Who wants Nikkor Ai's?

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>The original post was asking who still used/ wanted these. I never wanted to get into it over tests, and he said she said. Forums take on a life of their own, and the idea IMO of "publishing" is a stretch.<br>

Not to be defensive but I don't think Live View is superior to sighting a spectral highlight, or infinity focus on distant objects. These lenses are not large telephotos that have leeway regarding the infinity focus. 24 & 28 especially can safely be focused at infinity. If they couldn't they'd be causing a ridiculously unnecessary problem for practical use. </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>But they ain't as sharp. The 24mm f/2.8 AIS can't beat my kit 18-55mm.</p>

<p>I don't want to sell these to anyone hoping they're sharp</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Kenneth, I believe you are getting these responses because you made these statements as if they are absolute truth. Obviously, a great number of people disagree with you. You have also not provided any evidence to substantiate your claims. Try writing in terms of "your opinion" or "in your experience" and I suspect you will not get such a harsh reception. </p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>You're a nice fellow, and I'm just trying to see that information that gets around to thousands of people doesn't pass through uncritically. When you go down a whole list of lenses and rate them better/same/worse, then it's more important to check up on the testing.</p>

<p>A couple of points worth making. The infinity stops on these 40 year old lenses are sometimes not as exact as they once were. But even if it is right on the mark, one should remember that infinity is a long way off, and in fact there are no photographic subjects at infinity. In short, focusing on infinity ensures that *nothing* is in critical focus. :-)</p>

<p>This actually isn't just an academic point. I took a picture of something 5 miles away with an 85/2 AI, and the critical focus was way back from the infinity mark. This made a difference. With critical focus, I was able to distinguish a 1-pixel wide power line at that distance. At infinity, I could not. The lightest possible tap on the focus ring, akin to blowing on it, made a discernible difference. A tenth of a millimeter would have been extreme.</p>

<p>This is more important when you use those wides on a dense sensor. They have deceptively fine planes of focus. On a high resolution sensor, you can see just how narrow it is. </p>

<p>Tripod. Live view. Lather. Rinse. Repat.</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>It would be coddling my audience to treat people as children and ever so carefully parse my wording as not to mislead or offend. This is our modern condition, a combination of litigation and infantilism. If the good people of a photography forum can't discern that posts of lens experiences are subjective then we are lost.<br>

People have many resources on-line for scientific lens testing. My chat here can't possibly be confused as such. If anyones bias is for absolutes they'll need to be more discriminating when choosing sources.<br>

This worry over wording everything just exactly right will never please everyone and only makes for dull conversation, totally lacking of insight. For petes sake, I only started this because I felt it would be rotten of me to ebay this stuff and stick the unsuspecting with less than stellar lenses. </p>

 

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Infinity and beyond, I'm outta here. </p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Just some thoughts really about how to get the most out of your legacy favorites. We mean well. We gave you hope for your glass. You might have let that stuff go! (And we would have gladly bought it cheap.) Have fun.</p>

[andylynn]

Since Kenneth is out of here, I thought it might be useful to have a discussion of where he went wrong trying to use his

(really quite excellent and enviable) collection of AIS glass on his DSLR.

 

My first thought is that if he has a camera that came with an 18-55 lens, it's sure to be one that's not good for use with

AIS glass. No metering, and that aggravating focus confirm dot that has too much slack in it. Combining that slack focus

dot with the lower quality finder, it's very difficult to get good focus without using live view with magnification and a tripod.

