35mm With a Budget of 300?

[Profdaydreamer]

Hi everyone. Some of you may have seen my earlier post looking for some Leica suggestions. After looking over many prices, I've decided those lenses cost too much for my budget...

Does anyone have some good recommendations for a 35mm SLR with a sharp lens? All I'm searching for is a 35mm focal length lens or a tad bit lower along with a built in meter... I started out with a Nikon FM but just sold it as the lens I was using just wasn't cutting it with the crispness. My budget is about $300-$350...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi everyone. Some of you may have seen my earlier post looking for some Leica suggestions. After looking over many prices, I've decided those lenses cost too much for my budget...

Does anyone have some good recommendations for a 35mm SLR with a sharp lens? All I'm searching for is a 35mm focal length lens or a tad bit lower along with a built in meter... I started out with a Nikon FM but just sold it as the lens I was using just wasn't cutting it with the crispness. My budget is about $300-$350...

look for the 'nifty fifty'Nikkor(50mmf/1.8) for your FM. it doesn't cost more than $50 used and is excellent.; very sharp.

 

[shutterfinger]

What lens did you have on the FM?

 

[Profdaydreamer]

What lens did you have on the FM?

An E Series 28mm f/2.8... Gave me a lot of dull images... Pretty adamant on having the 35mm or wider also

 

[reddesert]

Dull like not sharp, or dull like low contrast? Maybe your lens was hazy, or you had a bad example of the Series E 28mm.

People will probably come up with all kinds of suggestions from simple to complex, but one obvious route is a Nikon FE or FM with any of the 28mm or 35mm lenses except the Series E. The 28/3.5, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 35/2 all are relatively modestly priced possibilities. The AI or -C versions are multicoated which may matter if you are shooting with a lot of sun or backlight.

 

[HeikoW]

Hi, if you want to continue with Nikon I can recommend the 28/2,8 AI or AIS. Both have a very good quality and are superior to the E series 28/2,8. I use the AI and I am very satisfied with this lens.

 

[grain elevator]

Your description of the problem doesn't sound like we can really be certain the lens was the problem. Maybe you can post some of the pictures you were unhappy with. Many times, people get crappy scans from the lab and then blame their lens. Or they underexpose and then blame their lens. Or they shoot with open aperture all the time and then blame their lens. Or they can't focus right because they need a diopter and then blame their lens. Or they use too long shutter speeds to handhold and then blame their lens. Or they refuse to do the necessary adjustments of the contrast on scans and then blame their lens. And so on. Similar thread on RFF recently: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171061. I can't possibly know if any of that is the case here, you can, especially if you post the offending pictures.
And if you liked the camera body, why not just get one of the many other Nikon lenses?

 

[Chan Tran]

The Nikon FM is a fine camera. You just need to buy another lens. Nikon made a lot of lenses and many are very good.

 

[darkosaric]

Condition of the old lens is more important than which Nikkor you choose. It is very hard to find bad Nikkor lens, even those that are considered as bad (for example 43-86mm zoom) are pretty good.

 

[4season]

Kind of hard to say without seeing examples, but possibly a bad example of the lens? Also, If you are more accustomed to shooting with your phone, film doesn't necessarily yield crisp vibrant photos as easily: Underexposed color negatives or so-so lighting conditions are likely to look really blah.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Series "E" stood for "Everyone" i.e. they were budget lenses. Get another Nikon lens, if you want wide the 24mm AI is about $100 and well regarded.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I have a Nikon 24mm f2.8 Ai that is a performer. It focuses to a foot or so.

 

[jim10219]

I had an E series 28/2.8. It was terrible. I was given a 24/2.8 Vivitar for free and promptly sold the E series because that cheap, generic 24/2.8 was superior in every way. There are some decent lenses in the E series. My 100/2.8 is worth keeping. But the 28/2.8 is not one of them.

Most of the lenses Nikon made, beside the E series, will be plenty sharp. Nikon mostly made good lenses. I also have a few Minolta and Pentax SLR bodies that would fit the bill, along with Rokkor, Takumar, and Pentax lenses that would work. Honestly, finding 50mm down to 24mm brand name prime lenses that are sharp isn't that hard. Some will require you to stop down a bit, usually the faster lenses. But most should be pretty good by around f/8.

I think you just started off with the wrong lens. Next time, do a bit of research first before buying the lens, because while most are good, there are a few duds floating out there. You just happened to be unlucky enough to find one.

 

[jim10219]

Condition of the old lens is more important than which Nikkor you choose. It is very hard to find bad Nikkor lens, even those that are considered as bad (for example 43-86mm zoom) are pretty good.

Keep in mind they made two versions of the 43-86mm zoom. I've owned one of both, and got rid of both. The first was absolutely terrible. Completely unusable, as far as I was concerned. The second was much better, but still not all that good. At least not compared to the prime lenses available from the same time period, or more modern zooms.

 

[tomkatf]

There's a Nikkor 28/3.5 AI for $65 in the classifieds right now...

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-40-1-4-mc-nikon-f-waist-level-finder.175415/

 

[CMoore]

Hi everyone. Some of you may have seen my earlier post looking for some Leica suggestions. After looking over many prices, I've decided those lenses cost too much for my budget...

Does anyone have some good recommendations for a 35mm SLR with a sharp lens? All I'm searching for is a 35mm focal length lens or a tad bit lower along with a built in meter... I started out with a Nikon FM but just sold it as the lens I was using just wasn't cutting it with the crispness. My budget is about $300-$350...

Why did you sell the camera.?
ALL these lens are quite "Old" at this point. Judging all E, or any series, by one lens is pretty much meaningless.
I think you would have been fine to simply try another lens. Nikon made thousands of them.
Otherwise..... pick a brand with a meter and take pictures.

 

[Bob Bibab]

This is a bit odd. The Nikon was already as good a camera as you are going to get in its class. And its class is already the A class. It is a film camera, so the lens is going to be a much bigger issue than the camera itself and Nikon lenses are not really any worse than Leica lenses in terms of sharpness. And you would be paying 5 times the price of a Nikon lens to get an equivalent performing Leica lens (assuming you mean the M, rather than the R).

Unless you are shooting at 1/60 below speeds regularly (when mirror shake starts playing a part), then you are not going to get much if any improvement switching over to a Leica. And certainly not at $300 which would probably land you a iiif with an Elmar.

 

[Chan Tran]

Nikon made good lenses in comparison to other manufacturers in that period. Leica may be better but as you said they are expensive. I don't think Canon, Minolta are better in that period. Pentax was good but I think about the same as Nikon.

 

[Ariston]

Condition of the old lens is more important than which Nikkor you choose. It is very hard to find bad Nikkor lens, even those that are considered as bad (for example 43-86mm zoom) are pretty good.

This is exactly right. If you have a bad Nikkor lens, it was probably mistreated. Buy another one in good condition.

EDIT: It may also be your scanning process. I am still working on getting mine right.

 

[abruzzi]

assuming you no longer have the FM, you have a lot of options.

You could co back to Nikon, with another FM, or FM2, or... there are lots of them. If you want a 35mm lens I'd suggest the 35mm f2. Nikon made it for a long time. Mine is pre AI, because they're cheaper and still work fine on my F2.

You could go to Pentax. I'm happy with the M series 35mm f2 on a Pentax MX. there is also a f2.8 which is smaller (more in keeping with the MX's tiny vibe) but I've never used it.

Then there is Olympus, Minolta, and a lot of other brands, all of which I have no experience with.

 

[AndyH]

I have Nikon FTN, Pentax Spotmatic, and Rollei SL35 systems, all with terrific glass, none of which has ever cost me more than $100 or so. All have excellent WA ranges available, and you can find them easily online. I'd suggest only one caution - if open metering is for you, you have to get one of the later Pentax or Rollei models, which require some form of coupling of the aperture ring to the meter. I don't care about that, and there are a ton of earlier Pentax lenses available at great prices.

Andy

 

[John Koehrer]

IF you buy body & lens separately, there can be some compatablity issues with meter coupling.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

An E Series 28mm f/2.8... Gave me a lot of dull images... Pretty adamant on having the 35mm or wider also

Any chance film processing caused that ... dullness? I don't know of a single lens from all known manufacturers that just produces dull images.

 

[Paul Howell]

35 2.0 can be pretty pricey, but for not much money you can get a Konica T3, Konica 40 1.7 and 28 3.5, the T3 works fine with hearing aid batteries. Konica made some of the best glass around. The 35 2.8 are pretty cheap as well. If you want AF, a Minolta 600SI and first generation 35 to 70 4.0.

 

[neilt3]

Any chance film processing caused that ... dullness? I don't know of a single lens from all known manufacturers that just produces dull images.

It depends of how you define "dull" .

I've had some colour film back that I would call "dull" or "muddy" .
I put it down to them using developer that had gone well beyond the point of needing to be replaced .
I never used that place again , and never had that problem with anyone else .

In the first post the O.P said the pictures lacked "crispness" which would suggest either motion blur , out of focus or lack of contrast .
It was the second post that stated "dull" .

Without sample images it's impossible to determine where the fault lies , and even buying the best gear in the world might not change the resultant images if it's not the camera and lens at fault .