W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 - vintage vs. 2005 reissue

[nikonhswebmaster]

Funny -- members are guessing, but really, there is no difference other than the black paint wear on the older lens. 🙂

 

[raid]

It could be that Nikon deliberately kept the newer lens nearly identical to the original lens.

 

[JMQ]

It could be that Nikon deliberately kept the newer lens nearly identical to the original lens.

Raid, it's a re-issue. Apart from the engraving and lens barrel color, I think the only "real" change is the multicoating.

 

[raid]

Raid, it's a re-issue. Apart from the engraving and lens barrel color, I think the only "real" change is the multicoating.

The multicoating is not showing [me] much improvement in the posted images.

 

[Vickko]

Ah fantastic. I'd like to see the same comparison between the "Olympic" 5cm and new 5cm that was bundled with the S3 re-release.

 

[Fraser]

The 35mm 1.8 is still my favourite lens on a Nikon RF, looks great and the ergonomics are perfect, and still much cheaper than a Summicron or Summilux!

 

[pepeguitarra]

They look pretty close to me

They look pretty close to me

In any case, I like the old one (ltm) better:


W-Nikkor35mmf1.8ltm@f8-DanaHarbour3 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


W-Nikkor35mmf1.8ltm@f8-WWTPlant2 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr



W-Nikkor35mmf1.8ltm - SanAntonioWinery2 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr



WNikkor35mm-2R by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Lonely Tree by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Salvation Army by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Photographer by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Thanks for posting this, as I've often wondered how much better the re-issue would be, if at all, for me. I am thinking that #1 is the re-issue for reasons others have noticed: contrastier, better corrected for coma, and tamer bokeh. I actually prefer the shots from lens #2, so I guess I'll continue to be happy with mine and not wish for the "better" newer one.
For those not seeing much difference between the two, I'm thinking you might not be looking as closely as you could be, and that the difference would be more obvious in prints from the actual negatives. Look at how the light plays on the leaves on the trees along the left side of the first two photos. Looks pretty different to me.

 

[MikeL]

Funny -- members are guessing, but really, there is no difference other than the black paint wear on the older lens. 🙂

The old one used lanthanum glass, which yellows over time. And I think they changed the formula to deal with the different glass used in the re-issue. My color shots have a warm tint to them similar to Jon's 1st lens seen above.

 

[Calzone]

Lens 1 has old glass (lanthanum)?
(I see the color tint on mine.)

My guess is lense number two is the retro lens. My 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM has about a 1X yellow filter built in.

In lens number two I see the yellow tint. Pretty remarkable how the old lens is so close.

Also I see more glow in the leaves in the first photo in lens number two. The single coated glass has its signature here.

Anyways that's my best guess.

Cal

 

[BillBingham2]

Wow, I can see a difference?!?! Great test JMsan, thank you.

My money is that 2 is the old one. Blur looks blurrier, less controlled.

B2 (;->

 

[pepeguitarra]

My guess is lense number two is the retro lens. My 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM has about a 1X yellow filter built in.

Cal

My lens (picture here above) does not have any fog or haze at all. Could it be that that this lens (without the -C) was already double coated or coated?.

 

[Calzone]

My lens (picture here above) does not have any fog or haze at all. Could it be that that this lens (without the -C) was already double coated or coated?.

Pepe,

My lens does not have haze or fogging, but what it displays is a yellow tint because of nuclear hardening that has occured over the decades. The amount of yellow is about 1x or half a stop in exposure compensation. I actually measured the amount of exposure by comparing the meter reading against another 35mm lens.

Anyways in B&W I like the mild contrast boost.

Cal

 

[pyeh]

I'm also going for 2 as the older one, but certainly the differences are very slight.
Nice test, Jon.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

The old one used lanthanum glass, which yellows over time. And I think they changed the formula to deal with the different glass used in the re-issue. My color shots have a warm tint to them similar to Jon's 1st lens seen above.

I don't doubt it at all, but the difference is subtle, easily "corrected" in printing.

And minor manufacturing changes seem to have little effect on the subject matter, in that the basic design is identical (same number of elements, same number of blades). I am actually impressed -- the older lens really deserves its great reputation.

 

[NIKON KIU]

Lens #2 needs a bit of CLA

😉

 

[lynnb]

I think #2 is the older one... slightly less contrast. Thanks to Larry and others who pointed out other things I didn't notice.

 

[jonmanjiro]

This time @ f/2.8

Lens 1 @ f/2.8 & infinity


Lens 2 @ f/2.8 & infinity


Lens 1 @ f/2.8 & 2.6m


Lens 2 @ f/2.8 & 2.6m


Lens 1 @ f/2.8 & 1.1m


Lens 2 @ f/2.8 & 1.1m

 

[Peter Jennings]

Very close. The third image from lens 2 looks noticeably cooler - looking at the stone statue. Based on that, I'd guess lens 2 is the re-issue.

 

[jonmanjiro]

And lastly, at f/5.6

Lens 1 @ f/5.6 & infinity


Lens 2 @ f/5.6 & infinity


Lens 1 @ f/5.6 & 2.6m


Lens 2 @ f/5.6 & 2.6m


Lens 1 @ f/5.6 & 1.1m


Lens 2 @ f/5.6 & 1.1m