Living in the 70's - Nikon style

[Ian Rance]

<p>I realised yesterday that even though I only started with the Nikon system in 2006 (with a F100 and 24-85 f2.8-4 combo) almost all of my lenses are made in the 1970's. 20mm f4, 24mm f2.8, 28mm f3.5, 50mm f2, 105mm f2.5 and 200mm f4. It seems that these lenses are so well built and such good value that they are impossible to resist and seeing the wildly priced modern lenses on the 'new' rack and the 70's lenses on the used rack at a tiny fraction of the price I did not hesitate to get the better value older item.</p>

<p>I have been really happy with the lenses so far, but was wondering if this methodology is something I can carry on well into the future. If my 70's lenses are still good now and will still be good in years to come what is the incentive to purchace the new lenses? My ponderings are below.</p>

<p>1. Performance. We are told that the latest lenses are better performing than old versions. Well, KR has tested the old lenses against the new ones and it seems the performance is only a tiny bit behind - or better than the new lenses on some occasions.</p>

<p>2. Autofocus. Yes, that is the major thing, but with a little skill and effort manual focus can be used for many applications and indeed is better for macro work and landscape. I think autofocus is over-hyped.</p>

<p>3. Metering. Most Nikon cameras have no trouble with metering manual lenses and indeed some even offer you selections in the menu to set your lenses in the database.</p>

<p>4. Non-AI. No real issues here - many kits are still available and if not Ai conversions are easy to have done. To save even more cash, just use something like an FE with the flip-tab.</p>

<p>5. Price. The older lenses at this point in time are so low in price that it is possible to build up a really high quality kit for less than the price of one consumer zoom.</p>

<p>These are just my thoughts and findings. Do you use the older lenses - and if not, have you thought about trying them? In these times of money being something that cannot be taken for granted these lovely lenses are a good way of forwarding your hobby without stressing about the money spent.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

<div></div>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>I strongly agree that by and large the older Nikkor Ai'd / Ai and AiS lenses are highly robust, accurate, precise, sharp, contrasty and still avail. at less than ridiculous prices. That goes for some of the lenses built in the 60's as well.</p>

<p>What's more, I find my small set of Ai & AiS primes a true pleasure to shoot with, they have very smooth operation and their added weight over the more modern AF-D type lenses being made from largely heavier metal constructs, really balance cameras like the D300 and D700 well. </p>

<p>When travelling light or far from home I can choose from a 20mm f/3.5 AiS, a 24mm f/2.8 AiS, a 28mm f/3.5 Ai'd and a 200mm f/4 AiS- I have plenty of high end, fast, pro zooms too but travelling light means taking some of these older primes with me. </p>

<p>I have also found that using the older MF lenses makes me think more about the photographic process, despite the MF slowing down the process for me, I enjoy the photographic process in a different light using these older type lenses. I view my photography subjectively and the added charactor the older lenses brings simply enriches the experience. I am a hobbiest so I have no life and death business pressures to bear so I happily use MF lenses and older ones at that.</p>

 

[errol young]

<p>My 70 lenses (24mm 2.8, 35mm 2, 85mm 1.8, all non Ais) are still great but I only shoot with them for fun, not for money. My new 16-85 is just too convienient and has VR. But the old ones are still calling out to me and I do give in.</p>

[rick_helmke1]

I do it for a living and most of mine are AI mf lenses. They were pro-grade when they were built and still are. I have never been impressed with AF particularly in sports use and only have three AF lenses at all. Walked into my local camera store one day, the only REAL such place within 150 miles. Found 28, 35, 50,85 and an 80-200 for a total of less than $300. There was a pair of F2's also and it all went home for less than $700. All the glass works on all my bodies and if I hit the point where I can't focus any more I'll just take up sailing. Rick H.

[dan park]

<p>I love it. I've got a 35 f2 pre-ai(modded) and a 50 f1.8 ai. I've always got my eye out for a 24 f2.8 and a 85 f1.8. When I get those two my lenses will be complete. Blah no I want a 16mm fisheye too!<br>

I wish my local camera store sold MF lenses that cheap! 300 bucks in my local camera store would have gotten me one maybe two of those lenses (they use KEH to price used lenses).</p>

[Two23]

<p>My main gripe with the older lenses is I seem to get a lot of CA when I use them. The difference can be significant for me.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Is that for film or digital, Kent?</p>

<p>Ian</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>The older lenses have some CA color error as pointed out above which sometimes shows , sometimes not. Specially true of wide lenses. Shows on digital, but I have no film Nikons to try. </p>

<p>The raw conveter in CS3 & Lightroom have a manual correction for chromatic aberration. Nikon NX2 has an automatic correction or manual correction. The manual correction is difficult to do as you need fine correction done at high magnification and the image is somewhat soft there. The auto correction seems to do well. It is hidden in the very top tab along with color moire and a few other clever things.</p>

<p>The newer lenses seem to be a small amount sharper compared to some of the less good older lenses. </p>

<p>All that said, I use many Ai lenses I found for less than $250 in nearly new condition. Some were $100. </p>

<p> </p>

[User_502260]

<p>The CA issue has to do with what I would call a defect in the way that digital sensors read incoming light. Digital sensors need to have the light strike them in a more direct way. Film will allow the rays to strike at a much sharper angle and without any CA. If you intend to use film and if you do not plan to make huge prints from a 35mm size negative or slide then the older lenses can still do a good job. If I know I will need to make a huge print I would rather use a 6X7 camera. You need a very expensive digital system to match that quality for large prints. The two Nikon bodies I use most often are a Nikkormat FT2 and an FE. I have pre-AI, AI and AIS lenses but only one AF lens. Where build quality is concerned I actually prefer the pre-AI lenses to the later ones.<br>

For the most commonly used focal lengths the difference in quality between a pre-AI lens and an AI or AIS lens isn't the limiting factor. The skill of the user is the limiting factor. A recent cover of Outdoor Photographer has a beautiful photo taken by the late Galen Rowell. It was taken outdoors in good light with a Nikkormat, a 35mm lens and Kodachrome 25 film. If this same photo could be retaken with a 24MP DSLR I don't think it would look any nicer. While film and processing are still available you can enjoy using the old Nikon lenses. There are plenty of threads on which ones work well with DSLR cameras if you are interested in using them that way. </p>

[dan park]

<p>I have noticed that my 50mm works great on a d200 and d2h but I am so far unimpressed with it on a 5d. This softness could be due to focus error or the depth of field being smaller on the full frame. The 35mm on the other hand is quite the opposite. It was a boring focal length on the aps sensor but is very nice on the full frame.</p>

[pge]

<p>Ian<br>

I definitely agree with you, I have nine ai lenses which I use and enjoy. I won't go into the benefits of this glass as it has already been covered, but I do agree.<br>

But as interesting as the 70's were, life did not end there. As a pure side note about the 70's, do you remember how they told us in the 70's that we were headed for another ice age. Do you think all of our polluting since then has saved us from the ice age? Is global warming a good thing?<br /> <br /> But back to lenses. The 90's were also a great time for Nikon lenses. I have the 20-35 f2.8 and the 35-70 f2.8 from that era and they are amazing lenses also. And in comparison to new, these lenses can also be had for a song. These two lenses cost me $450 together.<br>

And lets not forget the 2000's. The 2000's has broght us VR, and if you haven't tried it you should. I know it doesn't help with everything, but for what it is designed for, and with reasonable expectations, VR is terrific.<br>

Just my thoughts.</p>

<p>Phil</p>

[steve_lajoie]

<p>I went to digital last year and have retained my MF collection. My 300 f/4 gets great shots at airshows. You are mostly racked out to infinity, so AF is a non-issue. I have a D300 and rarely see CA with this lens. My 50 f1.4 gets a good bit of use now as a short portrait lens. </p>

<p>I don't use my 24 or 35 much now though. With the crop factor, they are now standard lenses and have been supplanted by a 12-24 f4 and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The newer zooms have their place on walkabout or hiking. </p>

<p>Steve</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>Phil,<br>

<em>"The 90's were also a great time for Nikon lenses. I have the 20-35 f2.8 and the 35-70 f2.8 from that era and they are amazing lenses also. And in comparison to new, these lenses can also be had for a song. These two lenses cost me $450 together."</em></p>

<p>I am interested in this pair for use on a F5 or F100. I see KEH has the 35-70 for $350 or so in bargain cond. I don't see that 20-35 anywhere, and certainly not at the price you got it for. Where?</p>

<p>Shash</p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

<p>Ian :</p>

<p><em>1. Performance. We are told that the latest lenses are better performing than old versions. Well, KR has tested the old lenses against the new ones and it seems the performance is only a tiny bit behind - or better than the new lenses on some occasions.</em></p>

<p>It has been proved some older lenses have problems with DSLR's, some don't... As far as performance are concerned, at least for the many ones which have no problem showing, you're right, the newest lenses are generally only marginally better and it shows only in extreme conditions. This is not peculiar to Nikon lenses, even the famed Leica lenses won't show a tremendous improvement in their latest version from what was obtainable from equivalent lenses coming from one or two generations earlier. To see the improvement, you will need a very sturdy support and a very slow film (hardly something you often use with a small format camera).</p>

<p><em>2. Autofocus. Yes, that is the major thing, but with a little skill and effort manual focus can be used for many applications and indeed is better for macro work and landscape. I think autofocus is over-hyped.</em></p>

<p>On that point I have mixed feelings... Since the AF now used on semi-pro and pro level Nikons is the best available AF has become a very useful feature and - IMHO - from 35mm on (on FX format) at least when you intent to use a fast lens fully open, it is a major advantage. I'm far less convinced of its utility for shorter lenses and even consider it an hindrance as I generally work in scale focusing with these shorter lenses, the same remark is also valid for zooms (manual or AF) as they don't have a fully developped engraved DOF scale on the barrel. Macro work is also more than often a manual thing and landscape photography generally implies perfect DOF control.</p>

<p><em>3. Metering. Most Nikon cameras have no trouble with metering manual lenses and indeed some even offer you selections in the menu to set your lenses in the database.</em></p>

<p>"Most"<em> </em> is a bit of an overstatement... Only the semi-pro and pro range can provide this feature. The amateur range doesn't (I mean in DSLR world).</p>

<p><em>4. Non-AI. No real issues here - many kits are still available and if not Ai conversions are easy to have done. To save even more cash, just use something like an FE with the flip-tab.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

FE like flip tab<em> </em> will allow to mount the lens on the body without damaging anything, but a non-Ai lens won't allow the metering at full aperture (as far as I remember). You will be complied to meter at actual aperture. The best way to proceed is to "Ai" your lens.</p>

<p><em>5. Price. The older lenses at this point in time are so low in price that it is possible to build up a really high quality kit for less than the price of one consumer zoom.</em></p>

<p><br /> I do agree ! ... And in fact it allows to negate in practice the difference in price between a D300 DX camera and a D700 FX camera by buying second hand or keeping older lenses without compromising the image quality<em>. </em> And this, even if you buy some second hand AF primes for anything longer than 35mm ! ...<em> </em> With a DX camera, particularly when it goes to wide angles, even with a D300 which fully alllows the use of most older lenses Ai or Ai'ed, the advantage is less evident as nothing existed in the old range to provide you rectilinear wides short enough to give you a very large field of view on a cropped sensor.</p>

<p>So, with the FX format, even a Nikon digital photographer can enjoy these "oldies" profitably !</p>

<p>This is my plan to go for the D700</p>

<p><br /> FPW</p>

[peter]

I find the older lenses are a bit less able to handle adverse shooting conditions (high contrast, shooting against the light etc) but most of them perform brilliantly otherwise and are very close to the most modern of their counterparts. I started out years ago buying pre-AI lenses as I loved the build quality and enjoyed older cameras and lenses.

 

A number of my lenses have been AI converted so I now use them on my D200 where they perform well. The lenses include the usual list of terrific Nikkors - 50mm f1.4, 50mm f2, 28mm f3.5, 24mm f2.8, 105mm f 2.5, 135mm f2.8, 80-200 f4.5 etc.

 

In fact when people criticize older lenses I wonder if they have ever tried them. This photo was taken with the much maligned 300mm f4.5 (early version) Admittedly its stopped down to probably f 8 which helps considerably but I don't see too much to complain about in this photo - apart from the boring subject that is! In this case the later versions of this lens are much more flexible - especially in their ability to produce great shots in a wider range of conditions but if you shoot old lenses within their design parameters they do well.

 

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o251/peterm1_bucket/nikkor300mmf45f8_1.jpg

 

As someone else commented the 90s also produced wonderful lenses and I likewise love this era for the bullet proff build quality of even the consumer grade Nikkors. Wonderful stuff.

 

I keep reminding myself that camera manufacturers have to keep their production lines rolling to stay in business and this depends on their ability to convince us to by new and supposedly better kit. There HAVE been many innovations (e.g. the ability to produce aspherical elements cheaply) which largely mean that lenses can do more things - like zooms that have a range from minsicule to humungous. But in reality the gains in overall image quality have generally been pretty small - if at all.

[Ian Rance]

<p>"But in reality the gains in overall image quality have generally been pretty small - if at all"</p>

<p>Peter, from my testing and general photos I cannot agree more. Although not a Nikkor, my 1957 50mm f/2 Schneider lens fitted to my Retina Reflex (the whole camera WITH the lens costs less that $30 usually) has sharpness, colour and bite that nips hard at the heels of the latest lenses (from any manufacturer). Just knowing that these great lenses are out there and that they can give so much performance for so little outlay is a really nice thought for me. The series E lenses are just such a range also.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[peter]

<p>Ian I agree absolutely and the shot produced by that Schneider is a gem.</p>

[pge]

<p>Shash<br /> I have found that crai*gslist is the way to go for me. I live in a big city and I work in front of a computer so I check it a couple of times a day and scoop deals when I can.</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>Thanks, Phil. I have trust issues even with ebay, so it'll take me a while longer to get comfortable with craig's list...but at the prices you got, it's definitely worth it.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>Ian: The Schneider was either an f1.9 or f2.8 on the Retina Reflex. </p>

<p>Nikon lenses? I'm picking up every one I can find at a bargain price. Only buying the primes. Autofocus? No. Non-ai or ai? Yes. Digital? What's that? Also picking up all the Nikon F and F2 I can find. Also FM2n. </p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Tom, what lenses have you managed to find - any that have surprised you with good performance when you have had your films back from processing?</p>

<p>The Retina - mine have the f/2 50's (I have both Heligon and Schneider models) that were also fitted to the IIIc rangefinders. My Heligon model is here:</p><div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here My first Nikon F was bought used in 1962; it had a used 5.8cm F1.4.</p>

<p>I find it abit interesting how some folks seem to think that AI and AIS is this magical thing where Nikkors became great; and non-AI are garbage. For us who used Nikkors thru this transition it was a lens metering/indexing mechanical issue; NOT one of performance.</p>

<p>Many lenses such as the 105mm F2.5 had the modern multicoating and modern Gauss lens design back in 1973; and it was a non-AI Nikkor; thus you all box it in a garbage. Thus one can buy a 105mm F2.5 Nikkor PC cheap sometmes because the peanut gallery has this AI thing in their heads as a culling factor.<br>

Missinformation is good then to find a bargain! ; ie I bought a Nikkormat FTn with a 105 F2.5 PC Nikkor on Ebay for 49 bucks.</p>

<p>For me culling out Nikkors by AI/AIS is like culling out car performance by unleaded gas; seatbelts; 8 track players; tail fins; or rear 3rd tail brake lights.</p>

<p>The 1970's had the Olympus OM system putting pressure on camera and lenes size and weight; newer Nikkors sometimes weigh less; have a less robust feel; more plastic in some cases too.<br /> Most cameras really do not use AIS and a AI lens works just the same too; and many are the same optics and coating. Thus folks who say a XYZ mm Nikkor AIS is better than a XYZ Nikkor AI are great folks too; they drop the AI prices on ebay do to this missinformation being preached.</p>

<p>Here the 1950's Leica Thread Mount Nikkors work well on my Epson RD-1 too; even if the peanut gallery would say they are garbage since they are 1/2 century old and single coated.</p>

<p>Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 LTM wide open at F2.5 :<br /> Maybe if I wasnt shooting thru a 1/2" thick scratched/dirty hockey glass; and using a modern lens; and the player was still; and I had a higher megapixel camera the "PS" on this captains jersey would be more readable. This shot was with the camera/lens panned with the player.</p>

<p>jerseu<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/_EPS4278PENSACOLA28SULLIVANsmall105.jpg?t=1233419428" alt="" width="250" height="165" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/_EPS4278PENSACOLA28SULLIVANmediu-1.jpg?t=1233419586" alt="" width="400" height="378" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/105mm%20F25%20Nikkor/_EPS4278PENSACOLA28SULLIVANlarge.jpg?t=1233419654" alt="" /></p>

[rick_helmke1]

<p>Kelly my AI lenses will meter on an old F or a new D3X. That's why I try and stick to that era or newer. Rick H.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>Ian: Oh, yes, forgot about that Retina Reflex. I was thinking the S model and III/IV. I have the S and the lenses. </p>

<p>Since you asked. so far, regarding the Nikons, I have picked up 24/2 ai, 28/3.5 ai, 35/1.4 nai, 35/2 nai, 35/2.8 PC ai, 50/1.2 nai, 100/4 macro, 105/2.5 nai, and 200/4 nai. Actually, I have picked up more than those but these are the ones I am keeping. Ok, the body inventory, so far, is F (chrome), F2AS (black), F2 (chrome), FM2n, Nikkormat FT3, and Nikkormat FT2. Sold a black F2 with plain prism a few years ago and regretted it ever since. </p>

<p>Kelly: Hey, those ais fanatics are beguiled into the "newer is better" mentality. Ha, as if, huh? </p>

[epp_b]

<p>I have no argument with you that the optics on most newer lenses are only minutely better, if at all, than older lenses. That said, I'll happily pay for the convenience of autofocus, matrix metering, full-aperture viewing, zooming, VR, etc. Though I don't think that AF is merely a convenience when it comes to shooting a very fast lens wide open.</p>

<p>I'm 22 and I started with digital. I also bought an FM just to try it out for fun, but I've hardly used it. Personally, I find that racking my brain by thinking too much about setting exposure and focus manually leaves too little room for thinking about the more important things that go into making good photo instead.</p>

<p>I know what goes into focus and exposure and how to use them as artistic tools. But I see no reason to handicap myself by futzing around with them manually. When I want to use only one particular artistic tool, I tell my camera what tool I want to use and it sorts out the rest (eg.: aperture priority mode, shutter priority mode, ISO Auto, etc.). When I want to control it all, I switch to manual mode.</p>

<p>I do, however, have a Series E 50/1.8 and a Series E 28/2.8, which I bought for cheap, because their AF counterparts do not autofocus on my D40. I've never used an AF-D lens, but I understand that their pretty nasty to focus manually next to the unbeatable feel of Nikon's manual focus lenses.</p>