Turns out they got it right in 1959 (Nikon F)

baachitraka · Jul 24, 2012

Oh!!! even OM-3Ti... :-(

philosomatographer · Jul 24, 2012

Jerevan said:
philosomatographer,

I'd say that was an interesting turn of events, going from OM to Nikon! And I can say the silver-nosed Nikkor-P is a truely wonderful lens. Some of my favourite prints come from that lens. The only niggle is that it is a bit heavy. It's one of the few lenses I am actually thinking of re-buying (last time, honest!). I am using an F2 (tried several F3/F4/F5 - nice, although...) but I still have the urge to at least try the F, just to see where the F2 comes from.

The Nikon F finder, though smaller/dimmer than the OM finders, has hands-down more accurate focusing and depth-of-field rendering, and it's just so much more pleasing to my eyes (perhaps the "default" diopter agrees with my eyes better than the OM-1/2 finder's diopter). The OM-3Ti/OM-4Ti are dream cameras, but they unfortunately do not have the construction quality and brutal simplicity of the F - shooting without a meter (as in all my other cameras, Leica M3, Mamiya RB67, Linhof Technika) just suits my vision much better. I had a good long run with the OM's, and then I decided to recuperate my substantial investment in the OM system, and continue using the simpler, more solid camera.

Both my Nikkor lenses are more than 50 years old, and both are smoother-focusing and more dust/haze-free than most of the (more modern) OM lenses I was using. I am dying to supplement my F with an F2 (so that I can shoot two film speeds at once) but I am waiting for that elusive plain-prism F2 - they are rare and expensive, or (when affordable) *very* beat-up. I have a magnificently-mint plain-prism 74***** (last year) Nikon F Apollo, it'll last forever.

You should get a silver Nikkor-P again, and yes, try the F - should be slightly different to the F2, and sit slightly worse in-hand with the hard edges and moved shutter-release button.

philosomatographer · Jul 24, 2012

baachitraka said:
Oh!!! even OM-3Ti... :-(

Yeah... 35mm film is 35mm film, and after walking around with the OM-3Ti by my side for two years, I got over it. It's spectacular, yes, but I am not a collector... I am a photographer, and I prefer larger film formats, so for 35mm, there is no use in sticking with a (slightly unreliable in my experience, but may just have been my copy) body that's worth $2000+

I've come to prefer the Nikon F finder, and for that 1/2000s shutter speed, I can pick up a nice F2 for a tenth of the price of the 3Ti. I've also learnt that lens performance does not matter - the Zuikos are better, but that does not make an appreciable difference to prints - subject and lighting does. I am totally happy with 1950s/1960s Nikkor optical quality for the type of photography I do with 35mm, and the build quality is (as mentioned before in this thread) unsurpassed, even by Leica/Zeiss.

Jerevan · Jul 24, 2012

Yes, the OM finders (I've had a few OM1/2) are a sight to behold. If I had found the OM system first, I might have stayed on. I don't see the need to have another 35 mm system alongside, it just gets confusing. (Although I have a sunday driver Pentax S1 too, at the moment!)

It's just that I gravitate towards the 100% viewfinder and the F2 again anytime something needs to get done seriously, maybe because I have had it for almost 6 years (long time for me) and it's been around, working perfectly all the time (due to being CLA'd). I will never come close to re-coup the money I have spent on it, unless it turned out it was owned by someone famous. I'll see if I can ask around a bit and borrow an F for a little while, at the moment, I don't see the point in plonking down €350 if it's turning out to be a diversion. Maybe better to love what I got and buy that silver Nikkor-P instead.

Leicashop in Vienna and Sover Wong are my tips for a prism F2.

philosomatographer · Jul 24, 2012

Jerevan said:
Leicashop in Vienna and Sover Wong are my tips for a prism F2.

Thanks so much for the two great references!

E. von Hoegh · Jul 24, 2012

philosomatographer said:
As the starter of this growing thread, I thought it's time for an additional contribution: From a serious OM Zuikoholic, I went to selling my entire Olympus OM collection (including OM-3Ti, 250/2.0, etc...) with my Nikon F now being the only remaining 35mm SLR - I love it that much. This recent print from the silver-nosed Nikkor-P 105/2.5 - I can't get enough of this lens, and how nice it is to use on the F:

Boy and Horse
View attachment 54337
(Nikon F, 105/2.5, Kodak TMY400-2)

That's interesting. I made the same switch from OM to F, about 1994. I recently inherited an OM3 and an OM4 with a bunch of lenses. I still prefer the F.

Isn't that 105 a peach?

To "brutal simplicity" I'd like to add "stark functionality" ;

E. von Hoegh · Jul 24, 2012

philosomatographer said:
I've also learnt that lens performance does not matter - the Zuikos are better,...

That was not my experience. My 50/1.4 Zuiko was nothing to write home about and wide open it was poor; the 50/1.4 Nikkor is a much better lens. The f2 Nikkor H is better still. The 105, you already know about; my 100/2.8 Zuiko was a fine lens but not it's equal. The 35/2 Nikkor O is sharper to the corners than the Zuiko 2.8 I had.

I now have a later 50 Zuiko; I've heard they got better, maybe I'll give it a try. But there's no way I'll ever keep the Oly stuff over the Nikons.

Ipno Tizer · Jul 24, 2012

I like the one of the moggie.

To be honest, when I first took my OM2 out with it's Zuiko 50mm standard prime, the first thing that struck me when I got the prints back was the sharpness of the pictures. I don't know how the Zuiko 50mm compares to your Nikon F, but I reckon they don't make 'em like they used to.

Chris B.

philosomatographer · Jul 25, 2012

Ipno Tizer said:
I like the one of the moggie.

To be honest, when I first took my OM2 out with it's Zuiko 50mm standard prime, the first thing that struck me when I got the prints back was the sharpness of the pictures. I don't know how the Zuiko 50mm compares to your Nikon F, but I reckon they don't make 'em like they used to.

Chris B.

The optical quality of the late (>1.1m serial number) Zuiko 50mm f/1.4, or the Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 Macro, are both unequalled by any 50mm that Nikon has made (in my experience). However, I find focusing with the F viewfinder much more accurate, and concerning build quality, the Nikkor-H.C 50mm f/2.0 is simply in another class to any Zuiko 50mm. So, horses for courses. The Nikkor-H.C also has pretty bad distortion for a 50mm.

Still - I love using it! And as I said I realised, the technical merits of the lens has very little to do with final output quality in a film-based system. Focusing accuracy / contrast of the viewfinder system is actually much more important, I find. This is why I like the F (and I suspect the F2 has a near-identical finder).

The best lenses I have ever used are the Zuiko Digital SHG Zoom lenses (7-14/4.0, 14-35/2.0, 35-100/2.0) - nothing even remotely compares, not Leica, not Zeiss. The haptical quality sucks though (big blobby things...) ;-) And it's digital.

Steve Smith · Jul 25, 2012

philosomatographer said:
This recent print from the silver-nosed Nikkor-P 105/2.5 - I can't get enough of this lens, and how nice it is to use on the F

I have only put one roll of film through my Nikon F and Nikkor 105mm f2.5 but it's enough for me to agree with you on how nice it is.

Steve.

philosomatographer · Sep 3, 2012

28/2.8 AIS deceptively nice

Hi All,

This past week-end I found (in a local shop, which does not often Happen in South Africa...) a mint Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS for about $100. Not having had any wide-angle lens for this camera, I thought "why not?". I exposed a test roll of Ilford Pan F in the Nikon F (see, the two were made for each other and I am so pleasantly surprised by the character of this wonderful lens. These are some examples:

As somebody who uses shallow depth of field as an important part of his style, it immediately struck my how neutral and pleasing the out-of-focus rendition is - the lens appears to be perfectly corrected (no over- or under-correction causing harsh outlines to OOF artifacts). I think I've found the only wide-angle I need on my F.

Unfortunately it's not in the same classic all-metal style with the scalloped focus rings like my other two lenses (50/2.0, 105/2.5) but for the superb performance of this little gem, one can make exceptions, eh? The build quality and focus smoothness is unbelievable for a lens incorporating a floating element - the lightest touch from one finger can focus it, yet it won't drift on its own. Remarkable mechanical engineering.

Who would have thought that something as boring as a 28mm f/2.8 could be so exciting on a Nikon F? Best $100 I ever spent, and the two "F"s - Pan F, Nikon F, are a match made in heaven.

philosomatographer · Sep 3, 2012

From the same roll of Pan F as above, I do continue to absolutely love the first-generation 50mm f/2.0:

Wide open, the character is very old school - flare problems and nervous out-of-focus highlights. I adore the overall tonal rendition and "look" - and this particular lens, above all, is the best-built, smoothest-focusing 50mm I have yet used. A real lifetime-user's lens.

And the first-generation 105mm f/2.5:

I'm using this camera lot more now as it's my only current serious 35mm body (I sold my Olympus OM kit, and my Leica M3 is in for repair - my own fault).

kitanikon · Sep 12, 2012

Last Dec I said I'd be getting an F back in my life

....and I got one yesterday...from 1973 with a working Photomic FTn, and gold instruction booklets for the F and the meter and a couple of other small Nikon brochures (one with the price marked...$375)

...It had a date sticker in the film bay from 1991, suggesting refurbishing had been done....it works as if it had been refurbished and not used since......it certainly looked "new".....with new leather, lugs and not a dent in sight...I never had a Photomic head on an F before so decided to take this one home...

When I got home I went into my saved parts drawer for my dented and battered but clean plain prism and it fits and works perfectly...
...though it looks sad on such a nice looking body...it looked more at home on my old and long since gone beaters...oh well....I put in my old "E" screen and it looks like old times...

It came with a Lentar 200/3.5 and the Nikkor 50/1.4-S (5 screw version), along with a couple of Gossen meters (Pilot2 and Bisix2) and a set of 3 Hoya closeup filters....after selling these off to a good home I'll have this very nice F for a very reasonable cost of under $100...(I will have to decide which to keep, this "S" or my AIS version...I don't need another 50...)

The F will be fun to work with again...it certainly looks at home on my shelf next to the FE2 and FM...(though I'm not so sure about the AF Nikons lying around here)...

Bruce Robbins · Sep 12, 2012

Not sure why you're so surprised that the Nikon is capable of excellent results. By the time it was launched 35mm technology was already quite mature. The mechanical side of things with regard to film plane tolerances, etc, had been worked out and established. Prime lens technology didn't really advance much between the '60s and the '70s when the Zuikos came out. Zoom lens technology was beginning to improve quite a bit though.

I've used both Zuikos and Nikkors and have never noticed what you've seen. Magazine tests over the years haven't really supported your contention either. If you took Leica and Zeiss out of the equation, Nikkors usually tested as amongst the best but some Zuikos were superior and most were a good match.

Yashinoff · Sep 18, 2012

lxdude said:
By that token, both (Minolta SR-2 '58, Nikon F '59) were playing catch up to the Asahi Pentax ('57). But when the Nikon came out they had to play catch up to its fully automatic diaphragm. And the Nikon of course had the interchangeable pentaprism (and MLU) neither had.

Given the time it took to develop those machines and the closeness of their release, I see it as more a case of almost concurrent development than playing catch up.

I just want to point out that both Praktica and Edixa were already using internally operated automatic diaphragms in 1956, and the Praktina had introduced an internally operated semi-auto diaphragm in 1954. When Pentax finallygot around to installing an aperture plunger in their cameras they still went with the old fashioned semi-auto cock-to-open system for their lenses... In Pentax's case it couldn't be anything other than a game of catchup since they had to engineer their system to be compatible with the German company's M42 mount. /history tangent

kitanikon · Sep 19, 2012

Ordered a "B" screen off Ebay to put in my new F....can't wait...(my 40+yr old "E" screen had some fungus...)...

lxdude · Sep 19, 2012

kitanikon said:
(my 40+yr old "E" screen had some fungus...)...

Hey, you can separate it and clean it.

kitanikon · Sep 20, 2012

Good to know dude....thanks...I will have to look at cleaning up the few screens I have here...(incl. the original As that came with the bodies)

lxdude · Sep 20, 2012

Put in something like "clean nikon screen" in the search box at top right of this page and you will see a couple of threads on how to do it.

Russ - SVP · Sep 21, 2012

If I'm not mistaken, the legendary Nikon 105 f/2.5 lens was designed in 1959. And, it still rivals today's lenses in IQ.

Ric Trexell · Sep 21, 2012

My memories of the Nikon F

I never owned a Nikon F but that camera was instrumental in me getting into 35mm photography. While coming back to Hawaii on a Navy destroyer, I got talking with a guy that was always taking pictures with his 'F'. I shot all the western pacific with a 110 pocket camera and I remember asking him why would anyone want a camera that you had to set all those numbers just to take a picture. He said that he could set it for a few settings and get a better picture than I could with my 110. I then bought a Yashica 35mm but had some problems with my flash not working right so looked into a school for camera repair. After I got out of the Navy I went to National Camera repair school in Colorado and one of the cameras I had to do a CLA on was the Nikon F. I always remembered that the guy on the ship that had the Nikon F was telling me that the numbers were not all that hard and here I was taking one apart. I used a few different cameras until in 1985 I bought a Minolta X-700. I still use that and my RB67 but a few months ago I picked up a Nikon because I want to do stock photography and sorry to say guys, I had to get a digital. The Nikon F is heavy because it is built like a tank and the shutter is a metal focal plane. I suspect they will last for two hundred years. And then will need to be repaired and last another 200. Ric.

wiltw · Sep 21, 2012

benjiboy said:
It makes me wonder how much the Nikon F would cost new today, and how many of todays wonder cameras will still be working the majority of them without being repaired in fifty years time.

Wikipedia says the Nikon F was originally priced at US$186 with 50mm f/2 lens; in 1964 the US price was $323 with a standard prism and f/2 lens.
I just bought a really nice condition Beseler Topcon Super D with 58mm f/1.4 for the grand sum of $25 in a thrift store. This, after a lifetime of teen lust for the unobtainable. And it is a fully functioning camera almost 50 years later, the shutter, the self timer, the meter!

New, the Beseler Topcon Super D was $420, and like the Nikon F it was top of the line. Hard to directly compare since the Nikon F was meterless unless you sprung for the Photomic T finder which was $110 in 1965, whereas the Topcon Super D had the world's first TTL meter, and it was built into the body at that price...you did not lose TTL metering if you used a waist level finder like you would with the Nikon F.

In 1965 gas was about $0.31 per gallon in the USA; so the Nikon F Photomic T was 1397 gallons of gas; the Topcon Super D was 1355 gallons of gas. Using $4.00 as today's price for gas, the Nikon F Photomic T and Topcon Super D would equate to $5500 cameras. And then you had to buy film, the costs of processing, and printing.

Les Sarile · Sep 22, 2012

wiltw said:
Wikipedia says the Nikon F was originally priced at US$186 with 50mm f/2 lens;

Modern Photography, September 1959 ad -> Nikon F + f2 lens for $329.50

Russ - SVP · Sep 22, 2012

E. von Hoegh · Sep 22, 2012

Kiron Kid said:
If I'm not mistaken, the legendary Nikon 105 f/2.5 lens was designed in 1959. And, it still rivals today's lenses in IQ.

Actually, pre WWII. It's a recalculation of prewar Zeiss Sonnar designs. And yes, it's one of the all time great lenses.

Turns out they got it right in 1959 (Nikon F)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency