NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Tristin on September 26, 2019, 23:23:12
-
Low distortion
Flat field
Good corners stopped down
Good focus mechanics. No fly by wire.
No or minimized fanned rays on light stars.
Good flare control
AF is irrelevant.
More concerned with landscape/street performance than bokeh.
Will be used on a Z6, adapter use is fine. Recommendations?
-
For landscape/infinity focus or medium/close range?
For example, the Sigma Art 35/1.4 is sharper than the Nikkor AFS 35/1.4 so might be better where you need corner to corner sharpness. But it has harsh background bokeh (in the shots I have seen). The Nikkor is not as sharp (but probably fine stopped down) but it has much smoother bokeh. Bokeh is mostly relevant if you shoot at medium/close range, not so much at infinity. No direct experience with either, but I know they have different characteristics so one may suit you better depending on what you are shooting.
It would also help to know your budget, there are some option which meet your criteria that are very expensive.
-
Zeiss 35/2.
Excellent flare control. As for light stars, I have to check but cannot remember any.
Distortion is ok. Not sure about flatness of field. Excellent focusing (manual only).
This lens has become one of my favorites. I still have to re-sell the sigma, which by the way does not render night scenes as efficiently (more flare)
-
$1k USD max, used is fine.
-
Zeiss 35/2.
Excellent flare control. As for light stars, I have to check but cannot remember any.
Distortion is ok. Not sure about flatness of field. Excellent focusing (manual only).
This lens has become one of my favorites. I still have to re-sell the sigma, which by the way does not render night scenes as efficiently (more flare)
I can second this suggestion. The current Milvus 35/2 is said to be the same optics as the older ZF and ZF.2 35/2. I've owned my copy (ZF) since 2008. The distortion is sometimes noticeable when photographing straight-line objects, but is of the even, barrel type and comports with all other retrofocus 35mm lenses I've seen over the years, including the Nikon AF-S 35/1.4. I owned this and the Nikon AF-S 35/1.4 concurrently for about a year or two.
Side note: There is also the old Nikon K/Ai 35/2.8 (6-element edition) which is inexpensive used, low distortion, and has a nice focusing scale for zone focusing, but...it has it's quirks and wouldn't meet your corner performance goals at infinity. It is, strangely, very flat field in the 1m to 2m range.
-
I assume Distagon meant? Anyone have experience with the Biogons for M? The 35/2.8 is very small and has nearly half the flange distance of the F mounts.
-
Yes, distagon. Indeed a very long retrofocus design.
-
I can second this suggestion. The current Milvus 35/2 is said to be the same optics as the older ZF and ZF.2 35/2. I've owned my copy (ZF) since 2008. The distortion is sometimes noticeable when photographing straight-line objects, but is of the even, barrel type and comports with all other retrofocus 35mm lenses I've seen over the years, including the Nikon AF-S 35/1.4. I owned this and the Nikon AF-S 35/1.4 concurrently for about a year or two.
Side note: There is also the old Nikon K/Ai 35/2.8 (6-element edition) which is inexpensive used, low distortion, and has a nice focusing scale for zone focusing, but...it has it's quirks and wouldn't meet your corner performance goals at infinity. It is, strangely, very flat field in the 1m to 2m range.
Agree with both. Advantage with the Z6, the Zeiss 35/2 is a lot easier to focus. But a relative large and heavy lens, also pretty expensive.
Advantage Nikon K/Ai 35/2.8 Small, cheaper, lean, good bokeh. Match the Z6 very good. Not expensive and with some luck very cheap.
-
Nikkors 35/2ais, afd35/2, 35/1.4ais havenot been mentioned ;)either 35mm f/1.8g or s.
-
Nikkors 35/2ais, afd35/2, 35/1.4ais havenot been mentioned ;)either 35mm f/1.8g or s.
Because they have significant distortion.? At least the 35/2 and 35/1.4 have distortion.
-
Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH FLE The King of 35mm
Simply ticks all your boxes except maybe price,,,
Not sure what else to write, it's a perfect lens in all aspects - Sharp all the way to the corner even at f/1.4
Zeiss made similar Leica M Distagon lens that is very close I heard, never used it
-
Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH FLE The King of 35mm
Simply ticks all your boxes except maybe price,,,
Not sure what else to write, it's a perfect lens in all aspects - Sharp all the way to the corner even at f/1.4
Zeiss made similar Leica M Distagon lens that is very close I heard, never used it
my thoughts exactly, Thx Erik
-
The Leica Summilux 35mm FLE is truly amazing but very expensive. High field curvature as well as is the Zeiss 35mm distagon 1.4 ZM.
I think the Summarit 35mm f2.5 for about US$1000 is really excellent. Very balanced in good sharpness, low distortion, flat field, high (but not extreme) micro and macrocontrast. Just a very high quality tiny lens that paints in a very attractive way. I've left a few shots from M240 here: https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=8423.msg137799#msg137799 but can say that it works really nicely on the Z7 as well.
I use the Yeenon close focus adaptor which is equivalent to the Shoten one but a little cheaper.
-
The Leica Summilux 35mm FLE is truly amazing but very expensive. High field curvature as well as....
...
Sorry, I have never see field curvature in real use, I have seen this mentioned but not in practical use! not even shooting test images up close, so I will say that this is something not relevant for photography, maybe in a lab situation,,,,
-
Nikkors 35/2ais, afd35/2, 35/1.4ais havenot been mentioned ;)either 35mm f/1.8g or s.
I only mention lenses that I have tried extensively. That does not mean others don’t qualify. The 35/1.4 AIS has been on my wishlist, probably inspired by your shots.
-
Leica R lenses may also qualify, but beware of flare (coatings are not Zeiss level). I had unfortunately no opportunity to try 35mm Leica-R lenses so far.
-
If you don't mind to use manual lenses , the Leica/leitz (M or LTM) range is for you !
The Summaron 35mm f/3.5 is the tiniest lens I've ever used so far on my Z6. (this one might not meet your requirements, though.)
My approach now is to go towards lighter and less bulky lenses. So any leica M mount lenses are perfect, with similar Z6's register distance, and in addition, they are better quality (albeit more expensive). Note that there is a huge choice among different makes : Zeiss, Voigtlander, Russian lenses, Artisan,even Nikon, and more.
I love my Zeiss distagon 35mm f/2 ZF2, but so big and I need the FTZ ring to use it on my Z6... ::)
The Zeiss jena flektogon 35mm F3.5 (M42 or exacta mount) is a decent one, very cheap, very light with minimum distorsion. But you still need a a long converter. it has a faster sibling, but I don't know its features (certaintly even better as it's more expensive).
Good choice !
Francis.
-
Apparently Tamron brought out a new 35/1.4 which was very well recieved.
-
I always have to throw in my dark horse, the Nikon 35/2.8 PC. Manual as all get-out, makes nice images if you focus it right. I use one of the older pre-AI ones on DX, but supposedly the later ones are a little sharper yet. Feel free to disagree, but this is one of my favorite lenses even though I rarely shift it.
-
Adding more experiential knowledge for reference:
The Zeiss ZM Distagon Biogon 35/2 is an outstanding lens, and quite reasonably priced vis a vis the Leica product. I have not owned it, but have seen hundreds and hundreds of shots made by a friend on Leica M9 and M10. The ZM 35/2 has very low distortion, as is common with M-mount 35mm lenses. Also it has surprisingly good sharpness at f/16---most lenses soften a bit at the very small stops, but the ZM 35/2 seems to soften a little less than most. Many of the Zeiss ZF lenses also share this property, in my experience.
The classic Nikon 35/1.4 K/Ai/Ais is much written about. At the risk of repeating what everyone else has said, my experience is that it has a unique, soft "dreamy" aberration look wide open, which gradually goes away as it is stopped down. By f/2.8, it looks 'normal', and the lens is famous for it's extremely subtle, gentle transitions from in- to out-of-focus. I also chose to keep the Zeiss ZF Distagon 35/2 over my copy of the Nikon 35/1.4 AiS back in the 12MP Nikon D3 days.
Added Note: Most all M mount lenses, both Leica brand and the others , have a close focus limit of 70cm. I find wide angle lenses that don't focus close to be undesirable; YMMV, as always
-
I only mention lenses that I have tried extensively. That does not mean others don’t qualify. The 35/1.4 AIS has been on my wishlist, probably inspired by your shots.
I love my 1.4/35 Ai-S but I love it and bought it two times because of its imperfections. While it is a perfect companion to the D500 it is a difficult partner for most of the other DSLRS ... I guess it does not fit the ideas of Tristin. I read him and immediately thought: the Leica 35mm lens look is just what he is looking for...
-
I always have to throw in my dark horse, the Nikon 35/2.8 PC. Manual as all get-out, makes nice images if you focus it right. I use one of the older pre-AI ones on DX, but supposedly the later ones are a little sharper yet. Feel free to disagree, but this is one of my favorite lenses even though I rarely shift it.
I have a late version of this lens. I like its versatility. However, on a comparison with the Zeiss 35/2 zf2 and the sigma 35/1.4, I found out that it was visibly less sharp at f/8. The camera was a D800. Subject was 3D (garden), so focusing errors were not the cause. As expected, colors were less vivid than with the newer lenses, but that’s more a feature than a flaw.
-
Cosina/Voigtländer offers plenty of M-mount 35mm lenses: Nokton 35/1.2 Aspherical II, Ultron 35/2.0 Aspherical and Ultron 35/1.7 have newly designed optical systems with aspherical and ED (in Nikon term) elements.
Also, Nokton 35/1.4 was just renewed to "II" version. The basic design looks the same, but one element was replaced with an ED one. I think the version II is of the same design as the one for Sony E mount. C/V also makes a tiny Color Skopar 35/2.5P which also has an ED element.
Unfortunately, I cannot share any real-world experience with neither of them. Just the info. Both are ultra-compact.
Actually, I'm going to purchase the C/V Color Skopar 21/4.0 for my Fuji X-E3. It would be an equivalent of 32mm in FX. I've already ordered an M to X adapter which should arrive tomorrow. :)
-
The Color Skopar 21/4.0 didn't work on the unforgiving 24MP X-Trans sensor, even in the cropped APS-C frame. I ended up with the Nokton 40/1.4.
-
The Color Skopar 21/4.0 didn't work on the unforgiving 24MP X-Trans sensor, even in the cropped APS-C frame. I ended up with the Nokton 40/1.4.
Even my old 16MP Fuji APS-C cameras are very demanding of adapted lenses; Most of the older Nikon K- and Ai-era lenses look soft on Fuji APS-C. The better of the Nikon and Zeiss ZF lenses (ZF 100/2 Makro, ZF 50/2 Makro, Nikon 180/2.8 ED AiS) are acceptably sharp on my Fuji X. Makes one appreciate how good the native Fujfilm lenses are.
-
The thread opener has disappeared
-
Even my old 16MP Fuji APS-C cameras are very demanding of adapted lenses; Most of the older Nikon K- and Ai-era lenses look soft on Fuji APS-C. The better of the Nikon and Zeiss ZF lenses (ZF 100/2 Makro, ZF 50/2 Makro, Nikon 180/2.8 ED AiS) are acceptably sharp on my Fuji X. Makes one appreciate how good the native Fujfilm lenses are.
Personally, the softness is not a big problem when I use old lenses on a digital camera. I like the veiling flare that my Nikkor-H Auto 50/2.0 adds to the reasonably sharp image when it is used wide open. I even bought a non-coated Nikon ND4 filter to use the lens wide open with the expectation of additional flare and ghost!
The problem of Color Skopar 21/4.0 was the excessive field curvature which would be tolerated by the film, but not by the perfectly flat image sensor. The Nokton 40/1.4 seems to offer reasonably flat filed at least within the APS-C image circle. I will post images later here in NG.
-
The thread opener has disappeared
Tristin should be temporarily busy.
-
I quickly checked the Leica-R 35mm variants over various websites.
- Summicron R 35/2 is not OK, due to strong field curvature (corners to the back)
- Elmarit R 35/2.8 might qualify
but, again, beware of flare.
-
... in fact, none of the Leica-Rs would keep Tristin satisfied. The Elmarit is mediocre at the borders, and the Summicron flares badly (as I suspected). Okay, I remain with my earlier recommendation, a 2nd hand Zeiss 35/2 ZF2. This one never disappointed me.
-
I have been checking in, haven't been responding as plenty of information is being shared for me to look into so i haven't felt the need to comment unnecessarily. I'm not in a rush to get a 35, and with the multitudes of mounts possible, the sea of choices is vast.
I will be testing out the Laowa 12/2.8 + Shift Converter in a few days and have been a bit preoccupied with shift possibilities, which I've never had, so the Nikkor 35/2.8 PC piqued my interest . . . if I decide not to go PC, I am leaning towards the Zeiss 35/2.
Thanks for all the responses btw, I have not deserted! ;)
-
Even my old 16MP Fuji APS-C cameras are very demanding of adapted lenses; Most of the older Nikon K- and Ai-era lenses look soft on Fuji APS-C. The better of the Nikon and Zeiss ZF lenses (ZF 100/2 Makro, ZF 50/2 Makro, Nikon 180/2.8 ED AiS) are acceptably sharp on my Fuji X. Makes one appreciate how good the native Fujfilm lenses are.
I have only confirmed that you are absolutely right, Keith. The Nokton 40/1.4 was nice, if one looks for a focused subject surrounded by the nice bokeh with a bit of pleasing character when the lens is used wide open. However, my sample showed uneven sharpness between f2.0 and 4.0 which was annoying.
I returned it and at the same time sold my X-E3 to purchase X-T3. :o :o :o