Why do some people prefer Nikon pre-AI glass to later Nikon glass?

[chip j]

Looking thru both kinds, I find the older glass is flatter and less colorful, so why would anyone prefer it?

 

[summicron1]

Cheaper, and works on the bodies I pick up.

 

[jimjm]

Yes, cheaper (sometimes), plus the older lenses sometimes have different optical formulas and image characteristics like the 105/2.5, which came in many versions. Sometimes the mechanics and feel of the older lenses is better.

And for a classic Nikon F, F2 or Nikkormat, nothing looks cooler than a pre-AI lens!

 

[CMoore]

Most any other member would know more than myself, but.....not sure it "matters" what you see when you look through them.
Probably more important what you see when the Negs are developed and the photo(s) printed.?

 

[chip j]

I've printed from both and the later glass looks more "alive".

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Better optical designs I believe were introduced as time went on. Generally, I think lenses from the 1990's are optically better than those of the 1960's. That may not apply to every lens. I also believe the manual focus lenses are more robust and far more reliable than any AF lens.

This is just my opinion - I've never cared to do a comparison. I also wonder if any significant difference would be seen in real photos rather than test charts.

So why prefer pre-AI lenses? Low cost is one reason - especially if optical quality is equal to AI or nearly so.

My approach is simple: I always mate the body with a lens from the same era. So, my F, F2's, and FT2 get pre-AI lenses. FM's and F3/T's get AIS, F4's get AF lenses.

 

[David Allen]

Older lenses have less coating on the glass that can result in lower contrast (from flare) than the newer formulations. On first glance, the characteristics of older lenses would seem to be inferior to more modern ones. However, as always in photography, the real question is not ‘what is technically better?’ but rather what suits the type of images that I wish to make. A good example of this is the particular qualities that James Ravillious (http://www.jamesravilious.com) sought from a lens to match the tonality he wanted for his images.

After years and years of working with almost no money documenting the life on Dartmoor, when James finally had the means to buy a new lens he bought a brand new Leitz Summicron. However, he was very unhappy with the result finding it too contrasty and lacking in shadow detail. He then approached my father to help him sort out a very pressing problem - he was not getting the tonality that he wanted with the new lens. The solution that my father found was very simple, what James sought tonally in his images was the results that could only be delivered by combining an 'older' approach to exposure and developing together with the particular qualities of the lenses made by Leitz in the late (era M3) 1950's. Moving backwards from this most modern of lens design to an older design of lens (and it's associated tonal and drawing qualities) solved all of James' problems.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Paul Howell]

When I was a working PJ in the 70s and 80s I started with non Ai lens, which I upgraded to AI, when 90% of my work was black and white no issues in terms of quality, in the mid 80s the wires moved to color, if I had remained in the game would have upgraded to AIS lens, later AF.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I don't Nikon, but a Canon shooter. But here's a video on Nikon Hikari glass. BTW, old Nikon lenses focus backwards

http://petapixel.com/2016/10/28/visit-factory-nikons-lens-elements-made-scratch/

 

[flavio81]

Looking thru both kinds, I find the older glass is flatter and less colorful, so why would anyone prefer it?

In general, pre-AI lenses are a bit better built than most AI lenses. Also, they mostly have different optical formulas which will give different "looks" than equivalent AI or AI-S lenses.

Also, the lenses that have the "rabbit ears" prong (pre-AI, most AI) will be compatible with many kinds of older Nikon cameras.

Older lenses have less coating on the glass that can result in lower contrast (from flare) than the newer formulations.

You are referring to single coating versus multi-coating. However there are multicoated pre-AI lenses; basically all the pre-AI lenses from around 1973 to 1976 are multicoated (labeled as "Nikkor-X-C" where X indicates the number of elements and C stands for 'multicoated').

Additionally, there are many single-coated Nikon lenses that have excellent resistance against flare, for example the Nikkor-H 28/3.5, the PC-Nikkor 35/3.5 (same design) and if i recall correctly my Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 as well.

Resistance against flare is not only a function of the coatings, but also of the inherent design of the lens.

 

[ac12]

I like some of the older lenses, especially when you WANT to get lens flare for artistic purpose.

The other is a certain feel to the lens. Some people like the older metal focusing ring, vs the later rubber covered focusing ring.

I switched to AI lenses, to be compatible with my later bodies and DSLR, which do not have the meter coupling prong.

 

[Pioneer]

Use what works. I have new glass and old glass and I can use them both in the same day.

As a rule I find that older lenses are better built and mechanically easier to use with manual focus cameras. Of course there are exceptions to that rule and I have a couple newer Voigtlander manual focus lenses for my Pentax K1000 that I absolutely love. The newer coatings and glass types make the viewfinder much brighter and easier to use.

On the flip side my Contaflex Tessar 50/2.8 lens creates some of the most beautiful color photographs on Velvia and Provia that I can remember taking with any camera or lens, and that lens is over 50 years old. No digital I have ever used has ever been able to create those same colors, new or old lens mounted.

It is all about what you want to create.

 

[RichardJack]

Hi,
I've been a Nikon shooter almost all my life and I don't prefer pre-AI glass. Each focal length has their "best" version. IMO with exception to the "Gold Ring" AF lenses AI & AIs lenses were probably the best constructed Nikkors, most have better lens coatings than the pre-AI versions. The pre-AI cannot be used on Nikon DSLR's unless they are AI modified or you own a Df.
This topic/discussion is nothing new and it's usually the same people who claim the F2 was Nikon's best body. Everything is subjective, I have some Minolta MC Rokkors and SMC Takumars that are better than my Nikkors, as well as other brands. It comes down to how we define "better". I do miss being able to use a 52mm filter for everything and I'm not fond of how large Nikon's new primes have gotten (price as well), but they get the job done very well.
Rick

 

[blockend]

It depends what you're looking for. I own some bitingly sharp high contrast modern lenses, and some vintage glass including pre-AI Nikkors. As a rule of thumb, I prefer high contrast lenses for colour and single coated or uncoated lenses for monochrome, although there are exceptions. All photography is an abstraction, but black and white photography is obviously so, and mono is sympathetic to optical quirks and low contrast images. It's not entirely subjective either, if I show non-photographers an image shot on period glass there's a very good chance they'll prefer it. Whether this is nostalgia, or something about the rendering evokes a certain mood is hard to say.

One thing is certain, the amount a lens costs to buy and the brand mystique that comes with it, has nothing to do with how people respond to a photograph taken with it in a blind test.

 

[Chan Tran]

I surely don't know. I prefer the look of the latter AI lenses better. I wouldn't know if optically which is better though.

 

[darkosaric]

From all ~50mm nikkors that I had (and I had a lot) - only non Ai micro nikkor 55mm/3.5 and nikkor-H 50mm/f2 stayed with me. If I must choose (luckily I don't) between summicron 50 and summar 50/f2 --> summicron would go away. Old summar wide open is sharp, but also very gentile:

Dead Link Removed

 

[BMbikerider]

Could it be that the earlier Nikon lenses and camera were made by the parent company before the Retained Accountants started to take an active interest and advised that the design and construction could be better, sorry cheaper, if they were outsourced to countries where labour was cheap. Yes I am cynical - Very!

 

[ciniframe]

If I can find a way to mount it I'll shoot it....at least a few exposures to see what happens. Everything from modern (I call anything from 1970 forward modern) to shooting single element close up lenses on 4X5 and of course, pinhole. I find I really prefer early pinhole made with a pin to modern laser punched pinhole.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Arvee]

Four reasons:
1) much better build quality
2) those early lenses (I use Oly f/1.4 silver nose, Nikkor f/1.4 Nikkor-S) are single coated, have higher l/mm resolution and lower contrast than their AI/AIS cousins which are higher in contrast and lower in resolution (my Nikkor-S has much better l/mm resolution than my F/2 Summicon-R, which has higher contrast)
3) these older, single coated lenses are absolutely superb for B/W work (much better shadow detail, much easier to print, they seem to have that 'glow' everyone appreciates (caused by a tiny bit more flare))
4) they're cheap cuz a lot of folks think they're old technology and the newcomers are much better-HA!

(single coated lens mystique is one of the best kept secrets in B/W film photography!)

 

[chip j]

Sounds good to me. I keep reading about modern lenses being too "clinical". I'll probaly add to my 4 lens pre-AI collection. I bought a pristine 200 f/4 just for the sheer beauty and build quality of it.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

This is a cellphone photo of a print from a photo I made earlier this year. Made with a Nikon F2 and pre-AI 300/4.5, handheld at 1/125, f/5.6:

Not great, but it was an awkward shot and the central section of the split-image prism was blacking out due to the angle.

 

[Arvee]

The late model pre AI lenses were multi coated, and still had the all-metal focus collars. Some of them at least, anyway. and they're cheaper than the AI's with the rubber grips. I wouldn't have a rubber one.

I have a Nikkor SC as well but much prefer the S for the qualities mentioned above.

 

[benveniste]

In the 21st century, there's no logical reason why anyone should, say, build a medieval castle using period techniques and materials. Fortunately, art transcends logic.

Laundry lists of technical theories be damned. People like using non-AI lenses for pretty much the same reason this APUG group still exists. Through the use of these older tools and techniques, a number of people get results, joy, and satisfaction that they don't feel the can get with the more modern stuff. While you or I may not feel the same way, the "tent" is large enough to accommodate all of us. It's your money, your gear, and your choice.

 

[TheTrailTog]

I've shot and printed with Nikkors ranging from pre-Ai's to Ai-s to AF lenses. In my experience, I would be surprised if the vast majority could tell the difference between a normal size print (say up to 11x14) shot with the oldest pre-Ai to one shot with the best Ai-S. I opt for the older lenses because I prefer the older bodies and, as part of me is a collector to a certain extent, I like to match the lenses to the period of the bodies. The fact that the older lenses are much cheaper is an added bonus. Besides, a great shot taken with a shitty lens will ALWAYS be better than a shitty shot taken with a great lens.

 

[blockend]

If people like later lens versions, they'll be really happy with digital era glass. The better stuff is highly corrected and has apochromatic elements, low dispersion glass, advanced coatings, and wide angles and zooms are optically superior in every way as befits a few decades of computer design. I sometimes use them on film camera bodies if those are the characteristics I require. Most of the time I prefer older designs with softer rendering and better handling characteristics, especially focusing.