E.M
Well-known
I got a new Nikon F2 in 1973 , with a new Nikkor 50 f1:1.4 , was that an S-type at that time ? It was a very good lens and I liked it even wide open , maybe I had a good copy ?! Can you test it before you buy ?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
There never was a S-type - The -S in SLR Nikkors of the F type era (later types were K, AI and AI-S) is a letter for the number of elements in the lens. Abbreviated Latin for "septem", seven (they presumably chose Latin as that has unique letters for each numeral). All variations of the f/1.4 50mm Nikkor had seven elements.
peterm1
Veteran
Both the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f2 are excellent lenses in their original pre AI configurations. I own both and love them. The f1.4 renders beautifully but is a bit softer wide open although not excessively so far as I have noticed and the f2 is sharp from the get go and renders beautifully through its range. Perhaps their only limitation is their single coating which is not so good as modern coatings although I actually enjoy they way they render in practice (a bit of flare does not necessarily hurt an image if you learn how to control it).
Do not be fooled unduly by the marketing blurb about modern lenses being much, much better (they did need to sell lenses after all and no one ever sold a new lens by admitting the old ones were nearly as good). In my view while newer lenses are technically excellent, in practice they do not necessarily produce better images than their older brothers except perhaps in some circumstances such as shooting against the light which produces flare (and that is down to poorer coating technology not poorer optical design). The old standard and short to medium tele prime lenses, especially the 50s, the 85s and the 135s were all excellent lenses then and still are today. Incidentally this goes for any major brand - they all had lenses in these focal lengths and all made beauties.
The faster lenses like the f1.2s of this era tended to be a bit more limited, especially when shot wide open and I would say it is here you may see more differences between modern lenses and the older pre AI ones. An f1.2 lens is likely to have more noticeable flaws when shot wide open. But if used for the purpose they were intended, again this is not necessarily a serious flaw the ones I have tried are still very good lenses for their purpose. The caveat I would add is that you will find that the two lenses I mentioned above are more flexible in the range of applications they suit - most people I know only use their f1.2 lenses when they know they are going to shoot specific suitable subjects and keep other lenses for all other circumstances. The f1.2 may only be used 5% of the time. I do not have a Nikkor f1.2 but do have an early comparable Canon 58mm f1.2 and I like it very much although technically it does have limitations being a bit soft and low contrast wide open (common problems with this type of lens). I will leave it to others to talk about the Nikkor variants as I have no direct experience of them. But I still like this class of lens and think they are worth considering if you can live within their limits or have other lenses to use when that is called for.
There are a few good sites that provide some excellent info on Nikkors such as this one (the links to the standard lenses are near the bottom of the page): http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/index.htm
While these two have some good personal and subjective evaluations:
http://www.momentcorp.com/review/index.html
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/slemn.html
The following image is a contemporary report on the f1.4 Nikkor I spoke of
Do not be fooled unduly by the marketing blurb about modern lenses being much, much better (they did need to sell lenses after all and no one ever sold a new lens by admitting the old ones were nearly as good). In my view while newer lenses are technically excellent, in practice they do not necessarily produce better images than their older brothers except perhaps in some circumstances such as shooting against the light which produces flare (and that is down to poorer coating technology not poorer optical design). The old standard and short to medium tele prime lenses, especially the 50s, the 85s and the 135s were all excellent lenses then and still are today. Incidentally this goes for any major brand - they all had lenses in these focal lengths and all made beauties.
The faster lenses like the f1.2s of this era tended to be a bit more limited, especially when shot wide open and I would say it is here you may see more differences between modern lenses and the older pre AI ones. An f1.2 lens is likely to have more noticeable flaws when shot wide open. But if used for the purpose they were intended, again this is not necessarily a serious flaw the ones I have tried are still very good lenses for their purpose. The caveat I would add is that you will find that the two lenses I mentioned above are more flexible in the range of applications they suit - most people I know only use their f1.2 lenses when they know they are going to shoot specific suitable subjects and keep other lenses for all other circumstances. The f1.2 may only be used 5% of the time. I do not have a Nikkor f1.2 but do have an early comparable Canon 58mm f1.2 and I like it very much although technically it does have limitations being a bit soft and low contrast wide open (common problems with this type of lens). I will leave it to others to talk about the Nikkor variants as I have no direct experience of them. But I still like this class of lens and think they are worth considering if you can live within their limits or have other lenses to use when that is called for.
