Steve Spencer wrote:
It seems unlikely that there will be a ZE 35mm f/1.4. They have made a new 35mm f/2 in Nikon, Pentax (K) and M42 mount, and it seems much more likely that they will make a ZE mount version of the 35mm f/2 lens. Maybe far in the future they will make a 35mm f/1.4 in all the mounts, but it doesn't seem to likely too me. I believe the new 21mm f/2.8 Distagon will be released in February. The Pentax (K) mount version is already listed at B & H.
Thanks for the informaton, and after looking at the Pentax version already being listed I'd have to agree that February is probably more like it, although I'll be in NYC in early January and was really hoping to see the 21 Distagon in person at B&H. Hopefully the new 24L is in for a look, and I will try to take a look at the Pentax mode of the Distagon just for fun. Its nice to see how many options there are at 35mm, I'm going to have to look into it further.
The Nikkor 35 f/1.4 bokeh seems to change depend on how close the object is... If you're focussing close, then it's pretty harsh and ugly. If you're a bit away, it's not bad at all. I mean wide open.
i have MANY images from this lens on film and digital (5D). I loved it.
The post that interferes w/ the 5D's mirror box is just for protecting the rear element. It does not effect use negatively on any camera if you remove that post, as i have done on several nikkors.
If that's HP5, it looks like you have a very bad case of reticulation. You should be more careful of temperature right through to the washing stage and beyond. HP5 should look much finer than this.
If that's HP5, it looks like you have a very bad case of reticulation. You should be more careful of temperature right through to the washing stage and beyond. HP5 should look much finer than this.
That's HP5+ at EI 3200 in damn near no light scanned and sharpened. It's definitely grain, not reticulation. My HP5 looks near grainless at EI400 but I pretty much never shoot it that slow.
Mawz: got more pics from the 35 1.4? I have still not decided on the 35 1.4 AIS versus the 28 2.0. I even consider a 28 2.8 for the weight and close focus :P
mawz wrote:
That's HP5+ at EI 3200 in damn near no light scanned and sharpened. It's definitely grain, not reticulation. My HP5 looks near grainless at EI400 but I pretty much never shoot it that slow.
OK - understood. Do you use Microphen? I always loved pushing HP5 in Microphen - they were made for each other. I especially loved shooting medium format HP5 220 at iso 3200 with my Schneider 80 f2 and 180 f2.8. Those were the days. It's too easy now.
If you're doing people shots then I'd go for the Leica Summicron-R 35/2.0. Produces great colours and skin tone, with beautiful bokeh. A little soft in the extreme corners at larger apertures but that's not usually an issue with people.
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/8217399-lg.jpg
Guy or girl Have some money on this if you'd be so kind.
brainiac wrote:
OK - understood. Do you use Microphen? I always loved pushing HP5 in Microphen - they were made for each other. I especially loved shooting medium format HP5 220 at iso 3200 with my Schneider 80 f2 and 180 f2.8. Those were the days. It's too easy now.
I use TMax Developer for my pushing. It's inexpensive and produces great results. Very good for pushing, seems to be very similar in performance to XTol without the hassles of powder.
And HP5 at EI3200 rocks in MF. I need to run some more through my 645 Super.
ulrikft wrote:
Mawz: got more pics from the 35 1.4? I have still not decided on the 35 1.4 AIS versus the 28 2.0. I even consider a 28 2.8 for the weight and close focus :P
I've got a couple more online. Haven't had a chance to shoot all that much since I got the lens a month ago due to school (this going back to school after almost 15 years thing sucks)
ulrikft wrote:
Mawz: got more pics from the 35 1.4? I have still not decided on the 35 1.4 AIS versus the 28 2.0. I even consider a 28 2.8 for the weight and close focus :P
The 28/2.8's a nice lens, I'd actually just bought a late AI version when I stumbled onto the 35 for a good price so I returned the 28. I've now got a Tamron 28/2.5 which is an excellent performer (as good as the late AI Nikkor I had) and cost me all of $25 shipped from eBay (sans adaptall-2 mount though).
Thanks for the input, how is the minimum focusing distance on the tamron 28 and the 35 1.4? I have å 20 1.8 (sigma) but it is a tad wide, and i like old manual lenses
Have some money on this if you'd be so kind. 
, he's a guy 
