back alley
IMAGES
i think i know the answer to this but i would like to hear from the experienced nikon guys to confirm.
it's not a vs. question as in this lens (is better) vs. that lens.
i have been thinking about my incoming s2 and a 35mm lens for it.
i know the 50/1.4 is supposed to be great and i plan on using that lens but the truth is i prefer a nice 35.
so, there is the nikon 35/2.5 which sounds good and reasonably priced but i think hard to find.
there is the cv 35/2.5 which is new and i think easier to find (still on cq site)
assumptions...
the older nikon would be lower contrast and not as sharp.
the cv would be higher contrast and very sharp.
the cv 35 is the same as the ltm cv35 and if i found that lens a bit harsh i would also found the cv for nikon 35 a bit harsh.
a nikon s2 really should have older nikon glass on it.
confirm?
and then there is the russian glass...
joe
it's not a vs. question as in this lens (is better) vs. that lens.
i have been thinking about my incoming s2 and a 35mm lens for it.
i know the 50/1.4 is supposed to be great and i plan on using that lens but the truth is i prefer a nice 35.
so, there is the nikon 35/2.5 which sounds good and reasonably priced but i think hard to find.
there is the cv 35/2.5 which is new and i think easier to find (still on cq site)
assumptions...
the older nikon would be lower contrast and not as sharp.
the cv would be higher contrast and very sharp.
the cv 35 is the same as the ltm cv35 and if i found that lens a bit harsh i would also found the cv for nikon 35 a bit harsh.
a nikon s2 really should have older nikon glass on it.
confirm?
and then there is the russian glass...
joe
Joerg
Dilettant
Joe,
How about a Biogon or clone thereof?
And you could use it on the Contax ;-)
Ciao
Joerg
How about a Biogon or clone thereof?
And you could use it on the Contax ;-)
Ciao
Joerg
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
back alley said:
Joe,
I have the whole gamut of these lenses. The Nikkor 35/2,5 is a good lens, but they are 40+ years old and tend to suffer the ravages of time.Contrast is medium and sharpness is sufficient. The CV 35/2,5 is lighter and very sharp. It is equal to a 4th generation Summicron, but 1/2 stop slower.
The Biogon 35/2,8 in the T* version is comparable to the Nikkor 35/2,5, but changing aperure requires that you poke inside the barrel. It also lacks click stops and it is very easy to change them without realizing it.
It also depends on if you are shooting primarily color or black/white. The Nikkor 35/2,5 has a nice 50-60's look in b/w, but it is rather "flat" with "chromes" or higher contrast color-neg films.
I haven't tried the Biogon with color so I have no opinion on that.
The prewar Biogon is flare sensitive,but very sharp in b/w.I usually need about 1/2 to 1 grade higher contrast when printing from it. It is also a massively heavy lens! All steel and brass!
I did run some film last night that was shot with the 35/2,8 T* Biogon. There is a funny flare on a couple of shots. I dont know if it is the lens, the camera or some Alien invader that caused it. Running another roll through to see if I can spot the culprit.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
I see it as a choice based on photography goals alone versus a choice based on having a certain look physically when mounting the lens on the camera. If photography is the main goal, then it is hard to ignore the newer lenses like the CV. On the other hand, if a classical outfit is what you are after, then having a Nikkor lens would make your Nikon camera "complete".
Raid
Raid
back alley
IMAGES
i think/am assuming the 50/1.4 has a more modern look to it's pics and so maybe a cv lens might make a better fit photographically?
while the nikkor 35/2.5 would have an older look and so coupled with the 1.4 the pics might clash, looks wise.
joe
while the nikkor 35/2.5 would have an older look and so coupled with the 1.4 the pics might clash, looks wise.
joe
VinceC
Veteran
The 5cm/1.4 Nikkor of the 1950s doesn't really have that modern a look. Stopped down in bright light, yes. But opened up in medium to poor light, or interesting light, and it really has a 1950s look.
The 35/2.5 Nikkor is extremely sharp. It has a bit of a vintage look wide open but with stopping down quickly becomes sharp and fairly modern looking.
By "vintage" look, I suppose I mean a bit less contrast and some flare in the highlights at wide apertures.
I'm sure, with its modern coatings, the CV 35/2.5 is the best, from a pure pictoral standpoint. It won't match the 50/1.4 or vintage 35/2.5, both of which will be flatter with less "pop."
The Jupiter-12 in Kiev mount is the most economical lens, but both of my versions have bad flare -- clearly visable pentagon-shaped aperture blades -- when shot against backlight. It's a good lens, but unlike the others, it requires a hood.
The 35/2.5 Nikkor is extremely sharp. It has a bit of a vintage look wide open but with stopping down quickly becomes sharp and fairly modern looking.
By "vintage" look, I suppose I mean a bit less contrast and some flare in the highlights at wide apertures.
I'm sure, with its modern coatings, the CV 35/2.5 is the best, from a pure pictoral standpoint. It won't match the 50/1.4 or vintage 35/2.5, both of which will be flatter with less "pop."
The Jupiter-12 in Kiev mount is the most economical lens, but both of my versions have bad flare -- clearly visable pentagon-shaped aperture blades -- when shot against backlight. It's a good lens, but unlike the others, it requires a hood.
back alley
IMAGES
thanks vince, i'm on a real learning curve here.
so if i get a cv 35 i would have to think of it as my modern lens and use it accordingly.
the nikkor 35 would be a true mate to the nikkor 50 and would allow for a similar look to the pics if used together.
i may be a bit premature with my thinking about/looking for a 35 for the s2 but i go by gut feeling and i have a real good feeling about this nikon rf camera.
any noted sellers of nikon glass that anyone would recoomend?
joe
so if i get a cv 35 i would have to think of it as my modern lens and use it accordingly.
the nikkor 35 would be a true mate to the nikkor 50 and would allow for a similar look to the pics if used together.
i may be a bit premature with my thinking about/looking for a 35 for the s2 but i go by gut feeling and i have a real good feeling about this nikon rf camera.
any noted sellers of nikon glass that anyone would recoomend?
joe
I'll upload some Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 pictures when I get home. Some near wide-open, with tight-crops. It is better sharper and higher contrast than the J-12, less flare.
It's the one that you want.
It's the one that you want.
As I read quietly with interest. I let Joe do all my heavy lifting. I have my Canon's with 35/2.8 and 50/1.5, Nikon S2 with 50/1.4, already looking for a 105/2.5 and will turn my eye to the 35s, but that makes me fear the want for an S3.
I have a similar fear of the 35 Summaron and M2, I know if I get one I will need the other.
Once we get this Contax 50mm issue squared away we will have to look at other focal lengths there too.
I have a similar fear of the 35 Summaron and M2, I know if I get one I will need the other.
Once we get this Contax 50mm issue squared away we will have to look at other focal lengths there too.
VinceC
Veteran
Bryan has used the W-Nikkor 35/2.5 at lot more often than I have. I also sold mine off last year to finance a CV 25/4.
Attaching a couple of pictures, one from a news assignment in 1990, another from a snowstorm a couple of years ago. I used this lens regularly for a year before getting the faster 35/1.8. Quality-wise, I have no complaints. Excellent images. The chrome version is a bit on the heavy side but is more common and more affordable.
EDIT: Hmmm ... seems to be new limits on attaching files. If you've attached one before, they won't let you attach it again, so here goes:
And a detail:
Attaching a couple of pictures, one from a news assignment in 1990, another from a snowstorm a couple of years ago. I used this lens regularly for a year before getting the faster 35/1.8. Quality-wise, I have no complaints. Excellent images. The chrome version is a bit on the heavy side but is more common and more affordable.
EDIT: Hmmm ... seems to be new limits on attaching files. If you've attached one before, they won't let you attach it again, so here goes:
And a detail:
Attachments
Last edited:
That is a great portrait Vince, I think Joe is going to like what he sees when he checks in.
Xmas
Veteran
Vince
If you dont use a filter the J12 does not need a hood. I've seen iris blades images in J12 shots, & bleed out of highlights, but the sun was in the picture as well. The j12 is not a modern Nikon lens.
Joe
The wides from CV range from 12, 15, 21, 24, 28 to 35mm, they all seem to be in stock new, except for the adopter for the 12 and 15. they wont be in stock for too much longer.
Noel
If you dont use a filter the J12 does not need a hood. I've seen iris blades images in J12 shots, & bleed out of highlights, but the sun was in the picture as well. The j12 is not a modern Nikon lens.
Joe
The wides from CV range from 12, 15, 21, 24, 28 to 35mm, they all seem to be in stock new, except for the adopter for the 12 and 15. they wont be in stock for too much longer.
Noel
back alley
IMAGES
as i'm in no rush, i think the search will be for the nikkor 2.5.
i don't really need anything faster.
keep your eyes open for me guys.
thanks.
joe
i don't really need anything faster.
keep your eyes open for me guys.
thanks.
joe
furcafe
Veteran
Are you referring to the post-WWII E. German Jena version of the 35/2.8 Biogon? The W. German version doesn't have the internal aperture ring, though it also lacks click stops. The W. German (Zeiss-Opton or Carl Zeiss) Biogon is also optically different as it was re-computed to be able to fit the IIa/IIIa bodies, but I have no idea whether it performs any better than the E. German Biogon, which is essentially the pre-WWII version w/coating added, as I only have the W. German. Unfortunately, the W. German version has become somewhat of a collector's item & is usually found in the U.S. $400+ range.
I can say that I do like the 35/2.5 W-Nikkor. Though it is a vintage lens, I've found it to be 1 of the more flare-resistant 1950s lenses, which makes it useful for shooting @ night, when there are often point lights sources in the frame (e.g., streetlights).
I can say that I do like the 35/2.5 W-Nikkor. Though it is a vintage lens, I've found it to be 1 of the more flare-resistant 1950s lenses, which makes it useful for shooting @ night, when there are often point lights sources in the frame (e.g., streetlights).
Tom A said:
Jenni: I have also niticed variation in the J-12's. I believe that some have a collar over the rear element. If yours has one, try removing it and see how it does.
Xmas
Veteran
Brain
If you remove the collar on my early J12, I think the rear three elements come away with the collar, Have I misunderstood?
Noel
P.S. there are variations on the depth of penetration into the camera one of mine only just clears a Kiev by 0.5mm!
If you remove the collar on my early J12, I think the rear three elements come away with the collar, Have I misunderstood?
Noel
P.S. there are variations on the depth of penetration into the camera one of mine only just clears a Kiev by 0.5mm!
Last edited:
Xmas
Veteran
Vince
I checked the sun in photos shots I did for the J12s, I've not an iris image, only some bleed out of sun behind subject effect, and a possible image of sun, I forgot where the sun was illuminating the ground, so cannot be sure.
I use the J12 as a normal lens, on a Kiev or LTM
Some of my other lenses do iris images even when I'm not stress testing, e.g. Industar, Hologon with centre filter, Oly 2.8 35mm, leitz 2.8 28mm, so my testing will upset lenses. The Nikon lenses (SLR only alas) just dont flare or bleed at all, but I still always use deep lens hoods, & only put a filter on in the rain or when forcast. The Oly has muck on an inner element, the industar are old and in poor condition.
Noel
I checked the sun in photos shots I did for the J12s, I've not an iris image, only some bleed out of sun behind subject effect, and a possible image of sun, I forgot where the sun was illuminating the ground, so cannot be sure.
I use the J12 as a normal lens, on a Kiev or LTM
Some of my other lenses do iris images even when I'm not stress testing, e.g. Industar, Hologon with centre filter, Oly 2.8 35mm, leitz 2.8 28mm, so my testing will upset lenses. The Nikon lenses (SLR only alas) just dont flare or bleed at all, but I still always use deep lens hoods, & only put a filter on in the rain or when forcast. The Oly has muck on an inner element, the industar are old and in poor condition.
Noel
VinceC
Veteran
Thanks for testing. There might be some variation in coatings depending on lens year. My 1957 50/2 Jupiter and 1961 35/2.8 Jupiter both have bad iris reflection problems, not with the sun in the frame, but within that quadrant of the sky.
Xmas
Veteran
Vince
Ok the thing I notice is the j12 (I have several I use) are pretty clear in dark room with a bright light behind, the Oly and Ind have faint surface effects, but the Nikon are like spring water.
I use and test the J12 without a filter, or if it rains with a deep wide angle hood to shade the filter. As well as sunshine outdoor sceanes I use the j12 with 'stage' spots and they bleed a little but dont image the iris.
I did not expect the J12 to perform.
The Hologon (a modern G) has a flat filter (a centre filter) and no hood and I think the image is caused by the filter, it is a faint image and might be missed for a while. It makes the lens unusable for colour, (as the effect is over a quadrant like you suggest you get) but ok for B&W. The Hologon is also like spring water.
I've a 2nd Oly35mm (a gift not gas) and it is clear and does not flare/or Iris image, yet.
I might take the Oly apart and clean, reassembling lenses is easy if you have a clean room, I dont. I dont know what to do about the leitz.
Could you please compare the light in dark room on the J12 and Nikkors, or did you trade the J12?
I'll see if I can scan a j12 shot.
Noel
Ok the thing I notice is the j12 (I have several I use) are pretty clear in dark room with a bright light behind, the Oly and Ind have faint surface effects, but the Nikon are like spring water.
I use and test the J12 without a filter, or if it rains with a deep wide angle hood to shade the filter. As well as sunshine outdoor sceanes I use the j12 with 'stage' spots and they bleed a little but dont image the iris.
I did not expect the J12 to perform.
The Hologon (a modern G) has a flat filter (a centre filter) and no hood and I think the image is caused by the filter, it is a faint image and might be missed for a while. It makes the lens unusable for colour, (as the effect is over a quadrant like you suggest you get) but ok for B&W. The Hologon is also like spring water.
I've a 2nd Oly35mm (a gift not gas) and it is clear and does not flare/or Iris image, yet.
I might take the Oly apart and clean, reassembling lenses is easy if you have a clean room, I dont. I dont know what to do about the leitz.
Could you please compare the light in dark room on the J12 and Nikkors, or did you trade the J12?
I'll see if I can scan a j12 shot.
Noel
Xmas
Veteran
JoeXmas said:
I looked at RobertWhite's site and he has no 35mm left so 'not too much longer' was not very long at all, sorry, but Stephen may still have some.
Noel