Are there Pre-AI Nikkors to be avoided?

[chip j]

The 35 2.8, 135 3.5 & 200 4.0 don't get good reviews. ??

 

[ac12]

Depends on your intended use.
The simplest is to just get the later MC lenses.
But some of us like the older single coated lenses.
In most cases, the lenses are 'good enough.'

I would purchase and use any of them.
But, generally I prefer the fastest of each focal length, within reasonable price. If the price of the fastest lens is too high, I go down to the next slower lens.
Example for 135 I would get the f/2.8 lens, for 35 I would get f/2 (cheaper f/2.8 is OK), for 50 I would get f/1.4 (cheaper f/2 lens is just fine).
There isn't an alternative to the 200 f/4 except the 180 f/2.8.

One that you probably would want to avoid is the 1st version of the 43-86. The 2nd version is fine.

So WHY are you interested in pre-AI lenses?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
One that you probably would want to avoid is the 1st version of the 43-86. The 2nd version is fine.
...

That's what I've heard as well ... yet I'm tempted to try it just to see what kind of good images I can wring out of it.

Actually, I've never met a pre-AI lens I didn't like. I've got about a dozen between 28mm and 500mm (all primes).

 

[chip j]

I read they're better for b&w. That's what they were designed for. Though I did see a color portrait w/the 105 Sonnar version--too fabulous!

 

[BMbikerider]

To be honest having used Nikons for close on 40 years I have yet to find one that i would not use again or even hesitate to buy. In the days of the early 43/86 Zoom lenses was not one I would use so cannot give an opinion. Even a quite badly scratched F1.4 pre AI was a lens to be reconed with so long as you kept away from light directly into the front element. No problem at all with lenses from 20mm (3 versions) right up to an A1 300/F4 prime.

 

[Mackinaw]

Yes, avoid the first version of the 43-86 zoom. A true dog of a lens. It's the one NIkkor I have that is soft at every aperture and focal length.

 

[Chan Tran]

I none but one Pre AI lens the 55mm f/3.5 micro and it's OK. I think optically the pre AI aren't that much different from the AI version. Built quality may be better (some said I don't really see it) but I like the look of the AI lenses better and all or my cameras are AI cameras. So to me buying a pre AI lens instead of AI must mean saving a lot of money otherwise I would use an AI lens.

Has been edited.

 

[Pentode]

The coatings are better (especially for color work) on the later lenses.

That said, anyone who feels the earlier lenses are to be avoided should send them immediately to me. I'll happily sacrifice myself and jump on that grenade for them.
Seriously; they're very good lenses.

 

[Ap507b]

Have the first version of the 43-86. Bought it out of curiosity to see if it was as bad as I read. Distortion pretty bad at each extreme but think it's useable mid range stopped down a stop or two.

Have a 35mm F2.8 Nikkor S & 135mm F3.5 & 200mm F4 Nikkor Q lenses. Have honestly never found any of them a disappointment. & have had some lovely photos from all.

I always use them with a lens hood.

I do have AI or AIS versions of the lenses too (135mm lenses are F2.8 with AI & AIS versions & both are superb peeformers) but I like period glass to go with my F.

 

[benveniste]

The main reasons I can see to use pre-AI lenses in 2018 are:

• There's nothing like it made in AI or AF. (The OP Fisheye-NIKKOR 10mm F5.6 comes to mind)
• You prefer the "look" of the older lens (105mm f/2.5 Sonnar vs. Gauss)
• You prefer the feel of the older metal scalloped rings to that of more modern equipment.
• The joy of using "retrotech."

If there are no alternatives (as in the first reason), than a review might tell you the unique features or characteristics the lens brings to the party. But the other three reasons are purely subjective, so I don't see a review of being much help. Optically, it's usually pretty easy to find a more modern lens which performs at least as well optically. So I wouldn't worry about which pre-AI lenses to avoid and instead concentrate on which ones you'd like to try and use.

 

[flavio81]

The 35 2.8, 135 3.5 & 200 4.0 don't get good reviews. ??

Note that one can't easily generalize because many of those lenses, even in Pre-AI form, existed in different optical versions, and the only way to distinguish is via serial numbers or cosmetic differences.

For example there are at least two or three optical versions of the 35/2.8 Pre-AI; it was improved over time.

200/4.0 pre-AI has two different optical versions and the second one was improved optically, substantially. And I owned the first version and, while sharpness wasn't the best wide open, it had fantastic bokeh.

135/3.5 also was improved. I owned the late-60s version and it was sharp as a tack, even wide open. An excellent lens in every regard, IMO.

The famous (or infamous) 50/1.4 Nikkor-S also has existed in at least two different optical versions during its lifetime.

The main reasons I can see to use pre-AI lenses

As an owner of Pre-AI, AI and AF Nikkors, i must say that in general the build quality of Pre-AI lenses is much superior to the AI and later lenses.

 

[chip j]

Thanks much, everyone. I'm cool w/them now; just needed a little psychotherapy.

 

[flavio81]

for 50 I would get f/1.4 (cheaper f/2 lens is just fine).

I would say that the Nikkor-H 50/2 is right up there with the best 50mm lenses of all time, together with the Pentax 55/1.8, a true classic.