roland_vink

I think you are right :)

Wow, do Nikon really need four standard lenses in their lineup? 58/0.95 Noct, 50/1.2, 50/1.8, 50 micro (probably f/2.8 but f/2 would be nice) No 100/105mm prime, no 135/140mm prime, no primes wider than 20mm More compact primes would be nice too. How about a 20/3.5 and a 80/2 to round out the proposed 28mm and 40mm (all with 52mm filter please :))

Fair enough Mike, I was responding to the question about 'wide zoom' lenses, which I interpreted to be super-zooms :) I guess that was going a little off-topic. Getting back to the question about super-telephoto zooms, I'd say that the current crop of lenses is better than those from previous generations. Most have fairly restricted zoom ratios, such as 4x for the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 and 100-400 zooms, and only 2.5x for the Nikon 200-500. For bird photography you generally want as much reach as you can get. There is always the trade-off to be made between size/weight, reach, format (FX, DX, m4/3) and cost ...

The aperture of these lenses is fixed at f/11, they can't be stopped down further. The slow speed in combination with no aperture control helps to keep the price low enough to be affordable to many enthusiasts. I don't know why the filter size of these lenses is so large - 82mm for the 600 and 95mm for the 800. Pictures show the front element is relatively small, they are not oversized to reduce mechanical vignetting. An 800mm f/11 lens has an entrance pupil of 73mm, so they could have used a more affordable 77mm filter size. A 600mm f/11 lens has an entrance pupil of just 55mm, so they could have used 62mm or 67mm filter size. In fact, 600mm lens with 82mm filter could be a stop faster - a 600/8 lens would be much more useful and a better competitor for the Nikon 500/5.6 PF. But a 600/8 would probably require aperture control so it could be stopped down, and in combination with the faster aperture would greatly increase the price. I think we will see more of these slow super-telephoto lenses for mirrorless cameras. Phase-detect sensor requires lenses above a certain f-stop to accurately detect if the subject is in focus. Mirrorless cameras use contrast-detect AF (often in combination with phase-detect) which can work at any aperture, provided there is sufficient light and contrast.

The same technologies which have improved super-zooms over the past 15 years have also improved primes and zooms with smaller zoom ratios. Most modern super-zooms are good enough for most purposes, but the other lenses are still better :)

"and the quality is vastly superior to that using a closeup filter (diopter)" Putting an extension tube between the lens and camera, moves the lens outside its design envelope and almost certainly will compromise optical quality. Don't believe that just because the tube contains no class that it won't have a negative impact. There are some lenses designed to work with extension, such as the old manual focus micros, but modern lenses with floating elements and internal or rear focusing are carefully optimised for use when attached directly to the camera and many do not perform well with extension. On the other hand, a good quality two-element achromat diopter can give excellent results. They also have the advantage that when attached to zooms, the focus point remains steady when zooming.

The TC800 1.25 is made specifically for the AFS 800/5.6, but but I am fairly sure it would fit other super-telephotos. As far as I know there is nothing to physically stop it fitting. Adding it to a 400/2.8 would give a nice 500/3.5, and a 600/4 would become a 750/5. Although not optimised for other lenses, I guess that performance should be good as TCs designed for telephotos tend to work well across all telephotos, and low-power TCs tend to have less impact on image quality than stronger ones. Nikon never made AF extension tubes but there are third party options. Nikon's extension tubes (PK-11, PK-12, PK-13, PN-11) are from the 1970s and 80s, they are very well made but only support AI metering - no CPU contacts.

Camera-TC-ET-Lens - TC multiplies the magnification In this setup, the extension tube (ET) increases the magnification of the lens, and the TC then multiplies the resulting magnification. Camera-ET-TC-Lens - TC multiplies the focal length In this setup, the TC multiplies the focal length of the lens. The extension tube then increases the magnification of the resulting lens/TC. The magnification of a lens and extension tube is given by: extension / focal length. It should be plain that a given extension tube will increase the magnification less when attached to a longer lens. Therefore the first combination above will result in higher magnifications since the ET is applied to the native lens, not the longer lens/TC. Which of the two combinations will give better results will depend on the individual lens, TC and the amount of extension. Some combinations will work better in the first setup, others will work better the other way around, and for others it won't make much difference. I don't think it is possible to make any generalised rules about which is better, you need to try and see what works.

Thanks, that is good to know :)

That rear light baffle, which is simply a piece of sheet metal stamped and folded into shape, is found on the early series-E 50/1.8 with the black plastic grab-ring. The compact Japan-only AI-S 50/1.8 up to serial no 22559xx has similar light baffle which might be interchangeable, see: NIKKOR 50mm 1:1.8 S AIS 2151766 The Japan AI-S 50/1.8 from about serial no 22558xx has a different, solid rear light baffle, I'm not sure they are compatible. The later series-E version with chrome grab-ring and later pancake AI-S 50/1.8 share the same optics as the early series-E and Japan versions but also have solid rear protectors, which all have different profiles. The long-nose AI and AI-S 50/1.8 have a different optical design and also different rear baffles, I would be surprised if they are interchangeable. But who knows, maybe Nikon production was more standardised that I thought?

The later 35/2.8 PC with rubber focus grip and chrome shift knob has the same optics as the older style (as far as I can tell) but is fully multi-coated. The last version with the black shift knob has a different optical design. Overall the optics have a similar arrangement of positive and negative elements, they are clearly related, but the central doublet in the older version (pic below) is replaced by a single element in the newer version. I guess the newer version uses better glass materials and refinements to the curvature and spacing give the same or better performance with one fewer element.

To 1099861: What orsetto said :) The lens which kicked off this thread is the Nikkor-S 3.5cm 1:2.8 Auto. This is the original 35mm lens for NIkon F and only made for a short time from late 1959 - early 1962. It was replaced with the Nikkor-S 35mm 1:2.8 Auto which is a more compact lens with a different optical design. Nikon has a good article about these lenses here: Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights No.38

As far as I know the original non-D and D versions are the same optically. The first versions from 1991 would have used NIC coatings (which are good) while lenses made from the late 1990s or 2000 onwards would have used the slightly improved SIC coating. Mechanically I would guess the two versions are very similar too - they look the same externally - but it is not unusual for components to change during a long production run to use better or cheaper materials, so that could account for the difference in weight. You can also read about the 135DC lens here: Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights No.32

I'm pretty sure this inner sleeve does not rotate with the aperture ring. On other Nikkors from the same period it doesn't, the aperture ring turns around it. I believe this is found on early Nikkors with the screw-on aperture ring. On Nikkors from about 1966-67 onwards, aperture ring design changed - the inner sleeve is not there, the aperture ring is thicker instead and does not screw off, it lifts off instead. These lenses need a different AI kit from the earlier models.

It isn't screwing off at all? The pitch of the threads are very fine, maybe 0.5mm, so a full revolution would only lift the ring a very small amount. It takes multiple turns to come off (assuming it is a screw-on aperture ring). Did you check the inner surface of the AI kit? Is it threaded or smooth? By the way, I have never seen an AI kit for a 50/1.4 lens unless it was taken from another lens, I thought they were all used up years ago.

Many of the early aperture rings screw onto the lower barrel, a bit like a very finely pitched focus helix - they won't lift out when the lens mounting flange is removed, they have to be screwed off. Once the lens mount and side screw is removed (as you have done) start turning the aperture ring (I think anti-clockwise) and keep turning until it comes right off. I think this is the case for the early Nikkor-S 50/1.4 lenses such as yours in the range 532011 - 635350 which accept AI kit #7. Later on Nikon changed the aperture ring so it can lift out, which is why lenses from 635511 and later use a different AI kit. Assuming you have the correct AI kit, you can confirm this by checking if the inner surface is finely threaded or not. If you are doing your own repairs, I strongly recommend reading the articles here: Lens Repair Articles They give excellent tips on tools and techniques, and even step-by-step guides on disassembling some lenses (including a Nikkor-S 50/1.4 but not the version you have). Good luck!

I didn't expect the Auto or manual shutter speed to make a difference, but in cases like this it is worth trying every possibility. It is curious that you still have the same problem when the multiple exposure lever is set, I expected this would bypass the problem. I can't think of anything to try, unfortunately it looks like your camera needs servicing.

When you wind on the next frame, the slotted spindle should turn with the advance lever from start to finish. As orsetto suggested, if it stops turning before you have fully wound on the next frame (or does not turn at the start) then something is not right. I'd suggest taking the film out and going through the film advance sequence a few times with the back open to see what is happening. The FM3a is a mechanical camera, it can operate without batteries - batteries are required for the light meter and for aperture priority (shutter dial set to "A") where the shutter is electronically timed. Does the problem go away if you set the shutter speed dial to "A" or if you manually set the shutter speed? What happens when you advance the film while engaging the multiple exposure lever? This is the little black tab top-right under the film advance lever. In normal operation, if you pull back on the tab while using the advance lever, it will reset the shutter without advancing the film. Since the film should not move at all, you have isolated the function of the advance lever to just resetting the shutter, it might give you a clue as to what is happening. Maybe experimenting with the multiple exposure lever will unblock whatever is causing the problem. I had cases with my FE2 (very similar to the FM3a) when the multiple exposure tab was partially engaged by accident, resulting in overlapping frames. It never blocked the shutter from firing but it does suggest that this is a potential source of problems. Let us know how you go.

My guess: no. PF elements allow the long telephotos to be much more compact that conventional lenses. However 180/200mm f/2.8 lenses are already quite compact, you might get it down to the size of a 135/2 lens, is that enough to be worthwhile? Also, I'm not sure if PF lenses would be a good fit for macro lenses. The primary design considerations for macros tends to be for high contrast and resolution, flat field and low distortion. Compactness and weight is usually well down the priority list so PF elements may not be much use - they tend to have lower contrast and are more prone to flare, although they are effective in controlling CA.

The AF-S 28-70/2.8 ED is also huge, especially compared with the older AF-D 35-70/2.8. In it's day it was often referred to as "the beast". The weight is marginally heavier than the AF-S 24-70/2.8 (non VR) and fatter, but is shorter. I never used it but it had a good reputation and was said to give pleasing rendition for portraits. The newer 24-70/2.8 zooms focus much closer and the extra width makes them more versatile, but if you don't need those features I am sure the 28-70 is still a fine lens. Note that it is an older lens now and the AF-S motors do eventually wear out, I'm not sure if Nikon still has spare parts.

Your 28/4 PC may fit the F6 (or F100) even without conversion. Early production lenses (serial no 174081 - 1806xx) have a barrel which extends beyond the mount, in theory it would conflict with the AI follower on the camera. However the barrel may be thin enough that it will slip under the follower and not cause any damage if you are careful (I know this is true of some pre-AI lenses, I think this is one, but take care!) Lenses with higher serial numbers were modified so the barrel stops short of the mount, they clear the AI follower and are safe to mount on AI cameras.

I have instruction sheets for both the compensating and non-compensating 55/3.5 micros. Both say the lens is optimised for 1:10, which suggests their macro performance should be the same. Maybe the compensating is better but the brochure copy-writers weren't told and re-used the same material for the non-compensating version? Or maybe well-known lens reviewers happened to test compensating lenses which worked better at close range?? If you are mostly shooting around 1:10, then any of the 55 micros, including the AI-S 55/2.8 should be just fine. The floating elements of the 55/2.8 are only problematic if used on extension tubes or bellows - in these cases the lens should always be focused all the way out so the lens is optimised for macro shooting. If you are using TTL metering, the non-compensating version is much easier to use, as you need to counter-compensate to get the correct exposure. With external metering, the compensating version is better as it maintains a constant aperture regardless of magnification (provided the lens is stopped down to f5.6 at infinity)

All the pancake 50/1.8 lenses have the same optical design - Series-E; Japanese variant; and the late plastic AI-S version. The series-E was introduced in 1979 as a standard lens for the Nikon EM camera. This lens is very compact. The coatings are simpler than AI lenses from the same period, and it uses some plastic in its construction. In 1981 it was upgraded with a chrome grab ring and slightly bigger, more solid barrel. The AI-S Japanese variant closely resembles the chrome-ring Series-E version and was probably introduced in 1980. It has an all-metal barrel, is fully multicoated, and focuses to 0.45m compared to 0.6m for the other models. This version is relatively common in Japan and it easy to find on ebay. In 1985 the later AI-S version replaced both the Series-E version, and the long-nose AI-S 50/1.8. It is fully multicoated but the build uses even more plastic than the Series-E versions. The Japanese is easily the best of the pancake versions, but overall I would say the long-nose 50/1.8 is better - it has a different optical design and larger barrel which makes for better handling. You can read more about the development of the pancake lenses here: Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights No.60

The close focus limit is 0.8m ( 2.6' ) is the same as the F-mount AFS 85/1.8 and only marginally shorter than the 0.85m limit of most other 85mm primes, so I don't regard this as a close focusing lens. Probably more important is the maximum magnification, or how close you can frame a subject. The new lens gets to 0.12x (1:8.3), which is the same as the AFS 85/1.4, and slightly less than the AFS 85/1.8 which gets to 0.124x (1:8). The fact that the Z 85/1.8 focuses to the same distance as the AFS 85/1.8 but can frame less tightly suggests the focal length reduces a little more at close range - more focus breathing. I'm not sure how that matches up with the claim of minimal focus breathing. Do the F-mount 85mm lenses suffer from much focus breathing anyway? If not much, then maybe a little more does not matter. The close range limit is a little disappointing since lenses with this focal length usually have fairly symmetrical optical designs which are well suited to closeups. Lenses which focus close are more versatile, I don't mind if corner sharpness drops off since outer parts of the picture aren't usually in focus anyway, and if corner shapness is required the lens is usually stopped well down for more DoF. Maybe Nikon wants you to buy their 105mm macro lens instead. By comparison the Z 35/1.8 gets to 1:5.2 and the Z 50/1.8 gets to 1:6.6, so they can frame much more tightly.

I had a look at my early Nikkor-N 24/2.8 lens no.24xxxx belonging to the first series and compared it to one from the following series. The overall length of my early lens is about 1/2 mm shorter than the later one. In other words the front element is very slightly less recessed, not more recessed as with no.242932 above. I can only conclude that there is some variation in the filter ring when the lens is assembled, resulting in random differences in the overall length.