Anyone still use Nikkor-S/N/H Auto lens series?

[iosif_astrukov]

<p>ok… you got my curiosity - what is so special of this pre-AI 50mm f/2 lens? <br /> honestly I can't imagine what could be better than this 50mm 1.2… actually I made some tests between 50mm AF-D 1.8 and this lens and the major difference I saw is the colour rendition… to my surprise… you can see here - the tests are on slide film, scanned as it is (at the bottom) - <br /> <a href="https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3akmexHeHI_SkhaYjRheVlFWnM?usp=sharing">https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3akmexHeHI_SkhaYjRheVlFWnM?usp=sharing </a><br /> my other favourite lens is the 105 DC and recently I touched the old version - 2.5 and it has the absolutely same great image - some days ago I had the opportunity to buy it for about 200$ but I didn't and now I regret a little, because it was in very good shape…</p>

[Brian1664876441]

The Ai version of the 105/2.5 close to mint: $200 is "not bad". You can do better with patience.<p>

 

Which version were you looking at? The formula was changed from a Sonnar to a Planar around 1970. <p>

 

<img src="https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5818/22217985995_129ef9414e_b.jpg" width="1024" height="768"

alt="nikkor_105_rear_element"><p>

 

Planar on left, Sonnar on right. Note size difference of rear element.<p>

[iosif_astrukov]

<p>the one on the left… how many 105 Nikkors there are? <br>

actually you are right - the price of this lens on ebay is about 250$, in good condition</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Used AI lenses are reasonably priced, though.</p>

<p>I got an AI 80-200 zoom for $10. The more rare and exotic lenses might still be a little higher.</p>

[Brian1664876441]

<img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/1/765/21312346249_c52ee4a0e1_o.jpg" width="1024" height="768"

alt="nikkor_105_1"><p>

 

The 105/2.5 has been around since 1952...<p>

 

Leica mount, S-Mount, Contax Mount, F-Mount non-Ai Sonnar, F-Mount Planar non-Ai, F-Mount Ai Planar.<p>

 

The 135/3.5 is also worth getting- the last Sonnar design for Nikon. 1950 through to the Ais series.<p>

 

<img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7459/12482958105_d8b04214f6_o.jpg" width="1024" height="684" alt="Nikkor 135 F3.5 and Sonnar"></a><p>

[iosif_astrukov]

<p>wow… you got a collection… you need the last two - AF-D the DC versions and the new 105 1.4 ;)<br>

the ones with the metal hood are the newest right? like this one - <br>

<img src="http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ais13528.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Brian1664876441]

The 135/2.8 is not a Sonnar formula, the 135/3.5 is the one. The latter also has the collapsible hood, and is usually

much cheaper- mine was $60.<p>

 

The last version of the 105/2.5 also has a collapsible hood- and (I've read) Super-Integrated-Coatings. The single coated

version is best for Infrared work.<p>

 

One more with the Sonnar formula 105/2.5, wide-open.<p>

 

<img src="https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8763/17468557631_5b08c679ff_b.jpg" width="681" height="1024" alt="Spring

2015"><p>

 

The Sonnar formula lenses have (only) 6 air/glass surfaces, multi-coating is just not as important as it is on a Planar

formula lens, or a zoom lens.<p>

[rodeo_joe1]

In your opinion, what's so great about the Sonnar

formula Brian?

 

Personally I'm not liking the off-axis catseye bokeh and added vignetting over the later design. That's as a former owner of an amber-coated, scallop barrel 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor P, which I was glad to get rid of. OTOH I would be loathe to lose my Ai-S 105mm f1.8 Nikkor.

