Underrated Nikon lenses? 105 1.8?

[GarageBoy]

From what I've read, the 105 1.8 Nikon is no slouch, yet it seems to live in the shadow of its 2.5 sister

Any other underrated/less discussed lenses? (as you can see, I like the underdogs)

 

[JRG]

The 50/1.8 probably deserves more attention than it gets.

 

[ferider]

Micro 105/2.8 (for the same reason).

Also, the 50/1.8 AIs is a performance superstar, but lives in the shadow of its more expensive normal sisters.

 

[Dirk]

The Nikkor 50mm f/2 falls into that league, as well.

BTW, I have the 105/1.8 and can confirm it's great. I sold my 105/2.5.

 

[Sparrow]

The 50/1.8 probably deserves more attention than it gets.

... and the f2, but yes people often miss just how good these "ordinary lenses" really are in practise

 

[redisburning]

From what I've read, the 105 1.8 Nikon is no slouch, yet it seems to live in the shadow of its 2.5 sister

the 2.5 is slow but has special rendering.

the 105/1.8 is competent but boring, and it's big, heavy and pricey relative to the 2.5. so I wouldn't say it's underrated, especially given the price it commands. underrated nikkors basically don't exist IMO; the market has worked the prices out fairly well since there are so many of them and so many people who have used them.

 

[Vics]

It's the Nikkor-H 2/50 that started the trend toward "high resolving power AND high contrast" rather than "...OR...". I'm paraphrasing Erwin Puts here, who mentions this lens along with the Summicron R of the same period.

 

[KoNickon]

If you want to get technical, the Series E lenses aren't "Nikkors," so maybe they're excluded from this discussion. But the 100/2.8 is a really nice lens.

The 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor is better than the 55/2.8, I think. How about the 200/4, which seems to get overlooked a lot?

I'd also say that the 50-135/3.5 is a fine zoom (odd focal length range; competes with the M3?); and the later 43-86/3.5 carries its earlier incarnation's bad reputation unfairly.

 

[Flat Twin]

The 28mm f2.0 seems to live in the shadow of the AiS 28mm f2.8 but I find the f2.0 to be a stunning lens in both sharpness and character. I have an early Nikkor N non Ai version from around 1970 and its awesome wide open with film.

Just thought I'd throw that in!

Simon

 

[GarageBoy]

Heh, I always thought the 50 1.8 was overrated
Seems that when digital SLRs came out, everyone and their cousin started singing the praises of the fast 50.

When I grew up, the 50 was the lens that came with your camera

 

[lawrence]

and the later 43-86/3.5 carries its earlier incarnation's bad reputation unfairly.

I had the last (AI) version and IMHO it was a dog (at least mine was).

 

[outfitter]

The f1.8 was like attaching beer can to the front of the camera - hardly worth the trouble. If you want to use a large (but not as heavy lens) get the f2 - amazing and the ability of defocus in front or behind is very worthwhile for portraits.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

the 2.5 is slow but has special rendering.

the 105/1.8 is competent but boring, and it's big, heavy and pricey relative to the 2.5. so I wouldn't say it's underrated, especially given the price it commands. underrated nikkors basically don't exist IMO; the market has worked the prices out fairly well since there are so many of them and so many people who have used them.

Not exactly.... There's still an aversion to slow lenses. Thus, for example, there's not much interest in the 35/2.8 Ai, yet it is a GREAT little lens.

 

[peterm1]

I agree that the 105mm f1.8 is strangely not been adopted as the darling of Nikon shooters. People who have used it seem to regard it highly. I suspect that the reason is that the 105mm f2.5 is so good and so cheap by comparison that most attention goes to this one.

As to the 50 f2, yes it is a very nice lens. I have one in pre AI form (the H model) that I had AI converted. It shoots beautifully particularly with black and white. I would agree that its a nice lens with beautiful rendering.

Funny thing is I have also come to own two later AF versions in f1.8 as well - the 50mm 1.8 AF D and the latest G version of this lens. Although both are undeniably wonderfully sharp I think I quite often prefer the 50mm f1.4. Its not so sharp wide open but there is something about its rendering that lends itself to an artistic interpretation. The AF 50mm f1.8s are the kind of lenses that are technically good but a little boring is what I am saying.

It probably all comes down to the type of images you shoot with a particular lens. For example I have both an 85mm f1.8 and an 85mm f1.4 each in D version. I much prefer the 1.4 for portraits but there is no doubt that until it is well stopped down it is noticeably less sharp than the 1.8. Hence I prefer that one for general shooting.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

If you want to get technical, the Series E lenses aren't "Nikkors," so maybe they're excluded from this discussion. But the 100/2.8 is a really nice lens....

I'm in complete agreement about the 100/2.8. Great image quality and light weight (it balances very nicely on my Fuji X-Pro1). Another excellent Series E lens is the 75-150mm. Most copies suffer from 'zoom creep', but image quality is super.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

The 28mm f2.0 seems to live in the shadow of the AiS 28mm f2.8 but I find the f2.0 to be a stunning lens in both sharpness and character. I have an early Nikkor N non Ai version from around 1970 and its awesome wide open with film.

Just thought I'd throw that in!

Simon

There are a lot of Non-Ai Nikkors that get overlooked these days due to their incompatibility with modern body metering systems. But I suspect demand will begin to pick up with all the old lenses being adapted to mirrorless bodies.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

The f1.8 was like attaching beer can to the front of the camera - hardly worth the trouble. If you want to use a large (but not as heavy lens) get the f2 - amazing and the ability of defocus in front or behind is very worthwhile for portraits.

This applies to the 'standard' 50/1.8, but not to the pancake version. Small and superb images quality. Here's what Bjorn Rorlett says about this little lens: "... The earliest AIS version of the 50/1.8 delivers a truly stellar performance on the D2X. The field is admirably flat, too. There is nothing more to be said here. As perfect a lens as anyone could imagine. What a shining little star this lens proved itself to be."

 

[redisburning]

The 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor is better than the 55/2.8, I think. How about the 200/4, which seems to get overlooked a lot?

the 200/4 ED IF is a nice lens but in reality it's not in the top pack of macros anymore, though I suppose at it's focal length there isn't much competition. Canon 180/3.5 macro? yeah, I think that's about it. the manual 200/4 isnt as good as that.

the 55/3.5 IS better than the 55/2.8. In fact, if there is one lens who's reputation is as undeserved as the 55/2.8, please let me know. Consider it's measured MTF graph:

how that much field curvature at f8 is acceptable in a macro lens is beyond me. that is awful, no two ways about it, if you consider what sort of stuff a 55 macro would be expected to do (ie copy work).

let's consider Pentax's try:

the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor has a flatter field and is an actually good short macro. how about one more? try the Zeiss 50/1.4, but recall that 50/1.4 lenses just have field curvature as a result of the the challenge of their design:

MTFs rarely matter. unless we're talking macros. where a flat field of high contrast reproduction is what youre buying. it's not that the 55/2.8 is a "bad" lens per se, in that it is sharp. but it fails it's purpose, which should be the main consideration.

ps these are bench MTFs of the lens, not the system, making them directly comparable.

 

[leicapixie]

The 35mmNikkor f2.8.
Overlooked by many preferring wider,the 28mm.
Mine is really sharp and contrasty.
The 135mmf3,5 is close to the 105mmf2,5.
Again my longer lens is sharper at opening apertures compared to 105mm.
I prefer the rendition of 105mm esp. on portraits.

 

[one90guy]

I have a 28mm 3.5 bought about 7 years ago from a seller in Japan, its my 2nd favorite lens.

David