kopitnil@mra-inc.com wrote in message <6eh3a6$jqt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>About a month ago I posted the message below to the Nikon list, but it
>generated few responses. The posts about the 35 mm f/1.4 Nikkor in this group
>recently gives me some hope I may find useful answers here. All help is
>welcome and appreciated.
>
>Has anyone used both the 50 mm f/1.4 and 35 mm f/1.4 Nikkors? If so, how do
>they compare optically?


My first response was going to be a referral to my "SUBJECTIVE Lens
Evaluations (Mostly Nikkor)" list on my web page, under "I babble",
but reading further indicated that this may not answer your questions...
(The SLE[MN] numbers are mostly based on wider stop sharpness, but
it looks like you are seeking answers to "bokeh" questions...;-)

>My dilemma is this: I've very disappointed with the photos the 50 f/1.4
>yields, particularly at full aperture and in low light, the circumstances
>where I most often need it (I've used 3 samples: a manual focus, a pre-D AF
>and a D AF; the photos they produce are indistinguishable).


The late 50mm f1.4 Nikkor is an excellent lens by f2, but I prefer not
to use it at f1.4. At appropriate distances (the lens is very
distance-sensitive), I prefer the f1.2 at stops wider than f2.

>I extensively use the 85 mm f/1.4D, and it produces beautifully sharp
>photos with velvety smooth tonal gradations -- the closest performance to a
>Leica or Zeiss lens that I've seen in the Nikon line. The 50, on the other
>hand, produces harsh muddy tones, and sharper transitions between tones,
>almost like its contrast is too extreme.


Ah, you don't like good contrast at wide stops, huh...? No wonder you
like Leitz lenses...;-), ;-), ;-) Seriously, though, it appears that
Nikon has generally designed for snappy images, and has traditionally
used 5-sided diaphragms. The 85mm f1.4-D, as I recall, uses more blades
in its diaphragm, which could help produce a smoother out of focus
image. Also, design choices in optics can affect the contrast of the
slightly out of focus image. Personally, I prefer a snappy out of focus
image (and several of the images on my web page, under "Aht Fotoz",
depend on it...).

>For example, I recently photographed a multi-bulb ceiling lamp with both
>lenses at f/1.4. The 85 produced a photo where the out-of-focus bulbs
>almost melted into a rich maroon background, and the lamp's highlights
>blended gently into the lamp. The sharpness of the focused areas
>accentuated the smoothness of the out-of-focus parts.
>
>The photo from the 50, on the other hand, showed just a distinct narrow
>area where the bulb's bright edge transitioned into a dirty-brown
>background, with the lamp's highlights sharp and blown out, and with ghost
>images of the bulbs repeated throughout the image. And the focused areas in
>the photo made with the 50 were not nearly as crisp as those in the image
>made with the 85.
>
>As a result, the 50 has gone in the closet and my 35-70 f/2.8, which
>consistently produces sharp, pleasing shots, has joined my everyday kit.
>But the 35-70, while an excellent lens, is much bigger and heavier than the
>50. And, more importantly to my needs, it's not f/1.4.


Hmmm, I should think that the 50mm f1.4 would blow away the 35-70
at f1.4 and f2...;-) I think it also does at f2.8 and f4 - maybe you
just like softer, lower-contrast images...? ;-)

>Therefore, my interest in the 35 f/1.4. How do the photos it produces
>compare to what I've described above? It's a focal length that could easily
>replace the 50 for me. But it's also a design approaching 30 years old. And
>if its photos approximate the look of the photos from the 50, I'd gain
>nothing by acquiring one.


It is worth a try (I have a spare one..., since I prefer the snap
of the MF f2 35mm ;-) - it is lower contrast at wide stops, and the
contrast gradually increases with stopping down. I suspect that the
out of focus image may not please you, though ("bad bokeh", an' all
that...;-) BTW, someday I will put some of the photos from a show
of mine called "Soft Images" on my web page - these were shot (with
Nikkors...;-) on film capable of a 20-stop range of recorded
illumination. A by-product of the wide range is extremely low
contrast, and therefore a very smoooth rendering of out of focus
areas.

>So, those of you who have used both the 35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4 Nikkors: How
>do the photos they produce compare?

At wide stops, they do look different.
--
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
ruether@fcinet.com