Nikkor 45mm f2.8 P Pancake lens

[Hamster]

I always think this FL and aperture combination is a bit problematic. Kind of like a "poser" lens. Cool to carry around but overpriced for the utility that it delivers.

Not trying to flame, I own a pentax pancake and wants a 43mm/1.9 too!

There are a lot of 40-45mm fixed lens rangefinders with f2.8 or brighter, most can be had for less than $10, are very compact, and delivers stunning results. Nearly all uses leaf shutter so sync at all speed. Price/performance ratio is decidedly in their favor.

Even that inexpensive olympus trip 35, a VF only camera, has a tessar type lens which give excellent results with character!

 

[Jim Jones]

When the GN version was current I did a quick, but critical, test on about 35 lenses for Nikon and Leica. Four were noticably sharper than the others: 45mm GN-Nikkor, 50mm f/2.8 Elmar, Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, and EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8. In everyday photography, Summicrons and other 50mm Nikkors were as good.

 

[stradibarrius]

Bjorn Rorslett, is someone that the hardcore nikon shooter's repect when it comes to reviewing lenses. He likes the lens a lot. I will assure you this guy's opinion is much more valid than KR.
Here is Bjorn's web site. http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html
The lens is listed under the 50 mm normal section. Hope this helps. You can also try the Nikonians site.

 

[John Koehrer]

I had the GN years ago & with a FM/FE body it's very compact. Before there were really good auto flash units the GN was a really simple way to get consistent exposure with a manual flash.
For those who aren't familiar with the GN lens, You would set your guide number on the lens engage the focus ring with the aperture ring and as you focused the aperture changed to compensate exposure.You could almost equate it to the D function of today's AF Nikkkors

 

[Ofey-kalakar]

I have a number of pictures with the 45 Ai-P and the 35 f1.4 AiS in my Italy album. Both lenses are very nice. The 45 has the advantage of being extremely compact and ideal as a travel near "normal" focal length lens for street photography.

 

[budrichard]

I used this lens with Nikon F and Honeywell strobe in the late 1960's for commercial weddings. It was OK optically but of course the GN version was an advantage before Auto strobes. The GN build was typical Nikkor of the period, I can't speak about the later versions.
Personally, I wouldn't give anything for this lens as at f2.8, its just too slow for available light and the compact size on a SLR does not really reduce the bulk and weight. A later Nikkor f1.4 or F2.0 or f1.8 would be just as good.
I think the real interest comes because not many actually purchased this lens and now it is a cheaper collectable.-Dick

 

[benjiboy]

Pancake lenses all have the same problem for me, because they are so short they have very narrow focusing and aperture rings I find them difficult to use.

 

[CGW]

Love the 45/2.8 Ai-P. A Nikon.ca rep once mentioned it was the only production model of a planned set of chipped upgraded "classic" manual lenses(28/2.8AIS and 105/2.5AIS)meant to accompany the FM3A whose so-so sales eventually killed the project. It's a very different lens than the 50/1.8AF whose bokeh can be ugly, due to fewer aperture blades. Great street lens, thanks to the short focus throw. I find many people who dis it online likely never owned it--the old "herd of independent minds" syndrome.

 

[fschifano]

I have the old 45 GN lens and in my opinion, it's not nearly as bad as Ken makes it out to be. Yes, it's tiny and the controls can be clumsy if you're accustomed to using lenses with larger and more comfortable controls. Optically, it's not all that bad once you stop it down. It's a Tessar design. You get something small, light, and simple that gives good results at the expense of speed. That's just the way it is. Stop it down to around 5.6 or smaller and it sharpens up nicely.

 

[benjiboy]

I have the old 45 GN lens and in my opinion, it's not nearly as bad as Ken makes it out to be. Yes, it's tiny and the controls can be clumsy if you're accustomed to using lenses with larger and more comfortable controls. Optically, it's not all that bad once you stop it down. It's a Tessar design. You get something small, light, and simple that gives good results at the expense of speed. That's just the way it is. Stop it down to around 5.6 or smaller and it sharpens up nicely.

I also can't see any real advantage to these four element 40mm Tessar type lenses compared with the six or seven element f1.8 or 1.4 Sonnar type most 50mm standard lenses for SLR s usually have either in image quality, or price

 

[phaedrus]

I was hoping to see that the lens offered a different character than a regular 50mm. Unfortunately I really couldn't tell it apart from others based on the images it produced. Ken Rockwell had stated that it had viginetting and was soft in the corners, but the example images I looked at were perfectly fine.

I think I can explain that, at least from experience with my Nikkor 45 mm f/2.8 P. It has field curvature, which is a bit surprising in a Tessar design. So much so, that the "focus in the center first and then frame the shot"-technique works much better than focussing with one of the outer focussing spots on my F6.

 

[Jim Jones]

Long ago when the 45mm GN was new, I did a quick, but critical, test on three dozen lenses. The GN was in the top four for sharpness, slightly ahead of the 50mm Nikkors and Summicrons. The other three were the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, The 50mm f/2.8 Elmar, and the EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8. The lenses were focussed at about 20 inches, which may have affected the results.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Long ago when the 45mm GN was new, I did a quick, but critical, test on three dozen lenses. The GN was in the top four for sharpness, slightly ahead of the 50mm Nikkors and Summicrons. The other three were the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, The 50mm f/2.8 Elmar, and the EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8. The lenses were focussed at about 20 inches, which may have affected the results.

The short distance definitely influenced the results:

The Elmar was known as one of the few "normal" lenses which worked well as an enlarging lens. The Micro- and EL-Nikkors *are* enlarging or close-up lenses.

The GN is a modified Tessar design (like the Elmar), so it's not surprising that it performed well close up.

In several classic SLR systems, before the advent of more specialised macro lenses, Tessar or Tessar-derived lenses were the preferred choice for close-ups or use on bellows.

 

[stradibarrius]

I recently bought a brand new in the seal box Nikon 45m P from old stock.
I use the leens hood and have had great results! KR is not always the best source...
It is light, sharp, and compact. On an FE body it is very easy to carry all day!
Since it is chipped it also works great on my D300!

Here is a photo I took.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists) [/URL]

 

[23mjm]

One thing's for sure, I wouldn't base my decision on anything I've seen on Flickr. It's just a bunch of people posting pictures. Some are gifted, some not; and we all know that in clumsy hands, even the best equipment can produce inferior results. Conversely, crappy gear can produce outstanding results in gifted hands.

No truer words about photography have ever been spoken!!!

 

[jp498]

If you are a fan of the Tessar gradual and buttery smooth transition out of the focus, it's a good lens to have. I would guess it has some imperfection wide open and gets super sharp as you stop down like tessars I've used on bigger cameras. That's the versatility and fault at the same time of the tessars. I use them in LF and think highly of them.

Ken Rockwell doesn't understand (or at least write about) things that are gradual and subtle and so forth. That's not his style. He wants it to be crisp all the time and produce velvia saturated vacation/kid photos.

If you like the size and shape of the lens, but not the throwbacks, sell it to a cult buyer/collector and get a Voigtlander 40 SLII. I have one of these because I wanted f/2, and I really really like it. Ken Rockwell likes it because it's one of the sharpest lenses available, and I like it because it's that and good bokeh and focus transition at the same time.

 

[T42]

What about contrast?

Hi Folks.

I have an early 1950's 50mm f2.8 blue-coated Tessar which came on a Practica FX. It seems to have less tendency to flare than my various other 50's, none of which is newer than about 1980.

It seems to me that a current technology Tessar with the latest coatings would have very high contrast and corresponding extremely low flare as characteristics. But I haven't heard so much about that from the Members here who have experience with the Nikkor 45mm f2.8 pancake sold with the FM3a.

I had been thinking about that Nikon pancake Tessar lens for some time, but now that I have read this thread, I am thinking that I might find my big clumsy fingers struggling to make it obey my wishes.

 

[stradibarrius]

I have found that the contrast with this lens is wonderful! In certain conditions???? an almost 3D effect?
Color renditions are wonderful too! The color shots with the lens on my Nikon D300 are amazing. The lens is chipped so all the information is transmitted to the camera. It would be a mind blower on your D700!
I have big hands and the lens is easy to use. It is different than say my 50mm f/1.8 because the controls are a bit smaller but it is easy to adjust to in just a few shots.
This lens will travel with me. It is so easy to just stick in a pocket and carry around!!!

I am not a spec. geek and my opinion is based only on my experience and results.

I don't know where in GA you are located but if you are close by we could meet up and you could shoot the lens a bit and give it a test drive.

 

[fschifano]

I don't know. The new 45 f/2.8 pancake Nikkor commands a very high price, and I don't think it's worht the money. Optically, I may be a fine lens. I haven't used one, but I can't see Nikon putting a real dog of a lens out there, that's just plain bad business and would only give them a bad name. But wat does the pancake lens offer that you can't get with the lowly 50 mm f/1.8? That lens has, to me at least, excellent optical characteristics. It may not be so great wide open, but by the time you get it down to f/2.8 things start coming together nicely. By f/4. it's really good. And it's CHEAP. I really think that the pancake lens is there for the hard core collector of cult status items. It's nothing special for the guy who want to use it for everyday shooting.

 

[CGW]

I don't know. The new 45 f/2.8 pancake Nikkor commands a very high price, and I don't think it's worht the money. Optically, I may be a fine lens. I haven't used one, but I can't see Nikon putting a real dog of a lens out there, that's just plain bad business and would only give them a bad name. But wat does the pancake lens offer that you can't get with the lowly 50 mm f/1.8? That lens has, to me at least, excellent optical characteristics. It may not be so great wide open, but by the time you get it down to f/2.8 things start coming together nicely. By f/4. it's really good. And it's CHEAP. I really think that the pancake lens is there for the hard core collector of cult status items. It's nothing special for the guy who want to use it for everyday shooting.

Compared to the 50/1.8AF, the 45/2.8 AiP is way better built. Then there's the extra aperture blades that make for smoother bokeh over the 50/1.8 in any version. The 50/1.8 AF is a joke as a MF lens. If you're into cheap, then get the 50/2--probably the sweetest of the Nikkor 50s. I got my black 45/2.8 for about half what they're going for now. Why? No one wanted this lens 6-7 years ago when it, and the FM3A, failed to impress and fell short of sales expectations. Mine was a returned store demo from Nikon.ca--mint and about $200. Use it on my F3HP, N90s, and tried it on a friend's D700 recently--very nice.

 

[fschifano]

I should have mentioned that I was thinking of the MF version of the lens. Picked mine up used for less than $100 and it's a sweet little lens, though it does lack the chip. That doesn't matter to me. I do agree with you about the 50 mm f/2 lens. I snagged oneof those on a Nikkormat FT3 for about $125 about 10 years ago and it is a sweet little lens.

 

[albireo]

Who's using a Nikkor 45mm f/2.8 P in 2023? I thought I'd revive this thread as I've just ordered a mint sample from Japan - very excited to try it.

It will go on my F301 body as my standard 'always with me' compact/light set up. I mulled over getting a fancy point-and-shoot camera for this purpose for a while, but they're just too overpriced at this point. I still have a Yashica T3 point and shoot, but I've never been really happy with it, and its shutter is starting to fail, so when it goes, it'll be F301 + 45mm. A few disadvantages of course, but a lot of improvements.

As for the 45mm - there's not much about it online apart from the already mentioned usual suspects (good old Ken). Most people reviewing it seem to rate it based on how it looks and performs on a digital/mirrorless camera, including DX bodies, and including Nikon Z bodies. Even the smallest DX body will be thicker than my F301. Further to that, on DX bodies, focal length becomes a 67mm equivalent. On Z bodies, this needs a fat adapter. Both types of usage kind of nullify some of the advantages of this lens, so I essentially ignored them.

As for people comparing it to the Voigtlaender 40mm f/2 - I own the Voigtlaender. It's on another Nikon film camera I use when I visit my home country. I quite like it, and it's definitely tack-sharp, but the pretty noticeable field distortion (I'm surprised nobody talks about it) makes it rather unsuitable for the kind of photography I do. Also, I have the previous model (matte black, plain design) and the new model (SL-II, styled after early pre-AI Nikkor lenses) seems to be quite a lot bigger than the 45mm P Nikkor.

Anyhow. It should hopefully make for a nice compact and versatile backpack setup. We'll see.

 

[dynachrome]

Wow! This is an old thread. I see that I replied to it in 2009. Since then I also got the older 9 blade version of the 45/2.8 GN. I like both and was not tempted to get the P model. In the pancake or near pancake area, I have two 40/2.8 Pentax SMC-M lenses, the rare 40/2.5 Vivitar (in K mount), a number of 40/1.8 Konica Hexanons and some 45/2 Minoltas. They are all good lenses and fun to use. Of the group, the Konica Hexanons are probably the sharpest.

 

[ooze]

It's practically my standard lens on an F2/F3 and a DSLR. I most often use it as the only lens. Optically more than good enough for me. Very sharp throughout most of the frame. A bit soft at wide apertures in the far corners but I don't care; if the picture is good it won't matter at all. And it's so small, there is no excuse not to take your camera because the lens is big or heavy.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

My 9-blade 45/2.8 GN most often finds use on an FG-20. Pop on an adjustable, manual flash ala the Godox Lux Jr and shoot anywhere.

The newer AI-P version is appealing if you want to go even more modern & compact with something like an N75 that already has a built-in flash. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of Nikon cameras (any?) with built-in flashes that will handle non-chipped lenses.