Photos taken with W-Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5

[keytarjunkie]

Here you can see some flaring, I rather like it, but it is unavoidable with such an old coating.

 

[GLL]

Very impressive lens - perhaps just good photographers, but shocked at the resolution and rendering. Is this known to be a particularly good 35mm lens from the era?

 

[keytarjunkie]

It has a good reputation. It is sometimes compared to the 35 Summicron v2/3 though I don’t think that’s fair. The extreme corners are very front focused even to f/8 and the coating shows its age. This became the normal lens for the Nikonos underwater cameras for decades, and you can get it very cheaply in that mount. It’s a good lens but the faster 3.5cm f/1.8 is a better performer.

 

[james.liam]

Doesn't the CV 2,5/35 have a similar or the same optical design?

 

[raid]

I have the Nikkor 35/1.8 ltm and not the Nikkor 35/2.5. There were times when I was tempted to get the 35/2.5. Since I already had the Summicron 35/2 V1, I felt that there was no need for additional 35mm lenses, but I then bought a Summicron replica and a ZM 35/2. I like using the Nikkor 35 1.8 for portraits and for scenics. Color images with the M9 can come out similar to what you get with Fujicolor Reala 100 film.

 

[keytarjunkie]

Doesn't the CV 2,5/35 have a similar or the same optical design?

Hey James, they are different:

Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5

Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8

Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5

 

[james.liam]

Very much.

 

[splitimageview]

It has a good reputation. It is sometimes compared to the 35 Summicron v2/3 though I don’t think that’s fair.

I did some side-by-side testing of the 35/2.5 with the 35/2.8 Summaron, and the rendering was very similar. It was actually difficult to determine which lens took which image. This was based on testing wide open and at f/4. I find testing at smaller apertures tedious and of limited value so didn't bother.

Kept the Nikkor, as I didn't need both and the Summaron is worth considerably more.

 

[GLL]

It has a good reputation. It is sometimes compared to the 35 Summicron v2/3 though I don’t think that’s fair. The extreme corners are very front focused even to f/8 and the coating shows its age. This became the normal lens for the Nikonos underwater cameras for decades, and you can get it very cheaply in that mount. It’s a good lens but the faster 3.5cm f/1.8 is a better performer.

Perhaps just an excellent selection of images then! But very low or almost no distortion judging by the photos here and very sharp in the center. I'm used to seeing lower contrast on lenses of this era as well, but apart from some glowy highlights in a few of the last images posted it looks quite punchy and well controlled!

I had the CV 35 2.5 in m-mount, and although I enjoyed the photos I took they don't seem quite as high resolution in the center (example attached). If i was going to pick up a 35mm lens for my S2 i'd seriously consider the w-nikkor.

 

[Papercut]

It's not gonna show a ton of sharpness due to the blizzard conditions, but I shot the dogwood tree out of my office window a couple years back. I probably should rescan this as it was the first roll I "scanned" using the Sony A7ii and I really didn't have a good grasp of the process.


Dogwood Calligraphy in Blizzard

The little Nikkor is a great lens for taking to work with a Barnack. I can sling it under a coat and no one even knows I'm "packing". 😀

 

[keytarjunkie]

I haven't owned the Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 but I'd like to pick up the S-mount version some day. Here's a low quality view of a high res scan from the 3.5cm f/2.5 on Fuji Pro 400H:

And here's a close up crop of the center. Only a very moderate amount of sharpening was applied.

Even at f/11 (or maybe f/8, I forget) there is some glow to the highlights in a contrasty scene. Is it sharp? For the fifties, yeah. But I think your lack of sharpness with the CV lens is due to the scanning method, not the lens. For color photography, the CV lens is sure to produce more accurate results with its modern coatings. I usually use the W-Nikkor with b&w film because I don't love the colors I get out of it.

 

[GLL]

I haven't owned the Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 but I'd like to pick up the S-mount version some day. Here's a low quality view of a high res scan from the 3.5cm f/2.5 on Fuji Pro 400H...

Thanks KJ - a nice shot. The resolution looks good, but I can see what you mean about the highlight glow. I wasn't *unhappy* with the VC color skopar, just impressed by the images in this thread! I'm really enjoying the S2, these old nikon rangefinders are great.

 

[Highway 61]

The resolution looks good, but I can see what you mean about the highlight glow.

My first W-Nikkor-C 3.5cm f/2.5 (early chrome version with plain chrome mount ring) had a tiny bit of unwanted highlight glow, which went away once some very slight greasy haze got cleaned off the lens internal elements.

No abnormal highlight glow at all with my actual copy of that lens (a late black version), see the Chicago Theater night photo posted above (there is some normal halation around the strong light spots of course, but I doubt that any other lens, even the most modern, would have done better there).

Keep in mind that the highlight glow you can often see on scanned negatives images, on your computer screen, may actually be caused by a slightly foggy scanner mirror and/or glass.

 

[keytarjunkie]

I suspect you’re right, there is probably a very slight haze contributing to this look. I will clean it eventually once I have the right tools and confidence. The scanner is a digital camera and brand new macro lens, and the glow isn’t present on images from other lenses.

 

[Highway 61]

It is a very easy lens to work on, no need for special tools and you take it apart (and reassemble it) following a pretty logical way.

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.

Oh, hadn't seen that yet - well, thank you very much, lukx.

 

[jmanivelle]

Hi all,

does someone know if the early Nikkor 35mm 2.5 Nikonos lens has a similar design (lens elements radius and size) as the late 1959 W-Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 or was it remodeled for the Nikonos ?
I'd like to swap a scratched front lens element and use a Nikonos lens as a donor .

Thank you .

Best, Jean-Marc.


Marc by JM__, on Flickr

^ 35 Nikonos 2.5 on M10

 

[Deleted member 65559]

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.

Yes!

 

[WJJ3]

Shot with flash on StreetPan and stand developed in Adonal

daikon by WilliamJosephJefferson, on Flickr

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

I love the photos in this thread.
When my website went defunct I lost all the links to my photos on this site. Now after re-visiting this thread, I should take some new pics with this lens and join in again.

 

[Darinwc]

I have he LTM version of the 3.5cm f2.5 Nikkor. While I find it very sharp and contrasty, it is also very small and the filters size, 34.5, is impossible to find.
Here is an example:

Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 Leica IIIG HP4 200033_s by Darin, on Flickr