SLR 35 1.4 lens users - what's your favorite?

[GarageBoy]

I've been using my father's Zeiss 35 1.4 Distagon on contax/yashica mount and I'd like to buy a 35 1.4 of my own, but can't afford the Zeiss

Anything else I should look into?

 

[Robert Lai]

Manual focus SLR 35s that I've known

Manual focus SLR 35s that I've known

If you want to stick with Zeiss, you won't go wrong.

I don't know what brand of camera you plan to use. For manual focus Nikon, I've not had any good luck with any of their 35mm lenses. I've had them all from 35 1.4, f/2, to 2.8, all Nikkor AIS

The 1.4 was sharp from f/2 stopped down, but it had severe barrel distortion that made everybody look like a baseball. Women hated that lens, claiming that it made them look "fat".

The f/2 was actually pretty sharp, but Ken Rockwell hates it as he says it has a lot of coma in the field.

The 2.8 AIS that I had was just plain fuzzy. It was dim and hard to focus too.

Right now my Nikon mount "35" is actually the CV 40mm f/2 Ultron (ASPH). Seems pretty sharp to me.

For Canon manual focus I'm happy with an older FL 35 f/2.5.

 

[Rayt]

There really aren't that many 35/1.4 SLR lenses: Contax C/Y, Nikkor, EOS, Minolta G. The cheapest one is the Nikkor but the Distagon MMJ is cheaper than the other two. The Leica R is just really expensive. I have the Distagon and love it.

 

[Mark C]

35 1.4's are not that common and I suspect not so hot wide open. Even the f2's mostly don't live up to the high standards of the rangefinder versions.

I used the 35 1.4 Nikkor for assignments for a couple years and was happy with it; lately I've been thinking about picking up another one but just haven't wanted to shell out the cash. It is not a great performer at 1.4, but then the Leica 35mm Summilux really isn't either in a technical sense. I may borrow a friend's Nikkor to try it out again.

I've been curious about the current modern 35 1.4 that is sold under different names (Samyang maybe), but only see it discussed in relation to digital which doesn't always translate well to film. The size is a bit much, but then I think the Zeiss is pretty substantial also. At least I think this is a full frame lens.

35 f2's are much easier to find. I like the old Pentax screwmount and A versions (the two I've had). I also liked the Nikkor 35 f2 and am sorry I parted with mine.

BTW, the 35 f2.8 Distagon is a really fabulous lens and a bit of a sleeper. I was initially disappointed to get that with my Contax outfit instead of the 1.4, but was very pleasantly surprised by it.

 

[maitani]

I owned several.
imo the best was the 35 1.4 CY on a RTSIII it's an experience to behold, to shoot with this combo, a little heavy but close to perfection. from viewfinder shutter release to the optical results.

the 35 1.4 nikkor ais i had, was very good too,

as said the Leica R one is supposed to be exc. but it commands premium

i'd go for the 35 1.4 nikkor or a well used R-summicron 35, also because it's much more compact (ev. R-Elmarit if you don't mind 2.8) those are superb 35mm lenses and much more affordable and compact than the 1.4 lenses.

 

[presspass]

Another vote for the Nikon 1.4 AIS. Mine has served well for more than 20 years. It was rebuilt once and still gives fine service either on the film Fs or digital. Wouldn't be without it.

 

[L. M. Tu]

I have a Nikkor 35mm F1.4, an AI version I bought new in the early 80s, and I'd never get rid of it; like most other fast lenses, it will not be at its best when it's wide open, but that extra bit of speed has helped on several occasions. However, I really really like the Nikkor-O 35mm F2 despite its being almost the same size and weight at the F1.4. Mine is a pre-AI that wears an original conversion ring. For some irrational reason, I just feel more connected to the images made with that lens. Nowadays, I use Sony mirrorless cameras and, more and more often, I'm shooting video with these lenses.

 

[GarageBoy]

Thanks
I'd like the speed of 1.4
The 35 Distagon isn't super sharp wide open and has a slight field of curvature to it wide open

 

[f16sunshine]

Thanks
I'd like the speed of 1.4
The 35 Distagon isn't super sharp wide open and has a slight field of curvature to it wide open

What Camera system are you using if not C/Y ?
If it's eos you can compare all of them on the same body with adapters.

I use Contax/Yashica and also Canon Eos. Both systems have very nice 1.4/35 offerings.
I tried the Nikon once but for me the Distagon is a better design.
Field Curvature is going to come up until you find the Asph designs which for reflex systems I'm not familiar.

I like the character of the distagon. It has great 3D and sharpness.
It's sharp enough at f1.4 and surgical by f2.
The newer ZE/ZF versions may be sharper at f1.4... I'm not sure.

The Canon L35 is also a beauty ! It has a less zeissy (contrasty) look.
It's an AF lens and getting less expensive used. A big lens like the distagon but handles nicely.
Sharp wide open with a bit of vignetting. The oof character is nice but like most 35's not creamy.

Here is the Eos L35 at wide open.

Living Legend, Dr Banjo... Pete Wernick by Adnan W, on Flickr

 

[raid]

I use the Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 in Rollei QBM. It is big and heavy, and it gives me beautiful images. The QBM lenses are considered "rare" these days, and the prices reflect it.
It becomes a 70mm lens on the M 4/3 cameras. The Rollei version differs from the CY version in the number of aperture blades, shape of bokeh OOF, and coatings maybe.

An ad on ebay shows a lens like mine: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rollei-Carl...4-HFT-Lens-for-Rollei-QBM-Mount-/121437048908
An ebay ad for the lens in C/Y mount: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Contax-Carl...05&prg=11353&rk=2&rkt=6&sd=361073502446&rt=nc

 

[GarageBoy]

I've been using it on Contax/Yashica cameras
It gives me beautiful slides on Provia 400X
Love the pop

The Nikon one seems interesting, and my system is Nikon heavy (28 f2/50 f1.4/105 f2.5)

 

[nobbylon]

I recently was lent a 35 1.4 G Nikon and used it on my 700 and F6. All I can say is that it was super sharp at all apertures with gorgeous bokeh. The only thing against it is the price however like most things in life you get what you pay for. Probably the best 35 1.4 available.

 

[maitani]

I agree with nobbylon here, if you consider AF lenses too, the 35 1.4 AFS is a cracker, ev. the best ever made for slr.

 

[peterm1]

I bought a Sigma AF 35mm f1.4 "Art" lens a year or so back and found it to be superb although for some odd reason it does tend to under expose images. Big and heavy too but neither is a major issue and its well worth owning. I have never stopped at one lens when it comes to a focal length though as I always enjoy making comparisons between lenses. A few months ago I saw a Nikkor AIS 35mm f1.4 in user condition at a good price in a local camera store. Went back to get it but predictably by then it was gone. Damn. I should have known better and snapped it up.

 

[leicapixie]

If you want to stick with Zeiss, you won't go wrong.

I don't know what brand of camera you plan to use. For manual focus Nikon, I've not had any good luck with any of their 35mm lenses. I've had them all from 35 1.4, f/2, to 2.8, all Nikkor AIS

The 1.4 was sharp from f/2 stopped down, but it had severe barrel distortion that made everybody look like a baseball. Women hated that lens, claiming that it made them look "fat".

The f/2 was actually pretty sharp, but Ken Rockwell hates it as he says it has a lot of coma in the field.

The 2.8 AIS that I had was just plain fuzzy. It was dim and hard to focus too.

Right now my Nikon mount "35" is actually the CV 40mm f/2 Ultron (ASPH). Seems pretty sharp to me.

For Canon manual focus I'm happy with an older FL 35 f/2.5.

I have very different opinions and experiences!
I am not a pixel peeper.
I make prints and sometimes scan for internet.

My 35mm f2.8 Nikkor is stunningly sharp. Easy to focus.
My 35mm f2.0 Nikkor bought cheap, very used, is good.
I see no problems except weight.
No coma, period, whatever!
I have never bothered with f1.4 lenses
after my 35mm Summilux Goggled version,
Pre-aspheric that was simply Horrible.
A RFDR lens though.

 

[shadowfox]

Minolta Rokkor 35mm 1:1.8 is a good lens within this spec.

Good luck finding one, though. I foolishly sold mine.

 

[raid]

The 1.4 max aperture is very useful for indoor shots at low ISO settings and without using a flash. In fact, with internal stabilization in a camera, these old SLR lenses benefit from IS for long, hand-held exposures.

 

[Corran]

I am curious about the folks that like the 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor. I really dislike mine - but mostly due to the focus throw. It focuses down from infinity to 10 feet in like 5 degrees of movement or so on the focus ring. The problem is that it is therefore really hard to focus accurately except with close-ups. At 1.4 the DOF is too shallow for that kind of precision. A lot of times, even with a good focus magnifier and the "green dot" on AF cameras, my focus is off horrendously.

In addition, the bokeh is terrible, and the spherical aberrations make everything look poor until f/2.8 or f/4. And as someone else mentioned, the barrel distortion is awful.

I find the 28mm f/2 a much better lens. It sharpens up at f/2.8 and is easier to focus.

Both my 35/1.4 and 28/2 are AI versions.

As an aside, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 rangefinder lens is a million times better.

 

[raid]

I have a Nikkor 35/1.8 ltm too. It is not really "better" [difficult to define] than the Zeiss 35/1.4. The overall quality of images from the Zeiss 35/1.4 is very high. It is not just sharpness or color fidelity or character of the lens.

 

[Jan Pedersen]

35mm 1.4

35mm 1.4

Peterm1 already mentioned the new Sigma Art 35 1.4
I recently bought the 50 Art for my D800 and if the 35 is as good as the 50 it is nothing but stellar. The Sigma lens is the first non Nikon SLR lens i have bought in more than 35 years but it will not be the last, super well build too.