I have similar glass: 35mm/f1.4. Half of one of the glasses inside are half yellow, rest is half green. Steel provides excellent images. Perhaps f1.4 is not that useful, but closed 1-3 steps is brilliant. Beautiful piece of glass, totally useful on modern bodies. It even don't even don't need focusing - one can guess distance and images are sharp and beautiful.
Your lens probably has some thorium glass in it if it was one of the earlier lenses, maybe pre-AI. If you shine some UV light through it with a lamp, you can remove that yellowish tinge. Check out TH-cam for clearing thorium glass. I agree though it’s a great lens. I love my copy and it is super sharp by F2.Regards Gerry
The old Nikkor S 2.8 is pastels, bc of internal reflections. This one has new coating, bit still quite low contrast wide open, good for vids and those liking unsaturated colors.
Thanks for your review. To me, it looks (and sounds from what you say) like the lens could do with a good clean and service! Whether you could find someone able to do it and whether it would be worth the cost is another matter. My Pentax-A 50mm 1.4 was clean enough but focus was dry and a bit rattly. I had the focus cleaned and lubricated for £120 and it is now beautifully smooth.
Interesting review as I owned this lens for many years and it was my main lens on my Nikon FE and Nikkormat cameras. I had the AIS version, but I think the coatings were basically the same. I found it very good up close and I like the Bokeh for people, but sometimes the out of focus blur can be a little busy. It also had a problem with flare as well but like you mentioned that can be used creatively especially for video. I compared it with a Leica M6 and a 35 F2 CRon and shot for shot comparisons of the two lenses and, the Nikon kept up with the Cron very well. The biggest difference was the Nikon had more flare than the Summicron. It also is very good reversed for macro photography. Something you might want to include in your reviews as they are very thoroughly done. Thank you for sharing your test results. I replaced mine with the 35 1.4 Ais lens but I still miss this one as it was my best friend for years. Regards Gerry
Thank you, Gerry! That's a good idea about trying lenses reverse-mounted. I'll see if I can get the adapters for that because it really brings out a different image character when they're used that way.
You don’t need a reverse adapter, just get a rubber lens hood and remove your lens and flip it around, rack focus and preset your aperture and take the shot😊
I have that lens on a FE2 body and its sharp enough. The bokeh is nervous wide open. You pretty much nailed the review. I prefer the N Aito 35 1.4 pre-AI on my F2 by leaps.
The Nikkor AF-D 35mm f/2 is optical better, with a simpler construction (6 lens elements/5 lens groups) then the Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI or AIS version (8 lens elements / 6 lens groups). Even better then the Nikon lenses are the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 ZF or ZF.2 with 9 lens elements in 7 lens groups. It performs very good/excellent with apertures from f/2 (wide open) upto f/11. F/16 little less due to diffraction. The Zeiss version is almost twice as heavy then the Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI, AIS or AF-D version, so build as a tank but smooth in usage. Zeiss second hand price is also high due to knowledge that is a great lens.
Did you test it yourself or did you read about it in Rockwell? There are different opinions on the internet. Some say the manual version is sharper, so I'm confused. I also wanted to ask, is it convenient to focus manually? Is it possible to use zone focusing?
@@basedrequin I don’t like/trust the opinions of Rockwell, my evaluation is based on data I got from French books with measured data of lenses with a Nikon D3 and Nikon D850. A lot of data is condensed to one number, for both Nikon’s 4 out 5 and the Zeiss 5 out of 5. But even with the both Nikon’s having the same mark, there are noticeable image quality difference mainly at f/2, f/2.8 and f/4. From f/5.6 the image quality is comparable. The AF-D version has less glass elements/groeps 6/5 versus the AI/AIS version 8/6, which could mean that the AF-D is a little better in the micro-contrast department.
The 35/2 is my favorite lens to use on a film camera bar none in my opinion. But I'm biased. Most of its flaws are not noticeable on film except for the bokeh but I don't typically shoot it wide open; it's very sharp in the center though quite soft going away from it until you stop it down. It's the lens that made me decide that 35mm is my preferred focal length; I've bought and sold a ton of 35mm lenses since and still prefer this one. I also have the 35/1.4 Ai-S but it's got a terrible glow wide open which admittedly goes away when stopped down, but if you're going to stop down anyway I see no point in the unnecessary added size and weight. The 2.8 was worse in every way at all apertures and wasn't much smaller so I got rid of it when I had the chance. The concave Canon FD 35/2 was slightly better optically, but was somehow as big and heavy as the Nikkor 35/1.4 so I sold that too, for a nice profit.
