Favorite vintage Nikkor prime lens!

[Nikon 2]

Is that an excerpt from Ken? If it is ... well, he is mostly fine, but it's still better to take his articles with a grain of salt. Or even spoonful of salt.

Also from Ken…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Now what…?

 

[M-88]

Also from Ken…!

I wonder what is his "world's sharpest" assumption is based on. And what does it even matter if conventional photography/scanning/printing won't get even 50% of that sharpness and resolution anyway?

Perhaps a talblespoon of salt won't be enough after all

 

[Nikon 2]

I wonder what is his "world's sharpest" assumption is based on. And what does it even matter if conventional photography/scanning/printing won't get even 50% of that sharpness and resolution anyway?

Perhaps a talblespoon of salt won't be enough after all

Got salt...?

 

[Nikon 2]

It probably makes more of a difference with digital than film…’

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I have the Ai version of the 28 f2.8 with close focus. I find it a versatile piece. It's chipped so I can use all the modes on my F5 and typically use aperture priority.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Is that an excerpt from Ken? If it is ... well, he is mostly fine, but it's still better to take his articles with a grain of salt. Or even spoonful of salt.

I use several kilos, but like a broken watch sometimes he is correct.

 

[MattKing]

It probably makes more of a difference with digital than film…’

And probably not even there - except when "peeping".

 

[Nikon 2]

And probably not even there - except when "peeping".

So why buy those expensive Leica lenses anyway…?

 

[r_a_feldman]

So why buy those expensive Leica lenses anyway…?

To go with your expensive Leica camera body?

 

[MattKing]

So why buy those expensive Leica lenses anyway…?

I wouldn't - but I'm not their target market.
Different lenses render images in different ways, and it is entirely appropriate to have preferences. And some of those preferences can be highly subjective.
Just as it is entirely appropriate to make choices based on certain characteristics for particular reasons - for example low geometric distortion for architectural work or high speed for low light work.
In addition, there are reasons related to ergonomics that are excellent reasons to prefer one lens over another.
And of course, things like a small maximum aperture can influence how easy or pleasant it is to use a lens, so that is a very relevant factor.
And finally, relating back to the subjective characteristics, some lenses provide a field of view and appearance of contrast and illumination that seems to "suit one's eye". For me, my Zuiko 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/2 duo fill that role.
But speaking in terms of every day good quality, entirely satisfactory results in a wide variety of circumstances, I can confidently say that of the dozens of different interchangeable lenses (of various brands and covering various formats) I've used over 5+ decades of photography, I can only think of one lens whose qualities resulted in my obtaining unsatisfactory results - and that was not because of its optical quality, but rather because it fell apart.
I've certainly had unsatisfactory results - but they weren't because of the lens in front - rather due to the operator behind.

 

[Nikon 2]

To go with your expensive Leica camera body?

Excellent point...!

I wouldn't - but I'm not their target market.
Different lenses render images in different ways, and it is entirely appropriate to have preferences. And some of those preferences can be highly subjective.
Just as it is entirely appropriate to make choices based on certain characteristics for particular reasons - for example low geometric distortion for architectural work or high speed for low light work.
In addition, there are reasons related to ergonomics that are excellent reasons to prefer one lens over another.
And of course, things like a small maximum aperture can influence how easy or pleasant it is to use a lens, so that is a very relevant factor.
And finally, relating back to the subjective characteristics, some lenses provide a field of view and appearance of contrast and illumination that seems to "suit one's eye". For me, my Zuiko 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/2 duo fill that role.
But speaking in terms of every day good quality, entirely satisfactory results in a wide variety of circumstances, I can confidently say that of the dozens of different interchangeable lenses (of various brands and covering various formats) I've used over 5+ decades of photography, I can only think of one lens whose qualities resulted in my obtaining unsatisfactory results - and that was not because of its optical quality, but rather because it fell apart.
I've certainly had unsatisfactory results - but they weren't because of the lens in front - rather due to the operator behind.

Well we might just learn how to take all things in moderation...!

 

[Sirius Glass]

So why buy those expensive Leica lenses anyway…?

To go with your expensive Leica camera body?

I would but I am not a rangefinder camera enthusiast. I am a SLR kinda guy. Rangefinders make me shutter.

 

[Nikon 2]

I would but I am not a rangefinder camera enthusiast. I am a SLR kinda guy. Rangefinders make me shutter.

