"Best" 35mm focal length lens, for Nikon F mount

[MFstooges]

some of us spend those last 30 years reading lens reviews, others making photographs

LOL. I checked out on reading the reviews right before VR lens. I was disappointed when they moved the aperture to the body basically succumbed to Canon's design.

 

[Film-Niko]

I don't consider a multiple aperture lens functioning with one aperture is working. I had F90 and there is no way I can set an aperture on G lens with that body.

You can use the G lenses in P and S mode on the F90. Therefore all apertures on the lens are working.
With the F90x you also have programme shift in P mode, which means de facto full flexibility.

 

[Film-Niko]

some of us spend those last 30 years reading lens reviews, others making photographs

And some are first ignoring what the OP is looking for, and then making arrogant comments, which also does not help the OP at all.
And then there are photographers who look at lenses without prejudices, use and test different ones, find the best and make wonderful photographs with it.

 

[250swb]

Thank you, everyone, for your replies! It looks like the Sigma ART 35mm F/1.4 is the way to go (at least for me). I would be using it on an F6.

It is undoubtedly the best lens, I don't actually think Nikon have made a stand-out 35mm lens, the f/2 is perhaps the best. But with film I honestly don't think you are going to see the benefit of the Sigma unless you also go into ultra fine grain tripod mounted techniques that can show it's qualities. Or put another way if you've got grain and are hand holding the camera nobody will be able to tell from the print that it's an expensive Sigma lens unless you tell them, and hope they care enough to fake a 'wow!'

 

[George Mann]

Also the current Nikkor AF-S 1.8/35 G ED is significantly better than the 2/35 Nikkor variants.

But not better than the 6-element longnose K/Ai at optimum apertures (less distortion) except maybe its overall level of edge to edge sharpness.

There has been a lot of technological progress in lens design in the last 30 years.

There are a few vintage Nikkor lenses that still set a standard such as the 50mm f2 H.C. Auto/K/Ai, all variants of the multi-coated 55mm, and the late 70's and early 80's 105mm f2.5.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I know "best" is subjective, and can mean different things, to different people. In this case, I'm looking for the 35mm focal length lens with the greatest sharpness, best color fidelity, and least distortion, that will work on Nikon film cameras (i.e. not an electromagnetic aperture); G-type lenses are fine.

Thanks, for any insight.

Ihave a NikonNikkorAI 35mm f/2
and anAF NikonNikkor 35mmf/2D and both are excellent

 

[RalphLambrecht]

And some are first ignoring what the OP is looking for, and then making arrogant comments, which also does not help the OP at all.
And then there are photographers who look at lenses without prejudices, use and test different ones, find the best and make wonderful photographs with it.

I'm not arrogant. It just looks that way from down there.

 

[Angarian]

It is undoubtedly the best lens, I don't actually think Nikon have made a stand-out 35mm lens, the f/2 is perhaps the best.

I agree that the 35mm focal length has not been the area in which Nikon have had / have its best strength, and offering a clear "stand-out" lens. But the current Nikkor AF-S 1.8/35 G ED is really very good. And in my experience overall Nikon's best 35mm, surpassing the former f2 models. But the Sigma Art offers an even better quality.

But with film I honestly don't think you are going to see the benefit of the Sigma unless you also go into ultra fine grain tripod mounted techniques that can show it's qualities. Or put another way if you've got grain and are hand holding the camera nobody will be able to tell from the print that it's an expensive Sigma lens unless you tell them, and hope they care enough to fake a 'wow!'

I have to disagree here. From my experience with all the older lenses and the current high-performance designs the optical advantages are big and clearly visible, especially at the wider apertures, concerning corner-to-corner performance, higher contrast, better coatings and much less flare. And in the case of the Sigma Art 1.4/35 we are talking about also concerning distortion, which is extremely low (negligible) for a 35mm lens.
I can see the better quality easily in my prints and in slide projection. That is why I am using that lens.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

While my 50mm Sigma Art F-mount is sharper, since the OP asked about 35mm, my experience validates what others have said about the 35mm version. It's the best I've used on my F6 at the shorter focal length. This image was made with the 35mm Sigma. After downsizing the file for PHOTRIO, that performance is very muted. In real life, a print is unbelievably sharp.

 

[dynachrome]

I have read the posts which appear after my first one. Any time the subject of the sharpest lens of any type comes up, the discussion veers off into performance on non-film cameras. That information is not useful when discussing what can be achieved on film. My first 35/2 Nikkor was the original O. It goes back to 1965 and is still very good. My second 35/2 Nikkor is a 'K' model modified to AI. It has better coating than the old O and is about as good as anyone would need for use with 35mm film. My third 35/2 Nikkor is the AF. I have not used it that much. If it is better than the 'K' it isn't by much.

The question of performance is always going to be related to what final result is the goal. Years ago someone calculated that a 35mm frame of Kodacolor 100 print film could hold 100MP of resolution. The problem? The film would have to be scanned at 8,500 dpi. At that level, very tiny defects in the film itself would show themselves. Unless you want to do extreme cropping, the goal of having a very sharp lens would be to enable you to make a very large print. You could use document film ( black & white) and work very carefully with a very good lens and make a high quality large print (over 11X14") - just don't try this for shooting a car race. I have plenty of TP and Imagelink HQ on hand but if I know I will need to make a sharp 16X20" print, I will put some TMX or Ektar 100 into one of my Bronica GS-1 cameras and use a tripod. The resulting print will be at least as good as what might be accomplished with even the most expensive lens for use with 35mm film. For hand held use with a 35mm film camera and lens combination which has image stabilization, a greater range of subjects can be successfully photographed but for maximum sharpness, a tripod will be involved. Using very expensive lenses to shoot test patterns can be interesting but has very little application for use with film.

Modern technology had enabled all kinds of improvements in photography but the demand for large prints has probably never been lower. Most images today are viewed on very small cell phone screens and equipment needed for such tiny images doesn't need to cost tens of thousands of dollars.

 

[Film-Niko]

But not better than the 6-element longnose K/Ai at optimum apertures (less distortion) except maybe its overall level of edge to edge sharpness.

I have to disagree: It is better in the aperture range of f2 to f8 concerning contrast, resolution, sharpness and evenness of the performance (corner-to-corner performance).
It has also improved coatings and improved flare resistance.

There are a few vintage Nikkor lenses that still set a standard such as the 50mm f2 H.C. Auto/K/Ai, all variants of the multi-coated 55mm, and the late 70's and early 80's 105mm f2.5.

No, the standards (benchmarks) for 50mm focus length for Nikon F mount lenses are meanwhile set by the Zeiss Milvus Distagon 1.4/50, the Zeiss Milvus Makro-Planar 2/50 and the Sigma Art 1.4/50.
If you compare them to the above mentioned Nikkors you will immediately see the huge improvements in optical performance (and with the Zeiss also in mechanical performance, build quality) of the current lens designs in comparison to the old designs.
Been there, done that.
And the 2.5/105 was already surpassed in 1988 by the Nikkor 1.8/85 AF. Slightly surpassed, but nevertheless surpassed. I was pleasently surprised when I bought my 85 and compared it to my 2.5/105.
And in 1993 Nikon introduced the outstanding 2/105 DC, which significantly surpassed both the old 105 and the 85 AF.
And in this new century we've got even more outstanding lenses in that "portrait" range, like the AF-S 1.4/85 G, the 1.4/105 G, and the Zeiss Otus 85 and 100, and the Zeiss Milvus Planar 1.4/85, Makro-Planar 2/100 and APO-Sonnar 2/135.
All of them are much, much better than the (indeed very good, no doubt) old Nikkor 2.5/105. I am talking based on usage and experience, not based on assumptions.

 

[Film-Niko]

I'm not arrogant. It just looks that way from down there.

No one has said that you are arrogont. The point was that you have made an arrogant comment. That's a difference.
And presuming that someone is only reading lens reviews for 30 years, instead of taking photographs, someone you don't know at all, has undoubtedly an arrogant attitude.
Especially as it is directed at someone who has lots of experience with both older and current lens types, having made thousands of photographs with both.

 

[Film-Niko]

I have read the posts which appear after my first one. Any time the subject of the sharpest lens of any type comes up, the discussion veers off into performance on non-film cameras.

Sorry, but that is not true. All members here in the thread are talking about their results with film!

That information is not useful when discussing what can be achieved on film. My first 35/2 Nikkor was the original O. It goes back to 1965 and is still very good. My second 35/2 Nikkor is a 'K' model modified to AI. It has better coating than the old O and is about as good as anyone would need for use with 35mm film. My third 35/2 Nikkor is the AF. I have not used it that much. If it is better than the 'K' it isn't by much.

If you are satisfied with the results of your older lenses, fine. No one here is saying anything against that.
The point is that those members who have both the older and the newer lenses, and have therefore the possibility to directly compare, see the clear improvements of the more modern, current lenses.
And enjoy the better quality they get.

Unless you want to do extreme cropping, the goal of having a very sharp lens would be to enable you to make a very large print.

No. With your claim that high-performances lenses are only useful for very large prints you are missing the numerous quality improvements you get with the current lens types:
- e.g. the very big difference in open-aperture and one-stop down performance I can already see at very small enlargements of 13x18 cm, often even at smaller enlargements
- the same is valid for corner-to-corner performance
- the much better performance at wider apertures gives the opportunity to use lower speed films with their better quality
- the better separation of the focused elements to the unsharp, unfocussed surrounding is also alraedy seen at low magnifications
- same is valid for the better bokeh which most current lenses offer
- stopped down I see clear better quality in my 24x30 and 30x40 centimeter prints with my modern lenses compared to all my old ones
- in slide projection the quality difference in favour of the improved curent lenses is really huge, and worth every cent.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Wow! Quite a bit of information has been added to this thread. I truly appreciate the discussion and insights. I have learned quite a lot.

 

[dynachrome]

In recent years a subset of photographers has taken selective focus to a new level. My fastest 85mm lens for 35mm photography has a maximum aperture of f/1.4. I have no interest in using it at f/1.4 for a portrait. The look where the tip of one eyeball is in focus and everything else is a blur is simply overdone. No amount of new technology or even faster lenses will change this. Are the newest lenses also sharper at f/4 or f/5.6 or f/8? Undoubtedly, but by how much? When Kodachrome 25 was still in use, having a faster lens was more important but for me, using a fast lens wide open was something I did for more distant subjects.

 

[George Mann]

I have to disagree: It is better in the aperture range of f2 to f8 concerning contrast, resolution, sharpness and evenness of the performance (corner-to-corner performance).
It has also improved coatings and improved flare resistance.

I was referring to the aperture ranges of f5.6 to f11 where the differences between them are smaller than you let on (in the real world with the use of proper lens hoods of course).

I use this particular lens on my most challenging Nikon D2x, which shows any weaknesses of lenses used with it.

The only real weakness I have detected with the vintage lense in question is a variable corner performance. It's center sharpness resolution is very high, while it's level of contrast is never found to be less than adequate.

If you compare them to the above mentioned Nikkors you will immediately see the huge improvements in optical performance (and with the Zeiss also in mechanical performance, build quality) of the current lens designs in comparison to the old designs.

I have done exactly that sir, and have found the multicoated Nikkor 50mm f2 to be the most accurate, refined and realistic rendering 50mm lens ever made.

Technical performance differences mean nothing to me compared to the above.

 

[BillBaileyImages]

I know "best" is subjective, and can mean different things, to different people. In this case, I'm looking for the 35mm focal length lens with the greatest sharpness, best color fidelity, and least distortion, that will work on Nikon film cameras (i.e. not an electromagnetic aperture); G-type lenses are fine.

Thanks, for any insight.

Although I have 14mm through 300 f/4, the "best" go-anywhere lens for me is the 58mm f/1.4. Yes, there are LOTS of 50mm versions. The 58mm seems to have a unique blend of sharpness and perfect color rendition. If I'm shooting sports, the 300 on my F5 works superbly! Of course, "best" can only be defined by you and your shooting style. As Omer (the owner of CatLabs) says, "Shoot more film."

 

[BillBaileyImages]

My favorite prime 35mm is the 35mm f/1.4. However, I recently sold it and use (my only zoom lens for Nikon or Hasselblad V-series) the Nikkor 17-35 (NOT the 16-35!) It is the proverbial "brick"--solid, dependable, sharp, and almost bullet-proof!

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

...the "best" go-anywhere lens for me is the 58mm f/1.4. Yes, there are LOTS of 50mm versions. The 58mm seems to have a unique blend of sharpness and perfect color rendition.

I actually have this lens (58mm F/1.4G), and use it for portraiture and night photography, on an F6. It has a unique rendering, especially wide-open, and greatly reduces/eliminates coma flare.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I know "best" is subjective, and can mean different things, to different people. In this case, I'm looking for the 35mm focal length lens with the greatest sharpness, best color fidelity, and least distortion, that will work on Nikon film cameras (i.e. not an electromagnetic aperture); G-type lenses are fine.

Thanks, for any insight.

Silly me. I forgot to mention the Carl Zeiss ZF 35mm f/2.

 

[David R Williams]

And the Zeiss Milvus 35/1.4 is an extremely high performance optic that to my eyes is the most impressive lens in this focal length that I've ever shot with, film or otherwise.

 

[Film-Niko]

In recent years a subset of photographers has taken selective focus to a new level. My fastest 85mm lens for 35mm photography has a maximum aperture of f/1.4. I have no interest in using it at f/1.4 for a portrait.

You are of course absolutally free to decide. And there is no rule or law that says that a 1.4/85mm lens must be only used for portraits at f1.4.....
For me my 85mm lenses are often my alternatives for my 50mm, used as a "longer range standard lens".

The look where the tip of one eyeball is in focus and everything else is a blur is simply overdone.

That is your taste, other photographers may have a different opinion.

No amount of new technology or even faster lenses will change this.

The new lenses finally offer very good performance already at open aperture, and excellent performance one stop stopped down. The difference to old lens designs is huge. That is a big advantage in many different situations.

Are the newest lenses also sharper at f/4 or f/5.6 or f/8?

Yes.

Undoubtedly, but by how much?

Significantly. It's clearly visible in the picture. And the evenness of performance (corner-to-corner) is also much better.

When Kodachrome 25 was still in use, having a faster lens was more important but for me, using a fast lens wide open was something I did for more distant subjects.

And today you have Velvia 50, Scala 50/HR 50, PanF+, and Delta 100, TMX, Acros II which are used with an EI of 50 when you are going for optimal shadow detail and tonality according to the Zone system.
Therefore you definitely benefit very, very much from the improved lens designs with their much better wider aperture performance.

 

[Film-Niko]

I use this particular lens on my most challenging Nikon D2x, which shows any weaknesses of lenses used with it.

As a user of Nikon digital full format and APS-C format cameras I have to totally disagree: the D2x cannot show any lens weaknesses at all.
Mainly because of two reasons:
1. The 12 MP sensor simply does not have enough resolution to challenge lens performance. You get only about 75lp/mm resolution with it.
With films like TMX, Delta 100, PanF+, Velvia, Provia you get 60-100% higher resolution values.
And with microfilm based films like Adox CMS 20 II you will get up to 250 lp/mm. With that material you really see what a lens can deliver, but not with a 20 year old low resolution D2x.

On these old(er) 10-20 MP DSLRs almost all old lenses look quite good, simply because these sensors have very limited resolution (by Nyquist frequency) and do not really challenge the lens performance.

Put your old Nikkors on a recent D850, or better, use the above mentioned films. And then compare to the recent lens designs. Then you will see very big differences.

2. The D2x is a crop-sensor cam. So only the central part of the image circle of the lens is used. Therefore it is impossible to evaluate and judge the lens performance of the non-central parts of the image.
But with 35mm film we are using the non-central parts of the image circle, and they are important. Consequently a crop-sensor / APS-C digital cam is the wrong tool to test lenses for 35mm film.

The only real weakness I have detected with the vintage lense in question is a variable corner performance. It's center sharpness resolution is very high, while it's level of contrast is never found to be less than adequate.

You find the performance of the older lenses adequate for your personal photography. That is fine.
But that does not change the fact that
- the performance of newer lenses is significantly better
- other photographers have other needs and therefore benefit from the improvements in lens design.

I have done exactly that sir, and have found the multicoated Nikkor 50mm f2 to be the most accurate, refined and realistic rendering 50mm lens ever made.

Technical performance differences mean nothing to me compared to the above.

So again you are referring to your subjective findings. It's o.k.
But other photographers go for objective differences. E.G. I prefer the much better three-dimensional impression ("3D-pop") I get with the Zeiss Milvus Makro-Planar 2/50 and Milvus Distagon 1.4/50 compared to the Nikkor 2/50, Nikkor 1.8/50 and 1.4/50.
I also prefer the better sharpness, higher resolution, better coatings and more pleasant color rendition of the Zeiss 2/50 and 1.4/50.

 

[George Mann]

As a user of Nikon digital full format and APS-C format cameras I have to totally disagree: the D2x cannot show any lens weaknesses at all.
Mainly because of two reasons:
1. The 12 MP sensor simply does not have enough resolution to challenge lens performance. You get only about 75lp/mm resolution with it.

Although the D2x is the highest resolving 12mpx camera yet created, my comment isn't solely about its resolution capabilities.

The digital sensor used in the D2x is notoriously sensitive to the quality of lenses that one uses with it, and readily shows any flaws in their performance.

 

[George Mann]

So again you are referring to your subjective findings.

These findings are actually the result of a live comparison of the film image to the actual scene.

E.G. I prefer the much better three-dimensional impression ("3D-pop") I get with the Zeiss Milvus Makro-Planar 2/50 and Milvus Distagon 1.4/50 compared to the Nikkor 2/50, Nikkor 1.8/50 and 1.4/50.
I also prefer the better sharpness, higher resolution, better coatings and more pleasant color rendition of the Zeiss 2/50 and 1.4/50.

Your preference for the editorial effects of these lenses is noted. But do note that there isn't a single small format photograpic medium that outresolves the multicoated Nikkor 50mm f2.