Which one is the best 50 mm AI (or AIS)?

<blockquote>

<p>The 50mm F1.8 Ai and Ai-s long nose and the 50mm F18. AF-D are all the same optics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, the "long nose" 50/1.8 (AI and AIS) have different optics. The series-E, "pancake" AIS, AF and AF-D versions share the same optics.<br>

<br>

In my experience the optics of the "long nose" versions are better than the E/pancake/AF versions. Sharpness is about the same or better, and background rendition is good - it gets a little harsh towards the sides of the frame but is generally smoother than the other versions. Of the AI and AIS "long nose" 50/1.8, my preference is for the AI version due to the longer focus throw, and the aperture ring is wider and easier to grip.</p>

<p>AIs for sure. Although the 50mm f2 AI is a real sleeper, it's the old Nikkor-HC and better than the f1.8 AI & Ais versions.<br>

I agree with comments about the 50mm f1.2 AIs lens, it's one of the finest out there. Sharper than the older 55mm f1.2 Nikkor (though many feel the older is better if your into bokeh)<br>

The biggest advantage in going for a AIs over a AI is age and lens coatings. The 50mm f1.8 AFn happens to be one of the best 50mm's out there and less than $100. It has the drill points so a prong can be added if that matters.<br>

Rick</p>

<p>In general, it is easier to design a good lens with smaller maximum aperture. The lens elements are smaller, and don't tend to run into each other.</p>

<p>However, as the larger aperture lenses sell for more, manufacturers put more work into their design. </p>

<p>If all you do is sunny day photography, the big aperture lenses likely won't help. But you are interested in night photography. That seems to leave the choice between f/1.4 and f/1.2.</p>

<p>I presume you are looking for used lenses. Most AI and AI-S lenses sell for much less than their original price. (I bought an AI 80-200 for $10 not so long ago.) If you find the f/1.2 lens in your price range, buy it. It might hold value longer, and will help just a little in night photography. But the f/1.4 should be just fine.</p>

<p>(I bought my Nikon FM 38 years ago with the AI 35/2.0. I have had much fun with that lens over the years. The 35/1.4 was way out of my price range.)</p>

 

<p>After great many and informative answers I decided to buy f1.2 ...one day... if I will have money :) Until that time I think I will buy a f1.4 . But it seems that everybody has different opinion on AI vs AIS lenses.<br>

I want to have the superior one since my money is only enough for an old nikkor. So whoch one would you recommend? f1.4 AI or AIS? <br>

Thanks again for the answers</p>

"Is there really any point in spending a huge amount of money on a lens to use on 35mm film?"

 

Yes, there definitely is. There's a significant difference in sharpness and rendition of contrast between any of my Leica lenses and my f/2 Nikkor AIS lens I use with an F2 on black and white film.

 

Superior optics were favored by knowledgeable photographers before digital cameras existed.

Edited September 2, 2019 by ray .

Two years later, and a Leica fanboy joins the fray!

Superior optics were favored by knowledgeable photographers before digital cameras existed.

Knowledgeable, or just easily swayed by a high price and a reputation?

Two years later, and a Leica fanboy joins the fray!

 

Knowledgeable, or just easily swayed by a high price and a reputation?

 

Back in the 1970's, I was shooting with Leica R lenses. Let me say it here - the lenses I had were fantastic. The Leica R3 was pretty good too, for its time.

I'll put one of my 50mm f/2 Nikkors-whether the old chrome nose H.C. or a newish AI one-up against the 50mm Leitz on my Leica any day. I'd even put the Series E/AF/AF-D, which I really dislike in general, up against it. The Leitz is a whole lot smaller, but that's pretty much all I cna say about it.

 

Of course, this particular lens is probably worth about what a 50mm f/1.4 AI-s Nikkor is...

Gotta chime in in homage to the 50 f2. I got one as a Christmas present from my father, along with a Photomic Tn, in 1968. It has a beautiful, almost painterly look. It is the H series and I will never part with it. Years ago I was having it cleaned at KEH and they converted it to Ai for a few dollars. I will never part with it because of the images it produces and because of its focal length. Still using a lens over 50 years old. The f2 doesn't stop me using it on my d810. That's why God created higher ISOs.

"easily swayed"

"I'll put one of my… Nikkors… against…Leica any day."

 

I've had my F2 for 4 years and shot a total of 5 rolls with it. During that time I've shot 57 rolls with a Leica M with Leica lenses. I've been shooting for 40 years, continually refining the craft, but I guess I used Leica at a ratio of 57-5 because I'm easily swayed! LMAO.

 

Can the 35 f/2 Nikkor produce great looking images? Yes, if specific circumstances re light and subject are just right for it, but otherwise, it lacks the local contrast and sharpness the Leica produces.

 

I got the F2 because I wanted a classic Nikon that looks cool and from what I've read is more bullet proof than any Leica M body and maybe any other camera.

 

Now I suppose you're going to tell me Mamiya 330 optics are as good as Zeiss lenses on a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. 90% there and good enough for a beginner and much much better than no camera at all? Sure, I got no problem with that.

 

All in good fun, nothing personal guys...

Now I suppose you're going to tell me Mamiya 330 optics are as good as Zeiss lenses on a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad

 

I've never used a C330, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's splitting hairs to compare something like the 55mm Mamiya to a 50mm Distagon, or even an 80mm Mamiya to a Hasselblad Planar.

 

The reason for that is that the Hassy Planar has a very mild retrofocus design to clear the mirror, while the Distagon is very much a retrofocus design. Since a TLR lens can get a lot closer to the mirror, you can get away with a lot fewer optical "tricks." The Hassy Planar is sometimes considered inferior to 80mm f/2.8 Planar/Xenotar on the Rolleiflex for that reason.

 

It's a bit of a different story and not directly comparably, but the Mamiya 65mm K/L is-to my eye-a sharper lens than my 50mm "C" Distagon.

 

BTW, on a per-roll basis, I've shot more through my Hasselblad in the past year than I have any of my Nikons, although my film Nikons win on a per-shot basis. I've shot two rolls through my Leica in the past year.

This is all splitting hairs, and the rendition of the Zeiss lenses is certainly different from the Mamiya lenses I've used. It takes a REALLY close look to see this, though.

 

And there again, I'll still hold out that any 50mm Nikkor I have is better than the Leitz Elmar I have for my IIIc.

Elmar new or old isn't exactly the MVP of the Leica lineup. And admittedly, I have not tried all of the Nikkor offerings.

 

My main beef was with the idea that optics aren't worth paying for if you're shooting film. In some respects I think digital technology in the camera corrects and makes up for the shortcomings of mediocre optics.

Both in-camera processing and the ease of digital post-processing certainly help some lenses out - even relatively decent glass (like the 14-24) gets visibly improved by DxO, for example. But there's also more detail or at least local contrast, than you'd get under normal circumstances from film.

 

So on film it's harder to do anything about the output of a terrible lens (depending on the aberrations and your process) and you may see some oddities not exposed by a digital sensor and filter stack - but a "good" lens on film may still show visible problems when you pixel peep on digital, where it's much easier to do so.

 

Most (not all - e.g. vignetting, distortion, LoCA - two being easy to fix on digital and the third not) problems may be hidden at the same magnification as pixel peeping by film microcontrast and grain. The question is, just because technology has moved the bar so you CAN print a fairly sharp wall-sized print without a 10x8 camera, do you care enough to pay for the ability to do so?

Elmar new or old isn't exactly the MVP of the Leica lineup. And admittedly, I have not tried all of the Nikkor offerings.

 

I know the Elmar isn't an outstanding lens, but I mentioned it because it's the only 50mm Leitz I personally own, and you were comparing the Leica lenses you own to the Nikkors you own.

 

If we compare like for like, is the best 50mm Summicron better than the best 50mm f/2 Nikkor? Maybe, but both are outstanding lenses and I doubt most would be able to tell a difference in the amount of detail recorded on 100 speed slide film(pick your preferred one currently on the market-AFAIK all are about equal in terms of grain and resolving power) if each lens is used at its "sweet spot." I don't doubt that they would render differently and someone well versed in both lenses could see a difference, but which is "better" is definitely a matter of preference.

 

Going back to the Elmar-if we wanted to do a roughly like-for-like comparison, the best thing to look at is probably one of the 45mm Nikkors-either the old 45mm f/2.8 Nikkor-Q GN or the 45mm f/2.8 AI-P. These are both 4-element Tessar type lenses(IIRC, the Elmar is not strictly a Tessar-type design, but is still uses a 4/3 lens. The Nikkors and the Elmar are lousy in the corners wide open, and look pretty decent around f/8. Testing them under similar conditions, my Nikkors are in pretty much every conceivable way better. The AI-P is probably the highest contrast lens I've ever used. Of course, these lenses do have their shortcomings, and none of them are every day lenses for me.

I got the F2 because I wanted a classic Nikon that looks cool

That probably tells us all we need to know.

Can the 35 f/2 Nikkor produce great looking images?

A terrible lens that only gets away with being passable on film. Put it on a digital camera and the coma becomes glaringly obvious.

Its current f/1.8 replacement is superior in every way.

 

One advantage of the Nikon system, which has kept the same mount, is that film v digital comparisons are easily made, and using the same lenses.

Edited September 5, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

Nikkor-O 35mm F2, wide-open on the Nikon Df.

 

 

 

No flash on my camera, caught at the exact time the stobelight of the ride went off.

 

This lens was a favorite of wedding photographers "in the day", and continues to be one of my favorite Nikon lenses. I have the second formulation of the lens, single-coated. Factory Ai converted over 30 years ago, has not required a CLA since.

Nikon Df, Nikkor-0 35/2 wide-open, ISO 12,800, 1/30th second. Luray Caverns.

 

For Leica: I have the 35/1.2 Nokton Asph and 35/1.7 Ultron Asph. I had a Summaron 35/2.8 with "goggles". The Summaron compared with my Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5, kept the latter and sold the Summaron. Both are the same double-Gauss formula, the Nikkor has higher contrast. I also have the Nikkor 3.5cm F3.5, "MIOJ"- which is far better than I thought it would be. I had a later one, but it was no where near as good as the one from 1949.

As for the original question- the 50mm F1.2 Ais is hard to beat, stopped down it is better than the 50/F1.4.

For the price- the 50mm F2 Ai is exceptional.

Thanks to Brian for the 35/2 "O" examples!

 

My go-to lens for nearly my entire run with Nikon, until I finally switched to the amazing 35/1.4 AIS a couple years back (inspired by a lengthy p-net discussion thread about the 35mm Nikkors). The 35/2 MF is an old design, certainly not optimized for a D850 or Z7, but it isn't the total utter dog some make it out to be (and theres a lot of sample variation). If you're looking for Otus/Sigma Art performance, get an Otus/Sigma Art, if you want a decent small 35/2 manual lens, the old Nikkor has its charms when used appropriately. I had high hopes for the newer AFS 35/1.8, but didn't love it enough to buy, and ended up with the 35/1.4 AIS instead. The manual Nikkor 35s are unpredictable, esp the f/1.4: you never know what you'll get, but sometimes what you get is incredible. Not ideal for someone who needs totally predictable, reliable performance at all stops, of course.

 

Re the 50mm manual Nikkors, the only consistent version is the classic 50/2. I've never owned a bad one in H, HC, K or AI guise. Even the prehistoric "S" version (different formula) is beautiful: not as biting sharp, but nicer focus falloff and bokeh.

 

Most other 50mm Nikkors are subject to the "sample variation lottery". Many are excellent, but a good number are just "meh" either straight from the factory or due to age-related issues. This is particularly annoying with the 50/1.4 AI and AIS- they aren't exactly cheap, and you never know how any given one will perform for you until you shoot the heck out of it. I've been thru seven or eight over the past 20 years, and only two were consistently sharp at all apertures (including wide open). I kept those, the others were mediocre at f/1.4 and no better than the 50/2 at f/2.0.

 

The long-nose 50/1.8 AI/AIS are the best of the 1.8 lenses: like the 50/2, one rarely encounters a bad example. The pancake "E" is more flare prone and not quite as sharp (tho still very good). There's one oddball Japanese-market-only variant of the pancake that has a rep as Nikon's best overall 50mm ever, but they're scarce and I've never had the chance to try one. The 1.8 long-nose seems like it would be a nice compromise between the 1.4 and 2.0, but I've never particularly liked my two copies. They're technically sharp and all that, but pictures made with them seem oddly flat and dull compared to my 50/2 and 50/1.4 versions.

