View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
lorriman
Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 34 Location: UK
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:49 pm Post subject: 35mm larger aperture recomendations |
|
|
lorriman wrote:
I'm a bokeh nut and I'm looking for a 35mm lens with a larger aperture, hopefully more than f2.8.
The two I've evaluated so far are the Super Tak 35/2 and the CZJ Flektagon 35/2.4. Both have what I think of as nervous/vibrating bokeh. I didn't need the violent sharpness of the CZJ but I was disappointed by the takumar.
Does anyone have any recommendations: with a suitable adaptor I would be using it on my Canon FD cameras and also a Canon DSLR. right now I am using m42 lenses. Apart from bokeh I also appreciate multi-coatings as backlight shots are my favourite; but I'm willing to put up with lesser coatings if only I can get decent bokeh.
Thanks for any pointers. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
Boke (OOF rendition) is so subjective we probably need examples of what you do and dont like to offer any meaningful suggestions. Also a budget would help. Personally, I have always had a very soft spot for the nikkor 35/1.4
patrickh _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterm1
Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 224
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peterm1 wrote:
I am quite impressed with the overall rendition (including bokeh) of the Nikkor 35mm f2 lens. You will need an adapter of course. Some versions are not reputed to be absolutely sharp wide open although they are at least very good in the centre at this setting and then when stopped down they become very good to excellent across the entire field. This is not an issue for me with some photos but may be for you. If I shoot portraits as in the example below the edges do not matter. If I shoot landscapes I will be stopped down anyway and at those settings the edges are much improved.
The following image is shot wide open with the AF version but I recall having good results with the pre AI one too. However the various blogs etc provide conflicting reports on the various versions. Having said that I have not been disappointed and I am very picky. Perhaps I am just lucky.
Also a quite good overview here
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/35mmnikkor/35mmf2.htm
(Image Best viewed in IE)
_________________ PeterM
Last edited by peterm1 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:21 pm; edited 7 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cobalt60
Joined: 01 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: Central Europe
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cobalt60 wrote:
What's your budget?
How about a Distagon 35/2 ... but that wouldn't fit your FD.
Talking about FD, I used to have a FD 35/2 for my A-1 which was giving really good results with pleasant Boké (8 blades, just like the 28/2 belonging to that series) - however that won't fit your digital EOS.
Kiron made a very good 28/2 but I am not sure if that was available in M42 ...
Talking about budget: How about an EF 35/1.4L :p? _________________ Visit the Yashica Information Site! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eggboy
Joined: 20 May 2008 Posts: 190 Location: Western Massachusetts, USA
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eggboy wrote:
I'm also a fan of the Nikkor 35/2. The later versions are multicoated.
The nice thing about this lens is since it ain't a f1.4, the price is right, and there are a lot of them, unlike some of the other Japanese brands, where the rarity adds to the cost.
The non-multicoated versions (Nikkor-O) usually sell for less than US$50 on evilBay, and the mulitcoated (Nikkor-OC, Nikon AI etc.) can usually be had for about US$100-150 max.
Since these were workhorse lenses, be patient until a nice used/not abused example surfaces. Some of the ones currently listed are way too expensive:
Click here to see on Ebay
Center is pretty sharp wide open (focus carefully!) and I find the bokeh quite nice. I've not had much of an issue with flare. Buy one, use it, if you don't like it you can sell it for what you paid.
It fits fine, with cheap adapters on FD mount and EOS mount cameras, which I can attest to first hand.
The Nikkor 35/1.4 is also a candidate. You will probably be over US$200 for a decent copy.
This is an older shot from a Canon 10D and a 35/2 Nikkor-O: (excuse the color balance...)
