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

[photo_galleries]

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.

 

I fully understand the rationale for spacing, but as I've gotten older and set in my ways, I have found that my preference (and world view) has been honed to focal lengths that are just a little bit wider or just a little but longer than 'normal.' So for DSLR, SLR, RF, mirrorless or high end digi P&S, I gravitate toward the AOV from a (fullframe) 24/25mm, 35mm, 50mm and 75mm for 90-95% of my general purpose shooting. I know the 28mm is missing from that list, but try as I might, I just cannot seem to make that FL work for me.

 

Also, while I do have a 20mm and 85mm prime lens, I have found that I so rarely use them that I'm likely to sell them in the near future. I think my 18-35mm has greater utility on the wider end and my 70-300mm on the longer end. I also have other long lenses, such as the SIgma 150mm and the the 200-500mm but I only use them when I have specific uses (macro, birding) in mind.

 

-Keith

[ben_hutcherson]

Truth be told, 28mm is a focal length I like even less than 35mm.

 

I can justify a 35mm in place of a 50mm in my bag as "a little wider than normal, but not so much so." 28mm to me is in a weird spot of not really being able to get the wacky wide angle perspective that I love(that's in the domain of 24mm and shorter for me), but it's too wide to be used as a "normal" lens.

 

I shot 4x5 for a long time with nothing but a 135mm lens, which is more or less like a 35mm on 35mm(although I now shoot a lot with my 75mm Nikkor, which ventures into ultra-wide territory). My widest medium format lens is also a 50mm Distagon, which is in the 35mm range-price out a 40mm Distagon(and look at how big it is) and you'll see why that's my widest lens :) . I may pick up an SWC/38mm Biogon one of these days, but prefer not to have a fixed camera/lens combination that expensive(esp. since there's no focus aid and only a peephole viewfinder).

 

In any case, I love my 14-24mm f/2.8, but for a lot of reasons it's not a great film lens. I'd like a 14mm f/2.8 prime, but there are lenses I'd rather have for that much money. After I sold my AI-S 18mm f/3.5 I regretted it, and ended up replacing it first with an 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 and now a 17-35 f/2.8. Both of these lenses have aperture rings. The 17-35 is a better lens in every way aside from the fact that it weighs almost as much as the 14-24(but at least it can take filters).

[Dieter Schaefer]

35+105

That's how are started out back in the day - if I had to do it again, I'd do 28+105 - and then perhaps, maybe, possibly add a 50 or 55. To the 35 and 105 I later added a 24 and a 200 - and then moved on to zooms that were better suited to shoot slide film.

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

A few years back, I worked with a rather extreme case: 15, 21, 40, 90, (180) - and the 90 hardly saw any use at all.

 

14, 24, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200mm

The list I was taught back then usually omitted the 50 and there was no such thing as a 14 (18 would have been the usual recommendation). Although IIRC then the rangefinder recommendations usually stated 35, 50, 90, 135 - simply because there wasn't anything else.

 

Nowadays, I rarely venture out with a full set of primes in the bag - though I could do 20, (28), 35, 50, 90, (105), 150, (180), 300 (having recently disposed of a 24 that I seem to not have used all that much). The 28 is in brackets because its a different mount; the 105 and 180 are manual focus (and mostly live on the shelf) and the 90 and 150 are both macro lenses. Between the 35 and the 50 I'd pick depending on how I feel that particular day (having just recently overcome my aversion of the 50mm focal length).

[Gary Naka]

With primes and a 50mm starting lens, I would do.

• 24+50+105+200 or
   
  
• 24+50+135+300
  

The primary difference being the longest lens, 200 or 300. This lens then defined the middle lens, 105 or 135.

 

Besides the logical 1/2 of 50, the other reason that the 24 was chosen was, it was the widest lens (at that time) that used the Nikon standard 52mm filter. So I did not have to buy another set of expensive filters of a different size. If the 24 used a larger filter, I probably would have gotten the 28.

 

The 24+50+135+300 was the prime kit that my brother and I started out building. I wanted the 300 as my long lens, so the 135 was the logical lens in the middle, between the 50 and 300. My brother took it over, and eventually made it 24+50+135+300+600 kit.

 

But I switched to zooms. My 3-lens kit was

24 + 43-86/3.5 + 80-200/4.5.

If I could fit it, I sometimes added the 105/2.5 for a faster tele than the f/4.5 zoom, about 2 stops faster.

[ben_hutcherson]

I'll mention that my Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D is probably my most used AF prime. The reason for that, though, is that I do macro work(and that includes going beyond 1:1-tasks for which I usually use the 55mm f/3.5 pm bellows) and the 105mm is superb down to 1:1. It's also probably the sharpest Nikon lens I own. It doubles as a great short tele and even a film/FX portrait lens, although for the latter I often use an AI-converted 105mm f/2.5(chrome nose).

 

I owned and sold the newer AF-S VR 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. My opinion on it is the same as my opinion on the 55mm f/2.8 AI-S vs. the 55mm f/3.5 AI-it's a better lens for general photography, but when you start getting in the 1:2 range the older lens is simply a better lens. Also, it doesn't help that the newer lens is useless on bellows and reversed if you want to maintain aperture control(short of shoving toothpick in the aperture lever slot).

[Gary Naka]

As with Dieter, my shift to zoom was driven in part due to shooting slide film.

The final crop was done in the camera, not the darkroom, and a zoom made it easier to do.

[Gary Naka]

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.

 

Yes there are few lenses that are NOT in my zoom plan that I still want to get, just because. But I have no priority to get them.

• 28 or 35 (have not thought much about which one)
   
  
• 50 f/1.4
   
  
• 85 f/1.8 (this is still a maybe lens)
   
  
• 135 f/2.8
   
  
• 180 f/2.8
  
• 1000 f/11 mirror (another maybe, due to the very low usage I would give it)
  

[Andrew Garrard]

Four what it's worth, I concur about skipping 50mm. I have one (well, some), mostly because they're small and cheap, though I got the Art for the rare occasions I do want that length, or when I'm unsure of my crop but want more isolation than the 35mm (which has given me more AF issues).

 

Generally I try to make photos of things I don't see every day. A normal lens is, by definition, a bit counterproductive to that. I got a 24-70 late in my photographic collecting too - and it tends to get used at the extremes.

 

Gary: I'm generally unimpressed by Nikon's 85mm choices. The AF-D f/1.8 is very sharp but has ugly bokeh. The AF-S, which I've owned, is sharp with smooth bokeh, but has so much LoCA that I got rapidly sick of green backgrounds. My understanding is that the f/1.4 AF-S is similar, and I'm not spending £1500 on one when the Sigma is under £1000. I don't like the wide open rendering on the 85mm AF-D, and I have a slight moral objection to buying an f/1.4 lens that I didn't dare use above f/2.8. I quite liked the Samyang, especially for the money, but I got sick of trying to manual focus very fast glass on high MP bodies. If I was after a smaller 85mm, I'd be looking closely at the Tamron - but it's 3/4 of the price of the Sigma.

[rodeo_joe1]

I have 2 copies of 35 f/2 Nikkor - Ai and Ai-S. Neither of them are up to critical use on digital, although they were fine at mid apertures on film. At f/2 they're barely acceptable on film either. This is hardly surprising, since the optical formula hasn't changed since the first Nikkor-O version in the 1960s.

 

The only thing I'll say in their favour is that I don't notice any 'donut' blurring on either of mine, nor on the pre-Ai single-coated Nikkor-O I owned years back.

 

Since the f/2 aperture is near-useless, a better option might be an f/2.8 Ai-S Nikkor, but if you need that wider aperture, I suggest looking elsewhere than Nikon, since the AF 35mm f/2 version isn't optically stunning either.

[ben_hutcherson]

Gary: I'm generally unimpressed by Nikon's 85mm choices. The AF-D f/1.8 is very sharp but has ugly bokeh. The AF-S, which I've owned, is sharp with smooth bokeh, but has so much LoCA that I got rapidly sick of green backgrounds. My understanding is that the f/1.4 AF-S is similar, and I'm not spending £1500 on one when the Sigma is under £1000. I don't like the wide open rendering on the 85mm AF-D, and I have a slight moral objection to buying an f/1.4 lens that I didn't dare use above f/2.8. I quite liked the Samyang, especially for the money, but I got sick of trying to manual focus very fast glass on high MP bodies. If I was after a smaller 85mm, I'd be looking closely at the Tamron - but it's 3/4 of the price of the Sigma.

 

It's not a very well-loved lens, but I've actually been quite happy with the performance of my AI-S 85mm f/2. It's not a pixel-peeping sharp lens on my D800, but it's more than acceptable on film or a lower resolution digital body. It's also barely larger than a 50mm f/1.4-the "nose" is maybe 3/4" longer than the AI-S 50mm f/1.4.

[steve_g2]

Sold my 35mm a month after buying it, rather choose between my 24 and 50 primes.

[orsetto]

I have 2 copies of 35 f/2 Nikkor - Ai and Ai-S. Neither of them are up to critical use on digital, although they were fine at mid apertures on film. At f/2 they're barely acceptable on film either. This is hardly surprising, since the optical formula hasn't changed since the first Nikkor-O version in the 1960s.

 

The manual focus 35mm f/2.0 Nikkor, in all its permutations from O to OC to AI to AIS, was reputed to be a peculiarly difficult lens for Nikon to mfr: more so even than the (technically) much more complicated 35mm f/1.4. Which may account for the wide range of user experiences reported over the decades: it seems likely to have had a higher than average incidence of sample variation.

 

As I've mentioned in other threads where this lens has come up, my experience with it has been mostly positive over the course of almost 30 years and four different samples. It was (and remains) my favorite Nikkor: I have an original "O" version practically glued to my F2AS, another on my FM, and a late-version AIS on my D700. Recently I added a fourth copy, a "K" version modified to AI, which I couldn't resist when it went for a song on a mis-listed eBay auction. All I need now is the elusive "OC" and I'll own one of each possible version.

 

My luck has held with every copy I own: they all render similarly, all have been remarkably sharp considering the age of the optical design. They feel natural to use, with a predictable and useful performance curve. I had some concern whether the max aperture would be decent on digital, but its just as good on the D700 as it was on film: not spectacular, but WAY better than the horrendous Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 S and SC lenses (I've been thru more of those than I can count: stick to the final compact AI or AIS versions if you want a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor you can actually use wide open). I've occasionally borrowed a D610, Df and D810, none of which caused performance of the 35/2 to degrade significantly at f/2.0 Of course, it won't be as stunning as an Otus or Sigma Art at f2.0 on a high-res body: it wasn't meant to be. Its a fraction of their size, weight, and cost: designed to be a fast-handling photojournalism lens, not a tripod-mounted optical-bench-defying behemoth.

 

I can't imagine a landscape I'd want to shoot with a wide angle lens at f/2.0 on a high resolution body anyway, but if thats your thing, skip all the Nikkors and jump directly to the Sigma Art. When used for the film it was designed for, the 35mm f/2.0 manual focus is a marvelous little lens: the best overall choice among film-era 35mm Nikkors. The only glaring fault it has is susceptibility to ghosts: all versions will ghost like crazy if used in high contrast scenarios like night time streetscapes with bright street lights. The manual focus 35mm f/1.4 or AF-D 35mm f/2.0 Nikkors handle that situation much better, but come with their own set of tradeoffs. The 1.4 has a weirdly narrow performance envelope: vignetting / contrast at 1.4 is laughable, sharpness is amazing at 4.0-5.6 but nosedives at wider or smaller settings. The AF-D is sharp in the area of the center-weighted circle in Nikon viewfinders, but dismal anywhere outside it at all apertures. Apparently theres never been, and may never be, a fast 35mm Nikkor with no significant flaw. Even the latest, most expensive AFS versions have their issues, and don't offer full functionality on classic Nikon film bodies like F, F2, FM.

 

The only thing I'll say in their favour is that I don't notice any 'donut' blurring on either of mine, nor on the pre-Ai single-coated Nikkor-O I owned years back.

 

The mid-field "Donut Of Unsharpness" is a tell-tale drawback of many early retro-focus wide lenses. The issue seems highly influenced by assembly tolerances: all lenses of a given design will suffer from it to some degree, but there can be severe sample variation. All my own 35/2 Nikkors seem even across the field: under brutal examination, I'm sure they would exhibit minor "donut" artifacts, but I haven't been bothered. Other owners (like chulkim above) report noticeable, disappointing "donut" effects. Version or year doesn't seem to matter, perhaps more a case of random luck with a particular lens vs particular subject matter

 

Since the f/2 aperture is near-useless, a better option might be an f/2.8 Ai-S Nikkor, but if you need that wider aperture, I suggest looking elsewhere than Nikon, since the AF 35mm f/2 version isn't optically stunning either.

 

I don't doubt your copies disappoint you at f/2, but I have had better luck. All my examples, mfd between 1969 and 1983, are surprisingly decent at f/2: just a hair less sharp overall than my various copies of the redoubtable 50mm f/2.0. I find the 35/2 to be the least "glowy" of my Nikkors wide open, and easiest to nail focus with aside from the 105mm.

 

Most versions of the slow 35mm f/2.8 Nikkor are mediocre at best and terrible at worst: I tried them all as alternatives in situations where the 35/2 ghosting becomes problematic. The old silver-nose S is a coke bottle. The pre-AI "K" and early AI version with serial # starting with 7 or 8 are decent, but hard to find without fungus, cost nearly as much as a 35/2, and difficult to nail focus with. The final AI/AIS were cost-cut designs with fewer elements and blah performance, same as their f/2.5 Series E successor.

 

If limiting ourselves to manual focus Nikkors, the only wide that can challenge the 35/2 is the 28mm f/2.0- arguably the single best manual-focus wide angle Nikon ever designed. It stomps all over the 35mm f/1.4 and f/2.8, and bests the 35/2 in almost every respect. The problem is its a 28mm, not a 35mm, so if you "see" in 35mm it simply won't do. Also, its much much harder to nail focus with, and if you don't nail focus exactly all the performance advantages of the 28/2 evaporate. I have two copies: a pre-AI NC, and a pristine AIS. Both sit on a shelf collecting dust: I've never sold them because I keep forgetting I even own them. Killer glass if you like 28mm, better overall than the more famous f/2.8 AIS (that lens is legendary for closeup sharpness but falls apart at distance, the f/2.0 is consistent from inches to infinity).

Edited July 30, 2018 by orsetto

[chulster]

The only thing I'll say in their favour is that I don't notice any 'donut' blurring on either of mine

 

All my own 35/2 Nikkors seem even across the field

 

It's looking more and more like my experiences with the 35/2 AI-s were atypical.

Edited July 31, 2018 by chulster

[rodeo_joe1]

"....the only wide that can challenge the 35/2 is the 28mm f/2.0- arguably the single best manual-focus wide angle Nikon ever designed."

 

- I agree with that assessment of the 28mm f/2. I can't agree about the 35mm f/2. It exhibits terrible coma at wide apertures from about 2/3rds field outwards, which doesn't go away until mid apertures.

 

I was happy using it well stopped down on B&W film. I just can't agree that it gives acceptable IQ on anything digital. The 50mm f/2 mentioned is much better. Sample variation? Only if all three different generations of that lens that I own(ed) had exactly the same misalignment. A misalignment that didn't reveal itself as field tilting or astigmatism, or any of the other optical tell-tales of poor assembly or grinding.

[orsetto]

It's looking more and more like my experiences with the 35/2 AI-s were atypical.

 

Not necessarily: while my own experience has been good, opinion of the 35/2 MF Nikkor performance with DSLR in various discussion threads over many years runs only 60/40 in favor. That slight bias in favor of the lens almost certainly incorporates the fact that there really wasn't any other MF option for most shooters: the f/1.4 was/is ridiculously more expensive despite a much more narrow usability envelope, and the assorted f/2.8 are total non-starters.

 

The defects rodeo_joe sees as coma interference from 2/3 out at wide apertures could very well be the same defect you interpret as a donut of unsharpness. I would never argue that a retroficus wide designed in 1964 is fully competitive with modern glass for demanding work on a D850 or A7RII: even my own good copies of the 35/2 will fall flat if directly compared to a Sigma Art or the newest AFS Nikkors. When I report my experience of the 35/2 as better than average, I mean in comparison with similar lenses of the period in the context of a photographer who is not pixel peeping with a high res body (or printing 2 x 3 foot architectural studies) from images shot wide open.

 

Used with film or less demanding sensors, the 35/2 will give reasonable results at 2.0 or 2.8 in many (but not all) situations, satisfaction will be somewhat less when mounted on a 36+ MP body. Much depends on your expectations, subject matter, and typical usage: at f/4.0-f/8.0 there isn't much to nitpick, and f/2.0 at a dim wedding reception, concert or restaurant isn't going to be dramatically behind modern glass unless you're including a backlit test chart next to the faces. Awhile back I experimented with the Zeiss ZF2 35mm f/2, and it really wasn't jarringly better than the old Nikkor in those situations (of course it had that amazing Zeiss 3D pop in more normal light, but I didn't feel that was worth double the size/weight and 4x the price).

 

You also need to factor subjective comfort and compatibility: if a photographer finds a particular lens intuitive to handle, easy to focus, and predictable in results they will tend to think fondly of it and use it often. A lens that feels "alien" or difficult to use, no matter how high its innate optical quality, will produce less satisfactory results. Case in point being the 28mm f/2.0 Nikkor mentioned earlier: despite its universally praised quality, it is nobody's favorite lens and rarely discussed fondly in forums. Mostly because its perversely difficult to focus accurately with digital sensors, and if focus is even slightly off it produces mediocre results compared to its performance on film.

 

The OP seems to have disappeared, as often happens with this type of thread: he was asking for recommendations of a 35mm lens to use on an FM2 with black and white film. Such use is totally in the wheelhouse of the 35mm f/2.0 MF Nikkors. But I'll contradict myself here and suggest RaymondC consider the much-maligned 35mm f/2 AF-D instead. Since he already uses the 50mm and 85mm AF-D with his FM2, adding the 35mm AF-D would maintain the same "feel" for all three lenses, and keep the AF option open for his AF bodies. Also, the ghosting issue with the MF version can be really annoying whenever streetlights appear in a shot: the AF-D does not suffer from this nearly as much. If used carefully, the MF is overall the much better lens, but for quick casual modern shooting the AF-D may be the better choice. Its dramatic sharpness falloff away from center is a drag, but can be worked around more easily than the ghosting of the MF lens. I would not consider the MF 35mm f/1.4 for the FM2 and BW film: huge, heavy, expensive for what it is, and overkill. The hotspot at f/1.4 largely neuters its speed advantage, and at f/2.0 and f/2.8 the 35/2 MF and AFD work just as well.

[RaymondC]

I am still here, have been reading your posts.

 

Cheers for all that.

 

In honesty not too into the heavier optics by Samyang and the likes. This 35mm lens on the FM2 is just my walking around camera when m mind ponders or street photography, half the time when I am just walking around with others (non photographers).

 

The newer optics would be better ya the 35mm F1.8 seems to be the one to get. I just like the manual handling of the FM2 and it's compact size. If I wasn't after a sleek setup I guess these days I might be shooting medium format. With color slide film being so expensive the F100 doesn't get much use now, I could get into color negative. I was speaking to someone who was at my club who does portrait photography as a living and he made a comment that often pro's post process their digital images to look like film and due to C41 film having more dynamic range and more versatile than E6 I could for interest look into C41 film :)

[Wouter Willemse]

would not consider the MF 35mm f/1.4 for the FM2 and BW film: huge, heavy, expensive for what it is, and overkill. The hotspot at f/1.4 largely neuters its speed advantage, and at f/2.0 and f/2.8 the 35/2 MF and AFD work just as well.

 

Owning both Ai-S 35 f/1.4 and a AF-D 35 f/2, I do certainly disagree with this.

Yes, the f/1.4 is larger and relatively expensive. It's not particularly heavy, and in my view it is not expensive for what it is: it is, however, a speciality lens. It's harder to recommend for generic uses, since its optical performance at the widest 2 stops do not lend itself for all kinds of work. When used right, though, it delivers a rendering most lenses cannot deliver. And at smaller apertures, the lens changes character completely to a very sharp lens.

At f/2.8, the f/2D still struggles (at f/2, it's just soft). At f/4 it becomes good, though nothing particularly great. At that point, the 35 f/1.4 is impressively sharp with very little problems left (yes, also on a D810, it holds up). Probably at f/8-f/11 the f/2D is better. At that aperture, nearly every zoomlens will perform near identical too.

 

So in no way I could say the 35 f/2D works just as well; it's simply not a great lens. The 35 f/1.4 is speciality character-lens, and when taken for what it is, it can be spectaculair. There is much more to it than just 1 stop advantage over the f/2 - it's a lens with a completely different rendering. If measured against brick walls and resolution charts, it fails spectacularly too - but if you get this lens, you shouldn't buy it for those characteristics. As said before, it's not a lens for all and those who like the Sigma Art will probably dislike this lens, so I hardly ever recommend it to anyone. Then again, I also do not recommend the 35 f/2D, there are better alternatives.

[chulster]

The 35 f/1.4 is speciality character-lens, and when taken for what it is, it can be spectaculair.

 

I ordered a copy of the AI version of the 35/1.4 a few days ago. The seller had it listed at $350 in near-mint condition but, to my surprise, accepted my offer of $255. I eagerly await receiving the lens and giving it a spin. (Literally—I will be spinning the focus ring. ;))

[Wouter Willemse]

Enjoy it!

[orsetto]

Congrats, chulkim! At that price (half the going rate) its a steal: enjoy!

 

rodeo_joe and I agree more than it appears, we're just citing our experience with these lenses from different perspectives.

 

The original use case presented here is "casual small walkaround lens for street shooting with FM2 and BW film". I've done that with all the 35mm Nikkors discussed in this thread, tho about half the time it was with an F2AS body. For such use the MF 35/2 is king, the AFD 35/2 is journeyman, and the MF 35/1.4 is emperor.

 

BUT: the 35/1.4 only blows the others completely away at F/4.0-f/5.6. If you can force your vision and circumstances to that range, the lens has a rendition like no other, which is what keeps second hand prices so inflated. Wider than f/2.8, its a mixed bag, like the other two: just in different ways. Smaller than f/8.0, and the "specialness" fades. It may not be technically that much heavier than the f/2.0 lens, but the f/1.4 can feel like a pig on smaller bodies like the FM/FE. I had an old thorium-yellowed Nikkor-N 35/1.4 in the '80s: it was great fun with BW but limiting with slide film, so I eventually traded it for a more modern AI. Same performance, but of course better for color. All the qualities rodeo_joe mentions were apparent, but I just never bonded with the f/1.4: I found the way its personality changed from aperture to aperture too disconcerting. Inevitably, I'd drift back to the 35/2, so I sold off my second f/1.4 during the first wave of "re-discoverers" in 2008. The 35/1.4 is a great lens if your primary interest at this focal length is to very consciously "make" photographs, but it can be challenging as a daily driver for more general use. Luckily, Nikon gave us different options at 35mm: horses for courses.

 

The AFD 35/2 is hella soft at wider apertures, which annoys holy hell out of the persnickety. But lets be real: it isn't any worse, and probably a little better, than any of Nikons's S, SC or K 50mm f/1.4 lenses. Yet people made good use of those for 15 years until Nikon finally got their 50/1.4 act together in 1974. For that matter, go spend $1600 on a used 35/1.4 Leica Summilux from the same era, and shoot it at f/1.4: that famous Leica "glow" is not much different from the AFD "softness". We made do with the lenses that were available in the film era: if you're shooting film today, and want a compact lens for a MF body, your choice in 35mm Nikkors is "traditionally soft at f/2.0", "really soft at f/2.0" or "hipster artsy weird/wow soft at f/1.4". I've shot Tri-X and HP5 with all three Nikkors at one point or another, and unless I specifically planned to get cute with the f/1.4's spin-the-bottle aperture variations, all three were often indistinguishable at spontaneous wide open people shots in near darkness.

 

"Art" photography or more "directed" street photography is something else again: if you have a specific goal in mind, the MF lenses will be more conducive to it than the AFD. But they're all a compromise: the trick is finding the compromise that suits you best. These three Nikkors are distinctive enough that one needs to audition them personally to make a decision. All three are fairly hot items on the used market, so you can write off any slight loss on resale as a "rental fee".

Edited August 3, 2018 by orsetto

[chulster]

Enjoy it!

Congrats, chulkim! At that price (half the going rate) its a steal: enjoy!

 

Thanks, gentlemen. I received the lens today. I'll have to wait until the weekend before I can give it a workout in good light, but I can already tell this one will be a lot of fun to experiment with.

[chulster]

Well, this 35/1.4 AI is a keeper. What a characterful lens! Not one for all occasions, but I know it's going to reward faithful use with pleasing, sometimes surprising images.

 

Here's an unposed portrait of my son at f/1.4. The focus is unfortunately on the eyeglasses, not the eyes, but the rendering is a little magical. I kept the post-processing on this image relatively slight, with only some curve and temperature adjustments; no clarity or sharpening beyond Lightroom's defaults:

 

 

And here's a closeup of my breakfast, again at f/1.4. This one I post-processed more heavily, including some clarity enhancement (for local contrast) and 100% sharpening at a pixel radius of 2.0:

 

 

For comparison, here's an example of what a closeup at f/2 looks like. The focus is on the toy mouse's eyes. This one has no clarity or extra sharpening applied:

 

 

I love it!

[orsetto]

Looks like you REALLY lucked out with this example of 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor, chulkim! I'm so glad for you, since you were unhappy with your 35mm f/2.0 lens. Your sample pics at f/1.4 and f/2.0 are very impressive, better than I was ever able to coax from the N and AI versions I once owned. Those were fantastic at f/4.0 to about f/8, average below f/8, OK at f/2.0 but damned near unusable at f/1.4.

 

This thread prompted me to start looking again for a Nikkor-OC 35mm f/2.0. the only version of manual focus 35/2 I've never owned. Right on cue, one suddenly became available last weekend in pristine mint condition, and I didn't resist (despite it being priced at the highest end of current asking range). I was VERY disappointed with it after spending a couple days shooting: despite its perfect condition, it is the worst-performing sample of MF 35/2 Nikkor I've ever used (worse even than the notorious 35/2.5 E). It for sure has that "donut of unsharpness" you observed in your own copy, chulkim, and its terrible at f/2.0 ala rodeo_joe: sharp in the center 1/3rd of the frame, total mush on the sides and corners thru f/4.0 (and even then the corners are woeful).

 

This disappointment really shook me, enough to haul out all my other copies and run a quick/dirty comparison test using newspaper classifieds and posed still life in front of a bright window. My two ancient single-coated Nikkor-O lenses were both stellar as always: even shooting against the light at f/2.0 they didn't flare any worse than the OC or AIS, in fact (much to my surprise) they didn't flare at all. No "donut" issue: they're both evenly sharp at f/2.0 until about 4/5ths out, where the very corners get gracefully dimmer and softer- so f/2.0 is totally usable for normal photography. Most importantly for me, the character of detail, color tone and bokeh has an organic "alive" quality that makes me smile. The AI-K version I acquired a few months ago was nearly as good: a little worse in the corners at f/2.0, but still good enough to use without complaint. Overall rendering is close to the "O" but very slightly duller.

 

My two AIS copies had a nasty shock in store for me. I got them both from KEH twenty-five years ago, when I thought they might have better ghost resistance than the single-coat "O" version. After discovering they don't, I put them on the shelf while I continued to shoot the hell out of my "O" copies. So I hadn't actually shot them much (if at all) on digital. My tests over the last couple days prove that was a mistake: one of the two is very good, the other is a dog nearly as bad as the "OC" I just bought. The good AIS is not quite as nice as my "O" or "AIK" copies: sharpness distribution is the same, but the rendering is more conventional and uninspiring. Details and colors don't pop as they do with my other three (which have a trace of Zeiss affect to them). The bad AIS exemplifies all the faults enumerated by rodeo_joe: crap performance at f/2.0, with loads of coma that doesn't clear up until f/4.0-5.6, and corners that never realy look good at all.

 

Long story longer: the reputation the MF 35/2 Nikkor has for wide production variation definitely appears in the five samples I now own, Two very old copies are surprisingly excellent even at f/2.0 on digital, one is not as good but still better than average, and two are total dogs on par with (or worse than) the 35/2 AFD or 35/2.5 E. Added to the experiences posted by rodeo_joe, chulkim and Wouter Willemse, we have a decent range of samples bearing out the accepted wisdom that one may need to go thru a couple copies of the 35/2 MF to find a "good" one. And newer is not necessarily better.

 

Just for fun, I also dragged out my two seldom-used 28mm f/2.0 lenses (a Nikkor-NC and an AIS) to test alongside my five 35/2. The results were interesting: both 28s had much flatter field out to the corners than any of the 35s, with similar rendering of colors/detail to my preferred "Nikkor-O" 35/2 lenses. I rarely shoot the 28s, because I've often found them impossible to focus accurately mated to a Nikon DSLR (and my "inner eye" sees in steps of 20mm, 35mm, and 85mm/105mm). After seeing how nicely they complement the 35s, I'm gonna start trying to look at the world in 28mm for awhile (if I can figure out how to focus them reliably on the run).

Edited August 10, 2018 by orsetto

[chulster]

Looks like you REALLY lucked out with this example of 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor, chulkim! I'm so glad for you, since you were unhappy with your 35mm f/2.0 lens. Your sample pics at f/1.4 and f/2.0 are very impressive, better than I was ever able to coax from the N and AI versions I once owned. Those were fantastic at f/4.0 to about f/8, average below f/8, OK at f/2.0 but damned near unusable at f/1.4.

 

This thread prompted me to start looking again for a Nikkor-OC 35mm f/2.0. the only version of manual focus 35/2 I've never owned. Right on cue, one suddenly became available last weekend in pristine mint condition, and I didn't resist (despite it being priced at the highest end of current asking range). I was VERY disappointed with it after spending a couple days shooting: despite its perfect condition, it is the worst-performing sample of MF 35/2 Nikkor I've ever used (worse even than the notorious 35/2.5 E). It for sure has that "donut of unsharpness" you observed in your own copy, chulkim, and its terrible at f/2.0 ala rodeo_joe: sharp in the center 1/3rd of the frame, total mush on the sides and corners thru f/4.0 (and even then the corners are woeful).

 

This disappointment really shook me, enough to haul out all my other copies and run a quick/dirty comparison test using newspaper classifieds and posed still life in front of a bright window. My two ancient single-coated Nikkor-O lenses were both stellar as always: even shooting against the light at f/2.0 they didn't flare any worse than the OC or AIS, in fact (much to my surprise) they didn't flare at all. No "donut" issue: they're both evenly sharp at f/2.0 until about 4/5ths out, where the very corners get gracefully dimmer and softer- so f/2.0 is totally usable for normal photography. Most importantly for me, the character of detail, color tone and bokeh has an organic "alive" quality that makes me smile. The AI-K version I acquired a few months ago was nearly as good: a little worse in the corners at f/2.0, but still good enough to use without complaint. Overall rendering is close to the "O" but very slightly duller.

 

My two AIS copies had a nasty shock in store for me. I got them both from KEH twenty-five years ago, when I thought they might have better ghost resistance than the single-coat "O" version. After discovering they don't, I put them on the shelf while I continued to shoot the hell out of my "O" copies. So I hadn't actually shot them much (if at all) on digital. My tests over the last couple days prove that was a mistake: one of the two is very good, the other is a dog nearly as bad as the "OC" I just bought. The good AIS is not quite as nice as my "O" or "AIK" copies: sharpness distribution is the same, but the rendering is more conventional and uninspiring. Details and colors don't pop as they do with my other three (which have a trace of Zeiss affect to them). The bad AIS exemplifies all the faults enumerated by rodeo_joe: crap performance at f/2.0, with loads of coma that doesn't clear up until f/4.0-5.6, and corners that never realy look good at all.

 

Long story longer: the reputation the MF 35/2 Nikkor has for wide production variation definitely appears in the five samples I now own, Two very old copies are surprisingly excellent even at f/2.0 on digital, one is not as good but still better than average, and two are total dogs on par with (or worse than) the 35/2 AFD or 35/2.5 E. Added to the experiences posted by rodeo_joe, chulkim and Wouter Willemse, we have a decent range of samples bearing out the accepted wisdom that one may need to go thru a couple copies of the 35/2 MF to find a "good" one. And newer is not necessarily better.

 

Just for fun, I also dragged out my two seldom-used 28mm f/2.0 lenses (a Nikkor-NC and an AIS) to test alongside my five 35/2. The results were interesting: both 28s had much flatter field out to the corners than any of the 35s, with similar rendering of colors/detail to my preferred "Nikkor-O" 35/2 lenses. I rarely shoot the 28s, because I've often found them impossible to focus accurately mated to a Nikon DSLR (and my "inner eye" sees in steps of 20mm, 35mm, and 85mm/105mm). After seeing how nicely they complement the 35s, I'm gonna start trying to look at the world in 28mm for awhile (if I can figure out how to focus them reliably on the run).

 

These are fascinating results, orsetto. Your detailed and informative post deserves a much fuller reply than what I can muster.

 

With so much sample variation in the 35/2 manual focus lenses, it would be great if it were possible to discover what adjustments (if any) are possible in the positioning of the lens elements, and which of these adjustments can improve the field flatness!

[orsetto]

While I had all the lenses out for testing, I realized how ridiculous it is to keep that many backups for so long (especially the sub-par examples). Took a couple group cellphone snaps as a memento of my overindulgence, but some of these really gotta go.

 

These are my (way too many) Nikkor 35/2 MFs:

And these are my Nikkor 28/2 MFs:

 

Other than also having a dozen assorted 50mm Nikkors that came attached to various cheap second-hand Nikon film bodies, I'm not running a warehouse: just one or two each of 20mm, 24mm, 55mm Micro, 85mm, 105mm. Last month I belatedly discovered the joys of the unsung ancient 135mm Nikkor-Q f/3.5: came across three literally for pennies at yard sales (cannibalized parts of all three to cobble together one remarkably good lens).