"Best" 35mm focal length lens, for Nikon F mount

[JParker]

Nikkor lenses are much more than adequate on Nikons with modern films like Kodak Tmax 100/400 or Ilford Delta films.

Please look at and read my postings above. I am using Nikkor lenses and also these films.
I much prefer the significantly improved modern Nikkor lenses. E.g. I love the outstanding Nikkor AF-S 1.8/24G ED. It plays in a different league compared to all its forerunners.

If you're printing and are concerned about lens quality...it's time to consider medium format options.

I am printing. And I am also using medium format. But medium format is not generally the better tool for my photography.
Horses for courses:
In some situations 35mm works better, in others 120. I work accordingly.

Film size has much more effect on image quality than does lens quality IMO.

There are meanwhile lots of outstanding, much improved lenses for 35mm. But not for medium format. Almost all medium format lenses are older designs. With my modern 35mm format lenses I come closer in quality to medium format.
And because of the 2-3 stop advantage concerning wider apertures I have with my modern 35mm lenses compared to my medium format lenses, I can in many situations use ISO 100 film with 35mm, when I have to use ISO 400 film in MF.
And then the quality advantage in MF is either gone or so much reduced that all the other advantages of 35mm outweight the small remaining MF quality advantage.

The nikkor lens on the Plaubel Makina 67/670 is brilliant.

I know. A friend of mine has the Plaubel. I could try it. But the rangefinder in it does not work well for me personally.
And 6x7cm is generally not my format at all. It does not work for me.

 

[chuckroast]

I know "best" is subjective, and can mean different things, to different people. In this case, I'm looking for the 35mm focal length lens with the greatest sharpness, best color fidelity, and least distortion, that will work on Nikon film cameras (i.e. not an electromagnetic aperture); G-type lenses are fine.

Thanks, for any insight.

I used the 35mm f/2.8 pre-AI and AI-S lenses for years. They are very good.

Then I got a fairly beat up 35mm f/1.4 AI-S and ... WOW. It's just an amazingly good lens and noticeably snappier and sharper than the f/2.8.

Like any company, Nikon has some variability of performance across their lenses. The 35mm f/1.4 is one of the Nikon lenses I consider to be in Leica territory for sheer sharpness and performance, along with the 85mm f/1.4, 105mm f/2.5 and the 180mm f/2.8. There may be others, but those are the ones I have tried.

That said, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI-S vs. the Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH is a tough bakeoff because each has their own look. I thus consider both trusted companions.

 

[chuckroast]

Nikkor lenses are much more than adequate on Nikons with modern films like Kodak Tmax 100/400 or Ilford Delta films. If you're printing and are concerned about lens quality...it's time to consider medium format options. Film size has much more effect on image quality than does lens quality IMO. The nikkor lens on the Plaubel Makina 67/670 is brilliant.

This is very true. Your typical average Mamiya or Yashica TLR will outperform the best Leica lenses on several dimensions.

 

[Film-Niko]

I used the 35mm f/2.8 pre-AI and AI-S lenses for years. They are very good.

They are optically the weakest of the numerous 35mm Nikkors. Main problem is strong field curvature. They were designed as lower-cost lenses for amateurs with stronger budget restrictions.
I have even some zooms which perform better than the 2.8/35 Nikkors.

Then I got a fairly beat up 35mm f/1.4 AI-S and ... WOW. It's just an amazingly good lens and noticeably snappier and sharper than the f/2.8.

That is indeed the case, much better than the 2.8/35.

Like any company, Nikon has some variability of performance across their lenses. The 35mm f/1.4 is one of the Nikon lenses I consider to be in Leica territory for sheer sharpness and performance,

Nope, definitely not. Compare it to the latest Leica R 1.4/35 and you will see. And compared to the Sigma Art 1.4/35 and Zeiss Milvus 1.4/35 the difference is even much bigger in favour of the Sigma and Zeiss.

along with the 85mm f/1.4,

Very good lens indeed at its time, but later surpassed by the AF-S 1.4/85G and especially the Zeiss Milvus Planar 1.4/85 (an absolutely outstanding lens).

105mm f/2.5

Also a very good one, but later significantly surpassed by the Nikkor AF-D 2/105 DC (one of the best Nikkors ever built) and the Zeiss Milvus 2/100.

and the 180mm f/2.8.

Also a very good one, but later surpassed by the newly designed excellent Nikkor AF-D 2.8/180.

 

[Film-Niko]

This is very true. Your typical average Mamiya or Yashica TLR will outperform the best Leica lenses on several dimensions.

Concerning the Yashica TLRs I have to disagree: I have measured the performance of the Tessar-type Yashinon in my Mat 124G in comparison to my 50mm 35mm format primes (Nikon, Zeiss, Sigma).
The 50mm primes outperform the Yashinon by 55-65% in resolution, and offer also a higher contrast. And offer max. resolution also at f4, wheras the Yashinon must be stopped down to f8 for its sweet performance spot.
So I can often use a two-stop slower (much higher quality) film in combination with the much much better resolving, higher contrast lenses. And by that the format advantage of the Mat124G is then compensated.
From time to time I show prints from both systems to experienced photographers, as a blind test. And most often the prints from 35mm are identified as the photos from medium format, and the prints from the Yashica are said to be from 35mm.

 

[chuckroast]

They are optically the weakest of the numerous 35mm Nikkors. Main problem is strong field curvature. They were designed as lower-cost lenses for amateurs with stronger budget restrictions.
I have even some zooms which perform better than the 2.8/35 Nikkors.



That is indeed the case, much better than the 2.8/35.



Nope, definitely not. Compare it to the latest Leica R 1.4/35 and you will see. And compared to the Sigma Art 1.4/35 and Zeiss Milvus 1.4/35 the difference is even much bigger in favour of the Sigma and Zeiss.



Very good lens indeed at its time, but later surpassed by the AF-S 1.4/85G and especially the Zeiss Milvus Planar 1.4/85 (an absolutely outstanding lens).



Also a very good one, but later significantly surpassed by the Nikkor AF-D 2/105 DC (one of the best Nikkors ever built) and the Zeiss Milvus 2/100.



Also a very good one, but later surpassed by the newly designed excellent Nikkor AF-D 2.8/180.

Because I shoot only legacy non-AI film bodies, I have steered away from AF lenses.
Notwithstanding their claimed better performance, I find the AF lens build quality to be considerably inferior to the older manual AI-S tanks. My admittedly limited use of AF lenses on film bodies has me shaking my head on how anyone manually focuses these things.

In fairness, this could well be an Old Dog New Trix problem. But even so, the absence of an aperture ring makes them a no-way-no-how solution for me.

 

[chuckroast]

Concerning the Yashica TLRs I have to disagree: I have measured the performance of the Tessar-type Yashinon in my Mat 124G in comparison to my 50mm 35mm format primes (Nikon, Zeiss, Sigma).
The 50mm primes outperform the Yashinon by 55-65% in resolution, and offer also a higher contrast. And offer max. resolution also at f4, wheras the Yashinon must be stopped down to f8 for its sweet performance spot.
So I can often use a two-stop slower (much higher quality) film in combination with the much much better resolving, higher contrast lenses. And by that the format advantage of the Mat124G is then compensated.
From time to time I show prints from both systems to experienced photographers, as a blind test. And most often the prints from 35mm are identified as the photos from medium format, and the prints from the Yashica are said to be from 35mm.

Quality lenses for 35mm pretty much always have greater resolving power than a MF or LF lens. Perceptual sharpness is a function of (among other things) lens resolution divided by magnification ratio to make a given size print. Because the smaller negative needs more magnification, the lenses have to be higher resolution. I was first astonished by this when I started looking at the published resolving power of my Nikon lenses vs. MF lenses.

I would also note that side-by-side comparisons don't really show the superiority of MF at 8x10 print sizes. You have to get to 11x14 and greater to see that the greater resolving power of the smaller format lenses isn't enough to make the difference.

 

[Film-Niko]

Because I shoot only legacy non-AI film bodies, I have steered away from AF lenses.

O.k.
But just as a reminder: The OP is using the F6, and has also said that he is totally fine with AF-D and G lenses.

Notwithstanding their claimed better performance, I find the AF lens build quality to be considerably inferior to the older manual AI-S tanks.

Only the cheaper consumer AF lenses have a ligther build quality. The more expensive and professional oriented AF lenses have an excellent build quality.
E.g. all AF tele lenses from 135mm on. Also the 2/105 DC, 1.4/105, 1.4/28 etc. ......have all better build quality as for example the AI-S 2.8/35.

My admittedly limited use of AF lenses on film bodies has me shaking my head on how anyone manually focuses these things.

No problem, especially with the professional grade lenses.

In fairness, this could well be an Old Dog New Trix problem. But even so, the absence of an aperture ring makes them a no-way-no-how solution for me.

Only the G lenses lack the aperture ring, but not the AF and AF-D versions.
With the AF lenses on AF bodies the aperture can be precisely controlled in 1/3 steps. For me a welcome advantage compared to the AI / AI-S lenses.

 

[Film-Niko]

I would also note that side-by-side comparisons don't really show the superiority of MF at 8x10 print sizes.

I have not written that I used 8x10" print size.

You have to get to 11x14 and greater to see that the greater resolving power of the smaller format lenses isn't enough to make the difference.

So in your opinion MF can show an advantage only at 11x14" or bigger print size. If that is the case, medium format would probably make no sense for 99.9% of all film shooters, because their regular print size is lower (if they print at all).

Well, I do not agree that you always need at least 11x14" print size to see the medium format quality.
But it is certainly right that for the huge majority of situations the 35mm format quality is more than enough. No one - neither photographers nor non-photographers - who has seen my prints from 35mm format and my slides in projection has ever complained about the technical quality.

 

[George Mann]

They are optically the weakest of the numerous 35mm Nikkors. Main problem is strong field curvature. They were designed as lower-cost lenses for amateurs with stronger budget restrictions.
I have even some zooms which perform better than the 2.8/35 Nikkors.

The 6 element version has the least field curvature.

 

[BillBaileyImages]

Thanks Bill.
Which film was used?

Honestly I am very astonished now. Because:
The highest resolution capability in microfilm I know is the 800 lp/mm of Agfa Copex HDP (Adox CMS 20 II). And that value is measured without a lens, in direct surface-to-surface process. And at high object contrast.
AFAIK this film was also used for classic microfilm use like microfiche (e.g. in the car industry for spare part lists).

Now your value is almost double (!) of that, and even with a lens involved.
As I am doing resolution tests by myself for many years, I know that one possible mistake one can make lies in the mathematical calculation:
You have your test chart with a certain number of lines per millimeter in the original. And then you photograph from a certain distance.
By evaluating the results on the film you have to calculate the lp/number in the orginal, the distance and the focal length with the correct mathematical formula.
Could it be that in that process a mistake was done?

I'm legally barred to share any more details than in the original post. The client insisted on executing what constitutes a non-disclosure agreement. Really NOT trying to be evasive, and the client was satisfied and pleased with our verified results. I CAN say that the one thousand five hundred line pairs per millimeter resolution is a genuine outcome. As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating!"

 

[George Mann]

O.k.
But just as a reminder: The OP is using the F6, and has also said that he is totally fine with AF-D and G lenses.

I didn't see any mention of him using the F6 specifically or I would have suggested the AF-S version of the 35mm f1.4.

 

[Film-Niko]

I didn't see any mention of him using the F6 specifically or I would have suggested the AF-S version of the 35mm f1.4.

See his post - number 15 in this thread.

 

[Film-Niko]

The 6 element version has the least field curvature.

But it has much more field curvature than the modern lens designs like the Sigma Art 1.4/35, Zeiss Milvus 1.4/35 and 2/35, or the Nikkor AF-S 1.8/35G.
The OP has asked for optimal performance.
These old Nikkor lenses simply do not fit to what the OP is looking for.

 

[George Mann]

the Nikkor AF-S 1.8/35G.

This lens has MORE barrel distortion!

 

[Film-Niko]

This lens has MORE barrel distortion!

In my tests the difference was very small and in most cases not visible in the photo.

And the decisive point is:
You have one lens that offers
- superior sharpness at all apertures
- superior resolution at all apertures
- superior contrast at all apertures
- better corner-to-corner performance at all apertures
- better coatings and much less flare
- much less coma
- no focus shift
- no field curvature
- the option to use it both in autofocus and manual mode.

And in comparison the other lens offers only
- a very small advantage in distortion, which is in most cases not visible.

Which of those two lenses would you choose?
My choice is clear .

 

[brbo]

Which of those two lenses would you choose?

The one that is the smallest, least expensive and has less distortion, of course.

 

[dynachrome]

"In my tests the difference was very small and in most cases not visible in the photo." This sentence sums up most of the hair splitting which has been discussed concerning the differences between these different lenses. If you can't easily tell the difference in the results between them, maybe they are not so important after all. A wide angle lens would not typically be used for flat copy work. There are better choices for that. The 28/2.8 AIS Nikkor is often praised for its use of a floating element design (CRC). I use a 28/2 Nikkor, which also has a floating element design but in the close-up range I prefer a 55/2.8 or 60/2.8 Micro Nikkor. These lenses are much better in the close-up range than the 28/2.8 AIS. Not all wide angle lenses are optimized for architectural photography but in other uses, like landscape photography, without many straight lines, distortion is not easily seen. Many years ago, before I took up an interest in picture taking, I used to read Stereo Review. One measure of sound quality was THD or Total Harmonic Distortion. Many of those measurements could only be detected with specialized testing equipment. Even a dog couldn't hear the distortions in question. It's fun to compare many different lenses but maybe even more fun to actually use them.

 

[Film-Niko]

The one that is the smallest, least expensive and has less distortion, of course.

That is fine for you.
But it is also completely irrelevant, because the OP has clearly explained that he is looking for a 35mm lens offering the best optical performance. That is his priority.
And I do my very best to give him advice about that topic, based on my numerous tests and daily photography experience with both old and modern lenses.

If he would have asked e.g. for the cheapest lens on the used market, my recommendation would have been different.

That several members are simply ignoring the needs of the OP, and just tell him he should use what they are using (and without having experience with better alternatives), despite the fact that his priorities are different, is not helpful for helping the OP.

 

[Film-Niko]

"In my tests the difference was very small and in most cases not visible in the photo." This sentence sums up most of the hair splitting which has been discussed concerning the differences between these different lenses.

No, not at all!
You are misusing the quotation function by excluding the important parts I have written.
The differences in optical performance of the above mentioned lenses, and those relevant for the OP, are very obvious and significant.
That members here, who have not used the better lenses by themselves, are permanently attacking those members with the knowledge and experience in using these modern improved lenses, shows a great disrespect to the OP.

 

[Besk]

I have not written that I used 8x10" print size.



So in your opinion MF can show an advantage only at 11x14" or bigger print size. If that is the case, medium format would probably make no sense for 99.9% of all film shooters, because their regular print size is lower (if they print at all).

Well, I do not agree that you always need at least 11x14" print size to see the medium format quality.
But it is certainly right that for the huge majority of situations the 35mm format quality is more than enough. No one - neither photographers nor non-photographers - who has seen my prints from 35mm format and my slides in projection has ever complained about the technical quality.

I have about stopped using MF format because 35mm is often adequate for my needs. If more quality is needed 4x5 (or 5x7) is better.

 

[chuckroast]

I have about stopped using MF format because 35mm is often adequate for my needs. If more quality is needed 4x5 (or 5x7) is better.

I shoot a variety of formats as the scene dictates. I develop and print my own work with a fairly high degree of rigor to eliminate variables to the degree reasonably possible. I use excellent Nikon and Leica optics when I do shoot 35mm.

My consistent experience is that 35mm has trouble with scenes with a lot of detail in them. For example, shooting in the woods where a significant portion of the scene involves leaves and branches. It simply doesn't come close to even a fairly pedestrian MF camera, for a given film.

For example, while I very much like this image, it would have been MUCH better if done on 4x5. Note the lack of detail in the foreground grass. Leica M5 on a tripod, scan of resulting silver print:

To some degree, this can be overcome with slower, higher resolution films like APX 100 or FP4+ (I deeply dislike the look of T-Max 100) but that then necessitates the use of a tripod in many cases.

But for a given scene/lens combo, 4x5, especially, just blows away the image quality of 35mm even though the larger format's lenses have lower measured resolving power. There simply is no substitute for negative square inches.

Fortunately, a lot of really interesting stuff doesn't have "a lot of detail". Abstracts, street photographs, and portraits are among the subjects which can- and are handled well by 35mm.

For example, here's a scan of a silver print from a negative shot with a 50mm f/2 Summicron bolted onto my M5. Even handheld, it holds up pretty well because the information density of the scene is relatively low by comparison to the image above:

I would note that, these days, when I travel to places I am unlikely to ever see again, I increasingly reach for a Fuji GA-645Zi. The camera handles nearly as easily as a 35mm RF, has very fine optics, and has enough negative that it shows up considerably better than 35mm in high detail scenes. The negative is also big enough that I am comfortable shooting Tri-X or HP5+ with it which makes handholding a more practical option.

 

[Angarian]

To some degree, this can be overcome with slower, higher resolution films like APX 100 or FP4+ (I deeply dislike the look of T-Max 100) but that then necessitates the use of a tripod in many cases.

But neither AgfaPhoto APX 100 ( which is relabelled Kentmere 100), nor FP4+ are higher resolution films. Just the opposite: Their resolution power is relatively limited.
I've got only 70-80 lp/mm with them (FP4+ on the higher side). But with Acros II, Delta 100, TMX, PanF+, HR 50 I have got values in the range of 120-150 lp/mm!
The difference is huge, and makes a very visible difference in the print. Much more detail is captured.

But we should stay at the original topic. A discussion of 35mm vs. MF vs. LF ist not at all what the original poster has asked for.
He asked for the best optical performance 35mm lens for his Nikon F6.

 

[koraks]

misusing the quotation function

permanently attacking

great disrespect

Could you please not blow things out of proportion and thereby cast oil onto the fire, please? We'd like it if people could keep contributing to this thread without being dragged into some feud. Kindly tone it down a little, please. Thanks also on behalf of the other moderators.

 

[chuckroast]

But neither AgfaPhoto APX 100 ( which is relabelled Kentmere 100), nor FP4+ are higher resolution films. Just the opposite: Their resolution power is relatively limited.
I've got only 70-80 lp/mm with them (FP4+ on the higher side). But with Acros II, Delta 100, TMX, PanF+, HR 50 I have got values in the range of 120-150 lp/mm!
The difference is huge, and makes a very visible difference in the print. Much more detail is captured.

But we should stay at the original topic. A discussion of 35mm vs. MF vs. LF ist not at all what the original poster has asked for.
He asked for the best optical performance 35mm lens for his Nikon F6.

Yep, noted and agreed.