Nikkor 35 2.0 AI review

This is the second Nikkor AI lens I review (the first was the 85 2.0 AI) and also the second lens in the 24-35-85 trio that I used with my Nikon FE, FM and F3 SLRs in the early 80s.
How does these 30 years old manual lenses compare to todays computer designs, now that aspherical surfaces and once-exotic ED-glass are commonplace also in low end kit lenses?
Well, in the case of the 85 2.0 AI, it stood its ground rather well (see the review here). So lets take a look at the 35 2.0 AI. But first some words about the 35 mm focal length.
While the 50 mm was the “normal” lens that often came bundled with the Nikkormat, Pentax Spotmatic, Canon Ftb, Minolta SRT or which ever SLR you choose, many advanced users and most professionals prefered a 35 mm as the “normal” lens. The reason - a wider field of view, with only mild distortion. A 35 is a “people friendly” lens, that does not distort faces or body shapes unlike wider lenses. The 35 is a lens that lets the subject speak for itself, without any help from dramatic perspectives or paper thin depth of field.

On an APS-C, or DX in the Nikon nomenclature, DSLR the 35 mm has a field of view like a 50 mm on a film SLR. The DOF is a stop more, so you get less subject isolation, which makes the lens a little harder to focus manually. I used the 35 2.0 AI on my D300, and used the focus confirmation light, which is workable, but not as easy or fast as a split image/microprism screen on a manual focus SLR. For moving subjects an AF lens is superior.
In terms of build quality the all metal 35 2.0 AI is of course great. One thing about the AI Nikkors (with the exception of the E-series lenses that aimed to compete with third party lenses like Vivitar, Soligor, Sigma, Tamron, etc), is that they all are built to the same high standards mechanically. A low cost 135 F3.5 was just as well built as an expensive 180 F2.8, a 50 F2.0 just as smooth as a 50 F1.2. They may need an occasional service with lubrication or a new rubber focus ring, but then they can serve for another decade or two. Despite the high quality build, the 35 2.0 AI is relatively light (280 g) and compact, just as the 85 2.0 AI, a sweetspot in terms of size/weight, balance on camera and speed. F 2.0 on a 35 goes a very long way in terms of low light ability.
The 35 2.0 AI mounted on D300 - a good match in feel and build quality:

Optical quality
Interestly enough Nikon expert Bjorn Rorslett writes that the 35 2.0 AI has a more advanced optical formula than the later 35 2.0 AF-D, and gives it very high remarks. Quote: ” Image crispness is of the highest class”. Some sample images (click to expand them).

My recollection of this lens performance is that it was about the same as the 85 2.0 AI - usuable wide open, good at 2.8, excellent from F 4 and up. Lets see how this bears out today.
If we start from the beginning - a test wide open and one stop down. Shot in RAW, converted in ACR, USM 0.3/100/0.

100 percent crops. F 2.0 to the left. F 2.8 to the right. (Click on the image to expand it to the right size.)

Soft and dreamy wide open, improvement a stop down.
At medium and close distances the lens a look at bit better wide open. (Click to expand.)

The same goes for F 2.8. A comparision between 2.8 and 5.6 at medium distance:

100 percent crops. F 5.6 to the left. F 2.8 to the right. (Click to expand.)

Here the 2.8 image is very sharp, virtually no difference versus the 5.6.

An image at F 4:

A 100 percent crop. The focus is on the red mark. (Click to expand.)

Sharpness looks very good to me.

Bokeh
Shot at 2.8. (Click to expand.)

CA
CA (chromatic abberation) is generally well controlled. Can occasionally be seen, but less than with the 18-105 or 18-200 kit lenses I tested recently. A test image for CA (Click to expand - warning - 2045 pixels wide, go here to see it on pbase instead.):

Landscape test
A 2.0 prime is of course several stops faster than the typical zoom kit lenses. But when the light is good and you can stop down, is there any advantage in using a 35 2.0 AI versus a modern kit zoom lens, like the 18-105VR for landscapes? Here is a test at F 8.

100 percent crops, 18-105VR to the left, 35 2.0 AI to the right. Top row center sharpness, bottom row edge sharpness (Click to expand.).

In the center they are evenly matched, maybe a hair of an advantage to the 35 2.0 AI. But as we move to the edge of the image, the better sharpness of the 35 2.0 AI is more visible.

A few more sample images:

For the DSLR-video users
The AI lenses with their manual aperture and smooth manual focusing are ideal for high end video users. The 35 2.0 AI balances perfectly on the video capable D90.

Too bad Nikon did not gave the D90 the same ablity to meter with AI/AIS lenses as the D300. On a D90 you have to set shutterspeed and aperture manually, “guesstimate” the exposure, check the LCD and correct. But in video mode the metering works.
Short DOF for filmlike subject isolation is one of the most attractive features of DSLR based video.
Here is short clip (37 sec), to illustrate DOF wide open with the 35 2.0 AI.

35 2.0 AI wide open from PerL on Vimeo.

Conclusion
It looks like old quality lenses can perform rather well also on digital. The sharpness a couple of stops down can easily match or exceed a modern consumer zoom lens (and maybe some pro zoom lenses too - we will see in future comparisons on this site). The 35 2.0 AI is a solid performer overall. Soft wide open (but better at close distance than at infinity), improving at 2.8, very sharp from F 4 and onwards. The probably biggest downside for the 35 2.0 AI is the manual focusing and the arrival of the new, low cost 35 1.8 DX, which in usability will be a better alternative for most DX users, and probably will have great optical performance, judging by early reports. But for FF users that dont mind manual focusing, and video enthusiasts, the 35 2.0 AI may be an interesting option. And there is something about those quality objects that still works fine after 30 years, and probably can last 30 more…