Please help me decide on a lens.

[WILL WORK FOR FILM]

I have been shooting primarily black and white 35mm film for several years now and have (through experience) come to the conclusion that my most used focal lengths are 35mm and 50mm. I have a very nice nikkor ai 50mm f1.8 that I absolutely love and am now looking to purchase a top quality 35mm lens.

The two lenses that I am agonizingly debating between are the Nikkor ais 35mm f1.4 and the Zeiss distagon zf 35mm f2. I am aware of the sive difference between the two and it is of no concern to me. The Nikkor is obviously a stop faster and is known for a "dreamy" softness at max aperature while the Zeiss is said to be ridiculously sharp. This is what I have read online but I am hoping to hear from those who have used both lenses and have hands on experiences with their strengths and weaknesses. Both are expensive lenses with the zeiss being slightly more so. I have accepted that this will be costly!

 

[trendland]

I have been shooting primarily black and white 35mm film for several years now and have (through experience) come to the conclusion that my most used focal lengths are 35mm and 50mm. I have a very nice nikkor ai 50mm f1.8 that I absolutely love and am now looking to purchase a top quality 35mm lens.

The two lenses that I am agonizingly debating between are the Nikkor ais 35mm f1.4 and the Zeiss distagon zf 35mm f2. I am aware of the sive difference between the two and it is of no concern to me. The Nikkor is obviously a stop faster and is known for a "dreamy" softness at max aperature while the Zeiss is said to be ridiculously sharp. This is what I have read online but I am hoping to hear from those who have used both lenses and have hands on experiences with their strengths and weaknesses. Both are expensive lenses with the zeiss being slightly more so. I have accepted that this will be costly!

Do you realy need autofocussing with 35mm that's the question I would ask myself if I were you !

If not (you don't miss autfocus) then the Zeiss 35mm (from the mechanical line) is one of the best
lenses today with a real cheap pricing. (At 2000,- bucks it would be also a cheap one) but it is much much smaler priced.

with regards

 

[Eric Rose]

It totally depends on which rendering you prefer. It doesn't matter if someone has used either lens, it only matters what the images look like and the way you like to shoot. There are lots of example images on the net at most apertures you might use. I have used both and would pick a different lens whether I was photographing people or "things". it would also depend if I was looking for a gritty urban look or a more "round" softer less in your face look. It also depends on whether you print your own photos in the darkroom or use scanned negs and digital techniques to output.

So in the end only you can decide what works for you.

 

[trendland]

Shure you can decide on EVERYTHING you like - but I guess your question is from intention in a special direction - right ?

because you definitivly are not smart if you'll buy not this lens for that sensational pricing !
There is no better one wich is cheaper but there are many heavy expensive lenses wich are not better!
This lens will serve you Leika M lens characteristics with your Nikon camera !

with regards

PS : Leica M lens characteristics isn't noticable better (2,4 % in some otical parameters) to 4 - 5 times more costs .....

 

[WILL WORK FOR FILM]

It totally depends on which rendering you prefer. It doesn't matter if someone has used either lens, it only matters what the images look like and the way you like to shoot. There are lots of example images on the net at most apertures you might use. I have used both and would pick a different lens whether I was photographing people or "things". it would also depend if I was looking for a gritty urban look or a more "round" softer less in your face look. It also depends on whether you print your own photos in the darkroom or use scanned negs and digital techniques to output.

So in the end only you can decide what works for you.

I completely understand what you are saying.
I shoot mostly Tri-x 400 and PanF+ 50. Develop and print in my darkroom entirely. When shooting Tri-x I typically shoot from ISO 320-800 and develop in D-76 for that classic Tri-x look. With PanF I'm usually on a tripod with my F4s. Developed in Rodinal and trying to get that oil painting type rendering.

I realize that in the end it is my preference. But, I have no access to either of these lenses and am asking what characteristics I can expect from each for the purpose of making that decision.

 

[faberryman]

The Nikor 35mm f/2 is also a nice lens and considerably smaller and less expensive.

 

[trendland]

I have been shooting primarily black and white 35mm film for several years now and have (through experience) come to the conclusion that my most used focal lengths are 35mm and 50mm. I have a very nice nikkor ai 50mm f1.8 that I absolutely love and am now looking to purchase a top quality 35mm lens.

The two lenses that I am agonizingly debating between are the Nikkor ais 35mm f1.4 and the Zeiss distagon zf 35mm f2. I am aware of the sive difference between the two and it is of no concern to me. The Nikkor is obviously a stop faster and is known for a "dreamy" softness at max aperature while the Zeiss is said to be ridiculously sharp. This is what I have read online but I am hoping to hear from those who have used both lenses and have hands on experiences with their strengths and weaknesses. Both are expensive lenses with the zeiss being slightly more so. I have accepted that this will be costly!

