Nikon 35mm F2.0 manual AI/AIS

<p>Hi, I still use a FM2n with black and white film occasionally for this hobby. I know this is quite a bit older than we we have now and with that the differences in R&D. How does it compare and stand up by itself? I have a 50 and 85; both F1.8D's and thought about rounding up my primes with a WA prime. The 35/50/85 might also be seen as the classic trio. I have also read that the 35mm F2.0 AFD isn't that great, some prefer the manual version and the AF-S don't work on the FM2n. Your views? </p>

<p>Cheers. </p>

<p>If I was looking for a wide angle prime, I would go to the AF-NIKKOR 24mm f/2.8 D.<strong> </strong>If you need wide angle, then don't go by half measures. This lens is affordable, reasonably fast, and gets good marks for optical quality. While the AF won't work on your FM2n, so what? DOF will be very substantial at this focal length, with precise focus being less an issue than with longer lenses. Your FM2n's focusing screen will work very well with this lens in manual mode. I wouldn't bother with 35mm for film, as it is only marginally wider than the 50mm you already have. While I shoot DX, I found that I had to get down to 16mm (24mm equivalent) and below to really get the wide angle effects I wanted.</p><div></div>

<p>I'd have to disagree with David here at least for my own use. I've always been a nut for a wideangle and my two Nikkors of choice have for many years been a 28/3.5 and the old 20mm, both in manual focus. The 24 doesn't seem to fit in for me so I don't use it. I often shoot with a Nikkormat and an F2 as well as the F4S or N90S. There is also a variety of digital in my set but my lenses are all manual focus. The 35/2 is another favorite. I find it to be very sharp and sometimes it is just the right lens for the job. My background is in newspapers though I have done many weddings and quite a bit of portraiture. My standard bag for quite a while now has carried two bodies and the 28, 35, 80-200 and a 300/4.5. That glass does everything I ask of it with whatever bodies I have with me. For more specific work I keep and 85, the amazing 105/2.5 and great big heavy 85-250. It is just what works for me.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>Rick's point is well taken. I'll not dispute that his kit works for him. Based on Ray's other posts I suspect his subject matter would benefit from a wider lens than 35mm. That is only an impression. I would be lost without access to UWA lenses for architecture, travel, and selected landscapes, particularly when shooting in constrained areas, in town, or close-up subjects. If Ray would share his interests and preferred subjects, perhaps we could be more helpful?</p>

<p>Some of you know that I enjoy landscapes. When I do that it's with all the planning involved ie checking GPS out, checking forecast, departing out 5.30am or in the evening. When I do that it's with zooms (18-35, 70-200). When I use primes, it's more to cut down the weight and shoot more casually, when I do this it's with 1 or 2 prime lenses only. So it may just be go out with friends at lunch yes, 12PM and just shoot as I wander, it may be street photography or department store signs outside, road signs, group of friends at lunch or at the picnic. I may also just head to the supermarket or to get a haircut but I have my small camera bag with me. At the moment when I head out I just take the 50mm, because anything wider means using a 18-35 which dwarfs the Fm2n. </p>

I don't have a high opinion of the 35mm Nikkor "O"

f/2 I'm afraid. It was OK on B&W film, but since

moving to digital its shortcomings are all too

obvious. Contrast isn't good, there's colour fringing

and bad coma in the corners. Only to be expected

in a design that's over 50 years old I suppose.

 

My choice of manual focus and wide aperture in a 35mm focal length would be Samyang's 35mm f/1.4 lens. It's quite big and heavy, but has amazing image quality for its price. A bit front heavy on a lightweight camera though.

 

There's nothing wrong with the 35mm focal length. It's probably closer to the perceived human eye angle of view than a 50 or 28mm lens, certainly closer than a 24 or 20, both of which are more "specialist" wideangles.

