Best 35mm for Nikon FE

[flatulent1]

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.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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 wouldn't want to be without my 50mm f/1.8 or my 35mm f/2.0

 

[rulnacco]

If those are your choices, and you're using it on an FE, in my opinion, it's a no-brainer to go with the Nikkor 35mm/1.4 AIS.

Advantages for the Nikon lens: it goes to 1.4 if you need it; maybe not as sharp at F2, but beyond that it'll rival the Zeiss in practical terms for sharpness; smaller; lighter; takes a 52mm filter like the vast majority of Nikon's MF lenses; it's way cheaper (second-hand at least); it's a lot more "stealth" and non-threatening for street shooting than the Zeiss; build quality is probably better (I own the Nikkor, never have owned/used the Zeiss); it probably balances a lot better on your FE, it should fit that camera like they were originally made together to complement each other.

The Zeiss, in my opinion and based on what little I know of it, probably has a single advantage: it likely *is* sharper than the Nikon, especially at F2 and maybe 2.8. But if you're using it on film, are you going to actually *see* any differences? Particularly if you're not getting high quality scans of color transparency film shot on a tripod? If you're shooting either lens street-style on 400 speed black and white film, I really can't imagine someone looking at the negatives/prints and going "Ooooo, those were shot with a Zeiss!" Let's be real. And particularly because when stopped down a little, the 35/1.4 AIS is *very* sharp indeed.

I once read a review by an actual user of that lens who said it was the best lens he'd ever had at rendering complex textures. I don't know about that, but from F4 to F8, mine gives fantastic detail--and it's no slouch at 2.8 and for some things at F2, either.

I'd go with speed, size (small), and overall "harmony" and, errr, "gemütlichkeit" of using a Nikon lens on one of Nikon's smallest (but most capable) cameras. I own the FE (two of 'em, one in chrome, one in black--as you should) and the 35/1.4 AIS, and that is indeed a very, very happy combination for walking around all day with and being "in the moment." And bringing back some images no one could possibly complain about in terms of technical quality.

 

[GregY]

I'm with Ralph.... the Nikkor 35mm f2....

 

[Swordman]

I’ll throw in a curveball here: go for the (extremely rare) 28mm f1.4D. You won’t regret it.

 

[flavio81]

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.

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.

 

[benveniste]

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.

Personally, I care about results a lot more than the name on the lens or where it is made. I own two Cosina-made Zeiss lenses (18mm f/3.5, 25mm f/2) and a Cosina-made Voigtländer (58mm f/1.4). The two Zeiss badged lenses handily outperform their Nikkor counterparts. The Voigtländer is just as well built as the other two, but is a bit too old school for me in a couple of ways. First, sharpness drops off more than modern lenses towards the edges and corners. Second, the background rendition is harsh due to over-corrected SA.

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.

While I own a 35mm f/2.8 PC, I don't find that "auto-exposure compensates for the lack of auto-diaphragm." The "open to focus, stop down to shoot" dance doesn't change. Even with auto exposure, I typically use the lens with a light meter app. Until I switched to an autofocus lens, my primary wide angle lens was a Tokina 24-40mm f/2.8 zoom. If I was buying for a manual focus Nikon body today, I'd also consider the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II, which is less expensive than either the Zeiss or the 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor.

 

[Thwyllo]

Just saying.....

 

[Nitroplait]

The Nikkor 35/1.4 has loads of character open, and behaves quite well when stopped down. For what it is, I certainly do not think the current price is too high.
With that said, the Nikkor 35/2 is also a lovely lens worth considering.

 

[kobaltus]

I'm with Ralph.... the Nikkor 35mm f2....

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.

 

[Nitroplait]

My nikkor 35 f/2 is garbage lens.

“My” being the instrumental word here.
The Nikkor 35/2 is a great lens but has variations as every lens has.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

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,

 

[Nitroplait]

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

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"?

 

[Nitroplait]

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"?

NH-3 is the dedicated hood. I have 2 versions of the lens (ai and non-ai (K) ) and that hood has been sufficient in both cases.
Contre-jour situations may be more demanding and require a longer (more shielding) hood, but in most situations the NH-3 will be enough.

 

[Huss]

I have both the Nikon 35 1.4 AIS, and the Zeiss ZF.2 35mm f2.

Frankly the Zeiss technically blows the Nikon out of the water - the difference is very clear on film (or on that other medium..). The rendering has a pop to it, it is much sharper, colours are nicer etc. Downside is it is bigger and 'only' f2. I bought the f2 version instead of the Zeiss 35 1.4, as it outperforms that lens everywhere.

The one thing the Nikon AIS has going for it is the most delicious, creamy, blurry rendering at 1.4 and up close, as if you are using some kind of effects filter.

35 1.4 AIS @1.4:

 

[Huss]

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.

Pretty much terrible advice all around, down to recommending a lens - the 35/2 AF which is notorious for oil on the aperture blades. A quick search will verify that, as has my own otherwise perfect copy..

Apart from that, spot on!

 

[flavio81]

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.

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.

 

[GregY]

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,

I used the Ai & Ais versions for more than 10 yrs with Nikon F,F2,F3, FM....3 or 4 examples were all fine performers. 35/105 mm was my 2 lens combo. Lots of good B/W negatives and chromes..... too bad you got a bad one kobaltus

 

[kobaltus]

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.

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.

 

[Huss]

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'll be selling the Nikon - in super dooper A+ like new condition (take that Japanese ebay sellers!). Or maybe the Zeiss. But I may keep the Zeiss so not as to break up my ZF 50 1.5, 50 f2 Makro Planar and the 35 f2 set. Dunno, too much stuff..Let me know if u are interested. Can't remember the last time I used them..
Hmm, the Zeiss is thinner/longer, the Nikon is shorter/fatter..

 

[flavio81]

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.

I can recommend you the Nikkor AF 35-80/4-5.6, the version with focus scale, not the later thailand version with no focus scale. It is very contrasty and sharp, and has low distortion.

As for your frustration in 35mm Nikkors, i wonder if you have tried the 35/2.8 lenses, the AI (exists in two versions, 7 elements and 5 elements) and the AI-s (5 elements). Both have very good reputations and I can't imagine them being inferior to the CZJ 35/2.4.

At some point in time i think i've owned something like 8 35mm lenses (for various systems). I would say the best i've used in terms of sharpness is the FDn 35/2.8, FD 35/3.5 SC. I also own the FD 35/2 concave front, which is highly reputed, but haven't really used it much. I also have the 35/2.8 Tilt-Shift too, but haven't even brought it outside. In Nikon i was the most happy with the Nikkor-O 35/2, which i sold for getting the AI version, which I didn't like that much mechanically. I sold those and kept my PC-Nikkors (35mm focal length) which I like a lot.

The CZJ 35/2.4 i did enjoy until selling it for a big price. I also had the Pentax-M 35/2, it was the first M lens that dissapointed me, the softest wide open, perhaps mine was a bad sample. The tiniest, too.

 

[Besk]

One of then Nikkor 35/2.8 is 6 elements (air spaced) not 7 - just to be accurate.

 

[flavio81]

One of then Nikkor 35/2.8 is 6 elements (air spaced) not 7 - just to be accurate.

Sorry

Nikkor-S 35/2.8 -- seven elements (actually there were many optical changes on this lens)
New Nikkor (aka "pre-ai" or "K") 35/2.8 -- 6 elements
AI version (first models) -- same as above
AI version (later models) and AI-S -- five elements

 

[dynachrome]

I have a 35/2 Nikkor O and a 35/2 'K' Nikkor. Both lenses are excellent, with the later lens (upgraded to AI) better in difficult lighting situations. I have a 35/2.8 Nikkor S which I do not use much. A friend in High School did very nice work with that model. My favorite 35 Nikkor is probably the 6 element design sold as the 'K' and the first version AI. I must have three or four of them. My last 35 Nikkor is the second to last PC version. The PC models produce the larger image circle needed for movements but when used without movements, are very sharp from corner to corner. I am tempted to get a 35/1.4 or the 35/2 AF to have the experience of using them. If the weather is good I will take a 35/3.8 'K' lens first and after that the 35/2 'K' (upgraded to AI).

Some of my non-Nikon mount 35s I like include the 35/2.8 Zeiss Disatgon (Y/C), all three Canon FD f/2 models starting with the concave front element FD SSC, Rokkor and Rokkor-X 35/1.8 lenses, Konica Hexanon 35/2, 35/3.5 SMC Takumar, 35/3.5 SMC Pentax, 35/2 SMC Pentax-M, Olympus OM Zuiko 35/2.8.