dmchadderton
Member
Similar subject to another thread, but perhaps a little more specific ... what are your thoughts?
Nikon 35/2.5 vs Nikon 35/3.5 vs CV35/2.5?
Nikon 85/2 vs CV85/3.5?
Nikon 35/2.5 vs Nikon 35/3.5 vs CV35/2.5?
Nikon 85/2 vs CV85/3.5?
Kim Coxon
Moderator
Ask if anyone has some shots and see which suits your style of picture taking the best. Since comming here and discovering the joys of RF, the most important lesson I have learnt is the differences in the character of the lenses and how you can use that to "adjust" your photography.
Kim
Kim
The Nikon 85/2 holds it's own with any modern lens and gives a fast F2.
The Nikkor 35/2.5 is very sharp and contrasty.
The lenses tend to gor for less in S-Mount; both are also available in LTM but expect to pay a bit more in that mount.
Some sample shots with Nikkor lenses:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7636
The Nikkor 35/2.5 is very sharp and contrasty.
The lenses tend to gor for less in S-Mount; both are also available in LTM but expect to pay a bit more in that mount.
Some sample shots with Nikkor lenses:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7636
VinceC
Veteran
Agree with Brian.
You can't get a modern equivalent of the 85/2, and it's just one of the best lenses ever made. Very sharp and contrasty even wide open (with very pleasing out-of-focus elements too). It seems that Modern Photography did a lens test on it in about 1991 to see how it measured up to then-current lenses, and it held its own, getting top scores at nearly all apertures.
Having a max aperture of f/2 makes this lens a real joy to use indoors and out. Chrome versions can be a bit heavy (the main advantage of the CV f.3.5 lens would probably be light weight).
The 35/f2.5 is also extremely sharp wide open, corner-to-corner. Good contrast. A fine lens. The chrome versions can be fairly heavy. These are much more common and less costly.
I've never used one, but the 35mm f/3.5 has a reputation for being kind of soft at wide apertures (it's a four-element lens whereas the slightly wider 28mm f/3.5 is a six-element design and very, very sharp).
Attaching an example from the 35 f/2.5 Nikkor and the 85mm f/2 (shot wide open).
You can't get a modern equivalent of the 85/2, and it's just one of the best lenses ever made. Very sharp and contrasty even wide open (with very pleasing out-of-focus elements too). It seems that Modern Photography did a lens test on it in about 1991 to see how it measured up to then-current lenses, and it held its own, getting top scores at nearly all apertures.
Having a max aperture of f/2 makes this lens a real joy to use indoors and out. Chrome versions can be a bit heavy (the main advantage of the CV f.3.5 lens would probably be light weight).
The 35/f2.5 is also extremely sharp wide open, corner-to-corner. Good contrast. A fine lens. The chrome versions can be fairly heavy. These are much more common and less costly.
I've never used one, but the 35mm f/3.5 has a reputation for being kind of soft at wide apertures (it's a four-element lens whereas the slightly wider 28mm f/3.5 is a six-element design and very, very sharp).
Attaching an example from the 35 f/2.5 Nikkor and the 85mm f/2 (shot wide open).
VinceC
Veteran
dmchadderton
Member
VinceC said:
Great offer, but I'l probably give it a miss, due to collossal ineptitude with anything that requires assembly.
I'm very tempted by the 85/2 and 35/2.5 ... Try as I might, I can't seem to source a reasonably priced 85/2 ...
Which mount are you looking for?
And the Nikkor 3.5cm/3.5 is softer, until about F8. It is a copy of the Leitz Elmar 35/f3.5.
And the Nikkor 3.5cm/3.5 is softer, until about F8. It is a copy of the Leitz Elmar 35/f3.5.
dmchadderton
Member
I think the answer is 'S', but I gather it's not too big a deal for 35mm & wider?
Nikon did not make 'C'ontax versions of lenses 50mm and wider. The 8.5cm,10.5cm, and 13.5cm were all available for the 'C'ontax.
So you want S-Mount. Makes a difference for the 8.5cm F2. "Eyes" open. A real user goes in the $200 range; mint with caps etc (in chrome) closer to $350. Mine were in between, $230 and $300. Black 8.5cm F2's are wildly expensive, they are rare.
So you want S-Mount. Makes a difference for the 8.5cm F2. "Eyes" open. A real user goes in the $200 range; mint with caps etc (in chrome) closer to $350. Mine were in between, $230 and $300. Black 8.5cm F2's are wildly expensive, they are rare.
dmchadderton
Member
Brian Sweeney said:
Thanks, but just to clarify (as I'm being somwhat dim) ... lenses annotated;
Nikkor ~ P.C 1.2 f=8.5 is a Contax mount lens and no use for my R2S?
What should I look for on the Nikon mount lens? ~P.S ??
VinceC
Veteran
The Contax and Nikon RF cameras used a nearly identical mount. There is a slight difference in the "focus pitch" -- it's so technical that many people trying to describe it don't make sense. Essentially, the lenses are physically interchangable, but on an 85mm or above, the focus is a several inches off between the two mounts, so you can't reliably focus.
Your R2S will take the Nikon S mount. An R2C would take the contax mount.
A Nikon RF lens will be in the Nikon-S mount by default. If it is in the C mount, there is a letter 'C', including the quote marks, engraved near the base of the barrel.
The very short rangefinder base of the R2S probably makes it less reliable for accurately focusing an 85mm lens at F/2.
Your R2S will take the Nikon S mount. An R2C would take the contax mount.
A Nikon RF lens will be in the Nikon-S mount by default. If it is in the C mount, there is a letter 'C', including the quote marks, engraved near the base of the barrel.
The very short rangefinder base of the R2S probably makes it less reliable for accurately focusing an 85mm lens at F/2.
VinceC
Veteran
>>Thanks, but just to clarify (as I'm being somwhat dim) ... lenses annotated;
Nikkor ~ P.C 1.2 f=8.5 is a Contax mount lens and no use for my R2S?<<
Actually, the markings and engravings on the front of the lens convey a different set of information.
Nikkor ~ P.C 1.2 f=8.5 is translated as: 8.5cm=85mm; P.C. = Penta Coated (a five-element lens, coated. (See, Nikon is so advanced they were producing Pentiums half a century before Intel! :>)
For whatever reason, the old Nikkors used the first letter of the Latin (or Greek?) number for the number of elements -- H=Hex; S=Sept; P=Penta; Q=Quatro
The C on the front of the lens barrel always means Coated. All lenses were coated, so it's kind of meaningless.
Just to add to the confusion, the wide-angles were always called W-Nikkors without a hint as to the number of lens elements -- W=wide.
There you have it.
Nikkor ~ P.C 1.2 f=8.5 is a Contax mount lens and no use for my R2S?<<
Actually, the markings and engravings on the front of the lens convey a different set of information.
Nikkor ~ P.C 1.2 f=8.5 is translated as: 8.5cm=85mm; P.C. = Penta Coated (a five-element lens, coated. (See, Nikon is so advanced they were producing Pentiums half a century before Intel! :>)
For whatever reason, the old Nikkors used the first letter of the Latin (or Greek?) number for the number of elements -- H=Hex; S=Sept; P=Penta; Q=Quatro
The C on the front of the lens barrel always means Coated. All lenses were coated, so it's kind of meaningless.
Just to add to the confusion, the wide-angles were always called W-Nikkors without a hint as to the number of lens elements -- W=wide.
There you have it.
The Nikon lenses for the Contax put 'C' or "C"; C with the apostrophes or quotes on the lens barrel.
Example:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3882
Example:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3882
Last edited: