Best Nikon MF Primes? (35mm AIS lens especially)

I'm replacing a set of stolen equipment, trying to get the most out of a small amount of

money. I have a 28mm 2.8 AIS, a 50mm that was not stolen and a 75-125mm E lens.

These match what I had before. I'm now looking at a 35mm lens. I almost never use 50-

it is too close. But I can't find a lot of info on the AIS 35mm. If one of the other 35mm

primes is better, I'd like to know. Beyond this, I'd like opinions on the best MF primes.

FYI, if I have to choose between a $100 20-year old prime and a new equal for $350, I'll

get the old one. Not a lot of cash to play with. Thanks.

 

MW

Check this evaluations site: http://www.naturfotograf.com

Pretty hard to beat the 35 f1.4, it would be the last lens I would ever give up, a superb

slightly wide normal lens. It's a bit pricey for a nice condition AIS, but has been made since

the early 70s, so you can probably find an older one AI'd for a decent price. The 35 f2 has

a good rep also. The one to avoid is the 35 f2.8, a bit mediocre according to many reports.

i realize you're into the wides, but to answer your question generally, i love the 105

Beware of the older 35mm f/1.4 lenses (non AI, AId). These have radioactive glass (a friend of mine checked it) and are prone to yellowing. While it can be remedied, better to avoid these. I have an old (non AI) 35mm f/1.4 yellow junk.

If you're willing to put up with manually focusing an AF lens, don't ignore the current 35/2 AF.

I have and really like my 35mm f2, its a very sharp lens that is bright and easy to focus.I also have and use a 24mm 2.8 that is a killer lens up close. I believe that it has floating elements that help with this.

I have the 24 af non D, love it. I am hunting for a 35 F2 Mike!

My AIS 35mm f/2 has never disappointed me. It would certainly be very nice (but not necessary) to own the 35/1.4, as it is reportedly a better lens at f/2 than the 35/2, but it is rather expensive and I don't usually use my 35/2 wide open anyway.<P>

 

Value wise, I think the AIS 35/2 is a very good choice. If you decide to buy an AF 35/2, be aware that some of the early lenses have a nasty reputation for fouling the aperture blades with oil.<P>

 

With respect to Frank's link (<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html</a> - see near the bottom), Bjorn Rorslett (whose reviews and opinions many here respect) rates the AI 35/2 one grade lower (4/5) than the 35/1.4, which rates a 5/5 on film bodies. He doesn't have a very high opinion of the AIS 35/2.8, a view which is shared by many I think (never used it myself).

The AIS 35/2 is about equal to the 35/1.4 (aside from the maxium f stop) There's a comparison of the 35/1.4, 35/2 & 35/2.8 AIS lenses here: http://www.pictchallenge.com/TesNik335a.html The AIS 35/2 is a bit better than the AF 35/2 (Ihave both). The MF one has a much better MF feel than the AF one.

I should add to not bother with the 28mm and 35mm "E's." I had both and I found them too soft---unlike the 50mm and 100mm E's. The 28mm F2 seems to be quite the lens.

I had the 28 f/2 & like Frank says it's a hard lens to beat.

 

Otherwise I like the 50 1.4, 105 2.5 & the 180 2.8 + the 300 2.8

 

Good Luck

I got an externally beat up 35 f2 AI from www.keh.com for $35....I recently used it on a job

and was really happy with it.

 

jmp<div></div>

I have owned every 35mm Nikkor, so my experience is as follows:<P>

 

After 10 years of using the 35mm f/2.0 AIS as my standard lens on my manual focus cameras, I bought my first auto-focus model, and of course the 35mm f/2.0 AF as the first lens for that camera. In non-scientific testing between the two models, AIS vs. AF, the auto-focus lens was quite a leap in optical quality over the AIS lens. I had years of use from the AIS lens, but the first couple of rolls of slides placed on my light table from the auto-focus lens was stunning. My opinion is that it is at least a stop ahead of the AIS lens, the AF lens at f/2.0 was optically as good as the AIS lens stopped down to f/2.8. The AF lens also focuses closer than the AIS lens.<P>

 

My AF lens failed from a problem with the aperture blades, so I used this as my reason to go to the f/1.4 AIS lens, a lens I always wanted but could not justify. I have now had this lens for 9 years, and it will be the Nikkor I will always have, and the first I would replace if I lost all of my gear.<P>

 

The f/1.4 lens is better at f/2.0 than either f/2.0 lens (AF or AIS), and it has one more stop. The f/1.4 lens is a killer optic from f/4 to f/11. The finder is nice and bright, so focus is easy. The finder brightness also comes into play when you use a polerizer, which can rob you of several stops of brightness.<P>

 

There is one weakness for the f/1.4, and that is that it has barrel distortion. If you shoot subjects that need to be correctly linier, this would not be the best lens. The f/1.4 lens also has some field curvature, but you can simply focus off-center subjects on the screen after composing and all will be well. I use this curved field to get even more selective focus at full aperture.<P>

 

So, I would rate the lenses as follows:<P>

 

<B>First place: f/1.4 AIS</B> - Sharp and contrasty with world-class construction. It is fully usable at f/1.4, and outstanding from two stops down.<P>

 

<B>Second place: f/2.0 AF</B> - Simply a great lens. Works well on manual focus bodies. If my lens had not suffered from the aperture problem that seems to follow this lens, I would never have moved to the f/1.4 lens.<P>

 

<B>Third place: f/2.0 AIS</B> - I was happy with mine for a decade. If I had not tried the other models, I would not have known what I was missing.<P>

 

<B>Forth place: f/2.8 AI</B> - Had one of these for times I was traveling to places that I was worried for my gear. Not bad from f/5.6. The finder is darker than with the faster lenses, and for manual focus, this can be a problem. All of the other lenses on this list were better at f/2.8 than this lens was wide-open.<P>

 

All of that said, it is important to note that any of these lenses are more than sharp enough for general photography. In the real world "f/8 and be there" way of shooting, you can't go wrong with any of these lenses.<div></div>

Here is a 1960's 35mm F2 non-AI at F8; with grainy Kodak Gold 400 from about 15 years ago.. This is scanned at 2720 dpi; and shows alot of grain; but decent details. The lens cost me 35 dollars; one of those Orphaned Nikkors that was so old Nikon could'nt/would'nt AI upgrade. These Nikkors were then dumped as garbage in the late 1970's. This lenes of mine is very sharp at F4; decent at f2.8 and F2 also. <BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/NZCliff/tripods-192.jpg"><BR><BR>The details are like a 3 by 4.5 print at 72 pixels per inch<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/NZCliff/tripods-193.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/NZCliff/tripods-194.jpg">

Like Albert, I've tried every manual focus 35mm AIS Nikkor. In chronological order:<p>35 f/2.8 AIS: Looked very nice (came new with my F3). It is small and compact. I had an epiphany when I shot the same scene as my father in law who was using his Leica M3 and the equivalent Leica 35mm lens. The prints side by side revealed how low in contrast and somewhat hazy the Nikkor looked. Regardless of the aperture, I could never equal the snap and pop of the Leica optic. That lens went out into the world of ebay.<p>35mm f/2 AIS: A nice lens. A bit bigger than the f/2.8, but still quite compact and light. Some people complain of a tendency to flare, but I didn't have a problem. Up close, the barrel distortion becomes evident, and field curvature means that the corners are not as sharp. However, at distances of 3 feet upwards, this was a very sharp lens. I really had no reason to complain about it except that lens lust got to me, and I wanted the f/1.4 model. The f/2 is easily bought and sold on ebay, and the cost is relatively low - in the low $100 region.<p>35mm f/1.4. Albert has alluded to some of its characteristics. It has barrel distortion. It has field curvature. It also has CRC, so you can move in ridiculously closely (1 foot) into a subject such as a flower, which has a curved plane of focus anyway, and get very sharp images. Wide open, there is a bit of veiling flare. After 1 or 2 stops down, this lens is incredibly sharp! I can still focus it when I can barely see in the dark. If you want the best 35mm lens, this is the one!

