W-Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 f2.5 f3.5 comparison

[jonmanjiro]

As the title suggests, this is a comparison of the f1.8, f2.5, and f3.5 versions of the 3.5cm W-Nikkors. For this comparison, as shown below I used late LTM versions of each lens (each lens dates to around 1956-8). The f1.8 and f3.5 lenses are optically pretty much perfect - no haze, fungus, or separation and only a tiny amount of dust. The f2.5 lens had haze and fungus when I got it, but it cleaned up quite well and the remaining minor damage to the glass doesn't seem to affect performance at all.

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 - seven elements in five groups modified double gauss optical formula unlike anything else at the time. For a short time it was the fastest 35mm lens available in Leica screw mount.

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 - six elements in four groups double gauss optical formula very similar to Leica's Summaron 35mm f2.8 and f3.5, and later Summicron 35mm f2 version 2/3.

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f3.5 - four elements in three groups Tessar type optical formula very similar to Leica's Elmar 35mm f3.5.


The 3.5cm W-Nikkors by jonmanjiro, on Flickr

 

[jonmanjiro]

Sharpness at infinity at f4 and f8 - the W-Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 is clearly better that its slower siblings in the corners at f4 and still better at f8, albeit the difference is less. Differences in the center are minimal.

Firstly, here's the entire scene taken with the W-Nikkor 3.5cm f3.5 @ f11.

Lower left side @ f4

Lower right side @ f4

Center @ f4

Lower left side @ f8

Lower right side @ f8

Center @ f8

 

[jonmanjiro]

Next up, some bokeh shots, firstly at maximum apertures and then f4.

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 @ f1.8 & mfd

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 @ f2.5 & mfd

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f3.5 @ f3.5 & mfd

Now at f4.

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 @ f4 & mfd

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 @ f4 & mfd

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f3.5 @ f4 & mfd

 

[jonmanjiro]

Distortion check - I'd rate the f1.8 as having very minor barrel distortion, the f2.5 as having a little more barrel distortion than the f1.8, and the f3.5 as having a little more barrel distortion than the f2.5. The Summicron 35mm ASPH I included at the end has minor pincushion distortion.

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f3.5

Leica Summicron 35mm ASPH

 

[richardHaw]

i read somewhere that the 1.8 is capable of covering 1.4 but because Nikon wanted to have less vignetting it was capped to 1.8 😱😱😱

pin cushion distortion is caused by the optical design of the leica? 🙄

i personally cannot find any big differences between the 3 apart from the speed and if there are any, its related to flare,etc when shot wide-open. I usually shoot mine stopped-down and my observations were made with from shooting the lens like this.

interested to see what your tests would show.

yes, pin cushion distortion does seem odd for a wide angle.

 

[richardHaw]

wow! the 1.8 is on a league of its own 😱😱😱

 

[pyeh]

Great test, Jon. To me all the Nikkors perform very similarly.

 

[jonmanjiro]

f1.8, f2.5, and f3.5 W-Nikkor 3.5cm lens comparison

f1.8, f2.5, and f3.5 W-Nikkor 3.5cm lens comparison

i read somewhere that the 1.8 is capable of covering 1.4 but because Nikon wanted to have less vignetting it was capped to 1.8 😱😱😱

That story is often quoted, but I tend to agree with KR's take i.e. its just marketing FUD by Nikon.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Great test, Jon. To me all the Nikkors perform very similarly.

Pete, I'll swap you my W-Nikkor 3.5cm f3.5 for one of your f1.8s! Heck, I'll even throw in the f2.5!

 

[Fraser]

Nice work!
I wonder how the canon ltm f2 would perform against the Nikkor 1.8.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Nice work!
I wonder how the canon ltm f2 would perform against the Nikkor 1.8.

Thanks. The one copy of the LTM Canon 35/2 I've owned was disappointingly soft in the corners until stopped down to f5.6-8 where it was ok but not great. Based on that, the f1.8 Nikkor here is a much better lens.

 

[pyeh]

Pete, I'll swap you my W-Nikkor 3.5cm f3.5 for one of your f1.8s! Heck, I'll even throw in the f2.5!

I have a f2.5 already, so you'll have to up the ante!

 

[jonmanjiro]

I have a f2.5 already, so you'll have to up the ante!

Ahhhh but does it have a black aperture ring like mine?

 

[pyeh]

Ahhhh but does it have a black aperture ring like mine?

No, damn it!!!

 

[Erik van Straten]

Vry nice test, Jon, thank you for all the effort you've put in it.

I agree that the f/1.8 is the nicest of the bunch, but the f/2.5 is very nice too.

Erik.

 

[jonmanjiro]

No, damn it!!!

My offer still stands then!

Vry nice test, Jon, thank you for all the effort you've put in it.

I agree that the f/1.8 is the nicest of the bunch, but the f/2.5 is very nice too.

Erik.

Thanks Erik. Although its not quite up to the performance level of its faster siblings, I was impressed by the humble f3.5. Its definitely a better performer than any of the Elmar 35/3.5s I've tried.

 

[Shac]

Thanks for the tests Jon - most informative - greatly appreciate your work

 

[BillBingham2]

As always, complete, clear, and worth the weight of all the lenses tested in gold!

Very well done!

B2 (;->

 

[Erik van Straten]

Its definitely a better performer than any of the Elmar 35/3.5s I've tried.

I have a very early (1932) coupled Elmar, nickel of course, a so called "thick cam" Elmar (the steering curve is a direct part of the focusing thread) with perfect glass. It is an excellent performer. Stunning. I guess that the condition of the glass of these tiny lenses is very important.

Leica I model C, Elmar 35mm f/3.5, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Thanks for the tests Jon - most informative - greatly appreciate your work

As always, complete, clear, and worth the weight of all the lenses tested in gold!

Very well done!

B2 (;->

Thanks!

I have a very early (1932) coupled Elmar, nickel of course, a so called "thick cam" Elmar (the steering curve is a direct part of the focusing thread) with perfect glass. It is an excellent performer. Stunning. I guess that the condition of the glass of these tiny lenses is very important.

Leica I model C, Elmar 35mm f/3.5, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

Very nice Erik. My results with the Elmar 35/3.5 lenses I tried didn't look anywhere near as good as that.

But every image you post always looks so good! To be honest, I do sometimes wonder how much of the "look" you attain is due to the original signature of the lens vs your excellent developing/scanning/post-processing skills.