Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Over the last few years my shooting style has changed and I've found that I am a wide to normal shooter. A 50mm lens is portrait length for me and and anything longer is rarely used. Maybe a few times a year for a dedicated camera where a long focal length is needed.
So I pose the question: if you had to keep just one of these two lenses, which would it be?
Near mint chrome 3.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor.
OR
Excellent black 2.8cm f/3.5 Nikkor.
Both in S mount. Both have original caps and cases.
I love the images both make. I shoot an M9 with Amedeo adapter, so I have access to a lot more glass than just the Nikon S system (even though I love the Nikon lenses so much that they have supplanted my Leica glass.)
I have a 21mm Super Angulon that I'm not selling as well as a 5cm f/1.4 Nikkor, to give you a background in the other focal lengths I commonly use.
So, what would YOU keep? The 3.5cm or the 2.8cm?
Thanks all!
Phil Forrest
So I pose the question: if you had to keep just one of these two lenses, which would it be?
Near mint chrome 3.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor.
OR
Excellent black 2.8cm f/3.5 Nikkor.
Both in S mount. Both have original caps and cases.
I love the images both make. I shoot an M9 with Amedeo adapter, so I have access to a lot more glass than just the Nikon S system (even though I love the Nikon lenses so much that they have supplanted my Leica glass.)
I have a 21mm Super Angulon that I'm not selling as well as a 5cm f/1.4 Nikkor, to give you a background in the other focal lengths I commonly use.
So, what would YOU keep? The 3.5cm or the 2.8cm?
Thanks all!
Phil Forrest
thompsonks
Well-known
Is that the only choice? Given your preference for wide angles, I can't imagine selling either one.
50 & 28 make a nice pair, but not for someone who doesn't like to use his 50! You'd be relying, in effect, on the 28 as your main or 'normal' lens, and unless that's a perfect match for your personal style, you'll probably want a 35 again.
Similarly, the gap from 21 to 35 seems pretty wide – esp. because of strong converging verticals with 21.
Why not keep 21-28-35-50 and sell some of the other glass you mentioned?
50 & 28 make a nice pair, but not for someone who doesn't like to use his 50! You'd be relying, in effect, on the 28 as your main or 'normal' lens, and unless that's a perfect match for your personal style, you'll probably want a 35 again.
Similarly, the gap from 21 to 35 seems pretty wide – esp. because of strong converging verticals with 21.
Why not keep 21-28-35-50 and sell some of the other glass you mentioned?
oftheherd
Veteran
Unless you really have to, if you like both lenses, why give up either? If I had that setup, I might well give up the 35mm as that just isn't a favorite lens for me. I have two for SLR, and almost never use them.
In 35mm RF, I do have a 35mm for my Kiev. I use it more often as that is the only wide I have for it. I almost never use the 85mm or the 135mm. I am like you, I have preferred wide and normal for over 35 years. I use telephotos when I need them, but I seem to "see" more in normal and wide.
In 35mm RF, I do have a 35mm for my Kiev. I use it more often as that is the only wide I have for it. I almost never use the 85mm or the 135mm. I am like you, I have preferred wide and normal for over 35 years. I use telephotos when I need them, but I seem to "see" more in normal and wide.
James24
Well-known
Does your 2.8cm + Amedeo adapter work on your M9? I thought this was a no go combination.
Phil, I'd keep the W-Nikkor 2.8cm f3.5 and sell the W-Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 for two reasons.
1. 28/50 is a very nice combo
2. Your black 2.8cm f3.5 is much lighter than your chrome 3.5cm f2.5. These days my back prefers lighter gear, and the difference between these two lenses is quite noticeable, so the black 2.8cm it is.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
So, I've decided that the 2.8cm will stay.
The 3.5cm might go but right now I don't have to make that decision. Both are amazing optics.
I have found that the Nikkors are easily equal to their peers of the same focal length by any other manufacturer.
Just a few days ago I did an informal aperture-for-aperture test of the 3.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor and the 5cm f/1.4 Nikkor against a 35mm Summilux Asph and 50mm Summilux V2, respectively and the Nikkors were stunning. The 50 Summilux was superior at f/1.4 and medium distances but by f/2.8 the Nikkor was equal to it.
For a lark, I also tested a properly adjusted (for Leica registration) $12 Helios-103 against a very recent chrome 50mm Summicron. I was curious since the lens designs are very similar. The 50 Summicron beat the hell out of the Helios at wider apertures past 10 meters but within that zone to up-close they both were remarkably close in image quality. I'm not saying a Helios is a Summicron replacement, I was just trying to rationalize the ~$2000 difference between the two optics.
Anyway, my stable of lenses is mostly Nikkors now save for the 21mm Super Angulon. (Does anyone have experience using the 2.1cm Nikkor O for F mount on an M9? I'd love to see how it stacks against the Super Angulon.)
The 2.8mm is a gem of an optic and is staying around for sure.
Thanks all.
Phil Forrest
The 3.5cm might go but right now I don't have to make that decision. Both are amazing optics.
Mine works perfectly. Just barely clears the RF cam follower but it does and it works wonderfully.
I have found that the Nikkors are easily equal to their peers of the same focal length by any other manufacturer.
Just a few days ago I did an informal aperture-for-aperture test of the 3.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor and the 5cm f/1.4 Nikkor against a 35mm Summilux Asph and 50mm Summilux V2, respectively and the Nikkors were stunning. The 50 Summilux was superior at f/1.4 and medium distances but by f/2.8 the Nikkor was equal to it.
For a lark, I also tested a properly adjusted (for Leica registration) $12 Helios-103 against a very recent chrome 50mm Summicron. I was curious since the lens designs are very similar. The 50 Summicron beat the hell out of the Helios at wider apertures past 10 meters but within that zone to up-close they both were remarkably close in image quality. I'm not saying a Helios is a Summicron replacement, I was just trying to rationalize the ~$2000 difference between the two optics.
Anyway, my stable of lenses is mostly Nikkors now save for the 21mm Super Angulon. (Does anyone have experience using the 2.1cm Nikkor O for F mount on an M9? I'd love to see how it stacks against the Super Angulon.)
The 2.8mm is a gem of an optic and is staying around for sure.
Thanks all.
Phil Forrest
Range-rover
Veteran
Keep the 2,8 f3.5, a little wider sometimes you need.
Range
Range