Old Lenses, and why you use Nikkors

Which lens has less "glow" at f/2: the 50mm f/2 AI, or the 50mm f/1.4 AI(S)?

 

I found that, between the 1.4 AI and the 1.8 AI, the 1.4 had less glow at f/2. How about the f/2 lens?

My pre-AI 50mm f/2 has the best contrast at f/2 of all the 50mm Nikkors I own - AI-s f1.8, f/1.2 & f/1.4, AI f/1.4 and 55mm AI f/1.2.

 

Wide open the 55mm f/1.2 definitely has the most 'glow' (residual spherical aberration).

 

The AI/pre-AI 50mm f/2 isn't the lens you want for 'glow'. I also have a Zeiss Jena f/1.8 Pancolar that has exceptional central contrast and definition wide open. However it suffers from quite noticeable coma off-axis a short way.

My pre-AI 50mm f/2 has the best contrast at f/2 of all the 50mm Nikkors I own - AI-s f1.8, f/1.2 & f/1.4, AI f/1.4 and 55mm AI f/1.2.

 

Interesting. Anyone care to corroborate or to offer a contrasting opinion pun intended?

 

I do love the 50mm 1.4 AI-S. After acquiring it, I sold the 1.8 AI because my copy of the 1.4 was better at every aperture than my copy of the 1.8, and hardly any bigger or heavier. But I'm curious about the f/2 lens.

 

Have you also owned or tried the 50mm 1.8G? That one exhibits little spherical aberration wide open. It definitely has better micro-contrast than my two AI(S) 50's at maximum aperture. Is the f/2 comparable?

In it was a lens that I found mildly interesting-a Soligor 100mm f/2. Since I have one of the classic Nikkors-a 105 2.5-I thought I'd test them side by side.

 

I'm mystified that the Soligor f/2 and the Nikkor f/2.5, shot wide open, have such similar degrees of blur in the OOF backgrounds. If anything, the smaller-aperture Nikkor has slightly more OOF blur than the Soligor. Distance and object magnification are the same, focal length is nearly the same, and the aperture is 25% smaller with the Nikkor...yet it has the blurrier background. How can this be?

 

I'm also wondering how much of the haziness and lack of contrast of the Soligor is attributable to the considerable amount of hazing on one of the inner elements.

Edited March 15, 2018 by chulster

"Have you also owned or tried the 50mm 1.8G?"

 

- No, I think I have a big enough collection of 50mm lenses*. One I didn't mention is the f/1.8 AF, for when I need, er, AF. Its contrast characteristics are practically identical to the Ai-s version, but its edge resolution falls short. I suspect this is due to sloppier tolerances in the plastic versus metal body.

 

*Although if I find a Touit at under £100 I might find room for one more!

I haven't got any 1.8 lenses, but have compared the 50/2 to the 50/1.4D, and in the past to the old 50/1.4S. The S is out of the running wide open, just plain soft.*

 

On DX format, the D, at F2, is pretty decent. Sharp at the middle, fairly sharp at the upper corners, but mine, at least, goes softer on the lower corners. The 50/F2 is sharp all the way across even wide open. At smaller apertures the F2 is outstandingly sharp, but the D lens catches up pretty well on both sharpness and flatness, and it's so much easier to use in the real world that it's the one that gets used.

 

If it weren't so inconvenient to focus, the 50/2 would get used more, as it's so predictably good and free of vices, as well as being tough, compact, and inherently well shaded. It was a constant "go to" lens on film.

 

* My collection of true 50's consists only of a pair of 50/2 AI's a pair of 50/1.4S, and a 50/1.4D. As a standard of comparison, my last "touit" was a late pre-AI 55/3.5P for $30, which is crazily sharp, and for some reason easier to focus than the 50's. On a fairly careful tripod test this one beats everything, but the 50/2 is not that far behind.

I've not been following this too closely, but for someone who doesn't really like the 50mm focal length (neither portrait frendly/useful for wildlife nor immersively wide) I've somehow ended up with a 50mm E series (pancake), 50mm f/1.8 AF-D (same optics, -ish, AF, small), 50mm f/1.8 AF-S (much better bokeh and wide open, possibly worse on sharpness by f/4) and the 50mm Sigma Art. I've also got the Canon 50mm f/1.8. :-)

 

The AF-S is definitely different from the older ones, and much better behaved at wide apertures. I'm willing to give it a go at f/1.8, whereas the AF-D is pretty much a "hope you're planning to stop that down" lens. I'd be willing to look into older options if they're respectably sharp wide open but a more reasonable size - there's a 1001 nights article on the 50mm f/1.8 and how it was deliberately designed both to be f/1.8 and relatively small. My main dislike of the AF f/1.8 lenses is that they have deeply recessed front elements, which makes the lens long for no obvious optical reason (especially the AF-S, which comes with a hood) - and this is a focal length well suited to putting on the camera and carrying it in a coat pocket.

There is not really so much difference in "prime" (i.e., one focal length, not a zoom) lens design since before WWII. What has changed greatly is the quality of coatings and even glass.

It's out on the fringes (hi-speed, zooms, etc.) where better computer-assisted design, better materials, and all make some real differences.

 

But it's still hard to beat a classic Double-Gauss lens.

Er. JDM, that may be Nikon's experience with 50mm and 85mm lenses, but the Zeiss Otus series and Sigma Art series have been using retrofocal designs even for prime lenses.

 

For example, the 50mm AF-D f/1.8 is 6 elements in 5 groups, the same basic design as the AI lens and the E series lenses. The f/1.4 is 7 elements in 6 groups. All spherical, and basically a double gauss.

 

The AF-S versions are slightly modified. The f/1.4 is 8 elements, all spherical. The f/1.8 is 7 elements in 6 groups, with an aspheric. The 58mm is 9 elements in 6 groups with two aspherics.

 

In contrast, the Sigma 50mm Art is 13 elements in 8 groups, three "SLD" (ED) elements, including an aspheric. I've heard it said that it resembles a Biogon, I think, but I'm too hazy on optical design to be qualified to comment. (The Sigma 85mm is 14 elements in 12 groups, 2 SLDs and a rear aspheric - compare with the Nikkor AF-S, which is 12 elements in 9 groups, I believe with no interesting technologies.)

 

The Zeiss Otus 55mm is 12 elements in 10 groups, including aspherics and claims to be apochromatic(ish).

 

Prime technology has moved on, mostly led by Zeiss and Sigma. With the main exception of the 105mm f/1.4, Nikon are lagging a bit - the popular set of 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and (especially) 135mm lenses are all old technology for Nikon, and clearly show their limits compared with the Sigma equivalents (and possibly even Samyangs) - at least on sharpness; I appreciate that there are other aspects to rendering, and the 58mm Nikkor, for example, was designed with other features in mind. Of course, the extra complexity in the glass is why the Zeiss and Sigma lenses are comparatively enormous.

FWIW, back when I was a teenager and got my first Nikon F, I borrowed a 50 mm f/1.8 from a friend. Used it for a while and was very pleased with the results. Then I got my own 50 mm f/1.4, brand new- birthday or Christmas gift. It would have been 1971 or 72. I think it was the S with the chrome front ring. It was a thing of beauty, but alas it was slightly soft at all apertures compared to the f/1.8. Sadly, I eventually sold it. Any of the f/1.8 lenses seem to be great, and the later f/1.4 are also good.

I have a bucket full of Nikon "normal" lenses. Offhand, I have

 

45mm 2.8 GN(Non-AI, hack converted)

45mm 2.8 AI-P

50mm 1.4 pre-AI(4 examples of this-most came on Nikon Fs, and all chrome nose with fluted rings)

50mm 1.4 AI

50mm 1.4 AI-s

50mm 1.4 AF(early "thin ring" version)

50mm 1.8 AI-s

50mm 1.8 Series E

50mm 1.8 AFn(non-D, but with the larger rubber ring)

50mm f/2 AI(2 of these)

55mm f/1.2, non-AI but hack-converted

55mm 3.5 Micro Non-AI(rubber focus ring)

55mm 3.5 Micro AI

5.8cm Nikkor-S 1.4(the original Nikon 1.4-mine came with a ~1961 F)

 

I also owned and sold the 55mm 2.8 Micro. More on that in a minute.

 

Of these, the only ones I've not had on FF digital are the non-AI 50mm 1.4s(although I've shot most of my examples with film). Since most of mine are presumably original pairings with the cameras they came attached to, I don't want to hack any of them up. The one I can think of that I bought separately is a gem example that was bought to pair with an equally nice boxed Photomic T, and I hunted out one with a serial number close to what was shown on the box for the lens that originally shipped with the camera. One of these days, I'll pick up one that's already converted or else buy an off condition one and have it done.

 

I actually only recently picked up the f/2s, and haven't done a lot with them yet although I liked what I saw in a few quick snaps(I shot one of them the same day I took the photos in the OP of this thread).

 

As for the others:

 

1. The 5.8cm probably has the most uncorrected spherical abberation and the lowest contrast when wide open of any of the lenses on my list. That's not too surprising considering that I think it may have been the first-or at least one of the first-f/1.4 SLR lenses in production. It's actually quite dreamy wide open with nice "swirly" bokeh. I've posted photos before, but can do so again if someone would like to see them. It's also one of the handful of non-AI lenses that will fit an unmodified body, although obviously with no metering. I will add my standard caution that anyone doing this should do so at their own risk and attach the lens carefully-the aperture ring is made in such a way that it will "step" over the AI tab, but it's quite close and the tab will occasionally move a bit in use.

 

2. I consider the 55mm f/1.2 a special purpose lens, as it's significantly heavier than any of the f/1.4 lenses. Wide open, it does have more contrast than the 5.8cm, although still a lot of spherical abberation and its own unique bokeh signature.

 

3. I've used both the pre-AI and AI Micros on bellows, and I honestly can't see any difference in performance at macro ranges. They are both bitingly sharp-they honestly amazed me at just HOW good they were. I will add the caveat that I have very little experience with either of these lenses at closer to infinity. I mentioned that I sold my 55mm AI-S Micro-I've seen many comments that this is a better lens than the 3.5 when used at normal range, but that the 3.5 is better once you start passing the 1:2 range. My own experience echos that.

 

4. The 45mm AI-P is probably the highest contrast lens of the bunch. The basic formula(Tessar) dates to the days before coating, and it was popular because it could manage to perform well when uncoated. Taking the basic formula, tweaking it a bit with computer aided design, and throwing multi-coating on it gives a lens with a crazy amount of contrast. The problem is that it's still a 2.8 Tessar, and as a result it gives terrible corner performance wide open. I've found that it's diffraction limited before the corners really clean up nicely and the vignetting goes away. Still, it IS the smallest lens Nikon has ever made, and on an FM/FE series camera it will fit in a large pocket with ease. Put it on something like an FG or FM10 and it can just about disappear.

 

5. I consider the 45mm 2.8 GN more of a novelty than anything. It's not much bigger than the AI-P version and so shares much of the size advantage. The performance is similar, although it's a bit lower contrast than the AI-P. If one wants to play with type of lens, one big advantage is that it runs 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the AI-P version(which, IMO, was overpriced when new and has stayed that way in the used market-although people like me who just have to have one are fueling the resale value). Also, if you do manual flash it's about as slick of a design as you could hope for. If you're feeling nostalgic and want to shoot flashbulbs in your Nikon F, it's THE lens to use.

 

6. The Series E is a good lens, but I don't go as wild over it as do some. The 50mm 1.4 AI-S is about the same wide open and MUCH better at f/2. Still, for the typical $50-75 selling price, it's a nice lens to have. Of the three Nikon "pancakes", it is the largest-although not by much-and is overall the best performing and least expensive of the bunch.

 

7. I find the AF lenses about equal to their AI-S counterparts. That's not surprising when you consider that they effectively ARE AI-S lenses with CPUs and AF gearing added. In fact, even though not usually referred to as such, like all pre-G lenses they are 100% AI-S lenses and will behave as such on a mechanical body that can make use of the additional AI-S features.

 

I have not tested any of the newer "G" versions.

Way back then, we were more concerned about the lens speed than the quality.

The f/1.4 was the lens to get, the f/1.8 or f/2 was if you could not afford the f/1.4.

Gathering light by the bucketful......I remember those days when I dreamed about glass I couldn't afford.

I expect that is part of the reason being able to find good old stuff these days is enjoyable. It's been a long wait for things to come 'round as life's priorities and obligations change. The quality made it possible.

Mark: I've been dreaming about a 400mm f/2.8 for a pretty long time, and I still can't afford one. :-)

Mark: I've been dreaming about a 400mm f/2.8 for a pretty long time, and I still can't afford one. :)

 

Ha! Yeah, I long ago stopped dreaming about such things... never stopped not being able to afford them, and never will.

For 50mm lenses, as a not-entirely-contrasting-contrast-opinion.... I don't have as much, but sufficient, 50mm Nikkors; the 50mm f/2 I have in a pre-AI only, so it only gets used on a Nikkormat, which makes hard to compare to some of the others. But the 50mm f/2 sure impresses, and in fact I want to get the AI version of it to be able to use it on more cameras (film and digital).

I do like my f/1.8G a lot - it's a very nice performer, much better in pretty much every respect than the f/1.8D (which I do not particularly like). But for contrast and nicer colour rendition, my vote goes to my AiS 50mm f/1.2, which strangely enough didn't seem mentioned yet. Wide-open it has a solid amount of coma (as mentioned before, I can appreciate it though for pictorial results); stopped down a little, it's a terrific performer, in my view.

 

But when talking dream-lenses... I quite want the 58mm f/1.4G, even if it's very much a speciality lens. Or probably because of it :-) But it's hard to justify the cost, especially considering how nice my f/1.2 does its work.

Strangely enough.. that 58/1.4 is one that I also find rather appealing!

And I am someone that does use 50mm's in practice .. mainly 50/1.4 AFS G now (also have: 50/2.0 AI. 50/1.8 E, 50/1.8 AF, 55/3.5, 60/2.8 AF ...).

 

At the moment I've just re-discovered my 85/2.0 AIS.. Not the sharpest and not conveniently close-focusing (the 105/2.8 AIS is better on both points), not the best in terms of CA ...

But with very nice background unsharpness and really small (hardly larger than a 50/2.0!) and really smooth focusing.

Strangely enough.. that 58/1.4 is one that I also find rather appealing!

And I am someone that does use 50mm's in practice .. mainly 50/1.4 AFS G now (also have: 50/2.0 AI. 50/1.8 E, 50/1.8 AF, 55/3.5, 60/2.8 AF ...).

 

At the moment I've just re-discovered my 85/2.0 AIS.. Not the sharpest and not conveniently close-focusing (the 105/2.8 AIS is better on both points), not the best in terms of CA ...

 

But with very nice background unsharpness and really small (hardly larger than a 50/2.0!) and really smooth focusing.

 

I like mine very much.

I like mine very much.

Which one chulkim, the 58 or the 85 ? ;-)

I keep hearing how the 85mm f/2 isn't very sharp. Every time I use mine I'm wondering if I have the same lens as everyone else, because mine is just as sharp as the 'legendary' 105mm f/2.5; at like-for-like apertures.

 

However, if we're talking about lenses in that focal-length range, the equally legendary Tamron 90mm f/2.5 'macro' lens is hard to beat. It's bitingly sharp from wide open, and just keeps getting better down to f/5.6. Bokeh is pretty good too, thanks to the well-rounded 9(?) aperture blades.

 

For cheap'n'fast, Samyang's 85mm f/1.4 is hard to better wide open and at f/2. However, the strong LoCA and heavy focus-breathing (it's about 70mm EFL at minimum focus) stop it being a serious contender at anything other than wide apertures.

 

Incidentally, my Ai'd 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor S.C. appears to be a bit sharper and more contrasty wide open than my Ai-S version. The design was certainly changed, because the rear element on the pre-Ai lens is noticeably larger than the Ai-S.

Edited March 19, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

I too don't have an issue with my 85mm f/2. It's a beautiful little compact lens(I do often mistake it for a 50mm in my bag). I've never had an issue with sharpness, and I'd dare say that my example-an AI-s-has a bit more contrast than the fluted focus ring 105 I show here. Mine also has beautiful bokeh.

Which one chulkim, the 58 or the 85 ? ;-)

 

The 85mm AIS. I would love to steal someone's 58mm. :)

Once digital really hit its stride, I was able to fill in all sorts of blanks in my Nikon lens "must have" list for very little. Lots of bargains still out there if you shop.

Once digital really hit its stride, I was able to fill in all sorts of blanks in my Nikon lens "must have" list for very little. Lots of bargains still out there if you shop.

 

I believe "bargain" for the 58mm is defined as "less than $1200"... still too rich for my blood ;)

 

However, if I were a pro instead of a hobbyist, the equation would change, even if my income did not.

I keep hearing how the 85mm f/2 isn't very sharp. Every time I use mine I'm wondering if I have the same lens as everyone else, because mine is just as sharp as the 'legendary' 105mm f/2.5; at like-for-like apertures....

 

Same here. I've had several 85 f/2.0 lenses over the years (I kept going in and out of photography). They were all sharp, and they had none of the defects Bjorn Rorslett mentioned in his review: Medium Long Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount