Which manual 50 for an F4?

[philipus]

Hello everybody

I'm considering a Nikon F4 (without any of the big motors) because I want to have matrix metering with manual lenses. I'm not interested in AF lenses.

But I'm a bit stumped as to which 50mm (my main focal length) I should pick. From reading the Cameraquest's description it seems I should look for an AI lens, but which one? Anything between f1.4 and f2 should be fine.

Thanks very much in advance for any suggestions
Philip

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Nikon's 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.8 AF lenses used the same optics as the AIs versions. I had the 50mm f1.4 AF on my F4. Is a good lens. Bokeh is harsh and ugly, but that is true of most Nikon lenses, and it is sharp stopped down, but not so much wide open.

 

[philipus]

Thank you Chris. In terms of optical performance, is there a big difference between the 1.4 and 1.8/2 versions? I'm used to the EOS system where most people would be satisfied with the 1.8 cheap nifty fifty instead of the pricier 1.4. I'm wondering if the same applies for Nikon 50mm.

Br
Philip

Nikon's 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.8 AF lenses used the same optics as the AIs versions. I had the 50mm f1.4 AF on my F4. Is a good lens. Bokeh is harsh and ugly, but that is true of most Nikon lenses, and it is sharp stopped down, but not so much wide open.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

It should indeed be an AI lens (or one which was converted). They are quite cheap and usually you can buy and sell without much loss, so why not just test as many as you can? For me in the copies I have I noticed (in my taste) that 1.4 is a bit soft and not so pleasant as far as bokeh concerns, the 1.8 is not soft but still I don't like the bokeh and the 2.0 is both the cheapest and the best of the bunch. Zeiss also makes an incredible lens for the F mount and so does Voigtlander with the Nokton 58mm f/1.4 (it's a bit longer but is very nice). The same length and one stop faster, the Noct-Nikkor has an almost legendary reputation but is incredibly expensive and has a hand grounded aspherical surface which apparently is the cause of the existence of bad and good copies. I have no idea whether this is a legend or is this true and I have no plan of searching, let alone owning, such a lens but if you are lucky enough to find a good copy and wealthy enough to buy it let us know how it is.

GLF

 

[kxl]

I'm used to the EOS system where most people would be satisfied with the 1.8 cheap nifty fifty instead of the pricier 1.4. I'm wondering if the same applies for Nikon 50mm.

Same in the Nikon world. Setting aside the AF version, there are primarily 3 categories of 50/1.8 manual focus lenses: 1) AIS, 2) AI, 3) Series E (which are also AI-spec but offered as an alternative for the budget conscious) and within those categories, differences in optical designs, coatings, metal/plastic barel construction, focus scale, min. focus distances, etc..., which you can (for the most part) identify by serial number. There are just too many variations to go into here, but as far as comparing sharpness of one vs. the other is concerned, someone once used the analogy of "entering how many angels can rumba on the head of a pin territory." I think you can find any of the versions for $50 to $100.

My particular favorite is the 50/1.8 AI (Ser# 1760801-2165418), primarily because it has the longest focus throw of all the 50/1.8 lenses. It is sometimes referred to as the 'long-nose' version with a full sized barrel and recessed front element (i.e., the opposite of the pancake version).

You can find a list of the various version on the website, owned and maintained by Roland Vink.

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#50slow

In all honesty, other than sample to sample variations, it's really difficult to go wrong with any of the 50/1.8 AI/AIS lenses.

Cheers!

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Anything between f1.4 and f2 should be fine.

Philip

Exactly, and is fine good enough when you can have the 50mm f1.2 which is a dream to focus on the F4 and can give looks which are well removed from fine?

Regretably this on a D3 :angel:

But this on the F4 using Rollei Retro 100/TD201

Or this on Acros 100/TD201, dreamy wide open when anyone can shoot sharp!!

 

[Huss]

I have the Nikkor 50 1.4 AI, the 1.2 AIS, 1.8 AIS 'long nose' as well as others (Zeiss etc)

The 50 1.4 suffers from focus shift as you stop down and has some pretty wicked barrel distortion. The 1.8 really is the sleeper here. Much sharper than the 1.4 at equivalent apertures (until after 5.6 where they are the same), no distortion, no focus shift.
The long nose version is the one to get IMO, not the pancake version. It is called long nose as the front element is recessed instead of near flush to the front. This not only protects the lens but also acts as a built in lens shade. It is really easy to tell which one is which, as the long nose has two rows of rubber on the focus ring, while the pancake had only one, making the focus ring about half as thick.

 

[philipus]

I wish there were a thank you button in this forum. Thanks everyone, your replies are very helpful. Keith, thanks for linking to Vink's excellent site and Chris thanks for posting those photos.

Of course, I can always buy, try and sell (which is what I've done re Leica M) but it is always very helpful to hear the views of those who know a system first-hand.

I visited today for the first time an excellent camera store - Fotohandeldelfshaven - in Delft. Truly wonderful selection of almost every imagineable camera brand. They have various models of 50mm. I think I am pretty set on getting either the f1.8 or the f2 in AI, and if 1.8 the long nose since I prefer a slightly larger lens to a smaller.

I was surprised that most (I checked the 1.8 and 1.4) have only six aperture blades. I don't mind that - for instance, I don't mind the OOF highlights of my 80/2.8 Planar - but I just thought there would be more blades.

br
Philip

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I was surprised that most (I checked the 1.8 and 1.4) have only six aperture blades. I don't mind that - for instance, I don't mind the OOF highlights of my 80/2.8 Planar - but I just thought there would be more blades.

br
Philip

The very first series of F mount lenses (of course not Al), which are known as "tick mark lenses" used to have nine blades. Now they highly regarded by collector (so really not apt for a conversion). If you want nine blades in a modern glass (and compatibility with all metering modes, should you want to try any of these on a digital body) you need to go with either Voigtlander or with Zeiss, imho both great.

GLF

 

[Canyongazer]

For me in the copies I have I noticed (in my taste) that 1.4 is a bit soft and not so pleasant as far as bokeh concerns, the 1.8 is not soft but still I don't like the bokeh and the 2.0 is both the cheapest and the best of the bunch. Zeiss also makes an incredible lens for the F mount and so does Voigtlander with the Nokton 58mm f/1.4 (it's a bit longer but is very nice).
GLF

What he said: +1

 

[Vics]

I've tried most of them and I like the Nikkor-HC 2/50 the best. 1.8 pancake a very fine optic, but fiddly and plastic-y. 1.4 SC is nice, at least in the center, but big and heavy. I say buy one of each. Cheap as chips!

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

50/1.8 Series E with the metal ring. Best bokeh in a nikon 50 until they made the 50/1.8G, in my humble, unqualified opinion. But maybe get the 50/1.2 ALSO. The E is so inexpensive, theres no reason not to have one. AND its fantastic.

 

[Godfrey]

I had the 50/1.8E and it was good. But the 50/1.2 AI-S is better.

G

 

[mfogiel]

I would suggest something slightly off main track:
- Nikkor 45P if you don't mind slower speed and slightly wider. This is a Tessar formula and surprisingly similar to Elmar M 50/2.8 v2
- Zeiss Makro Planar 50/2 - this is in reality a 2,4, but probably one of the best 50 lenses ever made
- any 50 from Leica R with the Leitax "preset" adapter

 

[Robert Lai]

For a while I used the 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor AIS as a prime lens. It is very sharp at all apertures and distances, and it has NO distortion. It will focus down to 1:2 on its own, and to 1:1 with an extension tube.

I had the "long nose" 50mm f/1.8 AI. It does have barrel distortion when not focused at infinity. It focuses fairly close though, about 18 inches. Wide open it has some veiling flare, and stopped down to f/2.8 or smaller, it sharpens up considerably. The bokeh is neutral at best, to ugly.

Still, I ditched the 50mm f/1.8 AI after 25 years of use in favor of the Voigtlander 40mm f/2. I still have the 55mm Micro though.

 

[alistair.o]

For myself, faced with this 'problem', I would opt for the Nikon 50mm f2 Ai and/or the NIkon Micro 55mm f2.8 or 3.5.

The 50mm f2 is just beautifully made and sharp even down to f2. It flares, so I would recommend a hood.

The 55 is a very different prospect you can have micro (makro) for which I would advise a tripod as it is fine a focus. The lens also works as a standard lens with beautiful backgrounds from f5.6/4 down.

 

[richard_l]

I really like the Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4. It has gotten some unflattering reviews, but at f/2.8 and smaller, it has excellent IQ, and the precision construction and large maximum aperture make it very pleasant to use. It is a permanent fixture on my FM2N unless I need macro capability.

 

[jwicaksana]

Allow me to chime in, I have owned/still own F4s and F4e along with 55 1.2 NAI, 50 1.4 AIS, 50 1.8 Long Nose, 55 2.8 Micro AIS, 50 1.8 AF-D. My finding:
- The 1.2 is hard to nail focus wide open with standard F4 screen
- The 1.4 AIS is overall nice BUT
- I prefer the 1.8 Long Nose for its somewhat nicer bokeh, sharper and great build
- 55 Micro is critically sharp with no color fringe at all, bokeh is really nice, problem is focus to stiff and long throw (at least on my unit the stiffness is)
- Additional note: Series E does not feel as nice as the others, probably (and most likely a fact) the AIS generation has the nicest build and feel.

For great all around Nikon 50, my fave is the Long Nose, but for use on F4, I ended up using the AF-D most.
Hope that helps.

 

[Godfrey]

Allow me to chime in, I have owned/still own F4s and F4e along with 55 1.2 NAI, 50 1.4 AIS, 50 1.8 Long Nose, 55 2.8 Micro AIS, 50 1.8 AF-D. My finding:
- The 1.2 is hard to nail focus wide open with standard F4 screen
- The 1.4 AIS is overall nice BUT
- I prefer the 1.8 Long Nose for its somewhat nicer bokeh, sharper and great build
- 55 Micro is critically sharp with no color fringe at all, bokeh is really nice, problem is focus to stiff and long throw (at least on my unit the stiffness is)

For great all around Nikon 50, my fave is the Long Nose, but for use on F4, I ended up using the AF-D most.
Hope that helps.

I put a type A screen in the F and F6 to aid focusing with the 50/1.2 and shorter focal lengths. It's now my standard screen.

 

[Fixcinater]

If you're looking for something out of the ordinary, an AI-converted 5.8cm f/1.4 would give you loads of it.

If not, the 1.8 or 2.0 would suit you quite well. The 1.4 is fine but not worth the cost/weight/size premium.

I've no experience with the 1.2 Nikkors.