Who wants Nikkor Ai's?

<p>I don't know if I'll sell them anytime soon. They're so pretty, and hold in your hand like a Rolex. But they ain't as sharp. The 24mm f/2.8 AIS can't beat my kit 18-55mm. Same for all the rest, except maybe that 105mm f/2.5 P, crazy thing.<br>

So who want's them? I heard once that cine guys have an appreciation for the "look". If that's true I'll put them up for sale with that cavet. I don't want to sell these to anyone hoping they're sharp, and as far as I can tell, that's what people look for. Bourgeois as that may be, Henri. </p>

<p>Whatever you do, do not sell the 105 f/2.5. Keep it in a golden chest.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>I think a lot of people would be skeptical of the idea that a kit 18-55mm, fine though it may be for the money, is better than <em>most</em> old AI manual focus lenses, even the 24mm. I'd suspect the problem could be on the near side of the camera rather than on the lens side.</p>

<p>Of course, some old (read, "early"), zoom lenses weren't too hot. Some of them have even qualified for the Hypnoken's "worst ever" list; but that's an altogether different story than old primes, most of which are fairly close to their auto-focus descendants in design and overall sharpness, acuity, and the like.</p>

<p>If you're asking for advice on value, whether to sell ? ? ?</p>

<p>You'd have to list what the lenses are. Not all AI lenses are the same and they cover the time range from 1977-1986 or so.</p>

<p>I have a couple of AI lenses which continue to do a yeoman's job when stopped down a little. Anyway, they seem to sell very well on that big auction site, particularly if their condition is good. Also a lot of micro 4/3 people are using them with adapters on those bodies.</p>

<p>Nobody wants those dino lenses. I mean all the newly designed zooms are modern and fresh. Maybe some crusty old movie guys but sharpness isn't important to them. Let's face it. Sharpness is everything, right? I run an old Nikkor AI lens disposal service. Just send me that junk and I'll take care of them for you.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Everybody wants to slam the 18-55 (except the hated Rockwell) Well I can assure you I've done everything I can do to dismiss it, but even at f/5.6 it beats just about everything I have. And no to all lenses look the same by f/8 or f/11. Sorry Ansel. Love Ya. I don't see that. <br>

I am a careful and frequent tester, and the 24 AIS and 28 AIS both fail the test, lower center and corners. The 18-55 resolves better at f/5.6 than the Ai's at f/8. Albeit the corners of the 18-55 get better at f/8.<br>

I wish it weren't true as I hate the way the 18-55 feels in hand. Yuck, yuck, yuck. Still you can't argue with results, time and time again. I even put my two AF-D's 35 f/1.8 and 50 f 1.8 against it and they just managed to squeak by as being any "better". <br>

As for my AIS lenses, 24/28/35 f/1.4 and f/2.8 ( I'll keep the macros ) 85 f/1.8 135 f/2.8, 200 f/4, all these lenses are not as sharp as cheap moderns, like 55-200. Sorry. <br>

The query has been posted to hear from those that have an idea or reason why someone should desire them, which is why I mentioned the only party that I know of, cine digital or film, that have a sense for the "look". I think my original post makes clear that I simply want to avoid sticking anyone with these if they want sharp glass. I'm not selling here, just brainstorming the crowd.</p>

<p>I <em>did</em> buy a slew of fast Ais Nikkors <em>specifically</em> for filmmaking applications a while back. They're good for filmmaking due to their oil-dampened focus rings (where focus is pulled manually). But now, I'm planning on shooting my Ais lenses on my modern full-frame bodies (for stills) for their "character." I even bought an old pre-Ai Nikkor 43-85mm zoom (according to Ken Rockwell, Nikon's <em>worst</em> lens ever), <em>because</em> of its "flaws." I think it's an aesthetic that's coming back into vogue, similar to the recent popularity of Lomography.</p>

manual focus Nikon camera users.... there are afs now for wides the 1.8s but they won't work on my Nikon fm. times I like to shoot film and do it without a autofocus space shuttle.

<p>I have a 28/2.8 AIS lens that produces good results for me. And the dreaded 18-55 kit lens does pretty well for me on a D300S. Just depends on what you are looking for, I guess. We could all spend the bux on a Leica S2 and companion lens...<br>

Paul</p>

<p>I'm still skeptical. And I am not 'slamming" the 18-55, which is a very fine lens, for the money, especially.</p>

<p>But if you are consistently getting such bad results with the manual focus lenses, there's got to be some other factor than your conclusion that they are not "sharp", though that might be true for how you are <em>using</em> them. Not everybody nowadays is practiced in <a href="http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/02/24/photography-tutorial-how-to-use-manual-focus/">manual focus</a>.</p>

<p>Like Louis, I'll gladly pay for shipping for you to ditch them.</p>

<p>If you do decide to sell them let me know. I agree that little 18-55 is pretty good and an excellent value. I simply have a preference for the older MF glass and use that most of the time. I have a couple of good AF zooms but am very pleased with the mf 80-200/4, 300 and a monster 85-250 as well as 28,50 and 85 lenses. They get used on whatever digital or film body I'm using at the time. If you decide to let go of the lenses you mentioned, especially the 85 and 135 I'll happily take them off your hands.<br>

Rick H.</p>

<p>Kenneth said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>As for my AIS lenses, 24/28/35 f/1.4 and f/2.8 ( I'll keep the macros ) 85 f/1.8 135 f/2.8, 200 f/4 . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only Ais lenses I own are the 20mm f/2.8 Ais, 35mm f/1.4 Ais, 50mm f/1.2 Ais, 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor Ais, and 105mm f/1.8 Ais. So, I would "want" <em>all</em> of them, except the 35mm f/1.4!</p>

<p>It's like with fork and knife. They can be made of plastic or metal. You can eat your lunch with both, no difference. Plastic may be even better - disposable, no cleaning required. I like to eat with a metal fork, and photograph with AI/AIS lenses.</p>

<p>The 24/2.8 AI is definitely an old school wide. Soft in the corners with lots of vignetting. But it's a subtle beauty with a painter's touch. Even though I have the 24-70 and 14-24, I still want the 24/2.8 AI back again after selling it. Same with the 28/2 AI. I have the 28/1.8G, but still reach for the 28/2.</p>

<p>The compact 200/4, the Nikkor P, never did anything for me but be compact. But the 180/2.8 ED-IF (AI, as well as AF, AF-D) is a bit of magic. Avoid the non-ED versions altogether.</p>

<p>The 75-150/3.5 Series E is the cult lens extraordinaire. I love the way it paints.</p>

<p>Of the dozen+ Nikkors I own, 3 are AF and the rest are Ai or Ais. One of the reasons I bought a D600 was so I could use the manual focus beauties to their full (frame) potential. The 24 2.8 was so-so on my D200, but brought back to FX it is sooo much happier. My next wide angle purchase is going to be a 35 1.4 Ais.</p>

<p>Now this is getting interesting.<br>

First off, I'm not ditching anything. Stand back you rabid dogs. I just wanted to hear, and now have, that people like to "paint" with lenses, and I understand, although not my thing really. <br>

As for Mr. W's comment, how to manual focus... using them... ??? In a test it's head to head, same subject, details left, center and right. Thats what I did just the other day with the 24mm AIS to see if it could stand up, and Nooooooo. I prefer the clear stuff.<br>

But thank you responders. I will maybe someday sell these because I believe they should be used and not adorn a cabinet, and I'm glad to know people can enjoy them. </p>

<p>You still don't tell us the conditions of your "tests".<br /> e.g., all on tripod?, all used with manual focus? Show us some examples so we can see what you're talking about.</p>

<p>We need to know what you are doing, because your results are so much at odds with everyone else, that I know, experience. I shot almost only with Nikkor lenses from 1971-2004 and never had to apologize for any lack of "sharpness".<br /> Is there fungus or some kind of oil film in your lenses? <em>We</em> don't have to "paint" with our old Nikkors at all.</p>

<p>And it's Mr. <strong>v</strong>W to you, Mr. mith. ;)</p>

<p>Oh yes, vW. Pardon. I am actually a myth, however.<br>

But I must excuse myself from your request. I'm not getting into the test end of this. I shot them they way I shoot. For me, all alone, they are beautifully not sharp. I also shot them from 75-present. Didn't even get a digital camera until March 2013. So while the Kodachromes may look right, these AI's used on a digital camera ( maybe I should have stated that part, yes, OK OK,) used on a digital, it's no go. I'm not doing chromes anymore. Perhaps they shine with film. I don't know if the optical laws bend around that corner.</p>

<p>You said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am a careful and frequent tester, and the 24 AIS and 28 AIS both fail the test, lower center and corners.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>now we hear</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not getting into the test end of this. I shot them they way I shoot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not doubting that you aren't getting sharp pictures with the old lenses, but I am very much doubting that it is the fault of the lenses, especially almost all of them, unless there is some environmental reason for the poor condition of the lenses.</p>

<p>I refer to "paint" as having to do with the different response at different spatial frequencies. The classic Nikkor wides have a rounded character, a kind of glow. The newer lenses are more clinical. But this is not to be confused with sharpness. Even at f/5.6 and some distance away, you can see where the narrow range of focus is...and isn't. And to be sure, I see 1-pixel wide details where the focus /is/. The 24/28 lenses are also very hard to focus! I learned this especially on the D800. </p>

<p>Expect some field curvature with these guys, so I don't think they will perform well on an Imatest or brick wall experiment. There's no question that you need to use a tripod and live view before you have an idea of just how precise you have to be, even with a wide angle lens, to achieve critical focus.</p>

<p>One thing I just realized. You are using these lenses on DX cameras? (You mention the 18-55.) Oh my. You should see these lenses on an FX camera. That's what they were made for. I don't know that they have the extra resolution required to give on an 24mp APS-c camera. But on an FX camera, they look wonderful.</p>

<p>The AI lenses are in excellent shape. I have tested them, as carefully head to head as I can. Only the 55 Micro and the 105 (maybe) exceeds my modest moderns.<br>

I thought maybe the film/digital might be an overlooked point, but maybe not, sans the "painiting thing"<br>

If you have a reason for disbelieving that these results are possible and that my testing is lacking in rigor I'm all ears.... eyes, to know more. I would love to use these superior lenses, if it wasn't for the fact that my cheap moderns make sharper pictures.</p>

 

<p>Wow, Thanks Luke. They look great on FX !!! First time I'd heard that. I thought on DX I would be getting the center, and they should have been outstanding. All the way out to a full frame and they're better. Go figure. But if what you say is true, heck, I'll keep'um.</p>

<p>Oh and excuse my bleariness, when I said I'm not getting into the test end of this, I meant on this forum, in this discussion. I didn't want it to digress into lens testing particulars, but now I'm glad it did. Me learning. Tarzan keep stinkin Ai's.</p>

<p>These lenses are like gold on a full-frame sensor, as stated. There's a reason that filmmaker's, such as those on the recent S.E.A.L. action pic "Act of Valor", who utilized Canon MkII bodies for many scenes, also utilize some of the very lenses you own. Rest assured, they would not be adapting these Nikkor lenses to Canon bodies if their sharpness was sub-standard. Since a long smooth focusing pull is required for accurate manual focusing on motion picture cameras, the Ais lenses work very well. I've been in the motion picture industry for 30 years and deep into photography for 40 years, and those AIs Nikkors deliver the goods, as well have captured thousands of the most memorable images National Geographic and a million other publications ever produced. Check the camera bags now of all these pro photographers and see how many carry the 18-55 3.5-5.6 AF DX kit lens. Your kit lens is optimized for DX camera sensors, and yes it's sharp, but not because it's inherently sharper than other lenses. I've owned them all and the Ais Nikkors are sharp as hell and produce a richer glow about them that your kit lens does not. If you want to see these babies in action, I suggest you buy a full-frame camera or plop down $200 for a used F100, throw in a roll of Kodak Porta 160 or a roll of chromes, and prepare to eat crow.</p>

<p> </p>

Kenneth, I agree that the 18-55 Nikon lens is better than most people give it credit for, but I own or have owned the

24/2.8, 28/2.8 and 105/2.5 AIS versions, used them on my D800 and they're really, really good lenses.

 

If you're having a bad experience with them, have you tried to identify the cause? An older lens can get haze on the

inside that hurts sharpness and contrast. Also, the cameras that come with 18-55 lenses are the ones that have a very

"slack" focus confirm dot. You'll think you're in focus but shooting out of focus photos. The only way to get good focus with

one of those cameras and manual focus lenses is in live view with magnification. While using a tripod.