Any digital use for my ancient (c. 1965) Nikkors?

[olbob]

I'm not up on camera/lense descriptions. I have several (50mm1.2,

28mm2.8,300mm,macro,micro - even a knock-off fish eye) Nikkor lenses,

which I purchased and used in the mid 1960s on acouple of F2s. I

wonder if there are any Nikon digital cameras which can use them. I'm

home bound now, but they're terrific glass! Thanx, Bob Borden

[joseph_smith3]

Yes, there is. You can mount these lenses, to almost any Nikon DSLR. With the Nikon D2x and the new D200, you can mount them and the camera will meter with them mounted. This link will provide you with more info: http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm

 

Joe Smith

[steve_dawson1]

I'm not sure about that. I think they would have to be AI lenses, which I think post date the mid 1960s. If that's right it would be necessary for you to get them converted. You would have to take a view on whether the conversion is worth it. It probably is for some of your lenses. A Google search will enable you to identify people who can do the conversion.

[steve_dawson1]

Yes, the second paragraph of that bythom.com link that Joseph provided gives details on the AI point.

[ShunCheung]

Nikon introduced AI (auto indexing) back in 1977. Pre-AI lenses need to be AI'ed. However, I am not sure that it is worthwhile to spend money on such really old lenses and use them on digital bodies.

 

BTW, the F2 was introduced in 1971. If those lenses were purchased in the mid 1960's, the corresponding body couldn't have been an F2, at least not initially.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The used 5.8cm F1.4 I got in 1962 has a notch added for AI indexing in the late 1970's. At the time I added the notch, the lens was considered worthless! , a non factory AI'able lens, one of the orphaned Nikkors not on the offical retrofit list.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The F body was made into about 1974, with new old stock bodies being available even a decade or two later.

[cappoldt]

I too have a several similar lenses, purchased in 1964. Is there a market for such items if the AI upgrade is deemed not worth it?

[dan_fromm2]

Just wait for Silicon Film to arrive.

 

Leica has a version of it, so its only a matter of time before other makers fall in line. Soon come ...

[greg s]

IF those lenses can be mounted and operated on a Nikon DSLR, then they could be used with the camera in full Manual mode. I recently bought a 24mm f/2.8 AF lens for landscape and work with that lens exclusively in full Manual... LCD feedback suffices as metering. Since I bracket the shots so much anyway (and constantly refer to the LCD) I decided to just dial up f/16, then dial in a shutter speed. It's actually faster and more efficient than using the Ex Comp button. Obviously for quick work that requires accurate in camera metering this is not an option, but for stationary subject where you have a bit of time to figure out the shutter speed, no problem. Just a thought. -Greg-

[rwhillman]

They can also be used on Canon's via an inexpensive adapter.

[ShunCheung]

Please keep in mind that if you mount a Nikon lens on a Canon EOS body via a mechanical adapter, you'll only have stop-down metering and no focus comfirmation (auto rangefinder).

 

Personally, I am very skeptical about the results from such old lenses on the demanding modern digital bodies.

[sjmurray]

John White does pre AI to AI/AIS conversions for $25-35. Here's his site, which has a handy chart to see which lenses work on which cameras. I just had him convert my pre AI 55mm Micro Nikkor. On my D70 there is no metering, but it does make the lens usable.

 

http://www.aiconversions.com/

[rick_beets]

On the question concerning whether there is a market, check eBay. I too have several old

lenses, but the current value on the used market is pretty low, better to keep it or give it to

someone who is still using an old body. Good luck.

[tri-x1]

>Personally, I am very skeptical about the results from such old lenses on the demanding modern digital bodies<

 

I suspect that some of these "old lenses" are capable of producing photos as sharp as most "demanding modern digital bodies" can handle.

[david_h._hartman]

First and Formost: Good glass is good glass. This may be a

direct quote from Bjorn Rorslett. <br>

<br>

It is time to stop telling people that classic Nikkors do not

perform well on DSLR(s) because this is patently false. Each lens

new or old must stand by its own merits. Many classic Nikkors

give top results on modern Nikon DSLR(s).<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Bob,<br>

<br>

Im confused about the age or your lenses. The F2 was

introduced in 1973. There must be a typo in your question.

