hendriphile
Well-known
KEVIN-XU 愛 said:
Just out of curiosity... what film was used for the Nikon SP shots?
Nippon Kogaku 35mm f1.8 vs Summaron 35mm f2.8
- Thread starter hrryxgg
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 34
- Views 3K
Just out of curiosity... what film was used for the Nikon SP shots?
KEVIN-XU 愛 forever
所謂的攝影,就&
I am sorry that I cannot give you a certain answer since those photos were taken 4 years ago. And I don’t have the original negative film with me now. But I can tell you that they are most likely Fujifilm X-tra 400 or Kodak Ektar 100.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I suspect that if its a decision of whether to replace the Nikkor 35/1.8 with a Summaron 35/2.8 because it represents a step up in performance, that would not be indicated.
However, if someone was interested in owning a selection of nice 35 lenses, just for the fun and pleasure of it, I think it would be great to have both the Nikkor and the Summaron.
I only have the Summaron, and it is a goggled version from 1958. I notice that my copy doesn't quite focus to infinity on any of my M-mount bodies, and I find the whole goggle thing to be a bit lacking in ergonomics. But, I have managed to use the lens (especially at close-ish distances) with very nice results. Very nice indeed. It makes me want a non-goggled copy so I always keep my eye out for the opportunity to get one.
I have only held a Nikkor 35/1.8 LTM once. So...I can't comment about anything further than the quite wonderful tactile quality of the lens on its own 😉. However, the images in this thread speak clearly about its performance. So, it looks like we have choices for wonderful 35mm lenses in the Leica mount world. So thankful for that 😀
However, if someone was interested in owning a selection of nice 35 lenses, just for the fun and pleasure of it, I think it would be great to have both the Nikkor and the Summaron.
I only have the Summaron, and it is a goggled version from 1958. I notice that my copy doesn't quite focus to infinity on any of my M-mount bodies, and I find the whole goggle thing to be a bit lacking in ergonomics. But, I have managed to use the lens (especially at close-ish distances) with very nice results. Very nice indeed. It makes me want a non-goggled copy so I always keep my eye out for the opportunity to get one.
I have only held a Nikkor 35/1.8 LTM once. So...I can't comment about anything further than the quite wonderful tactile quality of the lens on its own 😉. However, the images in this thread speak clearly about its performance. So, it looks like we have choices for wonderful 35mm lenses in the Leica mount world. So thankful for that 😀
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Possibly. But mostly I own lenses only to use them.
Yes, I use some of my "funnies" for particular effects: for example, the 50/1.2 Canon.
On the other hand, I have found that piddling about changing (for example) a 35/2 Summicron for a 35/1.4 Summilux, or a 50/1.5 C-Sonnar for a 50/1.5 Nokton, is a lot less important than trying to take good pictures with lenses you like.
Cheers,
R.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Thank you Roger.
pyeh
Member of good standing
I like a good piddle.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Piddle or whatever. I too try to just make photographs. But, I'll admit that I change the lens from time to time. I also make a point to change the lens when it is the tool that helps me make the photograph I want. I don't have a Canon 50/1.2 (at least not in Leica mount, only in FD). But recently I have been changing the lens from the 35 or 50 I usually have on the camera to the Jupiter-3 50/1.5 to get the unique quality of that lens. Unfortunately, the last several times I have used the J-3, the images have been disappointing. Partly the fault of the photographer, partly the lens.
But, regarding the Summaron 35/2.8. Mine is goggled and it rarely lives on my camera for long because of ergonomics. My Biogon 35/2 or Summicron 50/2 spends a lot of time on the body. My CV 35/1.4 is on the body now, and will likely hang out for a while. I couldn't say what would happen if I also had a W-Nikkor 35/1.8.....that lens might live on the camera for a period of time as well. That's the kind of thing that gets sorted out when a person has a few lenses just for the fun and pleasure of it.
But, regarding the Summaron 35/2.8. Mine is goggled and it rarely lives on my camera for long because of ergonomics. My Biogon 35/2 or Summicron 50/2 spends a lot of time on the body. My CV 35/1.4 is on the body now, and will likely hang out for a while. I couldn't say what would happen if I also had a W-Nikkor 35/1.8.....that lens might live on the camera for a period of time as well. That's the kind of thing that gets sorted out when a person has a few lenses just for the fun and pleasure of it.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Happy to read that Raid enjoys the Nikkor 35mm 1.8 and Pyeh enjoys the Summaron 35mm 2.8 I sent them!
Have fun shooting those lenses, fellows
Have fun shooting those lenses, fellows
pyeh
Member of good standing
Johan, yes! It's terrific. So much so that I got a second one.
Piddling about, piddling about...
Piddling about, piddling about...
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I had both lenses at the same time. My LTM 35/1.8 Nikkor has about a half stop yellow filter built in, and I like the wonderful contrast. At 1.8 there is a glow (veiling flair) that goes away at F2.0.
Pretty much F1.8 gets me some dreamyness from a wide. The built in yellow filter is due to the radioactive glass and the nuclear hardening that has resulted from age that mildly tinted the glass. With metering and comparing with a 35 Cron ASPH the offset in exposure is half a stop on a M6.
In the 35 Summaron rendered less contrast and did not have the glow of F1.8. Also it seems my Monochrome loves the Nikkor.
The Summaron has that classic look though. Both lenses are single coated.
Cal
Pretty much F1.8 gets me some dreamyness from a wide. The built in yellow filter is due to the radioactive glass and the nuclear hardening that has resulted from age that mildly tinted the glass. With metering and comparing with a 35 Cron ASPH the offset in exposure is half a stop on a M6.
In the 35 Summaron rendered less contrast and did not have the glow of F1.8. Also it seems my Monochrome loves the Nikkor.
The Summaron has that classic look though. Both lenses are single coated.
Cal
traveler_101
American abroad
Can you compare a Summaron 2.8 with a Elmar 3.5 single coat in terms of contrast etc?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sure. So do we all. There are without doubt subjects/ ideas that are best served by one lens over another, cf. the Canon link.
All I'm suggesting is that you need REALLY big differences between lenses in order to make it worth swapping lenses frequently. Otherwise, it strikes me as a much better idea to try to get the best possible results from a relatively limited range of lenses.
Forever changing lenses, just because you can, is a very different trap from the "one camera, one lens" idea but it is just as much a trap and can stand in the way of good pictures every bit as much. And of course a lot depends on your personality and style.
Cheers,
R.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Completely agree with this sentiment.
I think that's why certain lenses just tend to stay on the camera for lengthy periods. However, I occasionally get the bug to just "change things up" a little bit and pop on a different lens -- sometimes the same focal length, sometimes not 🙂
As a photo enthusiast, its all about having fun. Thankfully not pleasing clients and all that joy-killing stuff a "professional" has to deal with.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
The only 3.5 Elmar I own is the 65mm Viso that I use on a SL2-MOT.
Both are low contrast.
I find the Nikor 35/1.8 has a punchier contrast than the two above and my black Canon 28/3.5.
Cal
Similar threads
