Nikon 35mm f/2

NIKON KIU said:
...
If you have more patience, look for one of these:
25-50mm F4
...
Click to expand...

This idea is in fact less crazy than it may first appear..

With Nikon I've got the impression that the fixed focal 35s always saw a lot less engineering effort than the 28s and the 50s. The best 28 has floating elements to extract maximum performance, and the 50s are all completely non-retrofocal and have seen regular updates. The 35s don't have the benefit of either, and look at how long it took Nikon to actually do something about the oily aperture blades on the latest incarnation. The 35 just doesn't seem to be on their radar.

The result is that some of the sharpest solutions for 35mm are actually zoom lenses set at 35. Heck, I've found the 35-70/2.8AF to be even sharper wide open than (3 versions of) the 50/1.8AF closed down to f4.. Of course, the zoom's all metal through and through and weighs a ton. The caveats are ghosting of specular highlights, and manual focus action that is somewhat loose.. but when it comes to sheer sharpness, it's king. And I wouldn't even be amazed if there are other zooms that have the same trick up their sleeve..
 
Agree with above posts re: f2.8 being a dog. Currently have the AIS f2 and f1.4 -- you might find this useful if you are interested in the latter. They are both excellent in my opinion however generally I like the f2 more because it's smaller and has a less 'lensy' look -- I think because the f1.4 has some barrel distortion, although I haven't tested for it. However, I have tested both lenses against my 'Cron IV and pre-Lux and at wider apertures the Nikkors have more contrast, better resolution and less vignetting, although there is noticeable vignetting at f1.4 wide open (not as bad as the pre-Lux, however).

I wasn't expecting the Nikkors to do so well but there you go, I guess that's the point of testing.
 
I own the 35mm f2 AIs and the 35mm f1.4 both Nikkors and time after time, i go for the 35mm f2, it's sharp and has very good signature. You must have a dog, it might have fungus, haze or something because mine rocks. When i get home, i'll post some shots to show you what i mean
 
Referring to the discussions on the various zooms, I can add that I also own the early 35-70 f3.5 (this one http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/3570mm.htm ) and can attest to it being very good too.

As for the 35mm f2, I own an early AI converted one and find its got pretty nice rendering. I ahve read that there is variation in samples so perhaps thats a factor too with the later versions.
 
Thanks for the info/feedback on the AFD!

I guess I was expecting to have spotted a "sleeper" of a lens with the 35afd...
Oh well...

Do you guys think Nikon will update its primes anytime soon? As I said before, I would like to have an AF lens for my first AF camera ever.

I'm traveling to Japan in a couple of days and I'll be looking around for a nice Nikon prime. (the zeiss distagon 28f2 is also very tempting...).

/branki
 
You should consider the 35mm f2.0 AFD, mine has been GREAT, I bought it used and I've had it for over 7 yeras. No oil on my blades--> it's compact, sharp, under $200...IT IS A SLEEPER.

You can probably pick one up in Japan real cheap.

Kiu
 
I've got a 164xxx-series AI 35/2 and love it to bits - it's sharp and contrasty even when wide-open (though the corners aren't the best) and gets very good when stopped down.

That said, it does have issues with flare and ghosting.

Even still, it rarely leaves my FE2.

The AF version supposedly improved on flare-resistance, but at the cost of some sharpness outside of centre (or something like that...)
 
I've used the 35/2 AFD extensively on digital and it performs well wide open, which is the I shoot with it 90% of the time because the bokeh is much nicer without the hexagonal aperture coming into play.

But it is a cheap feeling lens, especially for manual focus. Switch to an F100 ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom