Nikkor 35/2.5 LTM Test shot

[ericzhu]

http://www.fotop.net/ericzhu/nikkor35mmltm

In general, a low contrast lens.

 

[VinceC]

I think the low contrast works well with the lighting you chose. Moody and lots of tones. Thanks for posting these!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think the tones are great. That's what I'm looking for in my next 35mm rf lens. I own the 35 CV Ultron, and it's a great one, with the low contrast I want. I spotted a 3.5cm f/3.5 in LTM, but I think f/2.5 is as "slow" as I'd manage.

Thanks for the shots!

 

[Joe Vitessa]

I just picked up one of these myself. I think it's a real sleeper of a lens. So small. I shot some Provia and was surprised with the pop in the results--more contrast than I had thought, but not as much as my CV 35mm 1.7, which I find WAY too contrasty when it comes to B/W at least.

Joe

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Palaeoboy]

The images dont appear as low contrast to me, certainly not the highest but not the lowest either.

"This is not surprising, since Japanese optics are involved, especially Nikon - masters of overall mediocrity and sleight of hand"

This lens is the same optic that evolved to the legendary standard lens for the Nikonos System. If you have ever seen experienced dive shots from one they are simply stunning. To make such as generalized comment like that written above is pretty arrogant and totally baseless.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Ericzhu,

I distinctly do not think that the fact that this is 'a low-contrast lens', as you yourself put it, is a problem. On the contrary: low and medium contrast are often a boon in certain situations that beg for precisely such rendering of contrast to bring out the magic.

Unfortunately, the problem with the lens - as far as the scanned samples permit me to judge - lies not in contrast - or the lack thereof - but in the fact that the optics are evidently mediocre. This is not surprising, since Japanese optics are involved, especially Nikon - masters of overall mediocrity and sleight of hand, in the sense that for every dozen ashtrays they produce a master lens (clever, isn't it?).

The photos betray their taker's eye because they testify to flatness, lack of character and depth, a total absence of any vitality whatsoever, not to speak of giving an impression that the photographer's eye was never challenged...

Only Japanese technology could pull this off... What a pity. The red thread is there; the Minotaur awaits.

But for now, our zealous friends are lost (in translation??). Be it cars, or optics. That is obviously not the last word - and who am I to judge?

They might yet surprise us all...

interesting opinion(s) you have there, trollish but interesting.

Todd

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hey, come on, Magus. I usually see that kind of response from the other side of the aisle. The optics from that era have been surpassed since then. No matter what the brand.

 

[doubs43]

interesting opinion(s) you have there, trollish but interesting.

Todd

Todd, I agree 100%.

Walker

 

[NIKON KIU]

If you want more contrast and punch then go find the 1.8 version.
for $200 this lens ROCKS.
Try that with your 50 year old Leicas Magus.
Kiu

 

[sbug]

Ericzhu,

Unfortunately, the problem with the lens - as far as the scanned samples permit me to judge - lies not in contrast - or the lack thereof - but in the fact that the optics are evidently mediocre. This is not surprising, since Japanese optics are involved, especially Nikon - masters of overall mediocrity and sleight of hand, in the sense that for every dozen ashtrays they produce a master lens (clever, isn't it?).



I think you have poured back the Leica kool-aid one to many times. That is a ridiculous statement. No rips on Leica from me but a statement like that about Nikon is unwarranted and unfounded.

 

[VinceC]

Contrast and punch. That's what number 4 and 5 printing paper are for in a wet darkroom, with burning and dodging to balance the light levels. If the lens has too much contrast to start with, almost by definition, it doesn't have as good a tonal range.

Henri Cartier-Bresson complained that he was constantly sending prints back to the printers to have them reduce contrast and increase tonal range.

