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

What is the best Nikkor 35mm lens?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:21 am    Post subject: What is the best Nikkor 35mm lens? Reply with quote

Been reading reviews on the net, can not conclude what is the best Nikkor 35mm lens. Note on 35/1.4 Ais price going unreasonably high for some people that expect more image quality from that price range.

Thank you


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depends what you are looking for (and 35/1.4 ais prices are coming down).

35/2 AIS is a good all rounder, better than the AF 35/2.

35/1.4 AIS has a more complex behaviour, soft edged and low contrast wide open but sharpening with each stop so by f/2.8 its pretty crisp. Whether you consider that a flaw or a benefit depends on what look you want (I see you shoot a ZF 50/1.4 which behaves similarly wide open).


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have Nikkor 35mm 1.4 AIS, wide open soft in my opinion too, I like it's exceptional color rendering and sharpness, details just stunning from f2.8 right.

Not in same leaguage with Contax 35mm f1.4 which is sharp at every aperture including wide open, perhaps not in same price league too.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This time I expect crisp and sharp image. Perhaps I should go with 35/2.8 Ais instead ?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hate to say so, but the humble 2.0/35 AF (I have a 2nd, rubber ring, version but 1st and D are optically the same) beats all others I own or have owned (35/2 Non-AI and AI, 35/2.8 E, 35/1.4 AI-S), by image quality, distortion, contrast and edge falloff. The manual focus 35/2 would be nice too, but it is prone to flare and softer wide open.

Sevo


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well I have 35/2 K version and it's super sharp wide open and has great contrast... I've had 35/1.8 AF and its great too Wink


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have had some Nikkor lenses, not many as true Nikonians have, but not few either. Of those that I had, the first place in quality would be shared by the 50/1.4 AIS and the 2.5/105 AI.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kopimorning wrote:
This time I expect crisp and sharp image. Perhaps I should go with 35/2.8 Ais instead ?

The 35mm f/2.8 Ai-S (or any of the f/2.8 versions, really) is quite possibly Nikon's worst 35mm lens.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would go for the Zeiss 2/35 if lower light capabilities are what you need. The non-CPU version, used, ought to be somewhat cheaper and it's tack-sharp from f/2; colors are notably warmer than the Nikkor 35/1.4, whose palate tends to the cooler, bluer side.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChrisLilley wrote:
Depends what you are looking for (and 35/1.4 ais prices are coming down).

35/2 AIS is a good all rounder, better than the AF 35/2.

35/1.4 AIS has a more complex behaviour, soft edged and low contrast wide open but sharpening with each stop so by f/2.8 its pretty crisp. Whether you consider that a flaw or a benefit depends on what look you want (I see you shoot a ZF 50/1.4 which behaves similarly wide open).


Chris is spot-on as always.

You can choose from

- Nikkor 35/2.8 F
- Nikkor 35/2.8 Ai
- Nikkor 35/2.8 PC (perspective control)
- Nikon 35/2.5 E
- Nikkor 35/2 F
- Nikkor 35/2 Ai/Ai-S
- Nikkor 35/2 AF/AF-D
- Nikkor 35/1.4 Ai-S

IMHO, since you are on crop-frame, you can't really go wrong no matter which version you choose from the faster versions (f/1.4 or f/2). The slower f/2.8 versions are not bad, but they are marginally behind in detail as well as in useability (fastest aperture).

For full-frame most demanding D3X use, I'd pick the 35/1.4 Ai-S (for f/2.8 to f/5.6 use), the 35/2 AF/AF-D for low light useability thanks to AF, or the 35/2 Ai/Ai-S for overall performance.

IMHO, price differences are much larger than technical quality differences when talking about the Nikkor 35mm primes.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james wrote:
I would go for the Zeiss 2/35 if lower light capabilities are what you need. The non-CPU version, used, ought to be somewhat cheaper and it's tack-sharp from f/2; colors are notably warmer than the Nikkor 35/1.4, whose palate tends to the cooler, bluer side.


The Distagon 35/2 ZF also has one of the best dimensional painting characteristics that I have found in any normal wide prime for Nikkor mount. Photos are so 3D you think that they have been Photoshopped.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Esox lucius wrote:
The Distagon 35/2 ZF also has one of the best dimensional painting characteristics that I have found in any normal wide prime for Nikkor mount. Photos are so 3D you think that they have been Photoshopped.


Well put, Vilhelm. Couldn't agree with you more.
The only other 35 Nikons I shot previous to the ZF were the 17-35 and 24-70 at 35. Both lacked that characteristic mentioned above.
Pretty striking effect so I wonder how Zeiss will outdo it in the 1,4/35 due out in '11.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 17-35/2.8D, while it is a zoom lens, gives very very nice 3D stopped down (when used at 20 to 28mm). See example

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/3770301884/sizes/o/

The 24-70/2.8G is a fine lens, mandatory for any Nikon full-frame professional. While I keep this lens in higher regard than the 17-35/2.8D I would not want to degrade it, but please understand that its strongpoints are when used at about 40 to 70mm and more or less wide open (talking about dimensionality in images - see this reference)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/4505219070/sizes/l/

Having seen what I have seen from the manual focus 35/2 Distagon ZF, both of these professional quality zooms can only rival the 35/2 Distagon ZF, at their best.

I would immediately pick the Zeiss prime, if focal length, rendering and fingerprint was the qualifying factor.

For useability and reaction when ISO 12,800 and wide open is the territory - I'm bringing the Nikkors. For every other use, the Zeiss is my mainstay.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Esox lucius wrote:
The 17-35/2.8D, while it is a zoom lens, gives very very nice 3D stopped down (when used at 20 to 28mm). -


...which is why I parted company with that lens. The ZF 2/35 is my most-used prime.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used to have a non-AI 2/35 and sold it when I got the Leica Summicron 2/35 (which I also have sold again and now have a MIR-24 2/35). I regret having sold the Nikkor, though. The 2/35 is a great lens!


PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james wrote:
Pretty striking effect so I wonder how Zeiss will outdo it in the 1,4/35 due out in '11.


I suspect they will bring two lenses for two different purposes: the faster version will be better corrected for wide open shooting, whereas the legendary 35/2 Distagon will continue to deliver fingerprint only certain Zeiss Biogon lenses can.


Last edited by Esox lucius on Thu May 05, 2011 3:20 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

if budget is not an issue, I would simply choose Distagon 35/2 ZF, but they are out of my league for now

I guess my next acquisition would be a nikkor 35/2 ais

thank you guys for your wisdom Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
The 2/35 is a great lens!

+1. I have a pre-AI 35/2 that was AI'd by Nikon (meaning it got the special Nikon AI aperture ring made for that lens). I really like mine a lot. Yearsa ago, I owned a 35/1.4 for a while, and honestly didn't see what was so special about it. So I sold it for a profit. Cool


PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got the 35mm F1.4 AI and the 35mm F2 Nikkor-O with a factory AI ring, and they're both fine lenses. I wouldn't get rid of either of them.

But....if you have a D40 like I do, you should get the late-model 35mm F1.8 AF-S G DX lens, no question about it! I got mine, used and in perfect condition, for $150. On the D40, it comes really close to fulfilling the ideal of the original 35mm compact camera: it is cheap, fast, light, sharp, quick in use, just a joy to shoot, and you don't mind carrying it everywhere you go.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I revently bought the 35/1.4 converted to Canon EOS mount.
A bit soft, but usefull wide open, and gets better if you step down a little.
Colors are amazing and the rendering is caracteristic and special.


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is the aperture controlled by the camera? Disappointed if it is.


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2011 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had a 35/2 Ai (actually still do, but it's in my list of need-to-sell along with about a dozen other MF Nikkors).

I think it's a fine lens that gives sharp images and good contrast from f/2.8 on, and it's pretty good at f/2 as well. My only objection is that it's fairly prone to flare. Since I live in the land-of-constant-sunshine--Southern California--flare can be an issue with a wide-angle lens. Ended up with a 28/2 Ai, which has almost no flare. Works better for me where I live, but if I lived somewhere that had more weather and less sun, I would never have looked for a replacement.


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I lived in SoCal for 24 years and when I encountered flare from having the sun close to being in the frame, I found I could usually hold my hand up and block the sun's rays from falling on the lens. This saved a lot of sunny photos for me.

Now I live in Houston, and although we get weather here, we also have plenty of sun. Too much. So I do the same thing here.


PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
I used to have a non-AI 2/35 and sold it when I got the Leica Summicron 2/35 (which I also have sold again and now have a MIR-24 2/35). I regret having sold the Nikkor, though. The 2/35 is a great lens!


And how you compare de Mir-24 to the Leica and the Nikkor?