Nikon 35mm f/2

I used a 35 f/2 on an FM2 for a long time, but it was kind of soft wide open, and I shoot a lot of stuff wide-open. I traded up to a f/1.4, and it was a big improvment in that respect.
 
I had the AF version of the 35/2. Not soft at all even wide open. Bokeh is not quite buttery creamy, but decent.
 
I have the 35 F2 AFD and like it a lot, its a tad soft (low contrast) at F2 but pops at 2.8 and is very crisp by 5.6.
I tend to use it as my normal lens on the F4 and as a compact walkabout lens on my digital bodies.
I've read great things about the 28 2.8 ais and was tempted to get one for my FM3A but ended up going wider with a 20 3.5.

602825040_e15aea2255.jpg
 
If you can live with the unpleasant manual focus feel on an AFD lens I highly recommend the 35/f2 AFD Nikon. Have never been able to put my finger on exactly what it is about it but I carry one despite having the focal length covered by a fast zoom. The colour, and oof areas are great, you can stop it right down and get nice stars from bright light sources and it focuses down to 25cm (about 13cm in front of the lens) so is handy for product and close ups.

The guy who sold me mine bought another one a few months later - sometimes you don't know what you've got till its gone :)
 
Im also looking around for a nice prime for my N90s (recently aquired).

I've been trying to find info on the 35f2 af, but there doesnt seem to be much written about it...

What do you guys think about it? Is it worth the money? 300$?

Or is it better to wait a bit and get a nice biogon (35f2)? I, for once, would like to have a nice AF prime, and "allrounder".

/branki
 
I've recently acquired the Zeiss Distagon, and it's a great lens, but it's BIG - probably bigger than I expected it to be - and quite heavy, noticeably bigger and heavier than my other standardish primes. It almost feels unbalanced on my FE2, although it balances very nicely on the D700. The Voigtlander 40mm (which I have as well) isn't quite as good optically but is tiny, and makes a really compact package with an FE2 or similar. I've read very good things about the 35mm AFD too, and it's pretty cheap for what you get.
 
My example of the Nikkor 35/2 AIS is a very solid lens. I bought mine for about $130 and it was money well spent. It does a good job on film, the D200 and D300. I would use it on a job without hesitation. I'd give it a solid B+.

However my Biogon 35/2 ZM is much better (A+) in every way.
 
I shot w/ several 35mm/2.0 AIS examples on my FM2 without any rendering problems. Today on my F6 I am shooting w/ a 50mm/1.4 Zeiss ZF. The jury is still out as I have only shot a few rolls with it and do not have conclusive results.

The 50mm Planar is the least expensive ZF and one of its fastest. It produced remarkable results with my D200, in my opinion. But film is different. I mostly shoot with my Leicas but every now-and-then I want drop into automatic when I go for a ride.
 
the AF nikkor is worth it because it's very cheap. It's a decent lens, not a spectacular one, but you couldn't really fault it for anything at the same time. If you need a 35mm AF lens get it for sure.
 
I have a 35mm AFD Nikkor sitting on my desk all taken apart because it has developed oil on the aperture blades. It's what I use as a normal lens with my nikon dslr, which I don't use all that much anymore. Since it is now a 'low use' lens, and because I had such success fixing my Ultron, I thought I'd give it a go.

It's quite simple inside, and really interesting to see how it all goes together. I do hope that I'm able to get it back together though!

:D
 
Chris101 said:
I have a 35mm AFD Nikkor sitting on my desk all taken apart because it has developed oil on the aperture blades. It's what I use as a normal lens with my nikon dslr, which I don't use all that much anymore. Since it is now a 'low use' lens, and because I had such success fixing my Ultron, I thought I'd give it a go.

It's quite simple inside, and really interesting to see how it all goes together. I do hope that I'm able to get it back together though!

:D
Click to expand...

I thought they'd supposedly fixed the oil on the aperture blades problem in the D version. This was a common problem with the 35mm AF-Nikkor, unfortunately. I am looking for one and was holding out for the AF-D because it was supposed to not suffer from the oil problem. I guess it does :(
 
I find the 35mm AF (not D) f2 nikkor one of my favourites. Never had any oil on the blades problems, or any other problems. On the D200 it gives very satisfying images. I am wondering if there is an adapter available to enable me to try it out on an M4?

These were taken with the nikkor 35 f2 on a D200. With the crop factor it has only the field of view of a 52mm, which is a great pity - the drinks glasses f3.2 @ 1/40th ISO 400 - the two people, according to the exif, were at exactly the same exposure:
 
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I thought they'd supposedly fixed the oil on the aperture blades problem in the D version. This was a common problem with the 35mm AF-Nikkor, unfortunately. I am looking for one and was holding out for the AF-D because it was supposed to not suffer from the oil problem. I guess it does :(
Click to expand...

The oil problem only occured on very early examples of this lens. It's well and truly fixed now. Here's the stats on this lens from Roland Vink's website (link).

AF 35/2 serial no.s start from 200001 (confirmed from 209493 to 238317) Mar89 to Mar95
AF 35/2 D serial no.s start from 300001 (confirmed from 300594 to 3439xx) Mar95 to ?
AF 35/2 D serial no.s start from 400001 (confirmed from 403787 to 408407) to 2005
AF 35/2 D serial no.s start from 500001 (confirmed from 505384 to 545301) 2006 onwards
 
some time ago, i had a 35mm/2.0 AFD as well as the AI-S, and, comparing them on a D200, i found the AI-S the better lens by far. additionally, my AFD lens had the oily aperture blade problem. so, as far as my experience goes, i'd give the AI-S a try.

sebastian
 
Try a 35mm f1.4 Ais first, before jumping brands, I have one and for normal light, it rocks. mine is as sharp as my 105mm f2.5 Ais

If you have more patience, look for one of these:
5529_3.JPG

25-50mm F4

Kiu
 
Last edited:
jonmanjiro said:
The oil problem only occured on very early examples of this lens. It's well and truly fixed now. Here's the stats on this lens from Roland Vink's website (link).

AF 35/2 serial no.s start from 200001 (confirmed from 209493 to 238317) Mar89 to Mar95
AF 35/2 D serial no.s start from 300001 (confirmed from 300594 to 3439xx) Mar95 to ?
AF 35/2 D serial no.s start from 400001 (confirmed from 403787 to 408407) to 2005
AF 35/2 D serial no.s start from 500001 (confirmed from 505384 to 545301) 2006 onwards
Click to expand...

Mine is serial number 342586, not late, but not "very early" either. It took about 5 years for the oil to show up.
 
I have had a range of 35s
the nikonos 35 2.5 was really good, but thats no good to you.
the old old 35 2.8 was a dog
the 35 f2 ai (maybe pre ai, but that ai shape anyway, was a while ago) was freaky sharp
the 35 f2 afd is a solid performer', does all you would expect, doesnt give me goosebumps though
but I actually really liked the old 35 f2-O (single coated pre ai) it is as sharp as the AFD wide open or very close to it, but nicer bokeh. Downside it flares like crazy.
Never had a 35 1.4 but samples I have seen make me want one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom