Nikon film shooters - thinking of adding a 35mm prime lens

For those who still kind of shoot the odd roll of film, what Nikon body and film are you mostly using?

 

My favourite is a Nikon FM2 with black and white film, the 50 and 85mm primes are AF-D so they will continue to work. Looking at maybe adding a 35mm prime. There is the newer 35mm F1.8 AF-S G which won't work but it works on my F100 althou it's not my favourite walking around camera. Would you suggest in getting a older lens and keep it at that, is the newer lens that much better?

 

 

Cheers.

I like the D series lens as I shoot with FM, FM2N, F100, and F6 along side of my D7000. I have the 35 and 24 as my digi needs the 24 more for it's cropped format. I also sport the 50, 60 macro and 85 1.8. All Ds. The only lens I do sport is the zoom on my D7000. I don't care that much for what I shoot on digi. I had the 28-120 F4, but someone's sticky fingers walked off with it a few years ago.

 

As a note, I like to use my sigma 24(?)-110 2.8 zoom on my FM2N, as it is tack sharp and not metal in construction. It makes the camera super light and sharp enough not to carry any other lens with me.

 

That said, my F6 is still my favorite shooter.

Edited July 28, 2018 by peterbcarter

I have the AF 35/2 D lens. It's an okay lens. Lately it has disappointed me because I've been noticing more and more its underwhelming IQ at the edges of the frame. I don't know whether it's due to coma as Ken Rockwell says, or astigmatism as I suspect, but the edges are not even close to sharp until f/8. This is in line with the photozone.de test results—although unlike their sample, my copy's corner performance is complete garbage. Still, it's not a bad lens as long as you shoot subjects or scenes that are forgiving of poor edge performance.

 

I did own the 35/2 AI-S lens previously. Ergonomically and mechanically, it's as wonderful as other manual-focus Nikkors. Center sharpness was quite good. At f/2 the whole frame was slightly soft with spherical aberration, but this cleared up nicely at f/2.8. However, this lens—or at least my copy of it—had a fatal flaw that I could not live with: a large proportion of the frame, from about one-third of the way from the center to the horizontal edge to about two-thirds out, was quite blurry. Normally, this could be attributed to what some call "donut-shaped field curvature"; but I do not think it was that. If a lens has field curvature and your subject is in the blurry part of the frame, you can compensate by focusing on the subject. This did not work with my 35/2 AI-S; no matter how I focused, that blurry middle part of the frame never got sharp.

 

In the hope that the problem was particular to my copy, I bought and tried another copy. Same behavior, exactly. Still, I hold out hope that I may someday find a copy that is free of the issue, because otherwise it's just a swell lens.

I shoot more than the "odd" roll of film. I have at least one example of probably 90% or better of the film cameras Nikon made, although depending on my mood and what I'm working along side I'm usually shooting an F2, FM2n, F4, or F100.

 

35mm has never been one of my favorite focal lengths, and I've never bothered to buy an AF full frame 35mm(I have the 35mm f/1.8 DX, but obviously that's not relevant here).

 

I have an AI-S 35mm f/1.4 and two AI 35mm f/2s. One of my f/2s is a actually a late production pre-AI lens with a factory conversion-it looks the same, performs the same, and works the same you're using an F4(or FA, FG, N2000, or N2020) as a "real" AI lens.

 

To be honest, I grab one of the f/2s most of the time if I'm going to use a 35mm prime-they're lighter, optically better, and less prone to flair than the f/1.4.

 

I don't like the smaller AF and AF-D(screwdriver) primes for manual focus-in fact I've duplicated them in MF lenses. The focusing has way too little damping and I don't find them that pleasant to use. That's also true of a lot of zooms. I'm getting ready to part with cheap 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 for this reason-I bought the lens for its light weight, but the MF(and poor IQ) drive me crazy and it's been replaced by the much better, but also heavier, 17-35 f/2.8.

 

"Fancier" screwdriver lenses with an on-lens A/M switch tend to be damped very nicely and have very nice manual focus action. My 105 f/2.8D Micro and 80-200 f/2.8D(push-pull, no collar) have the A/M collar. My 180mm f/2.8 ED and 300mm f/4 have the weird arrangement where you have to BOTH engage the MF ring and retract the screwdriver on the body with the switch by the mount. None the less, all of these lenses have VERY nice MF damping. All of my AF-S lenses(save for the cheap plastic mount DX kit lenses) have great MF also, and of course don't require that you mess around with a switch to get manual focus.

 

I mention all of this because-at one point when I used film and DX digital I wanted a fast AF 35mm. I considered the "do it all" 35mm f/2D, but ultimately decided to save money and get the MF 35mm f/2 for film and the AF-S f/1.8 for digital. The manual focus on the f/2D bothered me too much.

F2 + 35-105.

The 35-105 is a nice range GP lens, replacing the 43-86. I only wish that it were constant aperture, to make it easy to use with a hand light meter.

 

My experience is similar to Ben's. My few AF/AF-D lenses do not MF well; the throw is too short making accurate focus more difficult, and the focus ring feels sloppy and not as well mated as the MF lenses. So if you have a MF body, get a MF lens. For this old timer, a GOOD MF lens is a joy to use.

I have an AI-S 35mm f/1.4 and two AI 35mm f/2s.

 

Ben, I note that you have the 35/2 AI, not the AI-S as I had. But have you never noticed the mid-field blurriness with your lens that I wrote about regarding mine? If not, could I persuade you to part with one of your two 35/2 lenses? ;)

If you don't mind upping the weight a bit... I don't think there's a reason the 35mm Sigma Art wouldn't work on an F100. I've never tried mine on my beaten up F5, but could if you care. It's effectively G, so no luck on older bodies.

 

If you want compatibility with the FM2 and a relatively modern lens design, people said good things about the Samyang/Rokinon 35mm f/1.4. I never got one myself (though I had the 85mm), but others here have liked it. It's effectively AI-P - manual focus, aperture ring, but electronics so the F100 can control the aperture.

 

They're both big f/1.4 lenses, though, so they'll be very front heavy on these cameras.

I don't shoot film that often anymore and If I shoot film today it would be slide film as opposed to color negative film back in the days when I still have my darkroom. So my favorite camera is the Nikon F3HP but for slides I would want to use the F5. Wanting to use both the F3 and the F5 is I were to buy the 35mm it would be 35mm f/2 AF-D. That way it would be fully functional on either camera. Otherwise, on the F5 the G type and AF-S lens would work better. Although I love to set the aperture via the aperture ring, the F5 isn't the camera to do that although you can do that. On the F3 an AI/AI-S lens would be better than the AF lens

Peter, which lens do you mean? I'm not sure I've met it??

 

"As a note, I like to use my sigma 24(?)-110 2.8 zoom on my FM2N"

 

Favourite definitely the FM2, though for film I've mostly "migrated" to a non-Nikon system. I prefer the FM2 over my F3, though the viewfinder of the F3 is better.

 

As lenses, while the small AF-D lenses work fine on a FM2, I don't much like the manual focus feel of them. I have a bunch of Ai/AiS primes I simply like a whole lot better (they're also my default go-to kit for my DSLR). You can find gems among those older manual focus primes at much better prices (i.e. a 105 f/2.5 costs less than a 85 f/1.8D and outperforms it in any way but autofocus performance - the 50mm f/1.8D also does not compare too great with a 50mm f/2 Ai for example).

 

I've got the AiS 35mm f/1.4, which is my favourite lens, but it's certainly a marmite choice. If you prefer the ultra high resolution and clinically sharp look of a Sigma Art 35mm, then this lens should be the very last on your shopping list. As above, it's easily seen as optically not very strong - and in ways it isn't but its optical weaknesses make for very interesting and characteristic results. Which I happen to like a lot, but it's not for everyone. And it's not a particularly cheap lens.

 

The Ai 35mm f/2 is a solid all-round choice, IMHO. The AF-D 35mm f/2 is not a bad lens, but not good either, not great for manual focussing, and simply costs more than it should. Budget allowing, a great lens for manual focus could be the Zeiss ZF 35mm f/2, nowadays the Milvus 35mm f/2. Not cheap, though.... if I didn't have that 35 f/1.4 I love so much, for sure this lens would be my choice.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Wouter Willemse

I concur the 35mm f 1.4 ais is a good lens. stopped down the image quality is good. Wide open it is soft. I don't have a Zeiss lens in 35mm but other focal lengths I do have are outstanding optically although somewhat heavy.

The Ai 35mm f/2 is a solid all-round choice, IMHO.

 

Wouter, now I must ask you, as I did Ben: Did you never experience the off-center blurriness that I wrote about regarding the AI-S version? If not, it gives me hope that the characteristic is not endemic to the design, since the AI and the AI-S have (I think) the same formula.

I don’t have one myself, only used one on a couple of occasions. I haven’t particularly noted what you describe, nor seen it stand out particularly in photos on the internet. Most reviews for these lenses are reasonably favourable, so my gut would say you had a poor sample.

Ben, I note that you have the 35/2 AI, not the AI-S as I had. But have you never noticed the mid-field blurriness with your lens that I wrote about regarding mine? If not, could I persuade you to part with one of your two 35/2 lenses? ;)

 

I'll toss both on the D800 later :)

 

I don't really recall the issue you described, though.

And now for something completely different:

PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8

(the latest version is 28mm, but the older ones still work as they always did if they will fit your body)

 

Although manual, it does "keystone"/perspective correction, and is a spectacular 35mm even when used "straight".

I'm fond of the chipped 45/2.8 Ai-P on manual, AF and digital bodies. BTW, no fit issues the early 35/2.8PC, a preset lens with the aperture ring on its nose and sufficient clearance for the Ai tab.

I don’t have one myself, only used one on a couple of occasions. I haven’t particularly noted what you describe, nor seen it stand out particularly in photos on the internet. Most reviews for these lenses are reasonably favourable, so my gut would say you had a poor sample.

 

That's what I'm hoping. Thanks.

Well, if we're going that route, I have a cheap 35mm Kiev tilt shift that's quite small. It's not all that good at f/2.8, though. And no camera connection at all.

Although I do like the AOV from a 35mm lens, I just could not connect with any of the 35mm ai/ais lenses so I usually shot a 50mm long nose when I had my FM2N and FM3A. These days, when I shoot film I prefer a rangefinder, and with an RF, I do shoot both 35mm and 50mm.

 

I have also used my favorite 35mm lens — the Sigma 35/1.4 ART — on my F100 (when I had it) and would highly recommend this combo (or alternatively an F5 or F6) if you can deal with the weight/bulk.

Edited July 28, 2018 by photo_galleries

I did try a Sigma 35.1.4 Art lens, and it was very nice, impressively sharp even wide open. It's expensive and heavy, but if that's no obstacle, I'd look harder at that. For my own use, I'm with JDMvW - both for a long time on film and later on DX digital, I've been happy with the 35/2.8 PC lens. But more often than not when shooting film, I found myself using the 35-105 zoom for convenience, even though I found it ergonomically maddening.

The 35/2 has always been a good one to have and certainly has its uses though the focal length has never been a favorite. If you are looking for a prime then that's what I would get for use on a film body. I shoot several, F2, FE, F4s and N 90S regularly, a Nikkormat also. I'd rather have the manual focus lenses. I also have the 35-105 and 35-135. I can recommend them on sharpness and both are quite useful as walkaround lenses and general use. A little bigger and heavier but I get more use from them than a 35mm prime. There are newer lenses of course but if you are looking for use mostly on a film body I wouldn't bother.

 

Rick H.

I did try a Sigma 35.1.4 Art lens, and it was very nice, impressively sharp even wide open

 

If I were a 35mm junkie(this seems to be a polarizing focal length, with folks saying they can't live without and folks saying they don't care without a lot of in-between) this lens would certainly be under consideration for me. I actually had a chance to buy a lightly used example for an attractive price, and when I'd made up my mind to buy it, I went in to the shop and they'd just gotten in the f/1.4 AI-S. I bought the AI-S instead...

 

In any case, I think we can disqualify that lens for the OP since it's a G lens(or the Sigma equivalent). It should work fine on an F100(albeit I haven't seen any reports on whether or not Sigma's AF-S implementation works on film cameras-I'd guess it does but that's speculation) but will be stuck at f/16 on the FM2.

If I were a 35mm junkie(this seems to be a polarizing focal length, with folks saying they can't live without and folks saying they don't care without a lot of in-between) this lens would certainly be under consideration for me.

 

In my case I went from the 43-86, so 43mm on the short end, to a 24. I skipped over both the 35 and 28.

 

The 35 would have to be part of a planned set to make sense, such as 35+85, or 35+105.

For me, 35+50 is too close together.

If I had a 50, I would go to 28 or 24, and skip the 35.

To me, it is all about spacing and having a decent change in viewing angle between the few lenses that one owns.

To me, it is all about spacing and having a decent change in viewing angle between the few lenses that one owns.

 

If only I could be so rational. To me, it's all about how many useful—and fun-to-use—lenses I can get without spending all of my disposable income. If I had twice as much disposable income, I would have at least twice as many lenses. In fact, I'd keep buying them until my wife started to complain.

There seem, as I understand it, to be two schools when it comes to lens spacing:

• 20, 28, 45, 70, 105, 180mm
  
• 14, 24, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200mm
  

I'm in the latter camp, and don't particularly feel the need for a 28mm (or 105mm, although I'm currently lacking a 135mm and substitute a 150mm macro or 70-200). If I had a 105, I wouldn't have been inclined to acquire an 85mm.