W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 LTM vs Canon 35/1.8?

[TWoK]

So how do these lenses compare? I would expect the Nikkor to be better, but they both look similar in the shots I've seen on flickr. Those shots might not be very representative of their performance. The Nikkor sells for two or three times more than the Canon, but is it actually that much better? Examples shots are very welcome. Thanks in advance.

[ferider]

The Nikkor in LTM is quite rare, although un-documented, I would guess that less than 2000 were produced.

I have not shot them side by side, only one after the other. Wide open, I find the Nikkor sharper with less flare, similar to a Summicron. The Canon is a good lens though.

Price has nothing to do with performance. The Ultron 35/1.7 is cheap and technically better than both. But from your previous posts, I understand you are looking for a "classic" look ?

Roland.

[Al Kaplan]

I had a Canon for years and it was very similar to the first version (8 element) Summicron of the day. Nikon got out of the LTM business before Canon did, and then Canon came out with a 35/2, suposedly better than their 1.8. I never tried one. Unless you're shooting brick walls on slow film with a tripod I doubt that you'd notice much real world difference. The Summicron uses 39mm filters, Nikkor is 40.5, and Canon takes 40mm. If you already have a collection of filters in one size or another that would be as good a reason as any to make the choice.

[ferider]

Small correction to Al's post, with which I otherwise agree. The Nikkor filter size is 43mm.

In terms of sharpness the Canon 35/2 is great. It's tiny, too. But my copy had quite ugly OOF something you don't see with either 35/1.8.

Here are some pics taken with the Nikkor that you might not have seen yet:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70387

[TWoK]

Thanks for the replies. I already have the Nikkor in S-mount and it is superb. I understand price doesn't directly correlate to quality, but I would suspect the Nikkor is better than the Canon. The price premium sort of helps cement this, but I've seen the qualities I'm looking for in shots from both. You are right, I am not interested in a new lens.

[ferider]

Here is what the Nikkor does NOT do:

Canon 35/1.8 (see the flare):

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/193655662_qbpzs-XL.jpg

Canon 35/2 (check the bokeh):

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/86275127_S3s9H-O.jpg

I got rid of my Canons (tried 1.8, 2, and 1.5) and kept the Nikkor.

[dexdog]

I have compared the 2, and would give the edge to the Nikkor, but just barely. As ferider said, the Nikkor is a bit sharper wide open, and flares a bit less. I also think that the Nikkor has a little more contrast than the Canon. I prefer the OOF rendering of the Canon. That said, unless you are pixel peeping, I don't see a whole lot of difference in the performance.

Oh, the Canon costs only about a third of the LTM Nikkor.

[TWoK]

Oh, the Canon costs only about a third of the LTM Nikkor.
Which I dutiful mentioned in the first post.

Thanks for the information. Flare and sharpness wide-open is a big deal as I'm going to be shooting mostly at f/1.8.

[tooffy]

I had a Canon for years and it was very similar to the first version (8 element) Summicron of the day. Nikon got out of the LTM business before Canon did, and then Canon came out with a 35/2, suposedly better than their 1.8. I never tried one. Unless you're shooting brick walls on slow film with a tripod I doubt that you'd notice much real world difference. The Summicron uses 39mm filters, Nikkor is 40.5, and Canon takes 40mm. If you already have a collection of filters in one size or another that would be as good a reason as any to make the choice.

Nikkor3.5cmf1.8 takes 43mm filter. ;)

[enasniearth]

the 35mm canon 1.8 gets a little soft wide open and contrast drops some .
the 35 f2 is optimized for wide open -sharp - great definition and contrast -- very high performing and easily the equal of the summicron early type .
there are two types the later has an optical change - it is marked differently on the rim .
the nikkor is a great lens -- had one in leica threadmount -- tested against 35 summilux ( these are the only two leica type lenses i had 10 years ago ).i could not tell the differance between them in most cases . the summilux had a drop in contrast wide open as did the nikkor . sharpness was excellent in both cases wide open . the summilux had more magic -- hard to explain .

the 35 f2 canon is the bargain -- for $300 -$400 it will not be a disappointment . underappreciated optic .

i keep looking for a 35 summilux , or 1.8 nikkor in leica mount -- a nice one is
$1200 and up .

eddy - the carpenter who taught me how to build stair rails
often said "perfection is always striven for but seldom acheived"

[TWoK]

How does the Canon 35mm f/1.5 compare?

[enasniearth]

i think that there is another thread involveing just the canon 35 1.5

raid did some testing wide open and his photos of his family were
beautiful ( ones posted were color ones )

a friend had this lens in the old days -- not the equal of the 35 f2 canon
however there is that extra low light f stop .

there is some light fall off in the corners wide open as the lens does not
have a large circle of coverage . wide open it is sharp though .

he loved this lens but sold to go wider super angulon 21 mm

currently the last one on ebay sold for $700-$800 do not remember exact price . it had nice glass and minor wear on mount .
a very nice nikkor 35 1.8 in leica screw mount went for $1175 recently
so the canon is a good deal if you can even find one for sale that is not beat up looking .

the trouble with the larger aperature rf lenses is that the double cut helicoid for
focus from the 5cm standard to the correct focal length , has in most cases picked up some wear and there is some play in the optics within the outer mount , ( wobble ) the play can also effect the rf couple distance somewhat with large aperature lenses . add that to the changes in metal over times . flange to film distance shrinks over time from factory standards due to changes in the metal .

all this is slight -- however can add another factor into useing large aperature lenses wide open and obtaining perfect focus .

[TWoK]

I've seen two threads here about the 35/1.5, but I don't think the one you're talking about.

[Al Kaplan]

Lenses longer than the standard (nominal) 50mm also require a complicated helicoid arrangement to properly couple to the rangefinder.

[enasniearth]

twok ,

i am sorry i can not locate it

it was under a call to test lenses by raid ,
rrf members sent him various lenses to test .
the photos were of his daughters rideing bicycles in the park .

he rated the 35 1.5 lens highly .

the 35 f2 canon is the best 35mm lens canon offered .
it is light , compact, sharp and of the highest quality .
it was made at a point when the optical technology was at its highest .
if you want the biggest piece of glass you can get hanging around your neck
the 35 1.5 canon will get you noticed .
as i mentioned the 35mm f1.4 summilux is my top pick in a high speed 35mm lens . try to find the latest german made one just before the asph .
if i could afford one it would be my choice with the m6 wetzler .
the canon 35 f2 is perhaps only 1/3 stop slower than the 1.8 nikkor and canon .
it has the late gold tone coatings .
its very high spec for its time and is often labeled the japanese summicron .

of the 35 f1.8 canon ,nikkor , and 35 1.5 canon --- i would pick the nikkor although with only 1500 made in leica screwmount the collecter demand combined with user desire is high .

[TWoK]

Well I have the 35/1.8 Nikkor and I don't really like it as much on the M6 as I do on the S3. My 35/1.5 is here in my area, I am just waiting for it to be delivered; hopefully today.