[iosif_astrukov]

<p>yeah… the cat eye coma defect I also don't like… but vignetting could be very very nice sometimes - it's what I like a lot on the 50mm 1.2 when shooting on 1.2<br>

btw - anyone shooting with the 135 f2 DC ? I read quite different reviews on the net today… </p>

[Brian1664876441]

The "footballs" make the world swirl around the subject... It's not coma, which would produce a tail pointed away from

the center. Most likely physical vignetting of the aperture. The footballs produced by astigmatism tend to increase

eccentricity as they get towards the edges.<p>

 

The Sonnar is center-sharp, softer at the corners. One of the first lenses that was intentionally under-corrected for

spherical aberration to produce a smooth Bokeh. The single coated optics have less contrast, more veiling flare - which

tends to leave shadows and highlights unclipped.<p>

 

<img src="https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7615/16571518163_6a9e54248c_b.jpg" width="681" height="1024" alt="Mt

Vernon"></a><p>

 

<img src="https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/574/20666206490_eab7764b35_b.jpg" width="681" height="1024" alt="Portrait in Motion"><p>

 

Once you are off the min focus distance, the footballs settle down.<p>

 

Somewhere I have shots with the Planar and Sonnar used side-by-side. I should repeat it on the Df. I've owned the Planar

version since 1977, the Sonnar version since ~1997. <p>

[Brian1664876441]

These two are with the 105/2.5 Planar.<p>

 

<img src="https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5659/22460457190_2ae212e9ff_o.jpg" width="682" height="1024" alt="DSC_7427">

<p>

 

<p>

 

<img src="https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5768/22025630594_e87459a1c5_o.jpg" width="682" height="1024" alt="DSC_7419">

<p>

 

Footballs, edges are brighter meaning over-corrected for spherical aberration. I can do some side-by-side shots, once weather cooperates...too cold right now!<p>

[iosif_astrukov]

<p>you call 'footballs' to the opposite of the 'cat eye' right? </p>

[Brian1664876441]

<img src="https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5668/21772940691_c2a3020a74_o.jpg" width="1024" height="684" alt="astig4">

</a><p>

 

Catseyes, Footballs, Wagon-Wheels. I need to find a good illustration of the out-of-focus objects being deformed by physical aperture This one is good for astigmatism. Eccentricity increases as you get away from the center, at least that's how I think of it.<p>

 

An illustration from a book published in the 1940s. "Wagon Wheel" used to show astigmatism. Planar formula (double-

Gauss) lenses that are highly corrected with regard to field-curvature often have some residual astigmatism. Lenses with

high-field curvature (typical Sonnar) do not. So now I'm curious to do a side-by-side test with the Df of the two types of

105's. Next good outing at Gunston Hall with a tripod.<p>

[iosif_astrukov]

<p>that's a nice setup ;) <br>

<a href="https://www.facebook.com/cinematography2.0/photos/a.195754207136805.49921.195610820484477/1226291594083056/?type=3&theater">https://www.facebook.com/cinematography2.0/photos/a.195754207136805.49921.195610820484477/1226291594083056/?type=3&theater</a></p>

<p><img src="https://scontent.fsof2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15400582_1226291594083056_4954315723856048000_n.jpg?oh=b3916af26bf299cc06cd26451d01e6bc&oe=58B3F1A6" alt="" /></p>

[rodeo_joe1]

Footballs? Ahhh! You mean Rugby balls. Footballs

are near spherical and for kicking. The oblate spheroidal type are for picking up and running with.

 

Whatever. The oval bokeh highlights are simply a

result of iris vignetting. You can see it directly by

looking obliquely into the back of a lens. The

smaller the off-axis angle it occurs at, the greater the vignetting and oblate bokeh effect.

 

You'll also find that under/over corrected SA results in opposite effects before and after the plane of focus; with brighter edges swapping for darker ones when the OOF highlights are in front of the subject, and vice versa when behind.

 

Personally I'd rather not make OOF blobs the main subject of a picture at all.

[Brian1664876441]

Residual astigmatism also causes football shaped out-of-focus areas. The Summarit 5cm F1.5 and Summitar 5cm f2 are

pronounced for it.

[rodeo_joe1]

Yes, OOF highlights are simply spot diagrams writ

large. The difference between astigmatic ovals and

vignetting ovals being that vignetting "ovals" come

to a sharp point, where astigmatic ovals have

rounded ends to their longer axis. Astigmatic

elongation may also point away from the image

centre, while vignetting is always tangential.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>You know that feeling when you come back to a thread to see why it's still running, and get very confused by "footballs", and then realise another Brit has clarified things first? :-)<br />

<br />

Astigmatic "swirly bokeh" in the Petzval sense is quite an interesting effect, though I certainly don't want it in every lens I own. Cat's eye mechanical vignetting I find a little intrusive; generally I'll live with it, although it's annoying that it seeems to be a feature of both the new Sigma Art 85mm and the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 (both otherwise very tempting lenses).</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

An f/1.4 105mm lens is just about on the edge of

what's possible given Nikon's register and lens

throat Andrew. So it's not really surprising that the

rear element size is compromised; making vignetting and catseye bokeh an issue.

 

I hate to say it, but Nikon's choice to stick with the

original F-mount is proving a poor one. Perhaps

they need to open the throat of future cameras, but

supply an adapter to retain backward compatibility?

[iosif_astrukov]

<p>hm… so you think Nikon needs a larger bayonet? <br>

these days I am looking on ebay for old lenses - there is one 105 2.5 which is really gorgeous but the price is… like on a 105 DC… about 500$, I can't post the link here it's forbidden </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>$500 for a 105 f/2.5 is too much, you can easily find it for less. FWIW, I've got two of the later design, both cost considerably less than $300 and both in perfectly fine, clean shape.<br>

As for your question about the 50mm f/2 pages ago - I said to NOT take it if you already have a good 50mm f/1.2. The 50mm f/2 is smaller, very consistent performance (and good performance!), can be found very cheap, and it has a very pleasant rendering. Very good performance for the money. But in my view, everything it does so well, the 50mm f/1.2 does as good or better, except for the size and price.</p>

[iosif_astrukov]

<p>thank you :)<br>

do you sell one or...</p>

<p>anyone knows what is this about?<br /> <img src="https://scontent.fsof2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p417x417/15542367_10154931738859009_4237093284501379069_n.jpg?oh=1e5ff48cbe440f7e7d844bc7e58179d0&oe=58F1D9AD" alt="" /></p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>RJ: I'd not realised the mechanical vignetting was a mount issue. I thought I'd seen similar problems with recent lenses when tested on Canon, but maybe the designs aim at the lowest common denominator. If we're stuck with it, that's sad. I can live without f/1.2, though!<br />

<br />

Iosif: That's the AI-S indent that tells you your lens is AI-S (it has a linear aperture lever), not just AI (whose lever movement is less defined). Of course, that mount also has electronic contacts, and only very few (film) Nikon cameras pay any attention mechanically to the AI-S indent; the FA, most notably. The important distinction is that the aperture has a linear relationship to lever motion, making it possible to control the aperture accurately from the camera (there's a good diagram <a href="http://www.throughthefmount.com/articles_back_difference_ai_ais.html">here</a>). However, DSLRs and later film bodies can only tell that the lens has a linear aperture with lenses that have electronic contacts, all of which are "AI-S" anyway; the indent is there just in case you stick it on an FA. "G" lenses with no aperture ring (and E lenses with no aperture <i>lever</i>) don't have this indent, as far as I can tell, but they're not very useful on an FA since it has no way to control the aperture manually.<br />

<br />

I've not been following the thread, but I'm tempted to try to eyeball that mount and work out what it's telling to the camera. The post at the top is the maximum aperture lever (also used by the FA and a few other cameras like the F4) so we should be able to work out the alleged aperture; we should be able to tell something about the focal length based on the position of the ridge lower down...</p>

[iosif_astrukov]

<p>Thank you <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4303235">Andrew</a> :) </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I'm late to this thread and others having been away and off the grid for a couple of weeks. But I will add a couple of things if they have not already been mentioned.</p>

<p>First of all, along with the aperture follower tab, there is a switch which cameras that do not have such a tab use to detect an AF lens. The D3xxx and D5xxx among others have it, but it is pushed downward, and thus any lens can be mounted safely. However, on many older low end models, both AF film and digital, that switch was pushed sideways, and a pre-AI lens will damage it. You must make sure that the lens is modified to clear that switch if it is not a newer model. </p>

<p>The pre-AI 35/2.8 PC will not clear the AI follower. It is easy to modify by turning, filing, or even sanding the non-moving back ring, which can be removed easily, but it should be done. </p>

<p>I have several of the older F lenses, and some are still hard to beat. They all work nicely on the D3200. One of my unexpected favorites is the 200 F4, which does not mind extension tubes.</p>