Aha I see your intention is exact on the classic Zeiss lens (I realy not noticed you mentioned "ZF")
BTW I can not remind that different letter codes well. Ok - but you ask about the dreamy softness of the Nikon AIS right ? Do you mean " deep of field sharpness " - there you can not compare with a lense F1,4 and a lens with F2.0.

But listen : The New Zeiss classic line serve F 1.4/35mm !

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have always thought that the 35mm is too close to the 50mm to be a useful wide angle lens. Seriously consider the 28mm lens which is much more useful for travel and street photography rather than the 35mm lens.

 

[WILL WORK FOR FILM]

I have always thought that the 35mm is too close to the 50mm to be a useful wide angle lens. Seriously consider the 28mm lens which is much more useful for travel and street photography rather than the 35mm lens.

I have considered that as well in the past. I have a Nikkor-H 35mm f3.5 that is seldom used. It's ok outside with faster film but my copy has an unusual rendering that I just can't seem to appreciate. I have several pre-AI lenses, most of which are superb, this one just doesn't do it for me. But, that does not speak poorly of the focal length.

 

[film_man]

I've owned both, though not at the same time. Basically what you read is what it is. The Nikon is a bit soft and dreamy wide open but sharpens up from f/2. The Zeiss is very sharp and has very high contrast so it makes things look even sharper. I personally found the Zeiss to be too harsh when shooting things like foliage. Also the Zeiss is thin and long which makes it an odd shape and balances a bit weirdly on smaller cameras like the FM2/F3. Personally I prefer the Nikon, the wider aperture is cool, especially for low light moody light portraits and I prefer the gentler rendering it gives, it matched really well the 50/1.2 I paired it with. It is a nice compact size too.

The other thing is that while they are both expensive the 35 can be had for around £300-350 in the UK while the Zeiss goes for £500+. Don't know how it is in your local market.

 

[WILL WORK FOR FILM]

I've owned both, though not at the same time. Basically what you read is what it is. The Nikon is a bit soft and dreamy wide open but sharpens up from f/2. The Zeiss is very sharp and has very high contrast so it makes things look even sharper. I personally found the Zeiss to be too harsh when shooting things like foliage. Also the Zeiss is thin and long which makes it an odd shape and balances a bit weirdly on smaller cameras like the FM2/F3. Personally I prefer the Nikon, the wider aperture is cool, especially for low light moody light portraits and I prefer the gentler rendering it gives, it matched really well the 50/1.2 I paired it with. It is a nice compact size too.

The other thing is that while they are both expensive the 35 can be had for around £300-350 in the UK while the Zeiss goes for £500+. Don't know how it is in your local market.

Now THAT is what I was looking for.
Thank you for the personal insight. Pricing here is similar.

 

[jim10219]

What are you shooting with it? People? Places? Things? Both of you options have different strengths and weaknesses. But without knowing the application, it's hard to recommend which one would be a better performer.

 

[WILL WORK FOR FILM]

What are you shooting with it? People? Places? Things? Both of you options have different strengths and weaknesses. But without knowing the application, it's hard to recommend which one would be a better performer.

Mostly people, places and things. A touch of everything, really.

So here is what I "think" I know.

The Nikkor is faster with a lower contrast razor thin DOF that will increase in contrast by around F2. Probably more of a traditional rendering for black and white work, cheaper, and smaller. Most likely that gritty street photography look that's plastered everywhere online.

The Zeiss is one stop slower with a different sharpness to it's rendering. Larger, more expensive and probably won't take my extensive collection of 52mm filters. A step away from the classic nikkor look.

Definitely something to consider.

 

[GLS]

The Zeiss is one stop slower with a different sharpness to it's rendering. Larger, more expensive and probably won't take my extensive collection of 52mm filters

The Zeiss has a 58mm thread, so no it wont take your 52mm filters.

I haven't used the Nikkor 35mm f1.4, but I own the Zeiss 2/35 and it's a superb lens. High contrast with excellent colour saturation, and razor sharp from wide open. It will also focus very close if need be. Its only significant optical weakness IMO is some moderate colour fringing on very high contrast edges at the wider apertures, but you will probably only see this with high resolution DSLRs or very highly resolving colour films, and certainly won't be an issue with the B&W films you listed. Besides, the Nikkor will likely be worse in this regard.