[luke_kaven]

<p>There's a big difference between 1 mile, 5 miles, and infinity on an AI lens. The finder on an APS-C camera is no good for that kind of critical focus. The electronic rangerfinder is no good for anything. Yet the D7000 sensor has the equivalent density of 36MP FX equivalent. There's no slack in the system.</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>I'm very grateful for the contributions than have encouraged me to keep these. What a boon. Very grateful.<br>

The 18-55 did not come with my purchase denoting a cheaper camera. I have the excellent d7000 and purchased the excellent 18-55 & 55-200 separately. I use the 35 AF-D f/1.8 90% of the time. <br>

I conducted the live view tripod experiment. Impractical as it may be for actual use. As best as I could see the screen, the resulting photograph produced better corners. I then shot as per electronic finder. The photograph produced a better center with the same corners as before. This was the 24mm f/2.8<br>

That demonstrates, I believe not only the curvature of the lens, but also the capability of the electronic finder that has been easily dismissed.<br>

Infinity seems to be where it should be on the barrel. I have not done any of the other lenses. I trust that they are fine lenses. They have character, no doubt, but I think many people are going to prefer the clinical sharpness of moderns.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I had a long love affair with those lenses. I particularly loved the 105. But as with all love affairs, there came a time to move on. I have the memories... some are very negative, but some are positives too. At times I slide through them. I have regrets, but not many. I really don't miss them... not much. I have hooked up with some really cool new items that keep me really occupied and challenged. I have no desire to relive my past.</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Interesting perspective E.J. With a good editor you might have the beginnings of a novel.<br>

After doing the 28mm and getting much the same results my hopefully last thoughts are towards the live view vs. electronic. The best image is the ground glass viewfinder. I can't really get the sparkle clarity on live view, and the focus assist is according to many unreliable. It wasn't. The differences are extremely small and with both 24 and 28 that manifests as merely sharpest at edge or sharpest at center. Bottom center I mean. Either way the best way to focus these is with the viewfinder itself. Find whats most important and think hyperfocal. Why don't they add a microprism? That's the focusing issue.<br>

The sharpness issue remains the same. These two classics are beautiful and sharp albeit not center and edge at the same time. Moderns are more precise, and even the lowly 18-55 is sharp everywhere @ f/8<br>

Gad. Enough Kenneth, go to bed. I apologize for EVERYTHING.</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Correction ( already) The 24 doesn't give me edge and center sharp at the same time. The 28 does. The 28 is PERFECTION. I'm having an on-line nervous breakdown.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

Kenneth - I'm glad you did not actually leave!

[art_tyree]

<p>Louis:<br>

Your gorgeous and bitingly sharp portrait demonstrates why I cherish my copy of the 55mm Micro manual focus. A true gem of a lens, and I don't miss autofocus in micro work anyway.</p>

 

[andylynn]

That 28 is one of the best Nikon lenses I ever had.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>I still have a love for the old lenses. Artistic work gets such an amazing look with them. My 50mm f/1.2 is my favorite for Reverse Macros & other things. As I'm going through my lenses I don't use. That's one I'll hold on to if only because it brings me back to my very first Nikon FM with my first 50 mm lens. It was no f/1.2, but I learned so much with that camera & lens. The little girl in me will therefor hold on to that lens. I have others I'm not attached to. Those I will sell. But that 50mm f/1.2 - - it will remain with me....<br>

The colors of those old lenses. The amazing tones & shades...... They're a joy to behold.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>I thought that you'd end up liking the 28mm. The best samples of the 28 are up with the best 28mm lenses ever made, at least as good as the distagon.</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Thanks for your persistence.<br>

Nice words Lil Judd.<br>

I'm almost embarrassed to say this but I just stopped by that famous selling site to see what they were going for and snagged another 28 for $70.00. Guy said it had some fine scratches on the rear. I couldn't see anything in the pics. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Send them to me, I don't need the 24 2.8, already have one but I'll take your 105, after all, its so inferior and all. I too think many would think you statement re AIS lens vs your kit lens a bit polemic. Also there, are a couple of AIS zooms that actually look very nice on modern digital cameras. Try the old 80-200 4.5 or little newer 4.0 with the slide zoom, it can take some very nice photos.</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Some might indeed find polemics in the toss, but the 18-55 lens merely served as the reason for my dismay with the Ai's. If you read the whole terrible saga though, you'll see crow feathers adorning my dinner plate. The Ai's required more careful focus than I had attained in casual shooting. This was pointed out early on but my incredulous nature and the memory of several attempts with head to head shooting always going to the 18-55 @ f/8 especially prevented enlightenment. Now however, convinced as I am I won't be selling. However they are available at ebog and KEH, for very reasonable prices. Sometimes a steal.</p>

