LTM: 35mm Nikkor 1.8 vs. 35mm Nikkor 2.5

[jsrockit]

I was able to use a friend's (RFF member Calzone) 35mm Nikkor 1.8 LTM lens a little bit this weekend and really liked it a lot. However, I'm looking at $1600+ for the LTM version of this lens and I'm not in the mood to spend that type of cash. I was thinking that a Nikon mount version and an amedeo adapter would work, but unfortunately, it does not.

That leaves me with a LTM 35mm 2.5 Nikkor as an alternative.

Are they comparible lenses as far as the look from the lens (rendering / draw / whatever) and quality?

(Note, I'm using this on a M9...so buying a Nikon body isn't going to solve the issue)

 

[ferider]

I've had them both. Kept the 1.8, but the 2.5 is outstanding. Similar rendering and resolution to a Summaron, less distortion than the 1.8.

Handling of the 2.5 is a bit of a pain, due to 34.5mm filter, and infinity lock that collides with frame-line lever on newer Leicas - not sure about M9, but on M6 and M4P I had to change to an old frameline lever to accomodate LTM Nikkor 35/2.5 and 28/3.5.

Roland.

 

[splitimageview]

You could also go for the Nikon RF version with an Amedeo adapter and use common 43mm filters...

 

[Calzone]

John,

Sorry for the GAS.🙂

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

You could also go for the Nikon RF version with an Amedeo adapter and use common 43mm filters...

From what I understand, the 35mm Nikkor 1.8 will not work with the adapter due to interference with the M's rangefinder mechanism:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79631

 

[jsrockit]

I've had them both. Kept the 1.8, but the 2.5 is outstanding. Similar rendering and resolution to a Summaron, less distortion than the 1.8.

So does this mean that the 2.5 is not similar to the 1.8?

 

[ferider]

Very similar in color/B+W rendering. Technically the f2.5 is a little better (f2.5 and up, of course).

 

[jsrockit]

Thanks ferider... always a help when it comes to lenses.

 

[Joe Vitessa]

I've got the LTM 35mm 2.5 Nikkor and like it a lot. I can't compare it with the 1.8, but it seems to render more modern than my Canon 35mm 1.8. Slightly better contrast.

 

[jsrockit]

So, the consensus is that the 2.5 is similar to the 1.8?

 

[splitimageview]

From what I understand, the 35mm Nikkor 1.8 will not work with the adapter due to interference with the M's rangefinder mechanism:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79631

Sorry, I was referring to the 2.5 with amedeo.

 

[f16sunshine]

I have both in LTM. The f2.5 shows is quite swirly in oof area wide open and vignettes a lot. It tunes up pretty nicely by f4. Also is very good at longer focus ranges even at wide open.
The f1.8 also can be swirly open. It however is behaving nicely by f2.8.

Some samples on film below. The first 3 are from the f2.5 the over posted Portrait (my bad) is from the f1.8 version at f2.8.
As Roland mentions the LTM f 2.5 interferes with the Frameline pre-view lever on My M5 and M8. Hope this helps.

f2.5@ f2.5

f2.5@ f4

f2.5 @ f2.5 Focus just behind the sign

f1.8 @ f2.8

 

[helen.HH]

Oh just be done
& buy the 35 Summarit...😱....😀

 

[jsrockit]

Oh just be done
& buy the 35 Summarit...😱....😀

Helen, I already have a great modern 35mm; the c-biogon. If I never borrowed Cal's 1.8, I wouldn't be in this mess. 🙂 Single coated and a different look than I used to seeing in a 35mm lens...especially in color.

 

[jsrockit]

Sorry, I was referring to the 2.5 with amedeo.

Ah, I see. Yeah, there isn't much savings between the nikkor with adapter and the LTM nikkor in the 2.5 version. There's a huge savings at 1.8, but it doesn't work.

 

[Livesteamer]

I don't have the 35 f1.8 but I do have the 35 f2.5 in Leica thread mount and find it a wonderful little lens. I like it much better than my Canon 35 f1.5 except when I need the speed.

I think my Nikonos III has the same formula 35 f2.5 and they can be had for $100 or so if you wanted to try it out. The Nikonos makes a great beach or bad weather camera. It's also a little strange which may be why I like it. Good Luck. Joe

 

[ferider]

Technical qualities of the 35/2.5 aside, that 35/1.8 is a killer lens, jsr. If somebody would offer me a trade against a Summicron v1 or even a pre-asph Summilux, I wouldn't do it, but keep my Nikkor.

I've shown this before in color:

I shot this two weeks ago:

Not sure if you are seeing what I'm seeing, but I love it. There are two at KEH at the moment, BTW 🙂 And because of the limited number of LTM copies made, prices of these are bound to grow further, IMO.

Roland.

 

[jsrockit]

Yeah, ferider I've decided that what I like about the Nikkor 1.8 is happening at f/1.8 and f/2, so it isn't worth me getting the 2.5.

 

[furcafe]

My understanding is that the 3.5cm/1.8 W-Nikkor is similar to the Leitz 35mm Summicron from the same era, so maybe that or the 35/2 Konica Hexanon-L (pre UC), another 'cron-like lens, would be a better bet? Doubt that they'll be any less expensive than the W-Nikkor in LTM, though.

Yeah, ferider I've decided that what I like about the Nikkor 1.8 is happening at f/1.8 and f/2, so it isn't worth me getting the 2.5.

 

[ferider]

My understanding is that the 3.5cm/1.8 W-Nikkor is similar to the Leitz 35mm Summicron from the same era, so maybe that or the 35/2 Konica Hexanon-L (pre UC), another 'cron-like lens, would be a better bet? Doubt that they'll be any less expensive than the W-Nikkor in LTM, though.

If you don't mind me saying, furcafe (Chris?), Summicron v1 vs Nikkor / UC/L-Hex (original and later L-mount) are two very different design families, wrt nr. elements and in particular the rear group. For its time, the Nikkor was unique. But the L and UC Hex 35/2 are close design copies, as is the Hexar AF.

One more comment to jsr: most Nikkor 35/1.8 LTM lenses have yellow'ed over the last 50 years. I know mine is, but I don't care much for my mostly B+W use. On the M9 it might be a different story and you might consider bleaching it, if you go for it.

Roland.