Perhaps you meant on a couple of Nikon F(s)<br>

<br>

As a first stop I recommend...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html</u></a><br>

<br>

You need to find out what lenses you actually own. Once you know,

the best information on the web as to their performance in

general and on Nikon DSLR(s) in particular can be found here...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html</u></a><br>

<br>

You may want to browse Bjorn Rorsletts complete site. Here

is the front door...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com</u></a><br>

<br>

My own experience with classic Nikkor glass on the D2H is

generally very good. I find that most all lenses of 50mm and

longer perform very well. One exception is my 200/4.0 IF Micro-Nikkor.

As a non-ED, IF lenses it is noted to have some problems with

chromatic aberration on film. Surprisingly my 25~50/4.0 AIS Zoom-Nikkor

bought on closeout in December 1982 is a top performer on my D2H

as well as the D2X according to Bjorn Rorslett. This underscores

the worthlessness of broad generalizations as to which lenses

perform well and which do not.<br>

<br>

Not surprisingly my 135/5.6 EL-Nikkor, an enlarging lens, gives

excellent results for close-up photography as do my c. 1966 and

1969, 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor Auto(s) and also my c. 1977, 105/4.0 AI

Micro-Nikkor.<br>

<br>

An AF, AF-D, AF-S or AF G lens is no guaranty of top performance.

Many AF Nikkors have optical formulas that are unchanged from the

AIS version. If the AIS lens was great the AF lens will be great,

if not you get the idea. Generally most problems with

classic Nikkors as well as AF Nikkors will be with wide angle

lenses. Thats wide angle on film as these arent so

wide on the DX format.<br>

<br>

For super wide angle lenses there arent many choices for DX.

The 12~24/4.0G ED-IF AF-S Nikkor is probably the best. I under

stand this is a telecentric design so as to over come problems

with the angle of light incident on the image sensor.<br>

<br>

In order to install most of your lenses they will need to be AI(ed)

if they are not AI(ed) or AI lenses already. The exception is the

Micro-Nikkors. These can be installed and used very easily via an

M2 tube, E2 tube or K1 Ring. These three tubes fit every AF Nikon

I have tried them on. YMMV! These tubes will not allow infinity

focus but the primary use of Micro-Nikkors is close-up so this is

not a problem. If you want a walk around normal and close-up lens

I recommend the 60/2.8D AF or 55/2.8 AIS. Then again these are no

long normal lenses on DX formats.<br>

<br>

If you have a 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor Auto with the compensating

aperture feature these should not be AI(ed) with out an approved

kit from Nikon. If the camera you use supports AI lenses there

will be metering errors unless the compensating feature is

removed by replacing the device that reaches into the lens to set

the aperture. These lenses were made between 1963 and 1969. They

do not perform well at or near infinity so using them on a tube

is no problem. They are top performers on DSLR(s) at close

distance.<br>

<br>

Based on Bjorn Rorsletts evaluation the 28/2.8 will be so-so

or even poor if it is not an AIS. This includes some AF models. Im

not sure I know what he thinks of the AF-D version or if he has

tested it.<br>

<br>

The 300mm will also likely be a so-so to poor performing lens.

This depends on which version you have. I owned a vintage 1971 or

72, 300/4.5 Nikkor-H. It was a nice lens for its day. I

currently own a 300/4.5 ED-IF AI. This is a sweet handling lens

that gives good performance but requires stopping down to about f/8.0

which is no joy with a 300mm lens.<br>

<br>

If you like, check out the links above and give us more details.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ShunCheung]

Wayne, don't be so sure about that. I once tested the 24mm/f2 AI-S that is supposed to be "legendary" on my lowly D100. The amount of chromatic aberration is incredible. A lot of the flaws there were not obvious are not holding up well on the high-megapixel DSRLs.

 

Computer-aided optical design, coating .... have improved a lot in the last 40 years.

[ky2]

I use my Nikkors on my Canon 20D, and some are stellar performers: Nikkor 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 AIS, 35/1.4, 50/1.8/2, 105/2.5 and 180/2.8.

[neil_parker]

Shun, the 24mm f2 shows a large amount of CA on film also...nonetheless it is a great lens

in its intended use; lowlight, handheld photography.

[ShunCheung]

Guys, please keep in mind that we are talking about 40-year-old pre-AI lenses here, not AI-S lenses from about 15 to 20 years ago. My point is that even some AI-S lenses are questionable on DSLRs, but at least you can just mount them on modern Nikon bodies and try them out; there isn't any cost. When you have to spend money on converting some really old lenses to AI (or purchase adapters to Canon EOS), it becomes questionable whether that is money well spent.

 

According to Thom Hogan, starting from the 1999 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S, Nikon started changing the wide angle optical design to better fit digital bodies. People might recall that the 17-35 AF-S was originally introduced along with the first D1. Initially, you could only buy the 17-35 if you also bought a D1.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>I use my Nikkors on my Canon 20D, and some are

stellar performers: Nikkor 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 AIS, 35/1.4, 50/1.8/2,

105/2.5 and 180/2.8. --Yaron Kidron<br>

</em><br>

A lot depends on how you use these lenses. I would use many of

these at f/5.6 or wider much of the time. Id be quite happy

using them on a Canon DSLR at f/4.0 and wider. If working at a

methodical pace on a tripod using them at f/11 would be no more

difficult than using typical larger format lens a Linhof Kardan

or Technika where you manually focus at maximum aperture then

stop down to the working aperture. For PJ, PR, Events, etc. Id

chose a modern Canon AF zoom. <br>

<br>

As long as one understands the limitations then pointing out the

value of these Nikon or Contax to Canon adapters is good. I

dislike the statements that lead one to think Nikkor or Contax

lenses work just as Canon EF lenses would.<br>

<br>

If one puts the Nikkor or Contax lens on the EOS camera and uses

aperture preferred automation with large apertures the process

will be quite effortless. I shouldnt say this, people will

buy Superior AI and AIS Nikkor lenses to use on EOS camera and

drive up the price ;)<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here is a old orphaned obsolete 35mm F2 Nikkor that cost about 30 bucks in the early 1980's. This serial number was not factory AI'able. These "junk lenses" sold used for the same cost of the Nikon AI conversion at the time. Ektar 25, 1/250 between F4 and F5.6 . Some of the older 1960's lenses such as this model have varied performance, build VARIATION was more than today with wide angle lenses. I was told by another Nikon fan that this lens "is total garbage". Mine has worked well, and was a good value.<BR><BR>Saying that older lenses are "total garbage" is a good thing, it drops there cost.<BR><BR><a href="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/NZT%20dish/ntzdish640.jpg"><img src="http://photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/NZT%20dish/th_ntzdish640.jpg"></a>

 

<BR><BR>

 

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/NZT%20dish/ntzdishBase640.jpg">

 

 

<BR><BR>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/NZT%20dish/ntzdishGate640.jpg">

[ky2]

David, there's obviously no AF and stop down metering is a drag for moving objects. I use mine with a split-prism screen on my 20D. Beyond f/5,6 the screen blacks out. But up to f/5.6, I am able to focus nicely-- I also know which exp. compensation to dial in for each lens (mostly in the neighborhood of +2/3 fstop). These (like Kelly's $30 35/2) beat the kit zooms by a far margin. My 105/2.5 compares nicely with my EF-85/1.8, my 180/2.8 ED is phenomenal.

 

Shun, I also use a Nikkor 105/2.5P (pre AI), which is also nice and sharp despite its pre-coating era. These kind of lenses can be had for $60 or even less.

[aaron_ng]

24mm f/2 is not legendary. It is legendary for its CA. The 28mm f/2 is the legendary one. And even that shows CA on DX. But in my opinion, all the classic glass are much better to use than the new DX ones. Why? Because they each have their own characteristic look. Of course, get a 17-55mm f/2.8 DX to generate income, but nothing beats the look of the 28mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, 105mm f/2.5 and 400mm f/5.6 classics.

 

And for Bob, if your glass have no value and you can't sell them off, then do a hackjob AI mod yourself. Just cut into the aperture ring so that the AI tab fits at 12 o'clock at f/5.6 and there is enough room to mount the lens on before twisting to lock. If it works, yay! If it doesn't, then you have some paperweights (of course, you can still use them on the F2 as it uses the rabbit ears). Oh, and take out the aperture ring from the lens before machining.

[olbob]

Hey Everybody, Thanks! Now I know why venues such as this are so valuable. I am so out of date, yet your kind answers bring me into a new century complete with courage to get that glass useful again. BTW, yes - they were Fs and not F2s. As a matter of fact, I now remember (don't grow old!) specifically rejecting the idea of switching to the F2 because I was so delighted with the performance of the F. I'll have to post some of those early slides. Thanks again, folks - you're all wonderful. Bob Borden (Again)