Chris101
summicronia
Then it sounds like you want the Nikon - GET IT! Like I said, the F is just a gateway camera (kinda like a gateway drug) cause the Nikon system can keep you entertained for many thousands of dollars to come. And the stuff ain't bad.
Look into your future:
Vics
Veteran
The Nikon F and F2, F3, F4, 5, 6 have the distinct advantage over all other SLRs in that they show the entire film frame in the finder. It's that precise framing that makes me keep my F cams. The Micro Nikkor 3.5 is not only a great macro, but also a tack-sharp normal lens as well. I think they usually came with an extension tube that took the lens from a 1:2 magnification to a 1:1 magnification. Mine had lost the tube by the time I got it, so I found one at a local shop and so I'm happy. The Nikon F is the first of the total "camera systems" with interchangeable EVERYTHING!
Go for it, and you'll sell all that other stuff. Annie Leibovitz started out with a Minolta SRT101, but when she "got serious" she bought a Nikon F with a 35/2, a 55 micro Nikkor 3.5 and a 105mm Nikkor 2.5. She made a few pretty fair pix with that kit.
Go for it, and you'll sell all that other stuff. Annie Leibovitz started out with a Minolta SRT101, but when she "got serious" she bought a Nikon F with a 35/2, a 55 micro Nikkor 3.5 and a 105mm Nikkor 2.5. She made a few pretty fair pix with that kit.
Last edited:
redisburning
Well-known
well doesnt matter anyway.
seller balked and now wants double. last night we had something worked out, today I guess not.
maybe Ill sell some of my parker 51s and pick up someone else's F down the road.
seller balked and now wants double. last night we had something worked out, today I guess not.
maybe Ill sell some of my parker 51s and pick up someone else's F down the road.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
And that's all you need to give it a try.
In this age where top-notch film cameras are way below their original prices, it'd be crazy *not* to try them all ("all" here is relative to your inclination and wallet, of course
)Nikon F is a classic, you ought to try it if just for being able to say so.
I am an OM user, and I like classic Nikons
Field
Well-known
I had a Nikon F and they are very high quality... Higher build quality than OM's for sure, but I have fallen in love with the OM lenses. Semi-exotic Nikon lenses are cheaper than semi-exotic OM lenses (there is nothing outlandish in the OM lineup).
The macro lenses for the Nikons are sharper than their standard lenses; they only problem being speed. They are much cheaper than the OM's.
The 20, (24 I think too), and 28mm lenses are cheap and great at f2.8. The f2 versions of them are still $200 cheaper than an OM f2 wide. All the wides are a good penny though.
Cheapest best lenses:
Nikon 105mm f2.5 P-C (not perspective control, it is just a P-C instead of P, it has another element so it is like a planar+), it is one of the best lenses ever made. $90-150 for a non-AI (fine on F model). The AI version is another $30-80 in price. It would only cost you $30 to have one converted. Some people like the modern 100mm, but I would get the 105mm P-C first. The P version is worth grabbing if it is super cheap, has a legendary status, but the P-C is extraordinary.
Nikon 50mm f2 is superior to the f1.4, but the autofocus 1.4 and 1.8 are nice. If you price jump A LOT to a 58mm 1.2 you are good. The 50mm 1.2 is ok but for $500 there are a lot better things out there.
Nikon 55mm f3.5 macro (as you already know), is sharper than probably anything but the 58mm 1.2 and f2.8 macro.
The macro lenses for the Nikons are sharper than their standard lenses; they only problem being speed. They are much cheaper than the OM's.
The 20, (24 I think too), and 28mm lenses are cheap and great at f2.8. The f2 versions of them are still $200 cheaper than an OM f2 wide. All the wides are a good penny though.
Cheapest best lenses:
Nikon 105mm f2.5 P-C (not perspective control, it is just a P-C instead of P, it has another element so it is like a planar+), it is one of the best lenses ever made. $90-150 for a non-AI (fine on F model). The AI version is another $30-80 in price. It would only cost you $30 to have one converted. Some people like the modern 100mm, but I would get the 105mm P-C first. The P version is worth grabbing if it is super cheap, has a legendary status, but the P-C is extraordinary.
Nikon 50mm f2 is superior to the f1.4, but the autofocus 1.4 and 1.8 are nice. If you price jump A LOT to a 58mm 1.2 you are good. The 50mm 1.2 is ok but for $500 there are a lot better things out there.
Nikon 55mm f3.5 macro (as you already know), is sharper than probably anything but the 58mm 1.2 and f2.8 macro.
Last edited:
nikku
Well-known
That 105mm is a nice lens. I started out with a Nikkormat (a tank, with superb build quality), 28/3.5 (non ai), 50/1.4 (non ai), and a 135/2.8 no name AI lens. The 28/3.5 is super cheap, and not at all a bad lens--great color and contrast, but some noticable distortion at the edges. Later I got the 105/2.5 P.C (great value for the money) and 35/2 O (non ai). The one lens that would convince me to get another Nikon is that old 35/2. I love the way it renders.
Now I'm an OM guy, but mostly for the form and function of the cameras, not necessarily the glass--though I do think it is all very nice.
Nikon lenses are cheaper (especially non ai) compared to their Zuiko counterparts, by virtue of the sheer volume of Nikkors on the market.