Nikkor pre-ai “C” marked vs ai/ai-s

[George Worst]

I am doing a research about old manual Nikkor lenses. I am basically interested in 35mm f2 and 55mm f1.2 lenses. I’ve found enough Technical information about the different versions of the Nikkor lenses but not much about a real world review and comparison. I’ve tested some ai and ai-s lenses and I’m happy with their performance. I find though that pre-ai versions are most of the times cheaper than the newer versions which make me think of them if they are equal or almost equal in performance. Older versions would maybe also be more vintage looking... (I don’t know). I know that the oldeat versions are single coated and I wouldn’t bother with them. I am talking about “C” marked lenses that are multicoated and especially about 35mm f2 O.C and 55mm f1.2 S.C. So if anyone has experience with them I would really appreciate Sharing some of your knowledge. I am not interested in technical stuff, design or compatibility. I am not going to use them on an old nikon camera after all. I am interested in general performance, sharpness, colors, coatings, flare resistance, mechanics and pleasure of using them (you know all metal focusing ring vs rubberized etc). You can use the ai/ai-s lenses for reference because I am familiar with them and mostly with 24mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8 and 85mm f2. Finally I’m not looking for any clinical review or comparison, just real world things and general performance.
Thank you in advance,

George.

 

[George Mann]

Some of the single coated versions produce subjectionally superior images when stopped down, and used with the proper lens hood.

The Ai's are usually the best otherwise.

I don't however believe that there is any difference in the multi-coated versions of the two lenses you asked about.

I do believe that all lenses require their matching lens hood in order to perform their best.

 

[Stanislav Boščík]

Nikkor-O 35/2 is a great lens with good rendering, interesting color transfer... Must have! Newer 35/2 lens are much less prone to flare, but the output is IMHO just "sterile".

 

[Nitroplait]

For those MF lenses that didn't change optical formular, the improvement over time was that of improvements in coating.
I think there is a jump between single- and multicoating but between the small incremental improvements in multicoating the differences should be negligible.
I have a Nikkor H.C auto 50mm/2.0 and had a chance to use the last Ai version of the same lens and I saw no differences in the way the rendered the images.

Btw, I also own the Nikkor 35mm/2.0 (the last Pre Ai version with the modern barrel) and it is a lovely lens

 

[Paul Howell]

Cant really say much about the 2 lens you are interested in, I had a 28 3.5, 50 1.4 100 2.8 and 200 4.0, the 28 was single coated, the 50 A C lens, the 100 and 200 also single coated. I shot with them for 16 years as a working PJ, F, F2, F3P then continued with my kit until 2001, The only lens I replaced was the 28 with I traded in for a AL lens as it more prone to flare. I assume you not going to shoot film, although I cant comment on Nikon glass with a sensor, with my M 42 and K mount lens single coated or MC, with a good hood, does not matter, contrast, sharpness can be fixed, enhanced, degraded in post.

 

[Ariston]

I think the only difference between the AI and AI-S lenses is the focus throw. The AI-S lenses have a shorter focus throw. At least I think I read that somewhere... if the price difference is large enough, I would go with the AI lens.

 

[George Worst]

I think the only difference between the AI and AI-S lenses is the focus throw. The AI-S lenses have a shorter focus throw. At least I think I read that somewhere... if the price difference is large enough, I would go with the AI lens.

I am mostly interested in pre-ai vs ai versions not that much about ai vs ai-s. Thank you

 

[Paul Howell]

If price is a consideration I would think about a 50 1.4, before I bought Nikon I had Konica T with a 55 1.2 it was a great lens, when I made the switch to Nikon I decided that it was not work the money, in those days a lot of money for 1/3 stop of speed. My 50 1.4 was sharp from 1.4 to wide to F16.

 

[George Worst]

If price is a consideration I would think about a 50 1.4, before I bought Nikon I had Konica T with a 55 1.2 it was a great lens, when I made the switch to Nikon I decided that it was not work the money, in those days a lot of money for 1/3 stop of speed. My 50 1.4 was sharp from 1.4 to wide to F16.

I haven’t hear the best about the 50mm f1.4. Also I already have a takumar 50mm f1.4 and a Yashinon Ds 50mm f1.4 that I love both. I was thinking of a 55mm and the f1.2 can probably give me a more dreamy look wide open. That is why I am thinking of that one. I have also read that the 55mm f1.2 and the 50mm f1.2 are sharper than the other 50mm Nikons when stopped down at f2 and beyond.

 

[Nitroplait]

I have seen images from the 55/1.2 (and the 50/1.2) both are completely different from the 50/1.4. If you find a good sample, go for it!

 

[RLangham]

I don't know about these specific lenses, but I've used Nikon's very first SLR normal constantly for two years, and it's as good an f/2 as any I've ever used.

Advances in lens technology were slow for most of the 20th century. After apochromatic lenses were invented and coatings took off (which was in the 30's or 40's for professional camera lenses) there was really nothing new under the sun until aspherical lenses were invented. The advances in manufacturing that allowed faster and faster lenses to be produced more cheaply made it seem like technology was advancing, but the coatings really are the only things that were really advancing. And coatings were already fantastic by the late 50's so basically you're only getting faster lenses and incremental improvements in contrast and flare behavior in strong light. Nikkor lenses have a reputation for maintaining the same standard of quality for many decades, so I wouldn't worry about the age of the lens as much as the compatibility with your camera.

 

[Paul Howell]

I haven’t hear the best about the 50mm f1.4. Also I already have a takumar 50mm f1.4 and a Yashinon Ds 50mm f1.4 that I love both. I was thinking of a 55mm and the f1.2 can probably give me a more dreamy look wide open. That is why I am thinking of that one. I have also read that the 55mm f1.2 and the 50mm f1.2 are sharper than the other 50mm Nikons when stopped down at f2 and beyond.

Can't speak for the Nikon 55 1.2, it is close to the Konica 57 1.2 boka is great, sharpness wise the Konica 50 1.7 was much sharper stopped down, still the boka of the 1.2 was very nice, just not nice enough that I've replaced it.

 

[reddesert]

I don't know about these specific lenses, but I've used Nikon's very first SLR normal constantly for two years, and it's as good an f/2 as any I've ever used.

Advances in lens technology were slow for most of the 20th century. After apochromatic lenses were invented and coatings took off (which was in the 30's or 40's for professional camera lenses) there was really nothing new under the sun until aspherical lenses were invented. The advances in manufacturing that allowed faster and faster lenses to be produced more cheaply made it seem like technology was advancing, but the coatings really are the only things that were really advancing. And coatings were already fantastic by the late 50's so basically you're only getting faster lenses and incremental improvements in contrast and flare behavior in strong light. Nikkor lenses have a reputation for maintaining the same standard of quality for many decades, so I wouldn't worry about the age of the lens as much as the compatibility with your camera.

The lenses being discussed here - eg 35mm, 50mm, 55mm - are all variants of the double-Gauss type and essentially, descendants of the Planar, and that basic lens design has been around since just before the beginning of the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens So they are all pretty mature designs. Some corners of the internet like to pixel peep over small differences in lens designs, but when discussing lenses that could be 30 to 50 years old, differences in condition probably matter more. I have a 35/2 Nikkor that had a loose front lens barrel and a grindy focus. It worked a lot better after I took it partially apart and fixed the loose setscrews.

However, though many lens designs are elaborations of the double Gauss, many important developments happened in lens design through the 20th century. The idea of apochromats appears at least in the 1920s (although Apo-super-duper-telephotos aren't practical until much later); coatings don't become common until after WW II; rare earth glasses with relatively high index and low dispersion become more common in the 60s and after (eventually ED glass appears); and likely most critically, computer aided optical design and optimization allowed better and more complex lens designs from the 60s and onward. That and multi-coating made zooms of decent optical quality practical, well before aspherical elements started to appear in commercial camera lenses. CNC machining also made fabrication of complex lenses more feasible, I expect.

