Modern manual lens recommendations for a Nikon FE?

[ac12]

Before giving up on the E 28, I would give it a good checking, as it would be sad to replace the lens and run into the same problem.

This seems basic, but is the lens CLEAN ? As in no finger prints or smudges or dust on the filter or lens elements.
Sometimes one forgets this basic thing. All I have to do is look at my glasses to see how dirty the lens can be and I don't notice it.
Be CAREFUL when you clean the lens, to not scratch the lens. Use the proper stuff and technique.

And make sure the film processing is not the problem.
You still have not told us anything about the film or processing, as that could also be the problem, or part of the problem.

Finally how are you evaluating the results.
If it is from prints or scans, not directly from the negative, then there is another variable to the problem.

 

[senderoaburrido]

The last few reels were lab processed, by the best lab in Montreal. I have complete confidence in their abilities. I'm wondering if the Kodak 35mm scanner I used at the dark room is an issue.

 

[ac12]

Color or B&W film?

Ah ha, film to digital, an important piece of information.

Yes, scanning is yet another variable.
If the scanner/scanner software does not have adequate dynamic range, you have a compressed contrast range.

If your monitor is not properly adjusted/calibrated, you will not be viewing the image as best as it can be.
Warning, a properly calibrated monitor for photographs can be too bright for general computing. I had to turn DOWN the brightness on my monitor, or it felt like looking at a light bulb, not comfortable to view.

Some monitors do not have a BLACK black, or a WHITE white. So the monitor itself could be a problem. Monitors with a flat non-glare screen surface tend to not have the contrast range that a smooth surface monitor has. But a smooth surface monitor has glare and reflection problems.

Bright lighting on the monitor (room light or window) will also reduce the viewed contrast of the image on the screen.

If your photo editing software does not have a way to view and adjust contrast range, another potential problem source.
In a decent photo editing software, you can adjust the contrast range. You can expand an image with a small contrast range to give you a wider contrast range; from black to white.

Then your printer. Some printers do not print as DARK as one would like
The paper also makes a difference.

As you can see, there are MANY places in the chain where the original camera image could be degraded.
And changing lens would not solve any of these problems.

 

[Mick Fagan]

85mm f/1.8 serial No. 188011 – 284661 manufactured from 05/64 – 04/75

52mm filter ring. C bayonet mount


85mm f/2 serial No. 175111 - manufactured from 04/77 – 09/81

52mm filter ring. N bayonet mount.


85mm f/1.8 serial No. 410001 - manufactured from 03/75 – 02/77

52mm filter ring. K bayonet mount.


85mm f/2 serial No. 270001 - manufactured from 08/81 -

52mm filter ring. Ai-S bayonet mount.


85mm f/1.4 serial No. 179091 - manufactured from 03/81 –

72mm filter ring. Ai-S bayonet mount. Has CRC as mentioned.


105mm f/2.5 serial No. 120102 – 253907 manufactured from 02/59 – 03/71

52mm filter ring. A bayonet mount.


105mm f/2.5 serial No. 407301 – 571564 manufactured from 12/70 – 03/75

52mm filter ring. C bayonet mount.


105mm f/2.5 serial No. 673101 - manufactured from 09/74 – 09/81

52mm filter ring. K bayonet mount.


105mm f/2.5 serial No. 890001 - manufactured from 08/81

52mm filter ring. Ai-S bayonet mount. Built in lens hood.


135mm f/3.5 they made 5 of these.

A bayonet mount Serial No 720101-865100 manufactured 02/59-05/69 52mm

C bayonet mount Serial No. 865101-141500 manufactured 05/69-06/75 52mm

K bayonet mount Serial No. 158101-193500 manufactured 05/75-03/77 52mm

N bayonet mount Serial No. 193501 manufactured 03/77-09/81 52mm

Ai-S bayonet mount Serial No. 290001 manufactured 09/81-03/83 52mm


135mm f/2.8 they made 5 of these.

C bayonet mount Serial No.1350010-421067 manufactured 11/65-03/75 52mm

K bayonet mount Serial No. 430001-465000 manufactured 06/75-03/76 52mm

N bayonet mount Serial No. 7300001-90000 manufactured 01/76-09/81 52mm

Ai-S bayonet mount Serial No. 900001- manufactured 09/81- 52mm

Ai-S bayonet mount (E series) Serial No. 180031- manufactured 03/81-02/83 52mm


123mm f/2 they made 2 of these.

K bayonet mount Serial No. 175011-201000 manufactured 12/75-12/81 72mm

Ai-S bayonet mount Serial No. 201001- manufactured 12/81 72mm

Sources:- a few books I have, in particular, "Nikon Compendium, Handbook of the Nikon System" by Rudolf Hillebrand and hans-Joachim Hauschild. ISBN 1-8978802-02-1 Published by Hove Books, first English edition 1983.


I would suggest the Nikon Compendium is probably a wise investment if you are contemplating anything for Nikon 35mm cameras. There are other fine books, but by far, this is the best one I have.

Mick.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have the E series 28mm lens, it is alright, but I don’t go out of my way to use it. It is certainly a little bit of an under performer. That said, I have used it on at least 4 trips to Europe, where it is, along with a Sigma 24mm, my most used street lens for buildings and tight street scapes.

The early 1980’s 28mm f/2.8 is apparently the Nikkor 28mm lens to get. It has CRC and apparently is as sharp as a tack down to 0.2 metres focusing. I have no idea, as I don’t have one, but, if it is anywhere near as good as my 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor with CRC and close focusing, it should be pin sharp.

Some after-market lenses by various manufacturers were at times extremely good value for money and performance.

Sigma during the very late 70’s and pretty much through the whole of the 80’s, were really producing very well made and very good performing lenses.

