Nikon 35 mm AIS purchase used considered

Hi

I am thinking of buying a used Nikon 35mm f 1.4 AIS for upcoming Australia trip. I would like to use it with my Nikon D7200 and D810.

I could get the Nikon 35 mm 1.4 Professional version.

Does anyone use this? How well does it work or not work?

 

Thanks

Nikon introduced the AI-S version of the 35mm/f1.4 way back in 1981, and I bought mine in 1987 after I got my first real job. It was supposed to be a great lens over 3 decades ago. Several years back I bought the Sigma 35mm/f1.4 Art in the F mount and compared the two lenses side by side. Modern lenses are by far superior on modern digital bodies.

 

If you are buying an AI-S lens for fun, that is perfectly fine. If you are after optical quality, 3, 4 decades of improvement is very significant.

I had one about 35 years ago when I was in the Army. I rarely shot at F1.4, so I never noticed the light falloff and coma in the corners.

 

Ken Rockwell has what I think is an accurate review of the f/1.4 here:

 

Nikon 35mm f/1.4

The 35mm f/1.4 AIS is a unique lens in the Nikkor lineup, which can create magical images when luck and skill coincide. But I would definitely NOT recommend buying one for an upcoming trip: this is a lens that requires practice to use well, and it isn't quick to use with a DSLR under any circumstances. Terrible choice for a travel lens if you have no prior experience with it.

 

Performance varies dramatically with distance and aperture setting, and its one of those tricky "amazing on film, very weird on digital" lenses. Probably the biggest issue is performance at f/1.4: there isn't any, not in the sense that digital shooters have come to take for granted with modern lenses. Once you get a handle on how the flaws interact with your subjects and style, f/1.4 can be fantastic tool, but it is just awful for normal quickie street and travel. Loads of spherical aberration, veiling and coma at f/1.4 gives everything a dreamy look: similar in many respects to a '70s era Leica 35/1.4 Summilux wide open. Vignetting is severe: you get true f/1.4 only in the very center, it rapidly loses light at the edges and corners.

 

At f/2.0 it is much better: here it beats the 35/2 AIS by a small margin. f/2.8 is very good. f/4.0 and f/5.6 is the sweet spot: performance at these apertures is what built its legend. It renders very much like a Zeiss lens here, with eye popping color and contrast. This drops slightly at f/8, f/11 is ordinary. f/16 is average.

 

Bokeh is all over the place: sometimes great, sometimes average, sometimes ugly. The aperture shape at some settings is the dreaded "sawblade" type common to Contax RTS Zeiss lenses. So bokeh depends on aperture, distance and subject: this is something you slowly figure out how to exploit with experience.

 

Focus precision on digital is critical, and very hard to achieve with DSLR viewfinders that are optimized for AF. The D7200 would be very difficult, the D810 slightly better. Use live view to focus if at all possible. The 35/1.4 AIS is much more practical on EVF mirrorless cameras like Nikon Z or Sony A7, where you can see the vignetting, field curvature and focus more clearly with live view electronic viewfinder.

 

If you want a fast 35mm for a trip coming up quickly, opt for AF instead. The inexpensive 35/1.8 AFS DX lens is amazingly good, ideal for your D7200 and very cheap, it can also be used on the D810 but will vignette badly in some circumstances and lose resolution at the edges. The 35/1.8 AFS FX Nikkor is larger and more expensive than the DX but will cover the D810 sensor better. I don't think its as good overall as the smaller DX lens or as interesting as the 35/1.4 AIS: if you have the funds, buy the 35/1.8 DX for your D7200 and the 35/1.4 AIS for your D810.

 

Note asking prices for the 35/1.4 AIS are typically double what they actually sell for. It can take awhile to snag one under $500, which is the max I would pay for one in mint condition (they're still available new for $800 or so). I own two in the same serial number range, bought a couple years ago for just under $400 each. Both have "Schneideritis", which is deterioration of the black paint at element edges. It looks like tiny white dots all around the edges of the front element. Unappealing, but doesn't really affect performance. Either does dust: many of these have a dustier-than-usual inner element, caused by the suction action of the focus mechanism and floating element.

 

Long story short: the 35/1.4 AIS Nikkor is a great artistic tool once you get the hang of its quirks, but not fast to shoot and not consistent in its performance. It is a blast to use and learn with, but a total PITA for fast paced environments like travel where you want to work quickly and get reliably "digital sharp" images. Nailing focus is very hard at wider apertures: you'd get better results with an AF kit zoom in hurried situations.

Edited February 5, 2020 by orsetto

Not sure what the professional version is. AFAIK there’s only one lens called a 35mm f/1.4 AIS. I used to have one. Great lens. But it’s a 1970s design. You have to manually focus and you don’t get the optical corrections that people expect these days. For most DSLR shooters, if your budget is limited, you’re probably best off with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (not DX) or the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VR.

I have one of the manual focus 35/1.4 lenses, the 35/1.8DX AF-S, and the Tamron 35/1.8VC lens that actually replaced a 35/1.4 AF-S lens that I had previously. I highly recommend the Tamron for the D810, sharp with the added bonus of vibration reduction. For a good bit less money, the 35/1.8DX is excellent on the DX and not that bad on full frame much of the time. Agree with excellent synopsis that Orsetto wrote.

The Tamron 35/1.8 VC is an excellent lens for the second-hand price, nicer than the equivalent 35/1.8 FX AFS Nikkor which seems dull to my eyes. A nice compromise choice for the D810, if the manual focus Nikkor is too finicky to deal with. The bargain 35/1.8 DX AFS Nikkor is really good: every DX Nikon shooter should own one.

 

In one sense, modern AF lenses are "always better" than older manual focus Nikon and Canon classics. But "better" is relative to some photographers purposes, and vintage lenses can be excellent when used appropriately and/or they have other factors to recommend them.

 

The 35/1.4 AIS Nikkor is not "perfect" compared to a modern Sigma Art, but then there aren't exactly a boatload of 35mm f/1.4 lenses to choose from either. They were always very expensive pro optics not commonly found in enthusiast or amateur bags. The '70s and '80s weren't like today: we're a little bit unhinged now compared to how we were decades ago. It was almost inconceivable then for average joe or jane to consider a lens the size and price of the 35mm Sigma Art, today we think nothing of dropping $1500 here and carrying two pounds there even if we have to live on cat food to pay for it. Its a very different era in more ways than one.

 

The manual Nikkor is incredible within its wheelhouse: middle apertures. Flare is very well controlled and it just "draws" very nicely. It isn't great or even good at f/1.4 on digital, but in the early'70s with Tri-X BW film it was amazing. The flaws at f/1.4 can be exploited to great effect on digital, it just takes experience and interest: the balance of defects is somewhat unique and not exactly like other fast lenses. You can pull off certain looks at f/1.4 with this lens that would take a lot of effort to fake in post-processing.

 

Last but not least: the 35/1.4 AIS is very small for such a fast 35, probably the smallest 35/1.4 ever made for SLRs. For better and worse, part of Nikon's original design brief was that it maintain the 52mm filter size common to most other Nikkors. So it is way smaller than other brand 35/1.4 manual focus options, and a fraction the size/weight of something like the Sigma Art. If you want a discreet relatively lightweight lens, and are willing to shoot more carefully than you'd need to with a modern equivalent, there is nothing comparable to the AIS unless you go to a rangefinder Leitz or Zeiss.

 

When shopping these, beware enticing prices on older versions. The AIS was last and best, the earlier AI and pre-AI with ridged rubber focus ring are similar but have very slightly different optics and six/seven blade diaphragm vs the AIS nine blade. The oldest, original pre-AI version with solid metal scalloped focus ring should be avoided: it used a radioactive thorium element, all of which have inevitably turned an amber color with age. This affects color rendition, which can be a pain to dial out with digital (and impossible with film). Thorium can be restored to clear by long term exposure to sunlight, but unless you get a huge discount the AIS version is newer, smaller and less troublesome.

Edited February 5, 2020 by orsetto

The 35/1.4 AIS version is probably better optically, no doubt, due to the internal change that eliminated yellowing and maybe other optical changes. But, the older "N" or "NC", baked in sunlight, are the most elegant options. Am pretty sure all 35/1.4 MF lenss are NIC multi coated so not any real difference between N and NC early versions.

 

For most modern users, stick with more modern lenses. The old 35/1.4 manual focus is better considered as an experiment that might, on occasion, render an awesome image, but more consistent results can be had with a number of more recent lenses.

Edited February 6, 2020 by robert_bouknight|1

IMO, a lot of the justification for fast lenses is lost on modern digital. The penalty for raising the ISO is minimal compared to what it is when using film. I also don't understand the idea of buying a very expensive fast lens that you're going to use stopped down, because it performs better there. This sounds like the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2- you don't buy it for light gathering at f/1.2, you buy it for the ethereal look of the image or maybe shallow DOF.

IMO, a lot of the justification for fast lenses is lost on modern digital. The penalty for raising the ISO is minimal compared to what it is when using film.

 

Eh, depends. Digital cameras are very good at high ISO compared with film, but on most modern bodies you also get more dynamic range the lower you can keep the ISO (less true of, say, the D700 or D3s, or even D5). If you just want a JPEG out of camera it doesn't much matter, but if you want to retain highlights and recover shadows, there's a lot to be said for ISO 100 and down. Even at high ISO, just because it's better than film doesn't mean it's perfect - if you can shoot a stop faster, it's still going to be less noisy than if you didn't.

 

I also don't understand the idea of buying a very expensive fast lens that you're going to use stopped down, because it performs better there. This sounds like the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2- you don't buy it for light gathering at f/1.2, you buy it for the ethereal look of the image or maybe shallow DOF.

 

That I absolutely concede - I ditched the 135 f/2 DC when I concluded it was fine if I shot it at f/5.6 (but so was the 135 f/2.8 AI I owned, which was much cheaper and more portable). Shallow depth of field has its place, and I like losing the background with longer lenses and fast apertures, but unless you're very close to the subject the best you'll typically get from a 35mm is a bit of isolation.

 

The Sigma 35mm is decent, although I had a lot of trouble getting it to focus properly except in live view - I suspect its telecentricity varies with focus distance. I traded it and the 50mm for the new 40mm, which is optically exceptional, but it's basically the same size as the 85mm (i.e. big). I've carried a 200/2 to Australia before, but I don't claim it was fun. For travel, although I've been known to take the 35mm occasionally (it was my go-to "shoot friends in a dark pub" lens), I'd sooner take the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC.

 

The Tamron 35mm f/1.4 is supposedly very good, but quite big and expensive; I've heard only good about the f/1.8 VC, too. If you want f/1.4 on a budget, have you considered the Samyang/Rokinon? It's built to a budget (I had the 85mm, I'm going off hearsay for the 35mm) - but it's a more modern design than the manual Nikkors.

Context and budget is everything.

 

F/1.2 and f/1.4 were not seriously useful apertures on mass-market (i.e. non-megabuck-Leica) lenses until very recently in the scheme of things. They were OK for BW film, bad with color film and sporadically usable with digital in select circumstances. Widest aperture was mostly an emergency stop until the Sigma Arts upended everything a few years back.

 

Vintage fast Nikkors are highly variable from focal length to focal length and year to year. The early 50mm f/1.4S and SC have the typical blah uninteresting rendering of most fast Japanese 50s of the era, the 55mm f/1.2 is a good f/1.6 lens, ditto the 50mm f/1.2. The 35/1.4 is much more interesting: theres a certain sharpness under all the crappy wide open aberrations, an interplay between the flaws that lends some subjects a really intriguing look. This was a statement lens from Nikon: they tried everything possible at the time to balance the wide open imperfections into a stew that would at least be pictorial if not technically good. Stopping down doesn't just improve performance in the typical way: at f/2 it was designed to best the previous photojournalist 35/2 Nikkor, and at f/4 - f/5.6 to be the best possible SLR 35 lens (even today it is very very good in the center).

 

No question, it was designed for film, which evened out its performance envelope to where it was continuously useful from wide open on down.. Digital is ridiculously hard on such lenses, but they can still offer a distinctive look that is hard to achieve with newer more flawless optics. Also there are considerations of price, size, weight, and intended purpose. If you want a smallish lens with borderline-but-pretty f/1.4 and stunning f/4 at fairly reasonable cost, it kills. If you want clinical perfection, AF, and electronic coupling then the Sigmas or Nikkor AFS are preferable (at much higher price, size and weight). The AIS makes a good primary 35 for someone who prefers quirky manual glass with character, or an indulgent secondary lens to experiment with when you don't need the ultimate predictable modern performance, and want to try a different paintbrush.

 

There is a pictorial cost to ever escalating resolution: we can have 42MP or interesting lens rendering, but usually not both simultaneously. Those with unlimited funds can opt for Zeiss Otus or newer halo lenses like the 105mm f/1.4 Nikkor AFS, and get the best of both worlds. The rest of us must choose between clinical perfection with its potential for sterility, or flawed optics with interesting characteristics that will fall apart if pixel peeped on a D850 or A7RIV. Horses for courses, we're fools for our tools.

 

If I were choosing an F-mount full-frame fast 35 for an upcoming trip, and didn't already own one, the Tamron VC would be my likely pick for best compromise. The current f/1.8 and f/1.4 AFS FX Nikkors bore me to death optically, and feel like they work nights as take-out food containers. The Sigmas are just immense: I would always leave my camera in the hotel rather than use them. The manual AIS Nikkor is lovely but no AF means no go for many travel opportunities. The Samyang Rokinon is another coffee can: very good for the price, but huge and manual focus.

The Samyang Rokinon is another coffee can: very good for the price, but huge and manual focus.

+1 to that.

The size and weight aren't too noticeable on any FX DSLR, but quite unwieldy on a D7200.

 

However, I'm wondering why you've singled out the 35mm Ai-S f/1.4? Since I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be most people's first choice of travel lens.

 

The first lens I'd be packing would be my Tamron f/2.8 SP VC 24-70 zoom, which has 35mm nicely covered. And I'm pretty sure your D810's high ISO ability makes f/1.4 a bit redundant.

 

So I'm curious why an MF 35mm f/1.4 lens makes your packing list?

AFAIK there’s only one lens called a 35mm f/1.4 AIS.

 

Well, there was a version custom-built for NASA with a few small differences. Here is an example on ebay.

Edited February 9, 2020 by chulster

Well, there was a version custom-built for NASA with a few small differences. Here is an example on ebay.

I stand corrected.

I LOVE my 35mm f/1.4, and in fact just shot a fair bit with it yesterday.

 

With that said, I agree with a lot of the above-it's a temperamental lens under the best of circumstance, and digital will also reveal how truly difficult it is to focus an f/1.4 lens.

 

One somewhat disliked lens is the AF-Nikkor 35mm f/2D. I use it as a grab and go lightweight lens for my Df, while I've found it a bit disappointing for the much more demanding D800.

 

I had and sold a Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC. I liked it on the whole, and where it was sharp it was VERY sharp. With that said, I found that it was not overly accurate focusing at less-than-infinity distances at f/1.8, and the VC could sometimes do strange things to across-the-frame focus wide open. I typically found myself using it indoors at f/4 or so to get around this. The lens is big and heavy enough that it's not far off from the 24-120mm f/4 VR, so I just decided that a fast prime lens that I only wanted to use at f/4 and smaller was superfluous to a fixed f/4 zoom that covered its range and was about as good optically.