I think I've already mentioned on other threads that I've been using my parents' vintage-1972 35/2 "O" in my F2 and Nikkormat with Tri-X. Great lens!
View attachment 339718View attachment 339719View attachment 339720View attachment 339721View attachment 339723
I suspect that if you're shooting landscapes stopped down between 5.6 and 8, that all Nikkor 35s are great. So I'd make my choice based on size, weight, and ergonomics. The only one I've ever used is the Nikkor 35mm 2.0 AI, which I loved very much.
I suspect that if you're shooting landscapes stopped down between 5.6 and 8, that all Nikkor 35s are great. So I'd make my choice based on size, weight, and ergonomics. The only one I've ever used is the Nikkor 35mm 2.0 AI, which I loved very much.
I agree with this 100%. I mean, if you look at Nikon's "vintage" lenses (not the latest S or G lenses), theoretically the "best" lens is the 35mm/F1.4. But really, that's only because it can shoot at 1.4, and in shooting it at, say, F2.0, you're stopping the lens down a bit so it "should" be better than an F2 lens being shot wide open. And at 1.4, its results are not, let's say, pin-sharp, and possess a lot of "character" (which some people quite like).
If you're shooting landscapes and using hyperfocal focusing, you're likely stopping down (and you are focusing at a range) where *any* 35mm Nikkor will produce excellent results.
That being the case, you might look at the 35mm/F2.8 PC lens. If you're wanting to, especially, emphasize foregrounds, or you want to stitch together panoramas or high-resolution stitched composite images, you'd find that lens extremely useful. It can be a bit slow working--but with landscapes that of course doesn't matter. I own one, and while I don't use it terribly often--I use mine mostly for panoramas, it's quite convenient for that and eliminates the optical distortions caused by panning the camera--it produces very high quality images. And they're not terribly expensive--grab one and try it out, if it doesn't do what you want you can always sell it again for what you paid for it, or more.
I use the Nikkor 35mm f/2 O.C…!
For the last ten years I have had only one 35mm Nikkor. The 35mm/f2 AFD. Nice lens, never wanted anything else.
I think I've already mentioned on other threads that I've been using my parents' vintage-1972 35/2 "O" in my F2 and Nikkormat with Tri-X. Great lens!
View attachment 339718View attachment 339719View attachment 339720View attachment 339721View attachment 339723
I agree with this 100%. I mean, if you look at Nikon's "vintage" lenses (not the latest S or G lenses), theoretically the "best" lens is the 35mm/F1.4. But really, that's only because it can shoot at 1.4, and in shooting it at, say, F2.0, you're stopping the lens down a bit so it "should" be better than an F2 lens being shot wide open. And at 1.4, its results are not, let's say, pin-sharp, and possess a lot of "character" (which some people quite like).
If you're shooting landscapes and using hyperfocal focusing, you're likely stopping down (and you are focusing at a range) where *any* 35mm Nikkor will produce excellent results.
That being the case, you might look at the 35mm/F2.8 PC lens. If you're wanting to, especially, emphasize foregrounds, or you want to stitch together panoramas or high-resolution stitched composite images, you'd find that lens extremely useful. It can be a bit slow working--but with landscapes that of course doesn't matter. I own one, and while I don't use it terribly often--I use mine mostly for panoramas, it's quite convenient for that and eliminates the optical distortions caused by panning the camera--it produces very high quality images. And they're not terribly expensive--grab one and try it out, if it doesn't do what you want you can always sell it again for what you paid for it, or more.
I've been using 2.0/35 AI-S for a quite long time
I had borrowed 1.4/35 AI for a couple weeks and it was nice lens bit softer wide open (as expected for the intended use)
Last couple years I had 2.0/35 AF-D, sharper and nicer overall than the previously mentioned
I have bought Carl Zeiss Distagon 2.0/35 ZF and I am absolutely blown away - the image appears sharper even in the viewfinder. Is is miles ahead of any other 35mm Nikkor lens I have tried (but I haven't tried the recent 1.4/35 Nikkors). It's just bit bulky but if one lens (35mm) is all you need and want I think you can accept that compromise.
yes, but then *techincally* it is not a Nikkor 35mm but a fine 35mm for Nikon.
I have the 28mm f/2.8 PC lens. I do not sew so I never stitch photos together for panoramas. I use the WideLux for panoramas.
Nice. But a 35mm PC can be found for half to 1/3 the cost of a Widelux. And with the Nikkor, you can shoot either film or digital, which choice you don't have with the Widelux.
Win some, lose some.
I have the 28mm PC and the WideLux and I only use digital to report a problem in my HOA or to sell something on eBay.
I'm wary enough about self-driving autos. I certainly wouldn't want an auto to focus anything for me. Yesterday I took a few Ektar color snaps with an old 50 f/2 H which had been Ai'd. It's a little harder to acutely focus wide open than later lenses, but I like it for the less contrasty vintage look it provides. It's single coated.
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?