so I'm thinking of going Nikon. Lens advice?

msbarnes

msbarnes

Well-known
Local time
8:38 PM
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
841
Location
NY, NY
View My Gallery
Hello,

I have a small OM kit: 2 OM2n's and 2 50's (50 f1.8 & 50 f2).

I'm thinking of selling this off and going Nikon. Honestly, I find the OM bodies OK, but I prefer a larger/heavier body, so I'm thinking of starting with an F2 or even an F3. I also like the idea of the F mount:
If I want autofocus, then there is the F100, F4, F5, and F6.
If I want digital, then there is the d600/d700/d800.
If I want a higher flash sync, then there is the F4-F6, and FM.
If I want small, then there is the FM/Fe.
etc.
Currently, I want a mechanical shutter, manual focus film camera for available light portraits (but with precise framing) with a suite of (semi-) affordable primes. Tripod and handheld use.

Recommend me some moderately fast primes in the following focal lengths (f2-f2.8)
28mm
35mm
50mm
85mm
100/105mm

I'm thinking of starting with 28/50/105, but maybe in the future adding 35/85. I'd prefer AI-S for maximum compatibility. My understanding is that early super speed lenses are generally not that great, especially on the wide end. The G lenses, however are perhaps different but I'm not going that route at the moment. I'm also thinking of portraits mostly, at moderately close distances. (I know that wide angles aren't good for portraits but look at jeanloup sieff). Flare is not an issue.

I'm going SLR for two reasons:
1. framing: multiple rangefinder bodies for different focal lengths is expensive, cumbersome, and inaccurate.
2. economy: Rangefinder lenses (espeically wides) might be inherently better but they are expensive. I can build a suite of SLR lenses for much cheaper than a suite for RF lenses. I've kind of came to the decision for just sticking with normals for rangefinder lenses.

I would perhaps stay with Zuiko if the lenses were unanimously "better" at these focal lengths. I'm thinking that Nikon is a better move down the road because sometimes I entertain the idea of digital, flash, autofocus, etc.
 
28: 28/2.8 AIS

35: IMO, this FL was a weakness in Nikon's AI/AIS lineup. A lot of folks will recommend the 35/1.4, but it really doesn't shine until yoiu stop down to f2.8 (I've owned 2 samples of this lens). For my money (and what I use on my FM3a today), I'd go with an AI'd Nikkor-O 35/2.0. If you shoot this FL a lot and have the money, I would suggest looking at the Zeiss ZF.2 lenses.

50's: A few good ones here. I have the 55/2.8, which is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses. The aforementiend 58/1.4 is good as well (althought mind you - it is a Non-Ai lens, so you'd have to get it AI'd). If you want FAST and have the $$$$, find a 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor - for bragging rights if nothing else. Again, if so inclined, check out the ZF.2 lenses.

85: 85/1.4 AIS. Period.

105: 105/2.5 - if you want a Sonnar(ish) lens, get the chrome barreled version and get it AI'd; otherwise, get the AIS (built-in hood). However, if you want SUPER sharp, get the Kiron (akk Lester Dine) 105/2.8 - it's a macro lens, so it is incredibly sharp and thus may not be suitable for portraits).
 
Nikon F3HP
Nikon 105mm 2.5 (maybe the 1.8 if you can swing for it)
24mm 2.8
any 50mm 1.8 (all are good)

Really you have a lot of very very good lenses to choose from.
 
kxl said:
28: 28/2.8 AIS

35: IMO, this FL was a weakness in Nikon's AI/AIS lineup. A lot of folks will recommend the 35/1.4, but it really doesn't shine until yoiu stop down to f2.8 (I've owned 2 samples of this lens). For my money (and what I use on my FM3a today), I'd go with an AI'd Nikkor-O 35/2.0. If you shoot this FL a lot and have the money, I would suggest looking at the Zeiss ZF.2 lenses.

50's: A few good ones here. I have the 55/2.8, which is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses. The aforementiend 58/1.4 is good as well (althought mind you - it is a Non-Ai lens, so you'd have to get it AI'd). If you want FAST and have the $$$$, find a 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor - for bragging rights if nothing else. Again, if so inclined, check out the ZF.2 lenses.

85: 85/1.4 AIS. Period.

105: 105/2.5 - if you want a Sonnar(ish) lens, get the chrome barreled version and get it AI'd; otherwise, get the AIS (built-in hood). However, if you want SUPER sharp, get the Kiron (akk Lester Dine) 105/2.8 - it's a macro lens, so it is incredibly sharp and thus may not be suitable for portraits).
Click to expand...

I love my 35mm f2 O.C lens. But that ones a pre-AI so it might be too much trouble for you to get it converted.
 
If you want mechanical, you should get an F2. I recommend normal, non metered prism de-1 and the H2 focusing screen. This is very important - I have discovered at my own expense, that each type of screen gives a different focus point with different lenses. This screen will focus correctly the 50/2, 85/2 and 105/2.5. I use this camera with the 85/2 and 105/2.5P - both great lenses for portraiture, better than many subsequent versions. In case you want to overspend, you could get the 105/2 DC, which is a wonderful portrait lens, and will also autofocus on F100.
 
Your problem here is you have cast a wide net by listing a wish/possible list of every generation of Nikon body. If you buy an F2 and some of the excellent value manual pre-AI lenses you will run out of metering modes and even the ability to mount the lens as you move towards the F100 say (note the F5 and F6 could be, and may still be I don't know, modified by Nikon to mount pre-AI glass.
The rosetta stone is the F4 which will mount the earliest lenses and autofocus and meter with the latest G lenses. (not all functions on new glass as VR isn't on its list, it was discontinued in 1997 after-all).
Much as it pains me to direct you to his site Mr K Rockwell has probably the clearest explanation of what will work with what and how far.
As to which lens it is actually quite difficult to find a duff Nikon lens. Stick to the brand and don't be afraid of a well used lens, if it saw that much use it was a good lens. The "like new" 25 year old lens may be like that because it was a poor example and didn't see the use. Not always true in both cases of course.
In my field of work, Medicines Information, the answer that is never wrong is "it depends".
You can spend a little on the old gear these days for a great fun return.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm
 
I'm partial to the following in each category.
28mm 28/2 AIS
35mm Nikkor-O.C 35mm f/2
50mm Nikkor-H.C 50mm f/2
85mm Nikkor-H or H.C 85/1.8
100/105mm Nikkor-P.C 105/2.5
Most I've listed are pre-AI, but will work on a wide range of bodies if AI-converted.
 
I have a F2 and a D5000. The Nikon DSLRs that do not have a built in AF motor will mount the non Ai lenses. I have the 28/2.8 50/1.8 105/2.5 135/2.8 and will soon buy an 85. I use the D5000 and it's histogram to determine what the perfect exposure is and then dial in those settings on my F2. I really like my kit it is quite versatile and all of it will fit in a fairly small bag.
 
if I were you I would stick with Olympus. I tried out Nikon and stuck with Olympus.

first of all your 50/2 is a true top tier SLR 50mm

the 28/2 and 85/2 are exceptional lenses.

the only reason I would buy a Nikon is if I wanted to buy a lot of the ZF lenses which are a lot more modern and IMO better than manual focus nikkors. and if you're going to spend that much you might as well get the RF versions.
 
For maximum compatibility I would stick with AI/AIS/AI converted lenses. Almost all of them are good. Then start with an F2AS (or unmetered F2 if that's the way you prefer to go) and add a D700 which will happily take all the aforementioned lenses.
 
James24 said:
You should buy another if you miss it so, Roger.
Click to expand...
I've thought of it. But they're rare and (I'm told) fairly expensive; they rarely come up from dealers; and I don't fancy buying privately on line. Besides, I sold mine over 30 years ago when I decided to concentrate much more on Leica. Given all the Leica and Leica-fit lenses I have now (15-18-21-28-35-50-75-90-135), I doubt I'd really use it if I had one. I suspect it's one of those things where nostalgia outweighs reality. Besides, if I want a 58, I have the Biotar on my Exakta. So the answer probably is that I don't miss it enough even to look for another, let alone pay for one.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I've thought of it. But they're rare and (I'm told) fairly expensive; they rarely come up from dealers; and I don't fancy buying privately on line. Besides, I sold mine over 30 years ago when I decided to concentrate much more on Leica. Given all the Leica and Leica-fit lenses I have now (15-18-21-28-35-50-75-90-135), I doubt I'd really use it if I had one. I suspect it's one of those things where nostalgia outweighs reality. Besides, if I want a 58, I have the Biotar on my Exakta. So the answer probably is that I don't miss it enough even to look for another, let alone pay for one.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

?? Aren't you talking about the 58mm 1.2 NOCT Nikkor? The 58mm 1.4 seems plentiful and cheap on ebay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Wide angle lens on M3?
Replies
19
Views
1K
ellisson
ellisson
A
Pana Leica 12mm f1.4 vs Pana 24mm f1.8, thinking
Replies
3
Views
228
Archiver
A
ped
Lens carrying system
Replies
10
Views
487
ped
ped
ecowarrior
Is this really a worthwhile Leica lens upgrade?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
rfaspen
rfaspen
caila77
SLR M42 lenses - undiscovered gems (or not)
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Mos6502
Mos6502
Back
Top Bottom