Worthwhile to upgrade from Nikkor 35mmF2 AIS to 35mmF1.4 AIS (both manual)?

BODY: I have been using the Nikkor 35mmF2 AIS manual (on FM2n) for several years and I was dissatisfied with its resolution since the first roll of film it gave me---I felt that many point-and-shoots, especially the Pentax ones, superceeds this "reputational" lens in terms of sharpness. However, I have to use it because I have no bucks left and 35mm has the most commonly-used picture angle.

Today I can spare enough to think of upgrading my 35mm workhorse, now the question is: Is the difference between the sharpnesses of 35mmF1.4 (regarded as a Nikon classic) (grade 3.9 by photodo) and the 35mmF2 (grade 3.3 by photpdo) significant enough to justify a switch over?

Also thinking of 28mmF3.5PC or 35mmF2.8PC (David Ruether said the latter is the best performer among the 35mm's) instead of a 35mmF1.4 (all manuals).

What are your comments? Thanks in advance.

-- Alexander Szeto (bearbiscuit@hotmail.com), July 16, 2000

Answers

How are you using the 35/2? No lens this fast will be particularly sharp wide open, even the 1.4. Stopped down to 5.6 or 8 either lens whould be superb. As for photodo's tests, they are useless in the real world because they test only one sample of each lens, and all they do is shoot resolution test charts. Your 35/2 lens may do better or worse on the same chart. Any 35/1.4 you buy many do better or worse on a resolution chart. Since very few of us shoot resolution charts anyway, what relevance do their tests have? None.

Buy the lens you need. I'm looking for a 35/1.4 because I'm doing photojournalism part time and need the speed. Who cares if it ain't as sharp as a 2.8 version? It's a hell of a lot sharper at 1.4 than your 35/2 ever will be.

If you need the speed, get the 35/1.4. If you're just trying to improve your photos, work on your technique (tripod, breathing properly, holding the camera steady, etc.).

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), July 16, 2000.

I think the problem is that the f/2 35mm Nikkor is very variable from sample to sample. A lot more so than most Nikkors. Maybe the element alignment is particularly critical in this model, I don't know.

I had a very old non IC version, the Nikkor '0', which was astoundingly sharp. Unfortunately the lack of multi-coating made the contrast very dependent on the angle of light in the picture. I traded it for the Ais version and was bitterly disappointed by the resolution. Other people have given me contradicting reports about this lens. The AF version of the f/2 is supposed to be a big improvement, and by all reports the f/1.4 manual is too.

Most of the online reviews of Nikon lenses can be found from here:

Nikonlinks.com

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), July 17, 2000.

Alexander, I have used every vintage and every aperture 35mm Nikon lens. It is also my normal lens, the one on my camera when I only have one. The f1.4 lens was a goal of mine for a long time, and I was finally able to both afford and justify it when my 35mm f2.0 lens bit the dust. Nothing negative to it... it was just wore out.

I did a quick lens test. Various subjects at f1.4, 2.8, 5.6. The resulting slides shocked me. f1.4 looked almost unuseable... at first. Closer examination showed that there was always something in the shot that looked sharp. I made comparisons with another 35mm f2.0 lens on the second test roll and even at matching apertures, it seemed the f1.4 had more selective focus. Finally I figured it out. The f1.4 lens has more pronounced curviture of field. When the center is focused at 5 feet the cornors were focused to about 9 inches closer.

I was disappointed at first, then I came to a conclusion. This is not the lens that I would use to photograph flat subjects, it is a jounalistic, real world lens, for 3D subjects within the environment. Simply stating that was liberating. I threw out the test slides, loaded up some film and went out to make some great shots. The center is pretty sharp at f1.4, but the effect is one I couldn't pull off with the f2.0 version. The person, (my usual subject), seems to float in a fuzzy environment... but with a wide perspective that can't be emulated with the 105mm portrait lens.

Bottom line for me... if I lost this lens tomorrow, I would sell what ever I had to just to buy another one. As stated above, It lives on my F3.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 17, 2000.

Reading all the reviews of "which lens is best" will most often make you more confused than before you started. Buying a lens based on someone elses test and expecting it to produce pronounced improvement over what you have will lead to disapointment. This has at least been my experience. The 35f2.0 is an excellent lens. The f1.4 is heavier, more expensive, and easier to focus in very poor light. I doubt highly you'll see any difference in the picture quality between either of them.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 17, 2000.

I did exactly this, upgrade the 2.0 to the 1.4 for an extra $400Cdn. I had an F3 at the time. The only differences: 1 stop extra & brighter viewing. I was only printing to 8x10, and at that size I couldn't see a difference when stopped down to 5.6. fwiw.

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), July 17, 2000.

Thank you for all your inputs.

Pete, I agree with you that sample variation may be the main cause.

The focal plane curvature in 35/1.4 really makes me think twice before I move. Al Smith, thanks for the piece of useful extra information.

Regards.

-- Alexander Szeto (bearbiscuit@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000.