jimmuller wrote: lumenspixel wrote:... If you consider it sharp to the borders prior f6,7 that triggers my attention.
No tests yet. You might want to look at this video (which someone posted earlier to this forum, sorry for the repeat but I can't find that post).
Put https: in front of this: www .youtube. com/watch?v=LinEzenQmgI and remove the spaces. When I put in just the link my browser doesn't like it.
The gentlemen being interviewed write a blog called The Thousand and One Nights which describes the development of various Nikkor lenses. The 35mm f/2.8 is described in this episode.
It says the "New Nikkor 35,, f/2.8", released in 1975 and which has 6 elements instead of 7, is better.
As for tests, I'm not sure what is important for you. When focused on, say, the center image of a row of distant trees or buildings, anything on the periphery will be further away. For the full width of a 35mm lens that makes the edge objects 12.4% further away. If the focus is set at or near near infinity so that the peripheral objects are good, the center objects will be closer and perhaps too close for that focus. I don't know if or how the lens is supposed to compensate for that. Perhaps the ideal focus is designed to cover a flat plane source in front of you rather than an equidistant arc. Closing the aperture makes that moot of course, but you want to be able to open it up. And what you consider landscape may not necessarily be a distant mountain range.
Just musing on how to go about about this.
Very useful information. I knew about the Thousand and One Nights but will watch the video with interest.
If my understanding is correct this lens has some field curvature in landscape use. Which can work in favour or against you. I did not remember that they wrote that the subsequent 6 elements was better. I have always assumed that successive iterations should always demonstrate progress but that has not been the case with my copies (two in fact) of the last AIS 5 elements version.
Another note: I have used a little the 35 2,0 O lens and was not much interested in since it appeared to me inconsistent at infinity. After testing a little more I realised it was sharp from f4 but with wavy field curvature forcing you to close at f6,7 for landscape use but perfectly usable more open for three dimensional objects. I often need time to understand the quirks of a lens.
Thank you for your patience.
jimmuller wrote: lumenspixel wrote:... If you consider it sharp to the borders prior f6,7 that triggers my attention.
No tests yet. You might want to look at this video (which someone posted earlier to this forum, sorry for the repeat but I can't find that post).
Put https: in front of this: www .youtube. com/watch?v=LinEzenQmgI and remove the spaces. When I put in just the link my browser doesn't like it.
The gentlemen being interviewed write a blog called The Thousand and One Nights which describes the development of various Nikkor lenses. The 35mm f/2.8 is described in this episode.
It says the "New Nikkor 35,, f/2.8", released in 1975 and which has 6 elements instead of 7, is better.
As for tests, I'm not sure what is important for you. When focused on, say, the center image of a row of distant trees or buildings, anything on the periphery will be further away. For the full width of a 35mm lens that makes the edge objects 12.4% further away. If the focus is set at or near near infinity so that the peripheral objects are good, the center objects will be closer and perhaps too close for that focus. I don't know if or how the lens is supposed to compensate for that. Perhaps the ideal focus is designed to cover a flat plane source in front of you rather than an equidistant arc. Closing the aperture makes that moot of course, but you want to be able to open it up. And what you consider landscape may not necessarily be a distant mountain range.
Just musing on how to go about about this.
Very useful information. I knew about the Thousand and One Nights but will watch the video with interest.
If my understanding is correct this lens has some field curvature in landscape use. Which can work in favour or against you. I did not remembered that they wrote that the subsequent 6 elements was better. I have always assumed that successive iterations should always demonstrate progress but that has not been the case with my copies (two in fact) of the last AIS 5 elements version.
Another note: I have used a little the 35 2,0 O lens and was not much interested in since it appeared to me inconsistent at infinity. After testing a little more I realised it was sharp from f4 but with wavy field curvature forcing you to close at f6,7 for landscape use but perfectly usable more open for three dimensional objects. I often need time to understand the quirks of a lens.
Thank you for your patience.