<p>I like the more natural perspective given by a 35mm lens when people are in a wide angle shot vs wider lenses. I do use an AI'd 35mm O-C on occasion, and find that it gives good results on my D810 when stopped down a little. Both the 35/2 OC and 28/2 NC lenses seem to have a pleasing rendition that is less "clinical" than the 28/1.8g lens I had, but the 1.8g was sharper. I am not a big fan of the 35/2AFD, might as well just use a zoom.</p>

<p>Other lenses for consideration: The later 28/3.5 MF lenses mentioned above are good, but I did not get good results from the 35/2.8 AIS I tried. Also, be aware that the first version of the 28/2.8 is not nearly as good as the AIS version, but is often sold at a high price based on the reputation of the AIS version.</p>

<p>In reference to the "trio" of lenses, you might find that a 20(or 24)-35-85 would be more versatile than the 35-50-85. Most of what a 50 can do could also be done with a 35mm lens. </p>

<p>For use with my F3T, I researched period-correct lenses and came up with AiS 28mm f2, 50mm f1.2, 105mm f2.5. The 28mm f2 is rated very highly. I just don't see enough difference between 35mm and 50mm to justify having both. The 28mm is wide enough to be noticeable.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I have and use the Nikon 35mm f2 AI. I find the lens to be very sharp wide open and stopped down as well. Maybe I just have a sharp copy. I'm also a big fan of the 28mm 2.8 AIS. Great lens for close up photography and slightly less sharp at infinity.</p>

<p>Having, and using all the time, the PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 was my "standard wide-angle" - more like a wide standard lens for me.<br /> For indisputable wide angle, my go to was the older Nikkor 20mm f/4. My only regret is that it won't mount with an adapter on a Canon EF-mount unless surgery has been done, which I don't do as a matter of principle.</p>

<p>35/50/85 seems indeed quite close together. Also, even though I have done the same thing for years, using manually focusing AF lenses isn't the same thing as doing it with period-correct manual focus lenses. But since the OP also owns an F100, so there's a valid reason for making that compromise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I may also just head to the supermarket or to get a haircut but I have my small camera bag with me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, that kind of use would call for a zoom lens rather than a set of primes. Most notably, the AF 28-105/3.5-4.5 or the 24-85/2.8-4.</p>

 

<p>I purchased a 35mm f2.0 in 1971 along with a 24mm f2.8 and some other Nikkor primes. I had them all AI'd when that became necessary. I have used the lens and I have found it to be a good performer. When I was in college I shot party pics and used two Leica IIIf's with 35mm lenses for that work. One camera loaded with Plus-X, the other with Ektachrome. 35's worked well for that sort of work because of the sometimes close working distance that parties demanded, the somewhat greater depth of field that helped me mask focusing errors in dim light, and the field of coverage of the strobes we used. I have not done that sort of work for many years. Consequently, my 35mm f2.0 has been and probably will always be the least used of my Nikkor primes. I have come to view the 35 as a wide-normal lens not really a wide angle and the 28 and 24 as wides. The best lens selection for you will be the one that you time and time again demonstrate a need for and don't happen to own. That could the 35 or something wider. Hope this helps. Mike</p>

<p>The AI 35/2.0 has always been my favorite. It is the one I bought with my (then new) FM, and for some years, the only lens I had for it. It isn't too wide for normal use, and I especially like it for landscapes (where you get a little more in, and often can't move back) and indoors (same reasons).</p>

<p>Not so many years later, I got a Vivitar 24/2.0 (I think a Christmas present). I used that for some years before the aperture stopped closing down. I then bought a used AI 24/2.8. No problems with the aperture on that one. The lens doesn't get that much use, but when it does, it is a lot of fun. I do remember using it in Sequoia National Park, where the trees are tall, and other lenses don't do well.</p>

<p>Pretty much all the AI lenses are available used for very reasonable prices. They are more fun to manually focus than the AF lenses. </p>

<p>Yes, the 35 and 50 are a little close, but if you have two cameras, then it isn't a problem.</p>

<p>I have no experience with the AI 35mm f/2 lenses, but I can confirm the AF-D 35mm f/2 is nothing special. Personally, I feel a 35mm alongside a 50mm lens makes sense, even if their focal lengths are close, to me they are different enough. A 24mm is a completely different thing again and to me in no way an alternative to 35mm. A 28mm could be an option though.</p>

<p>My choice for the FM2n for 35mm is the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AiS. It is a marmite lens - a lot of people dislike it as it's got a fair share of quirks. Others like it, because it has a fair share of quirks, and I am certainly among those. But I can understand those who want a bit less temperamental behaviour.<br>