My Sigma 24mm f/2.8 Super-Wide lens is a case in point. I sort of inherited this lens when I purchased it duty free for a friend when I went to Europe for a trip. The idea being that I would get to use it for 6 weeks and upon return, he would have it. Things didn’t work out, so I kept the lens, which was great as it performs wonderfully.

Not quite the same as the best Nikkor version, but at 40% of the Nikkor price when bought new, I wasn’t complaining.

I also have the Sigma Ultra-Wide 18mm f/2.8 which is an excellent lens. Comparing it with the Nikkor version on two F3 bodies side by side on two tripods, it is slightly softer wide open, but reasonably comparable at anything more than f/5.6. The difference in price was not as pronounced, the Sigma 18mm was around 45% of the Nikkor price at the time. This lens also has a floating focus element system. Their version of the Nikon CRC system.

I never thought too much of the other after-market lens manufacturers product, apart from the odd gems like the Tamron 90 and the Vivitar series 1 135mm.

My suggestion for anyone thinking of getting into Nikon cameras, is to find out what worked and what worked really well, then slowly acquire what you need, there are squillions of Nikkor lenses out there. Generally speaking during that time, Nikon manufactured their top lenses to pretty much state of the art possibilities. They were pretty much on top of their game, with Canon in particular snapping very closely at their heels.

Actually there wasn’t much difference between Nikon and Canon lenses and what they could, or could not do, then there were the rest; in that era anyway.

Mick.

 

[Pete Myers]

I wrote an article for a photo publication called, "State of the ART: The Little Lens that Could." In the article, I recommend the Cosina Voigtländer ULTRON 40mm f/2 SL ii N Aspherical lens. I use this lens all the time on my F3HP, FM2n, and F5. It is extremely versatile, and the image quality with film is outstanding---a real sleeper.
Pete

 

[mynewcolour]

I'm wondering if the Kodak 35mm scanner I used at the dark room is an issue.

'muddy images' could be caused by any of these:

Scan (technique, equipment, settings, file size/type etc), shooting technique (focusing, dof, sufficient shutterspeed for handheld etc), Film (exposure, processing). Finally ... am I shooting wide open, side-lit with a crap filter and no hood etc.

It's purely a hunch but ... I bet it's in the scan.

 

[MontanaJay]

I'm another big fan of the 105/2.5. When I worked as a newspaper reporter it served well for general use, especially head shots to accompany my articles.
I liked to travel light, so I kept a 35/2.8, capped, in a coat pocket for those occasions when I needed something wider.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

They shouldn't produce "muddy" images. I mean, they're not the best Nikon lenses, but they are certainly fine.
Are you using a hood?

"Modern coatings" isn't a guarantee of high contrast. The ancient (1960s) Nikkor-H 28mm f3.5 is a high contrast lens with excellent resistance to flare. It is cheap nowadays, and stopped down to f8 is extremely sharp right to the corners. The center is pin-sharp at all apertures. It is also, unlike many "modern" wideangles, free from distortion.

High contrast is not directly related to modern coatings. Single-coated lenses can also be very contrasty. Multi-coating helps in some cases (particularly zooms) for flare resistance or for improving color reproduction. But there are hundreds of single-coated lenses giving excellent results.

I recommend it to you as a good alternative to the 28mm you are using right now.

I agree and actually prefer the 1970s style AISNikkors;dirt cheap these days and excellent optical performance.

 

[Michael Guzzi]

For the lenses you mention with more than one iteration, how can I tell if I'm looking at it in an auction? Serial no.?

This site should cover you for most nikkors:

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html

 

[flavio81]

My Sigma 24mm f/2.8 Super-Wide lens is a case in point.

I had the Sigma Super-Wide II 24/2.8 in Nikon AF mount. It was very very very sharp. However it also had a bit of distortion. I liked it!

 

[saman13]

Bummer about your experience with the 28mm E-series, but don't write off all E-series lenses! The 50mm E-series is a great lens, if not a little overrated (I prefer the contrast on the 50mm f/2 H.C.) and I love my 100mm f/2.8 for portraits. Small, sharp, and light, it's not too intimidating on the front of a camera and you can get some very nice background blurring with it.
Also +1 to the edge softness on the old 24mm 2.8. I like the lens, but only when stopped down. You can get some pretty noticeable vignetting wide-open.

 

[kivis]

I have a 20/3.5, 28/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 80/2, and 105/2.5.
The 105/25 always blows me away.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Any of the MF Nikkor's still in production would suit you just fine. As would many vintage Nikkors.

I haven't shot with the E-series glass, but do expect to see less of a difference between different lenses than you expect... A lot of fancy lens buying is just chasing the extra 1-2% of image quality that you largely wouldn't see in a final print anyway. You can replace your 50mm E wth a 50mm f1.8 or f2 AI(s) for a pittance - the difference may be more in the build quality than the image quality though, I believe the 50mm E is nearly identical to the 50mm f1.8 AI(s).

I think the Voigtlander SL/II series is really excellent, although some are hard to find and they are a lot pricier than scooping up older AI(s) lenses. They tend towards the strange or exotic in terms of focal length and qualities, so maybe not the best to start out with. If I had only one lens for Nikon SLR, it would be the Voigtlander 58mm 1.4, though.

For a great general purpose 'short' telephoto, you won't do better than a Nikon 105mm 2.5.
I tend to prefer the Nikkor 24mm 2.8 to the 28mm's I've used. You should be able to find both for around $100 each and they'll be money well spent.

Coating will largely just create lower flare on lenses with many elements. A lens hood will do much more.

I always get excellent results with my E-series lenses(50mmf1.8).