon 35/2.5 ( for Contax )....it should work fine on my S3...right ? TIA
Dan
Dan
I can use a Nikon 35mm/2.5 ( contax mt ) on a Nikon RF ...right ?
- Thread starter Meleica
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 8
- Views 995
VinceC
Veteran
It will work just fine on either a Nikon or a Contax/Kiev. Depth of field corrects the difference in lenses below 50mm.
furcafe
Veteran
Vince is absolutely correct. Before I got my Zeiss-Opton 35/2.8 Biogon, the only 35 I had for my Contaci was the 35/2.5 w-Nikkor, & even after I finally got my Biogon, I've continued to use the Nikkor because the Biogon really isn't much better optically than the Nikkor, if @ all. That's 1 reason why I constantly recommend that people get the 35/2.5 w-Nikkor rather than the absurdly overpriced (due to collector interest) post-WWII 35/2.8 Biogons. The chrome Nikkors are particularly inexpensive.
Small correction, however: Unlike the telephoto Nikkors, the 35/2.5's were never made specifically "for Contax" (i.e., there's never a 'C' on the barrel or anything). They just happen to be compatible w/Contax RFs for the DoF reasons Vince mentioned.
Small correction, however: Unlike the telephoto Nikkors, the 35/2.5's were never made specifically "for Contax" (i.e., there's never a 'C' on the barrel or anything). They just happen to be compatible w/Contax RFs for the DoF reasons Vince mentioned.
Last edited:
It should be fine. If there is a 'c' on the barrel, I would love to see a picture of it. Nikon "did not" make a 3.5cm F2.5 specifically for the Contax that is known. On the other hand, if some Contax enthusiast approached Nikon for a special build, they may have accommodated.
I recently "fine-tuned" a J-12 for my S2. Of course with the FSU lenses, it probably would have required the same adjustment for any camera but the one it was originally used on.
I recently "fine-tuned" a J-12 for my S2. Of course with the FSU lenses, it probably would have required the same adjustment for any camera but the one it was originally used on.
VinceC
Veteran
There's usually a "c" on the front of the barrel, near the serial numbers -- ie, W-Nikkor -C
In that case, the C means the lens is "coated," and the C is usually red. Since there's no such thing as an uncoated postwar Nikon lens, they eventually dropped the designation, in part because there was already enough C confusion with the lens mounts.
In that case, the C means the lens is "coated," and the C is usually red. Since there's no such thing as an uncoated postwar Nikon lens, they eventually dropped the designation, in part because there was already enough C confusion with the lens mounts.
The Nikkors had the 'c' for 'C'ontax in quotes. I am not aware of a special run of the 3.5cm F2.5 for 'c'ontax'. The c for coated did not have quotes.
But odd varients of Nikkor lenses do pop up.
But odd varients of Nikkor lenses do pop up.
VinceC
Veteran
The 'C' for Contax is always near the base of the barrel. To my knowledge, it would only be on 8.5cm, 10.5cm and 13.5 cm lenses. There'd be no reason to put it on a 3.5cm lens. Even 5cm lenses can be interchanged if used at f/2 and above. I shot a sonnar 5cm on a Nikon and a Nikon 5cm on a Kiev for a considerable amount of time before becoming aware of this weirdness. It probably contributed to some missed shots wide open.
On the other hand, I've shot a Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 wide open on a Kiev with a Contax mount, and never had any focusing problems. So the f/2.5 lens should do fine.
By the way, it's a dynamite lens. I hang onto my Jupiter Biogon copy for old-time's sake, but the Nikkor is a far superior lens. At least as sharp and with vastly better coatings. I often shoot into the sun, and my photographs just as often showed me magnificent reflections of the Jupiter's pentagon-shaped aperature opening. I NEVER get that with the Nikkor. Even if it does flare, when shot directly into the sun, it still produces manageable images and no ghosting of the aperature blades. I will admit, though, that the Biogon produces beautiful tones.
On the other hand, I've shot a Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 wide open on a Kiev with a Contax mount, and never had any focusing problems. So the f/2.5 lens should do fine.
By the way, it's a dynamite lens. I hang onto my Jupiter Biogon copy for old-time's sake, but the Nikkor is a far superior lens. At least as sharp and with vastly better coatings. I often shoot into the sun, and my photographs just as often showed me magnificent reflections of the Jupiter's pentagon-shaped aperature opening. I NEVER get that with the Nikkor. Even if it does flare, when shot directly into the sun, it still produces manageable images and no ghosting of the aperature blades. I will admit, though, that the Biogon produces beautiful tones.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
the Nikkor 35mm/f2.5 is one of my favorites . I only have the LTM version though.
furcafe
Veteran
I have to agree. Unless, as Brian suggested, they were producing a 1-off for someone w/incredibly high standards, I don't see why Nippon Kogaku would have bothered to produce special Contax versions of the w-Nikkors.
I've also never had a problem using the 35/1.8 @ f/1.8 & f/2 on my Contaxes and have also noticed the superior flare-resistance of the 35/2.5 (perhaps why they simply ported that design over to the Nikonos).
I've also never had a problem using the 35/1.8 @ f/1.8 & f/2 on my Contaxes and have also noticed the superior flare-resistance of the 35/2.5 (perhaps why they simply ported that design over to the Nikonos).
VinceC said:
Similar threads
