Fastest Lens for Nikon F Mount?

[brucemuir]

Well the nameplate wasn't what was confusing me.
The FTn is the only finder with the 2 front fingers to hold it so that requires a beveled nameplate.
Someone enlightened me on this aspect just the other night in a similar thread.

What I was confused on was if all the pre FTn finders required the cutout or just the Ftn finder.

 

[2F/2F]

Well the nameplate wasn't what was confusing me.
The FTn is the only finder with the 2 front fingers to hold it so that requires a beveled nameplate.
Someone enlightened me on this aspect just the other night in a similar thread.

What I was confused on was if all the pre FTn finders required the cutout or just the Ftn finder.

Hi,

The T, TN, and FTn (in chronological order) require the larger cutout. The original Photomic head does not. The FTn also requires the beveled nameplate, because of the fingers you talked about.

What I am not sure of is whether the FTn will mount on a camera without a nameplate. I forgot to check if there are internal pins on both sides of the glass when I just had the prism off. If so, it should not require a nameplate. If not, then the fingers are absolutely necessary to hold the prism on.

 

[brucemuir]

Okay, thanks.
That sums things up for me.

Sorry to the OP for slight derail...

 

[2F/2F]

I couldn't stand it, so I went and took off my FTn prism again and had a look. Yes, there are pins on both sides of the glass. So, the fingers should not be necessary to hold the prism on. This should mean that the FTn head will fit on bodies designed for the T or TN finder if the nameplate is removed.

I don't think it is a derailment. It is necessary info if the OP is going to track down a metered head that will work on his camera.

He needs to first take the eye level prism off and look at the rear notch to see if it is big or small. (For comparison, both of the ones I posted above are big notches.) If it is small, he needs the original Photomic head; nothing else will fit. If it is big, he needs the T or the TN head for a direct, no-hassle fit. And based on what I just saw, the FTn head will also work, if the nameplate is removed. But I have not tried that yet. (As I said, no need for me.)

When it comes down to picking which finder, I will opine that the original Photomic is the best. It is incident, reflected, or reflected with a narrow pattern. And it works on all Nikon F bodies, so the OP doesn't even have to consider what type of body he has. It is not TTL, though. I find that better, while others do not.

If a TTL finder is preferred, my first choice would be the TN finder. It is a center-weighted pattern, while the T is a simple averaging meter. And the only incompatibility is with early, non-modified Fs with the small notch. The FTn is center weighted as well, but it is also the most incompatible of all the F Photomic metering heads. You need a late F body to use it; if you don't have a late body, you need to modify your camera for the FTn head.

If you post a picture of the rear notch, Fragomeni, we can tell you whether or not it is the large one or the small one.

 

[j-dogg]

I have the Nikkor S 50mm f1.4, nice creamy bokeh and tack sharp if I can nail the focus lol

 

[Pumalite]

I like the 55mm f/1.2 in spite of its reputation.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

How about the Nikkor 300mm f/2? I've posted a few shot I've take with it HERE

 

[2F/2F]

My F matches Mirror Housing Type 4 on the page Bruce linked to.

Sorry, I just read this post, and that link.

Since you have the high edge on the rear of the mirror box, you have an unmodified early F designed for the original Photomic head, and that is the only head that will fit your camera unless you carve off that part rear edge that is sticking up above the edge of the body. I wouldn't do that myself, but it ain't my camera.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

How about the Nikkor 300mm f/2? I've posted a few shot I've take with it HERE

Well, maybe not the fastest. But possibly one of the most expensive. I seem to remember that back in the day that was a $30,000 lens. And thems were 1980s dollars...

:eek:

Ken

 

[CGW]

Jeesh, haven't you geezers all had a chance to answer this?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Jeesh, haven't you geezers all had a chance to answer this?

Does this thread offend you in some way?

Ken

 

[CGW]

Does this thread offend you in some way?

Ken

Responses past #4 add nothing. What's the point?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

What's the point?

Idle chitchat. Something to do during your lunch break at work. Or at home. Or wherever, while you also do something else on your computer.

Must we all have and precisely be on a 'point' at all times? And must we all be policed to assert that behavior?

The question posed by the OP was an idle conversation starter. He starts out by saying, "Just kind of curious here..." What did you think he meant by that?

You do occassionally have pleasant conversations with other people on topics of mutual interest, don't you? If not, you do realize that these offensively off-point threads are ignorable, right?

Just sayin'...

Ken

 

[2F/2F]

Let us also not forget the fact that nearly all of the comments in this thread until the shitty one from CGW have actually related to the original post, and helped give the OP the information he needs to know. Hardly anything worthy of complaint here. And if you feel that there is, go complain to the moderators and let them decide. I am sure they will appreciate the tip off.

 

[brucemuir]

Let us also not forget the fact that nearly all of the comments in this thread until the shitty one from CGW have actually related to the original post, and helped give the OP the information he needs to know. Hardly anything worthy of complaint here. And if you feel that there is, go complain to the moderators and let them decide. I am sure they will appreciate the tip off.

I actually learned quite a bit of useful info past post #4.
Thanks to everyone that contributed.

I also learned something about CGW that could possibly be helpful at some point

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

And I learned that '2F/2F' knows a LOT more about Nikons that I had realized.
Maybe I should be asking him all of my Nikon questions?

Ken

 

[2F/2F]

And I learned that '2F/2F' knows a LOT more about Nikons that I had realized.
Maybe I should be asking him all of my Nikon questions?

Ken

Thanks, Ken...but I am by no means a collector nut or "expert." I learned a lot about the prisms specifically (through the Internet and my repair guy) when I had the same questions as the OP: which F prisms will work on my F cameras. I learned about the lenses by trying them (well, except the Noct, of course; I've never even seen one, let alone shot with one). An encyclopedia of Nikon I definitely am not! I just learn what I need to learn – and do it thoroughly – when I need to learn it.

 

[jeff.blackwell]

There was also a Process Nikkor 85mm f1.0 Macro large format lens mounted in rotating focus barrel. However, it used a T mount to couple to the camera. There was one on ebay for $3200 a few months ago.

 

[Fragomeni]

Just wanted to chime in as the OP to say that the posts in this thread, including the posts past #4, have been very helpful and most have been right on target as far as my question goes. I'm confident that the info here will help a lot of people in the future. CGW has the right to an opinion. That opinion was stated and then challenged. Who cares really? I'm requesting that the sidetrack that caused be steered back on topic, after all I'm still reading this thread as it grows and while I find the on-topic posts interesting and educational I cannot say the same for the responses to a certain comment. Back to the point please! Thanks all !

 

[brucemuir]

Can't speak for anyone else but I care.

It would be a drag (guess maybe I am a geezer) if apug denigrated to the type of disrespect you see on DPP or even FM.

Don't agree with the "who really cares" attitude but respect your right to express it.

 

[Fragomeni]

Can't speak for anyone else but I care.

It would be a drag (guess maybe I am a geezer) if apug denigrated to the type of disrespect you see on DPP or even FM.

Don't agree with the "who cares' attitude but respect your right to express it.

Totally understandable. I'm just saying as the OP I'd appreciate it if the thread could be kept on topic. I completely agree with your comment about how it would be a shame if APUG denigrated to the type of disrespect on other forums but I guess the way I look at it, allowing a disruptive post to derail an entire thread is kind of defeating. If someone posts a less the useful post, great. Let them, but don't allow it to disrupt the conversation and derail a thread as it has done in this case. Thats all I'm saying. To keep the thread on point and allow the disruptive thread to drift off into the past where it belongs seems a better route to me. After all I created this thread to be educational and to provide a document with valuable information for future readers. The detour that this has taken has occurred countless times before in countless other threads and nothing new has been said in response to the disruptive comment. Its simply an unnecessary distraction in my humble opinion. Either way, my question has been answered and I got the information I was looking for. Where this thread goes from here is up to the rest of you. Thanks to everyone for contributing valuable information and helping me out! It is very much appreciated!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Agree with Bruce. I care. The degree of mutual respect and civility normally extended on APUG by and between participants far exceeds most other online venues. It's one of the more visible signs of what makes this a different community from the others. While nobody likes to be insulted, setting a larger precedent by simply accepting it bodes ill for the future.

I'll leave everyone to continue discussing the fast Nikkors. I really do enjoy my old 55mm f/1.2, even though it has been superceded by better versions. Just learn to compose without placing pinpoint light sources on the edges of the frame and you'll mostly dodge the severe coma issues entirely.

Ken

 

[Pumalite]

Ilike this post because I've learned alot of things.

 

[philosomatographer]

I'm somewhat surprised that Nikon never made a faster lens with Canon producing the f0.95 and Leica's f1 Noctilux (not to mention the current f0.95 version). Lets not let this spiral into a conversation about people's opinions of those lenses. There are some that love them and some that don't, nuff said. Are there any f-mount lenses made by other manufactures that exceed Nikon's f1.2 limit? I'm not talking about modifying lenses here, I mean lenses made by third party manufactures specifically for the Nikon f-mount.

I would just like to correct you on the above: The Canon f/0.95 and the Noctilux are both rangefinder lenses (not SLR lenses). Both have terrible resolution wide-open compared to the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 - I don't think Nikon saw the need to make a faster standard lens for SLRs. Nikon did make a 50mm f/1.1 for the Nikon S-series rangefinders in the 1950s to compete.

Other than standard lenses, Nikon has made some very exotic high-speed Macro and special purpose lenses, such as the (standard F-mount) 85mm f/1.0 Repor-Nikkor, which, at f/1.0 (!!), features 0.0% distortion, 0% vignetting, and 200LP/mm resolution across the frame. This (and other lenses in the Ultra-Micro-Nikkor series) feature optical performance that almost push the boundaries of what is physically possible, but at immense cost.

Dead Link Removed

I suspect the all-time fastest Nikkor lens is the TV-Nikkor 35mm f/.0.9, which also fits f-mount cameras, but which is not really suitable for general-purpose photography (it projects a tiny 12mm image circle, and is optimised for non-visible wavelengths of light). It is F-mount though

Dead Link Removed

Other exotics include even a 300mm f/1.4 Ultra-Micro-Nikkor macro lens that was almost diffraction-limited wide open. Good luck ever finding any of these!

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have had one of my F3 bodies attached to a 300 f/2 Nikkor lens for one roll of film, which took about 2 minutes to go through.

I was at a motor racing circuit with a hired Nikkor 600 f/5.6, alongside was another fella with a Nikkor 600 f/4 when another fella turned up with a 300 f/2 and a 1.4 converter attached, which turned his 300 into a 420mm f/2.8.

During a break it transpired that the 600 f/4 fella had a 2x Nikkor converter, the 300 f/2 was converted to become a 600 f/4.

Effectively we had two 600 f/4’s and one 600 f/5.6 all alongside each other. The 600 f/5.6 was the lightest by far, the 300 f/2 was the heaviest, or at least felt the heaviest of the three, as a standard 300. Converting it to either a 420 or a 600 did add bulk (length mainly) but not too much extra noticeable weight.

I had hired the 600 f/5.6 for about $150 in total, for a weekend hire.

The 600 f/4 owner had, to my knowledge, sold a relatively expensive automobile, downsized to a cheap one and bought his lens with the left over money.

The 300 f/2 owner had been in the newspapers as the first purchaser of that lens in this country, I believe it took about 8 months after ordering to get it. It was a decision of whether to purchase a house or the lens.

I next saw the 300 f/2 at the Australian Los Angeles Olympic weight lifting trials, held in Melbourne. Virtually all of us were sitting around the weight lifting in a semi circle on the floor, with most of us using either an 85 or 105 focal length. During a break I spied the Nikkor 300 f/2 owner standing to one side on a chair and using a monopod and his 300. He got the money shot, his picture was on the front page around the country the next day.

Positively brilliant lens, realistically one of the fastest lens Nikon made for the 35mm format, if you account for the focal length.

Mick.