Who wants Nikkor Ai's?

[johnw63]

<p>If there WAS going to be a list, I'd like my name on the draft list !</p>

<p> </p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I like the 35 1.4, heck all of them please. I would love to have a 35 1.4, 105 2.5, a 20 something and a 24 and 28 even 2.8 will do :-D You don't have a 300 F2.8?</p>

<p>If I wanted all the latest stuff the most clinical stuff, I would be poor by now. I picked up a 35-70 2.8 a some less than a yr ago and that's a great lens. </p>

[donbright]

<p>Amazing what people see through what they hear.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Hell's bells and buckets of blood! I mainly use the 16-85vr with my D300, but my 50mm 1.8 ais and 50mm 1.8 50mm af (pre-D) are rather good when I want maximum definition. Should I bin these two and buy the 18-55? Is it really that good?</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>My camera has the FX sensor and low pixel counts so it works well with the Ai lenses. The 18-55mm doesn't work.</p>

[alan_bessler_sr]

<p>They work great if you know what your doing ?</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>For all you guys that want these, they do exist on ebog, KEH, etc. Don't hold out for mine. I'm almost convinced they're worth keeping. I'd be fully convinced if they made a sharp image on my D7000, but it seems I need to hold out for an FX. Never could see spending thousands for a camera, but that's another matter. I'm glad to hear the lenses are valued, they certainly feel valuable. As for clinical vs the other glowing descriptions. I'm not immune to that. I have a Zeiss Planar on a Rollie that's like porcelain, but it's also sharp corner to corner. So thanks for the many thoughts. Maybe I'll rent a D800 and take another look. </p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Opps, Rollei. For you sticklers.</p>

[john_harper9]

<p>When I purchased my first DSLR (D40), I was very surprised that the kit lens was as good or better as my 20/3.5 AIs and 35/2.0 pre-AI - CA was evident in the old glass and I wonder if in-camera correction for the kit lens made it look better in pixel peeping. I found that my 200/4 and 300/4.5 were equivalent to the 70-300/4.5-5.6G. Upgrading the camera to D300 and D800 did not change the trend of modern zooms having better IQ than my old glass with a couple of exceptions : 55/3.5 pre-AI and 105/2.5 pre-AI. Add auto focus and the decision on what to put into the bag is easy - the modern glass. I regularly carry only the 55 and 20 (and the 20 is likely to be replaced by a WA zoom).</p>

<p>The old glass does "paint" differently and has better bokeh in some cases. I haven't gotten into DSLR video as yet so I'll keep my old glass for that application.</p>

 

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I did a lot of "testing" when I got a D600, and checked back again when a D800 fell into my lap.</p>

<p>I found that most of the older lenses do pretty well on the D800, though the best new lenses are a little better.</p>

<p>One thing that the "testing" did reveal is that getting perfect focus on the test subject is absolutely critical and requires care. So now I make sure that the focus point is correct before passing judgement on a lens.</p>

<p> I have concluded that the AF system in the D600 does about as well as the one in the D800 for sports, but it seems a good bit easier to achieve good focus with manual focus lenses on the D800 vs the D600, for whatever combination of reasons.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Older lenses that were good on film are equally good on digital when used on a similar or lower resolution sensor.<br>

That means full frame cameras 12 to 24 megapixel. </p>

<p>CA is not really relevant since they can relatively easily be corrected in post. Contrast is tricky because a more modern lens with better coatings and higher contrast may appear to resolve more when it can be the opposite. This is also a matter to resolve in post.</p>

<p>Remember that a D7000 packs 16 megapixels on DX which only has 44% of the area of FX. That means it is equal to a 36 megapixel FX camera like the D800 when we are talking about pixels per sensor area. Similar to looking at 100% crops.</p>

<p>A 24 megapixel camera like the D610 is equal to about a 10 megapixel DX camera. So the lenses that looked good on a D200 or a D300 at 100% crop will look equally good on the D610 at 100%.</p>

<p>A 16 megapixel camera like the D4 or Df is equal to a 7 megapixel DX camera. What looked good on your D70 at 100% crop will look good on these cameras as well.</p>

<p>Finally a 12 megapixel FX camera like the D3 or D700 is equal to about 5 megapixels on DX. </p>

<p>That's comparing the images on 100% crops. Since FX format is 2.25 times larger than DX we have 2.25 times more pixels at the same pixel per area density. So for a given final image size the FX image will have 50% more resolution than the DX image. That's why FX always looks good on lenses that DX cameras don't.</p>

<p> </p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>If the 18-55 was built tough I bet it would even make it into a Nat. Geo. photographers bag. I guess it was a marketing decision to get them into the hands of millions and set the bar fairly high for IQ in even the cheapest DX body, and why not? I don't really know why so many modern Nikkors, even some upper tier models, are plasticy, with awful plastic mounts. But they're sharp to the corners stopped down. The 18-55 at f/5.6 out resolved into the corners my 24 AIS set to f/8. What else am I supposed to do, buy a D800?</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Sorry Pete, I didn't see your post before responding to Robert. My comment is not referring to your very interesting and useful information. Thanks.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>This thread enticed me to drag out an old 1973 Nikon 400 F5.6 PC AIS lens and take a few shots with it on a D7100. The resolution is as good as any telephoto Nikon lens I have today. It was one of two lens that Nikon ever produced (2 years only) that had a real fluorite lens element. However, the lens is surprisingly difficult to use compared to modern lenses today. The focus ring takes at least a couple complete turns to go from close focus to infinity, the lens focuses past infinity due to the fluorite glass, and the close focus distance seems really far away but it is good for portraits taken form a distance. <br>

http://mdougherty.com/100-THEPHOTOEXPERIENCE/170-EQUIPMENT/8-Nikkor400-htm-htm.htm</p>

 

[User_502260]

<p>Long after the APS format was even modestly popular I bought Nikon and Minolta APS cameras for very little and had fun using them. With a Nikon Pronea S or 6i and the excellent 20-60 zoom. almost everything in the frame was sharp at or near the wide end. The focal length was short, the lens was slow and depth of field was great. The ix Nikkors could be used in AF or MF. Now change over to a digital sensor of the same size, use higher ISO settings whch still have high IQ so you can get a higher shutter speed, use IS and when the image is recorded by the sensor, sharpen it either in-camera or in PP. The combination of these things will allow you to get sharper looking images. The compaints about older lenses have to do with a lack of AF, no IS (in the case of Nikon) and the fact that a number of factors can cause older lenses to work less well with a digital sensor than with film. Put a roll of TP or Imagelink HQ or CMS 20 into your film camera an then make test shots with a 55/2.8 AIS. The amount of information captured by these films in one frame would require a digital sensor much more powerful than the one in a Nikon D800. We know that film this slow is not suitable for every subject or every situation but the idea that a lens like the 55/2.8 AIS has suddenly become less sharp or unusable is simply incorrect. Most of the credit for IQ improvement with digital equipment has to do with improved high ISO performance, improved AF and improved IS. Only a little of the improvement is due to newer lenses or better lens coatings. Anything that makes a lens work better with a digital sensor is welcome. Some improvements are more obvious than others. If I use a 6X7 camera hand held and in poor light and then scan the negatives with a cheap flatbed scaner, I might conclude that an APS camera gives better fnal results than a 6X7 camera. That would be an incorrect ocnclusion. The 18-55 which came with my Pentax K-x is surprisingly good. Is it as good at 50 as a 50/1.7 SMC Pentax F which was made for film cameras? No it isn't. </p>

[fred_c1]

<p>Ai-converted is not AiS.</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Just for the sake of belaboring it. Compared to AF DX 18-55 & 55-200 @ f/5.6 & f/8.<br>

24 f/2.8 AIS worse<br>

28 f/2.8 AIS worse<br>

35 f/2.8 AIS equal<br>

35 f/1.4 AI'ed worse<br>

50 f/2 AI better<br>

55 f/3.5 non AI better<br>

55 f/2.8 AIS better<br>

85 f/1.8 AI equal<br>

105 f/2.5 non AI equal<br>

135 f/2.8 AIS worse<br>

180 f/2.8 AIS ED equal<br>

200 f/4 AIS equal<br>

I don't usually fuss all over the place like this, but I just stopped shooting 35mm color last year so this is just the housekeeping that many of you did years ago. I will keep the lenses, and maybe someday get an FX to see how they look. Lazy Sunday, hope your team won.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>When testing manual lenses there is one thing that can make you draw the incorrect assumptions.<br>

I'm thinking about when you focus at infinity with lenses that have hard infinity stops like most manual focus lenses have.</p>

<p>The problem is that the distance between the f-mount and the sensor has to be absolutely perfect on the camera and on digital cameras it's not at all uncommon that it's not. On Nikon this distance is 46.50 mm.</p>

<p>This has no effect on AF lenses because the AF sensors are adjusted with software to get the focus spot on at infinity. Since most people use only their kit zoom on their camera and only a few people would use a manual focus lens and of those only a few would identify the real problem so Nikon aren't too worried that a few cameras aren't up to specs. It's the same thing with focusing screen alignment. Only those who focus manually and actually use the viewfinder for this, often with something like a split image focusing screen, would notice any misalignment.</p>

<p>Anyway the register distance is one of those gotchas that can make a lens look worse than it is when it fact it's a camera body problem.</p>

<p>An old trick to test this was to put a camera on a tripod and focus at something. Tape the focus ring so it can't move. Then take another camera and put the taped lens on it. If the focus is off the register distance is off (or actually the focusing screen alignment if you just check visually).</p>

<p>And the focus screen alignment is also a problem but most people figure out by themselves out that they need to focus using liveview on the LCD if they want reasonably right focus for testing purposes. Just missing the focus by a tiny bit can affect the image sharpness a lot.</p>

<p>Anyway, I have most of the lenses above but I'm very seldom shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 so I wouldn't know how the 18-55 and 55-200 compared to the older lenses.</p>

<p>Also some lenses such as the 35mm f/1.4 were also optimized for shooting at large apertures and at closer distances so these lenses would not perform as good at f/8 and infinity as some of their slower counterparts would.</p>

 

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>All true what you say, but regardless of tests, if I use the focus assist light when shooting, and I have to, I'm going to get these results. It's not like I'm trying to give a final verdict to these lenses. I want them to succeed, but my results on a d7000 are currently as stated. Now if there's a method to improve their focus in real life shooting, fill me in. I'd rather not buy that d800, and whose to say I wouldn't encounter the same problem.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>I thought you would have used live view? Non? How else would you get critical focus? Those wides are tough to focus exactly. </p>

[johncrosley]

<p>Kit lens 18-55 f 8, ISO 100 (or so). Sharp enough? </p>

<p>That being said, my 50 mm f 2.0 non ai was so sharp that it is considered a 'classic' and I didn't know it. I think the same design was carried over into the AI lenses. I shot it on cameras that took the 'rabbit ears' mount that also accepted AI when it was introduced. Nikon then did not think to obsolete all its older lenses like they did when they introduced their 'G' lenses for the lower priced cameras.</p>

<p>I had ALL the AI lenses except maybe one or two teles. The zooms deserved their poor reputation, but the primes below 200 mm if not the sharpest possible lenses had AMAZING color contrast, that just cannot be obtained from today's usual lenses, with the exception possibly of some nanocoat lenses. I'd say the 105 mm Micro nano shows some amazing color rendition, but it's still different from the color contrast of the AI/AIS lenses.</p>

<p>I think the stunning color contrast, (which I haven't read above in a cursory reading of recent posts after an extensive reading earlier today), is the secret to the 'painterly' secret of the AI/AIS lenses, to address another issue raised here.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p><div></div>

[errol young]

<p>Ai's? I shoot the odd port rate with my 85mm Nikkor H. Not as sharp as the 18-55 but has character. While I can add character in PS, this lens helps me think in character while shooting. Though haven't used it in a few years. </p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=941258">Luke Kaven</a> , Feb 03, 2014; 03:02 a.m.</p>

<p>I thought you would have used live view? Non? How else would you get critical focus? Those wides are tough to focus exactly<br /> <br /> (How do I do quotes right? You know it that neat box thingy. KS )</p>

<p>Spectral Highlights for one thing. I also did infinity focus on large groups of trees with fine branches. No way would I use the monitor because I never use it in shooting. I'm glad to be convinced by everyone's contribution here that these are fine lenses, and I will keep them, but my "tests" are always practical shooting tests. I was leaning towards dismissing them unfairly, and now stand thankfully corrected. Heads up vW, yur right. And thanks to all voices. This is a fine forum.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>Hmmm . . . my 16/3.5 AI and 400/5.6 ED AI are simply excellent on my D800. My departed 50/1.2 AIS gave me a "look" at f/1.2 that no other Nikkor could, and my 135/2 AIS was pretty darned good for a $400 lens. My 135/3.5 AIS is right up there with my 70-200/4 or 70-200/2.8 in a much smaller package.<br>

My 45/2.8P is glued to my D800 most of the time.<br>

Many of my AI/AIS Nikkors were perfectly fine on myD700 and only started to show there optical design age on my terribly demanding D800, which is quite a feat.<br>

<br />There are a lot of very very good AI or AIS Nikkors out there along with some real lemons (to go along with the AF and AF-D lemons that Nikon has too).<br>

Just because a lens is of an old design doesn't necessarily make them by default non-useful or not sharp.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Opinions about lens performance are different from opinions about what it's like to shoot with a given lens. If you're using a DX camera with a small finder, and an electronic rangefinder that sometimes does and sometimes doesn't, it's very difficult to achieve critical focus with a wide MF prime. If you're publishing your opinions about how these lens perform, then you'd want to give them a fair shot. Live view. Tripod. It's the only way. But I wouldn't suggest that you're testing lenses when you're really doing "practical shooting tests." Can't have both!</p>