Nikkor-O 35/2

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by dixeyk, Oct 4, 2017.

  1. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    @f2
    37229214050_b041c942c5_b.
    mysentry
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    37345416301_35b020edbd_b.
    brittle
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    For years I have said that Minoltas and Sony bodies were a perfect match but recently I picked up some older Nikkor lenses and I have to admit that as much as I like my old Minolta MC lenses this Nikkor-O 35/2 is probably the lens I would pick if I could only have one. It's not that I think it is the BEST lens but I do love the images it makes.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
    • Like Like x 5
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. AlwaysOnAuto

    AlwaysOnAuto TalkEmount All-Pro

    Feb 17, 2015
    I have to agree with you there Kevin. The old Nikkor's just have a 'look' to the images. My main complaint, if you can actually call it that, is that they are so heavy. My fav for 'lightness of weight' is an old Canon LTM 35mm. Still not a lite weight since it is a brass lens, but it's smaller than most of my other old lenses and has a 'look' to the pictures I really like. I'll have to keep an eye open for a Nikkor O, it looks like it does a really nice job.
     
  3. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    Yep, they're kinda big. A few that I have (like the HN 50/2 and N 24/2.8) are smaller but my 28/2 and 105/2.8 not so much. Luckily my 5n is small enough to help compensate. That's why I don't like to use them on my Fuji X-P1. The whole thing ends up being kinda heavy and clunky.

    I've thought about Canon and Nikon LTM lenses but I like to get close to things and most RF lenses don't let you get anywhere near as close as the average SLR lens does. The Nikkor-35/2 has CRC so that allows me to get even closer.
     
  4. AlwaysOnAuto

    AlwaysOnAuto TalkEmount All-Pro

    Feb 17, 2015
    I love to travel with this little combo. The FOV w/the 35 is just right on the -7.
    DSC01340 (Large).JPG
    I can almost stuff it in a pocket if the pocket is big.
    Too often I find if I don't like how a camera 'feels' in my hand, I'm not going to use it much.
    The -7 w/that lens 'feels' just right to me. So does my A7ii with the Micro-Nikkor, but the 1.2 50 I have doesn't, it's just too heavy. Same with the 58 1.4 Minolta which I really liked using on my SRT, but again, it's a heavy lens.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
    • Like Like x 3
  5. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    You should try the HC 50/2. That lens always knock s my socks off.
     
  6. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Kevin
    The 35 f2 is much smaller and lighter than the 35 1.4. The 1.4 is only usable wide open in black and white in my opinion. For the price difference the 35 f2 is a no brainer. I had two copies of the 1.4 and sold one of them.
     
  7. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    ???
     
  8. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Kevin
    Nikkor O 35 1.4
     
  9. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    Now I see...I agree 100% (had a senior moment there). The Nikon 35/1.4 is around $1100. That’s about 12x what I paid for my lowly non-AI 35/2 but likely not 12x the lens.
     
  10. bobbill

    bobbill TalkEmount Rookie

    21
    Oct 27, 2017
    I like both those 35s and also like the Zuiko 38mm 1.8 images; but must admit the Nikkors do "do it," in the classic sense.