-
Welcome to TalkEmount.com, the best Sony E-mount camera and photography community on the web.Click here to join for free and enjoy unlimited photo uploads in our forums.
What Is It About Old Nikkors?
- Thread starter bobbill
- Start date
AlwaysOnAuto
TalkEmount Hall of Famer
It is one of my 'keepers' for sure as it was my dad's lens used on his Canon VI-T.
ILCE-7M3
FE 28mm F2
28mm
f/2.0
1/160s
ISO 1600
AOA, why not go "smaller, less espensive" by selling the larger 1.2 to find a decent 1.4. What I finally did. Small to me is good, particularly when the proceeds are beneficial. The 1.2 plus adaptor must be substantial...not ciriticizng, just wondering.
Richard Crowe
TalkEmount All-Pro
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2018
- Messages
- 1,117
I used to feel the same way about manual focus Canon lenses. IMO, the FD 50mm f/1.8 was superior in image quality to the EOS 50mm f/1.8 Mk-2 (nifty-fifty). I used the FD 50mm f/1.8 extensively but, never really used the nifty-fifty to any great degree.
The one I had literally fell apart and I replaced it with a 50mm f/1.8 Mk-I which I still did not use all that often either. This was probably because I had the 50mm focal length very well covered by my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens which lived on one of my two Canon DSLR cameras.
OTOH, I use the Sony 50mm f/1.8 OSS lens quite often on my Sony APSC cameras even though I have that focal length covered by the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens...
The one I had literally fell apart and I replaced it with a 50mm f/1.8 Mk-I which I still did not use all that often either. This was probably because I had the 50mm focal length very well covered by my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens which lived on one of my two Canon DSLR cameras.
OTOH, I use the Sony 50mm f/1.8 OSS lens quite often on my Sony APSC cameras even though I have that focal length covered by the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens...
AlwaysOnAuto
TalkEmount Hall of Famer
A quick comparo of the two lenses with adapters mounted. Surprisingly, the smaller of the two seems to weigh less
more than the bigger, but that is just a lift them and feel sense, I have no scale to actually weigh them.
more than the bigger, but that is just a lift them and feel sense, I have no scale to actually weigh them.
ILCE-7M3
FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS
41mm
f/4.0
1/160s
ISO 2000
ILCE-7M3
FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS
41mm
f/4.0
1/60s
ISO 2000
Last edited:
AoA from the wording, surely you mean the LTM out weighed its big brother...If so, would not surprise me. Still, for me, if so, and was less bulky, it gets a shot, to a point.
Not complaining. Use of old lenses is so neat; however, one thing is the adapter lug length does make adapted lenses bulky, but c'est la vie! We deal with it, and it ain't gonna change. Guess why I like the wee rough and tumble (P&I) cameras.
Not complaining. Use of old lenses is so neat; however, one thing is the adapter lug length does make adapted lenses bulky, but c'est la vie! We deal with it, and it ain't gonna change. Guess why I like the wee rough and tumble (P&I) cameras.
AlwaysOnAuto
TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Yeah, I got that backwards. The smaller weighs more than the bigger. Sheesh, what was I thinking and typing there? The brass in the LTM is weighty indeed.
Dig, We all do that, sometimes we catch it, sometimes we do not..."que sera!" Was not pinging you, just being sure.
AlwaysOnAuto
TalkEmount Hall of Famer
I can understand that. I'd equate my Series E 50 to that pancake, only it's lighter.
SpecFoto
TalkEmount Veteran
Been shooting with Nikon since the mid eighties. My collection of old MF Nikkors has changed over the years and about 8 years ago I traded/upgraded various ones to all be the AI-S variety, (the last MF version made) and all be the 52mm filter size. The 10 shown below are what I still have. The "headliners" of the group are the 35mm f1.4 and 50 f1.2, other notables include the 24mm and 28mm f2 versions and the 105 f2.5 portrait lens, which is my favorite, followed by the 50mm f1.2. The 55mm and 105mm f2.8 Micro NIkkors are both native 1:2 reproduction ratio, but with the PK-13 & PN-11 extension tubes, shown on the far right, they both become 1:1. Rounding out the group are the 85mm f2, 135mm f2.8 and 200mm f4 (non-macro).
I am slowly getting rid of my Nikon DSLR equipment and AF lenses, having settled on MU-43 and SonyFF for the future. But I don't think I will every let go of these old MF NIkkors, they are fun to shoot, have great all-metal build quality and due to being the 52mm filter size versions, are pretty darn small. With my D800 (36MP) the IQ was great, hopefully now that I just upgraded my A7III to the RIII version at 42MP this turns out to be the case too. With the focus mag. and peaking features of the Sony they are actually easier to focus than on the Nikon DSLR's, plus they now have IBIS, which helps too.