 

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>The real lingering issue is not one of sharpness, but focus. Focusability. Is that a word? The Ai's are sharp but only if the focus is precise, at least with a DX camera. So precise that practical use is compromised. It might seem an easy thing to do, but I have found that it's hit and miss to the extreme. Where does that leave the use of them? Landscape OK, but anything more active seems a risk. Is the situation any better with FX I wonder? How can less megapixels per area make for a fully realized image?</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>One problem with modern cameras is that they are optimized for autofocus. The focusing screen is optimized for brightness and not to determine focus like manual focus cameras was.</p>

<p>Nikon doesn't care about that so they don't provide photographers with screens suitable for manual focus like for instance Canon does. But you can usually buy third party screens that fit. I prefer split image screens for precise focus but even matte screens are available that's a lot better than the stock screen.</p>

<p>DX cameras are a bit more tricky to focus than FX cameras. Viewfinder size is of course important but also the fact that you have to use wide lenses on DX to get the same angle of view. And wider lenses are harder to focus, everything else being equal.</p>

<p>BTW, Another use for AI lenses is to put them on other cameras, both for stills and video. I use some of my Nikon lenses on Panasonic m43 cameras with adapters. Canon is the probably the best dslr for this as they have a short register distance and can take a lot of other brands of lenses with the right adapter. So a lot of Nikon lenses on Canon 5D of different vintages.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>Kenneth -<br>

<br />Your original intent of the post is a worthy discussion, but the phrase "you can't mean what you say unless you say what you mean" applies. Exact wording has and always will be critical to a discussion.<br>

Certainly some of the AI/AIS primes are bested by modern kit zooms, especially on DX, but there are some real keepers out there (like the 28/2.8 AIS) that still perform in an excellent fashion decades after they were designed. The task is to figure out which ones to keep. It certainly helps that many are not very expensive.<br>

Glad to see you are still hanging with this thread.<br>

John</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>John:<br>

I'm glad that you don't mind my continuing this. I know I'm erratic, I'm a misunderstood genius and I'm doing the best I can to play on the same field with adults. Tedious.<br>

I agree the lenses are keepers. Now I'm just working on getting them to work their best, and I fear I might be in the market for an FX, eventually anyway. I just got into digital last year and am in no hurry to keep spending the big bucks. Being a misunderstood genius, of course I can't sell anything.<br>

Most of my work is medium format black and white. The digital just made sense for color, especially my street color, not so much landscape. I like the digital for my Eggleston rip off's. For those of you who believe geniuses don't need to rip off other's , I give you this quote from Pablo himself, "I only steal from the best".<br>

I'll use these lenses if I can get them in focus. I like sharp and that means corners. Meaning is elusive is my work. There really is no intention to communicate ideas, so the content is in their presence. Crisp, clean clear images send me into raptures. The sense of presence, reality, is so satisfying, especially when it's nothing in particular.</p>

[donbright]

<p><em>"Crisp, clean clear images send me into raptures</em>"</p>

<p>This is the constant quest of Photographers throughout the ages, yet the etched, scathingly razor sharp antiseptic look that is seen at times in portraiture of humans isn't reality in my view. No one looks that way. I know I wouldn't want a picture of me to look like that.</p>

<p>So somewhere there's a sweet spot, and I have found AIS lenses, some AIS lenses to avail that. So, not because I happen to own them, in fact I'm happy to, but AIS lenses are just right. They are keepers.</p>

<p> </p>