Nikkor-H/HC/S or AI

<p>I just got a Nikon F3HP and is looking for a primary lens. I'm not a big fan of carrying a lot of lenses, so I want to start with 50mm for now, and narrowed down my search to the following options: Nikkor-H/HC/Ai 50/2 or Nikkor-S/SC/Ai 50/1.4. I feel that I don't really need 1.4 all the time, so probably 2.0 is more suitable for my needs since I love to shoot wide open. <br>

Is there any difference optically between 50/2 Pre-AI and AI? Based on pure specs it's the same lens (I understand coating is different though between H and HC/AI) - but for some reason the constant great feedback I can find is about Nikkor-H/HC ("Nikon summicron", "special character", etc) - not AI. Or maybe the rendering difference is only because of single coating on H? </p>

<p>HC = multi-coated. I believe the non-Ai on the F3 will only meter in stop down mode, if that is a consideration. Ai and above meter normally.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

<p>Jim, thank you! I'm aware of the coating difference and mounting. I wonder if there any rendering differences between non-AI and AI versions. There is some mystery going on when people are talking about Nikkor-H 50/2 - so I want to reveal it. If all that just a matter of contrast/flare because of single coating, but everything else is the same - that's all I need to know </p>

<p>The S was a different internal design from the H. <br>

Looking at specs it appears the H and AI are essentially the same, 6 elements in 4 groups, and according to the official Nikon history the optical design was not changed from the H, though there's some variation in the outer package. But the K (last pre-AI) and AI focus closer than the earlier ones.</p>

<p>http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html</p>

<p>http://www.nikkor.com/story/0002/</p>

<p>All I know from actual experience is that the AI version is superb, but I may lack the subtle savvy that detects the magic in the earlier ones. </p>

<p>Last year I bought a nearly pristine F3/T and then went looking for lenses. My goal was to create a compact but very flexible system with excellent lenses that are vintage to the camera. After several months of research, I came up with Nikon AiS: 28mm f2, 50mm f1.2, 105mm f2.5. These are all classic lenses, highly rated, relatively small, and all take the same 52mm filters (I only shoot b&w.) I wanted a 24mm but just didn't see any of that vintage that were rated as outstanding. The lenses I ended up with have given me a very capable system that is easy to carry. I wouldn't change a thing.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Thank you, Matthew and Kent! <br>

I started my research from 50/1.2 - then realised it's probably too expensive for the task, then focused on 50/1.4 Ai - then found a lot of good feedbacks on Nikkor-S 50/1.4 and finally found a lot of comments that 50/2 H is probably the best 50 Nikon ever made, etc. So here I am :) <br>

I mostly shoot b&w (I've been using a MF set-up with just 2 lenses for the last 10 years) - and heard that both 50/2 H/HC and 50/1.4 S are good lenses for the money. On the other side Ai/AiS are slightly more convenient since I don't need to AId them </p>

<p>The Nikkor 50 f.2 HC or AI is a very fine lens, when stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6 even better. The 50 f1.4 lenses are bigger, heavier and more expensive. If you really NEED f/1.4, then a great choice but the f/2 works most of the time. Plenty of 50 f/2's were AI modified to work on your camera check online or the last Nikon 50 f/2 AI if you can find one.<br>

Chris </p>

<p>I need to get around to posting the results of my sharpness tests. I put the Nikon 50s through their paces at f/4.0 while bolted to a 055XProb and Nikon FA on my back porch (under the eaves to reduce possible incident light). The results were pretty astounding. The 2.0 AI kicked all the others (1.8 AI (2), 1.8 AIS (2), 1.4 AIS, 1.4 AF) to the curb. Just looking at the results at 800%, my eyeballs see at least twice as much sharpness as the next best candidate. It was not close. </p>

<p>All the others were pretty close, except the 1.4 AF which was by far the worst of the bunch. The other 1.8s and the 1.4 AIS were all quite close to one another, with slight improvements one over the other. </p>

<p>But that 2.0 is now my go-to lens. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks! I don't really think I need a super sharp lens - I'm more focused on the background and OOF rendering from wide open to 2.8 or so. 4.0 is probably the max I ever close the aperture. But your findings indeed are very interesting! <br>

All, if you forget about the price and the size of the lens - what would you choose to shoot in the range of 2.0-4.0? </p>

<p>If it comes to OoF, out of the Nikon 50mm, it's the f/1.2 that does that nicest. It's quite smooth, while most 50s simply aren't. What I've seen from the 50 f/2 makes it a good second best for this, though. So if the funds are a bit tight for a f/1.2 (and it's not a cheap lens indeed, though I got reasonably lucky with mine), I'd opt for the 50mm f/2.</p>

<p>I only have two 50 mm. Nikkor lenses, the old 50/1.4 pre-AI and the 50/2 AI. Of those two, I would definitely choose the 50/2. Not only is it sharper, but although I am not a great connoisseur of bokeh I think that the 50/2 is a little nicer. I did a quick and dirty shot of the two of them both set at F2, the F2 on the left and the 1.4 on the right, and I think the distant horizon is nicer on the left.</p>

<p>e.t.a. by the way, I second the advantage that the F2 has a recessed front element. It functions well without a hood, which is not the case with the 1.4. I loved that old 1.4 when I got it in 1970, but it is mostly a body cap these days. </p><div></div>

<p>If you want an non-AI lens to work with your meter, send it off to John White at <a href="http://www.aiconversions.com/">http://www.aiconversions.com/</a> and have it converted. It does not cost that much; Mr. White does an outstanding job.</p>

<p>Thank you all, I appreciate your comments, this is very valuable information for me!</p>

<p>I have never used John White's service, but his compatibility chart is very useful. Note that if you ever want to mount a lens on one of the older AF cameras that do not have AI followers, you need the "Type B" conversion that includes clearance for the minimum aperture tab. If you want a "fits absolutely anything" conversion, that is important. </p>

<p>For out of focus rendering, it is hard to beat the 1.2 lenses as mentioned or another not mentioned yet, the old 58mm 1.4. I had John White convert a user grade 58mm recently, and now really enjoy that lens.</p>

<p>At one time, I would have picked the 50/2 over a 50/1.4, but I am not so sure any more. I do like my AI converted 50/1.4 SC quite a bit, and my early AI 1.4. But, the 50/2 lenses are good, also. </p>

<p>I am not a big fan of the 50/1.8 lenses, I think they have the worst OOF rendition of all of the Nikon 50's.</p>

<p> </p>

Matthew: fascinating. I was getting cooler colors with my 2.0, and your comparison proves it.

<p>Thank you again! I'm now waiting to get my 50/2.0 AI (on the way) and start shooting :) </p>

<p>I have the 50 mm f/2 H with a factory AI conversion installed. I also have a 55 f/1.2 with a hack job of a conversion and I have a 58 mm f/1.4 that John White converted for me.<br>

For sharpness wide open the f/2 is the best of the bunch. But for the way it draws an image I find the 58 to be the most pleasing with the 55 just having a look all it's own.</p>