Manual Nikon 1.8 early, late or 1.4?

[marco_de_biasi]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I've seen several posts here about old manual Nikon lenses, but still I'm confused.<br>

Basically, I spotted three Nikon lenses and I'm not sure about the differences that might exist.<br>

I'm gonna use this lens on my 7D as I was looking for a good sharp lens, with good bokeh. I hoped to find a good bargain to use this next purchase for macro as well (with extended tubes), but so far I've only seen nice old lenses on eBay those cost almost as the Nikon if not more (usually more). So, at this point I'm thinking that probably the Nikon is a better choice. On top of that I've already bought another Nikon from Keh and I'm finding their bargain very good.<br>

Btw, on some threads here I've read that the 1.4 isn't actually a better choice compared to the 1.8.</p>

<p>Here are the pictures of the lenses:<br>

Nikon 50mm 1.4<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/hXT8P.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300" /></p>

<p>Nikon 50mm 1.8 early 35mm<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/qXlBl.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300" /></p>

<p>Nikon 50mm 1.8 late 35mm<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/yYykm.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300" /></p>

[craigd]

<p>I have a late 50mm f/1.8 lens just like your last picture, a couple of 50mm f/1.4 lenses just like your first picture, and a couple of different versions of the earlier 50mm f/2 lenses that were later replaced by the f/1.8. The late f/1.8 is the most compact of them all, but also has more plastic than the others. You really can't go wrong with any of them.</p>

[marco_de_biasi]

<p>Thanks for your reply Craig.<br>

I was thinking to go with the early 1.8 as it should be sturdier than the late 1.8. Also, from what I've heard, it seems that there isn't so much difference between the 1.8 with the 1.4, and wouldn't be a matter of cost as their price are very close i.e., going with the 1.4 shouldn't give me more much more sharpness.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>The early AiS 50/1.8 (Mk.I, s/n 3xxxxxx) has all metal focusing helicoids, metal aperture ring, and metal focusing ring with a rubber grip. It also has an extended nosepiece that shades the front element, and it focuses closer (0.5m) than the late AiS 50/1.8 (0.6m).</p>

<p>The late AiS 50/1.8 (Mk.III, s/n 4xxxxxx) does have some plastic parts. Specifically the aperture ring, the one-piece focusing ring (which is attached to a metal focusing helicoid), and the housing for the aperture and optical groups. The lens elements themselves (both front and rear group) are in metal retaining rings. The front nosepiece and filter thread mount is metal. One of the four helicoid threads (the inner thread that is part of the optical housing) is a coarse pitch plastic thread. The other three helicoid threads are metal.</p>

<p>Both are quite well made, but the early AiS 50/1.8 lens will stay "tight" longer when the helicoid grease gets worn out (the pitch of the inner helicoid is finer). If well maintained, the late AiS 50/1.8 lens will also last long and perform well, but if the helicoid grease wears out on these there will be a very little bit of side-to-side play in the axial focusing helicoid (but less play than you'll find in even a new AF 50/1.8). A CLA with fresh helicoid grease will restore it to original condition and eliminate the play in the helicoid.</p>

<p>Optically, both lenses are close to identical.</p>

<p>The 50/1.4 beats both of the above hands down ... at f/1.4. :)</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Have a look here, dates, serial numbers, the whole nine yards of everything about Nikkor lenses.</p>

<p>http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html</p>

<p> </p>

[marco_de_biasi]

<p>Thanks a lot for the detailed info.<br>

Michael, if the 50 f/1.4 is the winner, should I be concerned about this description?<br>

<em>50 F1.4 AI (52) FILTER RING DAMAGE</em><br>

It's actually the same price as the early 1.8, but the ring damage could prevent to put any filter on it, right? I guess that could be a problem...</p>

<p>Last thing I've seen is this 1.4 <strong>non ai</strong>. Would this make a big difference in terms of usability on my Canon 7D?<br>

Nikon 50mm 1.4 non ai<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/21AzC.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300" /> </p>

 

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>You will need to research on compatibility with your Canon - but a non Ai Nikon f1.4 would not be high on my list of desirables.<br>

F1.4 gives you just about half an F/stop more than any of the 1.8 variations,and about 2/3F more than the Nikkor 50/2 , either of which I would choose in preference.<br>

My 50/2 tests better wide open than 2 samples of the 50/1.4 at the same aperture, BUT : sample variations are more important than most folks think - so no rule applies to all.<br>

Test on your own camera,before you plunk down the Card..</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Michael, if the 50 f/1.4 is the winner...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I said that <em>the 50/1.4 beats the others .... at f/1.4</em>, I was sort of having a little fun with you. The 50/1.4 is not great when used wide open, but obviously if you need to use a 50mm lens at f/1.4, then the 50/1.4 is the <strong>only</strong> choice between these three candidates.</p>

<p>I believe that it is generally accepted that the 50/1.4 is a bit better at f/2 than the 50/1.8 is at f/2. In other words the 50/1.4 is better stopped down one stop than the 50/1.8 is used nearly wide open. But once you get to f/2.8 and smaller, then there isn't a lot of difference in performance between the f/1.8 and f/1.4.</p>

<p>Yes, filter ring damage means you probably will not be able to attach a filter to the lens. It also means you can't attach a screw-in lens hood, and the 50/1.4 really should be used with a hood. Nikon does make a snap-on hood for these 50/1.4 lenses (HS-9) that can be attached to damaged filter threads.</p>

<p>The non-AI 50/1.4 can be just as easily adapted to your Canon 7D as the AI/AiS models. The version you have shown above is optically identical to the later AI 50/1.4 shown in your original question.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Many of these lenses are variations on the Double Gauss designs such as the Zeiss Planars and Biotars (e.g., Biotar 58mm f/2 from Zeiss Jena).<br /> Here is a list of some examples that offer similar designs from the Wikipedia article on the design:</p>

<blockquote>Asahi Optical Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4<br />Fuji Fujinon 50mm f/1.4<br />Konishiroku Hexanon AR 50mm f/1.4<br />Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH<br />Minolta MC Rokkor-PG 50mm f/1.4<br />Nippon Kokagu Nikkor (K) 50mm f/1.4 (New)<br />Olympus G. Zuiko Auto-S 40mm f/1.4<br />Sigma EX DG HSM 50mm f/1.4<br />Tokyo Optical RE Auto-Topcor 5.8 cm f/1.4<br />Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f/1.1<br />Yashica Auto Yashinon DX 50mm f/1.4<br />Zeiss Planar HFT 50mm f/1.4</blockquote>

<p>Many of these can be adapted to EOS camera bodies. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM is also in this design class.</p>

<p>I commonly use my Biotar 58mm f/2 lenses and my Nikkor-S 55mm f//1.2 on my EOS bodies. Non-AI Nikkors are often much cheaper on eBay than the later AI versions.</p>

[marco_de_biasi]

<p>One last thing. Some friends of mine are telling me for that price I should go with a Pentax SMC 50mm 1.4. They say its bokeh it's better and it's as sharp as the Nikon 1.8. Also it could works as macro (is that true?)<br>

I don't know the SMC at all, but since I've already bought another Nikon and I'm happy with it, I would be more oriented toward the Nikon.</p>

[marco_de_biasi]

<p>p.s. thanks JDM for the infos, that's another interesting thing to know.</p>