Nikon or Nikkor?

[BW]

Can someone please explain the reason behind the difference in nomenclature regarding lenses? Its all a blur to me, like many other areas in life

[Jan Anne]

Nikkor makes lenses for Nikon and Nikon makes the bodies, though the latter also made some budget lenses like the old Series E lenses.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Nikon for the cameras, unless you include some very ancient and long forgotten models (Nikkorex) not even made by Nikon themselves, and of course the lower-end-of-range Nikkormats of the '60s.

The Series E lenses introduced for the Nikon EM in early '80s comprise the only internationally available lens range carrying the Nikon designation, commonly known as Nikon SE lenses.

Thus with very few exceptions, lenses for the Nikons are designated Nikkor. There is no option in the nomenclature so a lens either is a Nikkor or (rarely) a Nikon, but one cannot use these labels interchangeably.

'Nikkor' and 'Nikon' are all encompassed by the Nikon brand as such. Nikon gear is made in a number of Nikon factories in Asian countries (China, Thailand, Indonesia) besides what is made in Japan proper.

[BW]

Thanks for clearing that up Essentially they are two different companies or are both owned Nikon?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Thanks for clearing that up Essentially they are two different companies or are both owned Nikon?

As elaborated above, all is Nikon one way or other. Just brand labels.

[Jan Anne]

Nikon Nikkor 50/1.2 vs Nikon Series E 28/2.8.

The Nikkor is all metal and whereas the Nikon is plastic fantastic and with simpler coatings.

Image with the "56"mm lens of the iPhone 7 Plus.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Actually, that is quite unfair assessment. The SE Nikon lenses mostly are sturdy metal constructions with quite sophisticated optical designs. What Nikon did was to use cheaper techniques such as pressed instead of cast metal parts, simplifying some internal details to make assembly easier (although the latter is hard to believe after having pried a few of these lenses open), and simplified coatings.  Thus these lenses typically have a slightly lower contrast, a trait which actually endears them to many contemporary users.

I have a sample of the Nikon SE 28/2.8 in front of me. It is lightweight, yes, but plastic? Not at all. Metal all over, down to its mount.

[BW]

Thanks for all the info guys! As you said Bjørn, I use the 50 mm 1,8 E series, and the low contrast on that lens goes exceptionally well with the Neutral profile of the Df. Love it!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A small final tidbit on the Series E lenses: as far as I can ascertain, they all are good performers in IR.

[BW]

I had to test Bjørn. I found it quite good as well. Here at f4. Maybe I should have a look at the rest of the series?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The really nice ones are the small SE zoom lenses. Most fame belongs to the 75-150/3.5 SE, but the 36-72/3.5 is a very decent performer too.  Either lens are just fine for IR.

Among the prime SE lenses, the 35/2.5 SE is one of the best IR lenses I have used so far.

The compact and handy 100/2.8 SE does double service as a decent UV optic too.

Speaking of UV, as I know you have a UV-capable camera available, try it with the 50/1.8 SE. You might be surprised.

[BW]

I havent gotten around to try it yet, but flowers popping up every day now so its on my "to do list"

[David H. Hartman]

I've never owned the 100/2.8 Series-E but I've read that it is sharper at close focus and large apertures than the 105/2.5 AI/AIS. The 105/2.5 AI/AIS gives up a bit of sharpness at close focus and large apertures (both together) in the interest of good bokeh for portraits. This was explained in Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights series. This was also noted by David Ruether in his subjective lens evaluations. In my own tests I found the 105/2.5 P.C, AI and AIS all hit their sweet spot a little later than other Nikkors I tested. All were of the large rear element, Xenotar design. I tested at 2 meters as I ran off five 105mm Nikkor lenses so given all I've read after my tests what I found was what I should have.

At the time I shunned the Nikon Series-E lenses due to there "inferior" build. By today's standards they are quite well built. I tried to repair a 50/1.8 Canon FD lens for a nephew and I found the 75-150/3.5 Nikon Series-E ever so much better built. The 75-150/3.5 is the only Series-E I've been inside of. I fixed the loose zoom of that lens on the kitchen table of a camera repairman friend. I did it there in case I needed to be bailed out. If found the size and focal length range of the 75-150/3.5 Series-E compelling. It had multi-coating like the Nikkors of the time and the performance did not disappoint.

Years ago Modern Photography did tests on the 105/2.5 AI or AIS and the 75-150/3.5 Series-E. I noted that the 75-150/3.5 was a bit sharper in the center while the 105/2.5 was sharper to the edges. 

Dave Hartman

Here is a link to David Ruther's subjective lens evaluations...

http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/slemn.html

[Akira]

The "Nikkor" name will be given to a lens only when they decide that its performance deserves the name.  Otherwise it will be named "Nikon Lens", as seen on the zoom lenses on the P&S compacts.

The E Series lenses were not named Nikkor only because they were intended as entry models from the outset, not really because of their performances.

The name "Nikkormat" was conceived in order to promote Nikkor lenses to the world through more affordable camera bodies.  In Japan, those models were called (and engraved) "Nikomat", because they didn't need to promote Nikkor domestically at that time anymore.

[Bill De Jager]

Among the prime SE lenses, the 35/2.5 SE is one of the best IR lenses I have used so far.

I just sold mine. 

How is the performance at wider apertures?