Anyone know what this is? Nikon 35mm f1.4 AIS

[flashinm]

I got this Nikon 35mm f1.4 AIS lens and it looks to be in excellent condition. However when looking at the front of the lens there are two silver rings with some crud around them. It looks almost like deteriorated foam. I have no idea what it is. Looking around at other pictures I see that some of them show the two silver rings, but most do not. Anyone know?

[Lightshow]

Never seen it before, I'd need close up shots to have a better chance at guessing what it is.

[Esox lucius]

"Schneideritis" on the outer edge of the lens element where it is cemented/glued to the lens barrel. It won't show in your images because it is outside the optical path of light entering the lens. It won't affect use, it may affect value if you try and sell the lens to a nitpicker. You can find this on old lenses which were permanently fixed to the barrel.

[Jabberwocky]

It may reduce contrast by an imperceptible amount. Some lens maker painted the edges of elements black to reduce stray light ans increase contrast.

[Lightshow]

So the 35mm f1.4 AIS has elements that are glued in place? that sucks, I'll be avoiding that one for sure.

[flashinm]

[Esox lucius]

Read more about the lens construction here: http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/27/index.htm

3. Lens construction

This is a retrofocus lens composed of nine elements in seven groups as shown in Fig. 1.

The lens is characterized by two similar concave elements in the front end and three separate convex elements in the rear end groups. Fast lenses entail larger lens diameters. The larger lens diameters can, in turn, cause larger aberrations in the lenses. In this lens, the front groups were composed of two concave elements and the rear end groups were composed of three converging elements, unlike the conventional composition of two elements, to decrease the radius of curvature of the lens and to minimize possible aberrations in individual lenses. Any aberrations left uncompensated were corrected through the two groups of two cemented lenses arranged across the diaphragm, thereby imparting a very effective configuration to the lens. The lens was rated as excellent in that the increased thickness of the cemented lenses on front of the diaphragm contributed to the elimination of the front-end convex elements in the 28 mm f/3.5 lens, and limited the front-end groups in this lens to only two concave elements. Without this lens construction, the 35 mm f/1.4 lens that accepts a 52 mm attachment size would not have been possible.

[ManuallyYours]

I've got one, an older model. The bad point with it, as all "wide open" lenses, is that contrast is pretty foggy and the impression of a accuracy's lack.

[FotoPete]

I'd call it glowy haha.

[gaeger]

[flashinm]

Ok, so something weird happened today. I looked at the lens again, and now it's not nearly as noticeable. What would cause this? Does it affect any of your guesses as to what it is?

[Bille]

[flashinm]

Temperature was the only thing I could think of that was different. It was colder today both inside and out. But what that looks like that would be less visible in the cold?

[marzipan]

Yes, horrible lens! Send it to me instead!

What you see may be part of the black paint on the edges of elements. I also have its "sister lens" 28/2 and it shows the same thing. Nothing to worry about.

It is in fact a really well built super fast 35, made to survive documentary style work under rough conditions. It also has barrel distortion, unpredictable bokeh, and a lot of glow visible on digital cameras (but its another matter with b/w film). I could not be without mine.

[Bille]

[marzipan]