Favorite old Nikon SLR lenses - or dogs?

My 50/1.2 is the 9-blade, and that probably is a source of confusion and misleading information. I just shot a roll of 135-36 Tri-X in about 1/2 hour. The f/1.2 is fun to use.
 
This is what happens with the 50/1.4 wide open if you have point light sources in the background

Nikon FE2, 50/1.4 wide open, TriX pushed two stops.

3345769930_3bf3bcd04d.jpg
 
FTR the Ai version of the 50/1.2 (and 58/1.2) has seven aperture blades, and the Ai-Sversion has nine aperture blades.

Lots of good info about this on Roland Vink's website here.
 
Last edited:
24 f2.8, 105 f2.5 and 180 f2.8 ED plus the 1st generation f4 25-50 zoom. The early 25-50 is fairly large but it's one fine lenses. Even the first generation are excellent by any standard. The 50 f3.5 Micro, 35 F2, 85 f1.8, 75-150 f2.5 E zoom and 105 Micro are in the top also but my favorite are the first three. All are manual focus that I mention. The current AF lenses are tops to say the least.

Nikons first two 20mm MF lenses were dogs IMO and some of the early zooms aren't the best.
 
I had a 24mm f2.8 AIS Nikkor once, that someone gave me. One roll and I knew exactly why they gave it to me...it was really soft, at all distances and all apertures. I passed it on...

I did have a really sharp 55mm f3.5 macro and a really good 35mm f2.0 (AIS) once. Had the expensive 105 f.18, took me years to admit it, but any 105 f2.5 was superior.

Had a nice 85mm f1.8 Non AI once, too...
 
ampguy said:
Also, for those who aren't fans of the 28/2.8 non AI (.3m focus), I should have a gallery of 300 stellar images from this lens in an hour or two. I'd like to know what you don't like about this lens.
Click to expand...

Ampguy,

I have a very late version of the 28/2.8 AI, and my example is also very nice. In fact, I think mine focuses to .2 M. At least the lens barrel focuses below the .3 M mark just like my 24/2.8 AIS and 35/2 AIS. Someday I will have to test it and see.

Anyway, I like my copy of the 28/2.8 AI a lot. I use it as my walk-around lens on my D200/D300 because the 24/2.8 is much more prone to flare.

willie
 
Last edited:
Hi Willie

Hi Willie

I haven't used the close focus (.2m) version of the 28/2.8, but virtually every review says it is as good, or better than my .3m non AI 28/2.8.

While different camera bodies, I can vouch that this lens is as good or better than the following RF lenses: CV 28/3.5, 28/1.9, Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8, with film (F3s) or the crop sensors (used the RF lenses on Leicas, Hexar RFs, and RD1s.)

willie_901 said:
Ampguy,

I have a very late version of the 28/2.8 AI, and my example is also very nice. In fact, I think mine focuses to .2 M. At least the lens barrel focuses below the .3 M mark just like my 24/2.8 AIS and 35/2 AIS. Someday I will have to test it and see.

Anyway, I like my copy of the 28/2.8 AI a lot. I use it as my walk-around lens on my D200/D300 because the 24/2.8 is much more prone to flare.

willie
Click to expand...
 
Here's another question - which lens has more coma and SA wide open, the 50/1.2 (7 or 9 blade if you know), or the 55/1.2 (and version 6 of them or so if known)??

Which one looks more like the noctilux with night shots?
Click to expand...

Here are my humble submissions of what my 9-blade 50/1.2 saw.
 

Attachments

  • blue.jpg
    blue.jpg
    124.5 KB · Views: 0
  • christmas.jpg
    christmas.jpg
    49.3 KB · Views: 0
  • tire.jpg
    tire.jpg
    70 KB · Views: 0
Good question. Was planning to clean out some of my old Nikon Ai/AIS manual focus stuff when I popped them onto a D300 -- the 35/1.4 and 20/3.5 looked much better than I expected and the higher ISO range really extends the 20's usefulness. Same with the 50/3.5 Micro.

Whether these are as good on a full-frame sensor seems to be a matter of debate. Bjorn Rorslett has added digital comments to his lens evaluations.

ampguy said:
How do you folks who have used the 50/1.2 or 55/1.2 find it compared to an fast 50 RF lens?

Any other favorites? I'm looking on the wide side since I have a crop sensor (d40x) ....

What are some of your favorites, or non-favorites in F mount, manual focus?
Click to expand...
 
Distortion of WA's on crop DSLRs

Distortion of WA's on crop DSLRs

Joe, are you noticing actually less distortion with your 20/3.5 on the crop factor than on film/ff? I do with my 28/2.8.

I'm finding the essential old Nikon lenses for me are: 28/2.8, 43-86 first version zoom (I know, very bad reviews!), 105/2.5 PC, and if subject is moving or I just need 1 zoom with AF the 18-70 AFS DX.

Jury is still out on 50s and 85s. I have a feeling I will have to try both the 50/1.2 and 55/1.2, and 85/1.8 and 85/2 before I'm happy.

80-200/f4.5, best zom lens ever is kind of a specialty lens best used on a tripod.

Joe Brugger said:
Good question. Was planning to clean out some of my old Nikon Ai/AIS manual focus stuff when I popped them onto a D300 -- the 35/1.4 and 20/3.5 looked much better than I expected and the higher ISO range really extends the 20's usefulness. Same with the 50/3.5 Micro.

Whether these are as good on a full-frame sensor seems to be a matter of debate. Bjorn Rorslett has added digital comments to his lens evaluations.
Click to expand...
 
great portrait Chris

great portrait Chris

Which version do you have? there was one major optical change, but about 5 versions with fittings and coatings. Mine is one of the very first non AI - non or minimal coatings. I love the low contrast. It looks like a 50s Summilux or Summicron, but sharper. The distortion is high at the extremes with film/FF, but less pronounced with the d40x crop.

Chris101 said:
It's supposed to be a dog, but I think I like it for portraits more than the 85mm f/1.8. The 43-86 f/3.5:

jose1a.jpg
Click to expand...
 
ampguy said:
Joe, are you noticing actually less distortion with your 20/3.5 on the crop factor than on film/ff?
Click to expand...

Well, the 20/3.5 never did distort, beyond the exaggerated perspective you would expect with a 20. It's very rectilinear. Given that the D300 sensor uses a smaller part of the image circle, I don't expect to see distortion. But don't hold your breath waiting for a controlled comparison test.

In this regard, the 20 is a lot better performer than the 24-85/2.8-4 AF-D that's sort of my all-around lens.

The aircraft and ship photos in this folder were all done on 35mm with the 20/3.5.
 
Last edited:
There are some WONDERFUL old nikkors for SLRs. I started by buying non AI lenses as they were cheaper than the AI equivalents and I liked the styling. Also I could use them on my Nikkormat. Fortunately some of them had been AI converted before I bought them, so I am now able to use them on my digital SLR - a D200. Subsequently I started buying AI and AIS versions which are sometimes better than the earlier - sometimes not much so. often all they have is multi coating and new styling. This menas the older lenses handle flare less well and may have a slightly lower contrast but for the rest of it they produce wonderful images.

Here are some of my favourite old Nikkor wides for use digital:
- 28mm f3.5 (more highly regarded by some than most f2.8 versions at this foacl length .)
- 28mm f2.8 AIS (rated by many as Nikons best 28 f2.8 - redesigned from the AI version.)
- 24 mm f2.8 Well regaded in non Ai, AI and AIS versions
- 35mm f2 Well regarded in all versions
I have not experienced any of the 20s so cannot comment.

The advantage of the 28mm f3.5 is that it is dirt cheap but produces excellent images. Others early style lenses have this advantage to a greater or lesser extent.

If you are willing to go longer, the 50mm f2 (non AI) is superb. I can add nothing more than that comment. Superb! The 50mm f1.4 is excellent too but I prefer the f2 for its lovely rendering. Also the 105 mm f2.5 and 135mm f2.8 are excellent. (The 105 is one of Nikons great classics.) I have not tried the 85 f1.8 but would love to as it is also regarded widely as a classic and of course for this reason tends to be relatively pricey on eBay.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom