Crazy Fedya
Well-known
I have a black Nikon F with photomic prism and50/1.4 lens. I am thinking about selling it,just like the rest of the gear i have decided to let go to finance my home renovation project. However, I am thinking of keeping it as well, as long as lenses for it are going to be nice.
I have used Pentax screwmount Takumars of different kinds, and I have used them with excellent results. But I have never used any of Nikon lenses. How do they stack up against Takumars? I am not looking for all out war of Nikon vs Pentax. I am just trying to decide whether 35/2, 35/1.4, 85/2 and 105/2.5 Nikkors are worth their reputation. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
I have used Pentax screwmount Takumars of different kinds, and I have used them with excellent results. But I have never used any of Nikon lenses. How do they stack up against Takumars? I am not looking for all out war of Nikon vs Pentax. I am just trying to decide whether 35/2, 35/1.4, 85/2 and 105/2.5 Nikkors are worth their reputation. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Maiku
Maiku
Keep the Takumars. They are great lenses. Use them!
Crazy Fedya
Well-known
I do not intend to sell Takumars, I am thinking of whether I should sell Nikon F, or keep it and get some lenses for it.
Maiku
Maiku
Sorry. So your intention is to sell your gear to renovate. I suggest keep the Takumars and suggest sell the Nikon F. Put the money towards your intended project. If you want one later buy one. Stay focused! 
Shutterspark
The perpetual new guy.
I've always preferred the 35/3.5 SMC to any Nikon 35s of the same era, but both of Nikon's 105/2.5 designs have no equal on Pentax's side in my opinion.
Haven't used the other lenses enough to give an opinion. The Nikkon 85/1.8 is amazing, although I've always had a thing for 85mm lenses and I hear good things about that elusive 85/1.8 Takumar.
And of course, it's all just a matter of taste.
Haven't used the other lenses enough to give an opinion. The Nikkon 85/1.8 is amazing, although I've always had a thing for 85mm lenses and I hear good things about that elusive 85/1.8 Takumar.
And of course, it's all just a matter of taste.
kshapero
South Florida Man
never sell an F.
raid
Dad Photographer
The Nikkors get you more cash now. Both type of lenses are great.
jwicaksana
Jakarta, Indonesia
I second what Shutterspark said, 35mm Takumars of the same era beat the Nikkors. I even use 35 AF-D on my manual Nikon body simply because the AI/AI-S models are too prone to flare IMHO. So if you decided to keep the F, for Nikon wide angle go for 28 2.8 AI-S, and go for 105 2.5 too. Best wishes for your home renovation project.
Crazy Fedya
Well-known
Thank you, gentlemen, for the replies. The only reason I was considering keeping F is for the legacy of it, and its lenses. I think Takumars are hard to beat, thats why I decided to keep the among other things. I was thinking of making an outfit of F with its native lenses from the same time period, like I have with Pentax, but only if there is anything better to be gained imagewise. If Takumars are better lenses, than Nikkors of the same vintage, I see no point in keeping the F. I guess it will have to go.
Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
Hold on there. The 105mm 2.5 is deserving of its reputation, and are common enough to acquire for pretty cheap. The 35mm 1.4 early metal with the yellowed elements is still underrated and a pretty interesting lens. I'd keep the body and just wait.
sparrow6224
Well-known
The Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AIS or the 28/2 Ai or AIS (avoid 28/2.8 Ai version) are tremendous. The 21/3.5 is very good. They don't have a superior 35mm in my opinion, short of the newest $2000 digital number. The 50/1.4 you have is fine, though not up to the equivalent Takumar esp if that Takumar is SMC. The 85/2 and 85/1.8 are not as good as the Pentax either, but the 85/1.8 takumar can cost you $400 or more. I watched for two years to get one a bit cheaper than that. The Nikkor 105/2.5 is incomparable. It is a lens about which you can say, beyond it's sharp or great color or whatever: that it's beautiful.
So if you want to keep the F -- and I would keep it, I think it's historic and great, and a pleasure to use, which the Pentax cameras, despite the great Takumar lenses, are just not, unless you get a good adapter and go for the later, post-K cameras (ME, ME Super, and up). Whereas the Nikon F would almost have to be included in any list of 100 20th century objects that helped change the world, along with the Barnack Leica. It is deeply satisfying to use one. With the great 28mm, the good 50mm, and the v. great 105, you'd have an enviable set.
If you go bigger than 105 eventually, the 180/2.8 ED version is another that can take your breath away. Nikon's great strength, I think, optically, is in its tele's -- With an exception made for those superb 28mm's, everything else below 85mm the best of the competition usually has Nikkors beat.
So if you want to keep the F -- and I would keep it, I think it's historic and great, and a pleasure to use, which the Pentax cameras, despite the great Takumar lenses, are just not, unless you get a good adapter and go for the later, post-K cameras (ME, ME Super, and up). Whereas the Nikon F would almost have to be included in any list of 100 20th century objects that helped change the world, along with the Barnack Leica. It is deeply satisfying to use one. With the great 28mm, the good 50mm, and the v. great 105, you'd have an enviable set.
If you go bigger than 105 eventually, the 180/2.8 ED version is another that can take your breath away. Nikon's great strength, I think, optically, is in its tele's -- With an exception made for those superb 28mm's, everything else below 85mm the best of the competition usually has Nikkors beat.
Crazy Fedya
Well-known
I happen to own 85mm f/1.9 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar, and I am very happy with results I got from it. I sold all my K-mount cameras with exception of K10D. I prefer M42 bodies, like H3.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I have both, and I'd say that as a rule the Nikkors are technically better (sharper, contrastier, etc), and that I prefer the look I get from them, especially in colour. This was the general view in the 60s too, when Pentax was still occasionally used professionally. The F is also a better built body, without the very 'tired' shutters that 1960's Pentaxes tend to have nowadays.
On the other hand, there are some really great lenses for the Pentax -- I very much like my 85/1.9 -- and the slogan of the time, "Just hold a Pentax" holds good today. Go to http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps ignore gurus.html and you'll see a delightful portrait taken with an 85/1.9 on Fomapan 200 with an SV.
Cheers,
R.
On the other hand, there are some really great lenses for the Pentax -- I very much like my 85/1.9 -- and the slogan of the time, "Just hold a Pentax" holds good today. Go to http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps ignore gurus.html and you'll see a delightful portrait taken with an 85/1.9 on Fomapan 200 with an SV.
Cheers,
R.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Nikon lenses are very sharp, but their tonal rendering in black and white is harsh, and most of them have poor bokeh if that matters. I have used Nikon since I got my F4s at age 18, and really preferred the rendering I get from Olympus OM and Pentax Screwmount lenses as far as 35mm SLRs go.
I have the 24/2.8D, 28/2.8D, 35/2D, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8 AF-Nikkor lenses, so i have a lot of experience with them.
Here's one with the 35mm f2D AF-Nikkor
Here's one under similar lighting with a 35mm Summicron-M (which I foolishly sold).
The Nikon F is an awesome camera, and if you can afford it, get lenses for it and try them, but don't sell the Pentax stuff. I agree with Roger that in Color the Nikkors do really render well. I used them extensively back when I had a Kodak 14n digital SLR.
This was shot on the 14n with the 28mm f2.8D AF-Nikkor:
I have the 24/2.8D, 28/2.8D, 35/2D, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8 AF-Nikkor lenses, so i have a lot of experience with them.
Here's one with the 35mm f2D AF-Nikkor
Here's one under similar lighting with a 35mm Summicron-M (which I foolishly sold).
The Nikon F is an awesome camera, and if you can afford it, get lenses for it and try them, but don't sell the Pentax stuff. I agree with Roger that in Color the Nikkors do really render well. I used them extensively back when I had a Kodak 14n digital SLR.
This was shot on the 14n with the 28mm f2.8D AF-Nikkor:
redisburning
Well-known
I would file any other make of SLR under "grass is always greener", except moving to a body that lets you use the current Zeiss lenses.
fix your house up. maybe keep the F if you intend to try a ZF lens or two.
2c
fix your house up. maybe keep the F if you intend to try a ZF lens or two.
2c
raid
Dad Photographer
85mm/1.8 SMC
85mm/1.8 SMC
Hi Roger,
I have a 85mm/1.8 SMC. Is this a lens that is very different from the 85mm/1.9 that you have?
I also like using the SMC 50mm/1.4 and SMC 35mm/2. These are excellent lenses. My Spotmatic F has been CLA'd a few years ago, and now it works beautifully.
Raid
85mm/1.8 SMC
Hi Roger,
I have a 85mm/1.8 SMC. Is this a lens that is very different from the 85mm/1.9 that you have?
I also like using the SMC 50mm/1.4 and SMC 35mm/2. These are excellent lenses. My Spotmatic F has been CLA'd a few years ago, and now it works beautifully.
Raid
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Raid,
Dunno. Sorry. I'd imagine it's fairly different, or they'd probably not have bothered to emphasize the tiny difference in speed.
Cheers,.
R.
dbarnes
Well-known
Chunky, indestructible, incredibly modular and Stone Cold Reliable SLRs with simply legendary lenses that are responsible for decades of famous images but that now are available cheap? Those Nikon Fs? ;-)
They're not everyone's cup of tea. But they're a good bet. I'd say, pick up another lens or two (don't miss the 105) and see what the fuss was about.
Hard for me to imagine what my photo experience would have been like without them. (Not that any of those famous images were mine....)
Since you already have the 50 and since the 105 is a must-see, adding a 28 would make sense. Don't forget to take the FTn finder off for a few low angle shots.
If you get the bug and want to explore more, there's the combination of 24/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8 and 180/2.8 that so many photojournalists used.
They're not everyone's cup of tea. But they're a good bet. I'd say, pick up another lens or two (don't miss the 105) and see what the fuss was about.
Hard for me to imagine what my photo experience would have been like without them. (Not that any of those famous images were mine....)
Since you already have the 50 and since the 105 is a must-see, adding a 28 would make sense. Don't forget to take the FTn finder off for a few low angle shots.
If you get the bug and want to explore more, there's the combination of 24/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8 and 180/2.8 that so many photojournalists used.
Graham Line
Well-known
I've used both systems since the '70s. In general -- very general -- the Takumars give a little warmer and more nuanced rendering. Nikkors tend toward the clinical.
Nikkors tend to retain more resolution toward the edges, unless you're talking about the less common premium-grade Takumars like the 85/1.8 or the 300/4.
There was not a lot to choose in build quality, though I thought Pentax slipped a bit with their less-expensive K-mount cameras.
Graham Line
Well-known
I thought the 85/1.8 was a significant improvement in brightness, contrast and rendering over the 1.9. One of the best lenses I've used in any mount, including Nikons and Leicas.