Nikkor 50mm or 35mm Lens?

snegron · Oct 9, 2006

I have been shooting with both lenses, the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 AIS manual focus and the Nikkor 35mm 2.0 AIS manual focus lenses recently. Both are in mint condition and have clear glass elements. They both appear to be just as sharp, however, I'd like to know which lens is truely sharper. Also, both appear to have equal color rendition and overall resolution/low flare. Other than the focal length, has there ever been any testing done to indicate which lens is sharper, which produces better results as far as color rendition? Also, which one will hold up better in the long run?

BrianShaw · Oct 9, 2006

You are asking about two of my three primary lenses. They are both very good lenses and very sharp. Even if there were differences in the data, you probably won't notice it in day-to-day use.

snegron · Oct 9, 2006

So far I am very happy with both lenses. I have even obtained great results with an old 105mm 2.5 AIS lens that has something growing on the inside of one of the glass elements. I think my lab does a great job no matter what I shoot with. This makes it more difficult to tell which lens is actually sharper.

Stephanie Brim · Oct 9, 2006

Does which lens appears sharper really matter? They're both sharp. Why bother trying to figure out which is more so?

Pinholemaster · Oct 9, 2006

Who cares which lens is sharper, the really question is do they allow you to express yourself photographically.

Sharpness isn't everything. Unless you need the bragging rights?

Most likely both lenses exceed the resolution of the film you use.

eddym · Oct 9, 2006

I agree with Stephanie. If you can't tell which is sharper, neither can anyone else. Forget the lenses and take more pictures!

snegron · Oct 9, 2006

Stephanie Brim said:
Does which lens appears sharper really matter? They're both sharp. Why bother trying to figure out which is more so?

Yes, both are sharp at least from what I have seen so far. There are some future projects I have in mind that require very sharp optics. I was hoping there would be some test out there (plenty of tests on newer lenses) that covered these two lenses. I am sure someone has performed tests on these lenses at some time, these lenses have been around for a very long time. I would also like to know which one is less prone to flare. Think of it as a performance part on a car, Holley Carburator vs. Jet vs. Edelbrock Carburators. All enhance performance, but which one will deliver the best results under critical circumstances?

EMaki · Oct 9, 2006

Have you had a cup of coffee before using either of them? Or a beer? The lenses are not as sharp as some, but probably sharper than others. The F-stop accounts only for speed and depth, not sharpness. The condition of the lenses being aligned (i.e. not dropped), to produce the most crisp rendition of the scene, will impact the sharpness. As well as shutter speed, movement of subject and camera.
I'm sure, back in the day, one cost more than the other - claiming sharper pictures. The glass was stable and the optics aligned. Not to be a cynic, but today sell either lens at a pawn shop, how much would you get? Equal amounts for equal sharpness.
Test the lenses. Match F-stop, shutter, focus and subject. See which is sharper.
My question is, do you move the camera closer to the test subject to fill the frame the same or do you keep the camera static for the test?

BrianShaw · Oct 9, 2006

snegron said:
I was hoping there would be some test out there (plenty of tests on newer lenses) that covered these two lenses. I am sure someone has performed tests on these lenses at some time, these lenses have been around for a very long time. I would also like to know which one is less prone to flare.

I think what you are looking for can be found with a "way-back" machine. Way back when they were new (when was that... about 1980?) I'm sure that there were test data published in magaizines and in product brochures. You need to locate these. Have you checked out old photo mags at the library? Have you looked at the Nikonian site for old test data?

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Oct 10, 2006

Given that you own the two lenses, given that you know what kind of pictures you intend to take with them, why don't you try to devise a test that will answer your question?

Think of the situation that would require the maximum sharpness out of your lenses, and either shoot a few frames in this situation if possible, or approximate the context as much as practical, and make giant blowups (or scans). Then look at the center and corners. Stand back and assess the overall sharpness effect. Use a loupe on the print if you need to. But try it.

Sharpness in photo isn't just what's in your lens, it's what's on your print (cf. Barry Thornton).

BrianShaw · Oct 10, 2006

mhv said:
(snip)Sharpness in photo isn't just what's in your lens, it's what's on your print (cf. Barry Thornton).

There's a site out there in the internet that did some relatively subjective Nikon lens evaluation. It is interesting to note that they sometimes had different opinions of the same lens depending on what body it was mounted to. Barry had a good point... there's a lot more to sharpness than a MTF curve.

By the way... that site (which you'll have to google for yourself because I don't recall the URL) seems to indicate that the 50/1.4 is the sharper of the two lenses... whatever that means.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Oct 10, 2006

BrianShaw said:
There's a site out there in the internet that did some relatively subjective Nikon lens evaluation. It is interesting to note that they sometimes had different opinions of the same lens depending on what body it was mounted to. Barry had a good point... there's a lot more to sharpness than a MTF curve.

By the way... that site (which you'll have to google for yourself because I don't recall the URL) seems to indicate that the 50/1.4 is the sharper of the two lenses... whatever that means.

I'm always a fan of testers site, but I think I might drift more towards an appreciation of them as a specific artistic genre than at truely useful information... I can't distinguish the results between an SMC Takumar lens and a Jupiter one, so maybe that doesn't matter too much to me.

BrianShaw · Oct 10, 2006

mhv said:
I'm always a fan of testers site, but I think I might drift more towards an appreciation of them as a specific artistic genre than at truely useful information... I can't distinguish the results between an SMC Takumar lens and a Jupiter one, so maybe that doesn't matter too much to me.

But they are useful. They provide data that otherwise might be difficult to generate on your own. As you say, you need to take the data in context. It always helps to have a well defined question. "Which is the sharpest" is well-defined in the sense that there are measurements that can determine which is the sharpest. Unfortunately, there are also other variables to consider and lens sharpness alone is not the full determinent of how sharp the final product will be.

"Will it matter to me" or "Do I need the sharpest" or "Does it really matter at all" require additional -- very specific -- requirements in the question. Every time I see someone write "I need the sharpest lens otherwise I can't take the shot I need" I wonder... what is "the shot" and how serious is "the need."

Most people can distinguish between a Holga lens and a Takumar; some can distinguish between a Nikkor and a Takumar. Some shots will work only with the Takumar and not the Holga, but most will probably work with either a Takumar or Nikkor.

Paul Howell · Oct 10, 2006

Testing most modern lens is not as critical as it was in the past. Computer designs and automated manufacturing have really increased the quality control so it is much more difficult to buy a really bad lens from European or Japanese lens maker. I have no experiance with Eastern European or Chinese lens so I cant comment about their level of quaility control. But in the old days it was possible to buy a good lens that was made badly. I have an old military lens test kit and I tested my lens, in the mid 70sI did return a Nikon 35mm that did not perform well, the replacement worked just fine. I do not bother to test new lens, but I will test used lens.

Dan Fromm · Oct 10, 2006

Snegron, you have the two lenses you're trying to choose between. They're unique, each is unlike all of the others of the same make and model. Come up with a test protocol that will address the question you want answered, and then do the test. Shut up and go do the work.

copake_ham · Oct 10, 2006

I do not understand why you are trying to compare two lenses of different focal lengths for "sharpness"?

Since rarely would you use a 35mm where a 50mm is more appropriate, and vice versa, why does the sharpness comparison b/w them matter.

It would be different if you were comparing two 35's or two 50's against each other...but in this case, what's the sense?

snegron · Oct 10, 2006

Paul Howell said:
Testing most modern lens is not as critical as it was in the past. Computer designs and automated manufacturing have really increased the quality control so it is much more difficult to buy a really bad lens from European or Japanese lens maker. I have no experiance with Eastern European or Chinese lens so I cant comment about their level of quaility control. But in the old days it was possible to buy a good lens that was made badly. I have an old military lens test kit and I tested my lens, in the mid 70sI did return a Nikon 35mm that did not perform well, the replacement worked just fine. I do not bother to test new lens, but I will test used lens.

Agreed, especially with newer Japanese lenses. I would be curious to know more about the military test kit you mentioned. As you mentioned, there have been lenses produced in the past that have not been made up to the best of standards. What makes my query somewhat more difficult is the fact that the lab I am using is doing a great job, so it is impossible to see subtle differences. My next step is to shoot slide film with the both lenses using the same camera and lighting to see the differences.

Paul Howell · Oct 10, 2006

snegron said:
Agreed, especially with newer Japanese lenses. I would be curious to know more about the military test kit you mentioned. As you mentioned, there have been lenses produced in the past that have not been made up to the best of standards. What makes my query somewhat more difficult is the fact that the lab I am using is doing a great job, so it is impossible to see subtle differences. My next step is to shoot slide film with the both lenses using the same camera and lighting to see the differences.

In the 40s and 50s, maybe later, the military issued kits that had a set of lens charts to test for distortion, resolution ect. I use to see similar sets for sale in the photo mags. The civilian in charge of the unit I was assigned to was going to toss our set so he let me have it. I am not sure if any home test kit will answer your questions, unless one of the lens were damaged, both lens are sharp. You are at the point of needing an optical bench. In terms of the day to day work, unless you are doing some type of technical work, I dont know if matters which lens has a small but measurable sharpness edge over the other. If you can not tell by viewing the final product what difference does it make? You also reach the point of deminishing returns, you can pay a lot (in time, effort and money) for very small differences that dont matter to the customer who can't see the difference anyway. What you need needs to be good enough to get the job done. If you are using very good Nikors and you are still unhappy with the results you may need to consider a larger negative.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Oct 10, 2006

snegron said:
What makes my query somewhat more difficult is the fact that the lab I am using is doing a great job, so it is impossible to see subtle differences.

I don't want to hammer the point unduly, but isn't that the answer you need to your question regarding lens sharpness?

snegron · Oct 10, 2006

mhv said:
I don't want to hammer the point unduly, but isn't that the answer you need to your question regarding lens sharpness?

Nope. The project I am thinking about includes large groups of people. Yes, I do own medium format equipment (Mamiya 645, and RB67 with lenses). When photographing large groups (8 or more people) on a small negative like 35mm, sharpness is critical. I chose the 35mm and 50 mm focal lengths because I can use either one, it would just be a matter of stepping back a bit. So far, my lab has produced great results with just about everything I have photographed. I have not tried experimenting with shots of large groups yet mainly because it is somewhat difficult to get a large group to pose. Yes, I can always use both lenses during the shoot, but that would be a waste of precious time. Time is money. I will be spending time taking multiple group shots then time scanning them. I don't want to waste my time on a few "fuzzy" shots to then discover that I sould have spent time shooting with one lens or the other. As far as stopping the lens down, due to lighting and distance restrictions I believe I will need to use the lens at F5.6 or F8 at the most, F11, 16, and 22 might not be possible during the shoots. Hopefully this explains my "obsession" with sharpness. It is not just a matter of being fickle.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Oct 10, 2006

snegron said:
Nope. The project I am thinking about includes large groups of people. (snip) I don't want to waste my time on a few "fuzzy" shots to then discover that I sould have spent time shooting with one lens or the other. As far as stopping the lens down, due to lighting and distance restrictions I believe I will need to use the lens at F5.6 or F8 at the most, F11, 16, and 22 might not be possible during the shoots. Hopefully this explains my "obsession" with sharpness. It is not just a matter of being fickle.

That makes more sense and explains your constraints better. You could devise a test by using just a few people in the center and corners because you know that a) the center of lenses is always sharper and b) the corners are always the less sharp. I suppose getting the details on the face matters, hence your question for sharpness. Try to position yourself at an appropriate distance from your subjects, as would happen in the real situation, expose shots at all the relevant apertures, and have mega-hi-res scans made or prints the size that you need, and frankly that should tell you a good deal already.

Just my 0.02$

Paul Howell · Oct 11, 2006

snegron said:
Nope. The project I am thinking about includes large groups of people. Yes, I do own medium format equipment (Mamiya 645, and RB67 with lenses).

For a large group shot why not the RB67 with a wide angle?

Dan Fromm · Oct 11, 2006

snegron said:
Nope. The project I am thinking about includes large groups of people. Yes, I do own medium format equipment (Mamiya 645, and RB67 with lenses). When photographing large groups (8 or more people) on a small negative like 35mm, sharpness is critical. I chose the 35mm and 50 mm focal lengths because I can use either one, it would just be a matter of stepping back a bit. So far, my lab has produced great results with just about everything I have photographed. I have not tried experimenting with shots of large groups yet mainly because it is somewhat difficult to get a large group to pose. Yes, I can always use both lenses during the shoot, but that would be a waste of precious time. Time is money. I will be spending time taking multiple group shots then time scanning them. I don't want to waste my time on a few "fuzzy" shots to then discover that I sould have spent time shooting with one lens or the other. As far as stopping the lens down, due to lighting and distance restrictions I believe I will need to use the lens at F5.6 or F8 at the most, F11, 16, and 22 might not be possible during the shoots. Hopefully this explains my "obsession" with sharpness. It is not just a matter of being fickle.

Why are you so resistant to testing? You have the lenses, you have the film, you have the time ...

Ray Heath · Oct 11, 2006

snegron said:
Nope. The project I am thinking about includes large groups of people. Yes, I do own medium format equipment (Mamiya 645, and RB67 with lenses). When photographing large groups (8 or more people) on a small negative like 35mm, sharpness is critical. I chose the 35mm and 50 mm focal lengths because I can use either one, it would just be a matter of stepping back a bit. So far, my lab has produced great results with just about everything I have photographed. I have not tried experimenting with shots of large groups yet mainly because it is somewhat difficult to get a large group to pose. Yes, I can always use both lenses during the shoot, but that would be a waste of precious time. Time is money. I will be spending time taking multiple group shots then time scanning them. I don't want to waste my time on a few "fuzzy" shots to then discover that I sould have spent time shooting with one lens or the other. As far as stopping the lens down, due to lighting and distance restrictions I believe I will need to use the lens at F5.6 or F8 at the most, F11, 16, and 22 might not be possible during the shoots. Hopefully this explains my "obsession" with sharpness. It is not just a matter of being fickle.

your reasoning doesn't make much sense

up till now your images are not 'fuzzy', suddenly they might be fuzzy when you photograph 'large' groups of people

when you photograph these groups worrying that your images may strangely and suddenly become 'fuzzy' is not your only concern, how are your peolpe skills? what depth will there be in your grouping? what dof will cover the depth? will the shutter speed be fast enough to freeze any movement? will there be children in the group? can you do the photography and control the children? if non 'fuuzziness' is really an issue why not use mf?

snegron · Oct 11, 2006

Paul Howell said:
snegron said:

Nope. The project I am thinking about includes large groups of people. Yes, I do own medium format equipment (Mamiya 645, and RB67 with lenses).

For a large group shot why not the RB67 with a wide angle?

Click to expand...

It would make sense from an optical point of view to use my RB76 with a wide angle, the problem arises during scanning. I currently have an Epson 4870 Pro flatbed scanner. I plan to do batch scans with it. Batch scans are only possible with 35mm frames, not 120. When a medium format scan is made on my scanner, it can only be done one frame at a time. There is no way to scan more than one medium format frame at a time on my scanner. Yes, I could go out and spend a small fortune on another scanner that would permit me to batch scan several medium format frames at a time, but it would not be cost effective and would be extremely time consuming. The most cost effective way of obtaining multiple group shots is with 35mm film. I also own DSLR's, but again, quality is important to me.

Nikkor 50mm or 35mm Lens?

snegron

BrianShaw

snegron

Stephanie Brim

Pinholemaster

eddym

snegron

EMaki

BrianShaw

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

BrianShaw

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

BrianShaw

Paul Howell

Dan Fromm

copake_ham

snegron

Paul Howell

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

snegron

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Paul Howell

Dan Fromm

Ray Heath

snegron

Nikkor 50mm or 35mm Lens?

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency