Nikkor 35mm f2 D vs Nikkor 35mm f1.8 G

[hjoseph7]

Why is a Nikkor AF 35mm f2 D selling for twice even 3 times as much as the Nikkor AF 35mm f1.8 G on eBay/Used market. The 1.8 G is the newer version of the lens, is faster and supposedly sharper according to some reviews. So what is the big deal about the older 'D' version ?   

[joseph_smith3]

Nikon has a DX and FX version of the 35mm f1.8 G lens.  And the 35mm f2 D lens is a FX lens. So one explanation is that the two lenses being compared may not be both FX .  

I have owned the 35mm f1.8G DX and the  35mm f2 D FX lenses.  The 35mm f1,8 G DX was very sharp but could be used on DX bodies. I paid $200 for it when I bought it new. 

Some of the copies of the Nikon 35mm f2 D lenses had sticky aperture blades (mine did). And this factor alone may reduce its price. And I paid a lot more than $200 for it. 

One  explanation is that the ebay seller has overpriced the  D version or is guaranteeing that it is in 100% working order. But another reason is that the D version is full frame and the 35mm f1.8 G you are looking at is DX and not the FX version.  

 

[hjoseph7]

1 hour ago, joseph_smith3 said:

Nikon has a DX and FX version of the 35mm f1.8 G lens.  And the 35mm f2 D lens is a FX lens. So one explanation is that the two lenses being compared may not be both FX .  

I have owned the 35mm f1.8G DX and the  35mm f2 D FX lenses.  The 35mm f1,8 G DX was very sharp but could be used on DX bodies. I paid $200 for it when I bought it new. 

Some of the copies of the Nikon 35mm f2 D lenses had sticky aperture blades (mine did). And this factor alone may reduce its price. And I paid a lot more than $200 for it. 

One  explanation is that the ebay seller has overpriced the  D version or is guaranteeing that it is in 100% working order. But another reason is that the D version is full frame and the 35mm f1.8 G you are looking at is DX and not the FX version.  

 

Maybe that explains it FX vs DX. I have the DX 35mm f1.8. I think I paid maybe $100 for it in excellent condition. I was looking to purchase the old version the FX version so I could use it with my Nikon F4, but the prices are surprisingly high, $250 and up plus shipping, mostly from Japan. The prices at KEH are not any better.   

[ShunCheung]

We need to be very specific about exactly which 35mm AF-D lens' value under what circumstances. With the exception of some collector's items, essentially all F-mount lenses have pretty low value now, and the older AF-D lenses in particular, as they are essentially all over 20 years old, perhaps more like 30.

[ben_hutcherson]

Just to pile on a bit, there IS both an FX and DX version of the 35mm f/1.8G. The DX version had a retail price of $200-it was inexpensive enough that I actually bought one new(well, store demo that they knocked $10 off of because I asked...). I buy new in box cameras and lenses so infrequently that it was memorable for me 🙂

I was shopping for a full frame 35mm AF lens in the fall of 2018, and from what remember at the time MSRP on the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S FX around $600. The 35mm f/2 was less expensive, but not by a lot. The G version was maybe $400 second hand, and the AF-D around $300(what I call "normal user condition" or something like KEH BGN-basically fully functional stuff that shows obvious signs of use but not abuse). I cross shopped the two pretty seriously, along with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART. I ruled out the latter for cost, size/weight, and reports of focus accuracy on the D800 I was using at the time. The G version was objectively a better lens, but was bigger and heavier. I should mention too at the time that I did not have a 35mm manual focus prime, only a few consumer-level slow zooms that covered that range.

I ended up finding an inexpensive 35mm f/2 AF-D(piece missing from the filter ring, otherwise fine) from the KEH outlet on Ebay. It was SIGNIFICANTLY less than other options, and the optics were perfect. I liked the size and weight, plus at the time I was ostenibly trying, wherever possible, to have lenses that would also work on my manual focus AI cameras and early AF cameras like the F4. The AF-D version is the choice there as it has an aperture ring(yes the G will work on the F4 in P and S modes, but it's pretty limited on other cameras of that age and very limited on MF cameras). Around that time I also found myself with a Df, and found the small and light lens wonderful on that camera.

A little later I did buy the Tamron 35mm f/1.8VC, which appealed to me because so few short prime lenses offer any form of stabilization. Ultimately I didn't keep that one as it was heavy and not that much better-for me-than the AF-D lens.

BTW, I bought the DX version when I had a D500, although still have it despite selling the camera. It's definitely a different class of lens than the FX version of the f/1.8G, which I have handled but not owned. The DX version is very much built like what it's intended to be-a DX version of the classic 50mm f/1.8. There's nothing wrong with that and they are optically excellent, but if you've handled it and/or the 50mm f/1.8G next to something like the 50mm f/1.4G or really any other "pro" mid-range primes(or zooms) you would understand what I mean. There's just a different feel to the construction and things like how the focus ring feel. That's part of the price difference.

I'm not sure that the FX version ever sold in big numbers, so it may not show up that often on the secondary market. I'd expect it to still bring a decent price, and would be shocked if it was not still more expensive than the 35mm f/2 AF-D.

(BTW, if looking for a 35mm prime, don't forget to at least consider the ART in the discussion...).

[mike_halliwell]

Neither DX or FX 35mm 1.8 AFS lenses are very sharp...

https://www.lenstip.com/157.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_35_mm_f_1.8G_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/406.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_35_mm_f_1.8G_ED_Image_resolution.html

But the AF-D is worse..

https://www.lenstip.com/171.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF_35_mm_f_2D_Image_resolution.html

If you want a near-35mm prime, go get the monster Sigma 40mm 1.4, it's huge but very high IQ.

Did I mention it's HUGE?, it's heavy too?

[ShunCheung]

The Sigma F-mount 35mm/f1.4 Art is very good as well, but Art lenses have a lot of metal and are heavy. That is the only non-Nikkor F-mount lens I own.

[Niels - NHSN]

On 11/24/2023 at 4:19 AM, hjoseph7 said:

Maybe that explains it FX vs DX. I have the DX 35mm f1.8. I think I paid maybe $100 for it in excellent condition. I was looking to purchase the old version the FX version so I could use it with my Nikon F4, but the prices are surprisingly high, $250 and up plus shipping, mostly from Japan. The prices at KEH are not any better.   

If only for your F4, a manual focus Nikkor 35/2 Ai or AiS is a lovely alternative without the aperture oil migration issues of the 35/2D.

If for film I see no reason to obsess about resolution. Pleasant (to your own eyes) rendering is much more relevant IMO. The touch and feel of an MF Ai(s) lens is in a completely different league as well. 

 

[hjoseph7]

4 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

The Sigma F-mount 35mm/f1.4 Art is very good as well, but Art lenses have a lot of metal and are heavy. That is the only non-Nikkor F-mount lens I own.

There are also Nikkor 35mm f1.4 lenses selling for less than $150 eBay. This lens is so good that Nikon is still manufacturing it ! I always wanted this lens, but the price of $800+ on B&H kept me away plus it was manual. Currently it is down to about $450 on B&H. Now I'm not sure which one to get, the 35mm f2 D, or the AI-S 35mm f1.4 ??

[mike_halliwell]

The Nikon 35mm 1.4 AF-S plot is 'awful'.

 

Sure, resolution isn't everything but really?? 

Might be OK(ish) for film, but for even a medium res sensor, it's just soft.... but if that's your thing, why not!

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by mike_halliwell

[hjoseph7]

The Sigma is a newer lens and better for sure, but take a look at this review:  https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35f14ais.htm

[mike_halliwell]

I'm glad Ken likes it. 😉

To quote his review....

Typical performance for a spherical f/1.4 wide lens: blurry wide open, improving greatly as stopped down.

My personal view is that you can always add 'character' to a sharp image, but you can never believably sharpen an inherently blurry, soft image. 

Edited November 25, 2023 by mike_halliwell

[robert_bouknight1]

35/2 AF(D) screwdrive.  There is some internet chatter that the fewer elements lead to "purer" colors or something and the lens has a small cult following.  I have one that is fine stopped down a little, but I don't see anything special in the colors or anything else special.  Generally, I would rather have the 35/1.8 AFS DX version that can be used acceptably on FX in a pinch.

I have and enjoy using manual focus 35/2, especially the O-C version just previous to AI.  Newer lenses are sharper, but the old 35/2 renders nicely for people.  The old lens is probably happier on lower MP cameras.

Have a 35/1.4 AFS that I really like.  Its not great wide open but people look very nice and natural through this lens stopped down a little.  I think there is some sample variation, had another copy a while back that did not impress me.  The one I have now was is an inexpensive beater, the one I had was mint.  Go figure.  The previous owner must have liked that 35/1.4 enough to have used it extensively.

Have had the Sigma 35/1.4.  I could not get consistent AF on the D800 I had at the time.  The colors seemed a little "too much" for people somehow, probably fine for things.  Sold no regrets.

I also have a 35/1.4 Tamron.  Very sharp, AF seems accurate and consistent.  Probably a better all around lens than the Nikkor, but I prefer the Nikon 35/1.4 AFS for the people photography I do.  The lens is a bargain, IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by robert_bouknight1

[mike_halliwell]

25 minutes ago, robert_bouknight1 said:

Have had the Sigma 35/1.4.  I could not get consistent AF on the D800 I had at the time. 

Using Nikon Z with Contrast AF has fixed all of the focus problems with most of my non-Nikon AFS lenses, part from the latest Tamron 90mm macro that needs new lens hardware

Edited November 26, 2023 by mike_halliwell

[roland_vink]

On 11/26/2023 at 4:51 AM, ShunCheung said:

The Sigma F-mount 35mm/f1.4 Art is very good as well, but Art lenses have a lot of metal and are heavy.

I remember when this lens first came out, a lot of reviewers praised the Sigma for its sharpness. However, of the sample images that I saw (which I admit is not many), the background bokeh was terrible with double-line blurs - if there were fine branches or grass in the background it rendered like a mass of crawling worms instead of a smooth blur. The AF-S 35/1.4 Nikkor renders backgrounds much more smoothly, so while it is not as sharp it seems to produce more pleasing images. Sharpness is not everything, although it is one of the easiest things to measure and quantify, and gets talked about a lot in reviews. Nikon often emphasizes other more subjective qualities in their lenses, so they don't always measure so well on test charts, but they produce very good images in real world situation. The AF-S 35/1.5 and AF-S 58/1.4 are good examples of this.

[orsetto]

On 11/23/2023 at 10:19 PM, hjoseph7 said:

Maybe that explains it FX vs DX. I have the DX 35mm f1.8. I think I paid maybe $100 for it in excellent condition. I was looking to purchase the old version the FX version so I could use it with my Nikon F4, but the prices are surprisingly high, $250 and up plus shipping, mostly from Japan. The prices at KEH are not any better.   

Prices on vintage "FX" (film-era) lenses were once bargain-level, but that was quite awhile ago. The arrival of FX mirrorless Sony A7 breathed new life (and high demand) into the old glass, and prices have been on a steady incline since. Even lenses with controversial reputations, like the Nikkor 35/2 AF-D, went up significantly with the arrival of Nikon's own FX mirrorless Z series bodies. So it is unrealistic to expect circa-$100 pricing nowadays for anything but common plentiful 50mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 standard lenses.

The initial spate of mirrorless demand for older manual Nikkors came from experimental photographers and those who were waiting for an FX mirrorless format before seeking out their "dream" manual-focus lenses. Blending in to these groups was another group who prized the much smaller size/weight and nicer build quality of manual focus Nikkors. Currently most of the demand for older manual glass comes from videographers, who are snapping up every vintage lens they can lay hands on (often inflating prices way above normal).

Forums like this are ablaze with photographers who prioritize sharpness and aberration correction above all else: they happily tolerate spending $1500 and carrying a three pound lens the size of a coffee can that dwarfs their digital camera body. Others are more willing to consider trade-offs in size-weight-price vs performance. Choosing the "best" F-mount 35mm lens for your Nikon requires you think carefully about how you intend to use it before factoring things like price, size, AF vs manual focus, maximum aperture, etc.

Do you exclusively want the 35mm lens for your Nikon F4 film body, and don't forsee using it on a digital body for at least a few years? Then the f/2.0 AFD might be your best compromise, offering reasonable film performance combined with full F4 feature compatibility (AE + AF).  But its crucial to buy from a legit dealer with a return policy: the AF/AFD has a stubbborn widespread recurring problem with greasy sticky aperture blades.

Do you already have other manual focus Nikkors for your F4, and don't mind manual focus? Then the 35mm f/2 AI or AIs can be a really nice choice. Compact, built like a tank, and better overall rendering than the AFD. OTOH, there can be wide sample variation with this lens: some of us love the MF 35/2, some can't stand them. Older Nikkor-O (single coated) and Nikkor-OC (multicoated) versions are as good (sometimes better than) the later AI or AIS version, but for use on modern film or digital bodies (like your F4) make sure any O or OC you buy has been converted to the AI aperture ring. If unsure, ask the seller to verify.

What types of subject do you typically shoot? Sports? Candid portraits? Posed portraits? Street grab shots? Landscape? Very planned out "artsy" projects? Night scenes? Indoor social or stage events? Narrow these down to your two most frequent uses. If either or both require quick response with little or no time to adjust the lens, go with the AFD for full AE and AF. If you usually have a bit more time to focus, the manual 35/2 AI/AIS will do nicely.

Outdoor night time streetscapes and grab shots can be very disappointing with the manual focus 35/2 Nikkors: they have dreadfully strong ghosting of streetlights, possibly the worst most persistent ghosting issue of any lens ever made by Nikon. If you do a lot of night time street shooting, or indoor events with small pinpoint decorative lights, the AFD is the more suitable choice. Its simpler optical design with smaller front element is far less prone to internal ghosting.

You also mentioned the 35mm f/1.4 manual-focus Nikkor: this is a very interesting lens with unique properties, but more challenging to use effectively than the f/2.0 variants. You need to use it for a few months before you really get a feel for its quirks and how to exploit them. It performs extremely well  at f/4.0 and f/5.6, but at f/2.0 is no better than the f/2.0 Nikkors and it loses contrast/resolution when stopped down to f/8 or smaller.

Depending on your purposes and artistic vision, performance wide open at f/1.4 is either "dismal" or "dreamy-painterly". This visual effect of this aberration varies with subject distance and overall lighting: if you learn to exploit it, it can be amazing, but if you expect/need knife-sharp f/1.4 forget manual focus glass and jump up to the latest AF lenses. Aside from a couple horribly expensive low volume collector lenses, f/1.4 vintage glass cannot meet current digital standards.

Also, beware the earliest metal scallopped barrel 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor-O and -OC versions: these are often unconverted pre-AI (incompatible with F4 and DSLR bodies), and they employ radioactive thorium glass that yellows with age. It can be cleared with sunlight, but its a PITA to deal with. Asking prices for newer AI and AIS versions are typically the same or not much more than for O or OC: go with the newer versions.

You already have the 35mm f/1.8 AFS DX lens, presumably for a Nikon DX DSLR: note the equivalent focal length for your F4 film camera would be 50mm. The Nikkor 50s are much more common and affordable than 35mm focal length. You might consider one of those for your F4, which would maintain the same view between your two cameras (35mm on the F4 would be wide angle vs 50mm). If your plan is to share a 35mm lens between DX digital and F4, things become tricky unless you have a high-end DX body in the three-digit model range or the D7000 series. The 3000 and 5000 series bodies do not have the focus motor required to autofocus the 35mm AFD, while your F4 may have use issues with some of the newer AFS lenses required for AF with some DX bodies.

Edited November 28, 2023 by orsetto

[ben_hutcherson]

On 11/25/2023 at 2:47 PM, hjoseph7 said:

There are also Nikkor 35mm f1.4 lenses selling for less than $150 eBay. This lens is so good that Nikon is still manufacturing it ! I always wanted this lens, but the price of $800+ on B&H kept me away plus it was manual. Currently it is down to about $450 on B&H. Now I'm not sure which one to get, the 35mm f2 D, or the AI-S 35mm f1.4 ??

I haven't looked closely lately, but I would be VERY suspicious of a 35mm f/1.4 AI-s lens for $150. If it's from a Japanese seller, read the description carefully-many of the Japanese sellers are incredibly thorough in their descriptions, both positive and negative. Vintage/collectible Nikons on Ebay that come from Japan are, as a general rule, a reliable source to get accurately described items that are priced fairly-it's unusual to find a bargain, but you'll also likely not overpay.

For $150 on a 35mm f/1.4 AI-s, I'd expect extensive fungus or other major optical faults. I paid $250 a few years ago for mine from my local camera store, and considered it a good deal but not a bargain. These sort of lenses, as a general rule, have held steady if not increased in value in the last few years(as @orsetto sort of talked about). Manual focus Nikkors have become very popular in the mirrorless era, especially the somewhat more exotic ones like the 35mm f/1.4(calling it exotic might be a stretch, but back in the day if you'd looked in two dozen photographer's bags you might or might not have seen one).

I love my 35mm f/1.4, and since getting mine it has never NOT been on a camera. It's mostly a film lens for me, and I've shot a lot of slides with it. With that said, I've used it a decent bit on digital, and in fact this past weekend had it on my D5 a few times. 

Wide open, the lens is very low contrast with a lot of spherical abberation. In the film days where you might have been fighting pushed Tri-X just to get the shot, it was perfectly acceptable and you might not have even noticed it in the sort of situation where you really NEED an f/1.4 lens to get acceptable shutter speeds in low light. Now. well, 12,800 on my D5 can compete with Tri-X at box speed(and if I crank the D5 up to 25,600 or 51,200 it runs circles around pushed Tri-X) and a manual focus f/1.4 lens is just touchy to focus. The optical flaws show terribly on digital. You use the lens wide open if you want to use them for artistic effects. Bokeh is somewhere between not great and ugly on the lens-if you want creamy backgrounds, wide angle lenses aren't where you go as a general rule.

Stopping the 35mm f/1.4 AI-s down to f/2 transforms it. It's sharp and contrasty. @mike_halliwell 's posted chart shows that it's maybe not as clinically sharp as a more modern design, but for for a manual focus fast prime I consider it quite acceptable. I'm not paying that much attention to sharpness when I talk about a transformation, though-I really do mean that the lens has a totally different look at feel. With that said, there's not a lot of point in buying an f/1.4 lens to stop it down to f/2 all the time. It MIGHT be a tiny bit better than the 35mm f/2 AF-D, but might also be worse-I'd put that down to sample variation. If I gave you my 35mm f/1.4 AI-s and 35mm f/2 AF-D and asked you to go out and shoot a dozen photos with each at f/2, I doubt I'd be able to pick out which was which.

I keep the f/1.4 for a few reasons. One of those is that 35mm is my preferred "normal" lens, and if I'm going out with a 3 or 4 lens manual focus kit(like say my F2SB in my FB-5 "Doctor's Bag", which I enjoy doing) it fills that slot so well that I typically carry the 35mm in lieu of a 50mm. It's a great lens for that(my usual additional lenses are the 20mm f/4 and 105mm f/2.5-if I carry a 4th lens it could be an 85mm, 135mm, or 200mm depending on what I plan on doing, or MAYBE a Micro lens, but whatever it is, in keeping with the spirit of the whole kit, it has to be a 52mm filter thread lens, which limits some options at some of those FLs a bit). I also do sometimes like the look of it wide open, but usually do try to avoid. In fact I usually use the lens in the f/4-f/8 range.

I mentioned liking the f/2 AF-D lens because it's small and light. That is NOT true of the 35mm f/1.4 AI-s. It's built to the same standards/quality as the 50mm f/1.4 AI/AI-s, but is a larger and heavier lens. The barrel is actually kind of "chunky." It feels good to me in hand, but the focusing ring bulges out some(it's not more or less flush with the aperture ring like on a 50mm) and it's long. To me it balances nicely on something like an F2, but can make a lighter camera like an FM2 a bit front heavy.

Also, @orsetto, why did you have to mention that the Nikkor-O 35mm f/1.4 has throrium glass? I have actually been sort of shopping for a Canon FD 35mm f/2 concave the past couple of months, and among other things want it as another of my "radioactive consumer products" for when I teach about radioactivity. I hadn't realized Nikon made a Thorium lens. The FD mount version still interests me, given my FD mount roots, but I might have to shift my focus to a Nikkor-O! 

 

[orsetto]

7 hours ago, ben_hutcherson said:

Also, @orsetto, why did you have to mention that the Nikkor-O 35mm f/1.4 has throrium glass? [...] I hadn't realized Nikon made a Thorium lens. The FD mount version still interests me, given my FD mount roots, but I might have to shift my focus to a Nikkor-O! 

Apologies for triggering the flare up of GAS! Misery loves company, my friend: gotta keep you involved in the chase along with the rest of us! 😉

In my post above I mis-named the early thorium pre-AI 35mm f/1.4: like its immediate predecessor (24mm f/2.8) in Nikon's groundbreaking floating element series, the filter ring reads "Auto-Nikkor-N" (single coated) or "Auo-Nikkor-N-C" (multicoated). Having started my post with a description of the 35mm Nikkor-O and -OC, it slipped my mind that the f/1.4 was -N/-NC. D'oh!

The first version 35/1.4 N/NC is an even more imposing hunk of optics than the later, more common AI/AI-s.  Instead of the somewhat clumsily retrofitted thinner AI-s focus ring with rubber grip, the N/NC has the thickest deepest "scalloped" solid-metal focus barrel of any pre-AI lens I've owned, even larger than the already-impressive scalloped barrel of the pre-AI 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor-P/PC. The thorium-element 35/1.4 is a big, fat, heavy lens on par with the 55mm f/1.2 pre-AI. I found the handling and weight balance rather ridiculous on my petite Nikon FM: between that and the stubborn yellowing I decided to return it pretty quickly and stick to my trusty 35/2 Nikkor-O.

Six or so years ago, during a similar 35mm Nikkor discussion here on P-Net, "chulkin" convinced me to try the newer 35/1.4 AI-s. He explained in great detail how the performance curve and bokeh varies with subject distance, aperture and lighting environment. This variation seems random at first, but with experience becomes almost predictable. The pattern is much easier to learn (and exploit) with a digital camera than film: once I got the hang of it I was iamazed at some of the unique images it helped me create. Not an easy lens for a beginner, and certainly the utter wrong lens for someone like mike_halliwell who needs an optically "perfect" lens for hi-res textile photography. But 50 years on, it remains one of Nikon's most interesting designs and I return to it often. The 35/2 Nikkor-O stays glued to my F2AS, but the 35/1.4 AI-s regularly jumps between my several digital bodies.

Some last points about the 35/1.4 AI-s version: while this is the newest most compact iteration with the most modern coatings, it entails some compromises and "gotchas" to be aware of. The focus ring is of thin metal that is easily deformed by impact: this may not be externally visible but you'll feel it for sure (bargain-price examples sometimes have this hidden damage). Achieving precise focus with the AI-s is hampered by the extremely short turning range and tendency for lube to evaporate away: a headache with DSLR but tolerable with mirrorless EV (same applies to the AI-s 35/2: AI or earlier are easier to nail focus).

Every sample of 35/1.4 AI-s thats passed thru my hands (five so far) has suffered badly from "schneideritis" (white speckles throughout the inner barrel where black paint has flaked away from element edges). This looks ghastly but doesn't seem to have any effect on PQ  All the second-hand 35/1.4 AI-s examples I've owned or examined had a faint greasy film on one of the interior rear elements: presumably this is where all the lube that leaves the focus helical threads migrates. This may exacerbate the performance issues at f/1.4: it doesn't seem to degrade performance at f/2 or smaller settings but if you need the best possible f/1.4 from this design (which isn't stellar to begin with) you'll want one from the very last, newest production run of a few years ago. These also have the updated SIC Super Integrated Coating found on premium AF-D lenses.

BTW, during the 'limbo' period between the classic scalloped-barrel pre-AI Nikkors and the native AI/AIs era, there was an interim "K" series pre-AI 35/1.4. This had the same front-facing name ring (inside the filter threads) and uniformly thick focus ring of the first pre-AI version, but with rubber grip surface instead of sculpted scallops. Not sure if that version still had thorium glass: roland vink would know, and may have the specs on his invaluable website. Later native AI/AI-s version was recomputed to omit thorium.

Edited November 29, 2023 by orsetto

[ben_hutcherson]

2 hours ago, orsetto said:

10 hours ago, ben_hutcherson said:

 

Apologies for triggering the flare up of GAS! Misery loves company, my friend: gotta keep you involved in the chase along with the rest of us! 😉

In my post above I mis-named the early thorium pre-AI 35mm f/1.4: like its immediate predecessor (24mm f/2.8) in Nikon's groundbreaking floating element series, the filter ring reads "Auto-Nikkor-N" (single coated) or "Auo-Nikkor-N-C" (multicoated). Having started my post with a description of the 35mm Nikkor-O and -OC, it slipped my mind that the f/1.4 was -N/-NC. D'oh!

The first version 35/1.4 N/NC is an even more imposing hunk of optics than the later, more common AI/AI-s.  Instead of the somewhat clumsily retrofitted thinner AI-s focus ring with rubber grip, the N/NC has the thickest deepest "scalloped" solid-metal focus barrel of any pre-AI lens I've owned, even larger than the already-impressive scalloped barrel of the pre-AI 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor-P/PC. The thorium-element 35/1.4 is a big, fat, heavy lens on par with the 55mm f/1.2 pre-AI. I found the handling and weight balance rather ridiculous on my petite Nikon FM: between that and the stubborn yellowing I decided to return it pretty quickly and stick to my trusty 35/2 Nikkor-O.

Thanks! I did a bit of hunting and found a few possible candidates, so we'll see.

BTW, to @hjoseph7 in looking this morning, I did not run across a single Nikon 35mm f/1.4 priced at $150. Most were $250-400...

The closest I saw was a Nikkor-N for $160 that the seller really didn't pull any punches about that they basically thought they'd been scammed on it when they bought it and were just trying to recoup some money. It is a non-AI lens, so you're out of luck on digital unless you have a Df(you can use it on your F4, but will need to flip up the AI tab and use stop down metering). It was described as stinking of WD-40, as if the focus helicoil had been coated in it, plus has fungus and is badly yellowed. Since I just learned of the existence of this lens last night 🙂 , I haven't researched it extensively but people reverse yellowing on the Canon 35mm concave by leaving it in a windowsill for a few weeks, sometimes with foil wrapped around the back to increase reflection through the glass. Some also leave the yellowing as, depending on the degree, it is about the color of a Y2 filter so makes for great B&W images. BTW, if you go looking for that one, it's no longer there 🙂 (I shot a lowball best offer on it when started typing this post, the seller countered with something I thought reasonable, and I decided to buy it-issues aside it does have the hood and a nice case).

I'm eying a few more nice 35mm Nikkor-N and NC lenses from Japan, but this one caught my interest and if nothing else can live in my office so that i can hold it up to a geiger counter in class a few times a year.

The least expensive AI-s I saw was $225 in Japan, and it seems optically fine but has some bad cosmetic issues and I'd be afraid of the barrel damage that @orsettomentions. Most of the nicer ones are more like $275-350.

BTW, @orsetto I really should put you on my ignore list 🙂 . It's nothing personal-I truly do love reading your post and the volumes of thorough information you provide and really love conversing with yiou, but all too often you've tempted me to buy something after reading or interacting with you 🙂 . I read about the thorium 35m f/1.4 shortly before going to bed last night, and not even 12 hours later I've bought one 🙂 (I hope you know I  mean that all in jest). I know I haven't been around Pnet as much lately, and thanks to current PM limitations I can't carry on side conversations. Feel free to email me at bhutche0 AT gmail.com if you'd like to chat, as we use to often.

[James Bryant]

The problem with G lenses is they don't have an aperture ring and are useless on the old mechanical film cameras. My most used camera is the Nikon FM2n and it need both an aperture ring and a stop down lever. 

 

[robert_bouknight1]

Ha, now I will have to get my 35/1.4 O with integral yellow filter out and compare it to the 35/1.4 G AFS for B&W.  I never got around to sunlighting that lens.  It's well used, I bought it for the factory AI ring on back, but I think the glass is fairly scratch/fungus/fog free.

Edited November 29, 2023 by robert_bouknight1

[mike_halliwell]

3 hours ago, robert_bouknight1 said:

I never got around to sunlighting that lens.

I'd always worry that the UV component, the active clearing ingredient, is going to clear the glass, but yellow the lens element adhesives!

 

[roland_vink]

8 hours ago, orsetto said:

Every sample of 35/1.4 AI-s thats passed thru my hands (five so far) has suffered badly from "schneideritis" (white speckles throughout the inner barrel where black paint has flaked away from element edges). This looks ghastly but doesn't seem to have any effect on PQ  All the second-hand 35/1.4 AI-s examples I've owned or examined had a faint greasy film on one of the interior rear elements: presumably this is where all the lube that leaves the focus helical threads migrates. This may exacerbate the performance issues at f/1.4: it doesn't seem to degrade performance at f/2 or smaller settings but if you need the best possible f/1.4 from this design (which isn't stellar to begin with) you'll want one from the very last, newest production run of a few years ago. These also have the updated SIC Super Integrated Coating found on premium AF-D lenses.

BTW, during the 'limbo' period between the classic scalloped-barrel pre-AI Nikkors and the native AI/AIs era, there was an interim "K" series pre-AI 35/1.4. This had the same front-facing name ring (inside the filter threads) and uniformly thick focus ring of the first pre-AI version, but with rubber grip surface instead of sculpted scallops. Not sure if that version still had thorium glass: roland vink would know, and may have the specs on his invaluable website. Later native AI/AI-s version was recomputed to omit thorium.

My AI-S 35/1.4 shows no sight of the white speckles internally. The focus action is a little dry and on the firm side even though the lens is relatively new, it does not have the buttery smoothness of most other AI and AI-S lenses.

Only the Nikkor-N and Nikkor-N.C versions have the thorium glass.: "changes were also made to the optical system at the time when the lens barrel design was changed to the NEW-Nikkor. Though the basic lens construction remained unchanged, the glass material and the lens curvature were changed by Teruyoshi TSUNASHIMA, to improve the performance at open aperture" (https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0027/)

Regarding the Nikkor-N version of this lens, it was the first Nikkor to be multicoated on all lens surfaces, even though it does not have the ".C" designation. Nikon didn't add this to indicate multicoating until a little later. The early Nikkor-N 28/2 lenses are the same.

 

[ben_hutcherson]

41 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

I'd always worry that the UV component, the active clearing ingredient, is going to clear the glass, but yellow the lens element adhesives!

 

Do we know what Nikon was using for lens cement at the time these would have been made? Were they still using balsam or had they moved to something else?

[mike_halliwell]

15 minutes ago, ben_hutcherson said:

Do we know what Nikon was using for lens cement at the time these would have been made? Were they still using balsam or had they moved to something else?

That's what worries me!

😱