This thread is all about 35mm lenses, presumably prime?
I have a 35mm f/2.8 Nikkor S Auto, Serial Number 187117, manufactured Feb 1962 - Nov 1966, purchased new by me in 1974 I think. It must have sat on the camera shop shelf for a long time. I use it with FTZ on a Z5-II. In fact, I use it more often now than I ever did when shooting film. It works well. Does that count?
That sort of counts. Sounds great actually. But the thread was about AF lenses.
I’ve, for the time being, decided to go the route of acquiring a trio of zooms for practical purposes but a 35 prime AF will happen eventually.
jimmuller wrote:
This thread is all about 35mm lenses, presumably prime?
I have a 35mm f/2.8 Nikkor S Auto, Serial Number 187117, manufactured Feb 1962 - Nov 1966, purchased new by me in 1974 I think. It must have sat on the camera shop shelf for a long time. I use it with FTZ on a Z5-II. In fact, I use it more often now than I ever did when shooting film. It works well. Does that count?
newyork wrote:
That sort of counts. Sounds great actually. But the thread was about AF lenses.
Thanks for the response. But I don't understand the bit about AF lenses. In fact the thread title says "SLR" which rules out my mirrorless Z5-II so I should go away. But it makes no mention of AF vs. MF.
I bought my Z5-II and FTZ specifically so I could use my old MF lenses. I've been posting pics in the MFNG thread, don't even own an AF lens, kit or otherwise. But my MF 35mm is getting more use than it ever did on my Nikkormat.
“
I’m curious if there’s an obvious 35 or 40mm native Z mount lens with AF for those that can’t afford the 1.2 and want more compact anyway”
It could be I misunderstood your response.
My original intention was finding an AF 35mm as I’m happy with my mf 35mm.
jimmuller wrote:
Thanks for the response. But I don't understand the bit about AF lenses. In fact the thread title says "SLR" which rules out my mirrorless Z5-II so I should go away. But it makes no mention of AF vs. MF.
I bought my Z5-II and FTZ specifically so I could use my old MF lenses. I've been posting pics in the MFNG thread, don't even own an AF lens, kit or otherwise. But my MF 35mm is getting more use than it ever did on my Nikkormat.
Julia has some nice A/B/C shots with the 3 Nikon options. I still can't get over how nervous and distracting the 1.4 bokeh is. Also it seems to have less than f/1.4 light transmission assuming her edits are copy/pastes between the 3 lenses as each 1.4 shot is noticeably darker.
To me, if money is not object id take that 1.2. Otherwise I like the way the 1.8 looks between it and the 1.4.
RoamingScott wrote:
Julia has some nice A/B/C shots with the 3 Nikon options. I still can't get over how nervous and distracting the 1.4 bokeh is. Also it seems to have less than f/1.4 light transmission assuming her edits are copy/pastes between the 3 lenses as each 1.4 shot is noticeably darker.
I watched only a few seconds of the video but at least in the cover picture those three shots have different amounts of direct sunlight on the model's shoulder, arm, blouse, and face. That makes picking one over the others pretty hard.
jimmuller wrote:
I watched only a few seconds of the video but at least in the cover picture those three shots have different amounts of direct sunlight on the model's shoulder, arm, blouse, and face. That makes picking one over the others pretty hard.
Thank you for your exhaustive feedback after watching a few seconds of a video, it will be appropriately filed
You can't argue too much about the image quality of the 35mm f/1.2 S. However, I ended up selling my 35 f/1.2 S, not because it wasn't a great lens, it was just too big/heavy for me.
Instead, I have opted for some f/1.8 options in addition to a few Voigtlander lenses for the Zf including the 28 APO and 40 Nokton to cover the 35 ish range.
RoamingScott wrote:
Thank you for your exhaustive feedback after watching a few seconds of a video, it will be appropriately filed
Just trying to help.
I wasn't being snarky. It's just that I don't always see what some people do. When I do see it I don't always agree. For example, in those three cover shots the "disturbing" bokeh in one was observable, but you could also blame some of the disturbance on the composition. Or rather, say that a slight shift in the photographer's position could have eliminated the green/white transitions in the background. That could have a more profound effect on the result than the difference between the lenses.
As I wrote in a note above, I'm hoping to learn something about using my 35mm better. Shooting portraits with it isn't something I've done.
Addendum: At your (RS) prodding I went back to view that video and learned why I dislike "learning" stuff from an online video. Videos can be entertaining but I would rather see the pictures themselves for much of that duration. I can read and comprehend faster than most bloggers speak useful ideas. I can also slow down, stop, think, re-read, re-examine the picture, etc. My "few seconds" was all I had patience for.
Your lack of patience notwithstanding, Julia did a decent job showing very similar scenes shot from very similar working distances where the differences in the rendering became immediately noticeable even without zooming in.
RoamingScott wrote:
Your lack of patience notwithstanding, Julia did a decent job showing very similar scenes shot from very similar working distances where the differences in the rendering became immediately noticeable even without zooming in.
I did watch the entire video just now. Yes, there are differences. I'm not sure I'd have a clear preference in most cases. Julia did say that photographers might argue for this bokeh or that.
