NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: John Koerner on January 26, 2017, 16:08:45
-
Having switched to Nikon for about 11 months now, I've purchased a few AI-S manual-focus lenses, because these were the last-generation of Nikon's efforts, so my expectation was that the AI-S models would be superior, optically.
However, after reviewing the specs (thanks to Roland Vink's pages), it appears that the AI iterations of virtually every MF lens Nikon made (105mm and below) would be preferable to the AI-S version, simply because of a longer focus throw. If a person purchases a MF lens, it's because they enjoy the tactile pleasure of manual focusing, so surely the longer focus throw offers more pleasure + precision. Here are a few examples of some great, older MF Nikkor lenses:
Nikkor 6mm f/2.8
Focus Throw (AI): 90°
Focus Throw (AI-S): 60°
Nikkor 8mm f/2.8
Focus Throw (AI): 90°
Focus Throw (AI-S): 60°
Nikkor 15mm f/3.5
Focus Throw (AI): 80°
Focus Throw (AI-S): 50°
Nikkor 20mm f/3.5
Focus Throw (AI): 100°
Focus Throw (AI-S): 70°
Nikkor 24mm f/2
Focus Throw (AI): 160°
Focus Throw (AI-S): 80°
Nikkor 35mm f/1/4
Focus Throw (AI): 180°
Focus Throw (AI-S): 105°
Nikkor 50mm f/1.2
Focus Throw (AI): 180°
Focus Throw (AI-S): 110°
Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 Noct.
Focus Throw (AI): 230°
Focus Throw (AI-S): 140°
Nikkor 85mm f/2
Focus Throw (AI): 255°
Focus Throw (AI-S): 170°
Nikkor 105mm f/2.5
Focus Throw (AI): 170°
Focus Throw (AI-S): 140°
*** At 135mm and 180mm, they're the same at 270 ***
The point of this is, if a person is a collector, or is wanting to enjoy old-school MF lenses, why purchase the newer AI-S versions?
Did the AI-S versions provide anything "extra" to justify buying them? If so, what? Glass quality?
If not, and the glass quality is equivalent, then it seems the AI versions of these elder lenses would offer the greater manual-focusing experience.
Thoughts?
Jack
-
It depends,,,
Ai:
Most have a more heavy strong design
Longer helicoils with more resistance in focus ring.
A few has 6 aperture blades that are a bit rounded at some apertures.
Ais:
Lightweight design.
Quick focus due to short focus throw.
Internal Focus.
More aperture blades can give better Bokeh.
Linear aperture, much better for CPU chipped lenses.
The different optical versions are indicated on Rolands pages by vertical lines, thin or heavy,,,
-
Most Nikkors have participated in a slow evolution and improvement over the years. The AI/AIS divide is not always the most important step in this process. Thus one has to be careful when comparing lenses of different vintage lest the comparison is flawed due to other internal changes, not just focusing throw.
-
The only lens in this range that was fundamentally redesigned was 28/2.8. Other lenses remained the same optically, except for the SIC coating applied to the later Ais models.
Ai 50/1.2 and Ai Noct 58/1.2 had only seven aperture blades, so Ais versions with nine blades could be preferable. (The later Ai50/1.2 might have nine aperture blade, if I'm not mistaken.)
In the digital era, the longer focus throw is preferable, so I would go for Ai version except for the 28/2.8 and the above mentioned fast lenses.
-
peobably yes, AI lenses are mechanically and optically really very good.
If you chip your lenses AIS are straight on. AI lenses, at least most of them have about one stop offset in the middle aperture range. Means, you dial in f5.6 and your cam closes the AI lens only to f4. You may correct it with -1 in your cam or with filing the aperture lever, but means some additionally work.
Nevertheless I got some unique AI lenses:
20 f4: small and excellent stopped down to 11.
35-70 AI: sharp as it gets better than my AFD, except bokeh.
55 f3.5 micro: in macro better than my 55 f2.8 AIS
non AI: 135 f2.8 QC: perfect sharp and excellent bokeh, maybe better than my 85 f1.4 AFD, got it for 15 bucks
and a real gem: 50 f1.4 auto sc.
and some more 🤔
Since I chip my manual lenses I use my AF and AFS lenses rarely.
It's a pleasure to use these lenses, especially if you clean theme and put new grease to the helicoids - perfect.
enjoy manual lenses
Peter
-
Pedro, or anyone who uses chipped Ai lenses, is there still any discrepancy between the set aperture and the metered value when you switch the camera mode to set the aperture on the aperture ring of the lens?
-
if you toggle to the lens aperture ring it's fine, I think it's command 60 if I remember right, but does not work with the D800.
With my other DSLRs it works fine.
But it's mostly only an one stop offset. I think it was so designed by Nikon to be sure the lens can close to the value set at the aperture ring. Using electronic lever control from the cam, from AIS on, the lever MUST be precisely adjusted. But there are some workarounds
-
Pedro, or anyone who uses chipped Ai lenses, is there still any discrepancy between the set aperture and the metered value when you switch the camera mode to set the aperture on the aperture ring of the lens?
If the lens is true AIS, either operation should lead to the same result. However, why one would dial in aperture when the lens itself has an easy-to-use aperture ring is beyond my limited imagination ...
For an AI lens, only setting aperture on the lens can yield consistent results.
All the above assume a properly installed and correctly programmed CPU chip. A few ultra-wide lenses need trimming of the value of the exit pupil in order to meter accurately, amongst these first and foremost the 15/3.5.
-
Peter (sorry, I thought you were Pedro a.k.a. PedroS) and Bjørn, thanks for the reply. That supports my memory.
-
The only lens in this range that was fundamentally redesigned was 28/2.8. Other lenses remained the same optically, except for the SIC coating applied to the later Ais models. ...
This blanket statement is at variance what one may see inside the lens. Even though the official design is said to be unchanged AI>AIS, more than the indexing mechanism and focus throw might have been updated. One example is the 50/1.2, for which the rear element changed its size. Erik and I grew a few extra grey hairs when dealing with that lens.
-
the best way is as Bjorn said, unfortunately I can not toggle to the aperture ring with my D800😬.
Other cams work fine with command 60 and Dandelion.
-
Strange. My D800 allows the aperture ring to be used, no problem at all?
-
This blanket statement is at variance what one may see inside the lens. Even though the official design is said to be unchanged AI>AIS, more than the indexing mechanism and focus throw might have been updated. One example is the 50/1.2, for which the rear element changed its size. Erik and I grew a few extra grey hairs when dealing with that lens.
I know, that's why I said "fundamentally". 28/2.8 has seen a total optical design change between Ai and Ais. I would say that the change in 50/1.2 was minor, even with respect to the lost color in your hair.
-
The optical change prevented us CPU-modifying the lens we had planned, so was significant.
Nikon have a very long tradition of keeping the playing cards tight to their chest. A lot of the improvement are never published.
-
Bjørn,
its a problem with a Dandelion chip and a D800.
Better way to chip is your approach, but I didn't know this some years ago...
With a D700 you may toggle AI lenses to the aperture ring, no problem. Works very consistent.
Its in depth discussed at pindelski.org.....
-
Well, one learns something new every day. Good to know I don't need to worry about this issue, though.
-
The optical change prevented us CPU-modifying the lens we had planned, so was significant.
Nikon have a very long tradition of keeping the playing cards tight to their chest. A lot of the improvement are never published.
Maybe. But Nikon wouldn't have imagined that both you and Erik had jokers: chipping MF Nikkors. :o
-
Nikon simply claims the chipping is "impossible", even though they have produced such lenses themselves ....
-
Thank you for all the responses.
Specifically, the lenses I was interested in were the 24mm f/2 and the 58mm f/1.2 Noct.
(The new 28mm f/2.8 AI-S actually has a longer focus throw that any of the elder iterations, including the f/2, and is one of my two favorite wildlife lenses, period, because of its ability to get so close to a subject as well as to reverse-mount for 2:1 macro.)
Of the lenses mentioned, I have been considering purchasing a 24mm f/2 as a midway point between 20 and 28, and for macro work I prefer manual focus, and will mostly use this as a reversed-lens in a studio setting.
I have been rubbing my chin also with respect to owning a 58 mm f/1.2 Noct, and (if I decide to pay the obscene price) will mostly be using it on a tripod, focusing from a Live View situation. Even hand-held in a street situation, I believe I would prefer the longer focus throw. So, unless otherwise advised (for the "internal" reasons hinted at), I think I would prefer the AI version of the Noct, for its substantially-longer focus throw, and would be willing to give up 2 aperture blades in favor of the more precise focus control.
However, I also noticed a little-mentioned lens, the 55mm f/1.2, which is between the focal lengths of the 50mm f/1.2 AI/AI-S, and the 58mm f/1.2 Noct. AI/AI-S ... and yet the 55mm AI has the same focus throw of the 58 mm Noct (230°).
I'm curious as to whether anyone has conducted any sort of test comparison as the qualitative difference between these two lenses, the 55mm f/1.2 and the 58mm f/1.2 Noct, as they were both manufactured around 1977, with the 55mm coming and going rather quickly. (I am imagining the 55mm was cheaper, and likely a direct competitor, to the much more expensive Noct., offering virtually the same features.) Haven't heard much talk about it though ...
Thanks again for all input,
Jack
(PS: I have no intention of chipping any lens.)
-
John, have you considered Cosina/Voigtänder Nokton 58mm f1.4? It is said to be a fine performer (I haven't tried it myself, but our member Airy adores it) and the latest 3rd generation model has the focus throw as long as that of the 50mm Ai lenses. Also, they are chipped.
-
John, have you considered Cosina/Voigtänder Nokton 58mm f1.4? It is said to be a fine performer (I haven't tried it myself, but our member Airy adores it) and has the focus throw as long as (or perhaps a bit longer than) the 50mm Ai lenses. Also, they are chipped.
I have, actually, thank you.
At this point, I am romantically-involved with old Nikon lenses (lol), but I do enjoy my Voigtänder 125mm macro ... so if I "cheat" and stray to another brand, another Voigtänder would head the list of possibilities. (In fact, I think I asked about this lens on another thread somewhere.) So thank you for the suggestion, and I may well go this way, ultimately.
However, right now, I have a "collector's inch" to accumulate elder Nikkor lenses at this time :D
I just want to narrow-down the best choices for my objectives 8)
-
I would strongly warn against using the 24/2 reversed for quality results. That really is not what the lens was designed for and results are likely poor. Chromatic and spherical aberrations will be quite visible.
The 24/2 has had a mixed acceptance and many find it not very good in optical performance. I concurred to the mediocre reputation with the first 2 or 3 samples of this lens, but later found a very nice one that performed much better. However, after a while its performance also deteriorated. Turned out as a likely explanation this lens has a CRC design in which the rear group easily works itself slightly out of proper position leading to mediocre rendering. Once that issue was addressed, the lens again performed well.
Do note that even a good sample of the 24/2 may require CA removal for images to display their best.
-
Most Nikkors have participated in a slow evolution and improvement over the years. The AI/AIS divide is not always the most important step in this process. Thus one has to be careful when comparing lenses of different vintage lest the comparison is flawed due to other internal changes, not just focusing throw.
Yep, some cases in point:
105/2.5 AI - 7 curved aperture blades, no built in hood
105/2.5 AI-S - 7 straight blades, yes build in hood
28/2 AI - 7 curved aperture blades
28/2 AI-S - 7 straight aperture blades
All depends if curved vs. straight blades or built-in hoods or not are meaningful to you (for these lenses)
For me I like built-in hoods, though I've been annoyed at the Bokeh at f/4 with point light sources in the background for the 105/2.5 AI-S that I have.
Love the curved blades of the 28/2 AI . . .
-
The old 55mm AI 1.2 is the forerunner for the 50mm 1.2 Ai and Ais and performance is very similar although they are optically very different. Central sharpness and general low light lenses.
The Noct-Nikkor 58mm 1.2 is optimized for central sharpness and low coma and is superior in Bokeh, a true dream lens that is really fun shooting, we have some nice threads here with loads of images, the 58mm AFS 1.4 is very close in performance and so is 35mm AFS 1.4 although the 35mm works quite well stopped way down,,,
The internal design and build of the 58mm Ai is just so nice and the aperture opening is pretty round around f1/8-f/2.2 or so even though it's a 6 bladed lens, as indicated on Rolands pages.
Ais version just has less helicoil length that's it,,
Small variances can be found for Nocts since it's a hand grinded aspherical front element and pretty much a hand build lens, rear element is fused into place at the rear - Also plenty of images here for that ones internals.
-
As a curiosity the 50mm f/1.2 Ais that Bjørn has got a Dandelion Heart transplanted into the F-Mount itself, one of brighter chippings IMHO.
A very durable solution.
Otherwise I strongly prefer to chip with the original Nikon CPU contact blocks and the custom CPU prints from Bjørn as opposed to the rather flimsy Dandelions,,,
I believe we have chipped several hundred lenses, and only one or two fatal issues ever as far as I know.
-
As a curiosity the 50mm f/1.2 Ais that Bjørn has got a Dandelion Heart transplanted into the F-Mount itself, one of brighter chippings IMHO.
A very durable solution.
Otherwise I strongly prefer to chip with the original Nikon CPU contact blocks and the custom CPU prints from Bjørn as opposed to the rather flimsy Dandelions,,,
I believe we have chipped several hundred lenses, and only one or two fatal issues ever as far as I know.
Is a Dandelion a viable option for the Nikkor-S.C 55/1.2 as well? :)
I guess you understand why I'm asking. ;D
-
A risky business if it is even possible. My gut feeling is 'no'.
-
I would strongly warn against using the 24/2 reversed for quality results. That really is not what the lens was designed for and results are likely poor. Chromatic and spherical aberrations will be quite visible.
The 24/2 has had a mixed acceptance and many find it not very good in optical performance. I concurred to the mediocre reputation with the first 2 or 3 samples of this lens, but later found a very nice one that performed much better. However, after a while its performance also deteriorated. Turned out as a likely explanation this lens has a CRC design in which the rear group easily works itself slightly out of proper position leading to mediocre rendering. Once that issue was addressed, the lens again performed well.
Do note that even a good sample of the 24/2 may require CA removal for images to display their best.
Appreciate the heads-up, thanks.
-
Yep, some cases in point:
105/2.5 AI - 7 curved aperture blades, no built in hood
105/2.5 AI-S - 7 straight blades, yes build in hood
28/2 AI - 7 curved aperture blades
28/2 AI-S - 7 straight aperture blades
All depends if curved vs. straight blades or built-in hoods or not are meaningful to you (for these lenses)
For me I like built-in hoods, though I've been annoyed at the Bokeh at f/4 with point light sources in the background for the 105/2.5 AI-S that I have.
Love the curved blades of the 28/2 AI . . .
Interesting distinctions, thank you.
It is for these subtle differences that I made this post :)
Would for sure go for the 28/2 AI, except that my 28/2.8 has even more focus throw ... and reputed to be the better of the two, reversed.
-
Not mentioned here but I find the AIS version of the 300mm/4.5 ED-IF better than the AI (ED-IF)
Another perhaps valid follow-up question: Is the last Pre-Ai version (multicoated) better than the AI ?
-
The old 55mm AI 1.2 is the forerunner for the 50mm 1.2 Ai and Ais and performance is very similar although they are optically very different. Central sharpness and general low light lenses.
Except for resale value, this one seems to be the better overall value, given the price of the Noct.
The Noct-Nikkor 58mm 1.2 is optimized for central sharpness and low coma and is superior in Bokeh, a true dream lens that is really fun shooting, we have some nice threads here with loads of images, the 58mm AFS 1.4 is very close in performance and so is 35mm AFS 1.4 although the 35mm works quite well stopped way down,,,
Based on the charts I have read, 58mm AFS 1.4 doesn't ever really get to "great" status, but is pretty mediocre the whole way ...
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/forumposts/2016/August/58mmnoct.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/forumposts/2016/August/58mmg.jpg)
Based on the charts I have read, it appears the new 105mm f/1.4 ED actually blows away the Noct. Nikkor in at pretty much everything, from low-light performance all the way up:
(https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/nikon-af-s-nikkor-105mm-f-1-4e-ed-review-30026/images/highres-Nikon-105mm-MTF-Chart_1475503904.jpg)
The internal design and build of the 58mm Ai is just so nice and the aperture opening is pretty round around f1/8-f/2.2 or so even though it's a 6 bladed lens, as indicated on Rolands pages.
Ais version just has less helicoil length that's it,,
If I were going to get a Noct., just as a collector's item, what in your experience is the better overall lens, the AI or the AI-S?
Small variances can be found for Nocts since it's a hand grinded aspherical front element and pretty much a hand build lens, rear element is fused into place at the rear - Also plenty of images here for that ones internals.
Understood, and thanks for taking the time to reply and share your insight.
Jack
PS: I was very interested in getting my lenses chipped at one point, but decided not to ... only to keep my lenses 100% "stock" and un-altered.
-
.... Would for sure go for the 28/2 AI, except that my 28/2.8 has even more focus throw ... and reputed to be the better of the two, reversed.
The 28/2.8 AI is optically highly different from the AIS version, so in this case the question AI vs AIS cannot be decided on focusing features ...
The Noct-Nikkor is not a lens one can rank solely based on charts, and in most ways the same goes for the 'Neo-Noct' 58/1.4.
-
Is a Dandelion a viable option for the Nikkor-S.C 55/1.2 as well? :)
I guess you understand why I'm asking. ;D
He he ;) We are a little off topic but ok it is re the differences in Ai vs Ais - Hope the moderators will allow,,, :)
You had a 50mm 1.4 with Dandelion, and now you have one with a popper CPU,,, ;)
As Bjørn mentions we where looking into this when Bjørn visited me for a chipping session where we uncovered some of the many differences in Ai vs Ais among them the difference in rear element size and position on the; Ai, Ais - 50,55 and 58mm lenses,,,
The trick to a successful chipping is that the contact block or Dandelion is outside the light 'opening' of the rear element.
The 58mm Noct Nikkor, 50mm and the 55mm 1.2 all have this opening painted directly on the rear element.
The reason is that this circle that is painted forms the out of focus highlights, if you paint it square the OOF wlil all be square, and in order for the aperture leaver in the camera body to clear the rear lens element while the lens is mounted, there has to be a cut out in the glass itself.
This cut also cuts into the rear aluminium element-housing, so very little is actually holding onto the rear element, only about 3/4 of the circumference.
This cut is naturally also painted black.
So to chip the Noct Nikkor I cut away the glass and the retaining aluminium until I reached the circle, the rest had to be trimmed of the rear of the CPU
Much less is cut with a Dandelion on a 50mm 1.4 Ais- but 55mm 1.2 Ai has a huge rear element,,,
Basically chipping a 55mm 1.2 is just as difficult as chipping the Noct,,, Worth it - Not really IMHO
I believe I gave you a quote of 500€ plus parts and shipping, still stands. And no guarantee for not breaking the lens elements,,,
-
He he ;) We are a little off topic but ok it is re the differences in Ai vs Ais - Hope the moderators will allow,,, :)
You had a 50mm 1.4 with Dandelion, and now you have one with a popper CPU,,, ;)
As Bjørn mentions we where looking into this when Bjørn visited me for a chipping session where we uncovered some of the many differences in Ai vs Ais among them the difference in rear element size and position on the; Ai, Ais - 50,55 and 58mm lenses,,,
The trick to a successful chipping is that the contact block or Dandelion is outside the light 'opening' of the rear element.
The 58mm Noct Nikkor, 50mm and the 55mm 1.2 all have this opening painted directly on the rear element.
The reason is that this circle that is painted forms the out of focus highlights, if you paint it square the OOF wlil all be square, and in order for the aperture leaver in the camera body to clear the rear lens element while the lens is mounted, there has to be a cut out in the glass itself.
This cut also cuts into the rear aluminium element-housing, so very little is actually holding onto the rear element, only about 3/4 of the circumference.
This cut is naturally also painted black.
So to chip the Noct Nikkor I cut away the glass and the retaining aluminium until I reached the circle, the rest had to be trimmed of the rear of the CPU
Much less is cut with a Dandelion on a 50mm 1.4 Ais- but 55mm 1.2 Ai has a huge rear element,,,
Basically chipping a 55mm 1.2 is just as difficult as chipping the Noct,,, Worth it - Not really IMHO
I believe I gave you a quote of 500€ plus parts and shipping, still stands. And no guarantee for not breaking the lens elements,,,
I'm still saving. ;D
-
Glad to help John ;)
For investing and the feeling I would get the Ais Noct-Nikkor first the later you can add the Ai if you feel like it, it is one of the best lenses, in an artistic way, I have ever worked with, it kicks in with so much Bokeh, color-transitions sharpness and out of focus smoothness galore.
If you have cash go get it!
I sold my chipped Noct-Nikkor, It took several days of work to chip even though I had the design drawings for the lens and several weeks of planning,,, I am very happy with the Neo-Noct 58 AFS 1.4 G It can do 98% of the same and with build in CPU - Even though the pixel peepers say otherwise, if you try it out for the 'intended' purpose it will deliver!
There will always be a lust for the Noct-Nikkor.
Chris you are bitten,,, ;)
-
I own both versions of the Noct-Nikkor and really don't bother which one is attached to my camera. Used wide or near wide open, they are essentially the same.
-
BTW The Noct-Nikkor actually is exactly like the APO Lanthar 125mm 2.5 on many accounts;
Sharpness transition from sharp to unsharp - Color-transition, Bokeh - smooth tones that blend together, very very similar! Just to give an idea of the look and feel,,,
The Ai Noct-Nikkor has a lot of field curvature up close, maybe the Ais has less as far as I remember,,, I have only chipped 3 pieces of the Noct - Probably chipped 20 of the 125mm APO Lanthars,,,
-
The 28/2.8 AI is optically highly different from the AIS version, so in this case the question AI vs AIS cannot be decided on focusing features ...
Okay, thanks. At this point, I am satisfied with my 28 f/2.8 and have no desire to switch.
It is a rough-and-tumble, versatile lens for nature photography ... without worrying about "if it gets damaged."
The Noct-Nikkor is not a lens one can rank solely based on charts, and in most ways the same goes for the 'Neo-Noct' 58/1.4.
Actually, I think you can base everything on the charts.
The superiority (resolution) of the 105mm f/1.4 at the widest aperture is nearly double the Noct. at f/1.4 (and the corner resolution is nearly quadruple!).
That is not a 'minor' difference, that is H-U-G-E :o
However, it is easy to imagine a scenario where the Noct might still be the creative choice.
For example, if I were taking a photo of an old man smoking a cigarette, under a foglit streetlight, the Noct's lesser corner-sharpness (and lesser overall sharpness) might actually "set the mood" better than a razor-sharp image across the frame.
I actually think that super corner performance isn't always what you need, especially in a mostly-bokeh, with minimal-subject-focus type of image.
All of these things can be seen, imagined, and analyzed by looking at the MTF charts IMO ...
