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

[E. von Hoegh]

Totally related to this line of thought is that I do tend to process my B&W film to be a touch harder contrasted. For all those zillions of years I shot Fujichrome Velvia, I never had the problems other people groused about. I think what was going on was the lower contrast Zuikos were a much better match to Velvia's extremely punchy curves.

When I was using Oly gear starting in the late 70's, I used KR25 whenever I could. It was a good match with the Zuiko lenses. I no longer have those lenses, but I remember not being particularly happy with the 50/1.4, mine was a single coated version, but it never struck me as particularly sharp except in the center, and then only after about 2.8-4.
The 50/2 Nikkor is sharp all across, both mine are single coated but contrasy. I'll have to get out some old slides and negatives to compare. The 100/2.8 Zuiko was a great lens, but the 105 Nikkor is better.

 

[X. Phot.]

Hope is a wonderful thing, but that is not a lens known for good bokeh. Nonetheless it is a great performing lens and I don't find the bokeh horrible. To me the single coated H seems to be the best of this series in that regard.

I won't be devastated if the bokeh is lacking on the 50, as I have little invested in the lens. But, I can see from the Nikkor 360 image just posted, there's a world of difference when compared to the 50 & 105. Not a problem. An old pair of lady's pantyhose stretched over the lens can easily remedy this annoying behavior. ;-)

 

[Ken N]

When I was using Oly gear starting in the late 70's, I used KR25 whenever I could. It was a good match with the Zuiko lenses. I no longer have those lenses, but I remember not being particularly happy with the 50/1.4, mine was a single coated version, but it never struck me as particularly sharp except in the center, and then only after about 2.8-4.
The 50/2 Nikkor is sharp all across, both mine are single coated but contrasy. I'll have to get out some old slides and negatives to compare. The 100/2.8 Zuiko was a great lens, but the 105 Nikkor is better.

The early Zuiko 50/1.4 lenses weren't always the sharpest. They have a curved plane of focus so they are anything but flat-fielded. Also, they do tend to be much sharper in the center than the edges. Later versions corrected most of these issues. The last version is still not entirely flat-fielded, but pretty reasonably so for a non-macro lens. You won't use it for copy work unless you have to. As the lens evolved, the corners sharpened up, but the center became slightly less sharp. The sharpest in the center version is probably the ones made somewhere in the early '80s. The last version is the best all-around, though.

My favorite Zuiko is the 100/2.8. Mine is a middle-aged one of a relatively short-lived period which was a silvernosed model, but had additional coatings. Very shortly after they added the green reflection, but mine is just barely pre-green. It is VERY sharp and is simply terrific for portraiture. The entire color cast trends towards the warm. Later versions were much cooler. Most people chose either the 100/2.8 or 85/2 as their short-tele. The lenses are nearly identical, but the rendering of early vs. late between the two lenses seem to take opposite tracks. The 85/2 really improved through the years, whereas the 100/2.8 seemed to be best in the earlier models. We're specifically talking portraiture, though.

My harem currently contains samples of: 24/2.8, 35/2.8 (my dying grasp lens), 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 100/2, 100/2.8, 200/4, 300/4.5 and the 35-80/2.8. One OM-2S, two OM-4T and one OM-3Ti bodies. Motordrives, winders, a T45 flash and bunches of other accessories abound. Just need a wide-angle F2 lens, a 250/2 or 350/2.8 and I'm set for life.

Life is good. No need to worry about other brands with a kit like this. Seriously, compared to the OM-4T with MD2, 35-80 and T45 flash, anything Nikon from 1959 is very much the "dark ages".

 

[blockend]

I moved from an OM-1 in the 70s to a Nikon F (plain prism) in the 80s before selling it in the mid-1990s. I wanted a rugged camera which the F certainly is, however I didn't notice a stunning difference in quality between Zuiko and Nikkor lenses. The single sharpest manual focus lens I've owned is probably a Canon FD 50mm 1.4 but the Zuiko 50mm f1.8 and Nikkor f1.8 and f2 were both good. So long as a lens is sharp enough I fail to see how it makes any difference in general photography. One of my sharpest lenses is on a Yashica 2.8 rangefinder that cost £3!

 

[kitanikon]

Thank you philosomatographer for the memories....

My first Nikon was the Nikkormat FS....the meterless body with the 50/2...back in August 1967...
..within 3 months I got my 1st photo published under the initials "AP"...and was officially a PJ...sooooooo

Six months later I had to get 2 F bodies....the 1st thing I did was replace the standard split image center spot focusing screen with the B screen and its 12mm flat matte center spot surrounded by fresnel rings that allowed me to focus anywhere on the screen instantly...

At first my only lens was the 50/F2... then the 35/2, 105/2.5 and 200/4....and was often carrying 3 at a time each on its own body...a year later I added the 24/2.8 (for $140), replaced the 105 with the 85/1.8 for shooting sports in the dim-dark dungeons of college basketball...and replaced the 1st 200Q with the 2nd version that focuses to 7' (vs the 10 of the 1st)....

40 years later I sold most of the Nikon gear to pay for my digital crossover, and only the 200Q remains of the lot...but when I found I could use them digitally, I've since recovered most of them (NOT the 24 nor the 35 as the more modern are better) and added a few more (the 85K AND the 105/2.5)...AND a few duplicate FLs....the 50/1.4 ais and the 50/2-K, the 200Q and the newer AIS.....and TWO 135/2.8s, the original 135Q.C as well as the newer K optic version (a FL I never thought very useful as a working pro, but now, well, why not....) AND two I others I never owned but used as part of the paper's shared bag of gear...the 180/2.8 and 300/4.5 (both of which I felt were too big and bulky for the F when shooting fast moving news and carrying 2 or more other lenses on bodies) because NOW they fit/feel so well balanced on my (cough, cough) Canon 40D....

As for the bodies....I've had a couple of Nikkormats, (even an FS), and an FM3a since then....and now an FE2...but no F, the body that made me the photographer I am today...yes the body makes the artist, much as the brush makes the painter...

....someday I'll have that F back....until then, thanks OP, for the memories.....

 

[EASmithV]

I certainly love mine, although it's been shelved for the past 2 years in favor of my F6. However, you're right, the F feels very right.

 

[26x30]

The F is the only camera that I have seen that i thought "Geez, I HAVE to have one of those... " Thanks to a fellow APUGer I now have a '65, and love it. The heft and balance seem to be an extention of my limbs, and the controls are too perfect. I have a pristine Canon F1, a Canon Ftbn, and a few Yashicas. Anyone have F bits they want to trade?

 

[BobD]

Why is it that these days, people seem to care more about the out-of-focus ares in an image than the in-focus areas? Strange trend started by internet forums... I wish the word "bokeh" had never been uttered.

+1

 

[ColdEye]

Hmmm. Makes me wanna try an F. very nice pictures OP.

 

[philosomatographer]

The 50/2 is no Summicron, but does have good edge to edge sharpness.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, can tell this print from one made with a Summicron. I know - I use on my M3 a 50mm lens that is optically better than a Summicron, and I can't tell. The precise definition of the small structures in this image (grass blades and leaves right into the corners) is absolutely perfect. It's at f/5.6, of course, but in a scene like this, nobody is going to shot at f/2.0.

The Nikon F with 1950s/1960s lenses can teach anybody to stop obsessing about lens performance in 35mm photography. Really, these lenses are better than most photographers (as are most lenses).

 

[philosomatographer]

Thank you for all the complimentary replies - this roll was just one of those "test" rolls where you photograph everything in sight for a day or two to check out a new camera, but I am happy how it turned out. Looking forward to making some bigger-than-8x10in prints to really see what the lenses have in them. Although you can tell from an 8x10, usually, and I think both of these lenses will stand up as far as the film does.

For example, in this image (shot at f/2.0) the small writing on the gentleman's glasses (which is exactly where I focused) is perfectly legible - kudos also has to go to this extraordinary ISO400 film to capture such small detail.

Also, let's discuss metering: B&W film is so liberating. With a digital camera, people rely on all sorts of 1005-pixel CCD metering computers to get an exposure half as good as what one gets with a meterless Nikon F and guessed exposure. Think about how precisely I would have exposed the above on digital - or slide film - to place the visible zone of information where I wanted it? (along the way, I would definitely have lost shadows and highlights). With a Nikon F, it's so simple. What aperture do I want for this shot? f/2.0. Then guess: In this light, what shutter speed do I need at ISO400 to expose correctly for f/2.0. Answer: 1/2000s. Nikon F only goes to 1/1000s? Bummer. Well, just shoot it at 1/1000, it will be exposed sufficiently on B&W film. Simple, end of story.

And very liberating. Of course, all my film bodies are the same in this regard (my OM-3Ti's batteries died some time last year, never replaced them). I guess I really like the F, because there is no dead meter bits in the viewfinder, just pure concentration on the image


To kitanikon, I did exactly the same thing: I fitted the B focusing screen which has none of the focusing-aids graffiti of the others, just a pure, clear focusing experience. Mine is dirty (some strange subtle liquid stains, need to clean it in an ultrasonic cleaner I think) but even so, it's a great user experience. The contrast on this screen is just insanely good.

 

[Steve Smith]

One of my sharpest lenses is on a Yashica 2.8 rangefinder that cost £3!

I have a Yashica Minister with a very impressive lens. I feel ripped off now though as I paid £8 for mine!


Steve.

 

[Les Sarile]

Regarding film latitude, you may also consider the new Kodak Portra 400 if you want to shoot color and have wide latitude.

Link to larger version -> Kodak Portra 400

 

[philosomatographer]

Regarding film latitude, you may also consider the new Kodak Portra 400 if you want to shoot color and have wide latitude.

Link to larger version -> Kodak Portra 400

Wow, that's impressive - looks like similar experiments I have seen with Ektar 100 before. I'll either never switch to colour 35mm, or only do so when I can get my hands on a truly kick-ass film scanner. And time is running our for people developing film around here... In 5 years, most of the places have disappeared. Getting the chemicals in South Africa is near-impossible.

 

[Les Sarile]

Similar test conducted with Kodak BW400CN.

Link to larger version -> Kodak BW400CN

 

[darkosaric]

And very liberating. Of course, all my film bodies are the same in this regard (my OM-3Ti's batteries died some time last year, never replaced them). I guess I really like the F, because there is no dead meter bits in the viewfinder, just pure concentration on the image

I wrote couple of days ago on Thread: Your LATEST 35mm SLR camera purchase:

Nikon F - I wanted fully mechanical body.
It has meter-less prism: and it is nice for a change - when you look in finder there is nothing to distract you, not f stop, not shutter speed, nothing: just you and your frame to compose.

 

[pen s]

This thread has generated a lot of buzz. Most OM users tend to be quite attached to their systems and I'm no exception. When the system was first introduced I was ready, having owned (and loved) the Pen F cameras. In full frame however everything seemed too big and bulky. You have to remember that at that time, the early 70's, most Nikon F's were being sold with the big Photomic FTn meter heads, not exactly a svelte package. Before the OM-1 was introduced my full frame choice, driven as it was by compactness and weight, was the humble Fujica ST701. Other than the 55mm f1.8 I owned no other Fujinon lenses and rounded out my lens selection with Vivitar wide angle and tele lenses. Spotmatics were also compact but much more expensive and the ST701 viewfinder was a stop brighter than the Pentax. When the OM was introduced I knew I wanted it and it took a year to save up sufficient funds. In keeping with my weight and size preferences over the years I have selected the slower examples of Zuiko focal lengths in the 24, 35, 50, 135, and 200mm range. Of course my 85mm only came in f2 aperture. I have never been set up to enlarge bigger than 8 X 10 so there isn't much demand placed on my negs. Sometimes I print full frame, 6 X 9, only a 6X diameter enlargement. All that said the F, with a plain un-metered prism is a handsome camera with a very no nonsense, purposeful appearance. As my second childhood has unfolded I have again obtained a Pen F and 3 lenses and am now fairly obsessed with half frame. My poor OM kit has been sitting, lonely, on the shelf. This thread has reminded me why I need to dust it off and give it a little exercise. Thanks so much for your original post.

And, I see you prefer the plain focusing screens. That's interesting as the first accessory I bought for my OM-1 was a 1-4 plain matte screen. Now I use the 1-10, matte with grid lines in all my OM's.

 

[alanrockwood]

Dear APUG'ers -

...the grand daddy of modern SLRs - the Nikon F - ....

A side comment: If Nikon is the grand daddy, then Exakta must be the great grand daddy.

 

[philosomatographer]

A side comment: If Nikon is the grand daddy, then Exakta must be the great grand daddy.

No, the Exakta is the great grandfather of 35mm SLRs, period. (Notice the missing "modern").

 

[JerryWo]

I scored a Rolleiflex TLR 3.5F Planar and a Nikkormat FTN with 50mm Nikkor-H F2 lens at an astronomy flea market for $150. While I was really after the Rollei, I found the Nikkormatt to be stunning with virtually any film I ran through it. I like the heft of the camera. The images are sharp and contrasty.

While a wee bit off topic, the camera I almost always choose from my "collection" is a scale-focus Bessa-L with a 35mm F2.5 Voigtlander Color-Skopar. The metering is accurate and the lens is tack-sharp. With the bright accessory viewfinder and easy-to-discern LED metering, I find it to be a quick street camera. It looks similar to what HCB used in his early days.

Life is good!
Jerry
Warrenton VA

 

[dhosten]

This has been a great thread and I have really enjoyed reading all of the opinions. I'm a former OM user, and after I lost my equipment due to an unfortunate incident in London UK in the early 90s, I was forced to start over. Over the next 20 years I owned a Maxxumm 9000, a Nikon 801S, an M3 DS, a Nikon F2A, a Nikon F3HP, and a couple others, but kind of ditched them and went to digital when I found the digital camera that best suited my needs. Still, film kept calling to me, so this year I decided to get back into 35mm film in a serious way and ended up with an N90S and a trio of MF lenses recommended by Mr. Rockwell.
What I have found is that the Nikon stuff does appear a bit sharper at the very edges, but also warmer. I think, in the case of the F, F2 and F3 with drive, the the mirror return is dampened by the extra mass and gives sharper results. Although I must say that I found the mirror dampening on the OM to be second only to the Minolta XE5/Rolleiflex SLRs...
Anyway, I'm enjoying a Nikon now, but none of the pictures I have taken with my Nikons surpass my best taken with my OM' gear.
fwiw I used to work at the old Camera Exchange store in Ottawa in the 90s and had access to almost every film camera available and was encouraged by my boss to take them for testing.. and took full advantage of that rare benefit.

 

[Jim Jones]

After using Leica rangefinders for many years and a Practica and a Miranda briefly, I finally added a Nikon F in 1967. I still use both systems. Each has advantages. Nikon offered an incomparable range of accessories. Sometimes accommodating these accessories made the camera awkward for basic use. Consider the removable back and bottom plate. It was sometimes inconvenient, but did permit the use of a 250 exposure back and Polaroid film. The early Photomic prisms made the camera top-heavy. However, several other finders were available. So were user-replacable focusing screens. The Nikon and Nikkormat were not just fine cameras, they were small parts of an extensive system of bodies, lenses, and accessories. My Leica M4 is a better camera than any Nikon SLR for those tasks it is designed to do. The Nikon is great for everything else.

An aside: about 30 years ago I did a quick, but critical, test on 30 lenses in 35mm format. Three of the four best were by Nikon: GN-Nikkor f/2.8 45mm, EL-Nikkor f/2.8 50mm, and Micro-Nikkor f/3.5 55mm. These surpassed all 50mm Nikkor and Leitz lenses by a modest amount. This spoke well for the diversity of the Nikon line. Nikon bodies and lenses are fine for most shooting, but that's just the tip of a huge iceberg.

 

[kitanikon]

Thank you for all the complimentary replies


To kitanikon, I did exactly the same thing: I fitted the B focusing screen which has none of the focusing-aids graffiti of the others, just a pure, clear focusing experience. Mine is dirty (some strange subtle liquid stains, need to clean it in an ultrasonic cleaner I think) but even so, it's a great user experience. The contrast on this screen is just insanely good.

Your welcome.....one thing about using the B screen is that it prepares one for focusing/shooting with the much more difficult dSLR focusing screens....

 

[Alan Klein]

I bought a Nikon F Photomic T when they came out in 1965. I was inn the USAF in Japan, and bought it with their standard 50mm f/1.4 for $189.00 in Yen equivalent. (There was 360 Yen to the dollar back then; now it's about 80-90). That might sound cheap but I think I was earning about $100 a month as an Airman 2 Class. They were going for around $469.00 or so in the States at that time. The airbase (Fuchu) had a great photo lab with many enlargers, developing tanks, driers, etc, as you can imagine since we were in Japan and photography was popular with a lot of people. I did some B/W with it but turned to color slides which I enjoyed more (Kodachrome then Ektachrome)> I'm not an expert so I cannot say anything about the quality. But the "expert" reviews at the time pointed to the Nikon so it was a natural for me to buy since I was over there. It was the top newest model in 1965. I also picked up a 135mm Nikkor. Unfortunately, I lost the camera and lenses a few years later on a NYC Subway. Reminder: Don't go out partying and drinking with your good camera equipment, but that's another story.

Anyway, I replaced it with a Nikomat FT3 with an 50mm f/2.0. After all, prices were considerably higher back in the states by then, and I just didn't want to go for the bucks for an "F". I stopped using it when I got married and bought my wife an Nikon N6006. But a few month ago, I pulled out the Nikormat, put a new battery in it and ran a dry run comparing the metering to other meters and cameras I had. And the Nikomat was right on. I didn't take any pictures with it but did try the 50mm Nikkor lens on my Olympus E-PL1 m43 (shoots as a 100mm due to the 2x crop), and the lens is pretty sharp. Here are a couple of shots.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/5345148224/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/5344537571/in/set-72157625797001770

 

[vpwphoto]

Gotta pimp in here... I got my cherry Nikon F kit over on the auction site.
search "Nikon F kit".

For me... I like the F100 or the FE-2 (thinking of selling that). And IF I were to replace it I still have a soft spot for the F3 sans motor drive.

Last word from me... HATS OFF TO THE OP for making WET PRINTS SCANNING AND POSTING!!! THAT IS SOME WORK!!