AI-S Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P -- Leica-like?

[joe_petrik]

First off let me apologize for posting a Nikon question on the Leica

forum. But there is method to my madness -- I'm more likely to get

the info I want here than if I posted on the Nikon forum. (Of all

35mm photographers, Leica users are most likely to understand bokeh

and tonality.)

 

Is the AI-S Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P any good? By Nikon standards it's

pricey -- actually more than the 50mm f/1.4 AI-S -- though still

cheap by Leica standards. I'm hoping the cost isn't just clever

marketing.

 

Does the 45 have Leica-like qualities -- sharp, contrasty, smooth

bokeh and broad tonality? And how does it compare with the 35 f/1.4

AI-S Nikkor? (I have the 35 f/1.4 and, since the 45 is so close in

focal length, I would only get it if the 45 truly were a gem of an

optic.)

 

Thanks,

 

Joe

[johann_fuller]

Made by Cosina apparently so check out the qualities of Voigtlander lenses as a comparison. The 45mm is not that close to 35mm - much closer to 50mm and the classic definition of a 'standard' lens whereby the focal length is equal to the frame diagonal (43mm on a 36x24mm frame).

[jerry_lehrer]

Joe

 

If you have the 35mm f1.4, you have just about the best that Nikon

has ever produced. It has all the qualities that you wanted.

 

The 45 is much too close to the 50, which I no longer use. Nikon

used to make a 45mm f2.8 GN, which was not an AIS lens. Useless.

 

Jerry

[thomas_t]

Joe,

 

1) Yes, the 45 is extremely sharp, ergonomically very smooth in terms of focusing and throw. In pics versus my 50/1.8 (which is probably the single sharpest lens Nikon makes) I can't see a difference. Has a very solid yet incredibly compact feel to it ... I have the black version. Functionally and aesthetically I would rank it one of my favorite nikon lens.

2) Versus the 35/1.4 .... sharper than the 35/1.4 at 2.8 and the relatively weight/size/sharpness ratio is definitely in favor the 45.

3) Does it have Leica like qualities? Yes in terms of sharpness. As for bokeh, it has its own pleasing transition comparable to my 35 summicron (latest) but slightly more contrasty ... but this is so subjective that my opinion shd be practically irrelevant to you :)

 

It is a great lens Nikon-wise, small, extremely well-built ( I have no idea about Cosina having built this one), has an oldtime solid feel to it. And they weren't kidding about calling it a pancake lens, it is flatter to the camera than my 35 summicron. I'd say it is a gem. Email me if you have more specific questions. Best regards.

 

Tom

[henk]

Joe,

 

If you are looking for the highest optical quality standard lens, get the 55mm/3.5 micro-nikkor. Its the best 35mm standard lens is have, and is 100% usable as a 'normal' lens. In terms of sharpness i dont have anything coming close to this one.

 

Greetings,

[Robin Smith]

Henk

 

"Its the best 35mm standard lens is have"

 

What about the faster Summicrons of all complexions, or the highly regarded macro-Elmarit-R 60mm/2.8 etc. etc.? Yours seems a very bold statement! Even if the micro-Nikkor is good, it is 2/3 stop slower than the Leica equivalent macro lens. It really does depend on what you mean by "best". Yours, argumentatively...

[andrew_schank]

It does seem like this would have been a good post for the new Nikon forum. About the 50 f3.5 Micro Nikkor, it is a super sharp lens and one of my favorites,but does produce annoying geometrical shapes in the backround highlights. Its about time that some of the lens makers have understood that having the aperture form more of a circle instead of a hexagon (like the 45mm Nikon pancake lens and most of the older classic rangefinder lenses)makes for a more natural looking backround.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

<i>"Does the 45 have Leica-like qualities"</i>--Joe Petrik.

<br><br>

Hey there Joe-Bub! ;-)

<br><br>

If it wasn't clear before, the reponses so far, albeit few in number, should inform you that you are the only one who can reach such conclusions. For example, I'm quite certain that you don't share Henk's wide-sweeping assessment of the 55 Micro-Nikkor*--a lens you own--so why should anything be different about strangers' opinions of glass you have no experience with? Moreover, even if you bought this 45mm Nikkor, how would you ever be satisfied it was <i>Leica-like</i> without having owned/shot Leica?

<br><br>

Granted it's rather expensive to experiment, but not if you stick to second-hand R kit (and you can always sell it off without much loss). If you like, when you're up in Toronto this Christmas, I'll gladly let you snap away with my R4 or M6 for a few days, though you have to promise to take proper pictures and not lens targets or brick walls.

<br><br>

Cheers,<br><br>

Vuk.

<br><br>

*I've actually used this Nikon lens (for a product shoot last winter) and, while I'll admit it's quite possibly the sharpest thing on the planet, it's definitley not what I would choose for most shooting at ~50mm.

[joe_petrik]

Johann: 45 f/2.8 made by Cosina? I don't have info to the contrary but I thought Nikon was looking to Cosina for only their cheapest consumer zooms, like the 70-300 f/slow to f/slower G-series, not a pricy prime.

 

Jerry: I do like the 35 f/1.4 and it is a particularly respectable Nikkor, but its bokeh is only fair to middlin. (See http://www.photo.net/photo/792914 for an example. I'm also willing to take my lumps that this pic is somewhere between crap and mediocre, but it was my first attempt at a streeter.)

 

My understanding is that the 45 f/2.8 has very good to excellent bokeh, and according to Tom it could very well be.

 

Tom: Comparable to a 35 Summicron?... well, that's encouraging.

 

Henk: I have a 55 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor (not the older f/3.5 you mention) and can vouch for the lens's resolving power, but pleasing bokeh? It's certainly not a 50 'cron killer.

 

Vuk: I understand what you're saying. Even if the 45 Nikkor is Leica-like, will nagging doubts eat away at me whether I would have been better off getting an R4 and 50 'cron. Fair enough, but if the 45 is good enough -- and for all you know maybe it's even better than, say, a 40mm Summicron ;-) -- it'll be good enough for me. I'm not interested in owning the best, simply kit that's good enough.

 

Thanks for the replies. Any other comments are more than welcome.

 

Joe

[henk]

Joe,

 

sharp, contrasty, smooth bokeh and broad tonality?

 

OKOK you did mention bokeh, but its kinda contradictionary to get a supersharp, well corrected piece of optics AND have good bokeh at the same time. The 45mm2.8P may well be the best compromise, allthough in this case i would prefer the 50/1.8 AI, its not the small AIS version but overall best preformer IMHO.

 

Greetings,

[eugenio.demmenie]

Hi,

 

Never shot with Leica, so I cannot tell if the Nikkor AIS 45 2.8P is as good as a Leica lens. I did not submit the Nikkor to a rigourous lens test either using tripod, fould up mirror using a camera with exemplary film flatness etc. etc.

 

I like the AIS 45 f/2.8P I have, for its size, nice color rendition, sharpness. I never used it in shooting against the sun (I rarely do and I prefer my 28 2.0 for this). The lens has a simple Tessar optical design: 4 elements in 3 groups. And thus the reflecting surfaces are fewer than in most other lenses. The aperture has 7 blades, which are rounded and this helps giving a good "bokeh". It is not the first Tessar Nikon made: There is the old GN Nikkor 45/2.8, but this lens has a smaller rear element and it has no coating. It is a lesser lens according to people who have tested it (see e.g. Bjørn Rørslet's site).

 

I have several 50 mm (all but one they are all Nikkors): HC Nikkor 50 mm/2.0, AI Nikkor 50/2, AI Nikkor 50mm/1.8 (full metal barrel), AIS 50mm/1.8 and a AI-E 50mm /1.8 and the AIS 45 f/2.8P.

The non-Nikkor is a Schneider Kreuznach Componon 50mm/4 enlarger lens (in metal barrel), that I only use for closeup work on a PB-4 bellows (or PK-11A) using two converter rings (converter ring from Nikon bajonet to M39 and M39 to M??). The aperture has about 16 blades ( I lsot count) and I think it is three group design. This Schneider is the cheapest lens I ever bought (second hand it costed 20 US$/Euro). It is also my "sharpest" lens. I like its color rendition too.

 

This brings me to the price of the Nikkor AIS 45 /2.8P. It is a very expensive lense compared to it's ancestor the GN Nikkor or other 50 mm Nikkors.

 

I I had this nice 1.4 / 35 mm - you have, I would rather save up for the 85mm/1.4 AIS or AF and buy a second hand 50 mm/2.0 AI in good condition.

 

That being said, I am glad I have my 45 mm/f2.8P, but I have to admit I made a very good deal buying the lens in combination with a FM3A.

[joe_petrik]

A bit of Googling has paid off...

 

http://www.majid.info/radio/stories/2002/08/25/aTaleOfThreeLenses.html

 

This site doesn't answer whether the 45 f/2.8 is Leica-like, but it does answer the bokeh question. The 45 seems pretty good, certainly much better than the 50 f/1.8.

 

Thanks for the replies.

 

Joe

[majid]

<p>Sorry to be late to this thread, but people seem to still follow links from it.<br>

I had the 45mm f/2.8P on a FM3A in 2002, and bought my first Leica, a M6TTL with a 50mm Summicron about 6 months later. After that, the FM3A just gathered dust. The 45mm has a decent enough bokeh thanks to the rounded diaphragm blades, but it lacks the "wow" factor of Leica optics (or VC ones, for that matter).</p>