Vintage Nikkor compared to more modern Nikkor?

[ToddB]

Hey guys,

I took my F4 cam out for a field test the lens I used is a AF Nikkor 28-85. The weather was spot on perfect as far being outside but not ideal for taking photographs. Bright sunny contrast day, lots of shadows. So after getting back, I souped two rolls of film, as I mention they very clear and in focus, it just seemed that they lacked dynamic range as compared to my last addition the vintage Nikkor 135mm f2.8 or my 50mm 1.4. Was Nikon glass more precise back in the day, 60 -70's?


todd

 

[snapguy]

no the same amminal

Do you want "dynamic range" or "precise"? I think they are different animals. Personally I loathe the idea of "best", "perfect." There are too many variables in a million photo scenarios to find the best of the best in all categories. Does it work for you? If the answer is fine then that's it. Trolling for oh, just only the very best will do is for non-photographers who see cameras as toys and bragging rights test beds. In my Humbuig Opinion.

 

[benjiboy]

Your'e comparing prime lenses with zoom ones, zooms are always a compromise.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I think you are just seeing the difference between using AF lenses and Matrix metering and using an unofficial modified lens with Centre-weighted metering.
I warned you about modifying those lenses.
"Dynamic range" only applies to films as far as I know. Lenses don't have any influence on it.
Edit: Couple that with what Ben said and you have a pretty good idea of the differences you see.

 

[chip j]

Having Looked thru both vintage & modern Nikkors at a desktop scene, the older seems duller/less vibrant (fixed focal length).

 

[Tom1956]

Zoom lenses are crap. They have their purpose in the movies, but not much else.

 

[Xmas]

Technology in lens manufacture has improved from pre war (WWII).
The thing you can observe is the dynamic range improvement.
The hard coating has gone from uncoated or single layer to multi and the black paint has improved.
A nikkor from '50 /2 for a rangefinder had six elements in three groups all hard coated by the Zeiss patent MgF process.
A nikkor from '59 /2 for the F seven elements in five groups same single anti reflection coat
A nikon '80 E f/1.8 5cm six elements in five groups multi coated like LEM windows from Apollo moon shot.
So if you shoot the lens side by side on a dull day or high contrast day ie night sceanes with street lights or sunny or dark cloud with complete overcast you get differences
The multi will hold all the saturation of kchrome 25 or Velvia the single coated will pastel same film like water colour impressionist.
The single coat will preflash the shadows so there is more detail pulled into zone1.
You won't be able to tell the difference between the single coated and multi on a dull day. The multi might need a half grade softer, maybe.
This is not a E Snowden NSA secret squirrel thing.
Cosina Voighlander made some modern Leica M lenses in Single or Multi, they planned the single only in small volume for the Ja mono fine art photogs instead they got about 50 50 split... for the initial 40 mm lens.
For street on sunny days I use single coated lenses dull overcast days multi coated. Canon LTM single coated from 50s they are poor for MTF off axis but you don't get MTF with grab shots... I've a set of multis as well for dull 28, 35 and 5cm.
If you were using digital the single coat will provide adaptive compression of high lights to help highlight burn, but I use Rodinal stand with HP5+ or 5222 and manual exposure.
You might lose a frame to flare or iris images with single coated even with a deep lens hood.
Many people ignore the high light glow you will get with single coated. Some people prefer pastel.
The MC lenses were hyped as modern and better. Some even had MC on beauty ring marketing department...

 

[narsuitus]

Was Nikon glass more precise back in the day, 60 -70's?

It depends!

At the same focal lengths, my modern 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor zoom has better image quality than my vintage 18mm f/3.5, 24mm f/2 prime lenses.

At the same focal lengths, my newer 35-70mm f/2.8 and my 18-55mm f/3.5 to 5.6 produce much better images than the older 43-86mm f/3.5 that I dumped because it produced such crappy images.

At the same focal lengths, my older Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF S produces image quality equal to the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 AF G.

At the same focal lengths, my older Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF S produces image quality equal to my vintage 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2.5, and 180mm f/2.8 lenses.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/5259209196/