Nikkor lens recomendations

[presspass]

I agree with narsuius - the 85 is too close to the 50. A nice three lens spread would be the 28, 50, and 105. If you wanted just two lenses, the 35 and 85 make a nice pair. When I was shooting film for work, my four lens set was 20, 35, 85, and 180 [or 200 with the Canon F1]. I have not shot the 85 1.8 - the original one - so I cannot comment on that lens. I have, and do shoot, the 105 2.5 and the 1.8. The 2.5 is pre-ai but not the sonnar formula. Whichever one you buy, you can probably sell it for close to what you paid for it.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Agree with the positive comments above on both 85 and 105 lenses. Both terrific.

Also to consider: 50-135 f/3.5 zoom. If f/3.5 is OK for you, this is an excellent lens with the flexibility of a zoom.

Nice Nikon article here. "The 50-135 got forgotten in the transition to AF."

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0061/index.htm

 

[AlexBG]

If you decide to keep just the 35mm, I would get the 85mm f/2, f/1.8, or f/1.4. The 35/85 combination has been my favorite two-lens combo for decades.

This is what I was thinking, don't want to have a 50mm with my Nikon, I have a 50mm on my Leica.

How do the 85mm lenses compare to each other?

 

[former member]

i have read that the 85mm F2 is lovely, is there much difference between the 1.8 and f2?

There is- the 85/2 was brought out as a Portrait lens, under-corrected for spherical aberration. "Way back when" it was introduced, some felt that the planar formula 105/2.5 was "too sharp" for portraits compared with the older Sonnar formula lens. The 85/2 replaced the 85/1.8, it gives up 1/3rd F-Stop but is much smaller. If I had to keep one- it would be the 85/2.

I worked in a camera shop in the '70s, and this was a discussion with the Nikon rep.

One of my favorite shots with this lens- wide-open, on the Df.

 

[Orthogonal]

I bought a 105 2.5 AIS on an impulse purchase a couple of years ago, it was cheap but in poor condition. To be honest while I like Nikkor glass I'm rarely blown away by it, the 105 is an exception. Essentially the only reason I keep my FE body is to use the 105, which I have found is more versatile than I was expecting and ergonomically excellent as a walkaround lens. Depending on the version it's probably only slightly longer than your 50mm 1.4 and possibly a little narrower. It's a special lens with a creamy, slightly dreamy feel without the compromise on aberrations and sharpness I normally associate with a vintage look.

While I haven't tried any Nikkor 85s I would recommend the 105 over the 85 just based on the fact 85 is so close to 50.

 

[splitimageview]

I don't find the 85 to be close to the 50, at all.

For example at a distance of 2 m, the DOF is .19 m with the 50 but only .06 m with the 85, both at f/2.

The telephoto compression makes for a completely different look than the 50.

 

[AlexBG]

I bought a 105 2.5 AIS on an impulse purchase a couple of years ago, it was cheap but in poor condition. To be honest while I like Nikkor glass I'm rarely blown away by it, the 105 is an exception. Essentially the only reason I keep my FE body is to use the 105, which I have found is more versatile than I was expecting and ergonomically excellent as a walkaround lens. Depending on the version it's probably only slightly longer than your 50mm 1.4 and possibly a little narrower. It's a special lens with a creamy, slightly dreamy feel without the compromise on aberrations and sharpness I normally associate with a vintage look.

While I haven't tried any Nikkor 85s I would recommend the 105 over the 85 just based on the fact 85 is so close to 50.

I'm not keeping the 50mm, just the 35mm.

 

[keytarjunkie]

I think you should get the 85mm, especially if you give up 50mm. I don't like longer focal lengths either, and I am not that attracted to the 105mm focal length (though the early Sonnar model is a nice lens!).


The 85mm f/1.8 H is the one to get if you're mostly shooting B&W, prefer the older optical designs of the 60's, etc. Get the 85mm f/2 AI or AI-S if you need better coatings for color rendition and flare. User Richard Haw has some really nice reviews of all three. Personally I have the AI-S version but I'm not against picking up the Nikkor-H in the future.

 

[Bingley]

i have read that the 85mm F2 is lovely, is there much difference between the 1.8 and f2?

I really like my sample of the Nikkor 85mm f2.0. It rounds out a Nikon SLR kit that includes the fantastic CV Ultron 40mm f2.0 SLII and the Nikkor 28mm f2.8. Been v satisfied with the optics of the 85/2.0, which I use primarily for landscape photography. Despite its legendary reputation, I have no need for the 105mm. YMMV.

 

[madNbad]

Another vote for the 85 2.0 Ai-S. The non-Ai 85 1.8 is a great lens but it’s heavy and at more than fifty years old, will need service. Good luck with your search.

 

[Orthogonal]

I'm not keeping the 50mm, just the 35mm.

Sorry I misread. That makes things harder - personally I'm a fan of the appx double/divide philosophy of focal lengths, i.e. 35/85, 50/105, etc. which would lean me towards the 85.

Best of luck.

 

[james.liam]

The Voigtlander 2/90 in AIS mount will give you a tad more reach and it’s an APO lens to boot. Perfect focal length if 105 is too long.

 

[narsuitus]

The 85mm 1.4 and 105mm 1.8 are way too expensive for me for a lens that i will just play around with.

For a lens to "just play around with," I highly recommend one of the following inexpensive Nikon lenses:
85mm f/1.8
100mm f/2.8 Series E
75-150mm f/3.5 Series E Zoom

 

[hap]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-Series-1-35-85mm-f2-8-non-AI-Lens-for-Nikon/293735080626

Vivitar Series 1 35~85/2.8 Vari-Focal lens. Crazy Design.
And that's what I get searching on 85mm.

This is a cult lens, A true F2.8 across the full focal-Length range, but not a Zoom. You refocus after changing focal length.

And- I've bought a lot of lenses from this seller...

He has some 105/2.5's in stock-

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-P-10-5cm-105mm-f2-5-Photomic-non-AI-Lens-Clean/293804640310



A real "Don't get no respect lens"- the Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 introduced in 1950, in production through to the AIS series in the 1980s.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-Q-135mm-f3-5-Photomic-non-AI-Lens-Very-Clean/293916171132

Cheap, Sonnar formula, beautiful Bokeh.

Seems to me that the 105P 2.5 and the 135 3.5 would be decent lenses for me to use on my FA and F3HP. For not a lot of $$$

 

[JohnBeeching]

Around a year ago, overcome by a moment of pure lust, I bought a Nikon F3 HP with a 50mm f1.4 lens. I have a love-hate relationship with the camera as it weighs a ton, makes an incredibly loud noise and everything works the wrong way round - but it is a sexy beast. I have kept it and used it on and off over the year. Recently, I decided to get some more lenses for it and, controlling myself from buying the same lenses that I already have for my M6, I got a 24mm f2.8 and a 135mm f2.8. I do enjoy both, especially the 24, though I have difficulty focusing that one; however, I still find myself using the 50mm most. Just my experience.

 

[hap]

The Voigtlander 2/90 in AIS mount will give you a tad more reach and it’s an APO lens to boot. Perfect focal length if 105 is too long.

Perhaps you meant 90mm f3.5 APO AIS mount?

Starting to get into more expense than what I've seen in this thread.

 

[AlexBG]

Around a year ago, overcome by a moment of pure lust, I bought a Nikon F3 HP with a 50mm f1.4 lens. I have a love-hate relationship with the camera as it weighs a ton, makes an incredibly loud noise and everything works the wrong way round - but it is a sexy beast. I have kept it and used it on and off over the year. Recently, I decided to get some more lenses for it and, controlling myself from buying the same lenses that I already have for my M6, I got a 24mm f2.8 and a 135mm f2.8. I do enjoy both, especially the 24, though I have difficulty focusing that one; however, I still find myself using the 50mm most. Just my experience.

I usually shoot a 50, the only reason why I even have the Nikon is because I wanted to get an SLR that I've not owned while my M3 was getting serviced. As soon as it's back I'll probably sell the Nikon and lenses. I did enjoy the 28mm F2 on the camera but as it's way too wide have swapped it for the 35mm F2 which is still wider than what I am used to and like but will make a nice change. I know what you are saying about your camera, they are big and heavy and backwards, but the lens pricing is reasonable with good quality. The more I shoot the more character I want from lenses, if I want a super crisp shot I'll pull out my fuji and 16-55.

 

[former member]

Nikon MF lenses - good choices not expensive.

Nikkor-NC 24/2.8 (multi-coated, the 24/2.8 is Nikon's first lens with a floating element)
Nikkor 28/2 Any (Mine is a beater, perfect glass, was $100, also a floating element design)
Nikkor-O or Nikkor-OC 35/2 , second and later versions, SN above 690101. First version- bad reputation.
Nikkor 50/2, 6 element version, NOT the Nikkor-S 50/2. (The latter is not as good, and prices are high due to rarity)
Micro-Nikkor-P 55/3.5
Nikkor 85/2
Nikkor 105/2.5, Small rear element= Sonnar, large = Planar.
Nikkor 135/3.5 Ai/Ais
Nikkor 200/4 Ai or Ais

With patience: found each for under $100, some down to $25.

My incomplete list of less expensive Nikon lenses to own...
It's dangerous to ask me for opinions on Nikon lenses. I have many. Many: ~100. Most under $100, many under $50. Lots of Ebay bargains coming out of Japan, the newer generation is not as interested in what was a national pastime.

 

[splitimageview]

Adding to that list:

20/3.5 AI/AIS
35/2.8 AI/AIS
50/1.8 AIS Pancake (the one with the 0.45 close focus)
24/2.8 AI/AIS (close range correction aka floating element)

some may skoff at these, but they are quite good, the build and feel is not up to the standards of AI/AIS but I use them on manual focus as well as AF bodies:
35/2 AFD
85/1.8 AFD
28-70 AFD
28-105 AFD

 

[james.liam]

Perhaps you meant 90mm f3.5 APO AIS mount?

Starting to get into more expense than what I've seen in this thread.

My error. 3,5/90. A little more expensive but that much better and worth the extra $100-200. More modern lens , higher resolution and a warmer rendering than the cool look of Nikkors.