Good 35mm AIS? or D?

[red_buckner]

<p>I need a 35mm AIS or AI lens for my Nikon F3. Which 35 has the best optical quality? Is there an autofocus type D lens, also 35mm length, with the same optical design and qualities? </p>

[craigd]

<p>The Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI and AI-S are the same lens optically. By the standards of 1969, when the original non-AI version was introduced, it's a superb lens, which probably explains why Nikon have continued producing it into the 21st century more or less unchanged, but I wouldn't suggest shooting it below f/2 due to coma and reduced contrast. But if you want a fast 35mm prime for the F3, it's probably the one to get.</p>

<p>The Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI-S is sharp but has serious problems with ghosting; I wouldn't recommend it.</p>

<p>The Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 AI is in many ways as good or better (and less expensive) than the f/1.4, but it's two stops slower. If you don't need super-speed, it's fine, but at f/2.8 you might consider a zoom unless you just don't like zooms.</p>

<p>Of Nikon's autofocus 35mm primes, the new 35mm f/1.4G is useless on an F3 due to the absence of an aperture ring, and the 35mm f/1.8 is designed for DX digital cameras, not full-frame. That leaves you with the Nikkor 35mm f/2 AF-D, which is a decent lens but rather cheaply made compared to the older AI/AI-S lenses.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Her I like my two old 1960's Non AI 35mm F2.</p>

<p>They are so old that Nikon never made an AI kit for them; ie an Orphaned Nikkor is waht they were called in the later 1970's.</p>

<p>I got my second 1960's lens for 35 bucks in 1980; at a camera store at a mall of all places. The first one I got roughly in 1968; a great asset. It is a lens I will never sell; thus I bought a spare too.</p>

<p>Here I have never had any issues with ghosting; it fact it at F4 works well on a 16mm movie camera it is so sharp.</p>

<p>This is shot at 1/250 sec at F4 to F5.6 handheld;with Kodak Ektar 25; Nikon F</p>

<p>When you manually focus on close objects and shoot at F2; many folks get a higher number of keepers with a F1.4 than a F2.The Old F2.8 really has some folks with more focus errors.<br /> <br /> Here I use 35mm F2 more than a 50mm.</p>

<p>It is the 35mm F2.8 AIS here I got with a group of lenses a few years ago that I consider a bit of a dog; I never liked the slow thing ie harder to focus; ie more of a beginners lens than a pro one.</p>

<p>It is typical to get a varied response about the F2.8 35mm; one has more scatter in focus since it is a slower lens. The F2.8 would be great for landscapes; you just scale focus. In a dim situtation; an F2 or F1.4 is far easier to focus<br /> <br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/NZT%20dish/ntzdish640.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/NZT%20dish/ntzdishBase640.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/NZT%20dish/ntzdishGate640.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[vince-p]

<p>Bjorn Rorslett ranks them as follows:<br>

35/1.4 Ai Ais -- 5 (Everyone says it's a classic. I like Minolta better....)<br>

35/2 Ai Ais -- 4.5 (I like mine a lot).<br>

35/2.5 E series -- 4 ( I too found this to be a fine little lens)<br>

35/2.8 Ai-s -- 3.5 </p>

[craigd]

<p>I find Rorslett's reviews worthwhile but sometimes weirdly at odds with my own experience and that of other reviewers. I think sometimes he just gets a bad copy. He gives the Nikkor 20mm f/4 AI only a 3, meaning "adequate for amateur use", yet this was one of Galen Rowell's favorite lenses! He gives the same low rating to the Nikkor 85mm f/2 AI-S, which is one of the most perfect lenses I've ever used. On the other hand, he's one of the few reviewers I've seen who agree with my opinion that the Nikkor 28mm f/2 AI is a superb lens. So, like most reviewers, he's rather hit and miss from my perspective.</p>

<p>Note, though, that he says of the manual-focus 35mm f/2 that "ghosting is a real and troublesome issue under adverse shooting conditions." I'm not sure how he gets to a 4.5 score after saying that, but maybe he isn't as bothered by severe ghosting as I am.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The answer is probably is sample variance with the 35mm Nikon focal lengths; more so with the older stuff too</p>

[vince-p]

<p>I agree he's got a few difficult idiosyncrasies. He likes the Ai-S 24/2.8 far better than I do; compared to the Olympus and the Minolta 24/2.8s, the Nikon is like a decent Protestant fellow dancing in a Latin club. And that 85/2 write up in particular is hard to take, for that lens is really gorgeous. It ain't sample variation in that case because he says specifically he's looked at a number of samples and found them all flat and dull. I think he has a very particular eye for color and for the kinds of thing he does he just doesn't like the looks of that lens; whereas the ghosting of the 35/2 is only really a factor under certain lighting conditions such as at night or strongly side lit or whatever it is but the way he refers to it one senses he doesn't take many pictures like that so to him it's no big deal. Nor for me, since I do mainly street and yard photography in daylight. And out the window of the car...And so many of my pictures fail for so many reasons, including my rudimentary processing skills so far, I can hardly start blaming the lens yet anyway.</p>

 

[vince-p]

<p>PS Mr Rockwell insists the AF 35 f/2D is optically better than the 35/1.4 AND the 35/2 Ai-S lenses, though the 'elements/groups' numbers and the testimony of many other photographers make one doubt him. I've never had my hands on one so I don't know. It might be worth looking into. If so make sure you have a hold of one produced in the more recent past as apparently by several corroraborating reports the earlier ones had a tremendous oil-leak problem.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I've owned three copies of the Nikon 35mm f2 manual focus lens, and the AF-D version as well. All three f2 manual focus lenses (two AI and one AIS) were superb in my experience. For the F3 I'd recommend the 35mm f2 AI or AIS (I prefer the AI version as it has a wider focusing throw, the AIS was shortened mainly at the request of news photographers who needed fast focusing, but for all other purposes I like the AI focus throw better. I don't think the f1.4 version is worth 3 or more times the price of the f2 version, unless you have money to burn and just want to show off.<br>

<br /> Here is a photo taken with my Nikon 35mm f2 AI lens, that could illustrate ghosting, though I imagine just about any lens would have trouble with this scene:<br>

<br /> <img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/449780940_N3Y5x-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>The above photo taken with a Nikon D700, ISO 400, Nikon 35mm f2 AI lens at f11.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/449780569_gjCQD-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /><br /> Nikon D700, same lens and ISO, at f8. Looks pretty fantastic to me.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>FWIW, in my experience with two copies of the Nikon 35/f2 AFD, it's horrible in the corners when wide open, especially when any point sources of light are visible around the periphery of the frame. </p>

<p>Discussion of this and an example image are here: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VYeY (scroll down to my post on Jan 21, 2010 @ 0109 EST), or go right to the sample image: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00VYrU-212333684.jpg. The only situation I might use this to my advantage is when doing a portrait and I want increasing softness as you go out from the center.</p>

<p>OTOH, stopped down a bit, this problem clears up. I've take lots of very nice shots with the lens over the years. However, plenty of other lenses that cover 35 mm, do equally well when set to f/8 or f/11.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>On a F3 I`d <em>definitely</em> use a MF lens, even being rated under any AF version (if so). Amongst others, their rings are ugly for manual focusing.<br /> In the AiS area I have both f1.4 and f2 versions. Since I bought the f1.4 I have never used the f2 again (it was decades ago). Now it rests on the bottom of my closet.<br /> Wide open my f1.4 sample show a highlight glared look that could not be of everybody`s taste, some say it`s even unusable. You can avoid it, but there is always some softness that cannot be avoided unless you stop down a bit. Stopped down, it`s a very sharp lens.<br /> I try to remember that I noticed a field curvature issue on the f2 version. I don`t recall it clearly, but I believe I experienced the sides of the frame to be focused at a very different plane from the center, something I considered odd for a not so wide lens. Maybe Kelly is refering to this issue. I`m not aware of this problem on my F1.4.<br /> Another interesting choice for the F3 could be a Distagon 35; don`t know about its price.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>35/1.4 @ f16 - (from the WeD PiC #36):<br /> <img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00X/00XFd6-278615584.jpg" alt="" width="490" height="699" /><br>

---<br /> 100% crop (<strong>1600</strong>ISO, <strong>f8</strong>):</p>

<div></div>

[keith_b1]

<p>A distinction must be made between the early Nikon 35/2.8 K/Ai(6-element) vs. the later 35/2.8 Ais(5-elements, and inferior). I have had a copy of the K/Ai for years, and will never get rid of it. It is superb(for a Nikon lens) at f/2.8, all the way to f/16.<br>

The Nikon 35/1.4 has a dreamy, smeary, hazy quality until you stop it down to f/2.8, at which point it becomes an excellent lens, which also is unusually good at the smaller stops(f/11, f/16).<br>

I only shot with the 35/2D once on film and didn't think much of it at the time, although many claim their copy is a fine lens. The several copies of the old 35/2 K/Ai/Ais I found to be sharp at f/4 in the close up range, but otherwise unimpressive.<br>

You shouldn't overlook the current Zeiss ZF/ZF.2 offerings, if they are affordable for you: A fine 35/2, and a coming-soon 35/1.4. Of course, the ZF's are not cheap, although I think the ZF.2 35/1.4 will be cheaper than the new Nikon 35/1.4G. An added advantage is that the Zeiss lenses for Nikon are not crippled with the absence of an aperture ring.</p>

 

[dennis_george_miller]

<p>Earlier this year I did my own experiment with these lenses and tech pan. (I had a photo taken with a rollie 35s (40mm sonnar lens) that turned out really nice, and I was curious how this would compare with the nikkors.) At a distance of about 30 feet the little rollei could not compare with the 35mm K 2.8 when examined at 40x with microscope. I also used a 35mm 2.0 which was better yet, (all tripod at f8) but surprised that the 28-45 (at 35mm) zoom even did better! (the 28mm 2.0 was best, and I do not have the 35mm 1.4) Then I enlarged several to 11x14 (about 10x) and found out that I could not see a notable difference between any of them ! (I like to carry the 2.8, or the zoom the best.)</p>

[yodyot_wongwanich]

<p>I am on the same boat. I have 50/1.2 and 105/2.5 AIS and looking for good wide angle lenses that can perform wide open.<br>

Are the 28/2 AI/AIS and CS ZF 35/2 sharp and usable wide open?<br>

Many thanks,<br>

Yodyot</p>

[john_morris4]

<blockquote>

<p>Are the 28/2 AI/AIS and CS ZF 35/2 sharp and usable wide open?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The (Cosina) Zeiss ZF 35/2 is quite sharp and usable wide open. It's practically perfect at f/2.8.</p>

<p>The Nikkor 28/2 is useable wide open if you don't mind a little glow around high contrast things. This cleans up at f/2.8. One nice thing about the 28/2 is that there very little light falloff (vignetting) away from the center when wide open. This makes it nice for pictures of people indoors, where you want it to look natural and to <em>not</em> emphasize the center of the picture.</p>

[erie_patsellis]

<p>"<br>

Her I like my two old 1960's Non AI 35mm F2.<br>

They are so old that Nikon never made an AI kit for the...m"</p>

<p>Kelly, that's odd, as I have an -O that has a factory AI ring. Is it a serial # issue (before xxxxxx, or such)??</p>

[sexgun]

<p>Erie Patsellis wrote: "I have an -O that has a factory AI ring..."<br>

I also have a 35mm F2 Nikkor-O with a factory AI ring. According to Roland Vink's database (<a href="http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/aimod.html">http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/aimod.html</a>), all 35mm F2 O lenses could be fitted with an AI ring.</p>

[rastislav__virik]

<p>I'd love to contribute to this topic too. Altrought I've never owned 35/1.4 or 35/2D I've just bought 35/2 AIS in brad new shape and from few shots I took I really love this lens. It's very sharp even wide open if focused properly. People talking about so-so wide open IQ eirther do not focus this lens properly or have really bad samples,but I think it's mostly the first issue. I've seen this with 50/1.4 Ais too, many folks talk about how hazy this lens is wide open but from my personal experience it's sharp,but DOF is so thin at close distances that you often go a little out of focus and there it is,also modern viewfinders show DOF only about F/4 so you really can't see real focus at 1.4. Here are some photos I took today. <a href="http://crazy41.rajce.idnes.cz/35mm_AIS">http://crazy41.rajce.idnes.cz/35mm_AIS</a> (don't geat freaked out,it's in the czech language) First is at F/2,second F/2.8, camera D40, so you can't see corner performance,but who cares about corners at F/2,right? :)</p>