Old Lenses, and why you use Nikkors

Not too long ago, I bought an EL2 kit. I'd been shopping for EL2s for a while, and ended up with two cheap ones(have to have the black and silver set) in a short period of time. 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.

 

All of these photos were shot with my D800 from a tripod. This was a quick test-done in about 5 minutes-on the front sidewalk. These were shot at ISO 100, and since this was a quick test I pulled the rarely-touched SD card out of the camera and am posting straight from the camera JPEGs(with the exception of being resized down to reasonable sizes).

 

First of all, here are both lenses wide open-Soligor first, Nikkor second

 

 

 

And then at f/5.6, which looked to be the "sweet spot" for both

 

 

 

This is a quick and dirty test. To my eye(looking at the full res photos) there's not a HUGE difference in resolution between the two at f/5.6, but wide open the difference is night and day. Also, the Nikkor is noticeably higher contrast and to my eye has much better color rendition across the range.

 

I'll mention that the Nikkor is AI-converted with a factory conversion ring. It's single coated in amber, and has a scalloped focusing ring. I'm assuming the Soligor probably dates to the late 70s or early 80s as it is fully AI and also claims to be multi-coated.

 

Also, both lenses were used without a hood or filter.

 

The sad thing is that I think I paid $50 or so for the Nikkor from KEH. I haven't come across a completed listing for the Nikon mount version, but in other mounts it seems to bring in the $70 range.

 

One last thing-I also threw my Micro-Nikkor 105 2.8D into the mix, but didn't see enough difference visible in the 1500 pixel resizes to bother including it. In fact, if I get picky, it seems to have a bit more chromatic abberation than the old 2.5.

What stands out is the nice separation between the pennant and background in the Soligor f5.6 image -- it really makes the foreground pop. This would be a very nice portrait lens.

Looks like both are pretty good but the Nikkor gives a better image to my eye. I think I am seeing though that the Nikkor image at 5.6 is slightly brighter than the Soligor.

 

Rick H.

What stands out is the nice separation between the pennant and background in the Soligor f5.6 image

Yep, hard to believe they are at the same aperture and hence should show the same DOF - it appears the Soligor's is much shallower (which in reality means the lens is quite soft but indeed seems to make a nice lens for portraits).

 

My very first lens was a Soligor 70-210 - after owning it for about a week, I persuaded my dad to drive me the about 50 miles to the store to exchange it. I got me the 105/2.5 at the time - and my dad shipped in the difference as I was flat out broke at the time. That 105 is still with me today.

I may retry this test tomorrow, as in retrospect I'm not sure the aperture is working entirely consistently on the Soligor. I kept dialing in exposure compensation at smaller apertures, and was at -2.0 at f/8. I kept it there, but the f/16 shot is still a bit overexposed.

 

I'd show the Micro lens shots, but by the time I got around to it the wind was blowing and the flag(what I was focusing on) was blowing enough that I couldn't get it consistently sharp-especially since I was getting into 1" and longer shutter speeds.

When I converted to digital, I began buying single focal length manual focus lenses, and AF-Ds for some lengths. After a while I got the itch for a fast 28mm, and the 28/2 Nikkor seemed a bit expensive, so I bought a clean Kiron. Now, everyone says that's a stellar lens, but I could see the difference in contrast from my 28/2.8 AF-D immediately, and it was a huge difference. Also, at f/2.8 the Nikkor blew away the supposedly special Kiron in sharpness. I immediately sold the Kiron, bought the fast Nikkor, and haven't touched an off-brand lens since.

 

Before Nikon, I had an Olympus kit in the old days, and Leica all along for the last 45 years or so. I would say that nearly every older Nikkor bests every older Leica lens wide open, which is mainly where I use them. The Oly lenses were often quirky. The Leica lenses have a nice quality, but are usually best a stop or two down. On quality, I'm sold on Nikon. The old MF lenses are among the sturdiest lenses made, too.

 

I'm thinking the photos got mixed up. The DOF is wrong in both sets.

I'm thinking the photos got mixed up. The DOF is wrong in both sets.

Indeed, the second and third image need to trade places. The third is the Nikkor at f/2.5 and the second the Soligor at f/5.6.

 

Corrected sequence:

 

Soligor f/2

Nikkor f/2.5

Soligor f/5.6

Nikkor f/5.6

 

The differences in brightness (exposure) don't exactly help in the comparison; at least the Nikkor f/5.6 image has some highlights blown.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Dieter Schaefer

I know that charts and graphs and whatnot always seem to put the newest lenses ahead of the old ones, and on the other side there seems to be a whole bunch of black magic in which recondite characteristics are claimed for the old ones, with differences that are better detected if you decide in advance, a little like the qualities of speaker wire; but at the same time there really do seem to be some old lenses whose results are so nice that they just are the ones one reaches for. I don't know if it's intangible optical properties, placebo effect, or just the delight of handling lenses made of real metal.

 

For real world niceness, though, the 105/2.5 has to be near the top of the list (which in my case would include also the 55/3.5, the 200/4Q, the 50/2AI and my personal favorite, the 35/2.8 PC).

Just for giggles: Soligor f/5.6 with exposure adjusted and "dehazed" substantially:

And the Nikkor with highlights pulled back

In the Nikkor line, they made really excellent lenses very early on, with beautiful mounts. Supposedly, when digital came along, they simplified some of the formulas for technical reasons. My 28/2.8 AF-D is supposed to be one of these, though I don't find it to be an inferior lens. My impression is that my 85/1.8 AF-D is distinctly bad wide open compared to the one I had in 1968. I have photos shot with a 50/1.4, wide open from about that time, and I don't think I have seen a better 50/1.4 lens since then, but my AI-S version is certainly equal. I do a lot of closeup work for technical archiving, and have the pre-AI 55/35, and AI version, and the 60/28 AF-D version. They really are functionally equal as far as sharpness and contrast, except that the AF-D focus throw is such that it's nearly impossible to focus by hand.

 

On the other hand, I don't know if there's an old 20-21 as nice as my 20/2.8 AF-D and I much prefer its undamped focus mechanism.

 

The 105/2.5? What cold be better?

 

So there's a lot to choose from.

 

One of the reasons I chose Nikon over Canon was that Nikon hadn't abandoned backwards lens mount compatibility the way Canon has repeatedly done, but I can't make that claim anymore. :-(

Some flawed lens performances, like the wide open photo from the Soligor, just make me smile. While I can get the quest for perfection in optics and lens formulas, personally I see too much creative value in those flawed lenses. You don't have to go to 3rd party lenses either: the AiS 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2 at their widest apertures also pull off this trick mighty fine. It's a bit a trick, an effect, but in some types of photos it just works incredibly well. I wouldn't dismiss a lens because of it, and in fact the Nikkors mentioned are probably my most-used lenses. They may not deliver the optimum resolution, edge sharpness and distrortion-less performance, but they inject something extra in the photo. It isn't always about perfect rendering, and for that alone, lenses like this Soligor are great fun to have around.

 

That said, hard to go wrong with the 105mm f/2.5. Amazing good lens.

I recently acquired a 105mm f2.5 from KEH. I posted pictures in the March 9 Film Camera Week that were taken with a 105mm f2.5 ais Nikkor.

There's also a 100 mm series E that's kinda nice. These days the only old Nikkor I use (and I use it a lot!) is the 55 mm AiS Micro Nikkor. A good example, meaning the stiff lube has been replaced and any haze removed, can't be beat for sharpness and "pop" at any distance.

There's also a 100 mm series E that's kinda nice.

 

Yes. My copy is crazy sharp at f/2.8 when compared to the 105mm Nikkor at the same aperture. But the 105mm makes better portraits wide open. :)

The effect of sample variation aside, I was surprised to find a copy of the first AF Nikkor 50/1.8 beat the pants off my 50/2 Ai,at all apertures. But the AF has a slow (sticky diaphragm). Moral : check your lenses for this problem, it could explain exposure anomalies. My 105/2.5 Ai is simply stellar.

Conclusion; an expensive marque lens beats a cheap off-brand lens, after giving away nearly a stop in aperture?

 

- Hardly any surprise.

 

It might be interesting to see the Soligor up against the Ai-s 105mm f/1.8 Nikkor, both at f/2. Otherwise it really is like comparing apples with oranges. The difference between f/2 lenses shot wide open and at f/2.8 can be quite remarkable.

 

I like my 105mm f/1.8 Nikkor, but it gets trounced wide open by the Samyang 135mm f/2 I bought a while back. New-for-new, the Samyang would have been considerably cheaper, and didn't need the addition of a 'Dandelion' chip to increase its usability.

 

Unfortunately, my 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor lies largely unused these days. After careful comparison the f/1.8 version gives near-identical results at like-for-like apertures, but the attraction of the extra stop is hard to resist.

For nostalgic reasons, a nice comparison. Thank you.

I keep to my 105/2.8('s.. I somehow have two now), which has a slightly less smooth background rendition, but (obviously.. it being a micro lens) focuses much closer. That I find an important feature in (any) lens!

On the other hand, I don't know if there's an old 20-21 as nice as my 20/2.8 AF-D

I recently resurrected one that my wife bought for her F100 and rarely used and found to my dismay that the epoxy-bonded middle element has gone all cloudy, making the lens utterly useless. Probably more to fix than to replace, alas.

 

I think it may well have been Michael Darnton's, along with a few others', experiences with this that got me going. But no go yet.

I recently resurrected one that my wife bought for her F100 and rarely used and found to my dismay that the epoxy-bonded middle element has gone all cloudy, making the lens utterly useless. Probably more to fix than to replace, alas.

 

Is it the epoxy itself that has turned cloudy? Is that a known issue with some epoxies?

Yes, it appears that the epoxy has gone bad. I thought it was fungus, but it's evenly distributed, like frosted glass. I heard from someone else about this who had a similar problem and was told by Nikon Italy that this is a frequent problem specifically with this lens and the 180mm. He also said it cost 300 euros to fix, which is more than that lens cost used 15 years ago. I'm sort of hoping the part can be found without sending the lens to Nikon, but have not heard back from the repairman who was going to try at least to get the part number. This lens is listed among those that Nikon still fixes, but I am hoping for something less expensive.

 

I also don't know if there's any "shade tree" solution to this, as there is, at times, with other cemented lenses using Canada Balsam, whereby one melts them apart and re-glues them, with some kind of very precise jig to hold them in alignment. I rather doubt it. But then again, there's not much to lose from trying.

 

Of course what I'm really hoping is that someone somewhere will show up with a damaged, worn out, fungus-infested, or otherwise junked copy of this lens that just happens to have a good center element. Not holding my breath, though.

Of course what I'm really hoping is that someone somewhere will show up with a damaged, worn out, fungus-infested, or otherwise junked copy of this lens that just happens to have a good center element. Not holding my breath, though.

 

Here, save this search on eBay and turn on email notifications. Wow, photo.net is really anal about links to certain sites, so I can't paste the URL directly. You'll have to remove the carriage return before the second line in the broken URL below, and also replace "[dot]" with a literal ".".

 

www[dot]ebay[dot]com

/sch/i.html?_nkw=nikon%2020mm%202.8%20af&LH_ItemCondition=7000

My 50 1.8D and AI 50 F2 are pretty equal at 5.6 on my D800. Both crazy sharp. The 50 f2 for me is one of those sleeper lenses.

Chulkim, thanks for the link. Nothing at the moment but I'll keep my eyes peeled.

One of my early lenses for my FM is (I still have it) the Vivitar 24/2.0. After not all that long, the aperture stuck open.

 

I then bought a used Nikkor 24/2.8, which still seems to work fine, and not stuck as far as I know.

 

I could still use the Vivitar when I needed it wide open, but mostly use the 24/2.8 when I need it that wide.

 

So, yes, check for stuck open, or too slow to close down, aperture.

 

Your comparison won't be quite right if the apertures are different. Especially, the exposure difference is more noticeable than sharpness.

My 50 1.8D and AI 50 F2 are pretty equal at 5.6 on my D800. Both crazy sharp. The 50 f2 for me is one of those sleeper lenses.

 

Some years ago I compared 50/2Ai, 50/1.8AiS and 50/1.8AF on D700.

 

50/2 obviously the best, from fully open. Sharpeness at edges incomparable.