Nikkor 35mm f/1.8....your opinion please -

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by kermaier

Note that the LTM version does not have a deeply recessed front element, and hood is really helpful. I use the Voigtlander screw-in hood with push-on cap that was originally sold for the CV Skopar 35/2.5 PI lens -- just perfect, IMO (for both the Nikkor and the UC-Hex).

::Ari

Ari,

Can you use filters on the hood you mention above? I use to use a generic vented screw in hood, but if I used any filter it would vignette. In the end I just started going hoodless.

Cal

[kermaier]

Originally Posted by Calzone

Ari,

Can you use filters on the hood you mention above? I use to use a generic vented screw in hood, but if I used any filter it would vignette. In the end I just started going hoodless.

Cal

I've used a filter between the lens and hood, and never saw any vignetting. However, I've only used the lens on my R-D1s, which has a 1.5x crop factor - so there could be vignetting on full-frame that I'm not seeing on APS-C.

Ari

[35mmdelux]

Originally Posted by kermaier

I've seen 3 of the LTM version sell on eBay in the last 6 weeks, all in the $1200-$1400 range. By that standard, KEH's price of $1700 seems pretty high, but at least you get the security of buying from a reputable store that will stand behind the item.

I have a beater example that works great after an overhaul/repair by Essex Camera in NJ.

Note that the LTM version does not have a deeply recessed front element, and hood is really helpful. I use the Voigtlander screw-in hood with push-on cap that was originally sold for the CV Skopar 35/2.5 PI lens -- just perfect, IMO (for both the Nikkor and the UC-Hex).

::Ari

Ari,
Thanks for the info - P

[buzzardkid]

Originally Posted by Highway 61

Back to the "BS" I wrote about the Hexar AF 35/2 and the Summicron 35/2 V4 both being well known to be some derivations of the original W-Nikkor-C 35/1.8 : the modifications applied by Leitz and Konica to the original formula differ, Konica had to adapt the optical design to allow electronic control of aperture and shutter speed, and, of course, the leaf shutter to be installed inside the lens.

The main difference between the W-Nikkor and the Hexar lens is that in the latter, the second and third elements are separated, leaving more space between the front lens group and the intermediate group, in which the shutter is installed.

Another difference is the rear group, used for the correction of coma, spherical aberration and "flatness" of the picture. It seems that Konica engineers have optimized the optics with a balance that is specific to them. Under-correction of spherical aberration allows the image to have better contrast at f/2. The disadvantage of this approach is that it causes a shift of the focal plane when the diaphragm is closed. That is why manufacturers generally prefer to over-correct spherical aberrations to avoid this shift focus, but Konica faced this problem by programming the AF database to take care of this shift while focusing in aperture priority mode.

This explains why the perspective rendition of the Hexar is considered slightly better than the Summicron at f/2 and f/2.8. This under-correction of aberrations also allows a softer and more pleasant bokeh.

All in all the Hexar AF and its huge marketing success can be seen as a great tribute to the original W-Nikkor-C 35/1.8 engineers.

This lens was therefore declined in LTM :

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/hex352.html

Very interesting indeed, but it has a mistake in your final concluding line & link: the Hexanon 35/2.0 wasn't declined in LTM, it was produced as the L-Hexanon 35/2.0 and apparently as such was the 100% copy of the Hexar AF lens, while the UC-Hexanon is not quite a 100% copy.

The L-Hex 35/2.0 looks like this:

There's just some shots missing from the 10+ year old page that Dante Stella has on the UC-Hexanon.

The L-Hex also was sold in a single limited 1,000 ex. run, like the UC-Hex.

The UC-Hexanon has all twelve element surfaces coated, while the L-Hexanon has the same surfaces coated that the Hexar AF lens has. This according to the Camerapedia website, which does not specify which or how many surfaces were coated in the Hexar AF lens (anybody?)

From your explanation on the increased distance between groups due to the shutter placement and the under-correction for spherical abberation I gather that the focus shift was cause for concern and as a result Konica released the UC-Hexanon with all surfaces coated.

I've yet to find any focus shift with the L-Hexanon 35/2.0 but will look for it when shooting wide open and close-up, when it's most likely to occur.

Meanwhile the L-Hexanon 35/2.0 and (maybe moreso) the UC-Hexanon 35/2.0 are the only two lenses that I know of that resemble the (expensive!) Nikkor 35/1.8 optically and in results.

Troubled mind by Johan Kuiper, Portretteur.nl, buzzardkid, on Flickr


Untitled by Johan Kuiper, Portretteur.nl, buzzardkid, on Flickr

[ferider]

Originally Posted by enasniearth

if i remember correctly the 4th version 7 element summicron is more like the pre asph 35 1.4 summilux as far as optical design goes ,

the nikkor has the split rear element with the almost flat back surface
the leitz lenses do not have this . the last three elements are totally different between nikon and leitz .
they are all modified gausian types . both break new ground in a different way .

That's correct.

The Summicron went through its own evolution independently. The first 8-element version was released in 1958 (the 7-element Nikkor 35/1.8 was released in 1956), and in contrast to the Nikkor, computer-optimized (on a Zuse machine). The second/third versions had 6 elements, and the 4th version arrived at the seven element formula in 1979. The 7-element 35/1.4 Summilux, which has a similar optical layout (compared to v4) was released in 1960.

Of course, all double-Gauss Planar variants are related, but for the first Summicron, Mandler's team used a different number of elements, different groupings, different glass, different development/optimization methods, etc., when compared to the Nikkor.

Many fast double Gauss Planar variants (including 50s) come in a 1-2-1-2-1 configuration, much like Summilux and v4 Summicron. On the other hand, the compounded big Nikkor double rear group is quite unique. There are also other classic lenses more similar to the v4, released in the late 50s. For example, the Canon 35/1.8 released in 1957 in a 1-2-1-2-1 configuration, followed by the Canon 35/1.5 in 1958. And to confuse things even more, per Rotoloni, an experimental and functioning Nikkor 35/1.4 with unknown formula was built by 1962. Who derived from whom ?

And a little addition to Johan's post: per Dante, the Hexar AF's focus mechanism compensates for focus shift. Cool feature I thought.

Roland.

[kermaier]

Johan, are those last pictures you posted taken using the Nikkor, the L-Hex or the UC-Hex? (I won't pretend I can tell.)

BTW, it doesn't seem like the L-Hex and UC-Hex are really less expensive than the Nikkor, not so?

::Ari

[buzzardkid]

Originally Posted by kermaier

Johan, are those last pictures you posted taken using the Nikkor, the L-Hex or the UC-Hex? (I won't pretend I can tell.)

BTW, it doesn't seem like the L-Hex and UC-Hex are really less expensive than the Nikkor, not so?

::Ari

Hi Ari,

both are with the L-Hex, since that's the only one of the lenses mentioned here that I own.

I think it's defendable to say that it would be the least of the Hexanons due to that focus shift, but still not a dog by any means.

The post above on possible focus shift I found very interesting, it gets my motivation up to shoot the lens a lot in spring and see if I can find any shift in my shots. Some time ago I might have opted for a test shoot but nowadays I find them boring and want to take the lens out 'in the field'.

Before you ask, the shot of the unknown girl sitting next to me reading was 0.9 mtrs but stopped down to at least f5.6

[digitalintrigue]

The 35mm LTM Nikkors on ebay will vary. Of course, superior condition lenses will fetch significantly more.

I sold one back in August for $2235, it was pretty much perfect with the correct front cap.

This is still less than an equivalent condition 35/2 v1, even though there are many more such Summicrons.

[fbf]

L-Hex and UC-Hex used to sell for 800-1000$ depends on condition. Now the price is spiking up a little.

[NickTrop]

The 35 f1.8 Nikon I have is the best "nifty-fifty" I've ever owned. (Camera geek pun, whoa unto thee who gets the joke...)

[Erik van Straten]

It is a great lens.

Nikon S2, W-NIKKOR.C 1:1.8 f=3.5cm No.352559, Tmax400.

Erik.

[Erik van Straten]

It is not really advisable to use the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 at full aperture to shoot landscapes.

Nikon S2, W-NIKKOR.C 1:1.8 f=3.5cm No.352559 @ f/1.8, Tmax100.

Erik.

[Tom A]

Nikkor 35f1.8 ( 1957 or 58), S3 Olympic. Arista Premium 400 in Pyrocat HD.
Slight flare in the upper right - it is an almost 60 year old lens after all. Nice. smooth contrast and more than enough sharpness. The 2005 version is higher contrast - but I suspect that the resolution is similar.
Trainstation in Lubeck, Germany (4 weeks ago).

[Crazy Fedya]

I shimmed a S-mount copy of this lens to work on Contaxes, and I love it. Excellent lens.

[Tom A]

S3 and older Nikkor 35f1.8. Arista Premium 400 in Pyrocat HD.
I am not sure what this is, but it involved running a slalom course around the beer bottles - in your underwear while yelling loudly and drink a bottle at the end of the run. This was repeated multiple times.
Copenhagen, Kongens Nytorv (main square, mid afternoon).