Budget allowing, my choice would next be a Zeiss 35mm f/2. Not cheap though. The Samyang 35mm f/14 is an interesting alternative too.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I own both 35mm f2 AIs and 35mm f2 AF-D versions. Reviews on the web say the AF version is sharper but I disagree. When shooting film I always use my AIs version, I find it sharp from corner to corner (f4-f8) with great contrast. I use my AF version on my D750 only for nighttime street photography, otherwise it's not any better than my zooms.<br>

About 28mm's. I've never tried the f3.5 version. I've owned the f2.8 AI and presently own the f2.8 Ais and f2 AI. The best of the lot is the 28mm f2 AI. It's sharp at infinity while the f2.8 versions are not. It's great with IR as well. The f1.4 AF version was the best, but rare and expensive. I am sorry I sold my f2.8 AI, I liked it better than the AIs (personal taste). I briefly own a 28mm f2.8 AF, didn't like it and sold it.<br>

In the case of 24mm's, the f2.8 (AI or AIs) is a better performer than the 24mm f2. I kept the f2 only because I wanted all f2 lenses in my bag. (BTW, the 135mm f2 is a sleeper, it is fantastic even wide open).<br>

My big mistake was selling my 20mm f3.5 AIs thinking that the f2.8 would be better. It is not, the f2.8 versions are prone to flair while the f3.5 and f4 can be aimed right into the sun and produce a beautiful star. I wound up with the 20mm f2.8 AF-D which only produces pleasing results at best. The 17-35mm zoom is much better at 20mm.</p>

<p>sorry for rambling...read Bjorn's and Rockwell's reviews.<br>

Rick</p>

<p>A thought on Sample Variation.</p>

<p>I had a 28mm 2.8 AIS that consistently gave un-sharp results. This is reputed to be a good lens. I sold it. </p>

<p>I bought an older, scratched 24mm 2.8 N.C. for $25 that is sharp as a tack. Huh.</p>

<p>I once took out all my 50mm Nikon lenses (about 12) and bench tested them with Velvia, MLU, tripod, etc. Wow. The variety of outcomes at f/4.0 was so wide you could drive a truck through them. My f/1.4s went from lousy to good. 1.8s were ok to great. The only consistency were the two f/2.0s, which were both sharper than all the 1.4s and 1.8s, but with a cooler color rendering.</p>

<p>My guess is that even one of the best lens manufacturers of all time (Nikon in the AI / AIS era) couldn't keep quality control consistent enough to offer consistently sharp results.</p>

<p>So, my only advice is try lenses until you find the one that is sweet, and never let it go! :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>With a small camera like the FM2, you might consider the Voigtlander 40mm/2.0 SL II Ultron. Small, and close to both a 50mm and a 35 mm. And to me excellent.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your views?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For years, I have used a 35mm manual focus with my 85mm and my 180mm. I also have a 50mm f/1.4 but I rarely use it with my 35mm because I feel they are too close in focal length to each other.</p>

<p>

<div></div>

I prefer the Nikkor-O 35/2, factory Ai'd for 35mm. Lower contrast is good for B&W and Digital. There were two versions

of the Nikkor-O 35/2, I have the second version- improved optically (reformulated) over the first version.<p>

 

<img src="https://c7.staticflickr.com/4/3840/14428338214_f7f7896813_o.jpg" width="1024" height="682" alt="Pilot-s

Day 2014, Nikon Df"><p>

 

ISO 12,800, 1/30th Second, Wide-Open at F2.<p>

 

<img src="https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7402/13984573622_bf23006639_o.jpg" width="682" height="1024" alt="Luray

Caverns"><p>

 

You can see coma in the spotlights in the extreme corner. I've seen worse, I've seen better- I also have the ASPH

35/1.7 Ultron and ASPH 35/1.2 Nokton. They cost much more.<p>

 

<img src="https://c6.staticflickr.com/6/5574/14426112061_9119d90ac4_o.jpg" width="1024" height="682" alt="Pilot-s

Day 2014, Nikon Df"><p>