Nikon 35mm f/2

R

Roger Vadim

Well-known
Local time
10:24 AM
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
305
Hello everybody,

I know, I know, this is not really a question to ask here at RFF, but, well, you're my favorite crowd for questions like this:

I lately enyoi lugging my Nikon FM and Fe2 (and all the other 5 Nikons I've got) around, and found that the 35 mm focal length suits me the best. but I'm not sooo happy with the performance of the 35/2 pre-ai (the Valley/hill version, early 70's) I shoot 90% b/w. I also got the ais 35/2.8, but this is even worse.

Are the 35/2 in general weak performers? or have I just got a dog (well it flares badly, too...).

I'd love to have a fast 40mm for the nikon, but the zeiss is out of budget. this tendency for a slightly longer length rules the 28mm out (i've got the 28/3.5, which is sort of sharper in my opinion then the 35/2)

my question is a bit strange: any recomondations for really sharp 35mm in slr? are there other manufactureres which has got better performers (bodys for slr's cost nothing nowadays, so I'd just try a new system).
Or do I have to save for a Leica (definetely out of budget...(sic!))?

thanks, Michael (on a quest and never satisfied)
 
The Nikkor Ai and AiS 35/2 lenses are very good - particularly if you shoot 400 speed or faster B&W film; they seem to be optimised for larger image structures than some other lenses.

The current Zeiss ZF 35/2 is among the best lenses of its type made ever. It's big, heavy and expensive, but the performance is stunning.

If you really want to buy into another system the Canon EF 35/2, Zeiss 35/2.8 and 35/1.4 lenses for the Contax SLRs and the Leica R 35/2 are all great - especially the Leica.

Marty
 
I've never owned a 35mm for my Nikons, I do have the 24/2.8 AIS, which IMHO is outstanding. Do you have one of the 50mm available, slightly longer and most are excellent performers. The 50/1.4 get lots of praise while I perfer the 50/1.2 for its lowlight performance.

Good Luck,
Todd
 
I had a 35mm f/2 Nikkor that I bought in 1971, but gave it away. It seemed to be soft and lacking in contrast, even stopped down. However, I love the 105mm, f/2.5 I bought at the same time - I'm still using the 105mm on film and on my D200.
 
I know, I know, this is not really a question to ask here at RFF, but, well, you're my favorite crowd for questions like this:

Sure it is, and I'd rather ask similar questions here too (my main shooter cameras for the last five or so years are a pair of Nikon FM3As ;))

If I recall correctly, the optical formula of the manual focus 35mm f2 Nikkor remained pretty much unchanged through the whole run from pre-AI, to AI, and then to AIS. I've never owned one to shoot with, but it has a good reputation. The later versions have better multi-coating, and that will definitely improve resistance to flair, so you might want to try a later serial no. AIS 35mm f2 lens (see serial number ranges here). I purchased one of these once, for Roland Vink, but never shot with it myself.

The 35mm f2.8 Nikkor, on the other hand, has a reputation as a dog (but I haven't shot with one of these either, so I'm just going on what I've read).

I used to shoot with an AIS 35mm f1.4, and it was a good lens. But it needed to be stopped down to f4 or so for maximum sharpness. I sold that and replaced it with an AF 35mm f2 Nikkor (to use on my D200) and I've been very impressed with its performance. It's definitely sharper at f2 and f2.8 than my AIS 35mm f1.4 was.

However, here's a dirty secret! None of the 50mm or shorter SLR lenses I've tried perform as well as good quality similar spec RF lenses at full aperture or stopped down a bit. So my advice is that if you want a 35mm lens that performs great at f2, go get yourself a Zeiss ZM Biogon 35mm f2!
 
My suggestion is to try the 35/2 AFD. I've had the pre-AI, 35/1.4 AI and 35/2 AFD. The current AFD version performs about as well as the 35/1.4 with less tendency to flare than any of the other lenses mentioned due to fewer glass surfaces. If yor looking for edge to edge sharpness and good flare control, consider the 35/2.8 PC. While not as fast to use as the auto aperture lenses, image sharpness across the frame is spectacular due to the extra degree of correction needed for a PC lens when shifted to extremes. Of course, the PC feature opens up possibilities not available with any other lens.
 
Last edited:
I suppose you have your reasons for wanting to stick with your 5 Nikon SLR's but good sharp retrofocus designs are a lot more difficult to design than lenses for rangefinder cameras. Why don't you at least give one a try? You can buy a Leica or Minolta CL with a 40mm f/2 and see what sharpness is all about! Most people seem to agree that the 40mm f/2 Summicron-C beats any Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron except perhaps the latest aspheric version, and the 40/2 Rokkor-C is the same formula lens, but made by Minolta. The Minolta badged CL bodies and lenses sell for less than those sporting the Leica/Leitz logos. You're chasing a will-o'-the-wisp if you expect to get that level of optical quality from an SLR wide angle lens.
 
Interesting thread.
I've been trying to figure out what lens to get for my D200 that would be in this range.
I just ordered a CV 58/1.4 from Camera Quest and I already have a 24/2.8.
Feel like I need something a little faster in between those two.

Because of the crop factor, I was thinking the 40/2 might not be wide enough for a general walk-around lens.
 
thanks a lot for all the advices and tips!

I'd love to try the 40/2 on a leica - but budget is rather tight at the moment. I've got the 50mm variants (2 and 1.8) and sharpnesswise they are ok. But concerning that certain "magic" the ais 50/2.8 macro my girlfriends got is outstanding!

The hint on the Afd 35/2 sounds good, esp. the flare issue is annoing with my 35/2. worth considering, mhm...

I agree with tji: 'I had a 35mm f/2 Nikkor that I bought in 1971, but gave it away. It seemed to be soft and lacking in contrast, even stopped down.
It's got some character, for sure, but there is a certain edge missing. (and the 150/2.5 is a true gem)

I'm pretty happy with all my Nikon glass, esp. the said 24/2.8, the 50's, and the 105/2.5 (all AIS). It's just a pity that my favorite focal length at the moment, the 35 looks like it can't cope with the rest...

concerning Voigtlander and Zeiss, I am looking for a lens with not to much contrast (b/w), how do they behave here?

or, maybe down the rangefinder route? seems the way to go for 35mm. I need a 3rd job dammit!

Thanks again,
cheers, Michael
 
The 35 1.4 and 35 2.0 Ai-S are the best you can get for a 35 mm slr lens. I have used both extensively even with dslrs and I would say superb colors and sharpness.
 
gilpen123 said:
The 35 1.4 and 35 2.0 Ai-S are the best you can get for a 35 mm slr lens. I have used both extensively even with dslrs and I would say superb colors and sharpness.
Click to expand...

Well, as I said my lens is the pre-ais. But as far as I know they didn't change the formula. The coating is single coating on the pre-ais.

Could be very well the case that my lens is a dog, due to QC or whatever.
 
of course, YMMV, but I've owned and used both a 35mm f2.0 ais and a 35mm f2.8 ai and both of mine are solid performers. I still use both on my film and dslr Nikons.

--Warren
 
I've had a really nice 35mm f2 AI and also a 35mm f2 AF-d. I'll say that they're nice lenses, very typical in performance - decent wide open and get progressively sharper as they're stopped down. Bokeh is very plain - but thats not a bad thing.

They're not outstanding lenses, I tend to think of them as workhorses.
 
The 35/1.4 I used was a wonderful lens. If you want a stunner look at the 28/2.8 AIS. She focuses close and is sharp. The 24/2.8 while great is a bit wide for me as a main wide because she has lot of distortion.

B2 (;->
 
ruby.monkey said:
A Bessa R3A + 40/1.4 Nokton wouldn't cost the Earth (which reminds me, mine could do with an airing).
Click to expand...

Tempting...

(actually I wanted to save some money for a DSLR:eek: - shocking, the evil route...)

How much would such a set set me off, ruby :rolleyes:?

And: just to makle that clear, the 35/2 I've got is ok, it works, it serves me well - but there is just that punch, that nice kick esp. wide open which I miss and which I know from the better Nikon glass. Sometimes it's that 5% more you want and like... dunno. I'm, not a sharpness nerd, not at all, but with that particular idea, 35mm all around carry, up in the face camera, this lens sort of lets me cold...

cheers
 
Perhaps you are a 28mm-person? The 28mm/3.5 is very good and compact. The 28/2 is quite a bit bigger - twice as long as a Nikon-E 50mm/1.8 - but still a very good performer not so costly a few weeks ago. Perhaps it's really the lens. I have a similar problem with a Yashicamat lens: It looks clean, no scratches, no fungus, a hood is used but it flares like heck as soon as there is abit of sunlight on the rim of the frame.
 
I think the 35/2 was known for some sample variation -- if you try another you may find it's better. I have no complaints about mine.

I can say that the Zuiko 35/2 for the OM series is a really good lens. Another one that's quite good is the Minolta Rokkor 35/1.8 MC or MD, though it's surprisingly long for a 35.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom