"stay away from nikon lens"

darkosaric · May 19, 2009

From time to time I see on net: "stay away from nikon lens".
Last time it was in one article that was posted here in explanation how to get glow in B&W print. But also before I have seen this on some web pages.
Personally I have 3 nikon body's and bunch of nikkor prime lenses, but also I have bunch of rangefinders: leica, yashica, zorki, minolta, lomo, agfa...
I don't see why some people have so much aversion to nikon lens. :confused:

Ian Grant · May 19, 2009

Never ever heard that one before

Nikon lenses have always had an excellent reputation and many great images have been made with them.

Ian

John W · May 19, 2009

Never heard that before, either. Generally speaking, Nikon lenses have an excellent reputation in all arenas I've explored so far: enlarging, 35mm, and large format.

2F/2F · May 19, 2009

They are crap. Give yours to me.

jasonhall · May 19, 2009

I have always known Nikon to make excellent glass...

Jason

Softie · May 19, 2009

The reference was to how to get something called "glow" in your B&W prints. Nikkors were not recommended because they generally don't display the "glow" according to the original author (Mike Johnston, I believe). I believe that those who desire the "glow" desire a different set of residual aberrations than one can find in most Nikkors.

benjiboy · May 19, 2009

Don't believe all you read, we should all ask ourselves if our work is good enough to justify owning them .

Ian Grant · May 19, 2009

Softie said:
The reference was to how to get something called "glow" in your B&W prints. Nikkors were not recommended because they generally don't display the "glow" according to the original author (Mike Johnston, I believe). I believe that those who desire the "glow" desire a different set of residual aberrations than one can find in most Nikkors.

There is a difference between Nikon & most other Japanese lenses compared to German lenses particularly Leica, this is down to the way lenses are designed and optimised. Leitz lenses are more tonal, higher definition etc whereas Japanese lenses have higher micro contrast and so more apparent sharpness. So you will see some people preferring German lenses, there's definitely a difference between my Summicron & Takumars & Canon lenses.

Ian

Jeremy · May 19, 2009

I'd say Nikon lenses have a certain character to them, but every lens does.

Below images with Nikon 50mm f/1.2

darkosaric · May 19, 2009

2F/2F said:
They are crap. Give yours to me.

no way

I didn't say I don't like them

But I have seen that people saying stuff like nikkors have bad bokeh, bad whatever... that is why I post this thread. maybe I am missing something that is not obvious. In my opinion my 105/2.5 has beautiful bokeh.

Rol_Lei Nut · May 19, 2009

darkosaric said:
no way

I didn't say I don't like them

But I have seen that people saying stuff like nikkors have bad bokeh, bad whatever... that is why I post this thread. maybe I am missing something that is not obvious. In my opinion my 105/2.5 has beautiful bokeh.

Well, the 105/2.5 IS Nikon's bokehmonster...

*Grossly* generalizing, it could be argued that German lenses tend to have better bokeh than Japanese lenses.
But the only way to get really good bokeh is by a case by case comparison: Even then a "good" bokeh lens will have different characteristics depending on distance, diaphragm, type of foreground/background and so on...

In many ways the 105/2.5 is very similar to Leica's Summicron 90/2.0, the main difference being that the 'Cron does everthing a stop earlier.

jasonhall · May 19, 2009

What is "bad" bokeh. Bokeh is very subjective so only you can say if it is bad for what you like. As I understand the term Bokeh, as it relates to photography and the charecteristics of lens, has only been around for about 10 years. I know someone here will be more specific.

nyoung · May 19, 2009

darkosaric said:
I don't see why some people have so much aversion to nikon lens.

Nikon and Canon have pretty much been the industry standard 35mm SLR lenses for the better part of 50 years BUT there are always a few guys around - often on internet message boards - who get their jollys advocating the superiority of other brands.

Nikkors are, I'll admit, sometimes too sharp and contrasty for a given purpose.

If you want a "glow" - which I take to mean a softer edge on the highlights - try screwing a star cross filter to the front. It will soften up the edges a bit and not be otherwise noticeable unless you have a point source light in the frame.

EASmithV · May 19, 2009

Jeremy said:
I'd say Nikon lenses have a certain character to them, but every lens does.

Below images with Nikon 50mm f/1.2

Is that just the standard F-Mount 50mm f1.2? I love the circular DOF, I even build a lens to do it with my 4x5.

nicefor88 · May 19, 2009

Hi,
Internet is full of good things but home to some rubbish too, as can be seen every day.
Like other APUGers just said, Nikon has set many high standards and continues to do so.
It is true, however, that many criticisms were heard when they started to make lenses in Thailand, replacing metal with plastic, lowering prices to reach a wider public. Is that so wrong?
I own Nikon lenses from the 1970s and still use them every week with great pleasure. They never needed service nor repair. Some of my Nikon cameras broke down because of shocks and kicks, because they fell to the ground, etc. I must say that I far prefer to use the F models.

2F/2F · May 19, 2009

Bokeh is one of those terms that drives me nuts. No reason...it just does! Maybe it is the spelling. Is it not a Japanese word? It sounds like one, but doesn't look like one with that H on the end of it.

The way out of focus areas are rendered is different with every piece of glass. There are Nikon lenses that I would think create ugly renditions of these areas, and also Nikon lenses that I would think create gorgeous renditions of them. Same with any other brand that offers a wide range of lenses for all budgets.

If you want highlights to flare and shadows to wash out, then the fancy lens coatings found on newer glass will work against you. (That is ANY glass, not just Nikon.) I would suggest something non coated or singly coated. I am a big fan of the original F glass myself, as it is mostly singly coated.

keithwms · May 19, 2009

Bokeh is indeed a Japanese term. As is nisen bokeh; as I recall, this is the sharp doughnutty bokeh you get from the mirror lenses.

Nikon lenses are mostly excellent, especially the F lenses and of course the now-discontinued LF lenses.

BradS · May 19, 2009

darkosaric said:
But I have seen that people saying stuff like nikkors have bad bokeh, bad whatever... that is why I post this thread. maybe I am missing something that is not obvious. In my opinion my 105/2.5 has beautiful bokeh.

so why do you care what somebody else thinks about the lens? If you like it...isn't that sufficient?

The Nikon optics that I have been fortuante enough to own have all been spectacular...even those that everybody seems to poo-poo....one of my favorites in this category is the oft maligned 100mm f/2.8 series E...fantastic lens! and cheap too since the conventional wisdom seems to be that it is crap.

nickandre · May 19, 2009

The glow article said so because they are sharp and contrasty: aka good lenses.

darkosaric · May 19, 2009

2F/2F said:
Bokeh is one of those terms that drives me nuts. No reason...it just does! Maybe it is the spelling. Is it not a Japanese word? It sounds like one, but doesn't look like one with that H on the end of it.

That is true. It should be "bo-ke", in Japanese language there is no solo "h" .
It is probably with "h" to sound more similar to original for English speakers.

Jeremy · May 19, 2009

EASmithV said:
Is that just the standard F-Mount 50mm f1.2? I love the circular DOF, I even build a lens to do it with my 4x5.

Just a Nikon AiS 50mm f/1.2.

Pumal · May 19, 2009

Nikkor lenses are excellent. Period. I have mainly lenses from the 60', 70 and 80'. I have great Super-Takumars and Zuikos. Early Canon are not bad either. I think one should use the appropriate lens for the appropriate ocasion. And make one's own judgements of what is 'good' or what is 'bad'.

Lee L · May 19, 2009

darkosaric said:
That is true. It should be "bo-ke", in Japanese language there is no solo "h" .
It is probably with "h" to sound more similar to original for English speakers.

Obviously no Japanese words have the letters b, o, k, e, or h in them. As you say, the transliteration was done this way by Mike Johnston so that English speakers would pronounce it more nearly like the original Japanese than they would something spelled like poke or joke. He says as much in the Photo Techniques articles on boke(h) that brought the concept wider exposure in the US.

Lee

zenrhino · May 19, 2009

EASmithV said:
Is that just the standard F-Mount 50mm f1.2? I love the circular DOF, I even build a lens to do it with my 4x5.

I know people who just love radial bokeh, but for whatever reason it makes me motionsick. I ended up selling a YashicaMat 124-G that had just come back from Mark Hama because of that very thing. Loved the color rendition, loved the sharp lens, loved the shutter, everything but the bokeh. Couldn't stand to look at my own prints. (yes, the jokes write themselves at this point )

Thomas Bertilsson · May 19, 2009

I prefer to call it the 'Out of focus stuff'.

To the OP: Use what you like.

- Thomas

"stay away from nikon lens"

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency