roland_vink

Interesting. Both lenses have the same optical design (apart from the addition of multicoating to no.504041). According to the specs both are the same length as measured from the lens mount to the rim of the filter ring. Yet the front element of no.242932 does appear to be more recessed than later models, or at least the filter threads are longer. This one looks the same but you will notice the front element is less recessed: NIKKOR-N Auto 1:2.8 f=24mm No.281510 There was a break in the serial numbers early in the production of the 24/2.8. The first series has a fairly short run from 242821 - 246387. The aperture ring has a thin wall and turns around an inner sleeve. It accepts AI conversion kit 24. After this point there is a new series starting at 257011 with some mechanical changes. The aperture ring is thicker without the inner sleeve and fits AI kit 23. It appears the overall length also changed. When I get home I will have a close look at my lenses to see what's going on. As for the hood, I am fairly sure the older "2.8 24mm F" hood is the same as the HN-1. Nikon didn't give the hoods the modern name/code until about 1971 or so, roughly coinciding with the introduction of the Nikon F2.

Nikon screw-in hoods such as the HN-1 are typically on the short side so they can fit over filters and not cause vignetting. That is assuming you use Nikon filters which have a fairly slim profile, thicker third party filters may still cause vignetting. If the hood is attached directly to the lens, in many cases you can actually use a deeper hood than the one recommended by Nikon. For example, with the 24/2.8 I'm fairly sure the deeper HN-2 is usable if not attached over a filter. It might turn out your Chinese copy has different dimensions from the original HN-1. The HN-1 is 12.3mm deep from front of the hood to the rim of the lens, and the front inner diameter is 70.3mm. Nikon hoods are have ridges inside to help suppress reflections but they don't have front filter threads, so you cannot attach screw-in filters to the front.

My understanding is that Nikon actively sells to grey market sellers. It helps them to clear out inventory, and the after sale support is cheaper.

Nikon cameras with 20xxxxx serial numbers are reserved for the Japanese market. See Nikon Cameras (note this webpage only has serial numbers I have collected so far - I don't get any official data - it won't have the latest production serial numbers, probably is missing some regional series, and may have some errors, but at least it is a useful guide) The serial number would only be "invalid" in other markets such as USA or Europe in terms of warranty support. The camera itself will be genuine - made in the same factory as all other D850 cameras. I have occasionally come across grey market cameras where the serial number sticker appears to have been replaced with a completely different serial number. I can't see what benefit the grey market seller would get by replacing the sticker, most grey market cameras still have the original serial number.

One option for third party lens makers is to make lenses for Nikon Z and Canon RF using the existing Nikon F/ Canon EOS mounts and protocols, and rely on the native adaptors to do the conversions to the respective mirrorless mounts. The lenses could have optics which protrude far into the adaptor so they have the same advantages of native Z and RF lenses. Obviously, the diameter of the rear elements would be restricted by the space inside the adapter, and the resulting lens would look a bit ugly. But it could be a useful compromise until Sigma/Tamron etc manage to reverse engineer these new camera systems.

On mirrorless cameras, it should be possible to design a lens where the rear element is close to the sensor regardless of the flange distance. The flange distance is not really relevant as long as the lens physically fits within the camera mount - the same lens could be adapted to Nikon Z, Canon RF, Leica L or even Fuji X and m4/3, just by varying the flange distance. In the same way, the same lens design can be adapted to different SLR lens mounts by varying the flange distance, as long as it clears the reflex mirror. With the Nikon F-mount and its relatively long flange distance this means the rear element often protrudes beyond the lens mount. The mount diameter is probably a more important limiting factor, as the larger mount permits lenses with larger rear elements close to the sensor and puts fewer constraints on the lens designer. A smaller mount would restrict the designer to lenses with smaller diameter rear elements. What may make things difficult for independent lens makers is the thickness of the sensor cover glass, which varies between mounts. This has to be considered in the optical design, and is why adapted lenses don't always perform well, even if they can be made to fit another camera system. Unless Sigma, Tamron etc find a simple way of optically adjusting a lens to each different mount/cover thickness, they will have a hard time making the same lens for all mounts. One way around this is to make Telecentric lenses, which are less sensitive to the thickness of the cover glass, but that adds a constraint to the lens maker that the native lens does not have to consider (it's worth noting however, that even mirrorless lenses have to be reasonably telecentric because digital sensors don't respond well with oblique ray angles) But the designers at Sigma and Tamron know more about this than I do, it will be interesting to see what they come up with...