Here's an available darkness shot with the 35/1.4 Nikkor-O using a 40D:
_________________ Eugene
Current Fave Lenses:
Nikkor S.C 5cm/1.4 Rangefinder with Amadeo S>M Mount
Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm/2 Contax RF c. 1937,
Nikkor-N 28/2 Nikon F mount
Digital Cameras:
Nikon Z 6II, Panasonic GX8
Film Cameras:
Ansco B2 6x9 Box Camera
Bronica S2
Nikon F2
List and a photo or two of my lens herd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eggboy
Joined: 20 May 2008 Posts: 190 Location: Western Massachusetts, USA
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eggboy wrote:
A link to info about the pre-AI lenses on the same site:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/wides/35mm.htm
It's ironic that Canon actually does a better job at using the older Nikkor glass. You can easily use non-AI'd lenses on the EOS/FD mounts... _________________ Eugene
Current Fave Lenses:
Nikkor S.C 5cm/1.4 Rangefinder with Amadeo S>M Mount
Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm/2 Contax RF c. 1937,
Nikkor-N 28/2 Nikon F mount
Digital Cameras:
Nikon Z 6II, Panasonic GX8
Film Cameras:
Ansco B2 6x9 Box Camera
Bronica S2
Nikon F2
List and a photo or two of my lens herd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
Quote: |
It's ironic that Canon actually does a better job at using the older Nikkor glass. You can easily use non-AI'd lenses on the EOS/FD mounts... |
It's even more ironic that those same modern Canons cannot use the FD glass! Also by "older" for the nikkors, you really mean "very older"
patrickh _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eggboy
Joined: 20 May 2008 Posts: 190 Location: Western Massachusetts, USA
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eggboy wrote:
patrickh wrote: |
Quote: |
It's ironic that Canon actually does a better job at using the older Nikkor glass. You can easily use non-AI'd lenses on the EOS/FD mounts... |
It's even more ironic that those same modern Canons cannot use the FD glass! Also by "older" for the nikkors, you really mean "very older"
patrickh |
You are right of course! So, is that double irony? Or irony squared? I've mounted c.1961 Nikkor-S 5cm lenses on my old 10D... _________________ Eugene
Current Fave Lenses:
Nikkor S.C 5cm/1.4 Rangefinder with Amadeo S>M Mount
Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm/2 Contax RF c. 1937,
Nikkor-N 28/2 Nikon F mount
Digital Cameras:
Nikon Z 6II, Panasonic GX8
Film Cameras:
Ansco B2 6x9 Box Camera
Bronica S2
Nikon F2
List and a photo or two of my lens herd |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
The smoothest bokeh in the 35mm lenses that I have tried, is MIR-24's
(Soviet, 35mm f/2)
Speaking generally, wide angle lenses do not give the "creamy bokeh" that you probably like.
However keep in mind that smooth bokeh usually also mean lower microcontrast and flatter image. So it's not without side effects. One must evaluate the pros and cons and decide what is best for his photography. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lorriman
Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 34 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
lorriman wrote:
Thanks for the replies, everyone.
I agree that bokeh is subjective, to some degree. For those, like myself, looking for non-distracting backdrops then certain 'artifacts' aren't subjective, like bright-rings, double-lines, swirls etc. Complicating the matter is that some bokeh lenses are awful wide-open and wonderful closed down a little. I avoid bright-ring from my smc tak 50/1.4 by never shooting at f1.4, same with my FL55/1.2.
The trickiest one for me is the nissen/vibrating/nervous bokeh. I'm never really sure of myself as this feature is so difficult to pindown. Perhaps a double-line test would do it, which is said to accompany such bokeh, but examining photos doesn't usually give such oppotunity. I would say, for example, that the Nikon has an uncomfortable, nervous bokeh: uncomfortable to this viewer, that is. But not particularly uncomfortable which leads me to doubt myself, darn it.
Looking at that 35mm test link is interesting however. Does that test represent common mainstream candidates, or just a fairly random selection of what the tester just happened to have available including obscurities I'm rarely going to see in the market? Are there any other such tests perhaps not as such close focusing (which is a bokeh I'm never going to see)?
I suspect, as Orio suggests, that I may have to either heavily compromise or give up. But that vivitar does look interesting.
I don't suppose there is a 28mm lens worth a look? I suspect there won't be enough bokeh to be worth the trouble, but you never know. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
lorriman wrote: |
I don't suppose there is a 28mm lens worth a look? I suspect there won't be enough bokeh to be worth the trouble, but you never know. |
Vivitar/Komine Auto Wide-Angle 28mm f/2.8 has, to my eye, pretty good bokeh for a wide-angle:
Unfortunately, all 28mm lenses significantly faster than f/2.8 seem to have rather bad bokeh wide open, at least the ones I've seen samples from. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lorriman
Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 34 Location: UK
|
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lorriman wrote:
hmm, that bokeh is fairly decent. Thanks, Arkku
Arkku wrote: |
Unfortunately, all 28mm lenses significantly faster than f/2.8 seem to have rather bad bokeh wide open, at least the ones I've seen samples from. |
Interesting observation. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
Arkku wrote: |
Unfortunately, all 28mm lenses significantly faster than f/2.8 seem to have rather bad bokeh wide open, at least the ones I've seen samples from. |
Did you try Distagon 28/2 or Ai-S Nikkor 28/2? Supposedly, they aren't bad (I never tried them myself though). _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
I own a Nikkor-OC 35mm f/2 and used to own a Nikkor 35mm f/1.4. I owned the 35mm f/1.4 only briefly (it was inventory) and didn't get to shoot with it much, but it was a great lens. The 35mm f/2 I've owned for years, and have grown to really like it, but I've never used it to produce bokeh. I'm usually after depth of field when I shoot with wide angles. Guess I'll have to give it a try after seeing some of the samples. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
they will make a samyang 35 1.2, if it is like the 85 it will be sharp with smooth bokeh |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
aoleg wrote: |
Arkku wrote: |
Unfortunately, all 28mm lenses significantly faster than f/2.8 seem to have rather bad bokeh wide open, at least the ones I've seen samples from. |
Did you try Distagon 28/2 or Ai-S Nikkor 28/2? Supposedly, they aren't bad (I never tried them myself though). |
No, I haven't tried these, and to be honest, I haven't even actively looked at samples since these are not lenses I would usually be considering (Distagon is probably too expensive and I don't have a Nikon system). However, the Hollywood Distagon might indeed be an exception here, as I seem to recall seeing some nice close-ups with blurred background from it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BenediktW
Joined: 24 Jan 2008 Posts: 336 Location: Solingen, Germany
|
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
BenediktW wrote:
The Nikkor is really great, a friend of mine has one, and it´s very sharp and contrasty. I like it much better than my 28mm F2,8 AiS, which I have sold recently. _________________ http://www.1979fotographie.de/
Nikon D90, Sony NEX-3
AF-Nikkors 24mm F2,8, 35mm F1,8 DX, 85mm F1,8, 28-105mm F3,5-4,5D IF
Nikon MF: Nikkor 20mm F4, Nikkor 50mm F2 Ai, Micro-Nikkor-P 55mm F3,5, Nikkor 135mm F2,8 Ai, Nikkor 200mm F4
Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm F2,8 [for sale], Vario-Sonnar 80-200mm F4 T* (C/Y) with Leitax for Nikon-F
Minolta MD-Rokkors: 28mm F2,8, 45mm F2
M42 Lenses: Mamiya/Sekor SX 21mm F4, SX 28mm F2,8, SX 55mm F1,8, SX 135mm F2,8, 400mm F6,3 [for sale], Asahi-Pentax Super-Tak. 28mm F3,5 and 55mm F1,8, CZJ Tessar 50mm F2,8, Vivitar 135mm F2,8
Mamiya 645 Lenses: Mamiya Sekor C 80mm F2,8 N, 300mm F5,6, 105-210mm F4,5 ULD [for sale] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|