For some background on the designs behind various Nikkor lenses, it is worth reading the "Thousand and One Nights" stories on Nikon's website, such as:
50/2 AI: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0002/index.htm
55/1.2: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0049/index.htm
35/2.8: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0038/index.htm
The stories aren't going to tell you whether only one particular lens has some super-aesthetic quality that will elevate your pictures to dreamland. For that you have to try them. They nearly all served professionals well for several decades, though.

 

[George Mann]

My 50mm F2 Japanese Summicron has served me exceptionally well for 45 years and counting!

 

[StepheKoontz]

With these fairly simple primes, the advances in coatings (single vs multi) will have much less difference that how clean the glass is. Even very minor fog/haze internally will have a much larger impact than coating changes.

 

[RLangham]

The lenses being discussed here - eg 35mm, 50mm, 55mm - are all variants of the double-Gauss type and essentially, descendants of the Planar, and that basic lens design has been around since just before the beginning of the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens So they are all pretty mature designs. Some corners of the internet like to pixel peep over small differences in lens designs, but when discussing lenses that could be 30 to 50 years old, differences in condition probably matter more. I have a 35/2 Nikkor that had a loose front lens barrel and a grindy focus. It worked a lot better after I took it partially apart and fixed the loose setscrews.

However, though many lens designs are elaborations of the double Gauss, many important developments happened in lens design through the 20th century. The idea of apochromats appears at least in the 1920s (although Apo-super-duper-telephotos aren't practical until much later); coatings don't become common until after WW II; rare earth glasses with relatively high index and low dispersion become more common in the 60s and after (eventually ED glass appears); and likely most critically, computer aided optical design and optimization allowed better and more complex lens designs from the 60s and onward. That and multi-coating made zooms of decent optical quality practical, well before aspherical elements started to appear in commercial camera lenses. CNC machining also made fabrication of complex lenses more feasible, I expect.

For some background on the designs behind various Nikkor lenses, it is worth reading the "Thousand and One Nights" stories on Nikon's website, such as:
50/2 AI: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0002/index.htm
55/1.2: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0049/index.htm
35/2.8: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0038/index.htm
The stories aren't going to tell you whether only one particular lens has some super-aesthetic quality that will elevate your pictures to dreamland. For that you have to try them. They nearly all served professionals well for several decades, though.

Interestingly I don't think that first Nikon prime normal I mentioned is precisely a modified double gauss in the sense we're used to for our normals et cetera. It's a retrofocal design for whatever reason; presumably Nikkor's engineers were used to working with the much shorter flange distance of rangefinders and started with what they know. It has a very very mild curve to the front of the front element, such that people often think it's flat. Weird design aside it's a sheer pleasure to shoot, matched only by my Cassar-S in terms of my collection.

I think my larger point was exactly what you said at the end there. Silver bullets don't exist. You get a lens that has nothing wrong with it (or close enough) and you learn to coax the desired qualities from it. People took some famous photographs on uncoated tessars. I have gotten some surprising color tones and contrast from a mere Russian Industar 26m, a kind with many issues such that you can't hardly GIVE them away in the US. Basically I think the flaws you have to avoid in a lens are first and foremost field distortion, unsharpness and bad contrast in strong light. After that a lot of it is up to the photographer's talent, knowledge and luck.

 

[BradS]

Interestingly I don't think that first Nikon prime normal I mentioned is precisely a modified double gauss in the sense we're used to for our normals...

The lens you mention is discussed in the thousand and one nights story linked above. It’s cross section is shown in the story and below. It is clearly a double gauss design.

 

[RLangham]

The lens you mention is discussed in the thousand and one nights story linked above. It’s cross section is shown In the story and below. It is clearly a double gauss design.
View attachment 254941

Then it's still a very weird double gauss with that front element. For some reason it kind of reminds me of how the lens on the Olympus XA is actually a telephoto with a focal length of only 28mm, to fit a 28mm lens in the smallest space possible.

At any rate, I still think it goes to show how Nikkor lenses were top notch from early on, since that's a hell of a lens and its first iteration came out in only '59.

 

[Paul Howell]

Odd how quickly this thread turned into a technical discussion which OP did not want, he wants to know "I’ve found enough technical information about the different versions of the Nikkor lenses but not much about a real world review and comparison.

 

[George Worst]

Odd how quickly this thread turned into a technical discussion which OP did not want, he wants to know "I’ve found enough technical information about the different versions of the Nikkor lenses but not much about a real world review and comparison.

Haha you’re right. It is always interesting to know all the technical stuff though but the question was indeed about real life and not technical opinions. good to mention.

 

[RLangham]

Odd how quickly this thread turned into a technical discussion which OP did not want, he wants to know "I’ve found enough technical information about the different versions of the Nikkor lenses but not much about a real world review and comparison.

That's every thread on this site! It just happens that way

 

[BradS]

I've read the OP a few times now and cannot make out quite what he's asking. In any case what he's interested in seems very subjective....as in completely up to personal preferences. I think that when it comes down to these highly subjective areas, one must simply try it for one's self and see what one likes. Nobody else can tell you what you like.

For example, I have absolutely zero interest in either of the two lenses the OP specifically says hes interested in but, that doesn't bear on the fact that they are both well know to be excellent, well loved and useful lenses. I just don't like the 35mm focal length and don't see the point of the 55 f/1.2 - the "bang for the buck" when compared to the 50mm f/1.4 for example doesn't seem compelling **to me personally** but, I can see where it might matter for others.

Generally speaking though, other than the obvious, AI body compatibility, the only difference between an AI lens and its immediate ".C" predecessor (eg 35mm f/2 O.C vs 35mm f/2 AI) is ergonomics. The optics are almost always the same. The performance is almost always identical. How the two lenses feel in the hand is usually the only difference. Sometimes but not always, the focus throw changed form pre-Ai to AI but not usually as much as it changed from AI to AIS.

 

[George Worst]

You might not understand exactly what my question is about but you have answered quite well. What I am interested in is the optical performance of the two different versions and about the mechanics and ergonomics if the focus and aperture ring feel about the same. I have some experience with ai and ai-s lenses but not with pre-ai. So if the performance and feeling is about the same then you’ve covered my question. I use 35mm more than any focal length so it is important to me

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Ok I think I know what you are looking for in an opinion.
In the 35mm Nikkor area the O and O.C version if in good shape have the best feel to them. They are also built so that if they are not in good shape they can be cleaned and re-greased and they will feel as new or better, very smooth. I like the all metal scalloped control rings. I do very much like the Nikkor 35mm f/2 Ai-S and it is a very durable well built lens but they can 'wear out' since the internal components are of a more economical design and construction. I would strongly advise against the Ai versions of any lens unless mint and perfect operation since the Ai era construction seemed to have changes that make them much more difficult to do regular repairs. With all the 35mm f/2's I strongly recommend the HN-3 hood especially with the O and O.C since the front element glass is set very close to the lens barrel (true with all Nikkor MF 35/2's but more so with C) and the hood will be a good impact bumper.

 

[George Worst]

Ok I think I know what you are looking for in an opinion.
In the 35mm Nikkor area the O and O.C version if in good shape have the best feel to them. They are also built so that if they are not in good shape they can be cleaned and re-greased and they will feel as new or better, very smooth. I like the all metal scalloped control rings. I do very much like the Nikkor 35mm f/2 Ai-S and it is a very durable well built lens but they can 'wear out' since the internal components are of a more economical design and construction. I would strongly advise against the Ai versions of any lens unless mint and perfect operation since the Ai era construction seemed to have changes that make them much more difficult to do regular repairs. With all the 35mm f/2's I strongly recommend the HN-3 hood especially with the O and O.C since the front element glass is set very close to the lens barrel (true with all Nikkor MF 35/2's but more so with C) and the hood will be a good impact bumper.

That’s good to know. I like vintage look and character on lenses and I’ve also heard that these old design ones may have stronger character than the newer versions. Also lower price is a good thing. Thank you very much.