What Were the Good Pre-Ai lenses?

[waynecrider]

So now that everyone has spoken so highly of the 105 I'm sure the prices will go up so I guess I'm going to have to wait. Ha. Actually, though I do have a FT3 body, the focusing is screwed up and doesn't align at infinity so I'm going to look for the FT2 body before I buy the 105.

I do like the 135's. I've got a Super Takumar that is just as sharp as my 50mm F1.4 SSC, but early at F4 and with better bokeh and small. I just can't use it on a Nikon body tho.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

I'm sure this has been mentioned on the forum more than once, but there is some very nice historical information about Nikkor lenses on the Nikon site. More of a technical approach but very interesting.

Link-Nikkor History

Here' the page on the 105/2.5.
Link-Nikkor 105 f2.5

There is a quote on that page that always intrigued me:
"An anecdote back from the era of the Nikkor Auto lenses. There was a lens that delivered incredibly sharp resolution, but the defocus image (blur) was not so good. particular lens branded the whole Nikkor Auto family with a reputation of having bad defocus images, especially in Japan."

I've often wondered about that, and exactly which lens it refers to. Since waynecrider (the OP) particularly mentioned bokeh, I think that is relevant in this disscussion. There are really only a very few possibilites for that time frame. I've come to the conclusion that the author is talking about the Nikkor-H Auto 50mm f2 (or possibly it's predecessor, though I am not familiar with its imaging characteristics).

Link for the discussion of the various standard speed 50's.

I do like the 50 f2 (inspite of far from stellar bokeh in some situations) so didn't immediately think this was the lens the author meant, but last night I spent some time researching the offerings of that time and don't find another likely candidate. Anyone agree, or have a different suggestion?

 

[kitanikon]

Among the pre-AI lenses
...the "K" versions are preferred...they have AI optics and construction, just without the AI mount
...the "K" lenses also have multicoating...
...lenses marked H.C, S.C, P.C, Q.C are also multi-Coated but have pre-K construction and optics..."C" lenses' coating seem to give about 1/3 F-stop more contrast/brightness over the earlier non "C" version

From my experience:
The 50mm/F2 people like is the one with the rubber focusing knurl...it's the "K" version......
The pre-AI 50mm/1.4 to look for is the S.C
The 85/1.8 was never AI, though a "K" version was made and the optional Nikon AI aperture ring was available...
The 135/2.8 Q.C is VERY good, but it is considerably "heftier" than the later "K" and AI versions
The 135/2.8 K is VERY good
The 180/2.8 P.C is the old Sonnar optic version...the AI and later ED versions are gaussian optics
The 200/4 Q.C is very good...the one with the longer focusing knurl and closer focusing (7') than the earlier 200
The 300/4.5 H is much better than reviewers claim, if not as good as the later ED

Enjoy the hunt and good shooting...

 

[semi-ambivalent]

...The 300/4.5 H is much better than reviewers claim, if not as good as the later ED

This is one I'd like to have, for the sort of financial nostalgia brucemuir mentions up-thread.

s-a

 

[Pumalite]

I also have the 135 2.8 (pre ai) that I got really cheap right here at apug recently.
Only used it once so far but for the money it's a great deal if you can deal with the focal length.

I actually like 135mm but a lot of folks don't these days if you believe online chatter.

I have the EF 135 f/2 for EOS canon and that thing is amazing.

+1

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

A few thoughts.

The 180 P, P.C and Ai versions are optically the same, the optical change was made with the Ais ED version.

I'm under the impression that the lens with the 'poor bokeh' might have been the rangefinder 85mm f2, but I have no experience with Nikkor rangfinder lenses.

My new favorite 135 is the 135mm f/3.5 Q.C (4 element 3 group). I'm doing a comparison of bokeh at portrait range between that and an Ai 135mm f3.5, (4 element 4 group, a subtle reworking of the 135mm f2.8 Q optical layout IMO). Those slower 135's are really really sharp mid aperture (film and Dig) and have decent bokeh at portrait distances wide open or nearly so, plus they are a stupid bargain! Got both for less than a 2.8.
Next bokeh test will be the f/3.5 Q.C vs the Ai f/2.8 and the f/2 Ais.

 

[kivis]

Buy non AI(S) lenses because they are cheap then send to John White for conversion so that they work on newer bodies. The only downside is the older lenses tend to be bigger and heavier than their AI(S) successors.

 

[removed-user-1]

At one time or another I've owned or used most of the early Nikkors, except for the 58mm f/1.4, the 21mm mirror-up lens, and the exotic fisheye and long lenses (all beyond my budget). My personal favorites are the later 105mm f/2.5, the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 (great for flowers!), and the 24mm f/2.8. I could probably get by with just those three, in fact. The 135mm f/3.5 is also very nice and usually not expensive.

 

[Ralph Javins]

At one time or another I've owned or used most of the early Nikkors, except for the 58mm f/1.4, the 21mm mirror-up lens, and the exotic fisheye and long lenses (all beyond my budget). My personal favorites are the later 105mm f/2.5, the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 (great for flowers!), and the 24mm f/2.8. I could probably get by with just those three, in fact. The 135mm f/3.5 is also very nice and usually not expensive.

Good morning;

OK; the comment about the NIKKOR 1.4/58 did get my attention, especially with the comment about the budget. Even when Nippon Kogaku K. K. (Nikon back then) announced that they were coming out with their first low light level lens in response to requests from many professional photographers, that lens was not all that expensive. Yes it was more expensive than the NIKKOR 2/50 that was the "normal" standard lens for the original Nikon F, but it was not that much more. It was not an "exotic" lens. One point to be considered is that it was made for only about two years, so there may not be that many samples around left for us to use. The NIKKOR 1.4/50 replaced it.

Yes, the non-retrofocus NIKKOR 4/21 taken directly from the lens designed for the Nikon SP and similar rangefinders was more expensive, and the accessory viewfinder for it is probably more elusive. The NIKKOR 8/8 (yes, that is 8mm) original circular image fisheye lens also required MLU, and initially was normally recommended for scientific or weather observation, often being called "a full sky lens." I agree that the Reflex NIKKORs up to 2000mm were very expensive (and heavy!), and probably not many were sold to civilian photographers.

And, the NIKKOR 1.4/58 is the "normal" lens that is included in The 1960s Nikon Project here, along with the NIKKOR 2.5/105 (still one of my favorite NIKKOR lenses).

 

[davela]

I've used the 35/2.8, the 50/2, the 50/1.4, and the 28/3.5. These were all fantastic, although I'd prefer a later model 28/3.5 (AI or AIS). They are exceptionally well made too - most of them still work fine even when they've been abused. I can't say that for lenses from most other camera firms of the time that have survived to the present day (which is not to say other to say Nikon is necessarily the best optically, just that it is damned rugged on top of optical excellence).

 

[removed-user-1]

OK; the comment about the NIKKOR 1.4/58 did get my attention, especially with the comment about the budget.

I've just never used one or even seen one in person; I'm sure it's not as pricey as the real exotics, though the serial numbers suggest it's fairly rare. I would like to have one!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My most used kit is 35/2 Nikkor O, 50/2 Nikkor H, and 105/2.5 Nikkor P (Sonnar). The 35 is great, the 50 and 105 are truly superb.
The 20/3.5 Nikkor UD is surprisingly good, and the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor another must-have.

 

[Ralph Javins]

I've just never used one or even seen one in person; I'm sure it's not as pricey as the real exotics, though the serial numbers suggest it's fairly rare. I would like to have one!

Good morning;

The NIKKOR 1.4/58 came out nine months after the introduction of the Nikon F in 1959 February. From the information available here, there were about 39,000 of them built from 1959 October to 1962 January, or two years three months. Compared with many of the other NIKKOR lenses, that is a fairly respectable number of lenses built. Keep watching; you probably will find one. Among other things, many of us are developing an excessive accumulation of years, and often our heirs do not share our appreciation for older quality glass, especially when it is intended for use on a camera that uses that old and obsolete film that requires a messy liquid development process.

For me, the focal length of 58mm or 5.8cm is significant. Send a PM to me if you would like to hear my personal dissertation on this specific focal length. I do like it.

 

[CGW]

Good morning;

The NIKKOR 1.4/58 came out nine months after the introduction of the Nikon F in 1959 February. From the information available here, there were about 39,000 of them built from 1959 October to 1962 January, or two years three months. Compared with many of the other NIKKOR lenses, that is a fairly respectable number of lenses built. Keep watching; you probably will find one. Among other things, many of us are developing an excessive accumulation of years, and often our heirs do not share our appreciation for older quality glass, especially when it is intended for use on a camera that uses that old and obsolete film that requires a messy liquid development process.

For me, the focal length of 58mm or 5.8cm is significant. Send a PM to me if you would like to hear my personal dissertation on this specific focal length. I do like it.

It's a favorite focal length of mine. The old Rokkor 58/1.4 is the only reason a keep a couple of Minolta manual bodies. While 50mm is usually touted as being closest to what the eye sees, the 58mm is closer to WYSIWYG with both eye and viewfinder.

 

[Ralph Javins]

It's a favorite focal length of mine. The old Rokkor 58/1.4 is the only reason a keep a couple of Minolta manual bodies. While 50mm is usually touted as being closest to what the eye sees, the 58mm is closer to WYSIWYG with both eye and viewfinder.

Good morning, CGW;

Yes, sir. You are exactly right.

When we look at the history of the "double frame" 35mm film format of 24mm by 36mm for still cameras derived from the original 18mm by 24mm frame format on the film used for motion pictures, the 50mm "normal" lens focal length has been around for a long time from prior to World War II. The only sort of a "problem" is that it is slightly "wide angle." When the major camera makers started coming out with their larger diameter low light lenses for the professional photographer, there had to be a reason why they chose the odd focal length of 58mm. It was not just Nikon and Minolta; Topcon, Canon, and others, including the Russians with the Helios-44 for the Zenit, all had 58mm lenses. Yes, that reason is that 58mm provides the same true perspective through the lens as we see with our eyes. I still suggest that if we are interested in having a true "normal" lens on our 35mm still picture cameras, then it should be the 58mm focal length, and not the more common 50mm. Again, this is for exactly the reason you state of true perspective.

Also, I agree with you that the MINOLTA AUTO ROKKOR-PF 1:1.4 f=58mm and the later MC ROKKOR-PF 1:1.4 f=58mm lenses are very useful lenses on Minolta SR mount cameras. The MC ROKKOR-PG 1:1.2 f=58mm lenses are nice, yes, especially when focusing in very low light levels with older eyes, but the optical characteristics of the f/1.4 lenses and the f/1.7, f/1.8, and f/2 lenses overall tend to be better than the f/1.2, at least up until we stop down to about f/5.6 when things begin to even out among them. The main reason for using one of the later MC variants or even the MD is the developments in lens coatings that Minolta constantly improved. Also, Minolta did not wait until the end of a production year or a model change to adopt the improved lens surface coatings. If the engineers decided they had a better way to do it, they implemented that change in the coatings as quickly as they could get the equipment on the production line adapted to the new process. And, the use of a close fitting lens hood or lens shade will make even more of a difference in our photographs.

Am I drifting off topic?

 

[Mark Crabtree]

The 5.8cm is reported to be a very nice lens, but I don't think the choice of that FL was because it gave a more normal perspective. It seems more to have have been a compromise based on building a good performing lens that cleared the mirror. Most manufacturers (Nikon anyway) seem to have worked to reducing the focal length as soon as they could do it without compromising quality.

I'd love to try one sometime, though am tending toward shorter FL's lately myself. Oh, and it certainly seems to fit the thread topic of good pre-ai Nikkors; there is lots of love for this lens, and it doesn't get much more pre-ai than that (on an F).

 

[CGW]

Good morning, CGW;

Yes, sir. You are exactly right.

When we look at the history of the "double frame" 35mm film format of 24mm by 36mm for still cameras derived from the original 18mm by 24mm frame format on the film used for motion pictures, the 50mm "normal" lens focal length has been around for a long time from prior to World War II. The only sort of a "problem" is that it is slightly "wide angle." When the major camera makers started coming out with their larger diameter low light lenses for the professional photographer, there had to be a reason why they chose the odd focal length of 58mm. It was not just Nikon and Minolta; Topcon, Canon, and others, including the Russians with the Helios-44 for the Zenit, all had 58mm lenses. Yes, that reason is that 58mm provides the same true perspective through the lens as we see with our eyes. I still suggest that if we are interested in having a true "normal" lens on our 35mm still picture cameras, then it should be the 58mm focal length, and not the more common 50mm. Again, this is for exactly the reason you state of true perspective.

Also, I agree with you that the MINOLTA AUTO ROKKOR-PF 1:1.4 f=58mm and the later MC ROKKOR-PF 1:1.4 f=58mm lenses are very useful lenses on Minolta SR mount cameras. The MC ROKKOR-PG 1:1.2 f=58mm lenses are nice, yes, especially when focusing in very low light levels with older eyes, but the optical characteristics of the f/1.4 lenses and the f/1.7, f/1.8, and f/2 lenses overall tend to be better than the f/1.2, at least up until we stop down to about f/5.6 when things begin to even out among them. The main reason for using one of the later MC variants or even the MD is the developments in lens coatings that Minolta constantly improved. Also, Minolta did not wait until the end of a production year or a model change to adopt the improved lens surface coatings. If the engineers decided they had a better way to do it, they implemented that change in the coatings as quickly as they could get the equipment on the production line adapted to the new process. And, the use of a close fitting lens hood or lens shade will make even more of a difference in our photographs.

Am I drifting off topic?

No, you're not off-topic. Minolta made their own glass and arguably led the industry in R&D in coatings during the 60s and 70s. No complaints about the optical quality of old Rokkor and Rokkor-X lenses.

I like these somewhat oddball FLs, like the Nikon 45/2.8 Ai-P--a bit wider than a 50mm but not quite 35mm.

 

[Bob-D659]

Like this one, on a matching body.