I am slowly getting rid of my Nikon DSLR equipment and AF lenses, having settled on MU-43 and SonyFF for the future. But I don't think I will every let go of these old MF NIkkors, they are fun to shoot, have great all-metal build quality and due to being the 52mm filter size versions, are pretty darn small. With my D800 (36MP) the IQ was great, hopefully now that I just upgraded my A7III to the RIII version at 42MP this turns out to be the case too. With the focus mag. and peaking features of the Sony they are actually easier to focus than on the Nikon DSLR's, plus they now have IBIS, which helps too.
---
Last edited:
somnambulist_squirrel
TalkEmount Veteran
Nice collection! A friend just gave me his old Nikon kit, with a 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 Series E, 80-200mm f4 and a teleconverter. They all have fungus to varying degrees, but I am working on that (though I may forego the 80-200, it's the worst of the bunch and more complex to tear down). I've been playing with the 28 and love the sunstars out of it. How do you like the 24mm?
AlwaysOnAuto
TalkEmount Hall of Famer
I agree, that is a nice collection. I haven't been picky about non-AI vs AI-S, I've just picked 'em up when I can.
My favorites are the 100mm Series E and the 24mm's, of which I have two versions. I find the 24's to be exceptionally sharp and really love 'em for getting up close to cars without a lot of distortion.
My favorites are the 100mm Series E and the 24mm's, of which I have two versions. I find the 24's to be exceptionally sharp and really love 'em for getting up close to cars without a lot of distortion.
SpecFoto
TalkEmount Veteran
Thanks! In my case I was carefully to get pretty clean versions of each lens with no fungus.
The 28mm f2.8 MF was the 1st Nikon lens I owned back in the eighties, it is a great lens. The 24 f2 is very good, and better at f2.4, but truthfully it is not used as much. Not because of any issues, it's just that I like the 28mm and 20mm lens combo a lot better. (And this has carried over to Sony. I had the 24 f1.4 GM for a while but sold it and bought the Voigtlander 21mm f3.5.) There is a Nikkor AI-S 20mm f3.5 lens at 52mm filter size that I would consider picking up, but as my Nikon D800 only had 10 slots to put exif identifiers into the memory, I kept this set to 10 lenses. This might be the one change I would make, getting the 20mm vs the 24.
Last edited:
somnambulist_squirrel
TalkEmount Veteran
That makes sense re: the 20mm. I’ve been using a Nikon mount AF Tokina 20-35, nearly always at 20mm. I sold that recently as I’m looking for an option with more easily correctable distortion. I like this 28, too, so I’m thinking a 20 would make sense as the wider option to go for. I don’t much see an advantage in using a 28 and a 24. I’d rather just use a 24, or go wider with the 20. At the prices those are commanding, though, I’m tempted to just spring for a Samyang 18mm f2.8 or Tamron 20mm f2.8 to get the AF and modern coatings (not that I care over much about AF at this focal length).
JonathanF2
TalkEmount All-Pro
I owned the 24mm f/2.8 AI-S and currently the 20mm f/3.5 AI-S. I prefer the 20mm f/3.5 AI-S over the 24mm, but I think the 28mm f/2.8 AI-S is the best optically of the 3 lenses. I didn't care for the 20mm f/2.8 AI-S, mainly due to bulk and average performance. The 20mm f/3.5 AI-S is far more compact (52mm vs 62mm filter thread), sharp center and weighs less making it better suited for modern DSLRs with high ISO performance.
The Nikkors I have kept are only the ones I used with my Nikons...an F, then the Photomic and the wonderful 8008s and might have replaced or giving them to kids and now missing.
I try to keep lenses (harem) simple...maybe 5 at most, plus one 2x teleconverter, in case.
Let's see, a 2.0/35, two 50s, the 135 and Micro...pretty much it...save the point and shoots for snap-grabs and Sony autos, which I do not use...that is it! And, now the pancake sees most use...with a 1.4 waiting.
Not trying to sway, just like simple, and understand reasons for variability...
I might add I learned to habitually shoot at 200 ASA (ISO) and do so now, out of habit, as an old Tri Xer with DXO and Silky to get tp what looks good as print.
I try to keep lenses (harem) simple...maybe 5 at most, plus one 2x teleconverter, in case.
Let's see, a 2.0/35, two 50s, the 135 and Micro...pretty much it...save the point and shoots for snap-grabs and Sony autos, which I do not use...that is it! And, now the pancake sees most use...with a 1.4 waiting.
Not trying to sway, just like simple, and understand reasons for variability...
I might add I learned to habitually shoot at 200 ASA (ISO) and do so now, out of habit, as an old Tri Xer with DXO and Silky to get tp what looks good as print.
Last edited:
sapoeijoek
TalkEmount Veteran
IMO old Nikon lenses are sharper than Canons but I like how Canon renders the bokeh. Since I started photography with Canon SLR (but switched to Nikon), I had many Canon lenses in the past but got rid some of them except the 20mm. The only Nikon lenses I have are 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and the monster 135/2. The latter, it's very sharp even at f2.0.
---
---
