AI meant automatic indexing. Ken Rockwell describes the lens I was referring to, with Nikkor-H written around the objective on the front of the lens:No it is not H, it is "AI" version, but since it is the very first and short lived AI, I think optical scheme is the same as in non-AI, a couple of years later they introduced 50 mm with f/1.8 aperture. Barrel distortion worries me, to be honest, but it was really cheap and felt like a bargain even for that lens.
Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong year. Do not worry, my optimism is long gone as well, even though I'm much younger than my FE itself. And yes, 50 mm f/2 Nikkor is unanimously agreed to have consistent corner to corner sharpness even at f/2 (something that f/1.8 apparently lacks), along with pretty neutral tone rendition.AI meant automatic indexing. Ken Rockwell describes the lens I was referring to, with Nikkor-H written around the objective on the front of the lens:
https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f2.htm
I had one of these 50s many decades ago; it came with my 1968 Nikkormat. Here is an example from those old days, when I was young, healthy, and optimistic...Sigh... (Quincy Market, Boston, Massachusetts, 1969, Kodachrome II slide)
View attachment 219119
Of course Canon could have gone the same way as Nikon, modifying its (decidedly outdated) breech-lock FD mount for autofocus purpose, but then they'd struggle with it. So changing the mount was a wise decision. I can safely say that unification of Pentax K-mount is higher than that of Nikon. My digital K-x can give me focus confirmation and stop-down metering with any SMC-M lens, while Pentax-A lenses can also work in aperture priority. Can a regular AI lens do any of those when mounted on anything Nikon has to offer as equivalent of cheap as K-x? They can't. But although Pentax had some exceptional pieces of glass, they kinda never tried hard enough to produce a high class film camera. They all lack something. Except for LX, which lacks lower price tag!!!I have used the Canon FD system extensively, including some high end(but not particularly exotic) glass, and now am pretty much fully invested in the Nikon F system for 35mm and digital. One of the things that attracts me to it is the(mostly) seamless integration across manual focus, autofocus, and digital makes life easy. I use to love my T90(one of the few FD bodies I still have), and although the F4 is a polarizing camera in a lot of ways I think it best the T90. Although it IS an autofocus camera, it has often been called the best manual focus camera Nikon has ever made, and let's also just face it that the AF isn't anything to write home about. I'm still hunting for an "A" or "K" screen to put in my two F4 bodies to make MF easier.
I've noticed that I have to be extra careful and do a thorough research before acquiring any Nikkor lens. I can convert a non-AI lens to AI with power tools and I will use them without stop-down metering subsequently, but if the optical scheme is poor, there is no fixing that. One more thing I've learned after owning two different f/1.4 lenses is that it's an unnecessary gimmick personally for me, considering exposure latitude of modern films and the fact that there's no dramatic difference in VF brightness between f/1.8 and f/1.4On the whole, Nikon lenses are excellent, although like most brands there are some dogs out there. The old 43-86 zoom is one of them(I have two, including one that I AI converted myself, and one that's still non-AI). The older Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4s are nothing special, and are fairly soft and low contrast wide open, but the AI, AI-s, and AF(D) versions are significantly better. I nearly snapped up a 50mm f/1.4G out of the used case at the local camera store as it's a the first new optical design Nikon has introduced for this focal length/aperture in a while(barring the hideously expensive 58mm f/1.4G) but talked myself out of it since I don't need ANOTHER 50mm f/1.4. I'll also mention that the 5.8cm f/1.4, a somewhat uncommon lens that was only sold from ~1959-1962, has a very interesting rendering with "swirly" bokeh and it's worth playing with, but is also quite expensive for what it is(I'm also a hopeless collector and had to have one-I bought it on a 6.4 million F Flag Photomic). I've also used it on AI cameras, as aperture ring is cut in such a way that it will(barely) clear the tab on my D800 and D3s, but you're on your own if you want to try it yourself.
Nikon has really only made one 50mm f/1.8 that I like, the 50mm f/1.8 AI-s. I'll also add the caveat that I have not used the "G" version of this lens. In any case, I find the Series E 50mm to be a bit lacking in corner performance, esp. compared to the excellent 50mm f/2(as shown above) and unfortunately the AF and AF-D versions used the series E optical design rather than the much better AI-S design.
I would simply have nothing to shoot with a lens longer than 135 mm. In fact, 105 mm would be a perfect long lens for me, for moderate telephoto use plus for portraiture. Alas, it costs significantly more than 135 mm (I guess others also discovered that it's handy). As for filters, I also have to switch from 49 mm to 52 now, since all my Olympus lenses previously had a 49 mm thread along with my current Pentax lenses.A mention was made of not wanting to use lenses longer than 135mm. One of the nice things about the F mount system the beautiful little 200mm f/4, which is lightweight, compact, and excellent. Also, you can cover the entire focal length range from 20mm to 200mm with only a 52mm filter set provided that you don't want to use the 20mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2, or 180mm f/2.8(there may be a few other fast ones in there I'm missing, but all of the f/1.2 lenses are 52mm also). For me, that beats the heck out of carrying a 72 or 77mm set, as I often need to with more modern lenses, and then a set of step rings to use with the primes that inevitably also make their way into my bag.
I don't think I'll ever go down to the roots (F/F2/Nikomat) since I value compact form factor and light weight. Although some people consider FE to be a direct successor of Nikomat EL. And of course, stop-down metering of every shot is a hindrance. So here comes a conversion to AI.In any case, I prefer non-AI lenses on a body purpose made for them. IMO, you can't go wrong with an F2SB, which uses the same silicon photocell of the F2AS and also the +/0/- LEDs seen on that and the FM series, but works with non-AI lenses. The Nikkormat EL gives you auto-exposure with non-AI lenses, and in manual exposure mode works a lot like the EL2/FE/FE2/FM3a. I don't like Nikkormat bodies as a general rule, though, and find having to set the aperture to f/5.6 before mounting a lens to be a bit annoying(on the F2 non-AI finders, along with the FTN for the F, you can mount with it set to any aperture and just have to be sure to spin it to minimum after mounting-I usually go max then min to make sure the follower "catches").
Of course Canon could have gone the same way as Nikon, modifying its (decidedly outdated) breech-lock FD mount for autofocus purpose, but then they'd struggle with it. So changing the mount was a wise decision. I can safely say that unification of Pentax K-mount is higher than that of Nikon. My digital K-x can give me focus confirmation and stop-down metering with any SMC-M lens, while Pentax-A lenses can also work in aperture priority. Can a regular AI lens do any of those when mounted on anything Nikon has to offer as equivalent of cheap as K-x? They can't. But although Pentax had some exceptional pieces of glass, they kinda never tried hard enough to produce a high class film camera. They all lack something. Except for LX, which lacks lower price tag!!!
I've noticed that I have to be extra careful and do a thorough research before acquiring any Nikkor lens. I can convert a non-AI lens to AI with power tools and I will use them without stop-down metering subsequently, but if the optical scheme is poor, there is no fixing that. One more thing I've learned after owning two different f/1.4 lenses is that it's an unnecessary gimmick personally for me, considering exposure latitude of modern films and the fact that there's no dramatic difference in VF brightness between f/1.8 and f/1.4
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?