Old Nikon Glass

[RalphLambrecht]

I love old Nikon glass; I just love the small imperfections and how that adds character to the rendering. That said, I wouldn't buy non-AI anymore, but I also did that to have it converted. How do you feel about old Nikon glass?

 

[mshchem]

I like the Ai vintage for manual focus, and prefer AF-D lenses for auto focus enjoying compatibility with everything F. It's got to be made in Japan!

 

[BrianShaw]

What “small imperfections” are you talking about?

 

[grant.goodes]

I only have two "vintage" Nikkors, both 105's: An AI'd copy of the last Sonnar 105/2.5 P, and the relatively rare Bellows-mount 105/4. Neither are multi-coated, and do suffer from flare issues, but are very simple designs, so contrast is still good, and I just make sure to use a hood. Neither lens is essential to me as I have more modern, multi-coated alternatives, but they have a distinct look, and are certainly beautiful mechanical jewels.

Extending the concept of "old Nikon glass" to include AF-D lenses (which so many folk seem to disparage as being outdated designs, superseded by much better new technology in the latest glass), I have a nice little collection of these so-called "flawed" lenses. I love my 28/1.4D, which has turned my venerable 24/2 into a shelf-queen. I also enjoy my 18/2.8D which has a very poor reputation (many consider it the worst of all 18mm Nikkors), but suits my purposes. It is very compact (despite it's 77mm filter-size), and sure it vignettes pretty horribly wide-open, but it gives me access to a super-wide without having to carry one of the bulky super-wide-zooms. It was an expensive lens when new, but I got a great price on it, less than for any of the MF versions, so I'm happy, and have just learned not to avoid f/2.8 for the most part. Finally, I have the 105/2 DC, which is perhaps the most quirky of my AF-D lenses with its Defocus feature. I'm not convinced it will replace my MF 105mm lenses, but it has a distinct and lovely rendering, particularly wide-open portraits.

 

[dynachrome]

I just got a third Nikon F. It's an FTN with a 50/1.4 Nikkor S. I looked up the serial number and it's from 1971. The lens is from the same time frame. I don't expect the meter to work properly and the body must need some adjustment but the lens is very pretty. It focuses down to 2 feet. These pre-C lenses are not terribly contrasty. With b&w film I can compensate for that. Contrast was improved when the SC version appeared. I will first try the S on a recently overhauled Nikkormat FTN. My favorite of the 50/1.4 manual focus Nikkors is the first 'K' version. It's still based on the design of the S but with later coating than the C and a handsome look. My other two Fs are a 1962 model with a plain prism finder, the selenium meter and a 50/2 Nikkor S and a black 1973 FTN from the final run.

 

[AZD]

Most of my Nikon lenses are pre-ai, though converted, some myself.

Not sure I could claim they have any special properties, but they all perform quite well. Certainly as well as I need them to.

Since they are relatively affordable I have ended up with some nice glass: 35/1.4, 55/1.2, 85/1.8, and the basically free 24/2.8 and 50/1.4 lenses.

The 55/1.2 is a personal favorite for environmental portraits and general use. It was my primary lens for several years. This was the last version, multi coated with factory ai conversion. How often do I need f1.2? Pretty often, it turns out, in dark forests and cities when trying to snap a photo of a reluctant teenager.

I am learning to love the 35/1.4 for its excellent handling and usability in close quarters. I purchased it because the 55 was just too narrow in some urban locations. It has now taken over as the go-to vacation lens

Of them all, the 50/1.4, a single coated 7-blade version, is perhaps the most flawed, but all the better for it. The rendering is soft/sharp wide open and very sharp at middle apertures. No surprise there. Around 2.8 it’s the perfect mix for gently rendered portraits. Very different from my favorite 50/1.4, the Takumar Super Multi Coated, which is both sharper and higher contrast. I prefer that for color, but with black and white the Nikkor may take preference.

The 24 is sharp sharp sharp. I am surprised at how much detail it captures on film, even at f11 where it seems like diffraction should begin to interfere.

Overall they are impressive lenses which can be had for a small investment.

 

[ic-racer]

I have been buying older Nikkor F-mount lenses. Seems they are a good value compared to Leica lenses.
I like that the Nikkor lenses are usually sharp in the corners and the lens barrels are feel high quality when focusing. The lenses dismantle easily for cleaning and repair and seem to offer long-lasting utility.

 

[grant.goodes]

Most of my Nikon lenses are pre-ai, though converted, some myself.

Of them all, the 50/1.4, a single coated 7-blade version, is perhaps the most flawed, but all the better for it. The rendering is soft/sharp wide open and very sharp at middle apertures. No surprise there. Around 2.8 it’s the perfect mix for gently rendered portraits. Very different from my favorite 50/1.4, the Takumar Super Multi Coated, which is both sharper and higher contrast. I prefer that for color, but with black and white the Nikkor may take preference.

The 24 is sharp sharp sharp. I am surprised at how much detail it captures on film, even at f11 where it seems like diffraction should begin to interfere.

Sounds like you might be a candidate for the 5.8cm/1.4 S, which is very characterful, and perhaps even more extreme in the sorts of "flaws" you mention for your 501.4 which replaced it.

As for the 24/2.8 N, it is indeed an impressive lens, I believe the first Nikkor to introduce the CRC (Close-Range Correction) feature, and was a very ground-breaking design. I had an AI'ed N.C. (multi-coated version) and you really couldn't tell it was from the early 70's aside from its old-fashioned look (e.g. metal knurled focus ring instead of rubber grip). In fact the optical design of this lens from 1967 was carried unchanged (aside from coating improvements) all the way to the AF-D version which was manufactured until 2020, so that's pretty impressive! Alas, my 24/2.8 N.C. is the only Nikkor I ever owned that "died": The focusing started getting stiff, and then completely seized while I was on vacation in Paris. At the time I was living in Copenhagen, and had no idea where to get camera gear serviced, so I ended up trading it in rather than getting a CLA (probably the helicoid grease had dried out). Hopefully that lens is still alive out there somewhere, making great photos to this day...

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

All my Nikon lenses are pre-AI; most were purchased by my parents in the 60s/70s for our little commercial studio. I don't think any of them ever required a CLA, even after decades of use, then decades of disuse. My most heavily used favorites on my Nikkormat and F2 these days are the 105/2.5 (1966), 45/2.8 GN (1969), 28/3.5 (1968), and the 35/2 (1972).

All scans from Tri-X negs - the 105:



The 45/2.8 GN:



The 28/3.5:



The 35/2:



I totally LOVE using this old Nikon gear, though I often prefer the carrying comfort of my smaller/lighter Olympus OM or Pen cameras.

I also have a 50/1.4 (1973), 55/3.5 Micro (1972), 13.5cm/3.5 (1961!), and 200/4 (1973). But I rarely mount them.

Back in the 60s we also had a 50/2 and a 43-86/3.5 zoom. I sold the 50 to a friend along with a Nikkorex F body and a Gossen Scout meter. We buried the long-broken (and not worth repairing) 43-86 on a broken Nikkormat along with my father. It seemed appropriate after his 50+ years as a pro photographer.

 

[Paul Howell]

I started with non AI lens, when I moved up to a F3 I had my lens updated to AI by Nikon, the only lens I replaced was the 28 3.5 as the 28 2.8 AIS was in my thinking a sharper lens the new coating helped when shooting color film. Today I shoot with AIS and non AI lens, I like both sets, even the E lens are very good. But I do plan on getting a 50 1.4 and 105 2.5 non AI in the future.

 

[r_a_feldman]

There certainly are great old Nikkor lenses, such as the 55mm macro, but there are other that are not so great. My wife had an F3 with the 55mm macro and a 35-105 zoom. I loved the macro, but never liked the zoom. I don't like one-touch zooms to start with and the 35-105 we had would slide outward if you pointed the lens down. After I got a digital body (Fujifilm X-E1), I got an early Nikkor-Q 200mm f4. I sold it fairly quickly as it had bad chromatic aberration on the X-E1.

YMMV

 

[AZD]

Sounds like you might be a candidate for the 5.8cm/1.4 S, which is very characterful, and perhaps even more extreme in the sorts of "flaws" you mention for your 501.4 which replaced it.

Yes, been on the lookout, casually. A few have turned up locally but were trashed, or overpriced by the shop. The right one will come along eventually.

 

[grant.goodes]

Yes, been on the lookout, casually. A few have turned up locally but were trashed, or overpriced by the shop. The right one will come along eventually.

Nikon made around 35k of these lenses between 1959 and 1962, so not exactly rare. I don't think the collectors have descended on it (yet!) so you shouldn't have trouble finding a nice one at a good price (eventually). The Bellows-Nikkor 105/4 is much rarer (under 7k copies), but after much searching I was able to purchase one for $150 mint-in-box, showing that patience and frugality are good partners.

 

[George Mann]

In fact the optical design of this lens from 1967 was carried unchanged (aside from coating improvements) all the way to the AF-D version which was manufactured until 2020, so that's pretty impressive!

Except that the AF versions are optically inferior regardless of what Nikon claims.

 

[AZD]

The Bellows-Nikkor 105/4 is much rarer (under 7k copies), but after much searching I was able to purchase one for $150 mint-in-box, showing that patience and frugality are good partners.

A nice copy of this one was recently available locally. I passed though as I didn’t have much use for it, and have the 105/2.8 AI-S Micro already. That was a $10 bargain find, completely thrashed on the outside but perfect glass.

 

[skahde]

Except that the AF versions are optically inferior regardless of what Nikon claims.

That's as much true as it isn't. Some AF-lenses have been optically improved or never existed in pre-AF versions, the DC-lenses for instance. Some have seen big steps forward with asphericals but only after Nikon forgot how to put aperture rings on their lenses. Others have been replaced by inferior versions, e.g. all 28 mm lenses except the rare and expensive 1.4/28 mm AFD. And personally I like the rendering and handling of the ED 2.8/180 AF mm even better than the AIS. Not go forget we finally got an affordable and relatively compact 1:2.8/80-200 mm at last with its different AF-inceptions.

 

[grant.goodes]

Except that the AF versions are optically inferior regardless of what Nikon claims.

I know the 28/2.8 AF (non-D) is not a great lens, quite inferior to the MF version (the AF design is derived from the Series-E design), but my understanding was that the 24/2.8D was exactly the same 9/9 design of the MF lens. I did just read some sources that claim the earliest 24/2.8 N lenses lacked CRC and were a 9/7 design, and that CRC and the 9/9 design was released in 1977. However, Roland Vink (who I treat as pretty definitive) seems to disagree with that, and Richard Haw's repair guide for the 24/2.8 N with a 1967-68 serial number clearly shows the CRC mechanism. So, I will stick my claim that the 24/2.8 came with CRC from the beginning, but there is some confusion as to the optical design changes over the lens's history.

I have owned the 24/2.8 N.C. and now own the 24/2.8D, and I have not noticed the AF lens to be in anyway inferior (and of course the AF has improved coating technology). I would be curious to find a good source on the 24/2.8 optical design history, and in particular any updates made in the transition to AF.

 

[dynachrome]

The 28/2.8D is not the same as the first AF version and is not based on the 28/2.8 E. I have the D version and it is quite good. So far I have resisted the temptation to get an example of the 28/2.8 AIS. It's claim to fame is the CRC and close subject distances performance. I have the 'K' version of the 28/2. It also has CRC and is also very sharp. My late 28/3.5 Nikkors are also very sharp. They don't have CRC but if I need to get close, a 55/2.8 AIS or a 60/2.8 AF will be much better than the 28/2.8 AIS.
I have both versions of the !05/4 Bellows Nikkor and they are very decent.

 

[Chan Tran]

I have camera that can use PreAI lenses fine but I don't see no point in buying PreAI lenses. I don't think they have any character that makes them better than AI lenses.

 

[grant.goodes]

The 28/2.8D is not the same as the first AF version and is not based on the 28/2.8 E. I have the D version and it is quite good.

I did not know that! Perusing Roland Vink’s site confirms what you say, and shows the AF-D has a 6/6 design and closer focus compared to the 5/5 design of the Series-E and non-D AF versions. Thanks: I learned something new today!

 

[ic-racer]

I have camera that can use PreAI lenses fine but I don't see no point in buying PreAI lenses. I don't think they have any character that makes them better than AI lenses.

Price??