Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Nikkor ais 35/1.4 experience?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:29 am    Post subject: Nikkor ais 35/1.4 experience? Reply with quote
What is your experience with the nikkor 35/1.4 ais?
Sweet spot? Wide open? Samples?
Thanks.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:38 am    Post subject: Re: Nikkor ais 35/1.4 experience? Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
What is your experience with the nikkor 35/1.4 ais?
Sweet spot? Wide open? Samples?
Thanks.


You may want to look here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35f14ais.htm


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've had this lens.
I really liked it. It has a quite unique rendering somehow.
Don't know how to explain but I could easily tell by looking at my pictures that they where taken by the Nikkor.

I sold it because I have the Distagon 35/1.4 and the Nikkor focused the "wrong" way (I'm used to Canon and Contax etc).
I sometimes miss it, because of the size and the rendering.

It has ok sharpness wide open, works for portraits and so, but sharpness and contrast increse when stopped down.
Stepped down it's a very sharp lens (no surprise, most lenses are).
Don't know sweet spot, but guessing F5.6-8.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The design is from 1969. That's old. the new Nikkor AF lens is $3500 or so.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My is 450usd. So i can live with it until i can raise 3500 Cool


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had one these in the early 1970s. My memory is that it was much better at f1.4 than the "first "version of the Leitz 35/1.4 Summilux (the chrome one) ! I'd endorse what Swappo says 100%. It was very good at close distances wide open, which would maybe make it attractive today with the current interest in out-of-focus effects. Yes, if it's affordable, go ahead and get it.

Can't recall why I parted with it, but I was forever changing equipment then - there was a lot of used gear around and prices were cheap. I think for me a negative point was that it was relatively big and heavy. And the second (black) version of the 35/1.4 Summilux was a lot better than the first. Whatever else I bought and sold, I held on to the Leica.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
I think for me a negative point was that it was relatively big and heavy.


Everything is relative... I think it's very small and light, but I'm comparing it to my giant Distagon. Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Swappo wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
I think for me a negative point was that it was relatively big and heavy.


Everything is relative... I think it's very small and light, but I'm comparing it to my giant Distagon. Very Happy


+1 I have both distagon is stunning wide open , Nikon is okay , Nikon is stunning from f2.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Swappo wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
I think for me a negative point was that it was relatively big and heavy.


Everything is relative... I think it's very small and light, but I'm comparing it to my giant Distagon. Very Happy


+1 I have both distagon is stunning wide open , Nikon is okay , Nikon is stunning from f2.


I think the Nikkor is a good compromise with size/weight and image quality.
And also price... It's less than half of the Distagons price.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Swappo wrote:
Attila wrote:
Swappo wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
I think for me a negative point was that it was relatively big and heavy.


Everything is relative... I think it's very small and light, but I'm comparing it to my giant Distagon. Very Happy


+1 I have both distagon is stunning wide open , Nikon is okay , Nikon is stunning from f2.


I think the Nikkor is a good compromise with size/weight and image quality.
And also price... It's less than half of the Distagons price.



I agree.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Nikkor ais 35/1.4 experience? Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
What is your experience with the nikkor 35/1.4 ais?
Sweet spot? Wide open? Samples?
Thanks.


Some samples of mine - http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/tags/35mmf14ais/

When used on full frame, it is at

f/1.4 poor all over
f/2 VG sharp center, corners poor
f/2.8 EXC sharp center, average corners
f/4 sharpness peak center, VG/EXC corners
f/5.6 EXC all over
f/8 EXC all over
f/11 slight decrease in IQ but nevertheless still EXC all over
f/16 slight decrease in IQ due to diffraction

Lots of vignetting wide open, CA is never an issue though some show wide open. Medium distortion, will become evident in close-ups (minimum focusing distance is only 0.3m). Nice 9-bladed diaphragm and bokeh. Light and small-sized (that's relative of course) and it's a bit stiffer to focus than many Ai-S Nikkors (which is good, for preciser focus).

I don't have mine anymore, I got a good price for it at a time when the superb Nikkor 35/1.4G AF-S lens came out.
_________________
Vilhelm

Last edited by Esox lucius on Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:55 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Nikkor ais 35/1.4 experience? Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
hoanpham wrote:
What is your experience with the nikkor 35/1.4 ais?
Sweet spot? Wide open? Samples?
Thanks.


When used on full frame, it is at

f/1.4 poor all over
f/2 VG sharp center, corners poor
f/2.8 EXC sharp center, average corners
f/4 sharpness peak center, VG/EXC corners
f/5.6 EXC all over
f/8 EXC all over
f/11 slight decrease in IQ but nevertheless still EXC all over
f/16 slight decrease in IQ due to diffraction

Lots of vignetting wide open, CA is never an issue though some show wide open. Medium distortion, will become evident in close-ups (minimum focusing distance is only 0.3m). Nice 9-bladed diaphragm and bokeh. Light and small-sized (that's relative of course) and it's a bit stiffer to focus than many Ai-S Nikkors (which is good, for preciser focus).

I don't have mine anymore, I got a good price for it at a time when the superb Nikkor 35/1.4G AF-S lens came out.


This is exactly what one should expect from a lens of this speed from 1969.

I have never used the Leica 35mm Summilux-R (f/1.4) which dates from about 1984, I think. Anyone here have any experience with that one?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Summulux-R-Summilux-R-35mm-f-1-4-35-mm-F-1-4-Lens-Mint-S-N-3564448-/120824342486?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c21b127d6

Last edited by FluffPuppy on Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:43 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have to say that mine was certainly not "poor" at f1.4 - images were perfectly usable wide open. I suppose I should add that in the early1970s photographers used wide apertures in low light . . . not in brilliant sunshine and not for close-ups. It might be poor in those cases, but then a Ferrari isn't much of people carrier, is it?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
I have to say that mine was certainly not "poor" at f1.4 - images were perfectly usable wide open. I suppose I should add that in the early1970s photographers used wide apertures in low light . . . not in brilliant sunshine and not for close-ups. It might be poor in those cases, but then a Ferrari isn't much of people carrier, is it?


I think he means "compared to" stopped down.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Nikkor ais 35/1.4 experience? Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
hoanpham wrote:
What is your experience with the nikkor 35/1.4 ais?
Sweet spot? Wide open? Samples?
Thanks.


Some samples of mine - http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/tags/35mmf14ais/

When used on full frame, it is at

f/1.4 poor all over
f/2 VG sharp center, corners poor
f/2.8 EXC sharp center, average corners
f/4 sharpness peak center, VG/EXC corners
f/5.6 EXC all over
f/8 EXC all over
f/11 slight decrease in IQ but nevertheless still EXC all over
f/16 slight decrease in IQ due to diffraction

Lots of vignetting wide open, CA is never an issue though some show wide open. Medium distortion, will become evident in close-ups (minimum focusing distance is only 0.3m). Nice 9-bladed diaphragm and bokeh. Light and small-sized (that's relative of course) and it's a bit stiffer to focus than many Ai-S Nikkors (which is good, for preciser focus).

I don't have mine anymore, I got a good price for it at a time when the superb Nikkor 35/1.4G AF-S lens came out.


That may be the case for full frame but I use mine on a crop format DSLR and on crop, performance seems the same right across the frame.
I sometimes use mine wide open, for shallow DOF effects but most of the time I use it from f2 to f5.6, where its excellent....Its one of my best lenses and I'd agree it does seem to have its own look, which is a very good one. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
I have to say that mine was certainly not "poor" at f1.4 - images were perfectly usable wide open.


Crop frame users benefit from certain advantages as corners are cropped away. Many times the lens also can resolve more than the sensor, which will show as a flat performance curve. Attach the lens to a sensor capable of drawing enough detail on the same area the lens was designed to cover will reveal many issues crop frame users will never see.

I replied with my personal experience

esox lucius wrote:

When used on full frame, it is at

f/1.4 poor all over


FluffPuppy wrote:
I think he means "compared to" stopped down.


"Poor" is when it comes to technical quality and how much detail it can resolve at that aperture. For artistic or journalistic work, where the character of the image (or the ability to achieve exposure in very low light), this lens is perfectly good wide open.

Last edited by Esox lucius on Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:59 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
I have to say that mine was certainly not "poor" at f1.4 - images were perfectly usable wide open.


Crop frame users benefit from certain advantages as corners are cropped away. Many times the lens also can resolve more than the sensor, which will show as a flat performance curve. Attach the lens to a sensor capable of drawing enough detail on the same area the lens was designed to cover, and the game is totally different.

I replied with my personal experience

esox lucius wrote:

When used on full frame, it is at

f/1.4 poor all over


FluffPuppy wrote:
I think he means "compared to" stopped down.


"Poor" is when it comes to technical quality and how much detail it can resolve at that aperture. For artistic or journalistic work, where the character of the image (or the ability to achieve exposure in very low light), this lens is perfectly good wide open.


I understood you perfectly. You mean the lens is 'poor' on an absolute basis compared to say a 50mm f/2 lens used at f/5.6, or the same lens used at a smaller aperture.

Lenses designed in the 1970s or earlier, with limited resources as far as glass types and design methods, were in many cases as good as they needed to be at that time, as they were usually used with fast coarse-grained films anyway. You didn't buy a 35mm f/1.4 to shoot Kodachrome II (ASA 25) at f/8. You used it at f/1.4 with Tri-X or something of that kind.

Thanks.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Definitely a test run at f1.4, 2.0, 2.8 to see it's performance.
I also have several 35/2 that can compare at f2: pentax K35/2, FA35/2, OM35/2, i think i miss one...

I dont expect it is sharp wide open, sharp enough is ok.
My use of 35mm is mainly full body portraits on crop sensors.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Put the 35/1.4 Ai-S on a D3x and it will paint very good detail center at f/2, and excellent all over from f/4 to f/11, but wide open the performance can best be described as "suitable for artistic needs which do not involve requirements for detail resolved."

I would whole-heartedly recommend the 35/1.4 Ai-S Nikkor to anyone, but I feel safer when I sign personal experience of the lens with very stringent focus on how much detail the lens draws (or how little detail is resolved wide open). You see, I don't want to receive inbox messages from someone who spent hundreds of euros on a lens just because my definition of "good" or "useable" or "excellent" was less demanding than their own.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some examples taken at F1.4 with Canon 5D.
No pp added.

1/200s


100% crop



1/40s


100% crop



The lens gives very good colors in my opinion.
First pic shows that unique rendering that I mentioned earlier, look at the jacket.
Second pic shows some motion blur.


I did not add 100% crops from corners because they were out of focus because of shallow DOF.
I didn't find any pics taken at F1.4 where corners are in focus...


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Swappo wrote:
I didn't find any pics taken at F1.4 where corners are in focus...


Most likely you won't either, because the softness is due to field curvature. No-one gives a damn, you don't buy an f/1.4 lens for corner performance.

Your pictures show the same performance my copy had. Since this is a volume manufactured lens, aftermarket price is a good indicator of quality and your samples wide open show why it goes for quite a high price still, this is a great lens as mentioned. I won't apologize for quality requirements that exceed that of most users, I was asked my personal opinion and gave it Cool


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
Swappo wrote:
I didn't find any pics taken at F1.4 where corners are in focus...


Most likely you won't either, because the softness is due to field curvature. No-one gives a damn, you don't buy an f/1.4 lens for corner performance.

Your pictures show the same performance my copy had. Since this is a volume manufactured lens, aftermarket price is a good indicator of quality and your samples wide open show why it goes for quite a high price still, this is a great lens as mentioned. I won't apologize for quality requirements that exceed that of most users, I was asked my personal opinion and gave it Cool


I am sure that the lens is' adequate' for fast films of the past but by today's standards something sharper is demanded, and since digital sensors are so sensitive, an f/2 lens or 2.8 lens is all most will ever need.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
Swappo wrote:
I didn't find any pics taken at F1.4 where corners are in focus...


Most likely you won't either, because the softness is due to field curvature. No-one gives a damn, you don't buy an f/1.4 lens for corner performance.

Your pictures show the same performance my copy had. Since this is a volume manufactured lens, aftermarket price is a good indicator of quality and your samples wide open show why it goes for quite a high price still, this is a great lens as mentioned. I won't apologize for quality requirements that exceed that of most users, I was asked my personal opinion and gave it Cool



Totally true!
For corner performance (for me mostly when I shoot landscapes and such), I use slower lenses.
I also agree on what you said earlier regarding sharpness on this lens.

With some pp wide open shots with this lens, images can appear quite sharp, but this thread is not about pp and most lenses can be made look sharp/good with pp if done correctly. Cool

My conclusion on this lens is that it's good bang for the buck if looking for a MF 35/1.4 and don't want to pay for a distagon.
It is pleasant to use and easy to bring everywhere...
Maybe this lens should be compared with the Samyang 35/1.4? The Nikkor would have a huge advantage with size/weight.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Swappo wrote:
I've had this lens.
I really liked it. It has a quite unique rendering somehow.
(...)

DSG wrote:

(...) and I'd agree it does seem to have its own look, which is a very good one. Wink

+1
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2