oftheherd
Veteran
Well, since the cognocenti have scarfed up all the good Fujinon glass, I can see why you are stuck on the secondary OM and Nikon glass as your choice. 
I've never used either Nikon or OM. I remember many years ago (80s I think), an editor at Modern Photography relating that one of their better known lab testers thought the only difference between Nikon and OM lenses was a slight difference in the way one handled certain wave lengths of light. If he didn't know which lens he was being given to test slides from, that was how he could tell. It wasn't stated, but the implication was that the OM was the better by a little bit. That at a time when Nikon was pretty much the standard that all others were compared to.
Nikon has a well earned reputation for most of its cameras and glass, at least into the 80s. However, OM was nipping at their heels all the way. Posts here in the forums seem to indicate contemporary OMs may have an edge in glass.
One advantage OM definitely has is size. They are much easier to carry, therefore, to use. Small size combined with quality, as pioneered by Fujica and OM, was such a good idea, that everyone copied it. Personally, I don't think any camera maker was as successful in that as Pentax. I don't know that the bayonet mount Pentax lenses were as good as the screw mount lenses. They were great and still sought after.
If I were to get into another into another system, I would probably opt for the OM system. But that is no doubt influenced by my love of Fujicas, their smalll size, quality lenses, and ease of use. That would only be if I couldn't use my Fujicas or Yashicas. The latter takes the only Contax glass I have. Now there is another lens line to consider.
I've never used either Nikon or OM. I remember many years ago (80s I think), an editor at Modern Photography relating that one of their better known lab testers thought the only difference between Nikon and OM lenses was a slight difference in the way one handled certain wave lengths of light. If he didn't know which lens he was being given to test slides from, that was how he could tell. It wasn't stated, but the implication was that the OM was the better by a little bit. That at a time when Nikon was pretty much the standard that all others were compared to.
Nikon has a well earned reputation for most of its cameras and glass, at least into the 80s. However, OM was nipping at their heels all the way. Posts here in the forums seem to indicate contemporary OMs may have an edge in glass.
One advantage OM definitely has is size. They are much easier to carry, therefore, to use. Small size combined with quality, as pioneered by Fujica and OM, was such a good idea, that everyone copied it. Personally, I don't think any camera maker was as successful in that as Pentax. I don't know that the bayonet mount Pentax lenses were as good as the screw mount lenses. They were great and still sought after.
If I were to get into another into another system, I would probably opt for the OM system. But that is no doubt influenced by my love of Fujicas, their smalll size, quality lenses, and ease of use. That would only be if I couldn't use my Fujicas or Yashicas. The latter takes the only Contax glass I have. Now there is another lens line to consider.
I have Nikon, Canon, Konica, Retina Reflex, Pentax, and Fujica.
I tried Olympus, but the bodies "just broke". I worked in a camera shop when the OM-1 and OM-2 were new, we saw a high defect rate of 15% of the cameras failing out of the box. I sold a lot of Nikon, Canon and Pentax without seeing anywhere near this failure rate.
Now Great Nikon lenses that will not break the bank:
24/2.8
50/2 and 50/1.8 AI
55/3.5
105/2.5
I tried Olympus, but the bodies "just broke". I worked in a camera shop when the OM-1 and OM-2 were new, we saw a high defect rate of 15% of the cameras failing out of the box. I sold a lot of Nikon, Canon and Pentax without seeing anywhere near this failure rate.
Now Great Nikon lenses that will not break the bank:
24/2.8
50/2 and 50/1.8 AI
55/3.5
105/2.5
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I've never had an OM that didn't work unless it had a lot of miles on it or I subjected it to unreasonable abuse.
That said, my experience with the Hexanon 40 has lead me to purchase a T4 as an alternative to the FS-1. (The FS-1 works, but if the electronics fail, it's not fixable; the T4 is mechanical.) I may try out a few other Hex lenses as well as per the suggestions in the Hexanon thread I started.
My other interest would be Leica R and Zeiss glass. I mean c'mon, let's not fool around!
That said, my experience with the Hexanon 40 has lead me to purchase a T4 as an alternative to the FS-1. (The FS-1 works, but if the electronics fail, it's not fixable; the T4 is mechanical.) I may try out a few other Hex lenses as well as per the suggestions in the Hexanon thread I started.
My other interest would be Leica R and Zeiss glass. I mean c'mon, let's not fool around!
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
My favorite Nikkors were:
28/2.0 Ai
105/2.0 AF/DC
85/1.4 AiS
180/2.8 AF-D
28/2.0 Ai
105/2.0 AF/DC
85/1.4 AiS
180/2.8 AF-D
Photon42
burn the box
The most impressive lenses in terms of image result for me seem to have been telephotos.
Marek is right: the all time champ is the Zeiss Macro Planar 2/100. I very much enjoyed as well the Nikkors 2.5/105 and AF 2.8/180 ED.
The plastic 1.8/50 is a haptic nightmare with its aperture ring, but has got an incredible price tag. It is also very a lightweight lens.
Cheers
Ivo
Marek is right: the all time champ is the Zeiss Macro Planar 2/100. I very much enjoyed as well the Nikkors 2.5/105 and AF 2.8/180 ED.
The plastic 1.8/50 is a haptic nightmare with its aperture ring, but has got an incredible price tag. It is also very a lightweight lens.
Cheers
Ivo
FA Limited
missing in action
Pentax FA Limited 31mm 43mm 77mm
each with their own special qualities
each with their own special qualities
vha
Isn't it coffee time ?
Hard to say witch one is better, but the nikkor 50mm ai is a great lens for a decent price, and since everyone seems to want the 1.4 you can do a bargain.
But that said, the 45mm nikkor p is the preferable lens, does the same as the 50mm but different, think the Elmar gave me the Tessar bug A small lens, sharp, way to thin focus ring, well built and possible to buy in nice item on E**y. Also a 35mm 1.4 is nice, it really came alive when i tried it on a D700, so i got one
Just need a working FM something and it´s going to be just perfect
vha
But that said, the 45mm nikkor p is the preferable lens, does the same as the 50mm but different, think the Elmar gave me the Tessar bug
A small lens, sharp, way to thin focus ring, well built and possible to buy in nice item on E**y. Also a 35mm 1.4 is nice, it really came alive when i tried it on a D700, so i got one Just need a working FM something and it´s going to be just perfect
vha
TKH
Well-known
fbf
Well-known
my favorite nikkor lens are: ais 24/2, 35/2 Q non-ai, 50/1.2 ais, 85/1.8 ai, and the 105/2.5 ai.
ZF lenses are among the best if you are willing to pay more. I have tried most of them except the 85mm. The 28/2 zf and 100/2 are among my favorite. They are as good as any leica M lenses i have used if not better.
ZF lenses are among the best if you are willing to pay more. I have tried most of them except the 85mm. The 28/2 zf and 100/2 are among my favorite. They are as good as any leica M lenses i have used if not better.
Jerevan
Recycled User
Best Nikkors:
50/2 Nikkor-H - in the end I chose this over my other 50, a 50/1.4 Auto-S. It lives permanently on my F2. I have had three and now I am not going to sell this one! Well, you know - buying and rebuying stuff you discovered you missed - I am sure you've never heard of a such a strange behaviour?
105/2.5 - you can't go wrong with any one of these in good condition.
35/1.4 AIS - well, a lot of opinions on this one - but I loved it. My example was troubled by balsam separation and a shady past in a muggy-smelling box, so I passed it on. There's always a risk of... uhm... rebuying here.
As wides go, I have only used the 28/2.8 Ai and I found that to be fine, but I guess if you have to have one of these, you better buy the 28/2.8 Ais.
I am tempted by the 45/2.8 GN, and I am a bit miffed by missing out on a 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor.
50/2 Nikkor-H - in the end I chose this over my other 50, a 50/1.4 Auto-S. It lives permanently on my F2. I have had three and now I am not going to sell this one! Well, you know - buying and rebuying stuff you discovered you missed - I am sure you've never heard of a such a strange behaviour?
105/2.5 - you can't go wrong with any one of these in good condition.
35/1.4 AIS - well, a lot of opinions on this one - but I loved it. My example was troubled by balsam separation and a shady past in a muggy-smelling box, so I passed it on. There's always a risk of... uhm... rebuying here.
As wides go, I have only used the 28/2.8 Ai and I found that to be fine, but I guess if you have to have one of these, you better buy the 28/2.8 Ais.
I am tempted by the 45/2.8 GN, and I am a bit miffed by missing out on a 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Most of the Nikkor glass is wonderful, I know a few lenses are not so good but it's hard to rememebr which ones
The ones I believe are brilliant are:
28/2.8 AiS
50/1.4 AiS
55/2.8 Micro AiS
85/1.8 Ai
135/2.8 Ai
200/4 Ai
For Macro, the TAMRON 90 is hard to beat
From cameras the FE/FE2, or the FM series are wonderful.
The ones I believe are brilliant are:
28/2.8 AiS
50/1.4 AiS
55/2.8 Micro AiS
85/1.8 Ai
135/2.8 Ai
200/4 Ai
For Macro, the TAMRON 90 is hard to beat
From cameras the FE/FE2, or the FM series are wonderful.
I guess my current vote goes for Pentax glass. I use an A 20/2.8, FA 31/1.8 LTD, FA 43/1.9 LTD and FA 77/1.8 LTD on my K10d and ME Super. The A 20 is a great wide match for the FA LTD lenses. These 4 are pretty much as good as any other lens I have used, SLR or otherwise.
My prior SLR favorite was the Minolta MC 58/1.2. The MD 35/1.8 and 24/2.8 are excellent too. Rokkors rock.
My prior SLR favorite was the Minolta MC 58/1.2. The MD 35/1.8 and 24/2.8 are excellent too. Rokkors rock.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
In the day -- early 1990s, annual report shooting -- I had the perfect Domke F2 (for me) loaded with two Nikon F3-HP/MD4s along with a FM with a NPC Pro Back mounted; a Vivitar 283; and the Nikkor 24/2, 85/1.4, and 180/2.8 lenses, all AIS. Rather than having a Leica I just used an Olympus Stylus to do pretty much the same thing.
Roughly calculating, I could rebuild that same kit for under $2000 today. It was worth quite a bit more at that time.
I admit that I kept a 55/2.8 Macro and a 35/2 hidden somewhere, but really those three lenses did all the work, made a lot of money, and were all excellent in every way. Later I had a 55/1.2 AIS on the digital and regret not using earlier, it was a great lens.
I use the plastic AF prime lenses now but they don't feel right. I even had a 28/1.4 back when they only cost $1600 but honestly the $200 35/2 was sharper at f/2. But the metal bodied pro AF lenses at least felt nice. The newer AFS 35DX and 50 are nice though.
I suffered with the FM/FE series for years. They were cheaply made, small finders, so-so metering, abysmal motordrive, loud winding, tinny shutter release... now that you can buy a real pro camera for $150 it seems crazy to subject yourself to them. Get an F3 w the low prism for a compact camera, or an F100 if you want the best value/best camera Nikon ever made.
Although I admit, even I was tempted because some guy sold two near mint FEs on the LF forum for $60 each yesterday....
Roughly calculating, I could rebuild that same kit for under $2000 today. It was worth quite a bit more at that time.
I admit that I kept a 55/2.8 Macro and a 35/2 hidden somewhere, but really those three lenses did all the work, made a lot of money, and were all excellent in every way. Later I had a 55/1.2 AIS on the digital and regret not using earlier, it was a great lens.
I use the plastic AF prime lenses now but they don't feel right. I even had a 28/1.4 back when they only cost $1600 but honestly the $200 35/2 was sharper at f/2. But the metal bodied pro AF lenses at least felt nice. The newer AFS 35DX and 50 are nice though.
I suffered with the FM/FE series for years. They were cheaply made, small finders, so-so metering, abysmal motordrive, loud winding, tinny shutter release... now that you can buy a real pro camera for $150 it seems crazy to subject yourself to them. Get an F3 w the low prism for a compact camera, or an F100 if you want the best value/best camera Nikon ever made.
Although I admit, even I was tempted because some guy sold two near mint FEs on the LF forum for $60 each yesterday....
Last edited:
The only thing that may make them better would be a DSLR with a FF sensor. I didn't think I would say this, but the 43 would be just great as a....43 and the 31 would make a great wide. I am not a huge tele guy, so shortening the 77 would be good for me.
ampguy
Veteran
105/2.5 P.C., 28/2.8 non AI, 43-86 first version, 70-200 fixed f4.5 12 element.
The newer AFS lenses are not as good as the old manual focus ones, but better than the AFD pre AFS ones, IMHO.
The newer AFS lenses are not as good as the old manual focus ones, but better than the AFD pre AFS ones, IMHO.
dof
Fiat Lux
Hands down, the Leica Summilux 80mm f1.4 is my favorite SLR lens. Optically, it's quite similar to the 75mm M lens (both Mandler designs from 1980) but has the distinct advantage over the M of viewfinder focussing. In my opinion it is reason enough to own one of those crazy R bodies.
I too have shot many Nikkors over the years and have found that the 105mm f2.5 Ai is the one that stands out from the rest. The 24mm f2.8 Ais is another favorite, but I must admit it doesn't quite offer the same level of "technical tastiness" that the 105mm imparts. My uneducated guess is that it simply has higher micro-contrast than most of its counterparts in the Nikon line. Most of them are quite sharp, which has long been one of the hallmarks of the brand, and have good macro-contrast. It's the greater definition between similar tones that has me prefer other lenses over most of the Nikkors I've shot (35mm f2.0, 55mm f2.8, 85mm f2.0, 18mm f4.0).
I too have shot many Nikkors over the years and have found that the 105mm f2.5 Ai is the one that stands out from the rest. The 24mm f2.8 Ais is another favorite, but I must admit it doesn't quite offer the same level of "technical tastiness" that the 105mm imparts. My uneducated guess is that it simply has higher micro-contrast than most of its counterparts in the Nikon line. Most of them are quite sharp, which has long been one of the hallmarks of the brand, and have good macro-contrast. It's the greater definition between similar tones that has me prefer other lenses over most of the Nikkors I've shot (35mm f2.0, 55mm f2.8, 85mm f2.0, 18mm f4.0).
Last edited:
kermaier
Well-known
If you ever get a chance, give a Canon FD 50/1.4 a workout. It's my idea of what a 50 is supposed to be. I don't know oly & someday I'll give Nikon a try, but in the meantime, there's an insane amount of great FD glass out there
William
+1
The Canon FD 50/1.2 L is my all-time favorite lens, so far, but the 50/1.4 (particularly the breech-lock SSC version) is also great.
The 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/3.5 macro, 85/1.2 L, 100/2, 135/2, 200/4 macro are all fantastic lenses, and relative bargains because of the orphan mount.
::Ari
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35 ZF (Nikon mount)
Nikkor 105mm f2.5 ai-s
The above, IMHO, out performs the 35mm f2.0 & 85mm f2.0 Zuiko.
Nikkor 105mm f2.5 ai-s
The above, IMHO, out performs the 35mm f2.0 & 85mm f2.0 Zuiko.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
my favs...
Nikon 180mm 2.8 AF ED
Nikkor-O 35mm 2.0 Ai'd
Vivitar 200mm 3.5 (M42, Super sharp lens, 1976 vintage)
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AIS
Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm
Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm
Nikon 85mm 1.4D AF
I also have the Nikon 105mm 2.5 but I don't use it much...maybe I should give it an honest try...
Nikon 180mm 2.8 AF ED
Nikkor-O 35mm 2.0 Ai'd
Vivitar 200mm 3.5 (M42, Super sharp lens, 1976 vintage)
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AIS
Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm
Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm
Nikon 85mm 1.4D AF
I also have the Nikon 105mm 2.5 but I don't use it much...maybe I should give it an honest try...
Last edited:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I see there are a lot of fans of the 24/2.8 AIS; 28/2.8 AIS; 55/2.8 AIS; and the 50/1.4 AIS. These are some of my faves as well. I had the 35/2 AIS, but traded it for a 35/2 AF, which is even better.
I had the 20-35/2.8 zoom, but it was big and heavy. So I mostly use the 24 and 35 2/8 AF in its place. I'd rather change lenses than have that heavy oversized lens on the camera.
I just picked up a 28-70 f/3.5/4.5 Nikkor. First results, on the D200, look very sharp!
Honorable mention to the 28-70 f/4 RMC Tokina, for its smooth macro range which requires no flipping of switches, rotating of rings, etc, to go into macro mode. At 35mm or longer, you just keep focusing closer, until you get to minimum focus. Only about $65.00 on ebay. Of course, it should be stopped down. Has a sweet spot around 40mm.
My 20/4 Nikkor is very small and handy, with very good sharpness. And my 15/3.5 Nikkor, though big and heavy, does excellent wide-angle work when I need it. I do not seem to get the veiling flare that some have written about, to any noticeable extent. Probably just a matter of the situations for which I use it.
I have no complaints with the 300/4.5 and 400/5.6 Nikkors.
I think I'd like a 180/2.8 and 85/1.8 to round out my set.
Guess that's about it.
I had the 20-35/2.8 zoom, but it was big and heavy. So I mostly use the 24 and 35 2/8 AF in its place. I'd rather change lenses than have that heavy oversized lens on the camera.
I just picked up a 28-70 f/3.5/4.5 Nikkor. First results, on the D200, look very sharp!
Honorable mention to the 28-70 f/4 RMC Tokina, for its smooth macro range which requires no flipping of switches, rotating of rings, etc, to go into macro mode. At 35mm or longer, you just keep focusing closer, until you get to minimum focus. Only about $65.00 on ebay. Of course, it should be stopped down. Has a sweet spot around 40mm.
My 20/4 Nikkor is very small and handy, with very good sharpness. And my 15/3.5 Nikkor, though big and heavy, does excellent wide-angle work when I need it. I do not seem to get the veiling flare that some have written about, to any noticeable extent. Probably just a matter of the situations for which I use it.
I have no complaints with the 300/4.5 and 400/5.6 Nikkors.
I think I'd like a 180/2.8 and 85/1.8 to round out my set.
Guess that's about it.