 

The older pre-AI 50/1.4 Nikkor-S and -SC (multicoated) are usually not as crisp as the later K/AI/AIS, but I have a nice black-nose SC and a couple very nice S. The silver-nose. single-coated S flares a lot, but lends an interesting "vintage" look appropriate for some subjects. Mine are remarkably sharp even at f/1.4 (in the context of old lenses), but you wouldn't want to pixel-peep them on a D850/Z7. Don't ask how many 50/1.4 "S" lenses I had to go thru before finding two excellent performers: it was lots. Fortunately most came in package deals with old Nikkormat film bodies anyway, so its not like I had to search too hard. Videographers like the "S" for its noticeable vintage rendering, but for stills work they usually stink at f/1.4 and (again) aren't any better at f/2.0 than the cheaper 50/2. Unless you have a specific interest in exploiting the aberrations at f/1.4, skip the pre-AI "S" and "SC" and go for the AI/AIS.

 

The pre-AI 55mm f/1.2 S and SC are similar to the pre-AI f/1.4, but better at f/1.4 and offering wild aberration/bokeh possibilities at f/1.2. Large, heavy, and very sensitive to impact damage: beware any example with a binding feel to the focus ring. The later updated 50mm f/1.2 AIS is an excellent tradeoff of size and weight vs speed and performance. Pricey, but if you want the best manual-focus Nikkor at f/1.4 this may be it.

 

There was an early pre-AI 58mm Nikkor-S which has quite a cult following. An interesting lens, primarily for its focus falloff effects, vignetting and swirly bokeh. But very overpriced in the current market for what it is: an old 1.4 Nikkor thats not really any better than the more common 50mm S (aside from some debatable pictorial possibilities), and difficult to modify for AI compatibility. The 58mm also suffers inordinately from separation in the rear element group: Nikon used a very volatile cement at the time, and it hasn't held up well after fifty years. I wouldn't advise overpaying for one of these oldies: if you want swirly bokeh, buy a Russian Helios instead.

Edited September 5, 2019 by orsetto

Thanks for all the lovely contributions above! always enjoy the typical 'which 50mm is best' thread. ..Also because I actually still use 50mm's..

 

BUT: this is usually the point where we have to add the 55 and 60mm micro's in the mix. For added fun and complexity of choice. o_O

BUT: this is usually the point where we have to add the 55 and 60mm micro's in the mix. For added fun and complexity of choice. o_O

 

No question there :)

 

55mm f/3.5 Auto Micro-Nikkor-P w/compensating aperture :)

Allowing 55mm you definitely have to consider the Otus. Or possibly a used car.

I have the 55/3.5 P, a late pre-AI version, without compensating aperture, which is delightfully sharp, and for reasons I can't explain, not that hard to focus manually in DX, even though the nearly-as-sharp 50/F2 is a bear to focus.

The pancake "E" is more flare prone and not quite as sharp (tho still very good). There's one oddball Japanese-market-only variant of the pancake that has a rep as Nikon's best overall 50mm ever, but they're scarce and I've never had the chance to try one.

All the pancake 50/1.8 lenses have the same optical design - Series-E; Japanese variant; and the late plastic AI-S version.

 

The series-E was introduced in 1979 as a standard lens for the Nikon EM camera. This lens is very compact. The coatings are simpler than AI lenses from the same period, and it uses some plastic in its construction. In 1981 it was upgraded with a chrome grab ring and slightly bigger, more solid barrel.

 

The AI-S Japanese variant closely resembles the chrome-ring Series-E version and was probably introduced in 1980. It has an all-metal barrel, is fully multicoated, and focuses to 0.45m compared to 0.6m for the other models. This version is relatively common in Japan and it easy to find on ebay.

 

In 1985 the later AI-S version replaced both the Series-E version, and the long-nose AI-S 50/1.8. It is fully multicoated but the build uses even more plastic than the Series-E versions.

 

The Japanese is easily the best of the pancake versions, but overall I would say the long-nose 50/1.8 is better - it has a different optical design and larger barrel which makes for better handling.

 

You can read more about the development of the pancake lenses here: Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights No.60

No question there :)

 

55mm f/3.5 Auto Micro-Nikkor-P w/compensating aperture :)

You can tell of the lens has the compensating aperture- it does not have the "-P" suffix on the name ring. Same optical formula.

I ended up with one of each, a Nikon Ftn given to me with the compensating version of the lens.