While the f/1.4 lens is great for wide-aperture, low-light shots, it also has great resolving power in normal light and at moderate apertures. I have slides that have so much detail from this lens that I can't believe it sometimes. I can't get any jpegs to come close to the look of a slide on the light table with a loupe or projected on a screen, but I wanted to present on example of a near / far shot using the hyperfocus setting for f/11.<div></div>

...and now detail from the above shot. Check out the bricks on the bridge.<div></div>

Quite a muscular model, Kelly.

From personal experience, the best AIS 35 mm Nikkor is the f/1.4.

 

FWIW, the test results from Modern Photo (tested for same issue from ca. 1980) are shown below.

 

Lines/mm @ ~1:47 magnification

 

---35mm f/1.4 ------ 35mm f/2.0 ------ 35mm f/2.8

 

f/ center - corner -- center - corner -- center - corner

 

1.4 - 62 - 39

 

2.0 - 69 - 44 -------- 47 - 30

 

2.8 - 78 - 44 -------- 53 - 33 -------- 59 - 33

 

4.0 - 78 - 44 -------- 67 - 37 -------- 59 - 33

 

5.6 - 78 - 44 -------- 75 - 47 -------- 67 - 42

 

8.0 - 87 - 49 -------- 67 - 47 -------- 67 - 47

 

11 - 69 - 49 -------- 67 - 53 -------- 59 - 47

 

16 - 62 - 44 -------- 59 - 47 -------- 53 - 42

 

22 - -------- -------- 53 - 42 -------- 47 - 37

 

 

 

 

% Contrast @ 30 Lines/mm

 

---35mm f/1.4 ------ 35mm f/2.0 ------ 35mm f/2.8

 

f/ center - corner -- center - corner -- center - corner

 

1.4 - 64 - 26

 

2.0 - 64 - 27 -------- 43 - 26

 

2.8 - 68 - 40 -------- 58 - 28 -------- 56 - 28

 

4.0 - 74 - 46 -------- 60 - 44 -------- 65 - 36

 

5.6 - 72 - 50 -------- 56 - 56 -------- 63 - 56

 

8.0 - 78 - 46 -------- 62 - 58 -------- 70 - 54

 

11 - 74 - 40 -------- 60 - 48 -------- 70 - 55

 

16 - 68 - 34 -------- 54 - 42 -------- 60 - 48

 

22 - -------- -------- 44 - 40 -------- 46 - 45

 

Hope this helps in your decision, but realize that these were tests of only one sample of each lens-your mileage may vary.

On what bank was that picture of Tower Bridge taken - is it the Tower side?

 

I was on the other side today and I did not see that statue!

All three AIS lenses were found to have <1% barrel distortion by Modern Photo (same tests as above).

<I>On what bank was that picture of Tower Bridge taken - is it the Tower side?</I><P>

 

Yes, on the Tower side. The statue is on the other side of the bridge (same bank) from the tower, and you can pass under the bridge via a walkway under the bridge. FWIW... this shot was made in May at about 7 AM, while waiting for the sun to crest the horizon. I have the same statue completely black from being in the shadow of the large hotel right behind it. Early morning light is best as it comes from the east, and this is the east side of the bridge.

I suspect that the low distortion figure came from the lenses being tested at infinity distance. As you focus closer, the barrel distortion becomes more and more evident.

Michael;

I would say the best Nikon 35MM is the F1.4 AIS. The contrast and sharpness can't be beat. Bar none! I took that lens out recently after it spending some time tucked away. I looked at the slides with a Schneider loupe. This lens will for sure go back into my photo bag to team up with a 24MM F2.8 AIS. The F1.4 is just too good a lens not use. I can't believe I haven't used it for about 6 months. Never again!!