Nikon legacy lenses...

Tom Pinchenzo

Tom Pinchenzo

Messages
1,024
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
How do they compare to a modern lens. Are they really as sharp as an expensive new lens? Obviously they don’t have fancy autofocus, vibration reduction or glare-reducing coatings but I’m not that bothered about those things for what I shoot.

Any recommendation? Particularly wide angles (zooms or primes) for landscapes.
 
Last edited:
Lenses tend to get better every generation, it's not just the fact they added AF. Sharpness, CA, flare etc will all be improved.
 
twist said:
Lenses tend to get better every generation, it's not just the fact they added AF. Sharpness, CA, flare etc will all be improved.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty big generalisation, though. Many legacy lenses are excellent!
 
twist said:
Lenses tend to get better every generation, it's not just the fact they added AF. Sharpness, CA, flare etc will all be improved.
Click to expand...

But are those increases in quality worth the relatively higher cost?
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
But are those increases in quality worth the relatively higher cost?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily - it can be a bit like splitting hairs. And whereas some people will obsess about resolution, distortion, and the more measurable 'technical' characteristics, each lens model has its own character to do with how it renders - contrast, colour, bokeh, flare, ...

In other words, there's a subjective dimension.

Here's Bjørn Rørslett on the Nikkor Ai 85mm f/2 - ".. unfortunately the optical quality is nowhere in the league of its predecessor. In particular I found pictures taken with the 85/2 to be dull and life-less, and images took on a greyish cast as well. I'm aware of reports claiming this lens is an excellent perfomer and am at a loss to explain this discrepancy in opinions (I've tried several 85/2's and they all behaved in a similar manner)."

Versions of this that I've tried give the lie to those remarks, and the images from them appear to be contrasty, bright and sharp. My current one is a favourite lens on film or ff digital. So what he means by 'grey' is a complete mystery.

Explore the world of lenses, and be happy!

ps I wouldn't bother with a zoom for landscape ...
 
Last edited:
Tom Pinchenzo said:
How do they compare to a modern lens. Are they really as sharp as an expensive new lens?
Click to expand...

I have a couple of older Nikkors: 28 f3.5 and a 135 f2.8. If super-sharp images are your thing then go for a modern lens, probably something like a Sigma ART. There is a very pleasing quality to the rendering of an older lens - a soft smoothness especially in OOF areas - which can be used to great effect in the right situation, but probably isn't right for *typical* every day photos unless that style is your thing.

It's not just older lenses though - the Samyang 50 f1.4 I had recently also does a really nice and smooth bokeh, and IIRC the 85 f1.4 manual focus likewise although it was razor-sharp (and it flared like a vintage lens).
 
I have some pre ai Nippon Kogaku primes. They're well made and they feel like they'd last a lifetime but IMO they're nowhere near the standard of good modern primes if you're looking at image quality things like sharpness across the frame. At wide apertures they're best described as characterful but when stopped down would anyone be able to reliably and consistently tell what pictures were taken with old lenses and what were taken with new? Possibly not reliably and consistently.
 
The first thing about an image ought to be be about how it realises your message - if indeed you have one. And that might be the first issue for all of us.
 
My experience of legacy lenses is that there are some that are excellent, some that are terrible but none that can objectively match the very best modern lenses (or at least none that I've tried). There seems to have been a huge leap in the last 5 years or so in lens resolving ability, presumably in response to ever higher sensor resolutions. Sigma primes, zeiss primes, g-master lenses etc are in another league to even 10 year old designs let alone many 50 year old ones. But all of that is lab test stuff and often totally irrelevant. The big appeal of many legacy lenses is that they often have a very particular character and are often constructed in a way that makes them a real joy to use and that can be rare in more modern lenses.

A few that I've used and particularly liked are the 28mm f2.8 AIS, 28mm f/2 AIS, 50mm 1.8 AIS pancake, 55mm 3.5 micro, 105mm 2.5 AIS, 135mm 2.8 AIS. All are a joy to use and produce lovely images though I have to admit I don't love manually focussing DSLR's.
 
Some legacy lenses are very good. Some aren't. (Just like new lenses, of course.) But if you're shooting landscapes, at f/8 or whatever, then you're not asking too much of the lens, and many older designs should do the job for you. A lot of the emphasis in modern designs has been to improve performance wide open, but that won't be so much of a concern for you.

Having said that, I wouldn't expect any legacy zoom lenses to cut the mustard. Zooms especially have come on in huge leaps and bounds even in the last 10 years. Stick to legacy primes.
 
I’ve got a 600mm AIS ED 5.6 in the attic. Last used about 2 years ago or so. It’s pretty damn good and sharp - reminds me, I need to get some adapter or something so I can use it on my G series or Canon!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top