If you don't mind losing the one stop of max aperture I would suggest you get the Zeiss.

 

[trendland]

The Zeiss has a 58mm thread, so no it wont take your 52mm filters.

I haven't used the Nikkor 35mm f1.4, but I own the Zeiss 2/35 and it's a superb lens. High contrast with excellent colour saturation, and razor sharp from wide open. It will also focus very close if need be. Its only significant optical weakness IMO is some moderate colour fringing on very high contrast edges at the wider apertures, but you will probably only see this with high resolution DSLRs or very highly resolving colour films, and certainly won't be an issue with the B&W films you listed. Besides, the Nikkor will likely be worse in this regard.

If you don't mind losing the one stop of max aperture I would suggest you get the Zeiss.

GLS have you ever compared with Leica M lenses ? Would you agree that in regard of brillance and sharpness the newest Zeiss lens Generation is comparable with "Leitz" ? And remember Leitz lenses increased in astronomical regions from price !

with regards

 

[removed account4]

go for the nigh con keep it in the famlly
but then again you could always get a cinitar or
lomo petzval or ... heilos

good luck

 

[WILL WORK FOR FILM]

I am definitely leaning towards the Zeiss. From what I am seeing on Ebay they are not as far apart in price as I had expected. Both $$$

I am heavily invested in my Nikon collection but most of my lenses have been acquired at reasonable prices. The high end 35mm has been a real holdout for me. It is time.

Thanks to all for the input. And happy thanksgiving.

 

[GLS]

GLS have you ever compared with Leica M lenses ? Would you agree that in regard of brillance and sharpness the newest Zeiss lens Generation is comparable with "Leitz" ? And remember Leitz lenses increased in astronomical regions from price !

with regards

No I've never used a Leica. However from what I have read/seen, lenses from the two brands are generally comparable in terms of performance, and both have their standouts. I imagine where the Leica M lenses enjoy a particular advantage is with the more extreme wide angles, being that they can be true wide angle designs rather than retrofocal as is required for an SLR. Having said that, the Zeiss 21mm (which I also own) is already incredible, so any improvement over this must be quite minimal.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Check the prices on KEH. The prices may be better.

 

[narsuitus]

...am now looking to purchase a top quality 35mm lens.

The 35mm lens on a 35mm camera is my favorite focal length for shooting general subjects. With it, I can capture about 50% of the images that I need to capture.

I use the following:
Vivitar 35mm f/2.8 with M42
Nikon 35mm f/2 converted AI
Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AIS
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon ZM
Pentax Takumar 35mm f/3.5 M42 (not shown in image)

All are manual focus lenses.

All, except the Vivitar, are top quality lenses.

All except the Vivitar produce excellent images.

The only thing I prefer more than shooting black & white film with these 35mm lenses is shooting medium format black & white film.


35mm Wide-Angles by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[markjwyatt]

The 35mm lens on a 35mm camera is my favorite focal length for shooting general subjects. With it, I can capture about 50% of the images that I need to capture.

...
Vivitar 35mm f/2.8 with M42
...
All, except the Vivitar, are top quality lenses.

All except the Vivitar produce excellent images.

...

Just curious (I am considering an M42 35mm also), where does the Vivitar 35mm f/2.8 fit in?

 

[film_man]

A thought about prices, if you are patient and spend a bit of time looking at auctions on ebay you can get one (Nikon or Zeiss) at the going rate and if you don't like it sell it later for the same. If you make a small loss consider it "rental" for the time you had it trying it out.

 

[narsuitus]

Just curious (I am considering an M42 35mm also), where does the Vivitar 35mm f/2.8 fit in?

I had been using all of them at f/8 but I needed to determine which was better at a faster aperture. Therefore, I tested all of them with a wide open aperture. Camera was tripod mounted, 2-second self-timer was used to trip shutter, light source was continuous tungsten, white balance was tungsten, and exposure was set manually.

Wide open, all images were acceptable; however, the Zeiss was the best and the Vivitar was the worst.


35mm lens test by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It totally depends on which rendering you prefer. It doesn't matter if someone has used either lens, it only matters what the images look like and the way you like to shoot. There are lots of example images on the net at most apertures you might use. I have used both and would pick a different lens whether I was photographing people or "things". it would also depend if I was looking for a gritty urban look or a more "round" softer less in your face look. It also depends on whether you print your own photos in the darkroom or use scanned negs and digital techniques to output.

So in the end only you can decide what works for you.

+1

 

[tomkatf]

I would skip the 35mm and go to what is my favorite lens, the Nikkor 28/2...