At dusk with the 35/2.8 PC

[Airy]

Df, 35/2.8 PC (late version), all shots @f/8 with little to massive shift (beyond recommended limits).
The lens is, optically speaking, better than the 28/3.5 : less CA, better color, lesser distortion, and nice sunstars to boot. But the longer FL makes it impractical for cityscapes, where 28 seems ideal.

[Airy]

second batch. One more remark : on a comparative test with the Zeiss 35/2 ZF2 or the Sigma A 35/1.4, the latter two are significantly better (saturation, sharpness, microcontrast). But, given its age and its extra features, the 35/2.8 PC remains worth considering. I had not used it for years, maybe because 1° 35mm is not my favourite FL, and 2° the Zeiss is unsurpassed in handling backlighting or night shots.

[pluton]

You have preserved the near-dark look of dusk very well in this series.  You make a good advertisement for the lens, despite its shortcomings.  The last shot has a lovely sky.

[Akira]

I also love the last one.  The sky, the atmosphere, the light...everything fits nicely together.

[Airy]

Thanks Keith. On the "Casual Photophile", you'll see another review by a 35mm FL enthusiast, that's why he is even more positive about this lens. Here : https://casualphotophile.com/2020/08/19/nikon-pc-nikkor-35mm-f28-review/

Other than the reviewer, I generally do not use tripods, even when "shifting". A waste of time. Minimal corrections in PP if need be (and none in this particular case). Holding the camera horizontally while cranking the lens up or downwards is not difficult, even without visual cues: the screw action is smooth. You can also check verticals near the left and right edge of the viewfinder.

As far as dusk is concerned, my most used control on a camera is exposure compensation. I want the jpegs to look right. Since I'm in manual mode when using the PC lenses, I do not even use Exp Comp, but underexpose the shots, typically by -2/3 before sunset, and -1 to -1 1/3 after, down to -2 for dark scenes at night (exceptionally -3, depending on how much of the whole field is lit). Corrections in PP rarely exceed 1/2 stop, just to homogenize the results. By "underexposing" (i.e. exposing for the bright lights), I make sure that highlights keep their colors. The Df has no annoying color noise patterns in the dark parts (at least if remaining at or below 12800), and since I do not push the dark parts (skies, shadows) because they are not supposed to be of interest, luminance noise is not enhanced either.

[Airy]

I also love the last one.  The sky, the atmosphere, the light...everything fits nicely together.

That's close to where I live since 2006, and there must really be some nice "combo" for me pressing the shutter. The sky was definitely one of the determining factors. And the emptiness of course. And the backlit stained glass window.

[Akira]

That's close to where I live since 2006, and there must really be some nice "combo" for me pressing the shutter. The sky was definitely one of the determining factors. And the emptiness of course. And the backlit stained glass window.

I would also like the rhythmic diagonal placement of the street lamps and the way the closest lamp is only suggested by its light shining on the facade of the building.

[Fons Baerken]

The last one is truly very nice.
https://yannick-khong.squarespace.com/lens-articles reading this article your mention of microcontrast on Sigma art lenses seems rather contrary.

[Airy]

Indeed; "the angry photographer" also went along these lines in his videos. I suspect more bias than I could see evidence. A similar debate is about vinyl being "superior" to CD - subjective judgment is influenced by many factors weakly correlated with the technology, e.g. sound recording techniques (extensive multimiking can ruin spatial perception; decorrelated high frequency noise from left and right channels may give a false impression of enhanced space, etc.). Not to mention that a double blind test is not possible: the defects of (even a perfect) vinyl are always to be heard.

When doing a side-by-side comparison of the three lenses, years ago, (daytime, mid-distance shots in a public garden), I did not find any blatant difference between the Sigma and the Zeiss, and the latter is known to be very (too ?) contrasty.

I found the Sigma to be less convincing for night shots, esp. at full aperture. Zeiss has the better blacks.

[Fons Baerken]

Personally i think he ,YK has a point, (the-angry-photographer was just copying YK's thoughts).

[PeterN]

Thank you for sharing these photos and your thoughts. I must say that the photos look rather dark on my screen although the first one in the first batch and the second one in the second batch look wonderful, even on my screen. Espec. the 2nd in the 2nd batch looks like a painting of one of the Dutch painting masters of the past.

[Airy]

Personally i think he ,YK has a point, (the-angry-photographer was just copying YK's thoughts).

Yes, he may well have a point, and I also have preferences for certain lenses that I can hardly trace back to measurable characteristics, or of which I know they are not stellar "on paper" (e.g. the Nikkor 50/2). What makes me nervous is the unwarranted claim that leaded glass is intrinsically better or that sort of things (I might be confusing YK and TAP though). Again, blind testing could help put things straight.

[Airy]

Thank you for sharing these photos and your thoughts. I must say that the photos look rather dark on my screen although the first one in the first batch and the second one in the second batch look wonderful, even on my screen. Espec. the 2nd in the 2nd batch looks like a painting of one of the Dutch painting masters of the past.

Indeed, screens variability is much higher than, say, sensor or lens variability... the equivalent to loudspeakers in HiFi.

I generally view my shots on the M$ Surface 4 screen, which is quite bright and contrasty: same kind of rendering as on recent iPhones. The same shots may look muddy on my other screens. My bigger Toshiba laptop has a calibrated screen, color balance is about the same, but it is less contrasty. Finally, my matte 27'' QHD monitor (that I use for software development; originally designed for gaming) is nice for displaying thumbnails and user interfaces, but ruins every picture.

It's a long time I did not print anything. My last prints were using a big Epson tracer at a printshop. I am no longer sure whether the settings I chose for my screen would also be suitable for the tracer; most likely not (at the time, I performed all PP on another Toshiba laptop screen that was also less contrasty than the Surface one).

[Airy]

Now for a nighttime shot. Using this PC lens with the Zf (or other mirrorless) is ridiculously easy:

• no need to set exposure manually before shifting
• the artificial horizon helps keeping the camera horizontal while shifting. I seldom use tripods even with PC lenses, but the camera makes tripods nearly superfluous
• I vastly prefer the screw system of the old PC lenses compared to the new ones: it can be used one-handed, no need for blocking

Result is shifted street shots, with the slow speed (1/15) partly blurring the passers-by. Once again, the lens behaves well at night, and the sunstars add a touch (must have been f/5.6).

[Akira]

Nice color!  I also like the mild and right intensity of the star burst that the lens shows when stopped down.

I wonder if the IBIS work properly when the lens is shifted?