MF Nikon Optics - choices

After many years away fron Nikon, I am returning on the basis that at

some point over the next 18-24 months I will go digital. Contax MF

dont offer any route to use my lenses on a digital body in the way

that Nikon do. As I will be starting from a clean sheet of paper what

MF lenses in the 20 to 200 range would be in your kit bag ? I was

thinking of 20mm (which one ?), 55 F2.8 micro or 50 1.2/1.4, 105

F1.8/2.5, 135 F2 or 180 F2.8 ED. Macro work could be covered by a

PK13 or PN11 and 105 lense rather than a 105 micro.

 

Many thanks

 

Dave

20/2.8 AIS. It's sharp, durable, and sometimes a 20mm really fills a need for available light interiors (sorry I sold mine, the 20/2.8 AF I have feels like a toy in comparison).

<p>

Out-of-bounds, but I'd give strong consideration to one of the AF 80-200mm f/2.8 lenses. These are real workhorses, you'll get a lot of use out of them. If you're really tuned into manual focusing, I hear the AF 'one touch' (older version) is pretty good in this regard. I enjoy the latest non-S model, the AFD with tripod collar. It's OK as an MF lens, and brilliant as an AF lens. The earlier MF version was a rare heavy beast. They've worked out the kinks in the AF version.

<p>

35 f/1.4 AIS. Good speed, good lens, a focal length that I personally consider 'normal'. For whatever reason, I've never owned a 50mm (OK, after 25 years of Nikon shooting, I just acquired a 50/1.4 non-AI that came with an F2 and 3 other lenses, but I haven't shot with it yet).

<p>

24 f/2.0 AIS. Again, good speed, good lens. 20/24/35 is a good set of lenses for me.

<p>

105 f/2.5 gets a lot of raves. I've got two of them (pre-AI and AI) but for some reason I don't get a lot of use out of them. I keep them around thinking I'll 'discover' them some day. I've been more of an 85mm guy, goes well with my tendency to treat 35mm as 'normal'.

<p>

85mm f/1.4 AIS. Solid lens, much cheaper than the equivalent AF lens, has the best magnification (i.e. close focus) of any of the Nikon 85's. Can you tell I'm a speed freak?

What Todd says about the 80-200 also applies to the 180: the

AF-EDIF version is much the best, maybe even Nikon's all-time best

lens, and works fine in MF. I had the 135 f2 briefly but found it

flared easily and was a poor performer up close. Back to the 105 f2.5

AI! Since no Nikon body except the FA uses the AIS feature, you might

as well save some bucks and get plain AI on lenses that came as both.

Are you going for the Kodak/Nikon 14 mp cmos camera? Looks as if

Canon's plans for world domination will have to be put on permanent

hold: they've been kneecapped by the Men In

Yellow............

I echo the above recommendations and emphasize the 80-200 2.8 AF concept. Maybe because it reflects my own lens lineup. But an 80-200, 50mm 1.4 and some nice wide angles is an excellent collection of lenses. You can add some faster long lenses, like 85mm 1.8 and so on. But that zoom is an excellent lens.

 

Whether you get automatic or manual focus lenses is up to you though.

Consider a 105/2.8 macro in place of a 105/2.5 or 105/1.8. I've never regretted replacing my 105/2.5 with a 105/2.8. Can't go very wrong either way, but the 105/2.8 is better at the near (not yet macro) end.

Be aware that the "consumer" Nikon DSLR, the D100, does not meter at all with any non-CPU lens. That means practically all MF lenses. If you need metering with MF lenses, you have to go to the D1 series. Bring lots of money.

 

Me, I'm (reluctantly) going in the other direction - slowly replacing my MF lenses with AF. Not because I particularly need or want AF, but because Nikon is really cutting back on support for non-CPU lenses with the newer bodies. I want to go digital in the reasonable future too, and a $4,500 D1x is out of the question.

Along the lines of the D100, can anyone verify that the Nikon mount Kodak will meter with MF lenses? It looks F5-based to me but I haven't seen it officially stated.

The 14M-pixel Kodak DCS-14n uses the same metering system as the N80. If your plan is to use digital cameras fill with electronic, IMO it is very unwise to buy new/additional lenses that have no electronic contacts. It is difficult to merry all mechanical contacts in a lens into electronics in a camera. That combination will simply lead to more and more incompatibilities and difficulties in the future.

All of the Kodak's except the DCS14n should meter fine with MF lenses, in Centre-weighted or spot modes only. The DCS14n uses F80 internals and won't meter with non-CPU lenses.

Many thanks for your answers - and particularly the insight about the low end digital bodies and the lack of metering with MF lenses. I hadnt done the reserach yet but assumed that I would pick up a low end model in about 12 months time.

 

My contax outfit was extensive (18f4,35f1.4,50f1.4,85f1.4,100f2.8,135F2,180F2.8,300F4) at one point but has been whittled down to an RTS3, a 35 F1.4 and a 100F2.8 macro as most of my serious landscape work is now done with 5X4.

 

Almost the entre use for the outfit will be insect/flower/fungi so I ought to look at the 105micro - only downside is that, as Todd said, I happen to like fast glass !

 

As a aside - I bought an F3/MD4 body from eb*y which arrived yesterday. It was advertised as a battered F3HP but turns out to be an F3P so I guess that is good news although I cant easily use the camera without the MD4 as it comes with a funny back.

 

Thanks again

Well, the 105 Micro is f2.8, which is pretty fast for a 105. It also has a pretty nice focusing feel for an AF lens. I think you'd quite like it.

Consider getting an MF-14 databack for your F3P. The MF-14 doesn't

have the protrusion that connects to the MD-4. That means it can't

leave the leader out when used with the MD-4, but it also means

it works very well if you want to leave the motor drive at home.

<p>

I have both the 105mm f2.5 and 105mm f2.8 micro, both in AIS

versions. I've done a shootout, posted at <a href="http://www.lanset.com/rcochran/battle105/">

http://www.lanset.com/rcochran/battle105/</a>. For general

use, I really prefer the f2.5, but for macro, the 2.8 micro

has obvious advantages.