New multicoated version of 3.5cm f/1.8

[Tom A]

Vince. I have the same set-up with the two versions of the 35f1.8. I have found that the biggest difference between them is the lack of flare on the 2005 version. The earlier one definitly needs a hood, the later one can handle pretty strong light sources without "blowing" them out.
Resolution seems to be almost indentical and as I only shoot bl/w - the earlier one might have an edge here. More a feeling than a scientific value though.
My feeling is that the 35f1.8 design has actually held up better than for example the 35f2 Summicron version 1. It might be a prized collectible, but any of the later 35f2's are better performers, whilst with the 35f1.8 even the older one will "kick butt" with a modern film.

 

[VinceC]

Tom,
I've always considered the original 35/1.8 to be a "modern" lens in every sense. And it's one of those lenses that, for me, spends most of its time being show wide open or at f/2 with really slow shutter speeds. It never disappoints, and I've taken some of my favorite available-light shots with it.

 

[furcafe]

From my initial roll or 2, I'm inclined to agree w/you guys, though I haven't yet had the opportunity to use the new lens in any truly difficult lighting conditions to test its flare-resistance.

New lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/nipponkogaku35cm18wnikkorsp2005/

v.

Original:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/nipponkogaku35cm18wnikkorc195658/

Vince. I have the same set-up with the two versions of the 35f1.8. I have found that the biggest difference between them is the lack of flare on the 2005 version. The earlier one definitly needs a hood, the later one can handle pretty strong light sources without "blowing" them out.
Resolution seems to be almost indentical and as I only shoot bl/w - the earlier one might have an edge here. More a feeling than a scientific value though.