Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

Archive 2010 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

does anyone have any input on how these lenses compare? i'm looking for fast 35mm for short distance low light shots. does the nikkor have anything other than 2/3 of a stop to justify it's $300 price premium? is either of them sharp wide open? which is sharper at f2? does the rokkor even have an f2 stop or will i have to take the aperture ring off and put another notch in it? i'm open to other suggestions but nothing slower than f2.

thanks

Feb 12, 2010 at 03:19 PM

gasrocks
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

What body? Why aren't you asking about the new Nikon 35/1.8?

Feb 12, 2010 at 03:30 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

gasrocks wrote:
What body? Why aren't you asking about the new Nikon 35/1.8?

because it is a G type lens and while i may use it on a nikon body periodically my primary use for the time being will be on a 4/3 body. i am looking for legacy glass because i plan on moving to a combination of µ4/3 and a less cropped dslr and would like to maintain compatibility across camera makers as much as possible.

Feb 12, 2010 at 03:42 PM

Ronan O Keeffe
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

The Rokkor MD I have goes direct from 1.8 to 2.8 and then it has intermediary stops.
Bear in mind there's a HH Rokkor too. I Have absolutely no experience of that particular Nikkor so I can't really compare them.

The Rokkor ain't the sharpest at 1.8, but it is damned sharp all the way from 2.8 up.

5DMKII @1/80 f1.8 ISO 100 100% crop.


	http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4039/4351443241_105565ae5c_o.jpg

Full frame.


	http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2453/3570265015_ca52f9b649.jpg

This one is a full size upload, 8.3Mb. It should give you an idea of sharpness and CA at MFD as well as bokeh.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3586/3600784695_fbca932159_o.jpg

Feb 12, 2010 at 03:50 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

Ronan O Keeffe wrote:
The Rokkor MD I have goes direct from 1.8 to 2.8 and then it has intermediary stops.
Bear in mind there's a HH Rokkor too. I Have absolutely no experience of that particular Nikkor so I can't really compare them.

The Rokkor ain't the sharpest at 1.8, but it is damned sharp all the way from 2.8 up.

thanks, that looks better than i expected actually. shame about the lack of an f2 stop. it's an easy surgery to fix, but i've always wondered why they do that.

Edited on Feb 12, 2010 at 05:01 PM · View previous versions

Feb 12, 2010 at 04:17 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

Lack of sharpness is not a problem with the Nikkor. The problem is veiling flare, curvature of field and the bokeh.

f/1.4 on FF:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/Nikkor_35/DSC_0151.jpg

100% crop (edit: on D700):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/Nikkor_35/DSC_0151_crop.jpg

I'd say the Nikkor is superb for closeups. But at larger distances, you'll either have to live with harsh bokeh or stop it down to f/2.8.

Feb 12, 2010 at 04:57 PM

pengland
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

thanks, that looks better than i expected actually. shame about the lack of an f2 stop. it's an easy surgery to fix, but i've always wondered why they do that.

It's not a big deal. You can set the aperture ring "between" stops on most Rokkors without any drift for a very close approximation of an intermediate stop.
What do numbered stops really matter anyway as long as you can achieve the results you are looking for? I am sure many people would be quite comfortable without any physical stops. Once one get to know "relative" aperture ring position these numbers become almost irrelevant.

Edited on Feb 12, 2010 at 10:20 PM · View previous versions

Feb 12, 2010 at 05:58 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

Steve Spencer wrote:
Like Ronan I have the Rokkor MD 35mm f/1.8. I decided to get it over the Nikon partly because it is cheaper and partly because I thought I would like the bokeh better and I do like the bokeh of the Rokkor. I find mine very useable at f/1.8 and quite sharp stopped down to f/2.8 or smaller. Here are a few samples:

thanks, i like particularly like the bokeh in the dog shot. looks like the rokkor is the one to get. now i just need to find one. does anyone know how much difference there is performance wise between the HH version and MD version?

Feb 12, 2010 at 10:09 PM

debuggerus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

I think the nikkor 35/1.4 is in a different class. How about the 35/2 AIS? It's sharp wide open, small and match very well with m43 bodies. You can also use it with your nikon/canon body.
If you want to use the rokkor on m43, I suggest the same MD version (49mm filter) that Steve & Ronan have. It's much smaller than the MC 55m filter versions.
Another excellent choice in the same category is the FD 35/2 SSC.

Feb 12, 2010 at 10:11 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

Feb 12, 2010 at 10:23 PM

misanthropic a
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

Another option is the 40mm F2 Ultron. If it was just m4/3, the 40mm F1.4 Nokton is a superb lens, so is its 35mm cousin.