Most interesting - my 2nd lens for my FE / FM combo back in the day. Sold when I moved to Canon. Today I’ve got two copies an Ai and an early AF as I’m back with an FE (amongst many other cameras). Just got the Ai copy serviced 😎👍
This will work well on the F3, in fact I used this lens on my F3 multiple times. I'm not familiar enough with the D700, surprisingly, to know for sure because I can't recall if it has a meter coupling lever. If it does, this should work well on it, too.
Wow, I'm stunned. I've expected better results. I wonder how Olympus Zuiko OM 35mm f2 would fair, cours I'm considering buying it. Another option would be 35mm f2.8 late variant, but that version is quite hard to find...
Yeah, when I first used it I was expecting better and then it just never delivered (until I used it in Finland, where I finally figured out the lens' limitations and how to work with it.) A lot of the older lenses like these that were pioneers of their spec type made some compromises that modern lenses don't make due to the progress in engineering and design capabilities.
That's a harder question to answer than it might seem, but also pretty much unimportant. On the first point, lens testing back in the day was done with charts to check how small the pairs of black and white lines the lens could resolve were, leading to a rating of line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm) for lens sharpness. The lp/mm rating seems like it should be good, and by and large it's a good reference figure, but the test evaluation methodology for that had flexibility so it was sometimes inaccurate, even in reports from lens reviewers back in the day. A modular transfer chart would be a better graphic for that test because the MTF tests the entire image area not just some specific points in the middle and corner. The second part, that it honestly doesn't really matter, is the more important point. Unless a lens is REALLY soft -- think a plastic lens from a disposable camera soft -- then it's still going to be pretty useful. Sharpness is only important if the goal of the photo is to either pixel peep or print it at way too large a reproduction ratio. Any lens taking a photo that is then enlarged to a proper size for the image viewing distance will exceed what human eyes can resolve. This is especially true on any digital screen because our eyes can resolve at higher resolutions than screens can deliver (up to something like 12K, IIRC.) So the question is what to consider if not sharpness? Image character. Lens reviewers focus on sharpness because it's an easy thing to test for and people are lazy. Period. That's the reason. If you've looked at the Bokeh Analysis sections in these videos, that section will provide way more information about image character for these lenses than a sharpness test because it shows what flaws the lenses will introduce into images and that's informative about how a lens will create an overall image aesthetic or atmosphere. How a photo tells a story is important; that a photo viewed at 15% magnification can, when enlarged to 100%, reveal a grain of sand stuck in a person's eyebrow isn't at all important because it exceeds how 99.99999% of images will ever be viewed.
@@DavidHancock thanks for that information, very thorough, styles makes fights and I guess they make lenses too. I was just curious about what was considered the "best" lenses.
Finally someone gave us the FE-Ni meteorite traveling at 34 km/s to create a 3 km long atmospheric flare at 125 km above the Earth's surface with a 34 degree entry angle equivalent diameter to convert from metrics. Thank you!!!
thank you for killing the reputation of a lens I'm awaiting to receive from Japan. seriously I don't expct nothing more except it's better than the 35 f/2.8 that I already have. One note: it's not that meaningful testing how smooth the ring rotate on a lens half destroyed like the one in this video: unless it's new, after years the grease deteriorates, either it melts or it hardens. So it's easy deciding how smooth you want the ring to rotate - if it's not worn out - by opening the lens., clearing the helicoid, and picking the right grease to apply. Another note, hope you don't mind: I've seen much better images than those in this video, taken with this lens. I don't understand the point - maybe I'm missing you wanted to show a particular aberration - of showing "astrophotography" with horribly overexposed images and horrible objects like that out of focus burnt roulotte in foreground. It's hard to appreciate the quality or flaws if pictures are wrong since their conception.
Sounds like you came here looking for reasons to disagree with a review that pointed out what's basically well-established knowledge about the old Nikkor 35mm lenses -- the f/2 was not as good as the 2.8 and no one ever expected it to be, nor claimed it would be. The engineering of the time required compromises in the design to obtain the faster aperture. It wasn't until a couple of decades later that engineering capabilities became good enough to overcome the challenges of making very fast retrofocus lens designs. And on your point about the focus movement on this lens, I'm pretty sure, since I say this in some way, shape, or form for every vintage lens, that experiences with wear will vary by lens use and care and that the sample in the videos I use will be different from what other people have. And yeah, not every photo in these videos will win an award. These videos have between 80 and 150 photos and so some will not be portfolio-worthy but do show the lens in different settings and that's all they are meant to do. When you get this lens, if you want to do better than my overnight photos, go grab a roll of CineStill 800, which is what those photos were taken on, and go out into the mountains and take a couple astrophotos with this lens set to f/2 and infinity focus to obtain the most star trails you can. See how much fun you have with CineStill halation in astrophotography -- that overexposure you're seeing is actually halation that is a character of how the film performs. So before you criticize a photo, learn enough about photography to recognize the actual cause of an image flaw instead of assuming you know what was wrong. I'll be happy to see work you do that is better in the same setting if it's better. So put yourself and your work up for criticism, too, or don't waste the time of reviewers who are putting in a lot of work to help people make the most of the gear they buy. Go enjoy your lens, use it a lot, and I truly hope that my critical but also very fair review of this lens does not have so much sway in your perceptions as to taint your view of the piece of gear you bought.
@@monsieurgolem3392 I wasn't but I've worked with a bunch of Marines over the years and one of my friends who served in the USMC introduced me to the term.
I have similar glass: 35mm/f1.4. Half of one of the glasses inside are half yellow, rest is half green. Steel provides excellent images. Perhaps f1.4 is not that useful, but closed 1-3 steps is brilliant. Beautiful piece of glass, totally useful on modern bodies. It even don't even don't need focusing - one can guess distance and images are sharp and beautiful.
That lens has a great reputation for sure. I haven't used one, though.
Your lens probably has some thorium glass in it if it was one of the earlier lenses, maybe pre-AI. If you shine some UV light through it with a lamp, you can remove that yellowish tinge. Check out TH-cam for clearing thorium glass. I agree though it’s a great lens. I love my copy and it is super sharp by F2.Regards Gerry
Glad I seen this review now. I'd thought of upgrading my Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 AI for this lens but now, I'm not so sure it's worth it. Thanks David.
:D
The old Nikkor S 2.8 is pastels, bc of internal reflections. This one has new coating, bit still quite low contrast wide open, good for vids and those liking unsaturated colors.
Thanks for your review. To me, it looks (and sounds from what you say) like the lens could do with a good clean and service! Whether you could find someone able to do it and whether it would be worth the cost is another matter. My Pentax-A 50mm 1.4 was clean enough but focus was dry and a bit rattly. I had the focus cleaned and lubricated for £120 and it is now beautifully smooth.
Interesting review as I owned this lens for many years and it was my main lens on my Nikon FE and Nikkormat cameras. I had the AIS version, but I think the coatings were basically the same. I found it very good up close and I like the Bokeh for people, but sometimes the out of focus blur can be a little busy. It also had a problem with flare as well but like you mentioned that can be used creatively especially for video. I compared it with a Leica M6 and a 35 F2 CRon and shot for shot comparisons of the two lenses and, the Nikon kept up with the Cron very well. The biggest difference was the Nikon had more flare than the Summicron. It also is very good reversed for macro photography. Something you might want to include in your reviews as they are very thoroughly done. Thank you for sharing your test results. I replaced mine with the 35 1.4 Ais lens but I still miss this one as it was my best friend for years. Regards Gerry
Thank you, Gerry! That's a good idea about trying lenses reverse-mounted. I'll see if I can get the adapters for that because it really brings out a different image character when they're used that way.
You don’t need a reverse adapter, just get a rubber lens hood and remove your lens and flip it around, rack focus and preset your aperture and take the shot😊
I have that lens on a FE2 body and its sharp enough. The bokeh is nervous wide open. You pretty much nailed the review. I prefer the N Aito 35 1.4 pre-AI on my F2 by leaps.
Thank you! There are definitely times this lens is the right man for the job.
The Nikkor AF-D 35mm f/2 is optical better, with a simpler construction (6 lens elements/5 lens groups) then the Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI or AIS version (8 lens elements / 6 lens groups).
Even better then the Nikon lenses are the Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 ZF or ZF.2 with 9 lens elements in 7 lens groups. It performs very good/excellent with apertures from f/2 (wide open) upto f/11. F/16 little less due to diffraction. The Zeiss version is almost twice as heavy then the Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI, AIS or AF-D version, so build as a tank but smooth in usage. Zeiss second hand price is also high due to knowledge that is a great lens.
Did you test it yourself or did you read about it in Rockwell? There are different opinions on the internet. Some say the manual version is sharper, so I'm confused. I also wanted to ask, is it convenient to focus manually? Is it possible to use zone focusing?
@@basedrequin I don’t like/trust the opinions of Rockwell, my evaluation is based on data I got from French books with measured data of lenses with a Nikon D3 and Nikon D850. A lot of data is condensed to one number, for both Nikon’s 4 out 5 and the Zeiss 5 out of 5. But even with the both Nikon’s having the same mark, there are noticeable image quality difference mainly at f/2, f/2.8 and f/4. From f/5.6 the image quality is comparable. The AF-D version has less glass elements/groeps 6/5 versus the AI/AIS version 8/6, which could mean that the AF-D is a little better in the micro-contrast department.
The 35/2 is my favorite lens to use on a film camera bar none in my opinion. But I'm biased. Most of its flaws are not noticeable on film except for the bokeh but I don't typically shoot it wide open; it's very sharp in the center though quite soft going away from it until you stop it down. It's the lens that made me decide that 35mm is my preferred focal length; I've bought and sold a ton of 35mm lenses since and still prefer this one.
I also have the 35/1.4 Ai-S but it's got a terrible glow wide open which admittedly goes away when stopped down, but if you're going to stop down anyway I see no point in the unnecessary added size and weight.
The 2.8 was worse in every way at all apertures and wasn't much smaller so I got rid of it when I had the chance.
The concave Canon FD 35/2 was slightly better optically, but was somehow as big and heavy as the Nikkor 35/1.4 so I sold that too, for a nice profit.
Thank you!
Most interesting - my 2nd lens for my FE / FM combo back in the day. Sold when I moved to Canon. Today I’ve got two copies an Ai and an early AF as I’m back with an FE (amongst many other cameras). Just got the Ai copy serviced 😎👍
Any suggestions on 35mm in the same price range: F-mount for F3 and D700? Current fixed focal lengths: 105 50 28.
This will work well on the F3, in fact I used this lens on my F3 multiple times. I'm not familiar enough with the D700, surprisingly, to know for sure because I can't recall if it has a meter coupling lever. If it does, this should work well on it, too.
It works very well on the D700 and it syncs with the meter as well. Regards Gerry
Wow, I'm stunned. I've expected better results. I wonder how Olympus Zuiko OM 35mm f2 would fair, cours I'm considering buying it. Another option would be 35mm f2.8 late variant, but that version is quite hard to find...
Yeah, when I first used it I was expecting better and then it just never delivered (until I used it in Finland, where I finally figured out the lens' limitations and how to work with it.) A lot of the older lenses like these that were pioneers of their spec type made some compromises that modern lenses don't make due to the progress in engineering and design capabilities.
How does it compare to the Pentax A 35mm f2.0, I wonder?
Good question and I'm not sure. I'd love to try the Pentax someday.
I have 2 Photomics, what were the sharpest lenses for them?
That's a harder question to answer than it might seem, but also pretty much unimportant. On the first point, lens testing back in the day was done with charts to check how small the pairs of black and white lines the lens could resolve were, leading to a rating of line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm) for lens sharpness. The lp/mm rating seems like it should be good, and by and large it's a good reference figure, but the test evaluation methodology for that had flexibility so it was sometimes inaccurate, even in reports from lens reviewers back in the day. A modular transfer chart would be a better graphic for that test because the MTF tests the entire image area not just some specific points in the middle and corner.
The second part, that it honestly doesn't really matter, is the more important point. Unless a lens is REALLY soft -- think a plastic lens from a disposable camera soft -- then it's still going to be pretty useful. Sharpness is only important if the goal of the photo is to either pixel peep or print it at way too large a reproduction ratio. Any lens taking a photo that is then enlarged to a proper size for the image viewing distance will exceed what human eyes can resolve. This is especially true on any digital screen because our eyes can resolve at higher resolutions than screens can deliver (up to something like 12K, IIRC.)
So the question is what to consider if not sharpness? Image character. Lens reviewers focus on sharpness because it's an easy thing to test for and people are lazy. Period. That's the reason. If you've looked at the Bokeh Analysis sections in these videos, that section will provide way more information about image character for these lenses than a sharpness test because it shows what flaws the lenses will introduce into images and that's informative about how a lens will create an overall image aesthetic or atmosphere. How a photo tells a story is important; that a photo viewed at 15% magnification can, when enlarged to 100%, reveal a grain of sand stuck in a person's eyebrow isn't at all important because it exceeds how 99.99999% of images will ever be viewed.
@@DavidHancock thanks for that information, very thorough, styles makes fights and I guess they make lenses too. I was just curious about what was considered the "best" lenses.
Finally someone gave us the FE-Ni meteorite traveling at 34 km/s to create a 3 km long atmospheric flare at 125 km above the Earth's surface with a 34 degree entry angle equivalent diameter to convert from metrics. Thank you!!!
:D
thank you for killing the reputation of a lens I'm awaiting to receive from Japan.
seriously I don't expct nothing more except it's better than the 35 f/2.8 that I already have.
One note: it's not that meaningful testing how smooth the ring rotate on a lens half destroyed like the one in this video: unless it's new, after years the grease deteriorates, either it melts or it hardens. So it's easy deciding how smooth you want the ring to rotate - if it's not worn out - by opening the lens., clearing the helicoid, and picking the right grease to apply.
Another note, hope you don't mind: I've seen much better images than those in this video, taken with this lens. I don't understand the point - maybe I'm missing you wanted to show a particular aberration - of showing "astrophotography" with horribly overexposed images and horrible objects like that out of focus burnt roulotte in foreground.
It's hard to appreciate the quality or flaws if pictures are wrong since their conception.
Sounds like you came here looking for reasons to disagree with a review that pointed out what's basically well-established knowledge about the old Nikkor 35mm lenses -- the f/2 was not as good as the 2.8 and no one ever expected it to be, nor claimed it would be. The engineering of the time required compromises in the design to obtain the faster aperture. It wasn't until a couple of decades later that engineering capabilities became good enough to overcome the challenges of making very fast retrofocus lens designs.
And on your point about the focus movement on this lens, I'm pretty sure, since I say this in some way, shape, or form for every vintage lens, that experiences with wear will vary by lens use and care and that the sample in the videos I use will be different from what other people have.
And yeah, not every photo in these videos will win an award. These videos have between 80 and 150 photos and so some will not be portfolio-worthy but do show the lens in different settings and that's all they are meant to do. When you get this lens, if you want to do better than my overnight photos, go grab a roll of CineStill 800, which is what those photos were taken on, and go out into the mountains and take a couple astrophotos with this lens set to f/2 and infinity focus to obtain the most star trails you can. See how much fun you have with CineStill halation in astrophotography -- that overexposure you're seeing is actually halation that is a character of how the film performs. So before you criticize a photo, learn enough about photography to recognize the actual cause of an image flaw instead of assuming you know what was wrong. I'll be happy to see work you do that is better in the same setting if it's better. So put yourself and your work up for criticism, too, or don't waste the time of reviewers who are putting in a lot of work to help people make the most of the gear they buy.
Go enjoy your lens, use it a lot, and I truly hope that my critical but also very fair review of this lens does not have so much sway in your perceptions as to taint your view of the piece of gear you bought.
BLUF....were you a Marine?
@@monsieurgolem3392 I wasn't but I've worked with a bunch of Marines over the years and one of my friends who served in the USMC introduced me to the term.
@@DavidHancock got you.