Now then, the LTM Leitz lens of this same vintage was the 35mm f/3.5, a full stop slower. And here is a quote from Stephen Gandy's Cameraquest site on the quality of Leitz lenses of this vintage:

"Leitz chrome lenses from the 50's and early 60's are very prone to 'fogging' or 'hazing.' ... Extensive discussions with Mr. Horst Braun, the Manager of the Leica repair department have proven otherwise. He states: "the special glasses with high refractive index which were used, where unfortunately prone to corrosive damage due to the glass components absorption of moisture. Only later with the availability of new anti-reflective coatings was it possible to eliminate this problem. I still do not believe, that lubricants should be the cause for fogging, because also some internal lenses where affected which never could possibly come into contact with lubricants. I suspect, that the reason why Nikon and Canon did not have this problem at the time was probably due to the fact that they used less sensitive glasses in their objectives."

There you have it. A Leica repair manager saying, in effect, Nikon used glass that aged better than Leitz glass of the same time period. That was an era when Nikon specifically advertized the quality of it's in-house glass works. None of the Nikkor lenses of this era that I've owned (well over a dozen) has ever needed a CLA.

 

[VinceC]

>>That is a ridiculous statement. No rips on Leica from me but a statement like that about Nikon is unwarranted and unfounded.<<

Mr. Magus entered our fair realm awhile back with a post announcing that he had been "Reborn as a Photographer with Leica" with a born-again attitude toward Leitz. There typically is not a lot to be gained in trying to argue with fundamentalists. Rather, I appreciate the intensity of their feeling while seeking to encourage tolerance and co-existance with those of other faiths.

 

[merciful]

...

Oh, God..........

 

[doubs43]

There typically is not a lot to be gained in trying to argue with fundamentalists. Rather, I appreciate the intensity of their feeling while seeking to encourage tolerance and co-existance with those of other faiths.

Vince, that's a very sensible attitude and I have also refrained from entering into a no-win discussion that serves no purpose. I've been a "Leica man" for a long time but I also own and use cameras and optics made by numerous manufacturers. All have their good points and I refuse to "trash" them. If one wishes to confine one's experiences to a particular brand then I say "fine...... go for it." I'd rather have the benefit of trying lots of cameras and lenses. In the past three days I've received a Super Ikonta B, model 532/16 with an 8cm f/2.8 Zeiss Tessar lens (uncoated); an 85mm f/1.9 Serenar lens in LTM with perfect glass and today's mail brought a Nikon FTn with 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor. I plan on having fun with all of them.

Walker

 

[Jerevan]

Well, each to his own, Leica_Magus!

What matters to me is the photographs made, the moments captured, not neccesarily the actual optics used and the discussions whether optic A is better than optic B. I like the "Road" photo. And I like it even if it had been done with a scratched meniscus lens from Omaha.

Given that, I am always interested in seeing whether I can see any differences between various lenses. Not neccesarily "better" but different. To me, a lens is a tool and within optical laws only the imagination limits what I can capture.

The best lens is the one on a camera, loaded with film, in my hand.

I wonder if a Nikkor, branded as Leica, would be a better lens? 😉

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I wonder if a Nikkor, branded as Leica, would be a better lens? 😉

I don't stand for the typical Nikonian anti-Leica banter either. Just let it go, shall we?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Vince, that's a very sensible attitude and I have also refrained from entering into a no-win discussion that serves no purpose. I've been a "Leica man" for a long time but I also own and use cameras and optics made by numerous manufacturers. All have their good points and I refuse to "trash" them.

Hear hear! I only trash the trashing.

 

[raid]

If you want more contrast and punch then go find the 1.8 version.
for $200 this lens ROCKS.
Try that with your 50 year old Leicas Magus.
Kiu

Kiu: Where can I buy such a lens (at 1.8) for $200? I am looking ...

 

[merciful]

Kiu: Where can I buy such a lens (at 1.8) for $200? I am looking ...

Here's a great deal on one, Raid. I wonder if it takes pictures 15 times as nice as my Canon 35/1.8?