My first film camera was a Leica M3.
I never liked the rangefinder system but love using Nikon F2 with its SLR approach...!

 

[Radost]

For Nikon F mount, I would say 85mm f1.4 AF-D. Works beautifully on every F and D (and Z with adapter) ever made. 28mm f1.4 AF-D is right in there as well. 50mm 1.4 is fabulous 2.

Which version of the 50mm F1.4? My older version has a little more distortion then I like.

 

[Nikon 2]

Which version of the 50mm F1.4? Mike older version has a little more distortion then I like.

If I may cut in, my Nikkor 50mm f/4 AI-s is excellent with my F2 but slightly less sharp than the 50mm f/2 AI and 28mm f2.8 AI-s…!

 

[mshchem]

Which version of the 50mm F1.4? Mike older version has a little more distortion then I like.

Mine is an ancient 50mm 1.4 AF-D, so old it was made in Japan.

 

[Nikon 2]

Mine is an ancient 50mm 1.4 AF-D, so old it was made in Japan.

My F2 makes your 50mm lens look young in comparison…!

 

[Mick Fagan]

You don't need to be a rangefinder enthusiast to enjoy Leica lenses.

In 1985 or possibly 1986 I was in Germany picking up a Leica lens 180 f/2.8 (I'm pretty certain it was 2.8) for a friend back home, At the same time I was travelling around with my Nikkor ED 180mm f/2.8 attached to my Nikon F3 body. While at the camera shop the fella behind the counter mentioned that there was a quite cheap Leica R4 for sale. I soon realised that this really was a good price, so using their telephone I woke my friend up and he agreed to buy the R4 body as well. A week later I picked up the R4 body then took the opportunity to compare the two bodies and two near identical lenses.

With the help of the camera shop fella I managed to do a series of line resolution images in their cellar, then I went out and about and finished off the two rolls of E6; one for each body. Upon returning to the shop the films were then developed in their industrial size inhouse Jobo system. The next morning both of us viewed the rolls under a loupe on a light box; other shop assistants were also very keen to see the results.

In short, the lenses were almost identical in their line resolution, colour rendition and sharpness, there was however a slightly noticeable difference in contrast. The Nikkor had ever so slightly more contrast than the Leica.

Now I didn't know too much about optics back then, and to be honest, not too much more these days... It appears that Nikon added an ED (Extra Dispersion) front element to this particular lens to increase the contrast at full aperture. ED glass apparently reduces chromatic aberrations which result in low contrast images and keeps colour fringing at bay. In a roundabout way the technical speak of the German photo enthusiasts around the light box in that camera store imparted this knowledge to me, although it took quite some time before I really understood what they were so enthusiastic about.

As a user of the Leica 180 and Nikkor 180 mm lenses side by side for a couple of weeks in Germany on holiday, the Leica lens was quite hard to rotate and focus. Compared to the Nikkor it was terrible, but I was enthusiastically reminded that after a year or so of hard work, it will start to loosen up.

Line resolution wise, the Leica lens, by the merest of margins, was better. Colour fringing wise, I don't remember anything in it. Sharpness was quite subjective as the Nikkor lens had more contrast, which fools one into believing there to be a greater difference than there was.

Price wise, well, when my friend back home decided to buy a house, the two leica R4's and four lenses he had picked up over a 4-5 year period, were sold and they formed the backbone of his 25% house deposit. I would be lucky to get a deposit on a motorcycle from my Nikon stuff.

I could never justify paying Leica money for a camera system when for an appreciable reduction in outlay, I could have a comparable Nikon, Canon or Pentax system.

Footnote:
In 2017 we were in Germany and purchasing a pair of binoculars was on the cards, one day while on a walk in downtown Germering (suburb of Munich) we walked into a camera shop and perused binoculars from manufacturers various. Going back to the store the next day we decided to outlay the reasonably large difference between a Leica pair of binoculars and another brand.

We haven't regretted it one bit, some friends when noticing the Leica name on our binoculars ponder over whether the huge price difference between Leica binoculars and other brands is warranted. We just hand the binoculars over, let them look through, then wait until the superlatives have finished before we can resume normal conversation.

 

[mshchem]

My F2 makes your 50mm lens look young in comparison…!

I have old 50 Nikkors too My first Nikkor was a 50mm f4 El-Nikkor

 

[Nikon 2]

You don't need to be a rangefinder enthusiast to enjoy Leica lenses.

In 1985 or possibly 1986 I was in Germany picking up a Leica lens 180 f/2.8 (I'm pretty certain it was 2.8) for a friend back home, At the same time I was travelling around with my Nikkor ED 180mm f/2.8 attached to my Nikon F3 body. While at the camera shop the fella behind the counter mentioned that there was a quite cheap Leica R4 for sale. I soon realised that this really was a good price, so using their telephone I woke my friend up and he agreed to buy the R4 body as well. A week later I picked up the R4 body then took the opportunity to compare the two bodies and two near identical lenses.

With the help of the camera shop fella I managed to do a series of line resolution images in their cellar, then I went out and about and finished off the two rolls of E6; one for each body. Upon returning to the shop the films were then developed in their industrial size inhouse Jobo system. The next morning both of us viewed the rolls under a loupe on a light box; other shop assistants were also very keen to see the results.

In short, the lenses were almost identical in their line resolution, colour rendition and sharpness, there was however a slightly noticeable difference in contrast. The Nikkor had ever so slightly more contrast than the Leica.

Now I didn't know too much about optics back then, and to be honest, not too much more these days... It appears that Nikon added an ED (Extra Dispersion) front element to this particular lens to increase the contrast at full aperture. ED glass apparently reduces chromatic aberrations which result in low contrast images and keeps colour fringing at bay. In a roundabout way the technical speak of the German photo enthusiasts around the light box in that camera store imparted this knowledge to me, although it took quite some time before I really understood what they were so enthusiastic about.

As a user of the Leica 180 and Nikkor 180 mm lenses side by side for a couple of weeks in Germany on holiday, the Leica lens was quite hard to rotate and focus. Compared to the Nikkor it was terrible, but I was enthusiastically reminded that after a year or so of hard work, it will start to loosen up.

Line resolution wise, the Leica lens, by the merest of margins, was better. Colour fringing wise, I don't remember anything in it. Sharpness was quite subjective as the Nikkor lens had more contrast, which fools one into believing there to be a greater difference than there was.

Price wise, well, when my friend back home decided to buy a house, the two leica R4's and four lenses he had picked up over a 4-5 year period, were sold and they formed the backbone of his 25% house deposit. I would be lucky to get a deposit on a motorcycle from my Nikon stuff.

I could never justify paying Leica money for a camera system when for an appreciable reduction in outlay, I could have a comparable Nikon, Canon or Pentax system.

Footnote:
In 2017 we were in Germany and purchasing a pair of binoculars was on the cards, one day while on a walk in downtown Germering (suburb of Munich) we walked into a camera shop and perused binoculars from manufacturers various. Going back to the store the next day we decided to outlay the reasonably large difference between a Leica pair of binoculars and another brand.

We haven't regretted it one bit, some friends when noticing the Leica name on our binoculars ponder over whether the huge price difference between Leica binoculars and other brands is warranted. We just hand the binoculars over, let them look through, then wait until the superlatives have finished before we can resume normal conversation.

I like-a that...!

 

[Radost]

You don't need to be a rangefinder enthusiast to enjoy Leica lenses.

In 1985 or possibly 1986 I was in Germany picking up a Leica lens 180 f/2.8 (I'm pretty certain it was 2.8) for a friend back home, At the same time I was travelling around with my Nikkor ED 180mm f/2.8 attached to my Nikon F3 body. While at the camera shop the fella behind the counter mentioned that there was a quite cheap Leica R4 for sale. I soon realised that this really was a good price, so using their telephone I woke my friend up and he agreed to buy the R4 body as well. A week later I picked up the R4 body then took the opportunity to compare the two bodies and two near identical lenses.

With the help of the camera shop fella I managed to do a series of line resolution images in their cellar, then I went out and about and finished off the two rolls of E6; one for each body. Upon returning to the shop the films were then developed in their industrial size inhouse Jobo system. The next morning both of us viewed the rolls under a loupe on a light box; other shop assistants were also very keen to see the results.

In short, the lenses were almost identical in their line resolution, colour rendition and sharpness, there was however a slightly noticeable difference in contrast. The Nikkor had ever so slightly more contrast than the Leica.

Now I didn't know too much about optics back then, and to be honest, not too much more these days... It appears that Nikon added an ED (Extra Dispersion) front element to this particular lens to increase the contrast at full aperture. ED glass apparently reduces chromatic aberrations which result in low contrast images and keeps colour fringing at bay. In a roundabout way the technical speak of the German photo enthusiasts around the light box in that camera store imparted this knowledge to me, although it took quite some time before I really understood what they were so enthusiastic about.

As a user of the Leica 180 and Nikkor 180 mm lenses side by side for a couple of weeks in Germany on holiday, the Leica lens was quite hard to rotate and focus. Compared to the Nikkor it was terrible, but I was enthusiastically reminded that after a year or so of hard work, it will start to loosen up.

Line resolution wise, the Leica lens, by the merest of margins, was better. Colour fringing wise, I don't remember anything in it. Sharpness was quite subjective as the Nikkor lens had more contrast, which fools one into believing there to be a greater difference than there was.

Price wise, well, when my friend back home decided to buy a house, the two leica R4's and four lenses he had picked up over a 4-5 year period, were sold and they formed the backbone of his 25% house deposit. I would be lucky to get a deposit on a motorcycle from my Nikon stuff.

I could never justify paying Leica money for a camera system when for an appreciable reduction in outlay, I could have a comparable Nikon, Canon or Pentax system.

Footnote:
In 2017 we were in Germany and purchasing a pair of binoculars was on the cards, one day while on a walk in downtown Germering (suburb of Munich) we walked into a camera shop and perused binoculars from manufacturers various. Going back to the store the next day we decided to outlay the reasonably large difference between a Leica pair of binoculars and another brand.

We haven't regretted it one bit, some friends when noticing the Leica name on our binoculars ponder over whether the huge price difference between Leica binoculars and other brands is warranted. We just hand the binoculars over, let them look through, then wait until the superlatives have finished before we can resume normal conversation.

Was the Leica R lens actually a Minolta lens?
And did the phone call back then cost as much as the lens

 

[Nikon 2]

Was the Leica R lens actually a Minolta lens?
And did the phone call back then cost as much as the lens

 

[Mick Fagan]

Was the Leica R lens actually a Minolta lens?
And did the phone call back then cost as much as the lens

I have no idea, the shop absorbed the cost of the phone call, but I doubt it.

They had already sold a quite expensive Leica lens to my friend back home, which was sitting in my camera bag. I now remember this was 1986 and the thought of adding a Leica reflex camera body to their sales for the cost of a phone call to Australia lasting 5 minutes something, was nothing. I know the call was under six minutes as back then every three minutes there was a series of three pips to let you know you had entered into another three minutes of expensive phone time. We hung up as soon as we heard the first pip in the second set of pips. My friend boasted that he bought a Leica camera from go to whoa in under six minutes in the middle of the night.

I first walked into that camera store in 1985 when I couldn't believe the price of a Nikon F3 body sitting in the window. The price of the camera in the window in Australian dollars was AUD$650. Back home, the very same body was AUD$2,376. That Nikon F3 purchase was the start of a long and fruitful (for the camera shop) relationship. Australia had some of the highest prices of camera equipment in the world, sometimes ridiculously high.

I have no idea whether or not the that Leica lens was manufactured by Minolta, but I do seem to remember that one couldn't just buy a normal UV filter, it had to be a Leica UV filter as I understand that the thread pitch was unique to Leica. Perhaps someone who knows may be able to confirm this?

I'll add that in 1985 on my first visit to that camera store, not only did I purchase an F3 camera body, I bought a Gossen Profisix light meter, which I still use every time I'm photographing, it too was unbelievably cheap compared to anything, let alone Gossen, in Australia.

 

[rulnacco]

Hmmmm, how many vintage Nikkor/Nikon lenses can we have? (Errr, actually, I do have several.) The best of mine, in my opinion are: the 180 (I have the AF non-D, but with the hammertone finish) really is sweet--both as a portrait lens as mentioned earlier, and especially paired with a PN-11 extension tube, it is *fantastic* for full-frame shots of bugs and flowers and things like that; and with a 2x teleconverter, it becomes an excellent daytime sports lens. The 105/2.5 AIS--what more can be said about that, great portrait lens. And the 75-150/3.5? My god that thing is sharp, even on high-MP digital it's brilliant. It has possibly the greatest ratio of quality to cost of any Nikon lens--I paid $15 for mine, boxed. (I have never owned an 85/1.4, which frequently comes up in these kinds of conversations, so can't comment on it.)

But if I could keep only *one* lens, it would very likely be the 35/1.4 AIS. Again, despite a few weaknesses and quirks, one of Nikon's legendary lenses that needs little justification.

And if I had a 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, it might be that one instead. I don't, but one day, one day...