The AIS 200/4 is very much like a longer version of the AIS 135/2.8, in build, handling and rendition. I have both but tend to use the 135 much more. The 135 is a stop faster and the shorter focal length means it is much easier to use for hand-held shooting. Even if the shutter speed is fast enough to freeze camera shake, it's harder to hold the 200 steady enough to frame accurately, unless shooting from a tripod or using some other support. The 135/2.8 is also much more compact which is nice. An alternative is the series-E 75-150/3.5. Physically it is the same size as the 200/4, but shares many of the advantages of the 135 - shorter focal length and faster aperture makes it easier to use. It also focuses usefully close, and of course, it zooms. The zoom range is small, but I find it covers a very useful range.

Fast lenses are also expensive, and most can't afford them. Primes with a max aperture of f/1.8 are more than fast enough for most purposes - I'd be happy with f/2 in exchange for slightly smaller/cheaper/better. Plus I like round numbers/whole stop values better :) Most lenses need stopping down a bit for edge-to-edge sharpness, but the new S lenses seem to be really good even wide open. Unless you are shooting subjects where corner sharpness isn't important (portraiture etc), these lenses have a wider shooting envelope than most other lenses with the same maximum aperture. In that respect, they really are quite "fast". Regarding the 14-30 zoom, if you are going to use front filters they better be good. At 14mm the angle of view is 114°, so light coming into the far corners of the image will be going through the filter at a very shallow angle of just 33°. If the front/back surfaces are not perfectly flat and parallel, the light will be distorted as it passes through, resulting in soft corners. At shallow angles, a lot of light will be reflected, which would increase vignetting. Also, dispersion will be worse than light passing through the filter at nearly perpendicular angles resulting in greater CA. I'm a little surprised that the lens wasn't designed to accept internal or rear mounted filters, where the light would pass through nearly perpendicular and avoid these issues, but it would make operation of polarisers difficult.

This feature was built into the FA to allow shutter priority and program modes when using AI lenses. Unlike AI-S (and AF) lenses, AI lenses don't have a linear relationship between the position of the aperture stop-down lever and the actual aperture. This means the camera cannot accurately stop the lens down to required aperture, which would lead to exposure errors. For example, the FA meter may determine that f/5.6 will give the best exposure for the set shutter speed. When the picture is taken, the camera sets the aperture stop-down lever to where it "thinks" f/5.6 should be. However the non-linear action means the lens may actually stop down to f/4 which results in over-exposure. To work around this, the camera takes a meter reading at this point and determines that too much light is coming through, and dynamically adjusts the shutter speed to compensate. AI-S lenses can be stopped down accurately so there is no need to compensate, so the shutter speed should remain as set by the photographer. I usually use aperture priority anyway, it gives me control over the depth of field, which is usually more important for me. If I need a faster shutter speed to freeze action, it can be controlled indirectly by selecting a faster aperture. Always works for me...

Focus shift is mostly caused by spherical aberrations, where the outer part of the lens focuses light closer than the central part, so as you stop down and the outer parts of the lens are blocked by the aperture blades, the focus point moves further out. This effect is most noticeable at wide apertures, after closing down a couple of stops spherical aberrations are largely eliminated. So, a different approach could be to have stop-down viewing/metering for only the first two stops or so. For an f/1.4 lens that would mean stop-down metering until f/2.8, while an f/2.8 lens would stop-down to f/5.6. There would still need to be an f/5.6 cut-off to give the meter enough light, and also so the focus plane is clearly distinguished from the fore/background so the AF system can lock onto the subject. Nikon could also have information specific to each lens telling the camera how far to stop down the lens.before focus shift is no longer significant. This could be dependant on the camera resolution (high resolution is more sensitive to focus shift) and to the focus distance (focus shift may be more or less significant at different distances). I doubt this sort of information is already present in the millions of CPU lenses already made, so would require tables of lens data in each camera. This is probably not practical, and wouldn't work for third party lenses. I think in the end, Nikon chose a simple and practical approach which works for all lenses pretty well. Lenses with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or slower probably have very little focus shift - spherical aberrations mostly affects faster lenses - and slower lenses are mostly shot nearly wide open so focus shift will hardly be a problem. Another benefit of this method of viewing and metering is that you get full-time DOF preview at wider apertures, where it matters the most. Also, there is no discrepancy between the set aperture value and the actual stopped down so exposures should be more accurate.

This is an interesting feature! It largely eliminates problems with focus shift that can occur between full-aperture focusing and the stopped-down shooting aperture. Focus shift happens mostly at wider apertures, any residual focus shift beyond f/5.6 will be minor and covered by the increased depth of field. Not stopping down beyond f/5.6 ensures enough light reaches the meter for accurate metering in low light conditions. Very neat.

It could be possible to have a tilt-only adaptor, which would give greater control over the DOF, or rather, where the image plane lies over the subject. A tilt-only lens/adaptor would not require a larger image circle if the adaptor was designed so the image circle stays centered over the sensor while tilted. It might need a short built-in focus helicoid so the infinity point could be moved to the far or near end of the sensor. Would be very handy for landscape and macro.

Yes that's right, my FE2 is the same. In Auto mode, the shutter fires at 1/250 sec until the frame counter reaches number 1. The light meter also does not operate. However you can set the shutter speed manually before frame 1. You can usually get perfectly good pictures from frame 0 and even 00 (-1), so this feature doesn't make the best use of film. In those first frames I would always set the shutter speed manually and see how well I could guess the exposure :) A simple way to test the shutter is, with no film loaded, open the back, set the shutter speed dial to 1/4000, hold the camera up to a brightly lit background and fire. You should see a flash of light through the shutter to indicate an "exposure" was made (if no light gets through the shutter you won't get an exposure). Repeat for 1/2000, 1/1000 ... all the way through the shutter speed dial. You should see the flash get increasingly brighter and longer. This won't tell you if the shutter is perfectly accurate, but at least it indicates if the shutter speed is getting longer as you increase the shutter speed setting.

The AI-S version was in production from 1979 to 2006 ... Small correction: the AI-S 55/2.8 is still in production, or at least can still be bought new. At the start of 2006 Nikon announced that most AI-S lenses were discontinued, the AI-S 55/2.8 micro was one of the few which was kept in production. The serial numbers for most lenses were also reset at that point. The AI-S 55/2.8 micro started production at the end of 1979 with serial no 179041. Serial numbers continue up to 60xxxx, probably around year 2000. Then serial numbers jump to 701xxx, up to a high of 752406 by the end of 2005. Serial numbers re-start at 800001 from 2006 up to a confirmed high of 811470 (probably a bit higher by now). Serial number is 463921 is about mid-way in the first series. I would say production rates were higher in the early years, slowing down when AF models were released, so I guess the lens was made somewhere between 1985-1990. As Shun said, the age of a lens is less important than it's current condition. A relatively new lens which has been heavily used or badly stored will be in worse condition than a much older lens which has been well looked after. I have lenses over 50 years old which are still nearly good as new... One thing to keep in mind that Nikon Series E lenses are AI-S lenses. (Can't say every single Series E lens is AI-S, but the 50mm/f1.8 Series E my parents got in 1979 is definitely AI-S.) Those Series E lenses generally have weaker construction compared to non-Series E AI and AI-S lenses. All series-E lenses are built to AI-S standard - they have the linear aperture action which permits accurate aperture stop-down in program and shutter priority modes, they have the "scoop" in the mount to indicate it is AI-S, and they have the minimum aperture on the ADR scale colored orange. The only difference is that they are made from cheaper materials, don't have the aperture coupling prong for pre-AI cameras, and they aren't labelled "Nikkor". The first Nikkor AI-S lens was the 55/2.8 micro in 1979, which was designed to the new Series-E/AI-S standard. Instruction sheets for very early lenses still refer to "AI" rather than "AI-S". The AI-S line wasn't really launched until 1981 when virtually all existing AI models were upgraded. The optics for most lenses stayed the same but the mechanics were almost completely designed. It must have been a monumental task, Nikon have never upgraded or released so many lenses in one year before or since...

Because Canon EF lenses control the aperture electronically, I'm wanting to use a non-G Nikon lens with an adapter to ensure aperture consistency and avoid flicker. Is that really a problem? Over the last few years Nikon started to move away from mechanically stopped-down lenses to electronic apertures (E lenses) to ensure aperture consistency and avoid flicker. I would have thought that Canon lenses were already good in this regard, but I'm not a Canon shooter. Having said that, having a manually controlled mechanical aperture is probably the best way to ensure consistent exposures. Assuming you are working with apertures around f/5.6-f11, most AI or AIS primes (manual focus with aperture ring) would suit your needs. For 20mm, the AIS 20/2.8 is probably the best all-round performer. The AI and AIS 20/3.5 are more resistant to flare and ghosting but are weaker in the corners at infinity, although I have achieved very good results at f/8-11. At 28mm, the AIS 28/2.8 has very low barrel distortion, it is very good at close to medium distances, performance at infinity is good but not quite as strong. The AI or AIS 28/2 has mild barrel distortion but has good flare resistance and good performance at distance. Note both these lenses have floating elements implemented through the front group which are susceptible to knocks so there is some sample variation. The AI 28/2.8 is another option, it does not have floating elements, so close performance is not as good but it is fine at infinity and distortion is very low like the AIS model. For 50mm, I would go for the AI 50/1.8 or 50/2. Both have low distortion and very even performance especially at medium apertures. At 105mm, the AIS 105/2.8 micro is (surprisingly) very good at infinity, but maybe not so good shooting into strong light (use a hood). The AI or AIS 105/2.5 are also good options. In this range you might also want to check the Series-E 75-150/3.5, which is relatively compact for a tele-zoom, I find it covers a useful range and is a good performer. You can identify Nikon lenses by serial number here: Nikon Lenses Good luck with your project!

The D7100 is an exception to the rule that Nikon USA cameras have a 30xxxxx serial number. I assume they started at 25xxxxx instead to give them more head room so numbers would not increase to 40xxxxx and overlap another regional series. As for the D810 with the 89 serial number, I checked my records, these cameras have "ME" on the code above the barcode, and are for the Middle East (United Arab Emirates etc) so there is a high chance they are grey market if sold in USA. But only Nikon USA knows for certain.

Thanks Shun. I get a lot of questions about grey market cameras and lenses, your reply will help me to respond to those questions better.

I have done some research on Nikon camera serial numbers, presented here: Nikon Cameras The serial numbers quoted represent only those I have seen so far so they are far from complete. I am sure that most serial numbers go well beyond the numbers given, and that some regional serial numbers are missing completely. Having said that, the general serial numbers given by Thom Hogan don't really hold for most cameras these days, except for 2xxxxxx for Japan and 3xxxxxx for USA. Most older camera models seem to have fairly broad regions such as Europe, Asia, USA, while some later models have very specific regional serial numbers. For example I recently came across a D810 with 550xxxx serial number and a Korean warranty sheet. The serial number did not fit any other ranges so it appears this range is specific to Korea. I have come across one D810 with a 890xxxx serial number similar to the OP, the code above the barcode on the box was "D810 (ME)" which I speculated was Middle East, but on reflection I suppose it could also be Mexico (I don't get a lot of info from these regions so it's hard to say) It is not uncommon for cameras with serial numbers from one region to end up in another region. Most of these are probably grey market (parallel imported), but sometimes they are imported by the official distributor, probably to make up numbers for a shipment. The only way to be certain a camera (or lens) is not grey market is to have the Nikon USA warranty sheet.

Just to confirm some of what was written earlier: 1. All Nikon 24/2.8 lenses have CRC (or floating elements) to give better performance at distance and close range. 2. The original Nikkor-N version is not multicoated, the Nikkor-N.C, K, AI, AIS and AF versions are all multicoated. 3. All the pre-AI versions use the 9/7 optical design, all AI, AIS and AF versions use the newer 9/9 element design. 4. Many of the pre-AI versions were upgraded to AI by Nikon, by swapping out the original aperture ring. I have the K 24/2.8 which has been AI converted, which I shoot on my D600. Compared to the AI version it is a little bigger but it is still a compact lens. It is capable of delivering excellent results. Sharpness is good for landscapes and at close range. With my style of shooting I tend to use it stopped well down for greater DOF, I have not assessed performance at wider apertures. Some barrel distortion is present but it is well controlled and reasonably uniform so is easy to correct with software. Although this is hardly a "bokeh" lens, backgrounds are usually rendered with a pleasant rounded look. Contrast and colours are good. When shooting into the sun there is some loss of contrast and you get a lot of green flares across the image. I have not used the AI version, from what I have gathered, performance is similar, it flares more easily but is more resistant to ghost images. Background rendition may be on the harsh side.

As has been noted already, PC-Nikkors have a preset aperture ring, the aperture must be stopped down manually when taking a picture (it does not close and open automatically), and metering must be done with the lens stopped down (stop-down metering). In other words, there is no automatic diaphragm and no meter coupling, so there is no such thing as an "auto-indexing" (AI) PC lens. On early PC lenses the barrel extends beyond the mount which may conflict with the AI follower tab on AI cameras (film and DSLR). Lenses with a shorter barrel which clears the AI tab are said to be AI compatible, even though they are not AI. However, among most earlier PC lenses, the barrel is thin enough to slip below the AI follower, so if you are careful you can successfully mount a "non-AI" PC lens on an AI camera without causing damage. Nikon is usually very conservative about this and camera manuals will simply say the lens is not compatible. The warning about the early 35/3.5 PC lens may also be due to the fact the shift mechanism is quite bulky and near the base of the lens, where it may conflict with the camera viewfinder prism. The later 35/2.8 PC has the same shift mechanics but it is higher up the barrel which gives it a bit more clearance. The outer rim around the 35/3.5 PC lens mount is also quite thick, I have a feeling it would jam against the AI follower even if were otherwise possible to mount it on the camera.

I'm not sure how often the shutter unit was replaced on cameras like this. My guess is not often so I don't think that can be used to explain the discontinuous occurrence of the honeycomb shutter. It's possible the top plate of the camera, with the serial number, was replaced, but again that is probably rare. Maybe there was a period when there was a mix of old honeycomb shutters and new smooth shutters in the parts bin on the assembly line. If the parts are pulled out at random, and the top-plate/serial number is also pulled out at random, there could cameras with different mixes of new/old shutters and serial numbers. I've seen this with older lenses, but the overlaps tend to be smallish, maybe a few hundreds or thousands, not the big range suggested above.

The Nikon FM2 and FE2 were released earlier than the FA and also have the honeycomb titanium shutter blades. Much later, the FM2 was upgraded to have flat aluminium shutter blades which were cheaper to manufacture (similar to the F-801). I can't remember if that coincided with the release of the FM2N or was introduced separately. I had a feeling the flat shutter blades were introduced later on, after the FE2 and FA were discontinued. Maybe the shutter unit was common to all three cameras, so the newer unit with the flat blades could be used to repair a damaged honeycomb unit. The FM2 certainly has a reputation for reliability, I have not heard of any specific problems with these shutters, but after all these years it's to be expected that cameras with issues will turn up.

The AIS 80-200/4 seems to be optimised more for close range than infinity (during development I believe there were proposals to make it a macro zoom capable of 1:2 magnification). In the comparisons I have seen, the older AI 80-200/4.5 is clearly sharper in the corners at far distances. On the other hand the AIS focuses much closer. Which lens is best depends on whether you prefer shooting landscapes and scenes at far distances, or closeup portraits and flowers etc. The size difference between the AI and AIS 80-200 is minimal. They are the same length, the AIS has a fatter mid-barrel but the diameter over the focus/zoom ring is the same, and the AIS is only slightly heavier. The AI accepts 52mm filters which matches most small primes of the same era, while the AIS takes larger 62mm filters. The 75-150 is also an excellent option, in fact it is one of my favorite telephoto lenses. It gives up a bit of zoom range in exchange for a faster aperture, and a more compact design. Sharpness and background rendition is good. The zoom range might seem limited but it covers a very useful range, and 150mm is about as long as I can comfortably hand-hold, by 200mm I like to have a little more support so I can frame the picture accurately. The 75-150 also focuses to 1m at all zoom settings, so is capable of good closeups. Overall, a versatile and good performing lens in a compact package.

<blockquote> <p>The 50mm F1.8 Ai and Ai-s long nose and the 50mm F18. AF-D are all the same optics.</p> </blockquote> <p>No, the "long nose" 50/1.8 (AI and AIS) have different optics. The series-E, "pancake" AIS, AF and AF-D versions share the same optics.<br> <br> In my experience the optics of the "long nose" versions are better than the E/pancake/AF versions. Sharpness is about the same or better, and background rendition is good - it gets a little harsh towards the sides of the frame but is generally smoother than the other versions. Of the AI and AIS "long nose" 50/1.8, my preference is for the AI version due to the longer focus throw, and the aperture ring is wider and easier to grip.</p>

<p><em>Back focus on the 8.5cm was lacking remarkably, so designers gave up on any thoughts of diversion to the F mount. However, if 10.5cm f/2.5 back focus could be increased by 1-1.5mm, it could be converted to the F mount. By reducing the thickness of the last lens element by 1.0mm, Wakimoto was able to preserve back focus and release the 10.5cm f/2.5 for F-mount cameras. </em></p> <p>See: http://www.nikkor.com/story/0045/</p>