Photos taken with W-Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5

[keytarjunkie]

This one was f/5.6, 1/60. On 400TX in D76.

 

[WJJ3]

Great photos keytarjunkie. The little W-NIKKOR is a great lens.

W-NIKKOR 3.5cm f2.5 shot on the M9

Afternoon trip 4

Afternoon trip 20

Afternoon trip 14

Afternoon trip 8

Afternoon trip 18

Afternoon trip 19

 

[yossi]

L1834558 by anxin muzi, on Flickr
@ChinaTown, Singapore.

 

[keytarjunkie]

Great photos keytarjunkie. The little W-NIKKOR is a great lens.

Wonderful shots from you as well (and everyone else).

 

[lukx]

A year or so ago someone was selling one on Fred Miranda for $250. Being from Europe there was not really a good way to get the lens shipped without high shipping and customs fees but I still think of this great deal whenever this thread pops up. Apart from the great images I love the appearance of this lens. Same with the Schneider-Kreuznach Xenogon 35 f2.8. So cool looking on a Leica. One day... Until then I'll use my Nikonos V 35mm which uses the same optics at least.

 

[keytarjunkie]

A year or so ago someone was selling one on Fred Miranda for $250

A black one (version 2) sold on here for $200 just a week or two ago. Kicking myself for paying more, but I love mine anyway 🙄

 

[David Murphy]

love them all, especially Highway 61's last shot of the Chicago theatre! That lens is simple amazing!

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

 

[keytarjunkie]

 

[Highway 61]

Anacapri, March 2019.

Nikon S3, W-Nikkor-C 35mm f/2.5, FP4+, D76 1+1.

 

[lynnb]

Here's some pictures with the Nikonos 35mm f/2.5 - I assume this is the same design? The first picture is wide open @f/2.5, the second @f/11. Taken with Nikonos V, HP5+ in ID11 1+1. The Flickr page has 1920px versions. My apologies, the first picture has some added vignetting in post.

@f/2.5

coastal wetlands, Sydney, March 2020 #514 by lynnb's snaps, on Flickr

@f/11

coastal wetlands, Sydney, March 2020 #513 by lynnb's snaps, on Flickr

 

[Bingley]

Thoughts on the Nikkor-W 3.5cm f2.5 v. Biogon 35mm f2.8 (for Contax RF) v. Summaron 35mm 3.5?

 

[Highway 61]

Thoughts on the Nikkor-W 3.5cm f2.5 v. Biogon 35mm f2.8 (for Contax RF) v. Summaron 35mm 3.5?

The W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5 is slightly better than the postwar Biogon 35mm f/2.8 which is itself slightly better than the prewar Biogon 35mm f/2.8.

All are better lenses than the Summaron 35mm f/3.5.

By "better" I mean : better sharpness (center, corners) ; better resistance to flare ; lesser distorsion ; lesser vignetting. All those obvious parameters to be considered at the same apertures range and the same focusing distances range.

The small W-Nikkor has the best ergonomics - it counts.

I am not one of the "lens signature" thing guys. As it was the case with "bokeh", this concept didn't exist when I started with photography 45 years ago. Please forgive me.

Anyway, all of those are 35mm lenses for 24x36 format so considering their "bokeh" would be some pretty nonsense IMO.

 

[lukx]

BTW Highway 61, that photo of the yawning cat is exceptional, regardless of lens choice. Very nice composition and great timing. Caught a moment there. Very good.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The LTM Elmar and Summaron 35mm f/3.5 lenses both have very small elements that get hazy rather quick from the lubricants of the f/stop. When clean, these lenses are outstanding.

Erik.

 

[Highway 61]

There is a W-Nikkor-C 3.5cm f/2.5 (early chrome version with flat chrome mounting ring) at the RFF Classifieds now, listed at a very, very good price. Anyone wanting to try this lens out should jump on this one (US only sale, though).

 

[das]

The 2.5 Nikkor is a pretty phenomenal lens. It controls distortion well, is plenty sharp, and has very acceptable light fall off. It's only real drawback is the front focusing in the corners. It is kind of bad at 2.5 and never really goes away. Whether you would ever notice this is real life is a different question. The 1.8 does far better in the corners, and is overall a better lens - while not front focusing in the corners, it has some kind of curvature or something. The 2.5 really can't hold its own against the most modern lenses like the 2.5 Voigtlander, but it is a seriously good lens well suited for general photography.

 

[keytarjunkie]

Been a while, but still enjoying this little lens for b&w photography around the harbor.

Thoughts on the Nikkor-W 3.5cm f2.5 v. Biogon 35mm f2.8 (for Contax RF) v. Summaron 35mm 3.5?

Forum member Goliathus has a comparison of the W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5 and the pre-war and post-war biogons here (in Korean, but images are universal!). It appears that the Nikkor is sharper, but I'd still like to try the post-war Biogon.

The 2.5 Nikkor is a pretty phenomenal lens. It controls distortion well, is plenty sharp, and has very acceptable light fall off. It's only real drawback is the front focusing in the corners. It is kind of bad at 2.5 and never really goes away.

I totally agree with this assessment. Also, "bokeh" when focused at medium distances is not great. I don't like how this lens renders wide open. But stopped down it is a good performer.

 

[keytarjunkie]

At f/8 or so, on HP5 plus. Anyone else using this lens?

 

[keytarjunkie]

Another from over the summer, very different look wide open.