Nikon FM2 and lenses?

I am slightly addicted to my 35mm camera. I was given a Canon AV-1 about a year ago and love everything about it. I searched around

and think I've decided on a Nikon FM2 as my next baby. I'm really wanting to have a fully manual camera, as the Av1 only allows me to

select aperture. The lenses I have for my Canon are a generic 50 mm 1:14 lens that came with the camera and a low end macro that I

really don't love. So my question is, what are a few basic lenses that would be a must have for you with a 35mm Nikon? Also, are Canon

and Nikon lens mounts for 35mm format compatible? I know that's probably a stupid question, but its important! And lastly, any opinions

on the FM2? Would you recommend a different 35mm Nikon? I'm definitely ruling out the FM10 and a fully manual mode is a must! Thank

so much!

<p>Canon FD and Nikon F mounts are essentially incompatible. You'll be starting over with lenses, unless you like the Tamron Adaptalls (I do). The 17mm and 24/2.5 Adaptalls are great choices for lenses that can be used among multiple systems.</p>

<p>The FM2 or FM2N are excellent alternatives to my favorite Canons, including the FTbn I used to own. A great choice among the manual-everything Nikons.</p>

<p>The Canon AE-1 might do you; they're plentiful and inexpensive on the used market, and it'll accept the 50m lens you already have. Nikon and Canon use different lens mounts, so there's no compatibility between the systems. The FM2 is a fine camera, but it's not substantially better or worse than the equivalent Canon product. As for lenses, there's nothing wrong with the generic 50mm you already have. Whether you need something wider or longer depends on what you shoot. Good luck.</p>

<p>Compatible? Only one way and not really. Any Nikon lenses you get can be fitted onto a Canon if you somehow find an adapter, but not Canon FD lens onto Nikon mount.</p>

<p>As for manual mode, I'm thinking that both the FM and FE models have manual modes, and the FA does as well, though the last two have electronic shutters and so need batteries to power them. If "fully manual" means without battery, stay away from the FE and FA models.</p>

<p>There's the F3 also, which is quite affordable. It needs a battery, though. </p>

<p>I'll let someone else direct you towards lenses, there are too many!</p>

 

<p>You don't need an F3; the FM2 is a great camera. Ideal, in fact, as long as you don't need/want any form of auto-exposure. <br>

These are the likely Nikkors you should consider, with my opinions, for what they're worth: <br>

20mm f/3.5 AIS Nikkor -- my favorite wide Nikon, Will run over $200 most of the time. Watch long and hard on eBay and elsewhere. <br>

24mm f/2.8 Ai/AIS Nikkor -- I'm not a fan of this lens; I've had three and found them kind of soft and flat (low contrast). Others love them. Go figure. Also over $200. <br>

28mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor. A legendary lens (so is the 28/2.0 but it's more $$ usually). Get ONLY the AIS version because the earlier Ai is not at all the same lens. AIS can be told by the highest aperture number (f/16 or f/22 most of the time) being orange both above and below the rim line. You can also check serial numbers here: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html <br>

35mm -- The 35mm f/1.4 is REALLY expensive and the 35mm f/2.0 is kind of expensive and frankly for about $50 you can get the Series E 35mm f/2.5 which has very good image quality, sharp and contrasty. <br>

50mm -- This should be your first lens. Here you have a ton of choices. <br>

50mm f/2.0 AI -- This lens dates to the introduction of the F. You'll need the Ai version however -- TAKE NOTE: YOU'LL NEED AI OR AIS VERSIONS OF ANY LENS YOU BUY (Series E lenses are all basically low-cost AIS) because pre-Ai or non-Ai from the "F era" WON'T MOUNT ON THE FM2. This lens is available often for $50 or less and in the opinion of many influding me it offers the best image quality of any Nikkor 50mm. A great lens. <br>

50mm f/1.8 Also great. Pricier than the f/2. You should seek out the "long nose" instead of the later "pancake" style. Will run close to or more than $100. <br>

50mm f/1.4 -- the flagship 50mm. Very good. Not as good as the f/2 however and will cost about $150 or more. <br>

50mm f/1.2 -- a beautiful lens. Unfortunately runs $400-500. <br>

Portrait length lens: This means, essentially, 85mm to 135mm. The 85's are pricey. The Series E 100mm f/2.8 is a great lens. Its cost is mounting to near $100. you can for almost as little get the Ai version of the 105/2.5 which might just be the most beautiful manual focus lens Nikon made. AIS version 9with built-in hood) now goes for close to $200. A 100mm or 105mm obviate the need for 135mm, in my opinion. </p>

<p>200mm f/4 Ai. Great lens, very cheap. </p>

<p>80-200mm zooms: f/4.5, f/4.0, f/2.8 ($$) -- they're all very good. </p>

<p>If you go for the FM2 then I suggest you look for the later FM2n. They are more recent so hopefuly have more miles in them. I had both the FM2n and FE2 before going digital. They are both excellent cameras. I had Nikkor AI primes 85mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 35mm f2, 28mm f2.8 and 20mm f3.5. Of these my favourites were the 85mm and the 20mm. AIS mount lenses also fit the FM2n and are newer than AI lenses. There are a lot of the AI and AIS lenses around and they are mostly very good. I would avoid zooms of this generation as in my experience they tend to be disappointing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>as the Av1 only allows me to select aperture</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The fully manual version would be the AT-1.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The FM2 or FM2N are excellent alternatives</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just to clarify: there is no Nikon FM2 version that has a FM2N label stamped on it - they are both labelled FM2. The FM2 has a flash sync speed of 1/200s and the FM2N one of 1/250s: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonfmseries/fm2/index.htm#beehive</p>

<p>I started out with an FM, then later added an FM2 and FM2N - all were mechanically robust cameras that never let me down. As to lens selection, Vince already gave you a good overview. I kept three:<br /> 20/4 Ai, 28/2.8Ai-S, 105/2.5 Ai. Should have kept the 200/4 Ai too. I also owned the Tamron 24/2.5 that Lex is referring to - purchased it because I couldn't find a Nikon 24/2.8 at the time (and I probably got the better lens for it). The fact that the focus ring turned in the other direction as Nikon lenses was something I could never adapt to though.<br /> I would add the Nikon Series E 75-150/3.5 zoom to the list. Excessive "zoom creep" is a problem most copies will have - the zoom ring will be very loose and not stay in position when the lens is tilted up or down.<br /> The 55/2.8 macro has a good reputation too - just watch out for oil on the aperture blades (causing them to stick). I owned one but never liked that particular focal length for macro.</p>

<p>The FM2 is a fine camera. You'll love it. Myself, I like the old Nikkormats like the FT2. Built like a tank (and nearly as heavy), and one of the sweetest sounding shutters on any camera. You can use Nikon lenses on your Canon camera w/ a cheap adapter by the way. Works great in stop down metering mode. I like Nikon glass, but don't love a lot of it. The 28 105 is a fun zoom that's nice and sharp, and the 85 1.8 and 1.4 lenses are good. My favorite is the Nikkor H (or HC) 50 2.0 lens. Sharp, good bokeh, small and light lens. To me, it has the best IQ of any Nikon lens I've ever used. I'm in the minority on the 105 2.5 lenses because I don't like their IQ at all. Oh it's sharp all right, but I've found many other lenses that take much better portraits w/o that gritty bokeh the 105 gives.</p>

<p>I've owned FMs and still have a black FM2n. Great cameras with one 'feature' I find annoying, the locking shutter release when the wind lever is in. In spite of this, I've enjoyed mine immensely, and they have proved reliable. As to lenses, any in the Nikon line-up could make you the most famous phtographer that ever lived if you do your part. Maybe start out with an AI 55mm (or later) macro and go from there. We don't know what you photograph or if you have any other lenses, so it's impossible to make sensible recommendations. </p>

<p>The FM, FM2, FM2n are all improved (lighter, higher shutter speeds) equivalents of the Nikkormat. I replaced my Nikkormat FTN with an FM2n.</p>

<p>When I bought the Nikkormat in 1970 it came with a little pamphlet from Nikon that was, effectively, a short course on photography. The pamphlet had a section "which lenses?" </p>

<p>Back then Nikon recommended roughly doubling or halving focal length when adding lenses. They recommended starting with a 50, then adding a 105 or 24, 200, 400, ... My Nikon kit is 24, 55, 105, 200, all Nikkors, 400 and 700. My one deviation from plan was a 35. After it was stolen I replaced it with a 35-70.</p>

<p>My 55, 105 and 200 are all manual focus MicroNikkors. I don't recommend the 200. If I had to replace it I'd get a 180/2.8 Nikkor even though the 180 is heavier.</p>

<p>I've never seen the point of 28 mm, 85, 135, or 300 mm lenses even though many people have them and are happy with them.</p>

<p>There are two schools of lens progression with primes. One is doubling (2X), the other the 1.7X. For example, 24mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200. Or 20mm, 35mm 50mm, 85mm, 135mm. Of course, many people mix and match. Neither school is "right" or "wrong". Personally, I lean towards the 1.7X school (and have the lenses), but now I carry mostly a short zoom and a fast prime. Use whatever works for you. </p>

<p>When using an FM2n on a regular base, my kit also included an MD12 winder, and lenses of 20, 24, 35, 75-150 length, unless there was a specific need for the 180/2.8. The size of the FM body and motor work well with AIS lenses.</p>

<p>Another approach would be to look for a Canon F-1 (either the original '71 model or the '76 F-1n is fully manual mechanical) and go with that. That being said, all of the FMs, from the original FM up through the somewhat expensive FM3A, are great cameras. The FM2/n is newer, but the FM is so well built that even an old one is likely to be fine. I have an old FM with a squished prism housing, that looks like crap but works perfectly - these things are troopers. Any mechanical camera you buy could probably use a CLA in any event, so even an old FM will work, as long as it hasn't been too brutalized.<br>

For lenses, a basic Nikon set for me would be 24/2.8, 50/1.8, 105/2.5, all AI or AIs. Such a kit will cover almost everything, unless, you have specific w/a, macro or tele needs.</p>

<p>Do you wear glasses? I have an FM2n and it's a terrific, compact shooter. However, the short eye relief point, makes seeing the entire frame at once difficult for my bespectacled eyes. That's why mine sits on a shelf and the F3HP is my choice for a Nikon MF shooter (although not considered a classic manual camera due to it's electronic shutter).<br /> Nikkor AIS 28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/2.5 would be a great outfit for general shooting.</p>

<p>Wow Lusi G.  I never thought about it ! OF cours4 there is no right or wrong, but that there is a reference point.. I never knew that! <br>

 </p>

<p>That's an interesting 'discovery', Luis G.<br>

I never, ever thought about it consciously, but when I've accumulated lens sets for a particular mount, I have invariably got your 20/35/85/135 choices.</p>

<p>I suspect that this is historically conditioned,<br>

as 35m tended to be about as wide as people could imagine, and when 28mm came out, those who had 35mm would wait until 20mm was available... or some such?</p>

<p>Another progression is 1.4 -- ie, roughly the square root of 2, which relates to apertures as well. So there you get 20 28 35 50 etc. I think.... I read this somewhere and can't look it up at the moment. </p>

<p>"I suspect that this is historically conditioned,"</p>

<p>Could be, JDMVW, but I do not know. I suspect that it may have to do with progression based on the Golden Ratio, which is about 1.62. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have had an F3HP and an FM2n.<br>

If you will only be shooting "available light" I recommend the F3HP. The construction quality is simply superb, even better than the very well regarded Pentax LX. The viewfinder is also the best I have ever seen in a 35mm camera, bright and with a delicious "snap" when things come into focus. Unfortunately the F3 has an abysmally slow flash sync speed and uses an oddball flash shoe. If you are interested in doing any "strobist" stuff, or even just using daylight fill flash, those are crippling limitations.<br>

The FM2n is a very handsome camera, lightweight but solid. It has a shutter with still-state-of-the-art flash sync speed of 1/250. It's comfortable and the controls are easy to manipulate. The meter display is easier to see than the F3 as well.<br>

But compared to the F3, the FM2n is flimsy-feeling. Honestly, I expected a mini-F3 but the FM2n is not that. It's plasticky, and the knobs and winder feel fragile compared to the F3. The FM2n may well be a better camera to shoot with, but the F3 is the better camera in my hands. I enjoy just lifting it and manipulating it; the unexceeded quality of construction has a pleasure all its own.<br>

With regard to lenses - the E-series is the bargain, and match perfectly with the FM2n. But if you succumb to the tactile charms of the F3, then it is best paired with the sturdier metal of the Ai lenses. One advantage with Nikon is that there are so many used lenses available, you can assemble a nice kit in fairly short order. Unless you want something really esoteric, you should be able to find reasonably priced lenses at any of the usual suspects (KEH, Adorama used and B&H used...)</p>

It's also highly apocryphal, Luis, and turning a blind eye to the fact that the most common set by far included a 28 mm, 50 mm and 135 mm lens (1.8x and 2.7x).<br>If there was a reasoning behind the progression of focal lengths along the lines you set out, it wasn't one that reflected actual choice/use.

<p>For less than the cost of a crappy plastic entry level DSLR, you can buy from the following lenses and be comforted that none better than Galen Rowell made his career using these lenses.<br>

Portrait: 105/f2.5 AIS<br>

Normal: 50/1.8 AIS<br>

Wide: Choices abound depending on what you are photographing:<br />20/3.5 AIS<br>

24/2.8 AIS<br>

28/2.8 AIS (regarded as Nikon's sharpest wide prime)<br>

35/2 AIS<br>

None of these should cost you more than $200 each for pristine examples. Buy from Adorama, B&H or KEH as they have good returns policies.<br>

Try to get an FM2"n". The shutter is a bit more robust. You can tell an "n" by the N at the beginning of the serial number on the back of the camera.</p>

<p>With three chosen from these you have beautifully made prime lenses and you can always sell them if you want to move up to AF. I would steer away from zooms if you want to learn properly.</p>

<p>Back in my newspaper days, all I had for a long time were an FM (essentially the same as an FM2), an F2 and four lenses -- 28 3.5, 50 2.0, 105 2.5 and 200 4.0, plush flash and filters etc. But that was enough for thousands of published newspaper photos over the years and got the job done. Not sure about the FM2 but you can definitely use non-AI lenses on a regular FM.</p>

<p>FM2 can't use non AI lenses. </p>

<p>I agree with the point made about the important differences in the metering experience between the FM series bodies and the F3, both in terms of the metering display visibility and ergonomics, but also the metering pattern, because the F3 is much more center-weighted. I always thought the F3 had the smoothest film advance and shutter of any manual focus Nikon I owned, but I never liked the metering system.</p>

<p>I think the best choice of lenses is something that everyone works out over time through experience, and through how they "see" photographically. When I started out I thought a 28mm, 50mm and 135mm were a versatile, affordable, and not to heavy combination, but zooms were of much lower quality back then.</p>

<p>"Back then Nikon recommended roughly doubling or halving focal length when adding lenses".<br>

Interesting Dan. That's exactly what I did. I shoot with a 20mm, a 40mm and an 85mm. All cover quite a bit in different photo situations. To this day I think that advice is still note-worthy.</p>