Nikon Ai lenses - The Lowdown Please

The23rdman

The23rdman

Messages
13,582
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
I'm considering an older manual focus fast prime for portrait work. I hear good things about the old Nikkors and wondered if you knowledgeable lot would give me the lowdown on the telephoto options. 85mm and longer.
 
I have the 28mm f/2.8 Ai-s, and I also have a 24mm f/2.8 N which has been factory converted to Ai-s. I too use a D700.

The 28mm is the better lens, as it has close range correction and focuses down to 0.2 ft. which is great for getting in close. Here's a shot taken the other day:

4462-1399196031-73ea45d24003e3ff1a3bbf6b9d155099.jpg
 
Looks lovely. That bokeh is dreamy.
 
I have a few of the lenses you might be thinking of obtaining, 28mm F2 Ai'd 85mm H F1.8 Ai'd and a 135mm Q F2.8 Ai'd. I can not point to specific examples of shots taken with them but I'll go wave them about on a D600 today. All are beautifully constructed reasonably heavy chunks of metal and all generally receive positive comments although Ken Rockwell prefers the later 85mm F2 to the earlier non Ai one most of the rest of the world does not http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/75971-manual-focus-nikkor-85-best.html
Thread from aplug on 85mm lenses
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/75971-manual-focus-nikkor-85-best.html
Interesting page on the 85mm H F1.8
http://pindelski.org/Photography/2013/02/22/nikkor-h-85mm-f1-8-lens/
Photography in Malaysia Pre Ai 85mm page .
http://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/telephoto/85mm.htm

Interestingly or not as the case may be Bjørn Rørslett rates the 28mm F2 higher than the F2.8 which is the reverse of Mr Rockwell, my 28mm was brought dirt cheap from the Strand LCE about 1988 and is not very pretty (some marks to the front element) hence the low price.

I don't have a 105mm but the reputation of this focal length in the Nikon range has always been outstanding. Most of these lenses are reasonably cheap especially if you get Ai'd rather than Ai or Ais versions the 85mm H F1.8 carries a bit of a premium but can usually be found under 200. The 28mm F2 tends to be more expensive usually at 350 or above.
 
That's excellent info, thank you. Personally, I'll take Bjorn's opinion over Uncle Ken's every day and thrice on Sunday. :)
 
The 105 f2.5 AiS is worth a look, lovely images, nice and compact as well

There is a thread on FM about them, worth a read LINKY
 
Martyn... said:
The 105 f2.5 AiS is worth a look, lovely images, nice and compact as well

There is a thread on FM about them, worth a read LINKY
Click to expand...
I have been seriously considering that. I'd quite like a 300 though.
 
Set on Flickr 28mm F2 at different appertures https://www.flickr.com/photos/abbandon/sets/72157644536970684/

Set on Flickr 85mm F1.8 at different apertures https://www.flickr.com/photos/abbandon/sets/72157644122540079/

Set on Flickr 28-85mm AF early one said to be the same optics as the Ais one all apatures at 28mm and 85mm https://www.flickr.com/photos/abbandon/sets/72157644122609959/

Shot taken with the 135mm F2.8 Q https://www.flickr.com/photos/abbandon/14117877785/

People often claim the 300mm F4.5 non IF is better than the IF one I couldn't say but I've always found the IF version fine and recently added a 400mm F5.6 too if you have a grub arond in my flickr lots of recent shots at Marwell were taken using both.
 
abbandon said:
Set on Flickr 28mm F2 at different appertures https://www.flickr.com/photos/abbandon/sets/72157644536970684/

Set on Flickr 85mm F1.8 at different apertures https://www.flickr.com/photos/abbandon/sets/72157644122540079/

Set on Flickr 28-85mm AF early one said to be the same optics as the Ais one all apatures at 28mm and 85mm https://www.flickr.com/photos/abbandon/sets/72157644122609959/

Shot taken with the 135mm F2.8 Q https://www.flickr.com/photos/abbandon/14117877785/

People often claim the 300mm F4.5 non IF is better than the IF one I couldn't say but I've always found the IF version fine and recently added a 400mm F5.6 too if you have a grub arond in my flickr lots of recent shots at Marwell were taken using both.
Click to expand...
Many thanks. I'll have a good look at those later. :)
 
shapeshifter said:
Are they difficult to focus accurately?
Click to expand...
No harder than they were before autofocus was invented. You just turn the focus collar whilst looking through the viewfinder. None of this faffing about with menus.
 
Some of these lenses are fantastic optically in all senses, even by today's standards. The 105mm f2.5 is one of those.

Some of them are fantastic in quirky ways. The 35mm f1.4 is one of those.

Bjorn Rorslett's reviews are to be trusted, in my experience.
 
droj said:
No harder than they were before autofocus was invented. You just turn the focus collar whilst looking through the viewfinder. None of this faffing about with menus.
Click to expand...
I have heard they are hard to focus because the viewfinder on a digital camera goes no brighter than a f2.8 even with an f1.4 lens on it.Also the screen is not designed for manual focus.The problem of manual focus is supposed to be even worse on crop sensor cameras.
 
It's not just the brightness, you actually don't see the depth of field correctly through the viewfinder either (you can test this by using a DoF preview on a modern body with an f1.4 lens - there will be no visible difference in the DoF between the widest apertures). I don't know the exact reason why, but modern viewfinders are essentially optimised for slower lenses (meaning they work better with these slower lenses), and this is the outcome. The viewfinders are usually smaller and dimmer generally too on modern cameras, compared to the likes of an F4 (makes you wonder about progress...). Older manual focus cameras also usually had a split image in the focusing screen as an aid to accurate focusing. So for all the above reasons it can be a bit hit and miss to focus manually with dSLRs, especially if you are using the lenses at or near maximum apertures where it's easier to make errors. I guess live view is the answer for some applications.
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
It's not just the brightness, you actually don't see the depth of field correctly through the viewfinder either (you can test this by using a DoF preview on a modern body with an f1.4 lens - there will be no visible difference in the DoF between the widest apertures). I don't know the exact reason why, but modern viewfinders are essentially optimised for slower lenses (meaning they work better with these slower lenses), and this is the outcome. The viewfinders are usually smaller and dimmer generally too on modern cameras, compared to the likes of an F4 (makes you wonder about progress...). Older manual focus cameras also usually had a split image in the focusing screen as an aid to accurate focusing. So for all the above reasons it can be a bit hit and miss to focus manually with dSLRs, especially if you are using the lenses at or near maximum apertures where it's easier to make errors. I guess live view is the answer for some applications.
Click to expand...
With Nikon you have the little dot that tells you when you're in focus.
 
Also look at Vivitar 70-210 1:4.5-5.6 D, these lens with Nikon fit are supposed to be the muts nuts with sharpness and "bokeh". I think the thing to look out for is the "D"
Happy hunting, I like the old manual lens.
 
I never got on with split-image or microprism focus 'helpers' on 35mm slr's - to me they clutter up the screen intrusively. I always swopped out such screens for plain ones. And that's how I carry on, even on crop. Dean, the green dot is in the wrong place - I'd rather keep my eye on the ball.

Given that I'm talking decent light levels and subjects that aren't whizzing about.
 
droj said:
I never got on with split-image or microprism focus 'helpers' on 35mm slr's - to me they clutter up the screen intrusively. I always swopped out such screens for plain ones. And that's how I carry on, even on crop. Dean, the green dot is in the wrong place - I'd rather keep my eye on the ball.

Given that I'm talking decent light levels and subjects that aren't whizzing about.
Click to expand...
I can see both at the same time. Ner ner.
 
I've been using these lenses since 2008 on a D300 then a D3200 now more recently on a D600 and not found focusing a problem but them compared to say using a F14.5 750mm Apo Germinar on a 10x8 its a bit easier all round.

I mostly shoot static shots so find the focus confirmation dot helpful and for close ups tend to turn auto focus off and use my eyes anyway with auto lenses.

Can't stand split micro prisms either and have always replaced them with the "E" screen - just got my hands on a F5 Friday and about the first thing I did was poke the web with a stick to track down an E screen.

I was contemplating getting a 35mm F1.4 as I had one back in 1988 but came across a Samyang 35mm instead so don't feel the need.

The old Ai lenses are certainly in general all good performers some better perhaps than some of the newer lenses and if nothing else quite often a lot cheaper.

Looking critically at the 85mm I can see the edges are soft wide open and there is some CA but things would work ok for portraits or stopped down where I would most likely use it anyway.
 
The only thing I've found that I don't like so much with older lenses is the colour rendition. It's fixable in post, but they always look muted out of camera.
 
From experience, I found the Nikon 75-300mm push pull zoom to be an excellent lens,. The contrast and sharpness I had out of that lens using on a D7000 was fantastic, probably my favourite older lens that I have used. Wish I still had it to use on my XP1 with an adapter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top