Nikon F4 what lenses would you recommend?

The Nikkor AF 50/1.4 is a great lens. You can add a 35mm lens and a 70-210 zoom. I personally would add a 24mm lens (I find the 28 either too wide or too narrow).

Wallendo said:

(I find the 28 either too wide or too narrow).

Click to expand...

I feel this way about the 35mm, and have never really needed anything wider than the 28mm when used on a full frame.

I reserve my 24mm and 35mm for my APS-C cameras.

I use the Tamron 28mm to 300mm AF Zoom lens and the Nikon 20mm to35mm AF Zoom lens.

George Mann said:

My number 1 Nikkor recommendation is and will always be the 50mm f2 Ai. The rendering of this lens is unmatched by any other!

Click to expand...

It's slight propensity for flare not withstanding I couldn't agree more. It is just a wonderful lens and some of the best shots on my wall have been made with it.

Christiaan Phleger said:

I'll chime in with the Nikkor AF-Zoom 20-35mm f:2.8D. As they say, a 'In Period' lens for the F4. The F4's AF is up to the task when you use the AF lock on the front as kind of a 'back button' focus, focus-lock-recompose-shoot.

The 20-35 was Nikon's response to Canon's original EOS-1 20-35mm f/2.8, which when I was a news photographer was a snazzy kit. That and an AF 80-200 and maybe a 50 or 85 would be many shooters daily choice along with a 300mm 2.8.

The Nikon has an aspherical front element and a fine performance on film. It used to be considered a heavy and big lens but not any more. With an F4 and the standard 4-cell MB-20 I would pair it with an AF 180mm f 2.8 for a light-ish capable travel set up.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing the 35-70 wasn't that useful for news guys? Always love hearing about press set ups. What was the film of choice, and did the 20-35 just replace a bunch of primes?

Well, I think at that point in time with the state of 'photojournalism', the visual taste seemed to encourage the 'get closer with a wide-angle' or 'tight action with a 300mm'. I knew of one guy who went out from the office with a 14mm, a 50mm and a 300mm and would shoot all his regular assignments plus the evening football game.

Film of choice for the evening paper was Fuji Neopan 400 since they only ran color for a Sunday edition, the morning paper ran C-41 for everything so that was Fuji Press 400 or Press 800. Those came in a 20 roll box and shooters would grab a box or two as they left the office. Over at my small press we shot Tmax 400 from bulk rolls, and for the one or two color shots for the 'full-color' front page we shot Kodak Ektachrome 200 EPD from bulk 100 foot rolls and processed on stainless reel with the Kodak E-6 Hobby kits. After having a few issues with photographers not being clear with "Rolls Used" the shared darkroom went to each photographer having and being responsible for their own dedicated batch of E-6 chemistry. At that point I got seriously into creating a sense of accuracy in my process, using the advanced metering of the Olympus OM-3 and OM-4 with the bulk EPD and the control of using my own chemistry meant that I produced some nice images that made it to newsprint. EPD with sloppy processing would create an odd crossover that wouldn't really show until it hit the newsprint and I'd have to endure "why's the color off" questions for the week. I did very much like EPD shot at 320 with a slight push in flat light, I found I produced better images if I just kept the OM-3 loaded with the color film and waited for the ideal light regardless of the subject.

24/2.8 AFD, 35/2 AFD, 50/1.8AF. All cheap and high performing. If you have the budget then replace 50/1,8 with 1.4 AFD version. 85/1.8 AFD good and cheap portrai lens.

The AF Nikkor lineup for my F4:
24mm 2.8 D
50mm 1.4 D
85mm 1.4 D
35-70mm 2.8 D

Kind of covers everything for my uses, although I might get something a little longer like the 135.

Rod

If I use the F4 I would want to use AF lenses although the F4 doesn't AF very good but it's OK. I do like manual focus lenses too and for that I like the F3 a lot better. I don't care for P and S modes. I don't care for the rather primitive matrix metering system of the F4. The F4 isn't faster than the F3.

Chan Tran said:

If I use the F4 I would want to use AF lenses although the F4 doesn't AF very good but it's OK.

Click to expand...

What is the problem with the AF system of the F4?

Chan Tran said:

I don't care for the rather primitive matrix metering system of the F4.

Click to expand...

Why is the multi-field metering of the F4 primitive? The electronic control behind it is certainly not, and I can't see any disadvantages in using it. On the contrary, since the distribution and weighting of the metering zones are still understandable and therefore manageable, I can also make targeted corrections if necessary. Unless I want full automatic exposure, but newer cameras with autonomous exposure control can do that better. Just for this application, I don't lug around a photo tool that is built specifically to implement my own ideas.

Chan Tran said:

The F4 isn't faster than the F3.

Click to expand...

In what respect? With the already built-in motors for film transport and rewinding it is, the F3 needs the motor drive MD-4 for this. In terms of the shortest - fastest - shutter speed it is 1/8000 s. compared to 1/2000 s for the F4, that is two light values difference.

luca_olympus said:

Good morning, I was recently gifted a Nikon F4. It's a beautiful camera and it has great compatibility with almost all Nikon lenses, so I was wondering which one should I choose. I was thinking about lenses with fixed focal lenght (up to 50mm), with autofocus and that could suit for most situations (like portraits, street, some landscapes,...) and I was thinking on something below €200. If anyone knows what to suggest, that would be great! Thank you all in advance and have a nice day.

Click to expand...

In all such cases, I always recommend a fet of three focal lengths: 24 or 35, 50 and 85mm. Nikon offers quality lenses for all these. As an example:
24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/2. A set such as this will satisfy your needs for many years and hold its value.

Andreas Thaler said:

What is the problem with the AF system of the F4?



Why is the multi-field metering of the F4 primitive? The electronic control behind it is certainly not, and I can't see any disadvantages in using it. On the contrary, since the distribution and weighting of the metering zones are still understandable and therefore manageable, I can also make targeted corrections if necessary. Unless I want full automatic exposure, but newer cameras with autonomous exposure control can do that better. Just for this application, I don't lug around a photo tool that is built specifically to implement my own ideas.




In what respect? With the already built-in motors for film transport and rewinding it is, the F3 needs the motor drive MD-4 for this. In terms of the shortest - fastest - shutter speed it is 1/8000 s. compared to 1/2000 s for the F4, that is two light values difference.

Click to expand...

The F4 AF system I said it's OK but compared to the AF system on other cameras that came after it, it's slow. It's the reason Nikon lost a lot of business to Canon because the F4 AF performance.
The matrix system of the F4 is only a 5 point matrix system like that of the FA. It doesn't make use of the focus point, focus distance, actual scence brightness or subject color like that of the F5 and later.
The frame rate of the F4 and rewinding speed is about the same as the F3 with motor drive. Not faster.
I never used even 1/2000 and the flash sync speed of 1/250 isn't important to me. I still use 1/60 for flash most of the time with new camera.

AF-D lenses? Over the years I accumulated two FM3As and 28 1.4 af-d, 50 1.2, 85 1.4 af-d, 105 f2 DC lenses. I think this herd looks in a same breed by appearance . I also think the lenses would look good on F4.

skahde said:

It's slight propensity for flare not withstanding I couldn't agree more. It is just a wonderful lens and some of the best shots on my wall have been made with it.

Click to expand...

I find the 50mmAi f/1.8 to be a great alternative to it andfar more plentiful.

I never tried the long-nose 1.8/50 AIS but had the pancake-version for several years. It got replaced by the 2/50 AI as I found the latter one had much more pleasing bokeh on par with the Micro 2,8/55 mm. As we are speaking I am still having the 2.0 with me on vacation in Tuscany.

The AF on the F4 may be a bit slow, and there's only one AF point--but for most practical purposes, other than having to focus and recompose somewhat frequently, it works great and very accurately. Heck, I used to shoot high school football on crappily lighted fields with Delta 3200 and the 80-200/AF-D, and I always came away with a set of pretty good and definitely publishable images. (It did help a bit that I knew enough about the game, and many of the teams I was covering, to be able to predict in many cases where a play was going to go, and so could pre-focus on the area I thought most likely to be the spot of the action--leaving lighter work for the camera.)

Speaking of the 35-70/F2.8 that some mentioned, it actually works very well on the F4. I did use it for some sports coverage and when I switched to digital, I continued to use it for several years to shoot pro boxing at ringside--and got published dozens of times in national-level magazines, including a few double-page spreads, with shots I got with it. Yeah, I use a 24-70 now, and I do like that lens better, but you can do some darn good work with the 35-70. And it should be super cheap. Another lens which was once one of Nikon's crown jewels that works great (even if, yes, the autofocus isn't super speedy) but has now kind of fallen by the wayside is the 180mm/F2.8 AF (also mentioned above). I used to shoot a lot of daytime sports especially with it--and it was wonderful as my "dragonfly" lens with transparency film when I was shooting bugs & such. Coupled with the PN-11 extension tube (manual focus only), you could get frame-filling shots of timid creatures without scaring them off. It also made great portraits. The image quality was superb.

Finally, I wouldn't at all hesitate to use manual focus lenses on the F4--to me, it's Nikon's best manual focus camera. It's got a great viewfinder, interchangeable screens (I got a wonderful P screen way back when they were cheap, they're crazy expensive nowadays), a focus confirmation light even using MF, and possibly the best meter (both in terms of the meter itself, and the viewfinder meter display) of any Nikon film camera except *maybe* the F5 (which is big and bulky because you can't detach the grip) or the F6 (which is waaaaay more expensive than the F4). I don't own either of those, for the reasons cited, so I can't comment authoritatively on them, but I wouldn't trade either for my F4, which I've owned for about 25 years now. I've used many Nikkor MF lenses on my F4.

One of my favorite manual focus carry-around kits with the F4 (and my F2, F3, and FE) is the 35mm/F2.0 (I also have the F1.4, but it's a bit bigger and heavier) and the 75-150/F3.5 Series E zoom. With that, you've got a great wide-normal lens that you can use about 90% of the time, and an excellent (and silly cheap) multiple portrait-length lens which was used by many of the top fashion photographers of its day--even on digital, it's incredibly sharp still. Both lenses are light enough that if you wanted to throw a 50mm in as well, you'll be just fine.

You can't go wrong with the contemporary Nikkor AF prime lenses and zooms that were offered also for the F4.

Nikon quality optics, solid construction with sensible use of plastic, durable.

Christiaan Phleger said:

Well, I think at that point in time with the state of 'photojournalism', the visual taste seemed to encourage the 'get closer with a wide-angle' or 'tight action with a 300mm'. I knew of one guy who went out from the office with a 14mm, a 50mm and a 300mm and would shoot all his regular assignments plus the evening football game.

Film of choice for the evening paper was Fuji Neopan 400 since they only ran color for a Sunday edition, the morning paper ran C-41 for everything so that was Fuji Press 400 or Press 800. Those came in a 20 roll box and shooters would grab a box or two as they left the office. Over at my small press we shot Tmax 400 from bulk rolls, and for the one or two color shots for the 'full-color' front page we shot Kodak Ektachrome 200 EPD from bulk 100 foot rolls and processed on stainless reel with the Kodak E-6 Hobby kits. After having a few issues with photographers not being clear with "Rolls Used" the shared darkroom went to each photographer having and being responsible for their own dedicated batch of E-6 chemistry. At that point I got seriously into creating a sense of accuracy in my process, using the advanced metering of the Olympus OM-3 and OM-4 with the bulk EPD and the control of using my own chemistry meant that I produced some nice images that made it to newsprint. EPD with sloppy processing would create an odd crossover that wouldn't really show until it hit the newsprint and I'd have to endure "why's the color off" questions for the week. I did very much like EPD shot at 320 with a slight push in flat light, I found I produced better images if I just kept the OM-3 loaded with the color film and waited for the ideal light regardless of the subject.

Click to expand...

Wow, an Olympus newspaper photographer - rare breed

Ha, I wasn't the only one, there was another guy who shot with an OM-3 on a 250mm f/2, quite a rare lens even then. I had a strong desire for some key Nikkor lenses that Olympus would never make and I profess that I did very much 'improve' as a photographer by switching systems. I will say that it took a concerted effort to dial in my metering going from OM-3/4 to F-3HP especially when shooting E-6, but that got me to finally get a proper hand-held meter and learn that. By the time I got into F4's and doing wedding work I feel I had the skills and experience to utilize and appreciate the F4 metering.

When I was a working photographer, I used to carry: 20/2.8, 28/2, 50/1.4, 80-200/2.8. If I was going into a situation where I knew they would be handy, a 105/2.5 and a 300/4. All contemporary AF Nikkors... Two bodies and several SB-28's... Batteries and film(color and b/w)... If I wanted to travel light, just the 28/2 and the 80-200/2.8 zoom...

Chan Tran said:

The F4 AF system I said it's OK but compared to the AF system on other cameras that came after it, it's slow. It's the reason Nikon lost a lot of business to Canon because the F4 AF performance.
The matrix system of the F4 is only a 5 point matrix system like that of the FA. It doesn't make use of the focus point, focus distance, actual scence brightness or subject color like that of the F5 and later.
The frame rate of the F4 and rewinding speed is about the same as the F3 with motor drive. Not faster.
I never used even 1/2000 and the flash sync speed of 1/250 isn't important to me. I still use 1/60 for flash most of the time with new camera.

Click to expand...

Agree. F4 uses the same AF sensor as F801/N8008 and F601/N6006. I have never used F4 but I had F601. With the kit lens 35-70 mm f3.3-4.5 the AF is reaaally slow and hunts in a dim light so it's better to avoid slow lens. I also used N90S (F90X) which uses newer CAM246 AF sensor and the AF is way faster I could actually shoot motorsport which was almost impossible with F601.

Nikon did not make an AF version of the 28/2.