[Текст на српском] So, you have old lenses left from the analogue era? Can they have a second life in the digital World? Spoiler: Don’t throw them out yet!

Today we have two contenders in out quick & dirty quality test, and they will both be put up to the modern kit zoom lens for comparison. The direct reason for bringing them out of the closet, was a rise of mirrorless cameras. Why? Because, manual focusing with these old lenses on a DSLR cameras was always very tricky. With the manual focus aids inside the new generation of MILC (mirrorless cameras), that job is much easier, and they are becoming useful again. But then, what can we expect from the old optics made for film?

Contenders

Today we have, in the red corner:

Nikon Nikkor 35mm f/2 a.k.a NIKKOR-Auto, AI and AI-s, made in several versions from 1965 until 2005.

Summary	Nikon Nikkor 35mm f/2
Mount	F mount, metal
Optics	8 elements in 6 groups
FOV	62 deg
Min. focus	30 cm / 1 ft
Diafragm	7 blades (stops to 22 at full stop)

And in the blue corner:

Carl Zeiss Jena MC Flektogon 35mm f/2.4 (M42 screw mount), also made in B version, Praktica mount with electric contacts, starting from some 40 years ago.

Summary	Carl Zeiss Jena MC Flektogon 35mm f/2.4
Mount	M42 universal screw mount, metal
Optics	6 elements in 6 groups
FOV	62 deg
Min. focus	19 cm / 7.48 in
Diafragm	6 blades (stops to 22 at half-stop)

DISCLAIMER

The test came rather unexpectedly, and I didn’t have the time and space to prepare a serious test setup. Computer screen and equal conditions should give a proper relation between optics. Do not expect an absolute quality estimation. Thank you.

The Dull Part — Pixel Peeping

This is a test of the lens sharpness. Both lenses are manual focus only, so the results may depend on my old and not too certain eyes. However, I have tried several times, and I think the conclusion is a fair one. Let’s start with the comparison of those oldies. Both have beautiful full metal construction, with smooth focusing rings. Key difference on f-stop ring is that Zeiss gives you a half-stop clicks, while Nikon goes only for a full stop. Both are joy to use, especially with a mirrorless cameras of new generation, which have very nice choice of focusing aids. Focusing isn’t quite so beautiful like with Leica rangefinder cameras, but on the other hand, your wallet won’t experience a heart attack either. All test photos were made at ISO100. We are going to start with Nikon at f2.0…

Nikon f2.0, 1/85, Center	Zeiss N/A

Nikon f2.0, 1/85, Lower Right	Zeiss N/A

Center sharpness fully open is not spectacular, but it is not bad at all. Contrast is not impressive, which is understandable for such old optics.

Nikon f2.8, 1/52, Center	Zeiss f2.4, 1/60, Center

Nikon f2.8, 1/52, Lower Right	Zeiss f2.4, 1/60, Lower Right

Now, since Zeiss starts at f2.4 and Nikon does not have half-stop clicks, we have to compare Nikon at f2.8 with Zeiss at f2.4. Center sharpness is just a tiny bit better with Nikon (go ahead and give that to the f-stop difference), but the edge sharpness is visibly better with Nikon. Center contrast is improved, while edge contrast is lagging, especially on Zeiss, where we have a visible portion of vignetting. Both have chromatic aberrations well controled.

Here, we will make a little diversion. At f3.5, we are going to compare old Zeiss with a modern day Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4, at 35mm and f/3.5, just to see how much the technology has gone forward in the last 40 years:

Fujinon f3.6, 1/26, Center	Zeiss f3.5, 1/38, Center

Fujinon f3.6, 1/26, Lower Right	Zeiss f3.5, 1/38, Lower Right

Now that difference is staggering. Modern kit zoom is far better in any aspect comparing it to the oldies. If you have old lens, use it, by all means, but if you want to buy an old one, check first if it is worth having it together with available modern entry-level AF optics, made specifically for digital cameras.

Let’s continue now with the Nikon-Zeiss match at f/4.

