a lens between psychodelic & perfection

[Frank F.]

Have to agree with Braineack, I do not like the way this bokeh looks at all. I'm usually a fan of the swirly bubble bokeh. I really like the way the Helios lens is used by this woman that I follow on Flickr: Franci Van der vyver I think that creates much more pleasant backgrounds with a similar effect as what you are showing in the first group of shots. That lens is on my wish list.

This bokeh is not swirly. It is crazy nervous different chaotic ... i love it!

 

[fmw]

I don't look at bokeh at all so they look pretty good to me, particularly the old man holding the jar. I could suggest problems with them but bokeh wouldn't be one of them. Nice work.

 

[Advanced Photo]

Too linear for my tastes, I'd return the lens and try another, personally.

 

[Derrel]

I've owned two of these, one fairly old (1971), the other much newer. The 35/1.4 Nikkor is a very unusual lens. More about it can be found here: Wide-Angle Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount

The tendencies and charms this specialty lens has are not appreciated by all people; this is NOT a 'test chart" lens designed for a sterile rendering nor designed to score really high on photos taken of flat test charts. As this thread shows, lots of differing opinions on the lens.

 

[Frank F.]

Derrel. In the opening post my statement is clearly: "I love the lens for its faults" ... I can go further and say: "I worked with the 14-24 and the 24-70 but I did not buy them, because they are perfect picture producing machines. Instead I bought the 1.4/24 that retains a certain magic in its drawing. Subtle at times but alwas there."

The 1.4/35 Ai-S is not subtle. It is partly a heavy hammer effect filter. There are some people who like what they see and others do not. I do not take photos to please every body.

In Germany we say: "Every body's darling is every body's Depp" Depp meaning something like very stupid person

 

[Advanced Photo]

Yeah, in America we have Johnny Depp, same thing.

 

[Tim Tucker]

I would have to disagree on a number of points.

Though I would agree that the 35/1.4 AiS is a fine lens I personally think it's overpriced for what it is.

It is not the lens that creates the effect, and certainly buying MF Nikkors does not give the "analogue look". That comes from observation, understanding the visual markers that makes film photography look different.

I also do not buy that it's the faults that make a lens creative but rather it's in the solutions you use to overcome the limitations that creativity lies.

The lens itself is a very sharp one stopped down just a little. But your side by side samples show considerable flaws when used wide open, not a dreamy effect. Take the one below, noting that you've shot from shadow with the light behind you. Wide open the lens shows considerable loss of contrast from flare. It also shows considerable CA even near the centre, (more than I'd expect), take a look at the flags. Also the vignetting looks quite pronounced, so I hope these were shot with FF.

To me that's virtually unusable at f1.4 (unless you have a sharply focussed subject in the centre?). As I indicated the strengths of this lens lie not with simply pointing the camera and using it's faults, but understanding how to get the best out of it as it is a tricky lens to use.

My preference is the Auto Nikkor OC 35mm f2.

 

[Derrel]

It's actually an interesting lens for the way its edges are soft, but the center is very sharp at wide f/stops...this lens is pretty interesting at f/2 or f/2.8 for photojournalism or reportage, with a very sharp center and fairly out of focus edges.

This lens had its start mostly in reportage and photojournalism. "Grip and grin" shots, or bounced flash shots with people centered within the frame can look pretty good with the 35/1.4. back in the mid-1980's I used one for the above-mentioned uses. In newspapering, where "doctoring" images is considered verboten, this lens was the equivalent of burning down the corners AND throwing them out of focus, while creating a very sharp central image, in a pre-computer way. On close-up shots of individuals or groups of two or three people, this lens shot at its widest three apertures is, to put it in modern terms, an "effects lens". its images are VERY different from what other wide-angles are designed to do; this lens is for creative, skilled users, who understand what it is at its widest apertures.

 

[Frank F.]

Derrel. That is a very insightful post. There is a reason Nikon build that lens for nearly four decades without much change. And it was a VERY expensive lens. More than 2000 German Marks which might be more than 2000 Dollars today.

Used prices where very stable at 450 Euros for a long time and are now on the way up.

Fons Bearken from the Netherlands ... find him on Flickr ... does some crazy stuff with it.