Nikkor 35's

K

KenRothman

Takes really bad pictures
Local time
6:04 PM
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
112
So I just got back from a trip to northern Italy (Veneto region) where I shot my M6 and my F2AS.

Pix came out pretty good, I'm happy.

But, when I compare the best shots taken with my 35 'cron type iv to those taken with my ~1970 Nikkor-S 35 2.8... well, there's no comparison.

I know we're talking about one of the all-time classic Leica lenses... but there's got to be a 35 in the F-mount that performs better than the 2.8.

Which one do I need? AI or AI-modded is fine. The 2.0? the 1.4? Anything from other manufacturers?

thx.
 
Well, there's the Zeiss ZF 35mm f/2...:)

I have never been fond of the Nikkor 35's. I don't know why you want to shoot the same focal length on both cameras anyway, if I were you I'd get the Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS which is one of the best lenses they've made. The 1.4's are weak, and the 2's have never been very good either. I always liked the 2.8 pre-ai the best of all of them, but it's certainly not a mindblowing lens.
 
No, there are no 35's for SLRs producing results as those of 35's made for RFs...

The reason is SLRs need lenses far away from them because of the space occupied by the mirror.

Anyway, SLRs are superior to RFs in some fields.

If shutter sound is irrelevant, I prefer SLRs.

As I love street shooting, I use SLRs less than RFs... But that's not because of the way of focusing, but because of shutter sound in first place, and compactness in second place...

In family/friends situations where shutter sound doesn't help for losing scenes, I prefer a very small SLR or my Hexar AF (my only camera that's great everywhere).

Cheers,

Juan
 
Well, I won't always have both of them with me... but i'm open to a 28... i actually haven't ever had a 28. maybe it's worth considering.
 
A Type IV 'Cron vs. a 40 year old Nikkor? Not sure that's a fair contest...I'm guessing even a 1970-vintage Leica would come up short in that one.
 
KenRothman said:
So I just got back from a trip to northern Italy (Veneto region) where I shot my M6 and my F2AS.

Pix came out pretty good, I'm happy.

But, when I compare the best shots taken with my 35 'cron type iv to those taken with my ~1970 Nikkor-S 35 2.8... well, there's no comparison.

I know we're talking about one of the all-time classic Leica lenses... but there's got to be a 35 in the F-mount that performs better than the 2.8.

Which one do I need? AI or AI-modded is fine. The 2.0? the 1.4? Anything from other manufacturers?

thx.
Click to expand...

The nikkor 35mm f1.4G is a superb lens, but no aperture ring so later AF body only.

The Zeiss ZF 35mm f1.4 and f2 are both superb, and a match for your summicron. The f2 version is smaller and very high contrast/resolution. One of the best 35's around anywhere.
 
What you can't get is a lens that good and that small.

For the best 35's for SLRs you get a camera twice as thick with a lens three times bigger, and you end up with a huge monster that sounds loud... :)

Cheers,

Juan
 
No, I get that I'm not going to get the performance of the 'cron in a lens that costs me < $200... but the Nikkor is just really lackluster. The pix I got using my 1981 series e 50 1.8 are more exciting.

I like the idea of that 28mm 2.8 ais... sounds like a cool lens. maybe will try to find one of those.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
What you can't get is a lens that good and that small.

For the best 35's for SLRs you get a camera twice as thick with a lens three times bigger, and you end up with a huge monster that sounds loud... :)

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

well, when dealing with an F2, all bets are off! big, in this case, is ok, i guess.
 
A 35/1.4 (MF) or 35/2 (AF or MF) Nikkor will do quite nicely but only if closed down a stop or two. Nether are stellar performers wide open but stopped down a little, they are superb, especially the 35/1.4 Nikkor. The Zeiss ZF 35/2 will be your best bet if you don't mind the larger size and cost.
 
Last edited:
Strangely, I have never had a 35mm Nikkor. My only 35mm SLR lens is a Canon FD concave type, and I actually prefer it to my 35mm Leica lenses (Summaron and Summicron). I was tempted to pick up a 35/1.4 Nikkor that a local shop is selling to put on my old F, but if they aren't that good, perhaps I'll spend my money on something else.
 
keytarjunkie said:
Well, there's the Zeiss ZF 35mm f/2...:)

I have never been fond of the Nikkor 35's. I don't know why you want to shoot the same focal length on both cameras anyway, if I were you I'd get the Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS which is one of the best lenses they've made. The 1.4's are weak, and the 2's have never been very good either. I always liked the 2.8 pre-ai the best of all of them, but it's certainly not a mindblowing lens.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Don't mess around with a 35mm lens in F mount, unless it's the new Nikkor AF35/1.4 (an expensive huge beast). Instead, get the 28/2.8 AIS or the 28/2 AIS and be happy.
 
awilder said:
A 35/1.4 (MF) or 35/2 (AF or MF) Nikkor will do quite nicely but only if closed down a stop or two. Nether are stellar performers wide open but stopped down a little, they are superb, especially the 35/1.4 Nikkor.
Click to expand...

This is true. The 35/2 AIS is a pig at f/2, improved but still not great at 2.8, getting pretty good at 4, and very decent at 5.6 or 8. But the 28's are much better, especially wide open and especially at close focus.

Or you could get a used Summicron-R and get it fitted for F mount. If you simply must have a 35 on your Nikon, that's the one to get.

The ZF 35/2 is stupidly heavy and bulky for a 35/2.
 
Last edited:
keytarjunkie said:
....if I were you I'd get the Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS which is one of the best lenses they've made.......
Click to expand...

+1

I liked the pre-AI 35/2 myself but it was nowhere near my IV 'Cron either. I sold both and now am down to just the Nikkor 28/2.8 AIs. It has a Nikkor look to painting light, very low distortion and focuses VERY close.

While I grew up on a Nikkor 24/2.8 I never liked the distortion. Once I got a job the first lens I got was a 35/2. I tested the 24/2.8, 28/3.5,28/2, 35/1.4, 35/2 and 35/2.8. Loved the 35/1.4 for the speed but the price was way out of my ability to pay. Was not impressed with any of the 28mm Nikkors at the time so I went 24mm. A great lens (sharp, good colors and paints well) but just too much distortion I found out after I used it for a few months.

I picked up a 28/2.8 AIs a few years back and it has replaced the 24 and 35 without a seconds hesitation. All the other Nikkor 28/2.8 lenses pale in comparison to it.

My father thought that the 28mm was the best of nothing focal length. As much as I love and respected the man, this is the one 28 that proved him wrong. I've learned that it's not just the focal length, it's the lens and the focal length. Been through a lot of glass to develop that approach,but it works for me.

B2
 
I should add in that Nikon Range Finder mount 35mm lenses (1.8 & 2.5) ROCK!!! I have no idea why they lots ground when they went SLR but they seem to have.

B2
 
28 2.8 Ais is a great lens. I use mine on film and digital FX.
35 wise I just bought a Nikkor-0 F2 to go on my F.
My favorite 35's though are Summicrons and I have an R lens with Leitax mount on the F100 at the mo. Prices though, like M prices, have gone a bit mad recently.
 
semilog said:
Or you could get a used Summicron-R and get it fitted for F mount. If you simply must have a 35 on your Nikon, that's the one to get.
Click to expand...

So how does this work after the mount change? Would it have full AI usability? I assume no ADR would be added to the lens, i guess you could put one of those stickers on it.

hmm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom