Nikon F2 tribute

[narsuitus]

The Nikon F2 is my favorite camera for the following reasons:

1.It is a very rugged and reliable camera

2.I prefer manual/mechanical cameras as opposed to automatic/electronic cameras

3.I prefer battery independent cameras (only needs batteries for optional light meter and motor drives)

4.I have a large assortment of accessories that allow me to configure the F2 for almost any type of assignment.

https://flic.kr/p/aBohWo

 

[enero]

Mine (black) and my dad's (chrome) 🙂


Father and Son by ★ 0091436 ★, on Flickr

 

[maryland_fotos]

F2s

F2s

F2S with 45 2.8GN, Velvia 100

LakeView by maryland_photos, on Flickr

 

[maryland_fotos]

F2sb

F2sb

F2SB with 20 3.5UD, Portra 400.

WoodToys by maryland_photos, on Flickr

 

[Wulfthari]

One of my F2s. Sover Wong CLA'd baby!

The lens on it really isn't very good. Not very sharp and flares like crazy, even w/o a filter and a lens hood. For serious shots I use other lenses..

Strange, I've the same lens and I always been satisfied with its sharpness:

I assume mine is in better shape.

However, I start to dig the shape of the DE-1 finder.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Strange, I've the same lens and I always been satisfied with its sharpness:

I think it might be that different samples render differently, and also with a lens that old, it depends on what kind of life it's had. I had the same lens and it was horribly soft wide open, to the point where I finally stopped using it.

 

[Huss]

Strange, I've the same lens and I always been satisfied with its sharpness:

I assume mine is in better shape.

That photo looks like it was taken between f8 and f11 in direct, contrasty light. Any lens is sharp there, including my copy.
The proof is how it looks at 1.4-2.8.

 

[Mark C]

I think it might be that different samples render differently, and also with a lens that old, it depends on what kind of life it's had. I had the same lens and it was horribly soft wide open, to the point where I finally stopped using it.

Most 1.4's were very soft wide open back then; the cult favorite Super Takumar is no better, and maybe worse. My 1.4 SC is very sharp even from f2. I actually prefer my very slightly less sharp non-multicoated version for large aperture use since it gives a less jarring out of focus; true for many Nikkors in my experience.

The only vintage 50 1.4 SLR lens I've seen that was noticeably better was the Zeiss Planar, but I haven't used them all and never had the R Summilux.

 

[Wulfthari]

That photo looks like it was taken between f8 and f11 in direct, contrasty light. Any lens is sharp there, including my copy.
The proof is how it looks at 1.4-2.8.

Yes the light was good, but I think I took that shot at f5.6, however since we are talking about the performance of the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 S-C Auto wide open here there are few shots at 1.4:

With the FM (F2's little sister) at f1.4, my reflection on a brass plate:

This one is a tad smaller than 1.4, but not f2.0 (just look at the blades):

This one is not a bokeh study like the others above, it was shot at f1.4 at 1/30s in very dim light conditions (according to the lightmeter of my FM it should have been completely underexposed):

IMO it's a good lens wide open.

Most 1.4's were very soft wide open back then; the cult favorite Super Takumar is no better, and maybe worse. My 1.4 SC is very sharp even from f2. I actually prefer my very slightly less sharp non-multicoated version for large aperture use since it gives a less jarring out of focus; true for many Nikkors in my experience.

The only vintage 50 1.4 SLR lens I've seen that was noticeably better was the Zeiss Planar, but I haven't used them all and never had the R Summilux.

I have some night pics taken with the Super Tak 55mm f1.8 and the results are very sharp at f1.8 and 1/30s (camera hand held):

Self portrait of the Spottie F at f1.8 and 1/30s...IMO sharp enough.

However, this pics should belong to the "Cult of the Takumar" thread, not the Nikon F2 Tribute.

 

[Huss]

Yes the light was good, but I think I took that shot at f5.6, however since we are talking about the performance of the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 S-C Auto wide open here there are few shots at 1.4:

The hand in focus behind the tent suggests a much smaller aperture than 5.6
If that was 5.6, it would have been blurry.
Your wide open shots with the Nikkor 1.4 look like mine, I guess we have different expectations from a lens.

 

[Mark C]

Yes the light was good, but I think I took that shot at f5.6, however since we are talking about the performance of the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 S-C Auto wide open here there are few shots at 1.4:



With the FM (F2's little sister) at f1.4, my reflection on a brass plate:


This one is a tad smaller than 1.4, but not f2.0 (just look at the blades):

This one is not a bokeh study like the others above, it was shot at f1.4 at 1/30s in very dim light conditions (according to the lightmeter of my FM it should have been completely underexposed):



IMO it's a good lens wide open.

...

I have some night pics taken with the Super Tak 55mm f1.8 and the results are very sharp at f1.8 and 1/30s (camera hand held):



Self portrait of the Spottie F at f1.8 and 1/30s...IMO sharp enough.


However, this pics should belong to the "Cult of the Takumar" thread, not the Nikon F2 Tribute.

I was talking talking about 1.4 lenses; the 1.8's Takumars and the f2 Nikkors do better wide open, but not necessarily better than the 1.4's at f2. Nonetheless I'm happy with all the lenses you mention. I think some people have unrealistic expectations of old fast lenses at full aperture. Zeiss and Leica had an advantage there and then, maybe not so much now; I don't deal much with modern lenses.

 

[Huss]

I think some people have unrealistic expectations of old fast lenses at full aperture. Zeiss and Leica had an advantage there and then, maybe not so much now; I don't deal much with modern lenses.

My old Leica Summicrons - v1 collapsible and DR - are extremely sharp wide open. My modern Zeiss Planar 50 ZM is even sharper, and the Leica Lux Asph 1.4 is sharper still wide open. The Zeiss Sonnar 50 1.5 is softer, but still much better than the Nikon 50 1.4 wide open.
They all have delightful and very different rendering. Same with bokeh.
My only Nikon lenses that come close are the 55 2.8 Micro, and the 105 1.8

 

[Wulfthari]

The hand in focus behind the tent suggests a much smaller aperture than 5.6
If that was 5.6, it would have been blurry.
Your wide open shots with the Nikkor 1.4 look like mine, I guess we have different expectations from a lens.

The hand behind the tent is not in focus, you see it when you enlarge the shot, it's difficult to see it because it's a just a silhouette, for the wide open shot show me a sharper lens at f1.4, I'm curious to see it.

I was talking talking about 1.4 lenses; the 1.8's Takumars and the f2 Nikkors do better wide open, but not necessarily better than the 1.4's at f2. Nonetheless I'm happy with all the lenses you mention. I think some people have unrealistic expectations of old fast lenses at full aperture. Zeiss and Leica had an advantage there and then, maybe not so much now; I don't deal much with modern lenses.

I've the Summicron DR and no way it's sharper at F2.0 than the Nikkor at f1.4 or the Takumar at f1.8, I think all the story about "the sharpest lens ever" is simply BS like on the other side all the "Leica glow" stuff etc...not that it's a bad lens, actually it's pretty good for its era and the close up focusing is still a capability modern RF lens don't offer, but it's simply overrated. No experience with vintage Zeiss, though.

 

[Mark C]

My old Leica Summicrons - v1 collapsible and DR - are extremely sharp wide open. My modern Zeiss Planar 50 ZM is even sharper, and the Leica Lux Asph 1.4 is sharper still wide open. The Zeiss Sonnar 50 1.5 is softer, but still much better than the Nikon 50 1.4 wide open.
They all have delightful and very different rendering. Same with bokeh.
My only Nikon lenses that come close are the 55 2.8 Micro, and the 105 1.8

Back to actual photos!

Nikon F2AS, Nikkor 24 2.8 AIS, Portra 400

Nice picture and one of my favorite Nikkors. The 105 f2.5 is my other favorite. I'm the odd man out in not preferring their faster long lenses.

Your experience with 50's agrees with mine at least on those you mention that I've had. I too like them all in different ways. I am thinking of one of the Nikon 1.2 normals and suspect that might end up being my favorite of the Nikkors. Sharpness isn't everything, as the Sonnar demonstrates very well. I'd like to get something like that look in an slr lens and suspect the older 1.2 is going to be as close as I can come in Nikon.

 

[maryland_fotos]

Nikon F2SB, 10.5cm f2.5 P early version, Ilford Delta 3200 film.

KERQ3 by maryland_photos, on Flickr

KERQAudience by maryland_photos, on Flickr

 

[Timmyjoe]

Had my F2 (w/DE-1) out today, with a "new to me" Nikkor-S 50 1.4. It was all of +3ºF and I had on thick gloves to protect against the cold, but the little F2 had no issues. Shot nearly a complete roll of 36.

I can see how those cameras earned their reliability reputation.

 

[jwicaksana]

Great idea for a thread. I wanted to start it but wasn't confident - I thought it is impossible for RFF not to have a F2 thread. But hey I was wrong. 🙂
Mine is strangely the last addition to my Nikon bodies, here it is:

Nikon F2S by jwicaksana, on Flickr

 

[Alpsman]

Best cam ever made.

 

[John E Earley]

Nikon F2 by Earley Photography, on Flickr


Nikon F2 Plain Prism 50mm f1.4 by Earley Photography, on Flickr

 

[Huss]

I just picked up an F6 w/ 60 Micro D 2.8 lens. I guess to book end Nikon's evolution of film SLRs.

I already know I much prefer my Fs and F2 cameras. Maybe the F6 will grow on me (hope so..) but at the moment it seems like a digital camera that happens to shoot film.

F2 rules!