Which AI-S 50mm for my FE2?

[BradS]

When did they stop manufacturing 50mm f/1.8 AI-S?

I do not know but, I bought one brand new in ca. 2003-2004.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

while we at it, how are the Zeiss and Voigtländer compared to the AI-S in terms of shaprness, contrast userbility etc?

Here is a blog post you might find helpful and interesting: https://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/...-a-set-of-superior-50mm-lenses-of-the-f-mount

I have the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI-S and a 50mm f/2 "K" lens converted to AI which I just bought. Only one roll so far but I really like its rendering. Seems to have a bit more "3D pop" than the newer f/1.4. To my eyes at least; maybe I'm imagining that. But for less than $100, you can't go wrong with the 50 f/2.

 

[madNbad]

When did they stop manufacturing 50mm f/1.8 AI-S? Both lenses I had were purchased on eBay, shared the brand-new appearance. One of them came in an original box which also didn't look faded/super-old. I'd wager a guess that my lens was made somewhere in the 90s, which should be considered a "baby age" by the MF lens standards!

I just checked the photosynthesis Nikkor serial number site and he shows manufacturing of the 50 1.8 Ai-S ending in 2005. That was the best I could find.

 

[film_man]

while we at it, how are the Zeiss and Voigtländer compared to the AI-S in terms of shaprness, contrast userbility etc?

The Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF/ZF2 Planar (not the 50/2 Macro) is a fantastic lens. I have used it both on Canon EOS and Nikon F mounts. From f/2.8 it is very sharp and has great contrast (but not too much contrast like for example the ZF 35/2 that can look almost harsh). Wide open it has a glow, still detailed but the glow makes it look softer. It is great for portraits in the f/1.4-2 range, with a bit of back/side lighting you can make glowing portraits with the subject standing out really well. I really do like it but I can see why some dislike it, it is 2 lenses in one basically. There are many reports about focus shift and whatnot, I have owned 3 of those lenses and I honestly never had a shot with missed focus that wasn't my fault, close-up or distant, in the whole f/1.4-4 range. My guess is that this is probably a pixel peeping issue for digital users.

The 40/2 is another great lens. It is a very sharp lens from wide open and has a good amount of contrast. The background blur can be a bit nervous but I actually do like it (then again I do like the Zeiss 50/1.4 and I also love my 50/1.5 ZM). There is vignetting wide open. Overall I would describe the look close to the Zeiss but without the idiosyncrasies of the Zeiss. The main advantage of the 40/2 is the tiny size, it is a very small and light lens, very well built and really smooth to operate.

I'd be happy to be stuck with either of those two lenses as my only lens if I had to.

 

[md_photo]

Its all subjective but another suggestion is the Nikkor 55 1.2 AI. Very good rendering, the out of focus areas have a unique and pleasing look to them.

 

[Huss]

while we at it, how are the Zeiss and Voigtländer compared to the AI-S in terms of shaprness, contrast userbility etc?

The Voigtlander is technically the best. It's a spectacular lens. The Zeiss is better than the Nikon wide open - but that is comparing 1.4 vs 1.2 Not sure what userbility (useability?) is - they all are great in use. And all feel much nicer to use than my AF-D Nikon lenses with their crappy aperture rings.
The Zeiss Macro 50 f2 is also fantastic - but has surprisingly poor flare resistance. Normally Zeiss coatings are A+. Even with using the hood.

I just shot a roll of Delta 3200 in my F3 Ltd with the Zeiss 50 1.4 and was surprised as to how much I like the results. All from the same roll of film. I didn't see the 'glow' that others speak of:

 

[Huss]

Even the lowly Nikon 50mm Series E is great. There are two versions - a super cheapy one in all black plastic, and a much nicer build one with a silver metal trim ring . That is the one I use.
I'd honestly just pick a lens and use it. You can't go wrong. (Get the Zeiss..)

N2000, 50mm series E. This was taken on a really smoky day due to the wildfires.

 

[Huss]

Here's a problem I have with this thread, and many others like it... Photography is a visual art. So why are people describing in words how a lens looks/performs? Back that up with photos. Isn't that what the lens is for?
Otherwise, well, it's just words.

 

[PhotoJim]

Here's a problem I have with this thread, and many others like it... Photography is a visual art. So why are people describing in words how a lens looks/performs? Back that up with photos. Isn't that what the lens is for?
Otherwise, well, it's just words.

I print and rarely scan, but if you want to drive or fly up once the pandemic is over...

 

[Huss]

I print and rarely scan, but if you want to drive or fly up once the pandemic is over...

Never been up there, sounds like a plan!

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 50/1.8 is remarkably sharp (except wide open) for a cheap lens. It's also quite compact; but the build quality is unimpressive. Now I just use the 55 micro instead. Both have wretched bokeh; but I prefer a longer focal length for that kind of application anyway.

 

[Andrew Patteson]

Back that up with photos. Isn't that what the lens is for?

1.8 AiS

 

[dourbalistar]

Back that up with photos. Isn't that what the lens is for? Otherwise, well, it's just words.

I'll play too. Since I seconded the recommendation for the Japanese domestic market 50/1.8 AI-S pancake, here is the second photo I took with the lens. Home developed and digitized:


2019.09.25 Roll #221-04048-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

And here's a color one developed and scanned by Richard Photo Lab:


2019.10.22 Roll #229-0013.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

I bought the lens almost exactly one year ago, and the image quality is hard to beat, especially considering I paid $115 for it. If those two samples aren't enough, there are a few more here in this album on my Flickr.

 

[Вormental_old]

I'll play too. Here's a full-sized scan, unsharpened, taken with 50mm f/1.8 AI-S somewhere between f/1.8 and f/2.8. And here's full-sized scan at f/1.8, also unsharpened (I focused on the screws next to "Honda" sign).

Both shots are Delta 400

 

[Odot]

I found this one which looks decent but the spots in the upper right corner of the Lens concern me a bit. What’s your take on this?

 

[Nitroplait]

What spots? The white dot that looks like dust on the lens?
You can ask the seller if they can blow it off or if it is inside, but ALL lenses will have dust in them (even brand new Leica lenses has it). And even if that spot is dust inside the lens, it will have NO effect on the pictures.
I think you are overthinking this. The perfect looking lens may be a complete lemon for other reasons and you won't know until you have tried it. If you don't like the results, pass it on and move on to the next lens.

 

[BradS]

Looks like a beautiful lens. If the price is right, grab it before someone else does.

 

[BrianShaw]

What’s the concern, specifically????

 

[Вormental_old]

@Odot looks like dust to me. @Nitroplait above is right, it's a fact of life with lenses and nothing to worry about

 

[dourbalistar]

Looks fine to me, too. My only observation was that it's the version that focuses down to 0.6m (serial number starts with 4XXXXXX), not the Japanese domestic market version that has closer focusing down to 0.45m (serial numbers start with 2XXXXXX).

 

[Вormental_old]

@dourbalistar you're right. But to clarify, the lenses are optically identical (I owned both and couldn't tell the difference) and the biggest benefit of the 2xxxx "japanese" version, in my opinion, is not the closer focusing distance, but a better damped rubber focus ring. It's slightly more pleasing to focus with the rubberized one, as the plastic version on the photo offers very little resistance.

 

[dourbalistar]

@dourbalistar you're right. But to clarify, the lenses are optically identical (I owned both and couldn't tell the difference) and the biggest benefit of the 2xxxx "japanese" version, in my opinion, is not the closer focusing distance, but a better damped rubber focus ring. It's slightly more pleasing to focus with the rubberized one, as the plastic version on the photo offers very little resistance.

@Bormental, yes I agree they're optically identical. I've not tried both versions, but I actually take advantage of the close focusing ability quite a bit. Helps me get shots like this without need for additional close-up lenses or extension tubes:


2020.04.15 Roll #242-04633-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr


Of course, if you add a close-up lens (in this case a Hoya +4) you can get to something like this:


2020.04.15 Roll #242-04622-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[dave olson]

I have both an FE2 and FM2n, I use my Nikon 50 1.2 and my Nikon 1.4. If cost is a problem the 1.8 is an outstanding value and is excellent. The important thing is not speed, but the condition of the lens.