Nikon 35mm f/2.8 - Ai version

[John Geerts]

There are some images of this lens posted here before :   http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1751.0.html

One example

[richardHaw]

OK, should be this guy on the left. I always get mixed up with this series

[Bill De Jager]

OK, should be this guy on the left. I always get mixed up with this series

Those are both in the series.  The focus ring overlapping the DOF markings is diagnostic.  Check the links on Roland's site.

I've had an unconverted K version for a while, unused and forgotten. I just bought an AI copy and rediscovered the K copy.  Now that my three-week long cold (which wreaked havoc with all my plans) is finally but slowly dissipating, I hope to get out this weekend and try it out.

Edit:  The one on the left is the K version and the one on the right is early AI; both are the 6-element version which is what I was trying to say.

[PeterN]

There are some images of this lens posted here before :   http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1751.0.html

I am sorry I missed that one. Perhaps the mods can merge the threads to get one thread for this specific lens, just in case people are looking for info?

Impressive bokeh

[pluton]

OK, should be this guy on the left. I always get mixed up with this series

I find it is easiest to tell the difference between the 6-element 35/2.8 K/Ai and the successor 5-element Ai/AiS by looking at the front of the lens.  The later 5-element unit has a more curved or bulbous front element compared to the earlier 6-element unit.  I only have the 6-element K/Ai, so cannot post comparison photos.  You can see the difference fairly clearly in the photos at Roland's site.
Merging this thread with the earlier thread is a good idea. 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Despite a few protesters, I decided to merge the two separate threads on 35/2.8 AI & K into a common one.

[David H. Hartman]

I did not see a thread yet on this specific lens, so I thought to start one . I took the liberty to combine the two series as they share the same characteristics as displayed in Roland Vink's spreadsheet. See http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#35

I'm not finding the first photograph too dark. It's an extremely long dynamic range with a very high ISO where the camera has less DR to work with. If it's an NEF then maybe use the flat picture control and work with LCH to get a better hint of what's happening in the shadows.

Photo number two probably has a problem with cobalt blue in the sky. It's not sky color. The artificial light it probably playing its roll.

The forth photo is great. I like it.

Dave Hartman

---

The first photo is a bit darker on my MAC so the experience is more like other on it.

[David H. Hartman]

Despite a few protesters, I decided to merge the two separate threads on 35/2.8 AI & K into a common one.

Could there be a link left at the old thread? I just wasted about 10-15 minutes trying to find the other thread that no longer exists.

I went from my Windows computer to my MAC to have a look and the thread I was posting on was gone (which ever one it was). I got a bunch of error messages and started searching.

I don't see a way to find where the moved thread went. Maybe there is one? First it's there and then it isn't.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The "old" thread now is *the* current one.

The various post titles merely reflect the one you are reply to.

[Bill De Jager]

Despite not being entirely recovered, I sneaked out into 12-degree C weather to get a few shots with this lens on my D7200.  I paid for it with a coughing fit afterwards but it was worth it.

First, an uncropped shot showing behavior when shot at more of a distance. Note the flare in the upper left corner; this lens seems to flare easily and I had to forego some compositions as a result.

Grassy curves by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Then, some closeups.  These are substantially cropped.

Photinia leaves by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Coast live oak by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

Nandina berries by Bill de Jager, on Flickr

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Considering these lenses never were designed to do their best at close range, results are pretty nice.

The older f/2 35mm was well known to flare badly under difficult light conditions. My impression with the 35/2.8 K is that it performs much better in this regard. However there is no denial the modern 'nano' coatings reign supreme.

[Frank Fremerey]

There are a lot of wonderful pictures in this thread.
I ask a heretic yet honestly interested question:
Could these pictures not have been taken with a collection
of other lenses? With 1.2 and 1.4 lenses and other super
fast glass I understand and see uniqueness of rendering
like the finger print of a 1.2/85L or a Noct or a 1.4/105.

Does uniqueness still show at aperture 4 or 8?

[Frank Fremerey]

Bill: is that a Keyline System in #39.1???

[Frank Fremerey]

I have just fitted an Ai ring to a K version of this lens which I got cheaply due to being 'unsellable non-Ai'. After spending some time getting to know it I think that its a real little charmer! I did not expect that much but instead of the expected average performance I got some photos that I think have come out well. My findings are that it is usefully sharp at all stops, very sharp at f/5.6 and colour and contrast are as good as I could want. Of course it focuses smoothly, being a 1970's Nikkor, and the lens has no issues even when inspected quite closely. It was only £20 too, so good value. I will be using this lens a lot more.

I add a few examples below, and any user input is appreciated.

Great captures esp. The cat and the flowers

[Bjørn Rørslett]

To answer Frank's question: yes and no.

The mellow and delicate 'drawing' of these older lenses can be difficult to emulate in particular when the lens is stopped well down. Modern lenses usually convey more contrast and micro details, not always required by the subject.