Jack
-
Glad to help John ;)
For investing and the feeling I would get the Ais Noct-Nikkor first the later you can add the Ai if you feel like it, it is one of the best lenses, in an artistic way, I have ever worked with, it kicks in with so much Bokeh, color-transitions sharpness and out of focus smoothness galore.
If you have cash go get it!
I sold my chipped Noct-Nikkor, It took several days of work to chip even though I had the design drawings for the lens and several weeks of planning,,, I am very happy with the Neo-Noct 58 AFS 1.4 G It can do 98% of the same and with build in CPU - Even though the pixel peepers say otherwise, if you try it out for the 'intended' purpose it will deliver!
There will always be a lust for the Noct-Nikkor.
Chris you are bitten,,, ;)
Great post.
I understand what you mean by its artistic uses, as I attempted to illustrate above.
Cheers,
-
I can only repeat what I said earlier. The behaviour of the Noct-Nikkor is at best very difficult to predict from charts. Nothing wrong with the charts as such, but they are not the appropriate metric in this case.
-
I'll have to agree with both of you;
One can tell a lot from MTF charts if you know how to look at them, mind you, they are mostly computer or simulation-based.
No way can you tell about sharpness transition, saturation or contrast looking on a curve,,,
I believe Lens rentals does a fairly good job when testing lenses, go and google what Robert has to say about the Neo-Noct :)
However; One can tell a whole lot more from the pictures if you know what to look for,,,
-
One can tell a lot from MTF charts if you know how to look at them, mind you, they are mostly computer or simulation-based.
Yep, exactly.
No way can you tell about sharpness transition, saturation or contrast looking on a curve,,,
Great point.
I believe Lens rentals does a fairly good job when testing lenses, go and google what Robert has to say about the Neo-Noct :)
Yep, again.
Also, what he has to say about the new Nikkor 105 f/1.4 ...
"The New King" ...
"I rarely get blown away ... and I am blown away" ...
"A spectacular performance" :D
However; One can tell a whole lot more from the pictures if you know what to look for,,,
Yes again ... images are the ultimate arbiter.
Appreciate everyone's input 8)
-
I have one of the 55/1.2 K(Ai'd) and, though I have never shot the 58mm Noct, I can tell you that the 55/1.2 has pronounced spherical aberrations wide open that make the images even dreamier than the famous look of the old manual focus 35/1.4 wide open. It really qualifies as a 'special effect' IMO. I can't imagine the famous 58mm Noct looks that soft wide open.
Curiously, once stopped down to f/4 or more, the 55/1.2 K is a very contrasty, "sharp" lens.
-
a simple and broad generalisation from me from a teardown point of view.
Ai:
tougher construction
heavier
more screws
Nikon loves using glues in this generation but not as much as the New-Nikkors
tough,traditional construction with the lens barrel and optics separated
Ai-S:
lighter
clever tricks used to simplify complicated assemblies
cost-cutting on some parts (plastics, scotch tapes, plenty of brass shims)
optics casing sometimes incorporated in the lens barrel as cost-cutting and making things more compact/simplification
I personally like fixing the older Nikkors compared to Ai-S ones. it's like fixing a beetle compared to a ford focus :o :o :o
-
Thanks Rick! I agree ;) Although I like to work on them equally :)
Short comment since the 105mm AFS 1.4 sneaked in;
The 105 AFS 1.4 has the same kind of sharpness transition as Noct-Nikkor however it has a very distinct swirly Bokeh especially in situations where the out of focus highlights are standing out against the back ground.
This I have not seen so much in the Noct-Nikkor but it is actually more or less identical to Leica M Noctilux 50mm f/1 and the f/0.95
-
I own both versions of the Noct-Nikkor and really don't bother which one is attached to my camera. Used wide or near wide open, they are essentially the same.
I want to re-visit this statement.
Okay, optically, let's say they're indistinguishable ... so the real question is, Which do you prefer using--and why?
Which focusing experience do you prefer, the AI with the longer throw, or the AI-S?
-
I have one of the 55/1.2 K(Ai'd) and, though I have never shot the 58mm Noct, I can tell you that the 55/1.2 has pronounced spherical aberrations wide open that make the images even dreamier than the famous look of the old manual focus 35/1.4 wide open. It really qualifies as a 'special effect' IMO.
Thanks for that info. Very descriptive and helpful.
I can't imagine the famous 58mm Noct looks that soft wide open.
I guess it's all relative.
For its time, the Noct was "razor sharp" wide-open ... but compared to the 105 f/1.4 the Noct is as dull as a butter knife.
The Noct isn't even in the same balpark, sharpness-wise, at any aperture, as the 105 f/1.4.
Curiously, once stopped down to f/4 or more, the 55/1.2 K is a very contrasty, "sharp" lens.
The 55 f/1.2 K sounds exactly like the 50 f/1.2 AI-S, which too is about half as sharp as the so-so Noct wide-open ... but rockets to equal the Noct's sharpness by f/4.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/forumposts/2016/August/50mmais.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/forumposts/2016/August/58mmnoct.jpg)
The amazing thing is, neither one of these lenses, at their best, can equal the sharpness of the 105mm f/1.4 at its worst :o
(https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/nikon-af-s-nikkor-105mm-f-1-4e-ed-review-30026/images/highres-Nikon-105mm-MTF-Chart_1475503904.jpg) :o 8)
Jack
-
a simple and broad generalisation from me from a teardown point of view.
Ai:
tougher construction
heavier
more screws
Nikon loves using glues in this generation but not as much as the New-Nikkors
tough,traditional construction with the lens barrel and optics separated
Ai-S:
lighter
clever tricks used to simplify complicated assemblies
cost-cutting on some parts (plastics, scotch tapes, plenty of brass shims)
optics casing sometimes incorporated in the lens barrel as cost-cutting and making things more compact/simplification
I personally like fixing the older Nikkors compared to Ai-S ones. it's like fixing a beetle compared to a ford focus :o :o :o
Thank you for this insight.
Other than the glue part, I remain increasingly-biased toward the AI lenses over the AI-S versions (with some exceptions, of course).
Cheers,
-
I want to re-visit this statement.
Okay, optically, let's say they're indistinguishable ... so the real question is, Which do you prefer using--and why?
Which focusing experience do you prefer, the AI with the longer throw, or the AI-S?
As my mind never walks these directions, there is no answer other than the obvious: the one mounted on my camera.
-
John the 105mm AFS 1.4 is another kind of tool and comparing sharpness numbers is not really leading anywhere in describing the differences or the likeness IMHO
As mentioned; You will find that the Noct-Nikkor is capable of creating an images that has the similar qualities as an APO Lanthar 125mm - That should tell something!
Noct-Nikkor on D3 wide open:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5680/23478716692_67da0c73cf_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/BLJyud)_EGL4003 (https://flic.kr/p/BLJyud) by Erik Gunst Lund (https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_lund/), on Flickr
100% crop
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/364/32426904011_9e32cc7097_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RpsmPV)100 (https://flic.kr/p/RpsmPV) by Erik Gunst Lund (https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_lund/), on Flickr
Have a look at the single hair strands strands and the colour transitions,,,
-
John the 105mm AFS 1.4 is another kind of tool and comparing sharpness numbers is not really leading anywhere in describing the differences or the likeness IMHO
Eric, I was comparing sharpness because Pluton compared the sharpness of the 55 f/1.2 to the 58 f/1.2 Noct.
As mentioned; You will find that the Noct-Nikkor is capable of creating an images that has the similar qualities as an APO Lanthar 125mm - That should tell something!
Actually, what it tells me is the Noct is virtually last on my list as a needed item, especially considering the price.
I already have the color-rendering of the APO Lanthar, and my own preference (style-wise) is super sharp images with a nice bokeh background.
If I need super-sharp, wide-open shots, with nice bokeh background, the 105 f/1.4 would suit my preferences better. The added bonus of this kind of quality, with auto-focus, and being half the price of a Noct (whilst twice as sharp wide-open) makes the 105 ED even more likable.
Because I don't shoot a lot of night photography, the only area where the Noct excels, makes this lens something I would seldom benefit from by comparison to the aforementioned.
Noct-Nikkor on D3 wide open:
100% crop
Have a look at the single hair strands strands and the colour transitions,,,
Cool 8)
-
This is a most interesting thread, summarizing many nuggets of wisdom.
With reference to the criteria of sharpness of 1) focal subject 2) bokeh and rendering of background, 3) colour saturation and the often lauded quality of 3-dimensionality....
I am most interested in opinions of how do the 58 f1.4 Voigtlander and 135 f2 Zeiss APO Sonnar compare against the top Nikkors and other top lenses ?
thanks
Woody
-
I'm coming into this discussion late as I have been away. Some comments:
Construction
If weight can be used to determine build quality, most AI and AIS equivalents are the same. In some cases the AIS is slightly lighter but some are slightly heavier. I don't know the quality of internal construction - our lens doctors Eric and Ric have commented on that. Most smaller AIS lenses have only 3 screws in the mount but that is perfectly sufficient, early AI lenses have 5 screws but this already reduced to 3 screws during production.
Focus Throw
Most AI lenses have a longer focus throw than AIS equivalents. If you prefer lenses with a longer focus throw for slow precise focusing, the AI version is generally preferred. Once you get to about 180mm and beyond there is no difference (the AIS 135mm Nikkor still have a shorter focus throw, not the same as the OP claimed).
In one case, the AI 35/2.8 (new) the focus throw is shorter than the AIS version, although the older AI 35/2.8 (6 element) is even longer.
In some cases I find the focus throw of the AI version is too long, such as the AI 55/1.2 and 85/2 - these lenses are very slow to focus, I prefer the AIS versions.
To correct an earlier assertion, the focus throw of the AIS 28/2.8 is actually shorter than the older AI versions, even more so when you consider the AIS version has a greater focus range within that focus throw. In the range between infinity and 0.3m, the AI 28/2.8 has over twice the focus throw at 190° compared to just 90° for the AIS.
The focus throw is listed on my lens specification page: http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html
Optics
Most AI and AIS lenses have the same optical designs (to the best of my knowledge). Lenses which changed include:
- AI 18/4 -> AIS 18/3.5. The new lens benefits from CRC a more compact design.
- AI 28/2.8 -> AIS 28. The new lens get CRC and focuses much closer. In spite of this difference the optics are surprisingly similar, the thick central element of the AI is split in two with CRC applied across the gap (of course there is more to it than that). Both lenses have very low barrel distortion, but the AIS obviously performs better at close range.
- AI 55/3.5 -> AIS 55/2.8 micro. Again, the new version gains CRC and a small increase in speed.
- AI 180/2.8 - AIS 180/2.8 ED. The AIS version has an all-new optical design with ED glass.
You could also include the AIS 20/2.8 and 105/2.8 micro which both gained CRC and an increase in speed over the earlier versions, but these lenses appeared later on, there are also older AIS versions with the same optics as the AI type.
The NIC coatings on AI and AIS lenses are generally similar, although AIS lenses made after about 2000 have the newer SIC coating. I'm not sure whether the new coating makes a big difference, the original NIC coating was already very efficient.
Other
- The AIS 105/2.5 has a built in hood (small and wobbly) while the AI does not - use the larger clip-on HS-8 which can be reversed for storage
- The built-in hood of the AI 135/3.5 is longer than the AIS hood. I prefer the AI for the better hood and longer focus throw.
- AI 28/2, 58 Noct and 105/2.5 have slightly curved aperture blades for rounder bokeh, while the AIS versions have straight blades.
- The AIS 35/1.4 and 50/1.2, 58 Noct and 300/4.5 IFED have 9 aperture blades while the AI have only 7. The non-ED 300/4.5 goes from 6 to 7 blades.
- the AI and AIS 200/4 have 9 aperture blades but the AI blades are a little short, the tips don't overlap fully giving a saw-tooth opening. The AIS is better. There may be others like this.
- AIS 200/4 micro, 300/4.5 IFED and 400/5.6 IFED have wider tripod collars than AI, these are very solid! The AI collars are not bad however. On the other hand the AI versions have wider aperture rings.
- the AIS 28/2 focuses closer than the AI version although the optics are basically the same.
There are other minor differences that I have overlooked. Overall you can't make blanket statements about AI vs AIS, you need to consider the merits of each lens and your own preferences. Most specifications, including focus throw, number of aperture blades etc are listed here: http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html
-
To correct an earlier assertion, the focus throw of the AIS 28/2.8 is actually shorter than the older AI versions, even more so when you consider the AIS version has a greater focus range within that focus throw. In the range between infinity and 0.3m, the AI 28/2.8 has over twice the focus throw at 190° compared to just 90° for the AIS.
Roland;
Really appreciate your feedback ... and appreciate your website all the more. Great, great stuff :D
That said, I think you're mistaken on the 28mm AIS. Your own reference site lists 190° for the AI and 170° for the AIS, which is negligible.
I just tested my own AIS copy, and indeed it is right around 180° in turning the focus dial. That, coupled with the better CRC, is why I keep the 28mm AIS over the alternative.
Much obliged for your other insights, thanks!
Jack
PS: Which Noct do you prefer, personally?
-
John, no mistake, the focus throw of the AIS 28/2.8 is shorter (170°) than the AI (190°), not a big difference as you say. However the AIS requires just 90° rotation to get to 0.3m (the close limit of the AI) so when focusing to the same distance, the AIS has about half the focus throw of the AI. The AIS focus throw only seems longer because it also focuses closer.
Similar situation with the AI and AIS 28/2 - both have a focus throw of 120°, but the AI only focuses to 0.3m, while the AIS focuses to 0.25m - the AIS has a greater focus range within the same rotation, so when focusing to the same distance the AIS will actually require a shorter movement.
Also compare the focus throw of the AIS 35/2 (120°) with the AIS 35/1.4 (105°). On paper it looks like the 35/1.4 has a shorter focus throw. They are actually the same because the 35/1.4 has a fatter barrel - the larger diameter means the same movement of the focus ring covers a shorter angle.
For this reason I sometimes wonder if the focus throw as an angle is the best measure, maybe a linear measure would be better (eg AIS 35/1.4 requires XXmm movement of the focus ring between infinity and 0.3m)??
Which Noct I prefer? The cheapest! I would love to have one but can't justify the cost.
The AI has 7 aparture blades which are slightly curved so the opening has a nice rounded look.
The AIS has 9 blades - more blades so it is rounder but they have straight edges - which is better?
The AI has a focus throw of about 230° which is similar to my AI 55/1.2 - very slow to focus from infinity to close, but fine if you tend to focus within a limited range.
The AIS has a focus throw of 140°, I think I would prefer this for general use. This is the same as the AIS 50/1.4 - but note the 50/1.4 has a slimmer barrel so it's focus throw is proportionally shorter - if you have one it will give you an idea if the focus throw is right for you.
The AI Noct is rarer, fewer than 2500 made, compared to nearly 9000 for the AIS, so the AI will be harder to find.
-
John, no mistake, the focus throw of the AIS 28/2.8 is shorter (170°) than the AI (190°), not a big difference as you say. However the AIS requires just 90° rotation to get to 0.3m (the close limit of the AI) so when focusing to the same distance, the AIS has about half the focus throw of the AI. The AIS focus throw only seems longer because it also focuses closer.
Interesting perspective, Roland, thank you.
The overall focus throw is nearly identical (170° vs. 190°).
As you point out, the focus throw from .3 to ∞ is 190° in the AI and only 80° in the AIS.
Of course, that perspective could be flipped :)
The AI has 0° focus throw from .2 to .3, whereas the AIS has a whopping 90° degree of control over a mere .1m range :)
Similar situation with the AI and AIS 28/2 - both have a focus throw of 120°, but the AI only focuses to 0.3m, while the AIS focuses to 0.25m - the AIS has a greater focus range within the same rotation, so when focusing to the same distance the AIS will actually require a shorter movement.
Fascinating amendment to the overall focus throw quotient, thank you for turning the light one.
In the case of the 28mm, the extra 90° control over close-shooting suits me as a macro shooter, and is ideal for (say) coming up close to a flower, or mushroom, etc. and really nailing the focus ... while composing the background for effect. To me, combined with the CRC, this is preferable to "no" CRC ...
What is interesting is, I have read many websites and information on CRC ... and it was actually introduced in 1967 ... but not labeled on all lenses.
If I am not mistaken, the 28mm AI also has CRC ... just not to the degree of the AIS.
Also compare the focus throw of the AIS 35/2 (120°) with the AIS 35/1.4 (105°). On paper it looks like the 35/1.4 has a shorter focus throw. They are actually the same because the 35/1.4 has a fatter barrel - the larger diameter means the same movement of the focus ring covers a shorter angle.
Very interesting, thank you.
For this reason I sometimes wonder if the focus throw as an angle is the best measure, maybe a linear measure would be better (eg AIS 35/1.4 requires XXmm movement of the focus ring between infinity and 0.3m)??
I suppose there is no "one" answer.
In my 300 f/2.8 VR II, I don't care, because I use it 99.9999% of the time as an AF lens. I just want it to be quick when I half-depress the shutter.
OTOH, with my Voigtlander 125mm macro, I truly enjoy the 600°+ or focus throw for fine-tuning shots where ultimate sharpness and focus are mandatory.
The 28mm with CRC is more of a "perspective" lens than an ultimate sharpness lens. By that I mean, a close-up of a flower ... while positioning the background to be pleasing.
