In a flagrant act of stupidity I'm reacquiring some Nikon gear I sold last year. The two 35mm lenses I'm considering are the Nikon 35mm ƒ1.4 and the Zeiss 35mm ƒ2. Are there any others I should consider? Any thoughts on the two mentioned? For what it's worth, I've had them both at one time or another, and been happy with both, but there can be only one. Its primary use would be street, urban landscape, that sorta thing.
The two 35mm lenses I'm considering are the Nikon 35mm ƒ1.4 and the Zeiss 35mm ƒ2. Are there any others I should consider? Any thoughts on the two mentioned?
Ok, first i will discard the Zeiss 35/2 because it doesn't make sense to put another japanese-made lens on it that is not a Nikkor. Second, because Nikon has a bigger variety of 35mm lenses. Leave the so-called "Zeiss" (Cosina) for the hipsters, Nikon is where you want to be.
My favorite 35mm on the FE is... don't laugh... a PC-Nikkor 35/3.5, second favorite my 35/2.8 PC-Nikkor. Perspective correction gives a ton of possiblities, and the auto-exposure compensates for the lack of auto-diaphragm. The former is more compact than the latter and makes it easier to use with the FE.
I'm with Ralph.... the Nikkor 35mm f2....
“My” being the instrumental word here.My nikkor 35 f/2 is garbage lens.
I have the 35mm Nikkor f/2 AI-S. Mine is razor sharp. It does have a bit of an issue with flare and ghosts,
A known problem. Make sure to use an effective hood.
I have that lens, bought new way-back-when, but haven't used it much so never noticed any flare/ghosts. Always looked sharp enough to me. Shooting with 35mm lenses really hasn't been my interest so it doesn't get used much. Not too long ago bought the Nikon hood for it and that looks rather minimal. Would you consider that an "effective hood"?
Ok, first i will discard the Zeiss 35/2 because it doesn't make sense to put another japanese-made lens on it that is not a Nikkor. Second, because Nikon has a bigger variety of 35mm lenses. Leave the so-called "Zeiss" (Cosina) for the hipsters, Nikon is where you want to be.
If you really want to shoot Zeiss lenses, get a Contarex and true Zeiss lenses.
My favorite 35mm on the FE is... don't laugh... a PC-Nikkor 35/3.5, second favorite my 35/2.8 PC-Nikkor. Perspective correction gives a ton of possiblities, and the auto-exposure compensates for the lack of auto-diaphragm. The former is more compact than the latter and makes it easier to use with the FE.
The 35/1.4 is way too expensive nowadays and most suffer from yellowing, it is also bigger and heavier than the classic 35/2. I've owned the Nikkor-O 35/2 and the AI 35/2. Both are great optically, no complaints at all. Certainly one of the best 35mm lenses made for this format. I also own another gem, the Canon FD 35/2 concave, which is sharper wide open, but the Nikkor has creamier rendering.
However i'd say an even more manageable combination would be to fit the 35/2 AF, if you don't mind the flimsy focusing feel, or the Nikon Series E 35/2.5, if you can find one without haze.
So, tons of options.
I'm not with Ralph. My nikkor 35 f/2 is garbage lens. Flare like hell, sharp only at close distants.My ex east german Carl Zeiss Jena 35 mm f 2:4 was stellar performer against this japan built like a tank lens. On Nikon bodies I now use Vivitar 35 mm lens. Not sharp and high contrast like Zeiss Jena, but far better than Nikkor 35 mm f2.
I have the 35mm Nikkor f/2 AI-S. Mine is razor sharp. It does have a bit of an issue with flare and ghosts,
Well, but the CZJ 35/2.4 is a f2.4 lens not a f2.0 lens. It is just a little more than 1/3 stop faster than a f2.8 lens.
I owned both lenses you mention. And I can also say that my Canon FDn 35/2.8 is only 1/3 stop slower than the CZJ 35/2.4, and is even more sharper and contrastier wide open...
The Nikkor is a f2.0 lens, that's the difference, I think you should compare apples to apples. That being said, you're correct in mentioning that this isn't the sharpest 35/2 lens out there. And yes, it's not the most flare-resistant lens out there.
But it has a really, really good rendering. The CZJ 35/2.4 also had a really good rendering. But it's a m42 lens. If you have a Nikon FE you will have to mount a lens with a F-mount.
In a flagrant act of stupidity I'm reacquiring some Nikon gear I sold last year. The two 35mm lenses I'm considering are the Nikon 35mm ƒ1.4 and the Zeiss 35mm ƒ2. Are there any others I should consider? Any thoughts on the two mentioned? For what it's worth, I've had them both at one time or another, and been happy with both, but there can be only one. Its primary use would be street, urban landscape, that sorta thing.
I agree with you. And the garbage lens was to harsh. My 35/2 is from sixties, single coated and bad sample fore sure. Stil, it is super sharp up to 1m and has low distortion and it is built like a tank.
35 mm is my favorite focal lenght and I also try some early pro metal Nikkor zooms. At 35 mm some of them are excellent, but too heavy to carry around all day.
My conclusion is, not only from my experience but also from others reviews that Nikon lens designers in 35 mm focal lenght prime department, did not repeat the success of other Nikon primes.
For example , my nikkor 28/2 is a kick ass lens in all respects, just like M42 flektogon 35/2.4.
But first lens little too wide for my taste, second does not fit my camera.
So the final advice for best 35 mm Nikon prime is change the camera. For Canon or M 42 system.
One of then Nikkor 35/2.8 is 6 elements (air spaced) not 7 - just to be accurate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?