Have there been any improvements in prime lenses lately?

Twenty years ago, my standard kit consisted of two Nikon bodies and

four lenses; a 20/3.5 (or 24/2.8), 35PC, 50/1.4, and 105 Macro. Each

one was incredibly sharp wide open except the 50mm. Then I got

seduced by zoom lenses, and finally by the Autofocus magic of another

brand. I'm about ready to return to my old system, with a new F3HP

and four lenses. I wonder if there has been any significant

improvement in prime lenses, or has all the R&D gone into autofocus

and zooms? (Also, having a single size filter system is important to

me.)

Probably most of the designs have stayed the same, but they've benefited from improved coating and computer-matched elements.

The primes haven't changed much. They do benefit from higher precision moulded elements and more APO elements than past sometimes. Coatings have also advanced. Overall though the optical quality of many has changed very little. Many of the primes available for automatic systems, like EOS or the newer Nikon AF primes have these newer elements. There are still some that don't seem to have changed much (nor have they needed it) like 50mm 1.8 lenses.

A good buddy of mine was also seduced by the new AF stuff and went out and bought a ton of lenses (all Nikkor) some zooms but mostly prime. Just out of interest sake we decided to A-B them to my old Nikkor primes (late 70's vintage). To his horror my old lens stomped all over his fancy new ones. The differences were so marked he took the entire system back to the shop he bought them from and demanded a refund! Being the good customer that he is (way to much money to burn)they took back his new stuff and he bought a full compliment of used older Nikkors.

 

This is to compliment his Leica M7 system and his Contax G2 system etc. Like I said he has lots of dough to burn on camera stuff.

 

I also find the "color" of the older lens much nicer than the new ones. Kind of like using Zeiss glass.

 

So as far as I'm concerned any "improvements" they have made in the most recent years were at the detriment of the image.

 

Just my 2c worth.

 

Eric

The current 20mm f2.8 is a big improvement over the old 3.5; the 24

has received slight redesign and better coatings but the effects are

subtle; dunno about the 35 pc or the 105 macro -the regular 105 has

been much improved (from great to greater!)in it's latest AIS version,

maybe the macro has too. But the 50 1.4 is still soft wide open and

shows marked barrel distorton whereas the 1.8 shows none. Nikon has

dropped the manual version of the 1.4 from its current line.

 

Why are you getting an F3HP instead of an F4? With the MD4 attached

to the F3 the weights are almost the same and you are passing on much

better metering and flash synch, to say nothing of a brighter finder,

focus confirmation, quiet advance etc etc.......

To avoid confusion: my comments above refer to the last generation

manual, AIS lenses, not the AFs, though I have both, and my experience

of the latter is the opposite of Eric's buddy. I have found the AFs

optically just as good as the AIS versions and a few, like the AF

180mm f2.8 EDIF, are quite a bit better........

The multicoating on my 1973 50mm F1.4 SC looks the same as the one on my friends newer 50mm F1.4 manual lens that is only a few years old...The wide open performance of my new Summicron 50mm F2 slightly better than my Nikkor when at F2......The wide open sharpness of the 50mm F1.4 @1.4 varied alot thru out the many test reports published over the last several decades..Maybe the optical alignment between same to same varied............In practical usage my shots @F1.4 with my Nikon F, F2, and Nikkormat has varied alot; when used in low light. My hit ratio with a rangefinder has been better in low light....My 50mm F1.4 tested quite good wide open with my lens test done at 1:50 and 1951 test targets....@F1.4 center; 34 edge line pairs/mm panatomic-X with timed lights.....practical non tripod non lab conditions usually have yielded mixed results.........<BR><BR>For copy work; the F1.8 or F2 50mm is great; with far less barrel distortion..<BR><BR>I bought 1980's MF 50mm F1.8 used from KEH a decade ago; it is far less sharp than my F1.4 ; when used in the F1.8,F2, F2.8, F4 fstops.....It doesnt appear to have been dropped; It must be one that has some miss centered elements....Most reviews are very good on the F1.8 lens...I got the lens for copy work; and use it stopped down.<br><br>I believe the MF lens quality has peaked a good while ago.....The 180mm F2.8 ED AIS of mine is great; the IF unit seams to get equal or better reviews...<BR><BR>

My 50mm F1.4 tested quite good wide open with my lens test done at 1:50 and 1951 test targets....@F1.4 <b>61 </b>center; 34 edge line pairs/mm panatomic-X with timed lights..

Bill--

 

I think much innovation has gone into zooms and the AF mechanicals (such as quieter motors, Nikon's Image Stabilization technology), and relatively little into making better primes. The optical designs of many current Nikkors, including AF lenses, is similar to those of the older MF lenses. Perhaps the prime lens designs of the 1970s cannot be economically improved. So, if you're interested in primes, you can probably get the same performance, and more robust construction, by buying clean second-hand MF lenses.

 

FWIW, Canon has been more innovative in lens design lately, with 24mm, 45mm, and 90mm PC lenses, super-fast AF lenses (24mm f1.4, 50mm f1, 85mm f1.2) and vibration-reduction zooms that got to market before Nikon's. You might consider using their lenses with your cameras "of another brand" (I'm guessing that you own Canon) in MF mode.

I haven't seen much difference in coatings since the AI epoch began (1977), and the late non-AI lenses (say 1976 or later, as I have a factory AI converted 85 mm f/1.8 from this period) seems just as good.

 

I find the quality control seems to have slipped.

 

Recently when buying 35 mm f/1.4 and 28 mm f/2 lenses from B & H; they had to bring out three of each lens before I was satisfied. The problems were significant (unable to dismount one lens in less than a minute due to tolerance problems, chips on the rear element, etc. ). These things, I truly believe 1970's Nikon quality control procedures would have stopped in the factory.

 

So, I guess I find that I haven't had any coating issues since 1976, but I do feel the sample to sample quality control has declined. There was more consistency, I believe, in the mid to late seventies and early eighties.

 

They do offer the 28 mm f/1.4 AF-D;

85 mm f/1.4 AF-D;

14 mm f/2.8

105 mm f/2 AF-DC

 

and new AFS designs for the 300, 400, 500 and 600.

 

So, there have been some new prime designs in the past ten years.

Buy old chrome barrel Nikkors,stopped down they are as good as any lenses made!

I fell for the seduction of autofocus and wide angle zooms too. Fortunately, I kept my FM and am poised to return to the Old School. You sound Old School too Bill. I shoot mostly landscapes and manual focus is plenty fast for them. When my daughter is the subject, the light is either too low or she's moving too fast for autofocus to keep up and the one beautiful frame is all too often out of focus.

 

Sure there have been advances, but none that compare to those made in the film industry. Additionally, any benefit you could get from the newest Nikon primes will pale beside sound fundamentals of composition, lighting and timing. And older non-AF primes are cheap! Head over to the classified section or eBay and see how far your dollar will go in the AI era lenses. I may head over there now!

Anecdotaly, I can't see much difference between 70s-era glass and the new AF glass. Both are pretty damn nice. Nikon does seem to have the ocassional "problem" lens though. The one that everyone HATES, and which Nikon then usually dumps or replaces with something better. I'm sure this can be applied to Canon too though.... :)

 

I will say that FEEL-wise the old metal barreled lenses are nicer. The polycarbonate ones are just not as "nice" feeling. Something to do with the heft I think.