Cult and Legend lenses?

<blockquote>

<p>The Kiron 75-150 f/4 is reputedly the same optical design as the Nikon, just a bit slower. I've never been able to confirm the rumor that Kiron actually made these for Nikon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They are most certainly NOT the same optical design (the Kiron and the Vivitar 70-150/3.8 might be), but the optical formula for the Kiron and the Nikon are not identical (given that the Nikon is a bit longer, this should not come as a surprise). Regarding the production and/or design of the Nikon by Kino Precision, I can only find information by the same person but no independent confirmation. </p>

<p>tokina 70-150 gives me better color using film compared to my Nikon 75-150...</p>

<p>Ah, I had the 75-150/4 mixed up with the 75-150/3.8.</p>

<p>105/2.5 non-ai<br>

180/2.8 ED (manual focus)</p>

<p>Cult lens for me: Nikkor 18mm/f2.8D-AF.<img src="http://www.dlaab.com/photo/18mm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Also, the 28-70mm/f3.5-4.5D-AF (asph) zoom from the N90s era.<br>

<img src="http://www.dlaab.com/photo/Df/Df_28_70.JPG" alt="" /></p>

<p>There is a clear distinction, IMHO, between a cult lens and a classic one. I have the 105 f/2.5, and while I do think it qualifies a legendary, I would not put it into cult status. My son has the 50 E Series, and it truly is a sweet little lens. </p>

<p>mm Wheter you say cult or legend, all ok to me....<br>

For me one of the most "remarkable" lenses in my vision is my 100mm F/2.8 "E" lens..<br>

Such a small lens ( around the size of a 50mm , just a little longer in size) and still a fast and very sharp little lens with a smooth bokeh... </p>

<p>JDM von Weinberg - I should have got back earlier about your post + link, but my partner just got elected mayor for our district (the same size as Jamaica) so I've been a little distracted - what struck me most, in terms of this topic, was the amount of CA in both lenses, which of course can be instantly fixed in Lightroom.</p>

<p>Thanks Dan for the porn, Df with old lenses - most engaging.</p>

<p>Which Nikkor or Nikon lenses qualify for legend or cult status depends on what era you have in mind, what kind of photography you have in mind, and who you talk to.<br>

<br />In the early 1950s, the Nikkor 85mm f/2 in Leica thread mount (LTM) for rangefinder cameras was arguably the lens which made Nikon's international reputation as an optical manufacturer. Discovered by David Douglas Duncan, who used it to shoot combat photos for Life Magazine during the Korean War, it quickly earned a reputation for high optical quality. With a screw to bayonet adapter, it was also usable on Leica M rangefinder cameras when those came out. More than 60 years later, it's still a good lens, a little heavy (it's all brass and glass, no plastic anywhere), but eminently usable with LTM and M-mount rangefinder cameras. A few years later, Nikon also came out with a 105mm f/2.5 rangefinder lens which earned a good reputation for image quality.<br>

<br />After Nikon came out with the Nikon F SLR, some of the pre-Ai Nikkor SLR lenses issued between the late 1950s and early 1970s developed reputations strong enough to qualify for cult status. Among them:</p>

<ul>

<li>6mm f/2.8 fisheye, a lens with a huge -- make that <em><strong>HUGE</strong></em> -- front element which dwarfed the camera, with an extraordinarily wide field of view, unusual perspective, great depth of field, and great sharpness, rather clumsy and inconvenient to use due to its size, weight, the vulnerability of that huge front element to accidental damage, and a propensity for pulling unintended and distracting details into the edges of the image if the photographer wasn't careful, and also unusually expensive, thus rare even though it took incredible pictures -- as an indication of its reputation, rarity, and cult status as a collector's item, one of these lenses was reportedly sold to a collector in 2012 for $160,000</li>

<li>24mm f/2.8, the first lens with a close-focusing compensation system -- now commonplace, as this design worked well enough to influence the design of many other lenses, but a big deal when it first came out </li>

<li>28mm f/3.5, used by many 1960s photojournalists during the Vietnam War because it was rugged, small, light, sharp, flare-resistant, and provided sufficient depth of field for shooting even when circumstances did not allow enough time or safety for precise focusing; a classic combat photographer's lens</li>

<li>58mm f/1.4, which preceded the 50mm f/1.4 in the SLR line (there had been a previous 50mm f/1.4 in the rangefinder line), thought by some to yield images with an indefinable image quality of plasticity or 3-D dimensionality; a lens with a reputation (in some circles, at least) for "magic" image quality</li>

<li>35mm f/1.4, known for being gauzy and dreamy at full aperture due to chromatic aberration, but becoming outstandingly sharp when stopped down just a couple of stops to f/2.8 or f/4; used by many 1970s photojournalists as their normal lens due to its speed, sharpness and depth of field; the original pre-Ai version used a radioactive Thorium glass element which tended to yellow with time, but could reportedly be restored to neutral transparency by leaving it in direct sunlight for a few days</li>

<li>85mm f/1.8, the lens used by the fashion photographer played by David Hemmings in Michelangelo Antonioni's 1966 movie Blow-Up, an excellent fashion and portrait lens with a reputation burnished by the movie</li>

<li>105mm f/2.5, the mainstay of fashion and portrait photographers during the 1960s and into the 1970s; the pre-Ai version had essentially the same optical design as Nikon's previous 105mm f/2.5 rangefinder lens, which in turn was apparently derived from an earlier Zeiss Sonnar design for Contax cameras</li>

</ul>

<p>After Nikon shifted first to the Ai and then to the Ai-S lenses in the 1970s, revised versions of some of those lenses, and some new ones, developed cult reputations. Among them:</p>

<ul>

<li>35mm f/1.4, with much the same optical design but without the Thorium glass</li>

<li>58mm f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor (a different lens than the ordinary 55mm f/1.2), Nikon's first lens with a hand-ground aspherical element, designed to deliver flare-free image quality at maximum aperture, and sometimes used for special purposes such as astrophotography; relatively rare these days, and thus expensive, typically going for more than $3,000 if you can find one -- a lens with enough of a cult status to have its own website, http://www.noct-nikkor.com</li>

<li>85mm f/1.4 Ai-S, a lens with a tremendous reputation for portrait photography due to its high image quality, shallow depth of field, and bokeh at or near maximum aperture, useful for presenting an in-focus subject against a blurred, out of focus background, giving an enhanced impression of dimensionality</li>

<li>105mm f/2.5, with a revised Gauss optical formula rather than the previous version's Sonnar design, and with significantly improved coatings; offered better performance at the close ranges typically used in portraiture, and better flare resistance, while retaining excellent image quality at mid to long range; a classic portrait lens</li>

<li>180mm f/2.8 ED, which used extra-low dispersion (ED) glass to reduce chromatic aberration and provide improved sharpness and contrast, often used by pro photographers at rock concerts, and by nature photographers at dawn and dusk, due to its combination of range, speed and image quality</li>

</ul>

<p>Once Nikon moved to autofocus, lenses developing exceptional reputations have included:</p>

<ul>

<li>24mm f/1.4G ED, a big, fast, relatively heavy (21.9 ounces), expensive (list $2,199.95) wide-angle lens with a reputation for very high image quality, especially given the large maximum aperture</li>

<li>24-70mm f/2.8G ED lens, a big, relatively heavy (31.7 ounces), fairly expensive (current list $1,889.95) lens used by many pros due to its relatively large maximum aperture and high image quality</li>

<li>AFS-DX 35mm f/1.8G, a small, light, affordable (list $199.95), fast, sharp, normal lens for DX cameras, fast enough for available light shooting, with a reputation for much higher optical quality than one might expect at the price -- not rare, expensive, or known only to a select few, so perhaps not a cult lens from that perspective, and a normal lens with roughly the same field of view as a 50mm lens in 35mm film or FX format, but an excellent lens with an unusually strong reputation for a DX lens just the same</li>

<li>85mm f/1.4G, a big, fast, relatively heavy (21.0 ounces), fairly expensive (list $1,699.95), nano-coated lens with a reputation for even higher image quality than its Ai-S and D predecessors; a high-speed, shallow depth of field, high quality lens for portraiture and available-light shooting</li>

<li>105mm f/2 DC, a reformulated 105mm lens with a large maximum aperture and the ability to shift internal elements in order to give the photographer some degree of control over the bokeh of out of focus backgrounds; a big, heavy, sturdy lens with exceptional image quality</li>

<li>200mm f/2 VR and the later VR II, a very big (8 inches long, 4.9 inches diameter), very heavy (102.4 ounces!), and very expensive (current list $5,999.95) lens with multiple ED and Super ED elements, the VR II version also with nano coating, offering sports photographers a telephoto with large maximum aperture to allow action-stopping shutter speeds, shallow depth of field to isolate athletes and other subjects against an out of focus background, high image quality, and the advantages of autofocus and vibration reduction; a business investment for pros, but too big, heavy and expensive for most amateurs </li>

</ul>

<p>These Nikon lenses tend to get mentioned when the phrase "cult lens" comes up. As with many things, "your mileage may vary" in terms of whether these lenses have achieved, or deserve, cult status.</p>

<p>Thank you very much indeed Peter, perfect example of this forum, a finely detailed in-depth piece that is bound to be very helpful for many people studying this topic. Thanks again, good on you, Clive</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A most expert, interesting and detailed list of great ("classic", "cult", "historic", etc...) lenses from Peter Shawhan, but with deep respect, I don't think Clive M-W's original question has been answered: which of these lenses, once leaders in their field but now perhaps obscured by the mists of time, have been, or are capable of being, restored to greatness by modern software? And the second part: which modern lenses do we sniffily disregard as being "cheap" or "kit", when, with the assistance of Lightroom or Photoshop or similar, turn out to be well worth the money?<br>

A fascinating discussion nonetheless, and I remain humbled by the depth of this forum's collective knowledge. Thanks to all.</p>

<p>Does 'my' 400/3.5 count?<br />And the 55mm 'micro's' ?<br /><br />And what about the AFS 18-70/3.5-4.5 as 'classic' ?</p>

<p>Chris thanks - You are probably right re: Peter's post in terms of my original question but by my way of thinking a lot can often be learned by loosening the boundaries around any topic, it is very interesting how passionate and misty eyed people can get when the older primes get discussed.</p>

<p>Albin - Thanks, the reason why I started this thread was that I'm relatively new to Nikon, coming from Leica M and Olympus, to a D800, so FX is my main interest, so I'd be really interested to know if you think the lenses you've listed are really good, and why and maybe give us a few links to back up your reasoning</p>

<p>............or other forum members could chime in with stuff like <em>the 55 micro is great/ is awful/would better if</em> type comments.</p>

I have experience with the 400/3.5 and 55/3.5. . (And once a 28/3.5

too! ..a nice combo)

 

Admittedly, I would recommend them as 'classic' for the simple fact

that they are very useable without hesitation (= they are good!) on

modern FX camera's. But. . Are they 'above useable' .. as in

posessing magical proporties .. giving them a deserved 'cult' or

'legendary' status? Mwah.. Not by today's standards I feel. The 400

is very compact considering what it is though.

 

The 18-70 I mentioned is for DX. And most users see to agree that it

is really good. Although there are frequent reports of mechanical

failure after long-term use, and the range is limited, as well as it's

largest apertures..

 

I have to conclude that I do not posess 'magical' lenses.. :'(

<p>Thanks Albin, After your post I went looking at these lenses and was mightily impressed by the 55/3.5 from what I saw on Flickriver, here's a Photonet link discussing it.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/007S5z.</p>

<p>And here's one for the 400 also looks great.. that's if you've got a use for it</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XHF7</p>

<p>I took this pic at a friend's daughter's wedding on the weekend with my 24-85 G VR (hand held no VR) - it got me thinking, in relation to this thread...............are there any FX super zooms that with a bit of Lightroom lens correction and tweaking that could become contenders for a one lens really does just about everything?</p>

<p><img src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10698642_857717210927662_9037464503861670422_n.jpg?oh=6eab7cdaa44ca8b2b5378895d6f1177b&oe=55124027&__gda__=1427956987_6759a77c307dfc71fa2bfaafd531ef15" alt="" width="850" height="567" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>are there any FX super zooms that with a bit of Lightroom lens correction and tweaking that could become contenders for a one lens really does just about everything?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Belatedly... Not for a D800, no. The 28-300 isn't terrible, and if you don't mind being a little less "super" the 24-120 f/4 is good enough for many, but the pro f/2.8 zooms (and the 70-200 f/4) with reduced range seem to have the edge on quality, and on the D800 you'll see the difference. On my D700, the little 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G was plenty good enough if treated gently and postprocessed, but the D800 really makes it look bad. Perhaps when Zeiss have finished with the Otus primes...<br>

I've not seen an optical test of <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/10/about-that-35-300mm-f2-8-you-wanted#more-20509">this</a> yet. I'm not hopeful, but you never know...</p>

<p>Thanks Andrew - I appreciate your most amusing link I can just imagine a wedding photographer using something like a still version of that monster Fujinon 25-300mm T3.5 (after doing some serious body building at the gym).<br>

<br>

In truth I think Nikon "accidentally" made the 24-85 G VR a little too good, if you get my drift, a sort of repeat performance of "E" ? lenses. Just a pity that they didn't think of a super zoom lens for the 600D and again make it better than what they expecting to sell it for.</p>

<p>Nikon Micro-nikkorAF 200mm f/4 ED<br /> Nikkor-P and all others 105mm f/2.5<br /> Nikkor 85mm f/1,4 AI-S<br /> Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S soft at f1.2 but sharp after thet 1.4-2.<br /> Nikkor 20mm f/4 AI<br /> Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED<br /> Nikkor 28-50 & 50-134mm f/3.5 AI-S excellet two lens set up.<br /> I like the 18mm f/4 AI too.</p>

<p>Nice list Bela, thanks, you've just reminded me that I'd better bookmark this thread before it disappears off the bottom of the forum page.</p>

<p>Correction; I misprinted the Nikon 50-135mm f/3.5 AI-S one of my all the time favorite.<br>

I didn't mentioned previously, but, the 200mm f/4 all of them, from the Q Q.C. to the AI-S, excellent sharp and contrasty lenses, which I have all the variation of them. Sharp, sharp, sharp.</p>