How do pre-AI Nikkors compare to AI & AIs'?

[chip j]

Optically, that is.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

How do pre-AI Nikkors compare to AI & AIs'?

Some had optical formula changes some didn't. Some had coating updates or advances too. Great site for diving deep:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/

Especially the links down at the bottom for lenses and their history.

 

[chip j]

Yes, I know that site, thanks. I looked for a 24mm 2.8 AI @ KEH but all they had were pre-AI ones, @ $200 a pop, too! I just bought one (non-AI) in "Great" shape on ebay for $99(chrome barrel).

 

[Vilk]

you mean how these 30 million pieces of glass compare to those 30 million pieces? probably like 30 million refrigerators would to another 30 million refrigerators...



the only two pre-AI lenses i kept a bit longer were 50/2 and 85/1.8, nothing like it later on... over a dozen others were all outclassed by their AI-S counterparts: 28/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 105/1.8, 180/2.8... the twenties, 24/2.8, 35/2 were reliably mediocre over the ages, in any mount... oh, and the long focus throw gets annoying, too

 

[snapguy]

A lot of my pals and I were photographers for world class news photo companies when the Nikkor 24mm f2.8 came out. All agreed that lens was a stunner. Pro photogs got 20 percent off the list price but we were paying 20 percent above the list price just to get our mitts on one. These lenses are long of tooth now and it is really down to the individual lens -- has it been bounced on the floor over the years, soaked overnight in salt water, and so on? A lens that was lousy new might be better if coddled over the years than one that got bad reviews and has been knocked around. Think about it.

 

[snapguy]

Good reviews and...NOT been knocked around. Sorry.

 

[chip j]

Yes I was an Army photographer when the 24mm 2.8 came out. Before then, there wasn't much difference between Leica & Nikon systems--they bottomed out @ 28mm--Though Leica did have a 21mm , and Nikon had long telephotos. I'm just concerned about possible flare from such an old lens.

 

[jimjm]

Here's a shot with the 24/2.8 pre-AI on a plain-prism Nikon F. I always keep a hood on this lens.
This was a grab shot in very bright sun (just to the right of the frame) and no issues with flare. I used sunny-16 to guess the exposure, but the neg was easy to print - no blocked shadows and the highlights aren't blown.

Still some perspective distortion as I was probably less than 10 feet from the building. I had to crouch a bit to get the building squared-up in the frame.

It's actually a very handy street-shooter, I seem to be using it more than my 28/2.8 AIS lately.

 

[chip j]

Very Good! That's a relief, jimjim, THANKS!

 

[flavio81]

Optically, that is.

I can perhaps generalize a little bit:

wideangles (28,35): pre-AI sharp and contrasty center with weak corners; AI more even performance over the whole image

standard (1.4): pre-AI higher contrast, better coma correction; AI higher resolution wide open, but with more coma flare.

teles: pre-AI: usually nicer bokeh; sometimes slight chromatic abberration problems (200). AI: more compact, sharper, contrastier.

Note that from about 1969-1975 many designs were improved and modernized and thus would be better than the early 60s pre-AI lenses.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I can perhaps generalize a little bit:


Note that from about 1969-1975 many designs were improved and modernized and thus would be better than the early 60s pre-AI lenses.

Can you define "better"? Reason I ask is I specifically shoot older Nikkor glass because it's less clinically sharp and often more moderate in contrast which is what I'm after for my B&W work with these lenses. So to me they are "better" than the later stuff for a lot of my applications.

 

[gone]

Depends on which lens. The non AI H 50 2.0 Nikkor is one of the best 50's ever made. I had a later AI version and didn't care for it's IQ at all. The increased contrast of the "better" coatings resulted in less better pics, and by a large margin too. The non AI is very, very sharp, w/ beautiful bokeh. Just a great lens. Bought mine attached to a Nikkormat FTn for $30. The FTn is almost as good as the lens. To think of the thousands I spent early in my career on Leicas, when all I needed was the Nikkormat w/ the 50 lens.

 

[snapguy]

If your Yugo has broken down and the only tool you have is a sky high priced tool for a Rolls Royce and it won't fit then the "best" tool is worthless. There is no best except the best for what you want to do at this moment.

 

[macfred]

I have a Nikon SC-Auto 50mm f/1.4 nonAi (hill-and-dale) from 1974 and a Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AiS, that I bought new in the early nineties.
I used them both on my old Nikon FM - as far as I'm concerned, there are no notable distinctions between them.
I like them both.
The old one has it's place on my FM - the `modern´one is often used on my digital D200.

 

[Xmas]

Optically, that is.

The early non AI lenses will be single coated so you get a single coated signature, nice for mono ([ignore ot alert] or Digital). If you shoot hand held with ISO 400 you wont detect much IQ difference, I only see more distortion with early SLR wide angle lenses.

 

[chip j]

Can you define "better"? Reason I ask is I specifically shoot older Nikkor glass because it's less clinically sharp and often more moderate in contrast which is what I'm after for my B&W work with these lenses. So to me they are "better" than the later stuff for a lot of my applications.

Gee, that's what I want, too in my B&W. Maybe I'd better sell my AIs & AIss and get the old Glass. Seriously!! I have so many contrasty pics that I asked Simon Galley of Ilford to bring back Galerie grade 1 (glossy). (he said no chance)

 

[flavio81]

Can you define "better"? Reason I ask is I specifically shoot older Nikkor glass because it's less clinically sharp and often more moderate in contrast which is what I'm after for my B&W work with these lenses. So to me they are "better" than the later stuff for a lot of my applications.

Sometimes it is the opposite. I have seen well-done tests where the second-gen Nikkor-S 50/1.4 is clearly more contrasty than the Nikkor 50/1.4 AF, but with less resolution.

And again, remember that multicoating is not a guarantee of a higher-contrast lens. There are many single-coated lenses that are contrasty.

 

[Xmas]

Sometimes it is the opposite. I have seen well-done tests where the second-gen Nikkor-S 50/1.4 is clearly more contrasty than the Nikkor 50/1.4 AF, but with less resolution.

And again, remember that multicoating is not a guarantee of a higher-contrast lens. There are many single-coated lenses that are contrasty.

2nd gen nikkors may have multi coating see post #15.
Cosina make two M lenses in single or multi and a lot of sales are single...

 

[flavio81]

Yes Xmas, but in this case i am referring specifically to some (really) single-coated lenses I own, such as the Nikkor-S 50/1.4 (the multicoated is "Nikkor-SC"), or the PC-Nikkor 35/3.5.

In Canon i also have a Canon FL 35/2.5 that is single coated and has quite high contrast. Same with the FD 50/1.8 "SC" and FD 135/2.5 "SC" which are supposed to be single coated.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Some had optical formula changes some didn't. Some had coating updates or advances too. Great site for diving deep:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/

Especially the links down at the bottom for lenses and their history.

It's hard to go wrong with real Nikon glass; they are all good to outstanding unless abused by the previous owner.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

How do pre-AI Nikkors compare to AI & AIs'?

....unless abused by the previous owner.

What? Those are the lenses with the most unique "character"! (And I'm only slightly joking here...)