Opinions on the Nikkor 50mm f/2 Ai

<p>I'm interested to hear user experience with the Nikkor 50mm f/2 Ai. I recently acquired a copy, but I already have the 50mm f/1.8 Ai-S pancake. I see that Bjorn Rorslett had a good review of the f/2 version. </p>

<p>I need to get rid of one of these manual focus 50mm lenses, so I'd like to split hairs here. I like the small size of the pancake. OTOH the f/2 version focusses down to 1.5' versus 2' for the pancake. I don't consider the aperture difference terribly relevant to my decision. </p>

<p>I can compare these lenses on my D300, but it will mostly be used with an FM2 and FE, so I am especially interested to here from film users. This lens will mostly be used for snapshots, so a pleasing character of the lens is more important to me than maximum sharpness/corners/vignette/etc.</p>

<p>Thanks for any input.</p>

<blockquote>so a pleasing character of the lens is more important to me</blockquote>

 

<p>Please don't think I'm being dismissive - I always wanted one of the pancake 50mms for convenience reasons, and they're a lovely lens used the right way - but my understanding is that the optical formula has been almost unchanged for the entire history of the 50mm f/1.8 up to the AF-D, with only the AF-S changing things. And my impression has always been that the "pleasing character" of the 50mm f/1.8 range has always been... not so much.<br />

<br />

Your opinion may vary, of course, and it's not like suggesting a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S or a Sigma 50mm is going to help much on the FM2 or FE.<br />

<br />

Likewise, I thought the optical formula was pretty much the same between the f/1.8 and the f/2, though I could be wrong (mir is all-seeing... oh, wait, the f/2 is 6 elements, 4 groups - it's different, but I've no idea how much difference this makes.)<br />

<br />

There are reports that the rendering of the 45mm f/2.8 pancake is nicer, though the sharpness may not be (if anything, I believe it's a simpler design than the faster 50mm lenses - a 4-element tessar rather than a 6-element/5 group double-Gauss). The newest version is a tad over-priced, but you might want to consider it if it's in your range.<br />

<br />

Silly question: can you search for the lenses on Flickr (probably hard for the f/2) and peer at the results?<br />

<br />

Good luck, and I hope some of that wasn't entirely useless.</p>

<p>I did a couple of quick shots on my D300 at min focus distance, with backlit foliage OOF. The trees were roughly 75 feet away. Just looking at the camera LCD, the f/2 bokeh was significantly different (fewer, larger blur circles). This may be a function of closer min focus on the f/2 version? </p>

<p>Andrew - I know what you are saying about the similar formulas, but I am splitting hairs b/w these two lenses (as noted in my post). Good idea about looking through Flickr galleries, I'll take a look over there.</p>

<p>Six (f/2) vs seven-bladed diaphragm (f/1.8). A bit about the f/2 can be found here: http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/2/<br>

Seems that all the f/2 and all the f/1.8 (except AF-S) have the same optical construction; 6 elements/4 groups vs 6 elements/5 groups, 6 blades vs 7 blades, respectively.<br>

<br /> Comparison f/2 with f/1.8 Ai-S: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00CeLW</p>

<p>The AF-S 50/1.8 G was the first 50mm lens I actually liked the OOF rendering of - but I still sold it a few weeks back since 50mm seems to be a focal length I have very little use for.</p>

<p>Chip - FWIW I'd just keep the Series E lens. I doubt there is a really significant difference between the two unless you are doing massive enlargements. I owned the Series E for about 6 years, along with a number of other Nikon 50 lenses (but not the f/2 AI), mostly used on my D300. I was always pleased with its rendering (from about f/4-5.6), and really liked its small size. It has become sort of a cult lens these days with a lot of people using it on m4/3 bodies, so some buyers are paying a premium for it (mine cost $8 and came with a perfect EM body). If you usually shoot wide open and in very close, and care about OOF rendering, perhaps the other one better suits you. BTW - DON'T judge the quality of a shot by your camera's LCD (I thought everybody by now knew that)...either view it on a large screen via decent post processing software, or print it out; the LCD on your camera is really a basic tool to quickly judge exposure, and whether or not the shot is in focus.</p>

<p>Why do you need to get rid of one? They are almost giving most of the MF glass away these days. I'd keep them both but if you decide to get rid of the 50/2 then send me a PM.I loaned out a 50/1.4 and will never see it again so need a replacement. I don't use it often but when I need it, I need it. Even splitting hairs you won't see much difference in the two in your work. It's mostly going to be about functionality. <br /><br />Rick H.</p>

<p>Rick, you are probably right. I think I should just admit I don't want to get rid of either of them. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. I'll post some follow-up if I find any interesting differences.</p>

<p>Dieter, thanks for that Nikon link!</p>

As an oldster who upgraded from the Daguerrotype to a Nikon F in early 1970, I can report that the f/2 Nikkor "pre-AI"

lens available at that time was my standard lens and I adopted it as such based on my earlier experience with the Nikon

S3 rangefinder 35mm body and the gem that the rangefinder f/2 version was. I remember that it was fairly widely

considered superior to the f/1.4 which, at one stop larger, was a flashier piece of glass but not inherently superior to the

f/2; in fact, many critics found the f/2 produced better image quality throughout its range than did the f/1.4. If the optical

formula for the f/2 Nikkor you're considerimg is in fact identical with that of the 50mm f/2 Nikkor I used with my Nikon F, it

was and is a gem and its IQ will be very competitive with current "standard" lenses.

<p>Hi Chip<br>

I have both , nikkor-H and the ais 50/2.<br>

Both of them are on my shelf<br>

side by side but I always grab<br>

the H just for the way it renders.</p>

<p>Is there a need to go down to only one? The old AI and AIS are far more robustly built than most of today's Nikkors. All of my lenses are AI or AIS and some are 30 years old and still perform brilliantly.<br>

I would say hold onto both of them. </p>

<p>if you're talking about the standard 50 f/2 circa 1976 or so, that's what came with my first F2 when I saved up my pennies as a teenager. Solid, sharp, rugged dependable lens that has lasted almost 40 years now without ever giving me a problem. I shot hundreds of published newspaper photos with it with no problems, and still pull it out when I want a prime instead of a zoom. I would see no need for a pancake lens -- the regular 50 f/2 is small enough as it is.</p>

<p><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5273/14237420022_ab9f607bf2_n.jpg" alt="" width="320" height="213" /><br>

50/2.0 AI @ f/2.0 ISO800 on D800. No post processing.<br /><br />I rather like this small lens! Out of focus backgrounds are indeed smoother than the 50/1.8 siblings. And beyond f/2.0 it is really very sharp. And it costs next to nothing to own one..</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Have 50/1.8 Ai-S, 50/2.0Ai and AF50/1.8.<br>

50/2.0 best of all three, by large margine, even from largest opening.<br>

(all compared on D700)</p>

<p>My 50/2 AI is good but not great. I'm less enamored of it now than I was 10-15 years ago. A few years ago I wrote this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Good lens, pleasantly soft wide open for casual portraits and sharpens up quickly stopped down. It's not exceptional in any particular way but is an excellent value and does many things well. It's also useful for closeups, with a closeup diopter, extension tube or reverse mounted."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I keep and use it for the flaws, including pleasant softness and touches of chromatic aberration wide open. It's a nice look for some high key photos or in high contrast lighting. I've used it for everything from b&w film with the heck pushed out of it, to my V1 for video (the aperture ring has less audible click stops than my 50/1.8D AF Nikkor).</p>

 

<center>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00R/00RVRq-88929684.jpg" alt="" width="599" height="600" hspace="5" vspace="10" data-original="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00R/00RVRq-88929684.jpg" /><br>

<em>50/2 AI Nikkor at f/5.6 on my D2H. Sharp and most chromatic aberration is gone stopped down</em>.</p>

</center>

<p>Its reputation seems to be like that of many cult classic lenses and cameras: initially embraced because it was cheap and good; later exaggerated in reputation by online repetition <em>("Hey, I heard from so-and-so who heard from so-and-so who heard from so-and-so that the Scimitar Sneeries 1 Snuffleraptor 90 killermeters f/tres.point.dos is the best lens in the world and costs only 3 beans!")</em> to the point that it's been imbued with mystical properties it doesn't actually possess.</p>

<p>It's a good lens for well under $50. If it costs more, skip it and buy a better lens. The 50/1.8D AF Nikkor is sharper wide open with less CA, although it isn't the sharpest 50 wide open either. Neither has particularly great bokeh, but it depends on the background. With indistinct background objects the bokeh is fine. With hard edges and foliage you'll see typical old school Nikkor nisen-bokeh, with harsh doubling.</p>

<p>My vote goes to 2/50 AI. (I also have Nikkor 2/50 H, H.C and 1.4/50 S-Auto)<br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland</p>

<p>Hmmm! Then there's sample variation and build quality to take into account. I have an MF Ai-S 50mm f/1.8 (longer version), which is very noticeably superior to the plastic-bodied AF version that replaced it. Despite them supposedly having the same optical formula. Forget "Location, location, location"; the mantra for lenses needs to be "Condition, condition, condition".</p>

<p>Anyhoo. My sample of pre-Ai 50mm f/2 is a very nice lens indeed, but then so is my 42mm Praktica/Pentax screw-fit Fujica 50mm f/2.</p>

<p>Actually, the "long nose" AI and AIS 50/1.8 have a different (and superior) optical design from the AF 50/1.8. The AF lens is based on the series-E and AIS pancake versions.<br>

I regard the AI 50/1.8 as the best of the slower 50mm lenses - it is very sharp, bokeh is decent, it has a nicer 7-blade aperture than the 6-blade 50/2 versions, the barrel is small but not too small like the pancake versions, and it has a nice long focus throw.</p>