Nikon O 35 2,0

[Lumens Pixel]

I wish to share my views about the Nikon O 35 2,0 that infuriates me but that I keep using on a Sony A7II with a dumb adapter.

First thing I do when buying a lens:  a test shot at infinity at various f stops. Quite disappointing. A part from a center zone, nothing sharp before f4,0. Acceptable sharpness at f5,6 with some midzone dips and good quality starting from f6,7.

So why use a heavy fixed focal lens when a plastic zoom would deliver sharp results already by f4,5 (Nikon 28-80 3,3/5,6 amongst others)?

The lens went back to storage for a while. I did test a Nikon AI 35 2,8 (6 elements) that provided greater homogeneity starting from f5,6 but was quite bad at wider apertures.

Out of curiosity I used it at home for a portrait, wide open at f2,0 and the result was stunning. Perfectly sharp and very nice bokeh. I was clueless and tested it more. I understood that in the central area the lens was perfectly sharp and that sharpness extended while closing the diaphragm.

I was not accustomed to this behaviour. The other 35mm I was using were the Canon nFD 35 2,8 and the Minolta MDIII 35 2,8 that are more modern designs, already sharp wide open on a large part of the frame and closing the diaphragm only increases global micro contrast and extends sharpness to the extreme corners. But none of these lenses could be tack sharp in the center at f2,0 and the bokeh was less interesting.

With some additional testing I realised the lens is affected by a "wavy" field curvature and that very good sharpness could be reached starting from f4,5 on various part of the frame provided focusing was adjusted on such part of the frame. I do not know if Sony sensor stack has an impact here. Any test on a Kolari modded camera or, to a lesser extent, on a Nikon Z could provide interesting information.

So this was not (at least my copy) a good landscape lens under f6,7 but it could deliver very pleasing results from wide open if you care for framing and focus adequately on "3D" subjects.

Upon reflection that is a sensible use case for most of my practice and I do enjoy the rendering of this lens.

I still do not know, after reading some opinions on the web, if the computation was changed in late production. If that is the case I might buy someday an AI or AIS copy. I would like to read the advice of someone who had the opportunity to compare the early and late versions.

Some pics :


Forêt de Fausses Reposes by lumens pixel, sur Flickr

Lavande by lumens pixel, sur Flickr

Début d'automne by lumens pixel, sur Flickr

Spider jewellery | Versailles by lumens pixel, sur Flickr

Métro Grands Boulevards by lumens pixel, sur Flickr

DSC01867ra by lumens pixel, sur Flickr

DSC01871ra by lumens pixel, sur Flickr

[pluton]

It appears that your long learning process with this lens is paying off with nice results. I owned one in the film days, so have no insight about how it works on any digital.  Your observations on this lens roughly comport with my experience using it on film.  I usually shot at f/8 or f/11 in bright light because of odd lack-of-sharpness effects I got when using it wide open or at f/4.  I often wonder how the present day digital performance of these classic Nikkor wide angle lenses is affected by the sensor filter stack, an optical element that wasn't present on film cameras.