There are a few good sites that provide some excellent info on Nikkors such as this one (the links to the standard lenses are near the bottom of the page): http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/index.htm
While these two have some good personal and subjective evaluations:
http://www.momentcorp.com/review/index.html
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/slemn.html
The following image is a contemporary report on the f1.4 Nikkor I spoke of
Save
Save
Save
lynnb
Veteran
Nikon's A Thousand and One Nights has the story of Nikkor lens history, recommended reading.
I have the Nikkor-S 5cm f2 (early version) and am impressed with its rendering (click image to enlarge). There's only a half-stop difference between f1.8 and f2 in light-gathering:
cafe table #537 by lynnb's snaps, on Flickr
I also have the 50mm f/1.4 but I prefer the f2.
I have the Nikkor-S 5cm f2 (early version) and am impressed with its rendering (click image to enlarge). There's only a half-stop difference between f1.8 and f2 in light-gathering:
cafe table #537 by lynnb's snaps, on Flickr
I also have the 50mm f/1.4 but I prefer the f2.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
I have an old pre-ai 50/2 Nikkor-H, a later AI'd 50/2, and now an HC version is on the way with a camera so I'll have three of those! So far I have only tested them on my digital camera with an adapter but one very noticeable thing so far is the very, very smooth out of focus areas. The lens has a very nice rendering. I can't yet tell the difference between the older 50/2 and the newer one. I like the aesthetics of the old non-ai lenses too, and have a little collection going: Nikkor-N 28/2, Nikkor-0 35/2 (very smooth too!), Nikkor-H 50/2, an 85/1.8 and 105/2.5 for good measure. The 35 will probably be my go-to. The only thing I'm missing is a really fast lens and that would be good since I'm shooting with film and have been spoiled by the "ludicrious speed" of today's digital sensors. I should probably pick up a cheap Nikkor-S 50/1.4 and be done with it.
Be careful, nifty-fifties are the prescription opiodes of the lens world.
Be careful, nifty-fifties are the prescription opiodes of the lens world.
shimokita
白黒
I have been using the Nikkor Ai-S 50mm F/1.2 mounted on a F3P for a number of years and think it's worth a look... at the recent CP+ show in Yokohama I did a head to head with the Voigtlander Nokton 58mm F/1.4 SLIIs... While some might prefer the OOF of the Voigtlander it wasn't enough difference for me to warrant getting the 58mm - but it was a very nice lens.
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
I have heard that the AI-S 50/1.2 is actually the sharpest of all the Nikon 50s, stopped down a bit. Do you have any sense of that?
Bar8barian
Established
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ferider
Veteran
My favorite pre-AI
My favorite AI (get the Japan-released, all-metal version)
Roland.
My favorite AI (get the Japan-released, all-metal version)
Roland.
Robert Lai
Well-known
Sevo
You are correct, there are two versions of the AIS 50mm f/1.8. The first had the same optics as as my AI, and the latter pancake lens was similar to the Series E. I just didn't want to make it too complicated for the original poster.
At one time or other, I've had all the Nikkors in this range:
50 1.2 AIS, 50 1.4 AI/AIS, 50 f/2 HC, 50 1.8 AI, 50 1.8 Series E,
55 2.8 Micro AIS, 60mm 2.8 Micro AF-D.
Of the non-macro Nikkor lenses, in the f/1.4 to f/4 range, the 50 1.2 lens actually has the greatest contrast and sharpness in the corners. Alas, it has visible barrel distortion (e.g. door frames, people look "fat").
I never liked the 50mm 1.4 in any of several versions that i got and sold off. Always low contrast and poor resolution wide open. Required stopping down to f/2.8 to get really good imaging, so why not just use the f/1.8 lens?
The 50 AI 1.8 is very good. But, close up there is some barrel distortion. Open, there is some softness which cleans up around f/2.8.
The series E lens is single coated, and seemed to lack flare resistance. Also, at the time, people were complaining about the late AIS (series E based optics) version's tendency to ghost.
When the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 came out, it immediately became apparent to me that it was superior to ALL of these Nikkors. I sold ALL of them. Wide open, the Voigtlander has very usable contrast and resolution - even better than the f/1.2 lens at 1.4, and way better than the Nikkor f/1.4 lens wide open. Barrel distortion is very well controlled for an SLR lens.
Of the Micro-Nikkors, I'd say that the 55 f/2.8 AIS is easier to focus towards infinity. The 60mm lens has a very narrow band of manual focusing from 10m to infinity, and is harder to focus for general photography. It is very sharp for macro use. However, outside of copy stand use I never need to get closer than 1:2, so the 55 is great for me. No distortion with either Micro-Nikkor.
The 60mm Micro got sold, but the 55mm Micro is the only Nikkor in this focal range that I kept. I don't have any AF bodies (only Nikon F, F2 and F3), so AF is useless to me.
Incidentally, the Voigtlander 40mm f/2 cleared away all of my Nikkor 35mm lenses: 35 f/1.4 AIS, 35 f/2. AIS, 35 2.8 AIS.
It just is superior: wide open performance, flatness of field, and sharpness into the corners.
I still keep my Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS, as that is a very good lens.
You are correct, there are two versions of the AIS 50mm f/1.8. The first had the same optics as as my AI, and the latter pancake lens was similar to the Series E. I just didn't want to make it too complicated for the original poster.
At one time or other, I've had all the Nikkors in this range:
50 1.2 AIS, 50 1.4 AI/AIS, 50 f/2 HC, 50 1.8 AI, 50 1.8 Series E,
55 2.8 Micro AIS, 60mm 2.8 Micro AF-D.
Of the non-macro Nikkor lenses, in the f/1.4 to f/4 range, the 50 1.2 lens actually has the greatest contrast and sharpness in the corners. Alas, it has visible barrel distortion (e.g. door frames, people look "fat").
I never liked the 50mm 1.4 in any of several versions that i got and sold off. Always low contrast and poor resolution wide open. Required stopping down to f/2.8 to get really good imaging, so why not just use the f/1.8 lens?
The 50 AI 1.8 is very good. But, close up there is some barrel distortion. Open, there is some softness which cleans up around f/2.8.
The series E lens is single coated, and seemed to lack flare resistance. Also, at the time, people were complaining about the late AIS (series E based optics) version's tendency to ghost.
When the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 came out, it immediately became apparent to me that it was superior to ALL of these Nikkors. I sold ALL of them. Wide open, the Voigtlander has very usable contrast and resolution - even better than the f/1.2 lens at 1.4, and way better than the Nikkor f/1.4 lens wide open. Barrel distortion is very well controlled for an SLR lens.
Of the Micro-Nikkors, I'd say that the 55 f/2.8 AIS is easier to focus towards infinity. The 60mm lens has a very narrow band of manual focusing from 10m to infinity, and is harder to focus for general photography. It is very sharp for macro use. However, outside of copy stand use I never need to get closer than 1:2, so the 55 is great for me. No distortion with either Micro-Nikkor.
The 60mm Micro got sold, but the 55mm Micro is the only Nikkor in this focal range that I kept. I don't have any AF bodies (only Nikon F, F2 and F3), so AF is useless to me.
Incidentally, the Voigtlander 40mm f/2 cleared away all of my Nikkor 35mm lenses: 35 f/1.4 AIS, 35 f/2. AIS, 35 2.8 AIS.
It just is superior: wide open performance, flatness of field, and sharpness into the corners.
I still keep my Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS, as that is a very good lens.
Robert Lai
Well-known
I know few of you will follow my path in replacing your Nikkors with Voigtlander. However, for Nikon F, F2 use, look for the first generation of the Voigtlander (or Zeiss ZF) lenses. They have the metering prong to mesh with the F, or F2 non-AIS meter heads.
ferider
Veteran
The earlier all-metal, close focus pancake version that I am showing above (see also http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_50mm_f1.8_2257006.html) is multi-coated; flare resistant, compact, performance very similar to a v3+ Summicron, IMO. It was released in Japan in 81, where the Series E came later (1986, single-coated, plastic focus barrel, longer min. focus, see also http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_50mm_f1.8_4121878.html). Two very different lenses.
Roland.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
I got mine.
I gave away my 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S since the 5.8cm and my 50mm f/1.2 AIS covered all my normal needs.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
I won't replace mine, but should the stars ever align and I find a 40mm Ultron while I have the funds free then I shall snap up that little beauty post-haste.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Any thoughts about the Nikkor 45/2.8 GN?
B2 (;->
B2 (;->
De_Corday
Eternal Student
HC 50/2 is one of my favorite lenses of all time for black and white work. Draws is a wonderful way. The Bokeh isn't anything to write home about, but the *transition* from the in-focus areas to the out-of-focus areas is silky smooth. A beautiful lens, IMHO.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
As far as I can make out, and I have at one time or other had all of them, there are only two optical designs for the 50 1.8 Nikkors, in a variety of barrels, brandings and perhaps coatings:
The first had a meniscus front element, the long f/1.8 AI was made from 78-82, the short AI-S variation of that formula from 81-85.
The second formula had a planoconvex front element and shorter build. Initially the black plastics Nikon E from 1979-1981, it got upgraded to a much less shoddy looking chrome ring Nikon E/Nikkor from 81-85, which continued (globally in Nikkor branding) and with AI-S mount from 85 to 2005. The four AF versions of the f/1.8 also are the same (perhaps eventually enhanced) formula.
PS: Richard de Stoutz got the dates right, but the lenses wrong, by the way - serial 2257006 is a FG kit E lens (evident by the "Nikkor" branding, the pre FG ones still were "Nikon E"), 4121878 the successor that replaced both the E and the old formula AI-S 50/1.8 (the kit lens of the FM/FE series). There was no E series in 1986 any more (the EM had ended in 82, the FG already attempted to dissociate from that brief period of shabby looks and non-Nikkor branded lenses).
JMQ
Well-known
Ingenious design for flash photography. The GN stands for Guide Number, which is the output of the old manual flashes. You set the GN which couples the aperture to the distance. As you change the focus, the aperture changes accordingly. And it's super compact.
Shac
Well-known
No 50/1.8's were all Ai as far as I know. The front element is set well back inside the lens body as Robert Lai describes
I agree with the Head Bartender - the 55 macro's are well worth considering IF you don't need the speed
Good luck with your decision
Kent
Finally at home...
You can't go wrong with any of the "normal" Nikkors.
I own several models and all have "something". I like the ...
... AI 1.8/50 ("Pancake") for its compact size.
... AI 1.8/50 (regular lens) for its price (value!).
... PC 3.5/55 (pre-AI) for its impressive performance and for the price.
... AI 2.8/55 for its even better performance. (But I don't own that one.)
... SC 1.2/55 (pre-AI) for its speed and separation possibilities.
... GN 2.8/45 for its very small size. (I had to give it back because it didn't focus on infinity, though.)
... SC 1.4/50 (pre-AI) for its classic rendering.
... AI 1.4/50 for its fantastic allround-capabilites.
And I LOVE my Df and my F3 because I can perfectly use all those lenses!
I own several models and all have "something". I like the ...
... AI 1.8/50 ("Pancake") for its compact size.
... AI 1.8/50 (regular lens) for its price (value!).
... PC 3.5/55 (pre-AI) for its impressive performance and for the price.
... AI 2.8/55 for its even better performance. (But I don't own that one.)
... SC 1.2/55 (pre-AI) for its speed and separation possibilities.
... GN 2.8/45 for its very small size. (I had to give it back because it didn't focus on infinity, though.)
... SC 1.4/50 (pre-AI) for its classic rendering.
... AI 1.4/50 for its fantastic allround-capabilites.
And I LOVE my Df and my F3 because I can perfectly use all those lenses!