Zuiko v. Nikkor: who's the real 35mm?

I think I have a good idea, but this forum has some pretty

knowledgeable contributors who might fill in the numbers for me.

 

I have 2 Nikkor 35mm wide angles; a 2.8 and a 2.0. I also have a 2.8

Zuiko. When I mount the Nikkors on a Nikkormat FT and view, the width

of the field of view is about 16" narrower than the Zuiko, at 8'. Both

prisms have 97% coverage, so it ain't that.

 

My guess is the Nikkors are true 35s, whereas the Zui is more like a

32 or even a 30.

 

Does anyone have the stats? The 2.8 Nikkor is for sale by the way.

Photodo measured 36mm for both Nikkors. No idea about the Zuiko, but your measurements would indicate that it's around 31mm indeed, which sounds awfully off (and especially off in the wrong direction).

 

8ft away is a pretty small magnification, too small to indicate a big change in focal length due to "advanced" focusing mechanisms.

They cannot be so far off. Something else is wrong. A 35mm lens must be within 33-37mm, otherwise it would not be called 35. It can be that Nikon is somewhat wrong one way and the Olympus the other way, but no way more than 2-3mm.

Do comparisons of FOV on-the-film, not in the finder. That will be a much better place to do actual measurements. I wouldn't trust a comparison of finder magnification.

 

Also, I think that the FT finders were 90%, weren't they?

 

Skip

That would explain it, Skip. But my Nikon System Handbook, by "Moose" Peterson, says 97%. And I certainly don't get that much more on my negative than what I see in the viewfinder--I think. Might be worth a test run.

"...by "Moose" Peterson..."

 

And there's your other dubious variable. ;>

Good one Lex! I was playing straightman for whoever could make a laugh out of it but it is his real name.

 

Moose that he is tho', he is wrong, according to Photography in Malaysia, which claims 92% coverage, and maybe that's the difference.

According to Modern Photo, the 35/2.8 is actually 35.1 mm.

http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/mp-zuiko-tests.txt

 

Warren

 

PS: But the 35/2 is the "real" 35mm as it is 35.0 mm.

PPS. What does it matter?

It's not easy to measure a noninterchangeable screen, but the one in my Nikkormat FT appears to measure about 32.6mm long. On a 36mm frame, this is 90.5%.

 

As I recall, when introduced the OM finder gave a larger proportion of the negative image than almost anything else on the market, save the Nikon F's 100%, so it's not a surprise to me that the Nikkormat would come in noticeably smaller.

Yup, I have to be careful when switching between my OM-1 and Nikon F3HP. I sometimes forget that there's no wiggle room with the F3HP so I need to remind myself to leave a little breathing room around most subjects when shooting slides, a little less for negative film. With the OM-1 the view is just about right so I rarely cut off the top of someone's head or bottom of their feet.

There is some amount of variation in lenses, so I wouldn't trust any measurement of the

FOV of a single lens.

 

It'd be better to have an average of a dozen or more lenses.