Nikkor 35/1.4 opinions sought

2F/2F · Mar 9, 2009

Grev said:
Seriously, I think one thing you guys have overlooked with this lens, is that the internal reflections give VERY bad coma in high contrast areas at f1.4!! Personally I found it unuseable at f1.4 but even at f2 it will be as sharp as any other lens, this is one of the only (albeit major) flaw that I found with this lens. Other than that, I've been using my 50mm f1.2 much more now since realising it's acute focusing issues.

So what? Is your goal to have a lens free of aberrations, or is it to have a lens that lets you get shots that no other lens can? I see it like this: If you are driving a specialized race car in a quarter-mile straight line, are you going to be worried that a few moths are splattering on your windscreen?

Almost all people judge images based on the emotional, conceptual, intellectual, and over all visual impact of prints, not on technical issues. Additionally, many people think that aberrations simply look cool and make images have a special mood.

If you have a damned good shot, no one is going to be looking at your lens aberrations, and if having f/1.4 got you that shot while f/2.0 would not have, what is to complain about?

Grev · Mar 9, 2009

RidingWaves said:
Um, you'll probably find that by stopping down even a *tiny* bit, to like 1.6 or 1.7, you'll significantly reduce that. Besides, I think you're being somewhat over sensitive to this, optical design is a game of imperfect compromise. Looking for optical design challenges in high contrast areas wide open?! If you want wide open perfection at 35mm get a Leica ASPH Summilux.

Consider that the first design of this lens was during the late 60's, and it doesn't use an aspherical element and has way less elements, is smaller and lighter than the Canon design. Also consider my point from above, if you haven't used this lens wide open with all of the imaging option available then you don't really know what it can do. Shooting only on digital gives an incomplete view of what the lens can do.

Too bad it cannot be stopped down to f1.6 since the aperture ring doesn't allow that to happening. I am not wanting optical perfection, only want to note the disadvantages when there's only praise for it. And I don't shoot on digital only, my F100s and FM2s shows it's flaws as well.

2F/2F said:
So what? Is your goal to have a lens free of aberrations, or is it to have a lens that lets you get shots that no other lens can? I see it like this: If you are driving a specialized race car in a quarter-mile straight line, are you going to be worried that a few moths are splattering on your windscreen?

Almost all people judge images based on the emotional, conceptual, intellectual, and over all visual impact of prints, not on technical issues. Additionally, many people think that aberrations simply look cool and make images have a special mood.

If you have a damned good shot, no one is going to be looking at your lens aberrations, and if having f/1.4 got you that shot while f/2.0 would not have, what is to complain about?

Since this is a lens and technical forum, I was put in technical comments with the lenses, the emotional aspect of photography cannot be denied but sometimes you want to seperate the two and analyse the technical side of things without the clingyness of the emotions, and vice versa of course.

On the subject of that, one of my most successful image was shot with a 'consumer grade' Tamron 70-300 lens.

perkeleellinen · Mar 9, 2009

I think you can set the lens at f1.8 or so quite easily as the aperture ring allows for a positioning between the clicks. It's limited only by the user's accuracy, I suppose, and certainly 1/2 if not 1/3 stops are possible.

I'm not the type to photograph lens charts or 'pixel peep' and to be honest, the examples of coma aberration that I've seen on the net have never seemed that bad. As an amateur with no photo editor breathing down my neck and no customers to satisfy, aberration seems to be a flaw worth accepting if the only chance of getting a shot is by shooting at f1.4.

benjiboy · Mar 9, 2009

If as you say "I enlarge no bigger than 5"x7" you could use a bottle bottom for that size, you dont need such an expensive optic, a 35mm 2.8 would be a more sensible buy ,and aperture for aperture would probably give a better performance, It's like buying a Ferrari to do your shopping at the local corner shop. I made my living selling photographic equipment for about twenty years, and if you were a customer of mine that would be my honest advice.

perkeleellinen · Mar 9, 2009

Yes, 5"x7" is as big as I go. I've found this a nice size for viewing prints whilst holding them. Lots of critiques of lenses seem to assume one will print mural size photographs, hence I thought I'd clarify my maximum print size.

I actually have the lens now, so this is a bit moot, but the appeal of f1.4 was it's low-light potential which is not an every day concern, but certainly is useful for me and the 35mm length appeals more than a 50mm.

Christiaan Phleger · Mar 9, 2009

I'd say that setting the aperture ring at just a smidge down is very very easy, just a tiny twist. You can check it with the DOF button, yes even the F100 has it. Just press the button and turn while looking into the lens, and when you see the aperture blades just start to cover the edges then you have it. Just a dab will do ya, like Breelcreem! I've also modified several lenses with 1/3 stop clicks at my favorite/preferred settings.

Grev · Mar 11, 2009

perkeleellinen said:
I'm not the type to photograph lens charts or 'pixel peep' and to be honest, the examples of coma aberration that I've seen on the net have never seemed that bad. As an amateur with no photo editor breathing down my neck and no customers to satisfy, aberration seems to be a flaw worth accepting if the only chance of getting a shot is by shooting at f1.4.

Maybe I've got a bad copy? At f1.4 mine is quite in high contrast areas, halos, extreme blue fringing.

In colour it's not that great, but should be perfectly fine in good B&W film like Tri-X, hp5 etc.

perkeleellinen · Mar 11, 2009

The lens is fairly new to me and perhaps I've yet to encounter the sort of conditions that render these aberrations.

perkeleellinen · Mar 11, 2009

I've just had a close look at my test roll. Please excuse the scan, but have a look at the two areas circled, is this an example of the halos you've noticed?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3308/3345993555_6482dcc836_b.jpg

Christiaan Phleger · Mar 11, 2009

Hmm, I'd Love to see what you're talking about. I'll try one of mine and see if I can force the issue, the contrast in Hawaii is nearly as strong as Down Under. You may have to not use 1.4 in bright sunlight (joking).

Christiaan Phleger · Mar 11, 2009

Ok, tried it, 1.4 high contrast flower. Going to look at it closely, but quick look doesn't show it to be too severe. If you could give us a particular scenario/subject that we could try, that would help. Also, I'm not sure if I'm the only one to mention this but if the lens was not cleaned well or needs a cleaning then it could cause additional fringing.

eddym · Mar 11, 2009

Grev said:
Maybe I've got a bad copy? At f1.4 mine is quite in high contrast areas, halos, extreme blue fringing..

"Quite" what?

2F/2F · Mar 11, 2009

perkeleellinen said:
I've just had a close look at my test roll. Please excuse the scan, but have a look at the two areas circled, is this an example of the halos you've noticed?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3308/3345993555_6482dcc836_b.jpg

Those look like spots on the film, print, etc., not a lens issue.

perkeleellinen · Mar 11, 2009

They could very well be spots on the film. It was developed on the high street and came back filthy!

Grev · Mar 12, 2009

Yeah, not the example posted, perkeleellinen.

I will try and post some examples if I can find them.

I love the lens, it's sharp even wide open but just needs a bit of attention if you shoot at f1.4 exclusively, need f2 to shoot in all situations.

Nikkor 35/1.4 opinions sought

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency