Nikon's best pre-AI wide angle lens?

[AE35]

Since Pre-AI Nikkor lens are about half the price of AI/AIS lens and have a very appealing design (IMO), I've taken interest in them since getting my Nikkormat FT2. But I've read that Pre-AI's shorter than 50mm preform worse than wide angles of the AI era. Are there any gems when it comes to old Nikkor wide angles?

 

[Arvee]

My favorite: 35mm f/2 'O' in non-AI. I believe the lens design is the same as the AIS except for improved lens coatings.

 

[TheTrailTog]

How wide do you want to go? I have the 35mm f/2 and 24mm f/2.8, both K-Type non-Ai and both have been fantastic.

 

[jimjm]

Generally, the pre-AI lenses may be more prone to flare than the later lenses but there are a few I've used and that I can recommend. In some cases, Nikon AI/AIS wides may have different optical designs than the pre-AI versions, and coatings improved considerably over the years.

24mm/2.8 Nikkor-N: This is a sharp lens and I've had good results even in bright light and backlight situations. I always use a hood (just in case) and this was Nikon's first lens with CRC (close-range correction). I love this lens for street photography and grab shots, but watch out for field curvature if you have buildings and other vertical lines near the edges of the frame.

35mm/2 Nikkor-O: I have the AI version, but I've read that design changes in the 70's actually reduced performance from the earlier non-AI lens (or maybe not). A good all-around 35 and I'm very happy with my AI-version.
(Note: Don't bother with the 35/2.8 in any version. They're cheap, but it was the worst fixed-FL Nikon I've ever used. My 35-70/3.5 AIS is much better at 35).

The best Nikon wide I've owned is the 28/2.8 AIS, which is a huge improvement over earlier versions. I hear the 28/2 is also very good, with the same optical design in the pre-AI and AI versions.

I agree about the cosmetics of the pre-AI lenses on the older bodies. The scalloped focusing ring and chrome trim really looks nice on the Nikkormats and Nikon F bodies.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I agree those two Pre-Ai Nikkors the 24mm f/2.8 N and the 35mm f/2 O are excellent. I also very much enjoy the 28mm f/2 N and the 35mm f/1.4 N but its horses for courses. With the 24mm I like the multicoating of the N.C version of the 24mm but the N version was lovely in black and white.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

20/3.5 UD, 24/2.8 N, and 35/2 O. The 28/3.5 H is a sleeper. A bit slow, and there is some uneven illumination, but it's sharp. It's also quite cheap on the used market. 35/2.8 S isn't bad either.

-J

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... The 28/3.5 H is a sleeper. A bit slow, and there is some uneven illumination, but it's sharp. It's also quite cheap on the used market. ...

Good to know, as that's what I've got on my FT2.

 

[BMbikerider]

There is a section in a book I own about Nikon, written to cover lenses and cameras from the 1st Nikon rangefinders cameras up to the era of the F4, and it states that early Nikon Non Ai lenses, used mainly around the time of the Vietnam conflict, were designed to have the highest resolution in the centre 2/3rds of the image which is what the press photographers prefered. For that reason were used in preference to cameras/lenses from other manufactures (It doesn't say which manufacturers - but with a calculated guess I would say Canon!).

Whether of not they were modified bit by bit over the years I don't know - manufacturers don't always give details of development of their products for fear of being copied by competitors. What I can say though, my 1st Nikon - a very early Nikon F came with a Nikkor 50/1.4 and there was a clear difference outside a circle approximately 30mm in diameter where the definition fell off quite noticably. Even stopping down to F8/11 didn't make the outer edges (and especially the corners) improve as much as more modern optics.

 

[darkroommike]

My favorite: 35mm f/2 'O' in non-AI. I believe the lens design is the same as the AIS except for improved lens coatings.

I have one of these with a factory AI conversion ring, it's very good.

 

[darkroommike]

How wide do you want to go? I have the 35mm f/2 and 24mm f/2.8, both K-Type non-Ai and both have been fantastic.

The K-types and early AI's are optically the same with some exceptions, the K-type was a transition lens.

 

[TheTrailTog]

The K-types and early AI's are optically the same with some exceptions, the K-type was a transition lens.

Yes, but the OP mentioned part of the reason they were looking at pre-Ai lenses was that they go for less than the later versions. I have found this to hold true for the K-Type lenses. Best of both worlds, you get the lens designs of newer models, but pay prices of the older lenses.

 

[flavio81]

Since Pre-AI Nikkor lens are about half the price of AI/AIS lens and have a very appealing design (IMO), I've taken interest in them since getting my Nikkormat FT2. But I've read that Pre-AI's shorter than 50mm preform worse than wide angles of the AI era. Are there any gems when it comes to old Nikkor wide angles?

35/2 is well liked
24/2.8 too
28/3.5 has strong vignetting wide open but is sharp in the center at all apertures, low in distortion, high contrast, low flare. By f8-11 sharp all over the field, without vignetting.

 

[Jim Jones]

20/3.5 UD, 24/2.8 N, and 35/2 O. The 28/3.5 H is a sleeper. A bit slow, and there is some uneven illumination, but it's sharp. It's also quite cheap on the used market. 35/2.8 S isn't bad either.

-J

About 45 years ago I did a quick, but critical, test for sharpness on three dozen lenses for 35mm cameras. A 20/3.5 UD was magnificently sharp in the center of the field, but quite unsharp in the corners. Eventually I settled on the 20mm f/4 lens that replaced it. Photos with this lens were satisfactory, so it remained untested

 

[Dan Fromm]

This book http://www.alibris.com/The-Nikon-sy...ssory-equipment-Geoffrey-Crawley/book/4689160 has a reasoned answer to your question. Buy a copy.

Also see http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Comparisons across focal lengths are difficult and may make little sense.

 

[flavio81]

Forgot to mention, i also own the PC-Nikkor 35/3.5 which is really old, and I like it a lot. But you need to stop it well down if you are shifting.

 

[blockend]

28/3.5 has strong vignetting wide open but is sharp in the center at all apertures, low in distortion, high contrast, low flare. By f8-11 sharp all over the field, without vignetting.

Nice lens. I have the AIS version, it wasn't made for very long before Nikon phased out the 3.5. Dimmer through the viewfinder, but the perfect zone focus street lens if you want to avoid the rangefinder route.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

About 45 years ago I did a quick, but critical, test for sharpness on three dozen lenses for 35mm cameras. A 20/3.5 UD was magnificently sharp in the center of the field, but quite unsharp in the corners. Eventually I settled on the 20mm f/4 lens that replaced it. Photos with this lens were satisfactory, so it remained untested

There may be some sample variation with the lenses, too. The one I own is sharp even in the corners. The 20/4 was an OK lens, but not as good, IMO. Also was a little too flat physically. Too easy to get your finger in the field of view while trying to focus. Suspect the 20/3.5 AI or AIS would be better.

With respect to the 24/2.8 K-type, it still has the old Nikkor-N/NC formulation. 9 elements, 7 groups. AI, AIS, and AF are the later 9/9 formulation. The good news, is that the AI version isn't much more expensive than the K-type. All of them shoot nicely with whatever film you throw at them. That said, if you decide to use it on a DPUG Nikon body, none of the 24/2.8 versions will play nice with some of those bodies. All have some fringing visible. Whereas, the 28/3.5 H doesn't have fringing.

-J

 

[benjiboy]

Don't believe everything you read.

 

[dynachrome]

I have to disagree with jimjim about 35/2.8 Nikkors. Both the 'K' version and the first AI version have a six element formula and are very sharp. They are neither cheap nor cheaply made. As has been mentioned, the 28/3.5 pre-AI lenses do suffer from vignetting when not closed down. This problem was solved with the AI. As far as I know, the AIS model uses the same optical formula as the AI. I have two examples of the AI. My two 24mm/2.8 Nikkors are an NC ad and AIS. There is very little improvement in the coating when going from the NC to the AI or AIS but the corner sharpness of the AIS is slightly improved over that of the NC. While the 50/1.4 Nikkors were tweaked between the S and the first 'K' version there was more of a change with the second 'K' version. That lens and the AI and AIS models are supposed to be slightly sharper at or near wide open but less sharp at f/8 or f/11. I think I have at least one example of each 50/1.4 manual focus Nikkor.

 

[cooltouch]

I have a 35mm f/2 pre-AI that I'm rather fond of. But the best pre-AI wide that I can think of is the wonderful 20mm f/3.5 UD.

 

[ac12]

I liked my 24/f2.8 enough to get an AI version.
I got the 24 because, at the time, it was the widest lens that still used a 52mm filter.
In the days of expensive filters, this was a significant consideration.
As for why widest, when your back is literally up against the wall, you just cannot go back any further if you have a narrower lens. So coverage was the primary consideration.