Comparison test results, 3.5cm/1.8 and 3.5cm/2.5

goliathus · 06-12-2007

I finished a simple comparison test of the two W-Nikkor lenses. Tested lenses are Nikkor 3.5cm/1.8(reissued) and Nikkor 3.5cm/2.5(black one). As I expected 35/1.8 was very nice, but also 35/2.5 showed more nice performance than I expected ! (almost same with a 35/1.8, except the wide open shot.)

Film was Konica minolta centuria 100, taken with Bessa R2S.

Tested lenses are here. see the beautiful multicoated modern one and elegant single coated classic one.

With original hood and F-cap.

I stopped down 35/1.8 to F2.5 to make the same aparture with 35/2.5's wide open. look colours and bokeh which 35/2.5 made. 35/1.8 describes background more precisely, 35/2.5 shows its nice halo-effect.

goliathus · 06-12-2007

Full frame shot taken with 3.5/1.8 at F8

Crop shot, right corner of above picture. outer rim of 3.5/2.5 looks little dark because of lack of light which caused by wide open.

goliathus · 06-12-2007

Full frame shot taken with 3.5/1.8 at wide open. (the letter in a red box is focused area)

100% crop of focused area.

It is interesting, different bokehs are showed here.

I think resolution of these lenses is almost same, except a border of 3.5/2.5 at wide open.
How do you think about test? Do you agree with me?

NIKON KIU · 06-12-2007

Is it me or does the 2.5 has a little richer colors?

Kiu

goliathus · 06-13-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by f2eyelevel

I find the 35/2.5 results more pleasing to the eye (and every bit as sharp as the 35/1.8 otherwise)...

Is this black 35/2.5 the one Kiu told us about here last week and which recently sold at auction with its caps, hood, and case ? It seems to be in like new condition. Makes me regret to have lost the auction more and more...

F2eyelevel, do you mean the one in above picture? Yes I bought this one at 'bay(about 3weeks ago?), we competed for same one!? I was watching it till the end of auction. winning bid was $423.88, at that time I thought it was expensive, but now it was a resonable price. because it is a real mint one. glass are absolutely clean. no dents, no scratches on body, but hood has some scratches. of course it's not a problem. anyway, I wish you got a better one as soon as possible.

Roland X · 06-13-2007

I have a very early chrom version 35F2.5 (#243116) with click stop. Is there any difference optically compair to the later black one? It is very havey, more than twice the weight of my black 28mm.

VinceC · 06-13-2007

The early and late lenses should be optically identical. In fact, the formula was used for many years in the Nikonos 35/2.5 lens for underwater cameras. And the look and characteristics of the lens are similar to the 35/2.8 used in Nikon point-and-shoot cameras in the 1980s.

raid · 06-13-2007

How do the Nikkor 35mm/1.8 and 35mm/2.5 compare with the Nikkor 35mm/3.5?

raid · 06-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by f2eyelevel

They are both way better. Brian wrote here that even the 35/2.8 Jupiter-12 produces better images than the 35/3.5 W-Nikkor and he's right.

The 35/3.5 has to be stopped down to at least f:8 to equal (for both sharpness and vignetting) the 35/2.5 and 35/1.8 when the two latter ones are stopped down to just f:2.8.

Thanks for the information on thre 3.5 Nikkor. I am expecting back a couple of test rolls with all three Nikkor 35mm lenses, and I was curious what to expect. I took the images all wide open.

Raid