Suggestions for a faster lens - Nikon AI MF

[jtg13]

I'm currently shooting a Nikon FE with the ubiquitous E-series 50mm F1.8 pancake lens.
Nothing wrong with it but I'd like to try something different. I'm currently interested in trying out some night/star photography as well as some IR photography so a faster lens is probably what I'd move towards. The only two options I've come up with are either the Nikkor 50mm F1.4 or the Nikkor 50mm F1.2.

Both are relatively expensive but the F1.4 lens is within the realm of affordability for me. However it only only offers 1/2 stop more aperture than my current F1.8 pancake. The F1.2 lens is more what I want but the current going rate ($400-600) makes it well outside my modest budget.

Realistically speaking, am I likely to notice a significant difference in the larger apertures? Also, do any of the other aftermarket (Kiron, Tamron, Tokina, etc) any lower cost alternatives?

I have also been looking at Non-AI lenses (Nikor 55mm F1.2) as another possibility (get the ring milled out to work with the AI system). Anyone have experience with these lenses?

 

[jim10219]

Half a stop isn't much. As such, 1.4 is only half a stop below 1.8. However, I will say that I owned an E series 50/1.8 and was not impressed with it at all. I sold it quickly and don't regret it.

That being said, 50mm is an odd size for astrophotography. It's neither very wide nor very long. Usually with astrophotography, you either want a wide lens to pick up the whole sky (like the Milky Way) or something small like a galaxy (which will require a motorized EQ mount). So super wide or super long lenses are usually most useful. Something like a 28/2.8 might be a better choice. Even though you'll lose a couple of stops, you gain the length of time you can expose the sky due to the wider angle of view decreasing the rate of the appearance of star trails.

And with IR photography, you're usually shooting landscapes which means you're usually stopping the lens down a good bit. Since you have to use such a dense filter anyway (with an r72 you usually increase exposure by about 5-6 stops) you almost always mount the camera on a tripod since the exposures will always be quite long.

In other words, I don't think either of the 50's you're asking about will do you much good.

 

[Disconnekt]

What Jim said, usually for astro a 28mm or wider lens is needed inwhich a f2.8 will be fine (though faster will be better if you can afford it)

 

[Stanislav Boščík]

Just my ¢2: nothing beats 28/3.5 in IR. Really cheap but excellent performer in IR spectrum.

 

[narsuitus]

Just my ¢2: nothing beats 28/3.5 in IR. Really cheap but excellent performer in IR spectrum.

Thanks for the tip. I have never tried my Nikon 28/3.5 for infrared.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm currently shooting a Nikon FE with the ubiquitous E-series 50mm F1.8 pancake lens.
Nothing wrong with it but I'd like to try something different. I'm currently interested in trying out some night/star photography as well as some IR photography so a faster lens is probably what I'd move towards. The only two options I've come up with are either the Nikkor 50mm F1.4 or the Nikkor 50mm F1.2.

Both are relatively expensive but the F1.4 lens is within the realm of affordability for me. However it only only offers 1/2 stop more aperture than my current F1.8 pancake. The F1.2 lens is more what I want but the current going rate ($400-600) makes it well outside my modest budget.

Realistically speaking, am I likely to notice a significant difference in the larger apertures? Also, do any of the other aftermarket (Kiron, Tamron, Tokina, etc) any lower cost alternatives?

I have also been looking at Non-AI lenses (Nikor 55mm F1.2) as another possibility (get the ring milled out to work with the AI system). Anyone have experience with these lenses?

your f/1.8 is plenty fast for astro and it is sharp and crisp;why do you think f/1.4 or 1.2 would be better?

 

[jtg13]

Thanks for the suggestions everyone, I'll definitely keep an eye out for a 28mm lens. Had no idea wide angle lenses were that commonly used for astro and IR.

your f/1.8 is plenty fast for astro and it is sharp and crisp;why do you think f/1.4 or 1.2 would be better?

I was already looking to get another prime and was under the impression that a larger aperture would be better for long exposure time stuff like astro.

 

[Cholentpot]

Half a stop isn't much. As such, 1.4 is only half a stop below 1.8. However, I will say that I owned an E series 50/1.8 and was not impressed with it at all. I sold it quickly and don't regret it.

That being said, 50mm is an odd size for astrophotography. It's neither very wide nor very long. Usually with astrophotography, you either want a wide lens to pick up the whole sky (like the Milky Way) or something small like a galaxy (which will require a motorized EQ mount). So super wide or super long lenses are usually most useful. Something like a 28/2.8 might be a better choice. Even though you'll lose a couple of stops, you gain the length of time you can expose the sky due to the wider angle of view decreasing the rate of the appearance of star trails.

And with IR photography, you're usually shooting landscapes which means you're usually stopping the lens down a good bit. Since you have to use such a dense filter anyway (with an r72 you usually increase exposure by about 5-6 stops) you almost always mount the camera on a tripod since the exposures will always be quite long.

In other words, I don't think either of the 50's you're asking about will do you much good.

This is the first I've heard of anyone disparaging the E 50 1.8

It's a solid lens that punches way above it's class. I have a few of them and they're solid, sharp dependable lenses. Boring? Maybe. The E 50 1.8 maybe lacks the character of the 50 1.4 AI but it's much smaller and easier to on my back.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

This is the first I've heard of anyone disparaging the E 50 1.8

It's a solid lens that punches way above it's class. I have a few of them and they're solid, sharp dependable lenses. Boring? Maybe. The E 50 1.8 maybe lacks the character of the 50 1.4 AI but it's much smaller and easier to on my back.

me too. I have two copies and both are great.

 

[film_man]

I'm currently shooting a Nikon FE with the ubiquitous E-series 50mm F1.8 pancake lens.
Nothing wrong with it but I'd like to try something different. I'm currently interested in trying out some night/star photography as well as some IR photography so a faster lens is probably what I'd move towards. The only two options I've come up with are either the Nikkor 50mm F1.4 or the Nikkor 50mm F1.2.

Both are relatively expensive but the F1.4 lens is within the realm of affordability for me. However it only only offers 1/2 stop more aperture than my current F1.8 pancake. The F1.2 lens is more what I want but the current going rate ($400-600) makes it well outside my modest budget.

Realistically speaking, am I likely to notice a significant difference in the larger apertures? Also, do any of the other aftermarket (Kiron, Tamron, Tokina, etc) any lower cost alternatives?

I have also been looking at Non-AI lenses (Nikor 55mm F1.2) as another possibility (get the ring milled out to work with the AI system). Anyone have experience with these lenses?

It is half a stop from 1.8 to 1.4 and another half to 1.2. I'd say the main thing you buy with the faster lenses is not so much sharpness but contrast and rendering look. I've not shot the 50/1.8E but between the 50/1.8D, 50/1.8G, 50/1.4D and 50/1.2 that I've owned the 1.4 was a great improvement on contrast over the 1.8 and the 1.2 had a great look wide open and at closer distances. If you're shooting f/2.8 or down there is probably no difference at all.

One thing to watch for when doing astrophotography is what coma or other issues these lenses will have. No idea myself as I've never done star photos but something to look out for. As already mentioned, maybe a slightly longer lens will be more useful in the 85-105 range.

 

[jim10219]

This is the first I've heard of anyone disparaging the E 50 1.8

It's a solid lens that punches way above it's class. I have a few of them and they're solid, sharp dependable lenses. Boring? Maybe. The E 50 1.8 maybe lacks the character of the 50 1.4 AI but it's much smaller and easier to on my back.

Maybe it was just a bad copy. Or maybe it was that I already had a 50/2 ai that I found to be both sharper stopped down, and had more pleasing bokeh wide open. Either way, I saw no reason to keep it after comparing the two.

In fact, I bough three E series in a bundle. The 28/2.8, the 50/1.8, and the 100/2.8. The 28/2.8 was terrible. My Vivitar 24/2.8 was better in every aspect. Sharper, better contrast, better handling, etc. That was one ugly lens. Perhaps it soiled me on the whole E series. The 50/1.8, like I said, fell short of my 50/2, which costs about the same, looks better, and is made of metal. The 100/2.8 was the only one I kept. And while it wasn't outstanding, it is a fast, short telephoto that's pretty small and light, and I didn't have another, similar lens to compare it to, so it found a place in my bag, even if it gets rarely used.

 

[narsuitus]

In fact, I bough three E series in a bundle. The 28/2.8, the 50/1.8, and the 100/2.8. The 28/2.8 was terrible. My Vivitar 24/2.8 was better in every aspect.

I, too, purchased three Nikon Series E lenses. The 50mm f/1.8 (as backup to my 50mm f/1.4 auto focus), the 100mm f/2.8 (as backup to my 105mm f/2.5), and the 75-150mm f/3.5 (as backup to my 80-200mm f/2.8 auto focus). Mounted on an expendable Nikon EM, the 50mm and 100mm Series E lenses fulfilled their backup function. The 75-150, however, was so good that I purchased a second one just in case I lost the first one.

I completely understand your statement about the Vivitar. I had a Vivitar 28mm lens that outperformed my Nikkor and Takumar 28mm lenses.

 

[Cholentpot]

Maybe it was just a bad copy. Or maybe it was that I already had a 50/2 ai that I found to be both sharper stopped down, and had more pleasing bokeh wide open. Either way, I saw no reason to keep it after comparing the two.

In fact, I bough three E series in a bundle. The 28/2.8, the 50/1.8, and the 100/2.8. The 28/2.8 was terrible. My Vivitar 24/2.8 was better in every aspect. Sharper, better contrast, better handling, etc. That was one ugly lens. Perhaps it soiled me on the whole E series. The 50/1.8, like I said, fell short of my 50/2, which costs about the same, looks better, and is made of metal. The 100/2.8 was the only one I kept. And while it wasn't outstanding, it is a fast, short telephoto that's pretty small and light, and I didn't have another, similar lens to compare it to, so it found a place in my bag, even if it gets rarely used.

I guess my standards might be lower than yours. I've not yet met a terrible lens...maybe a Promaster 35-80 zoom in K-mount that I used a weight now but that lens is terrible in every respect.

 

[etn]

About the 50 f1.2: it’s an excellent lens but be aware that it has a fair amount of focus shift wide open. Depending on your camera it might cause issues and might not be the best for astrophotography. (I personally struggle having a well focused shot at 1.2 using the split image of my F3. No problem when focusing on the ground glass of my F6 though)

I’d suggest go for a 50 1.8 AI-S or AF-D, truly excellent and costs less than 100 bucks. Or as other suggest, a different focal length.

Hope this helps!
Etienne

 

[jtg13]

Thank you all for your suggestions, since there seems to be mention of the Vivitar 24mm F2.8, how does it compare to the Nikkor 28mm F2.8?
I'm not at the level where I'm terribly picky about nuances like lens rendering or bokeh, just needs to work reasonable well at an affordable price point.

Also, did any aftermarket (Vivitar, Tamron, Tokina, etc) companies that produce faster lenses (F1.4, F1.2) that may be more affordable?
As much as everyone raves about Nikkors, it's not in the budget at this time.

 

[narsuitus]

Thank you all for your suggestions, since there seems to be mention of the Vivitar 24mm F2.8, how does it compare to the Nikkor 28mm F2.8?

I cannot comment on the Vivitar 24mm f/2.8 because I never tried one.

However, I have tried a number of 28mm lenses.

In spite of the fact that 28mm has never been one of my favorite focal lengths for 35mm cameras, here are the 28mm lenses I have used on Nikon, Pentax, Fuji, and Contax 35mm cameras:

A. Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 pre-AI (use in reverse position on bellows for close-ups and macros)

B. Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon T* ZF 2

C. Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 screw mount lens

D. Nikkor 28mm f/4 perspective control (use for panoramic and architectural photos)

E. Asahi 28mm f/3.5 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar screw mount

F. Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS (not shown in attached image)

G. Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 Biogon for Contax rangefinder (not shown in attached image)


Here is how my Vivitar 28 compares to my Nikon 28:

1. The image quality of my Vivitar lens was equal to or better than my Nikon and Takumar lenses.

2. The variation in quality control of Vivitar lenses was high. I had to buy three lenses before I found the one that provided high image quality.

3. The focus ring on my Vivitar lens rotates in a direction opposite to my Nikon and Pentax lenses. This becomes a problem when I must manually focus quickly and instinctively.


28mm Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Cholentpot]

Thank you all for your suggestions, since there seems to be mention of the Vivitar 24mm F2.8, how does it compare to the Nikkor 28mm F2.8?
I'm not at the level where I'm terribly picky about nuances like lens rendering or bokeh, just needs to work reasonable well at an affordable price point.

Also, did any aftermarket (Vivitar, Tamron, Tokina, etc) companies that produce faster lenses (F1.4, F1.2) that may be more affordable?
As much as everyone raves about Nikkors, it's not in the budget at this time.

Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/2.8 or the 3.5 is the only lens I've tried that is still sharp wide open. Apart from newer lenses like the EF 100 2.8 macro, most lenses are pretty soft wide open. The faster the softer.

 

[Pentode]

And with IR photography, you're usually shooting landscapes which means you're usually stopping the lens down a good bit. Since you have to use such a dense filter anyway (with an r72 you usually increase exposure by about 5-6 stops) you almost always mount the camera on a tripod since the exposures will always be quite long.

Quite right. Also, focusing IR is tricky enough without reducing DOF by shooting wide open. You have much better odds of getting a sharp image by stopping down and using slow shutter speeds. I shoot a fair amount of IR and I try never to open wider than f/8.

Thank you all for your suggestions, since there seems to be mention of the Vivitar 24mm F2.8, how does it compare to the Nikkor 28mm F2.8?

The Nikkor 28/2.8 AI-s is a really outstanding lens. I have a Tokina 28/2.8 in Nikon mount that focuses closer and it’s also quite good. Maybe not AS good, but really good.

I have the Vivitar 24/2.8 in Minolta MD mount. I think it’s made by Cosina. It’s a good performer with very little distortion for a 24 and decent color. I like it a lot. I’m not sure it’s quite as good as my Nikkor 24 at the edges but it’s in the ballpark. A good lens.