Are Pre-1974 Nikkor lenses better made?

[AE35]

Are Nikkors with the non-scalloped design from 1974 onwards (K-series, AI, AI-S etc) better or worse in build quality than the classic looking scalloped lenses (1959-73)? Also, when Nikon started AI lenses ('77) did they retain the build quality of the K-series? or did they change a few things?

 

[cooltouch]

I'm not an expert on Nikon lenses, but I own an assortment, from a 1965-ish non-AI (and later non-AIs) to include AI, AIs, and even AF Nikkors. Based on various Nikkors I've owned and the amount of use/abuse they've seen, I must honestly state that I don't think there's any real difference in build quality between Non-AI and AIs lenses. I used to own a 180mm f/2.8 ED AIs that was a veteran of the press corps wars when I bought it. It had been thoroughly thrashed, but it was the sharpest lens in my outfit and worked flawlessly. I own a few AF-D Nikkors that appear to be more plasticky, but they also seem stout enough, although probably not as stout as the earlier metal lenses.

So if you're after some quality manual focus Nikkors, if I were you, I would lean toward the AIs versions, simply because they have the latest coatings. There are a couple of exceptions to this, but for the most part this is what I'd do.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I've written extensively on this exact topic. F series are built to the highest standards. Ai-s are comparable in durability but use stamped internal parts. K series are/were an interim design philosophy and had many design and manufacturing short cuts. I've made many posts on here and Rangefinder forum about my experiences repairing and servicing Nikkors.
All ED-IF designs from any era were built to the highest standards with few/er shortcuts.

 

[chip j]

I'd like a link to some of your writings, please, because I have a high interest in this topic. And, what is a K series?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

You can use the search function of this website to search my posts. On RangeFinder Forum I go by Noserider and you can do a search of my posts as well. On Photonet from years ago I go by Christiaan Phleger and search my posts. Bjorn at http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html has an excellent overview on pretty much every manual Nikkor made.
Roland at http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html has the definitive Nikon serial number site.
Good luck and have fun! Nikon has made a lot of lenses over the years and learning about the variations and how they look on both film and digital is part of the fun.
Hint: not in all cases is the newest fastest most expensive the "best" lens other than the Nikkor 300mm f/2 ED-IF and yes I have used it.

 

[flavio81]

Are Nikkors with the non-scalloped design from 1974 onwards (K-series, AI, AI-S etc) better or worse in build quality than the classic looking scalloped lenses (1959-73)? Also, when Nikon started AI lenses ('77) did they retain the build quality of the K-series? or did they change a few things?

All i can say for certain is that all pre-AI and AI lenses are much better built than the AF lenses.
And that AF-G lenses are an abomination and the ugliest lenses made by any manufacturer.

As for pre-AI versus AI, i like more how pre-AI lenses look and feel. But probably both series are as reliable as they can get.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I can assure you Ai and K spec lenses are not that well built relative to the other builds of Nikon lenses. If they are in original condition and they are functioning correctly with a focus throw that is not too dry my seasoned advice is to leave it alone; internally they were built during a transitional time when Nikon was switching to a more streamlined approach using more stamped parts. The result was in my opinion an overly complex internal design that when newer and in spec was nearly as durable as the legendary Nikkor F series (scalloped ring) BUT when the lens suffered damage or needed a CLA the breakdown and rebuild process created plenty of opportunity for problems. These lenses still exist on the used market and returning them to a reasonably functional state can be a real chore for the repair person. Ai-s and AF lenses are designed to have most parts swapped out with replacement parts rather than adjusted or 'tuned' like the Nikkor F series. I've resurrected many Nikkor F lenses that appeared to be beyond repair. Its the same concept with automobiles and repair. If the optics and coatings of the Nikkor F series can meet your photographic requirements I recommend them since any reasonably decent repair person can keep them operational probably indefinately.

 

[flavio81]

I can assure you Ai and K spec lenses are not that well built relative to the other builds of Nikon lenses. If they are in original condition and they are functioning correctly with a focus throw that is not too dry my seasoned advice is to leave it alone; internally they were built during a transitional time when Nikon was switching to a more streamlined approach using more stamped parts. The result was in my opinion an overly complex internal design that when newer and in spec was nearly as durable as the legendary Nikkor F series (scalloped ring) BUT when the lens suffered damage or needed a CLA the breakdown and rebuild process created plenty of opportunity for problems. These lenses still exist on the used market and returning them to a reasonably functional state can be a real chore for the repair person. Ai-s and AF lenses are designed to have most parts swapped out with replacement parts rather than adjusted or 'tuned' like the Nikkor F series. I've resurrected many Nikkor F lenses that appeared to be beyond repair. Its the same concept with automobiles and repair. If the optics and coatings of the Nikkor F series can meet your photographic requirements I recommend them since any reasonably decent repair person can keep them operational probably indefinately.

I am glad that almost all of my Nikkors are pre-AI Nikkors then!

To what "parts" specifically do you refer? (I am asking about the AI or AI-S lenses, specifically; i don't care at all for the AF lenses.)

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Mainly having to do with the aperture adjustment rather than milled pieces they went with stamped. The cost and manufacturing savings went mostly into this area. Most of the time in regards to optics the use of a retaining ring held secure by a set screw continued and this contributes to the durability of all Nikkors.

 

[yessammassey]

This is completely anecdotal, but I've been through a few wide-angle Nikon primes, and the Ai lenses (2x 24/2.8 & one 28/3.5) bore signs of moderately rough use (like small chips in the paint/plastic, wear marks, scratches) but no physical evidence of drops or other hard impacts. The one wide-angle, scalloped 28/3.5 Nikkor-H, on the other hand, has a dented filter ring. It's not bad (filters still attach), but based on how dense the metal ring is, its dent must have been caused by a fairly hard impact.
All the Ai lenses were purchased from used gear retailers for retailer prices, while the Nikkor-H was found at a junk sale for $20. You might ask which lens performed the best (i.e. was well centered and had the most uniform performance across the frame), but given my preamble and what others have said in this thread, I bet you can guess.

On the other hand, sort of, my Ai-S 50/1.4 outperforms the pre-Ai, scalloped 50/1.4 I used to own. The flare, ghosting, contrast, and general performance against bright light were slightly better with the newer lens, which is what you would expect from better coating, I guess. But it is Ai-S, not Ai, and the difference was really only noticeable at larger apertures.

I really like the older all-metal Nikkors. I'd ultimately like to have a kit that consists of mostly F-era lenses: 28/2, 105/2.5, and 20/3.5 UD, to go with my 50/1.4 Ai-s and 300/4 AF. I'd probably keep the Nikkor-H around for riskier situations, too.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I would add to that list yessammassey the K or Ai 20mm f/4 rather than the 3.5 U.D. Smaller lighter and much better for its intended purposes.
The F series 28mm f/2 is a stellar lens and I can not believe these mostly go for less than an Ai or Ai-s much much better internal build. I would avoid the K or Ai series of the 35mm f/1.4; either the F or the Ai-s are much better constructed and will hold their 'tune' much longer. Iv'e worked on perhaps 12-15 35mm f/1.4 (i own 3 and at one time had 7!) and to a lens the K or Ai spec lens was a huge pain to get tuned nicely. The N or N.C with the Thorium elements is my favorite 35mm f/1.4 i have bleached one out to almost no yellow and I have one kept at original yellow because I like it with color film and it has great contrast with black and white although it does have perhaps 1/6th of a stop light loss.
Often the older lenses especially the K and Ai have had some loosening or settling of elements, I've had a few 50mm 1.4 K and Ai versions that appeared to be dogs wide open that after a loosening and re-tighten/torquing of the element groups regained a lot of sharpness at wide open apertures. YMMV

 

[flavio81]

Ridingwaves,

Thanks for all this info. Let's hope this thread doesn't drive the prices up, though...

 

[yessammassey]

Good to know about the UD. There seem to be a lot of opinions out there about the 20mm nikons, and which is the best of the lot. It seem like one area where Canon and Olympus may have had a leg up on the Nikkors...

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

With the Nikkor 20's it seemed to me as if you needed to carry two which is what I did, or make a choice as to how you shoot that focal length. The Ai and Ai-S 20mm f/3.5 is amazing close up and against the light (which happens often in the strong Hawaiian light I shoot in) and just merely ok at distances. It works fine but in comparison to the short lived 20mm f/4 you can see the differences. I often shoot the 3.5 (52mm filter) with the very thin K1 or sometimes K2 ring which gives a very dramatic near/far look when stopped down. The 20mm f/4 is my choice when I may not focus so much on that near/far look or when traveling the ability to render fine detail in a wide landscape shot is remarkable. I'm not the only one to notice these differences. I have and used the 20mm f/2.8 Ai-S as well but that just seemed like a compromise between the others; it does everything pretty well (close up, distance, with some extra lens speed) it just doesn't seem to any one thing best like either the 3.5 (52) or the 4 can. I worked on and tested/used several U.D lenses and it was a generally ok lens especially with color but the others render much better with less weight and bulk.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

As to prices it seems to me that the recent inclusion of the Japanese market into Ebay has set and stabilized the used lens market. A quick check showed many fine examples of the 28/2 early for around 200 which is far under priced considering the optical quality and lens construction. I don't see these prices rising anytime soon, the 28/2 has always been a less favored lens for whatever reason.

 

[cooltouch]

I agree that the somewhat recent introduction of Japanese sellers onto eBay has had a tempering effect on prices, which I see as a good thing, as a buyer, especially. Regarding the 28/2, I think the 28/2 is less favored, not because of its speed, but because of its focal length. Speaking only for myself, I've yet to come across a situation in which a 28mm performs a task where a 24mm won't perform it better. Once I bought my first 24mm prime, the only time 28mm got used anymore was when I was using a zoom that started at that focal length. And that is still the case, some 30 years later.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Yes I totally get what you mean cooltouch; the 28mm focal length sits right in between the 24 and 35 and I've often had the dilemma of choosing which wides go with me on assignments or weddings. Having a fast compact and relatively lightweight 28mm prime can make a good kit with a 50 and one of the smaller 20's I discussed above. It seems like a funny angle of view for most; I happen to like the angle myself.

 

[chip j]

28, 50 &85-90--standard kit.

 

[flavio81]

Yes I totally get what you mean cooltouch; the 28mm focal length sits right in between the 24 and 35 and I've often had the dilemma of choosing which wides go with me on assignments or weddings. Having a fast compact and relatively lightweight 28mm prime can make a good kit with a 50 and one of the smaller 20's I discussed above. It seems like a funny angle of view for most; I happen to like the angle myself.

I sold almost all my 24mm lenses. Once i get a 20mm then i choose the sequence: 20 28 (35) 50. 28 i find quite different to 35.