JohnJ
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #19 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony? | |
I have no clue how the 'vintage look' is defined. Which specific combination of CA/PF, SA, field curvature, lack-of-sharpness, flare, vignetting or other aberrations work for one application and against another. Not a question, it's a whole different discussion. Just saying the term 'vintage' might not be very useful, or just too vague to be understood to mean the same thing to everyone.
Generally speaking I don't love the 35mm focal length but have found myself using it more in the last couple of years. There is one I genuinely recommend for people pics, but not landscape/architecture etc., and that's the Leica Summilux-R 35/1.4 (but at F2.0). Wide open it is very sharp in the centre but sharpness doesn't extend far enough into the frame to make it very usable to shoot people (for example horizontally), and there is significant SA/glow (at F1.4). At F2.0 it is very sharp across more of the frame and has a very soft bokeh behind the plane of focus. Subjects (at F2), which are very sharp, stand out over a very soft background. No SA/glow, negligible CA/PF, good contrast, low (or very well controlled) flare. It is a stunning lens imho, but probably bigger and heavier than your Nikon.
I would suggest you look at the Konica Hexanon AR lenses for a few reasons. Flange focal length of Konica AR mount is 40.5mm whilst Nikon F mount is 46.5, that's 6mm there alone that you get for free.
There are 3 35mm AR Hexanon lenses and the 40/1.8, which is kind of interesting too.
The old (F16, large, V1) and new (F22, small, V2) versions of the 35/2.8 are quite different optically. The old 35/2.8 (F16) might have the 'vintage' look you're after at F2.8 where there is just a little glow and character which is missing in the later (F22) version. The later (F22) version is almost modern looking at F2.8, and sharper across the frame too.
The Hexanon 35/2 is a really nice lens, but it struggles with high contrast edges so there is a bit of glow and PF which you don't see in lower contrast scenes. It's an excellent lens, especially at F2.8 where it has softer bokeh then either of the F2.8 versions. Field curvature is there too.
Have a look at some direct comparisons of the 3 35mm Hexanon lenses here:
Edit, I've removed a link which doesn't seem to work, just Google 'Konica Hexanon AR 35/2.8(v1 F16), 35/2.8(v2 F22) and 35/2.0'
The Hexanon 40/1.8 is quite different to most other Hexanons, at least of those I've used. It's one of the later Konica designed lenses made by Tokina, such as the 35/2.8(F22/V2), 24/2.8(F22/V2), 50/1.8 and others. I've never liked using it wide open as it has too much glow and PF wide open but only in high contrast scenes, even then the PF is light blue (not purple) and kind of disappears. Flare is terrible wide open. At F2.8 it's a completely different lens, very sharp, no glow. I've started to use it more recently, wide open, and am staring to appreciates it's charms, but it's an acquired taste imho. It might suite you.
|
The nikon I justified with actually using it with the nikon fm2 film camera. 
The closest famous vingate lens would be pre-ASPH Summilux, and indeed it renders similarly.