Which Nikon F lenses do you feel were "better" in Pre Ai form?

[GarageBoy]

Were there any Nikkors that were considered "better" than their AI successors?

The 85 1.8 and the 105 Sonnar (not better, but different) come to mind

Also heard that the 50 1.4 SC was "better" for B&W work, but I never read too much into that

 

[darkosaric]

Better maybe in build quality, but in optical quality they are not better or worse. 1.4 SC in B&W - this is more singe coat vs. multicoating thing.

 

[Sean Mac]

The 85 F1.8 is my normal lens on my FM2n. I have bought two so far.

I have the late multicoated versions and believe they were converted to Ai with a factory indexing ring. These are the style with the rubber focusing grip. 429181 and 439742 serials.

So I'm not sure there was ever a 85 F1.8 Ai.

I have seen the same style lens with a non Ai indexing ring on Japanese xbay.

Sadly I have no experience of the famous 105mm variations.

 

[cuthbert]

I have a "K" 85mm f1.8 and I like it a lot, I understand the Ai 85 mm f2 is much smaller but it's more "neutral", the 1.8 K has a swirly bokeh and some barrel distortion I like.

I also have a 50mm f1.4 S-C that was Ai'd and I consider it superior to my Ai f1.8 and f2, much better bokeh, more or less the same definition stepped down.

Both are also better built than Ais IMO, but the dowside is that they are both quite big...still they look great on bigger cameras like my F2s.

 

[cuthbert]

Better maybe in build quality, but in optical quality they are not better or worse. 1.4 SC in B&W - this is more singe coat vs. multicoating thing.

The S-C is multicoated. Also the K 85mm.

 

[Arvee]

Luv the 50/1.4S for B/W work; much preferred over the 1.4SC and the 1.4AIS. Wanna get my hands on another 50/2H which I regret selling many years ago. Had a 50/2HC but a bit too contrasty for my taste in B/W materials; ok for slide material.

 

[Sean Mac]

The 85 F2 is tiny. I bought one for a god daughter about fifteen years ago along with a FE2.

That example was fine but there is some variation in opinion about them.

I have no objection to "swirly bokeh"

 

[John_Nikon_F]

The compact 50/1.4 K, AI, and AIS lenses seem to have some ugly bokeh due to the not perfectly sized diaphragm opening. The S, SC, and early "Big" K 50/1.4 lenses have a normally shaped diaphragm. I tend to prefer the color rendition of the S version, surprisingly. The SC seems to be a little "milky" to me.

With respect to the 85/1.8, I haven't noticed barrel distortion with my copies. Current one is a K-type, numbered 429630. Factory AI ring.

The 20/3.5 UD I like more than the 20/4 or the 20/2.8 AIS. Front element is curvy, but, thanks to that, you've a nice darkening of the sky. At the same time, if you keep the lens level, there's less distorition than there is with the 20/4 K or AI lenses.

50/2 H lenses are dirt cheap still. Contrastiness, even the early type II H lenses (the ones that can be AI'd) seem to be very contrasty. The Type I lenses might be a little less so, tho.

-J

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The 85 F2 is tiny. I bought one for a god daughter about fifteen years ago along with a FE2.

That example was fine but there is some variation in opinion about them.

I have no objection to "swirly bokeh"

I love my 85f/2 for portraits and prefer its softness to the much newer 85f/1.8

 

[j-dogg]

I prefer the old 35 2.8 silver-nose, most all of the single-coat lenses are optimized for B&W work due to their transmission of blue light.

I'd like to get my hands on a 20 3.5 UD right about now, most of my Nikkors are AI'd single coats. The 105/2.5 silver nose is absolutely magnificent and probably the best portrait lens ever made.

 

[benjiboy]

The pre Ai 105 mm f2.5 if in good condition is a killer.

 

[horacekenneth]

I prefer the old 35 2.8 silver-nose, most all of the single-coat lenses are optimized for B&W work due to their transmission of blue light.

I'd like to get my hands on a 20 3.5 UD right about now, most of my Nikkors are AI'd single coats. The 105/2.5 silver nose is absolutely magnificent and probably the best portrait lens ever made.

I'm unfamiliar with the term "silver-nose", does that refer to a silver barrel or some other marking?

 

[cuthbert]

The compact 50/1.4 K, AI, and AIS lenses seem to have some ugly bokeh due to the not perfectly sized diaphragm opening. The S, SC, and early "Big" K 50/1.4 lenses have a normally shaped diaphragm. I tend to prefer the color rendition of the S version, surprisingly. The SC seems to be a little "milky" to me.

With respect to the 85/1.8, I haven't noticed barrel distortion with my copies. Current one is a K-type, numbered 429630. Factory AI ring.

The 20/3.5 UD I like more than the 20/4 or the 20/2.8 AIS. Front element is curvy, but, thanks to that, you've a nice darkening of the sky. At the same time, if you keep the lens level, there's less distorition than there is with the 20/4 K or AI lenses.

50/2 H lenses are dirt cheap still. Contrastiness, even the early type II H lenses (the ones that can be AI'd) seem to be very contrasty. The Type I lenses might be a little less so, tho.

-J

Here you can see the barrell distortion of my K85mm f1.8, I took this pic to see it, minimum focusing distance and wide open:

These are two samples of the swirly bokeh you can see:

As said before I like these "flawes", these are some shots with slides (Agfa Precisa) and I think a warming filter 2A:

The serial number of the lens is 416958, factory Aid, I assume it's a 1975 and I usually use it on my F2A or F2AS as it's too big for my FM.

I'm unfamiliar with the term "silver-nose", does that refer to a silver barrel or some other marking?

The first Pre-AI lenses like the Canon FD old followed the Zeiss trend and had a chrome ring (they also sold chrome filters):

From 73-74 both Canon and Nikon dropped this feature as Zeiss wasn't the big name in the biz anymore.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

All Nikkor lenses are fine.
But, I don't like the "AI'd" mutilation as it is shown above.

 

[Arvee]

All Nikkor lenses are fine.
But, I don't like the "AI'd" mutilation as it is shown above.

+1. I had my early 105 done; never again! All the rest of my pre-AI are being kept stock.

 

[flavio81]

The compact 50/1.4 K, AI, and AIS lenses seem to have some ugly bokeh due to the not perfectly sized diaphragm opening. The S, SC, and early "Big" K 50/1.4 lenses have a normally shaped diaphragm.

Bokeh has largely to do with the optical design and much less to do with diaphragm blades.

The AI 50/1.4 is a very different design to the previous lenses. And the pre-AI and K 50/1.4 lenses are at least two optical designs (there was a change in the optical design in 1967). I think there was about 3 different optical designs from the first 50/1.4 to the "K" version 50/1.4.

 

[flavio81]

All Nikkor lenses are fine.
But, I don't like the "AI'd" mutilation as it is shown above.

+1! Say NO to the mutilation!

Answering the thread, the 50/2.0 Nikkor-H (or Nikkor-H-C) was a more pleasing lens than the following 50/1.8 AI. I own both. The AI is harsher overall.

 

[Jerevan]

I love the 50/2 Nikkor-H and the 105 2.5.

I would love to get my hands on a Nikkor 28/2, and while I know it is not regarded highly, a 55/1.2 is on my list of future lenses.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...As said before I like these "flaws", these are some shots with slides (Agfa Precisa) and I think a warming filter 2A ...

Nice. I really like those photos.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

+1! Say NO to the mutilation!

Answering the thread, the 50/2.0 Nikkor-H (or Nikkor-H-C) was a more pleasing lens than the following 50/1.8 AI. I own both. The AI is harsher overall.

I suppose the Nikkor 50/2 be it H, H-C or K versions and the following AI 50/2 are all the same. I have the last incarnation of the 50/2 as an original AI version.
I don't have the 50/1.8 AI, but I have 2 of the AIS 50/1.8 versions: the long noose and the compact Japanese version.
I'm still to compare all of them, but I will be splitting hairs here.

 

[cuthbert]

Nice. I really like those photos.

Thanks Theo.

 

[flavio81]

I suppose the Nikkor 50/2 be it H, H-C or K versions and the following AI 50/2 are all the same. I have the last incarnation of the 50/2 as an original AI version.
I don't have the 50/1.8 AI, but I have 2 of the AIS 50/1.8 versions: the long noose and the compact Japanese version.
I'm still to compare all of them, but I will be splitting hairs here.

I like all lenses with "long noses" since that protects the front element without the use of an image-degrading UV filter which gets dirty every time. I had both versions of the AI 50/1.8 as well, and sold the compact version because of that.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Hi Flavio
You might be making a bit of a confusion: there is only one version of the AI 50/1.8.
These are all versions from Nikon as 50/1.8:
AI 50/1.8 long noose
AIS Series E 50/1.8 both early "ugly sister" and later "chrome ring" versions. Focus to 0.6m.
AIS Nikkor 50/1.8 long noose
AIS Nikkor 50/1.8 compact for Japanese domestic market only.
AIS Nikkor 50/1.8 compact for all markets, based on the Series E and with a rigid plastic focusing ring. Focus to 0.6m.

The AI 50/1.8 has also a longer focus throw ring. The "22" for the ADR is white. All AIS Nikkor lenses have the "22" coloured orange on both rows.

 

[dynachrome]

The 50/1.4 Nikkor S, SC and 1st 'K' seem sharper when closed down to f/8 or f/11 than the later 50/1.4 2nd 'k', AI and AIS even if the later lenses are slightly better at or near wide open. I don't find the 85/2 AI "soft." In technical terms the same lens will be slightly better when closed down a stop or two but using a ens this fast wide open at its closest focus setting and hand held will not always provide the best results. This is especially true if you are photographing a subject which isn't perfectly flat. The 28/3.5 AI is an excellent lens and better than any of the pre-AI 28/3.5s. The 35/2.8 'K' and 1st version AI have a six element design and are excellent lenses. These are better than the older S models or the newer 2nd version AI. The 50/2 AI and the first 50/1.8 AI are very similar in performance. The 50/2 still has a six blade aperture. I don't find the smaller 200/4 AI to be better than the 200/4 QC. The AI lens is shorter but the QC is not very heavy and balances well on most Nikon manual focus bodies. The barrels of the pre-AI lenses seem to hold up better while the AI and AIS are found more often with markings on the barrel worn off.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

I rarely shoot wide-open, so probably that's why I haven't noticed it that much. Don't mind the swirls either.

With respect to AI'd lenses, 90% of the ones I've owned have had the factory AI ring, not a milled aperture ring. That said, a lot of repair shops have pre-AI rings lying around, if someone wants to unmodify clean pre-AI lenses for collecting. In fact, I have a pre-AI ring for a 50/2 Nikkor-H/HC with serial between 785011 and 23xxxxx. If someone wants it to revert their lens, PM me. Ring still has its passed sticker on it, too.

-J