Nikon f4, 1/27, Center	Zeiss f4, 1/27, Center

Nikon f4, 1/27, Lower Right	Zeiss f4, 1/27, Lower Right

At f/4, center sharpness is very good on both lenses, and edge shapness is improved on both, with Nikon still in an obvious lead.

Nikon f5.6, 1/14, Center	Zeiss f5.6, 1/14, Center

Nikon f5.6, 1/14, Lower Right	Zeiss f5.6, 1/14, Lower Right

At f/5.6 center sharpness is really good (again very slightly better with Nikon), and at much better the edges, with Zeiss closing on Nikon, but… no cigar.

Nikon f8, 1/7, Center	Zeiss f8, 1/6, Center

Nikon f8, 1/7, Lower Right	Zeiss f8, 1/6, Lower Right

At f/8 Nikon is almost perfect, and Zeiss is not far away. That would be a sweet spot on both.

Nikon f11, 1/3, Center	Zeiss f11, 1/3, Center

Nikon f11, 1/3, Lower Right	Zeiss f11, 1/3, Lower Right

Almost the same story at f/11…

Nikon f16, 1/2, Center	Zeiss f16, 1/2, Center

Nikon f16, 1/2, Lower Right	Zeiss f16, 1/2, Lower Right

At f/16 a diffraction problems begin to show, and although they are not heavily pronounced, use f/16 and f/22 only with a good reason.

In summary, contrast and vignetting are relatively easy to correct, so both lenses are optically still very usable. Nikon has clearly better sharpness, especially edge sharpness, but also has a slightly warm tint, while Zeiss is more color neutral.

Real world examples

While pixel-peeping can give you a technical answers, you didn’t do your homework if you do not show a real world pics, which are the only way to show you what lens really can do. And since we are at homework… here is our favorite model, Alex, doing his math homework:

^{Fujifilm X-T20, Nikon, f2, 1/125, ISO2500}

^{Fujifilm X-T20, Zeiss, f2.4, 1/125, ISO4000}

^{Fujifilm X-T20, Nikon, f2, 1/125, ISO1600}

^{Fujifilm X-T20, Zeiss, f2.4, 1/125, ISO1600}

Conclusion

Examples above are made under the incandescent light, and are slightly color corrected. Correction confirmed that Nikon gives slightly warmer tone. Optically, Nikon is clearly better, but Zeiss has one unique feature — very close minimal focusing distance. It is actually shorter then on some dedicated macro lenses! You almost have a macro function with it, and you have true macro function with the macro reverse ring. Here we have a few photos of the tiny Autumn flowers at the closest distance (non-reverse), and with the open diaphragm:

^{Fujifilm X-T20, Zeiss, f2.4, 1/850, ISO200}

^{Fujifilm X-T20, Zeiss, f2.4, 1/3500, ISO400}

^{Fujifilm X-T20, Zeiss, f2.4, 1/3000, ISO400}

Nice bokeh was always Zeiss trademark, so you have it here also. On the closest distance and wide open, Zeiss lacks sharpness and contrast, but for macro shots you will have to stop it down anyway, to increase depth of field (DOF). If you reverse mount it, you will have to take it to f8 and further. For example:

^{Fujifilm X-T20, Zeiss 35mm (reverse), f11, 1/90 sec, ISO12800}

More than enough sharpness, wouldn’t you say?

Acknowledgment

Nikon’s Nikkor 35mm f/2 lens was kindly provided for this test by the professional photographer Zoran Marjanović, whose works you can see at this link. Thank you!

* * *

Related links:

Lens test: Portrait Face-off — Nikkor vs. Canon

Instant Access to Steemit

Universal Basic Income

PocketNet

Check out ABRA and easily invest in 28 cryptocurrencies or BIT10, an index of the top cryptos. Use this link to sign up and get $25 in free bitcoin after your first Bank/Amex deposit, or 1.5% cash back when you exchange cryptos

1GZQG69sEKiMXKgGw9TcGcUCBoC4sC1ZYp