Feb 13, 2010 at 02:17 AM

tootalew
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

August, 1978

- MD W.Rokkor-X 35/1,8 [8/6] (ø49mm) 0,3m f/22 64x48mm 235g

Where the previous MC-series fast 35mm lens had been sold until this time, now Minolta introduced a new design for MD. Though the number of glass elements and groups is the same, the lens has shrunk significantly, and it is new all around. This is one case where the lighter lens improved on an already excellent design.

This was copied from another site.
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mciepl/chronology.htm
this is a good reference for minolta sr line of lenses.

Feb 13, 2010 at 02:57 AM

mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

debuggerus wrote:
I think the nikkor 35/1.4 is in a different class. How about the 35/2 AIS? It's sharp wide open, small and match very well with m43 bodies. You can also use it with your nikon/canon body.
If you want to use the rokkor on m43, I suggest the same MD version (49mm filter) that Steve & Ronan have. It's much smaller than the MC 55m filter versions.
Another excellent choice in the same category is the FD 35/2 SSC.

The 35/1.4 is a much better performer than the 35/2, which isn't exactly sharp wide open or small (the 35/2 AF/AF-D and the 35/2.5 E are the small Nikkor 35's). The 35/2 is a good lens but not a great one, I've never understood its popularity with Nikon shooters as it is the worst lens Nikon made at that FL. I've owned all 4 of the standard MF 35's and I'd rank them f1.4, f2.5E, f2.8, f2 for performance.

The biggest problem with the 35/1.4 is CA wide open. This can be very noticeable on m43, when I noticed I was almost always stopping down to f2-2.8 on the 35/1.4 to get rid of CA and coma I sold mine and got another 35/2.5 E, which I've generally found to be a better performer than the 35/2 AI-S.

That said, if you are going to get a 35 for m43, I'd recommend the CV 35/2.5 instead. It's small, very sharp and can be had for low cost. There's 3 different versions but optics are identical across the lot.

Feb 13, 2010 at 10:06 AM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

thanks to everyone for the suggestions. i think my problem is that i'm impatient. i like the 70mm fov quite a bit (as well as 35mm fov) i would like to get a lens i could use now. it seems silly to buy a new lens when i'm planning to switch formats if i can't take the lens with me. it also seems as though there will be inherent compromises in trying to buy a single lens for both µ4/3 and FF. the rokkor MD f/1.8 seems like it might be the most likely to be ok for this. it seems like the nikkor f/1.4 won't perform well on the small sensor. i really don't think anything slower than f/2 will be fast enough as i use the 70mm fov primarily indoors in low light (i already have 80mm fov covered).

if i can't find a rokkor i'll probably just go with my original plan of getting lenses specifically for µ4/3 when i get the camera. this would most likely be one of the voigtlanders however i'm curious about the contax G 35mm f2. not sure if anyone has used that lens on µ4/3.

Feb 13, 2010 at 12:04 PM

mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

The Nikkor f1.4 actually does very well on the small sensor once stopped down and it actually delivers plenty of resolution wide open, which is covered up by the coma and CA (issues which seriously affect it on FF as well). The issues it has at wide aperture are in no way connected to the sensor size but to the rather ancient optical design (very early 70's).

Feb 13, 2010 at 02:24 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

mawz wrote:
The issues it has at wide aperture are in no way connected to the sensor size but to the rather ancient optical design (very early 70's). i figured as much i just meant that those flaws are the type that become become more visible when one crops an image and/or magnifies it.

Feb 13, 2010 at 03:17 PM

debuggerus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · rokkor 35mm f/1.8 vs nikkor 35mm f/1.4

mawz wrote:
The 35/1.4 is a much better performer than the 35/2, which isn't exactly sharp wide open or small (the 35/2 AF/AF-D and the 35/2.5 E are the small Nikkor 35's). The 35/2 is a good lens but not a great one, I've never understood its popularity with Nikon shooters as it is the worst lens Nikon made at that FL. I've owned all 4 of the standard MF 35's and I'd rank them f1.4, f2.5E, f2.8, f2 for performance.

The biggest problem with the 35/1.4 is CA wide open. This can be very noticeable on m43, when I noticed I...Show more →

hmm I am a little surprise. Both of my 35/2 ais copies are pretty sharp wide open. I think they are a little sharper than the rokkor (I have 3 copies). The only issue I have with it is the flare, not sharpness. I rank my fast 35mms in this order: c/y distagon 35/1.4, leica 35/2, fd 35/2 scc, 35/2 ais = rokkor 35/1.8, smc takumar 35/2, vivitar 35/1.9.

Feb 13, 2010 at 03:31 PM


FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.