Question regarding Nikkor 50 to 300mm f4.5 (non ai & ai) model

[vanislandguy]

Hello all. I collect older 60's & 70's vintage Nikon / Nikkor lenses. I recently watched Carmine from NY on YT. Knowledgeable cool guy. He was talking, informing people about the now vintage Nikkor 50 to 300mm f4.5 lens. His version was a non ai. After watching, I soon after ordered the same lens. Realizing it was a super expensive lens back in the day, maybe it was a hidden gem of some kind to some people. I found one super cheap version online at first. Actually then found another ai version and bought two. My question to all you lens gurus out there is... is this lens radioactive with thorium or any other substance? Specifically both the non ai and ai version? I assume the ED lens version wouldn't be. I'm more concerned about the two models I bought coming my way as we speak. The non ai and ai version.

I was looking all over the place and didn't find any information related to this specific topic. Perhaps someone out there might know the answer I'm looking for. Maybe you own or have owned the lens at one time. I would appreciate and thank you ahead of time for this information. Thank you

 

[Focomatter]

I owned the ED version of the lens a number of years ago. The ED version is a bit shorter than the non-ED version. Have not heard anything about Thorium being used. Even the ED version is quite heavy and really needs a tripod as holding and focusing on an SLR was a bit challenging although I attempted to do so. Likely would be easier using the magnified view now available with the mirrorless.

 

[benjiboy]

I am not a Nikon user, but my 62 years of photographic experience would tell me to avoid a zoom lens with such a wide focal length range made by any manufacturer.

 

[ags2mikon]

A good friend of mine bought one new in 1970 or 1971 and it cost as much as a new car then. I had a 70-220 Tamron at the time and it beat it by a very large margin. I picked one up 25 years ago on the cheap because I wanted the Nikon F that was attached to it. It's very usable.

 

[Maris]

Here's something on the 50-300: https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0062/

 

[benveniste]

I'm almost 100% sure no thorium or lanthanum was used in any of the 50-300mm designs.

 

[vanislandguy]

Thank you all for your insightful info. Thanks also to benveniste & Maris for additional info I was after.

 

[Kino]

Nikkor MF Zoom lenses Series - Main Index Page

This website, although kind of hard to find and hard to navigate (look for links on bottom of pages), is a wealth of knowledge on Nikon Film Equipment of all ages.

 

[reddesert]

I'm almost 100% sure no thorium or lanthanum was used in any of the 50-300mm designs.

A minor remark, lanthanum as used in lenses is much less radioactive than thorium: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Radioactive_lenses
Occasionally people get concerned about lenses named Lanthar or lenses with lanthanum advertised in the coatings, but those concerns seem to be apocryphal. Naturally occurring lanthanum is almost entirely (99.9%) made up of a stable isotope, while naturally occurring thorium is made up of long-lived but radioactive isotopes.

 

[250swb]

Well I wouldn't put one down my pants

is this lens radioactive with thorium or any other substance?

Has there been a recall or health warning from Nikon? No, so use it. But I wouldn't put it down your pants as an Elvis impersonator just in case, stick with the toilet roll.

 

[Paul Howell]

Unless you are a collector I would pass on the 50 to 300, for that matter most 60s and 70 zooms. There might a few Leica or Zoomair lens used on Swiss Alpa that might be an exception.

 

[vanislandguy]

I know. Its an old lens. I like older lenses. What can I saw. This guy is very cool. I love the photos midway he took with film. Kind of that retro look I like.

 

[vanislandguy]

I finally got my two copies the other day. Unique lens. I now know about it more having used it personally. I can see myself using it for a specific retro style video or using it with 35mm film camera and monopod. I should have bought this lens years ago. Many thanks all.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am not a Nikon user, but my 62 years of photographic experience would tell me to avoid a zoom lens with such a wide focal length range made by any manufacturer.

While many years ago, such an assumption could be valid, the modern long focal length lenses are no long made with such compromises now that computer aided designs have become less fought with the compromised of the past. Additionally LightRoom, PhotoShop and other modern software packages can remove optical artifacts based on the electronic lens signatures with very easy steps using the actual f/stop and focal length in the electronic signature. Recently I did just than with those packages and was amazed how easy it was to correct specific aberrations by brand, model number and used focal length.

 

[chuckroast]

Hello all. I collect older 60's & 70's vintage Nikon / Nikkor lenses. I recently watched Carmine from NY on YT. Knowledgeable cool guy. He was talking, informing people about the now vintage Nikkor 50 to 300mm f4.5 lens. His version was a non ai. After watching, I soon after ordered the same lens. Realizing it was a super expensive lens back in the day, maybe it was a hidden gem of some kind to some people. I found one super cheap version online at first. Actually then found another ai version and bought two. My question to all you lens gurus out there is... is this lens radioactive with thorium or any other substance? Specifically both the non ai and ai version? I assume the ED lens version wouldn't be. I'm more concerned about the two models I bought coming my way as we speak. The non ai and ai version.

I was looking all over the place and didn't find any information related to this specific topic. Perhaps someone out there might know the answer I'm looking for. Maybe you own or have owned the lens at one time. I would appreciate and thank you ahead of time for this information. Thank you

I don't know about the Thorium question but I've been a die-hard Nikon film shooter since the early 1970s. I can say, based on lots of use, that the old primes were very fine lenses but the zooms were mostly terrible optically. It took the advent of cheap computing to be able to do the complex calculations to make a zoom perform properly across it's range. So, if your collection is for it's own sake, by all means have fun. But don't expect very good sharpness or correction for chromatic aberration, pincushioning, etc.

Even the early AFs that came after the Ai-S lenses were not necessarily good. I have a 28-85mm AF of early vintage that is decidedly not sharp. It makes do as a portrait lens where you don't want razor like rendering.

OTOH, contemporary zooms are quite good. I have a 28-300mm AF of recent vintage that I shoot on a D-750 digital body and that lens performs quite nicely, albeit at the cost of being a bit of a tank.

 

[benjiboy]

While many years ago, such an assumption could be valid, the modern long focal length lenses are no long made with such compromises now that computer aided designs have become less fought with the compromised of the past. Additionally, LightRoom, PhotoShop and other modern software packages can remove optical artifacts based on the electronic lens signatures with very easy steps using the actual f/stop and focal length in the electronic signature. Recently I did just that with those packages and was amazed at how easy it was to correct specific aberrations by brand, model number and used focal length.

You are probably quite right Steve, I admit I know next to nothing about digital imaging, all my photography has always been pre-image manipulation.

 

[vanislandguy]

I was going to add my bits but too much to write.... I like the vintage look. Especially when vintage lenses are used like this one here mentioned. I actually don't care if its a zoom or a prime. I'm not a follow the current crowd kinda guy. The opposite. Clear, clinical lenses for me are only for sports, corporate, news, etc... I don't do that so... something like that. I'm not into super sharp lenses, ai or other. Again, myself I like old, vintage non sharp lenses and photos. Why? Too me its called character. Thats what counts. My style. To each their own. Hey, use the sharp lenses worth a monthly salary. If that's your style, cool. I love these old lenses and will probably never edit photos in post. In fact, the worst they are with defects the better I like them.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Mmm well then you should try out the oldest version of the 80-200mm f/4.5, non-C of course.

 

[guangong]

I don’t understand the concern regarding thorium. The primary problem with use in lenses was discoloration of the glass. In 1940s nobody was harmed by the Lone Ranger Atomic ring (15 cents and cereal box top.)

 

[vanislandguy]

Sounds like a decent lens. I will look into the 80 to 200mm.

I like defects. In fact watch this YouTube video. This youngster dude impressed me. He focuses on lenses with fungus. Looking at the video footage... whoa he has something going... why buy a diffuser? I have a few lenses like this. Fast primes. The look you get from them are next level. For me anyways. Video:

 

[vanislandguy]

I love watching this guy. He talks about the Nikkor 50 to 300mm in this video. To top he adds an intellectual view point when it comes to new and older lenses. Starts at 3:00 minutes in. Very informative. Words out of my mind if you will.