Which Noct I prefer? The cheapest! I would love to have one but can't justify the cost.
The AI has 7 aparture blades which are slightly curved so the opening has a nice rounded look.
The AIS has 9 blades - more blades so it is rounder but they have straight edges - which is better?
The AI has a focus throw of about 230° which is similar to my AI 55/1.2 - very slow to focus from infinity to close, but fine if you tend to focus within a limited range.
The AIS has a focus throw of 140°, I think I would prefer this for general use. This is the same as the AIS 50/1.4 - but note the 50/1.4 has a slimmer barrel so it's focus throw is proportionally shorter - if you have one it will give you an idea if the focus throw is right for you.
The AI Noct is rarer, fewer than 2500 made, compared to nearly 9000 for the AIS, so the AI will be harder to find.
I can't justify the cost either, but I will probably pick one up "just to say I have one" ... will go for the AI, both for rarity-sake, as well as better build quality and focus throw.
At that focal range, and with the characteristics of the lens (soft corners, center-sharpness, very fast), your background is going to be a blur anyway ... and you're really trying to augment the center-focus + dreamy background. Here, with a razor-thin DOF, the most precise focusing you can get your hands on is going to be preferable. At least to me.
Thanks again for the knowledgeable feedback ... much appreciated.
Jack
-
There is no information concerning CRC and the 28/2.8 AI. So no reason to assume that lens version had the feature.
Two lenses in the 28 mm range do have CRC, viz. the 28/2 AI+AIS and 28/2.8 AIS. (plus the elusive 28/1.4 AF, but it is not relevant in the current context as there is no AI counterpart). Interestingly though these lenses did CRC by the front rather than the usual implementation with rear element(s).
-
And that is also why these front CRC lenses are susceptible to getting out of alignment if the front of the lens or lens hood gets a knock rom the side.
-
The AI has 0° focus throw from .2 to .3, whereas the AIS has a whopping 90° degree of control over a mere .1m range
If the AI also focused to 0.2m and the focus pitch was kept the same, it would require near 180° to cover the distance between 0.3 ~ 0.2m... :)
If I am not mistaken, the 28mm AI also has CRC ... just not to the degree of the AIS.
I assume you are referring to the 28/2? If so, yes, it does have CRC, but the AIS the extends the focus range further, not sure if they made any other refinements to the optical design.
If you were referring to the 28/2.8, the AI and pre-AI versions don't have it, only the AIS.
As for how CRC is implemented, as Bjørn said, the AIS 28/2.8 and 28/2 versions have the floating group at the front - when focusing you will see that the front element rotates inside the mount, and the gap between the front element and filter ring increases slightly. Other lenses with CRC implemented at the front include the AIS and AF 20/2.8, AF 16/2.8 fisheye, and possibly the AIS 18/3.5.
-
Okay, optically, let's say they're indistinguishable ... so the real question is, Which do you prefer using--and why?
Which focusing experience do you prefer, the AI with the longer throw, or the AI-S?
For me this is mixed: the AIS Nikkors are generally smoother focusing with a shorter throw on the focus ring. This is good for PJ, PR, candid and street photography. I used to have a strong preference for AIS. AI Nikkors even new out of the box never seemed as smooth as AIS Nikkors. The long throw of AI Nikkors is a benefit to accurate focus and focus with live view.
Diffraction stars: an odd number of straight blades give a star with twice the spokes as the number of blades. I like 9 blade straight apertures more prevalent on AIS Nikkors for their 18 spoke stars. 7 blade straight aperatures give 14 spoke stars which is fine. 6 blade straight blade apertures give 12 spokes but they are superimposed on each other and you see only six spoke stars.
I also prefer odd sided polygon bright out of focus highlights and more sides are generally better.
So AIS v. AI is mixed for me.
Dave Hartman
-
"(front group for CRC)... possibly the AIS 18/3.5"
The 18/3.5 AIS uses the rear lens cell for CRC.
-
Integrated coatings v. Super Integrated Coatings: what I notice is ghosts when they appear are more pastels or less saturated and not as intense with SIC coatings. Contrast is surely higher in difficult light.
Dave
-
Thanks Bjørn, I struck out my comment in my previous post.
-
Did the Mk1 24/2.8(9/7) lens have front group CRC?
-
No, none of the 24mm Nikkors have front CRC.
-
The 24/2.8 :o :o :o (Nikkor-N)
-
No, none of the 24mm Nikkors have front CRC.
Suggestion:
Roland, maybe you have time to go through your database with regard to CRC, since we in this thread now have more or less all of the variants covered,,,
I know it's a lot of work but I would suggest that you enrich you data with an indication whether the CRC is CRC-F or CRC-R
-
so far what I have encountered personally (touched myself, forgot the others):
CRC-F:
55/2.8 Ai-S
105mm f/2.8 Ai-S
28/2.8 Ai-S (IIRC)
CRC-R:
24/2.8N
:o :o :o
-
Can I ask for descriptions of the workings of CRC-F and CRC-R?
I have a 24mm f/2.8 K that I am itching to take apart to clean the helicoid and regrease it. Whatever materials would be appreciated.
Rick - thanks for the youtube link you sent earlier.
FG
-
There is no information concerning CRC and the 28/2.8 AI. So no reason to assume that lens version had the feature.
On the contrary, there is such information: the MIR site (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/28mm1.htm) references this possibility in the opening paragraph on the Non-AI version, speaking of the late AI (not all AIs) as well as Ai-S version. It says:
- "However, Nikon's CRC system was not incorporated into the design yet and that was not until the late Ai or the Ai-S version in 1981, such feature was incorporated."
Therefore, based on my interpretation of the above paragraph by MIR, I assumed some of the later AI Nikkor 28mm f/2.8s implemented CRC.
On the other hand, Ken Rockwell affirms what you said on his page devoted to the AI version (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28mm-f28-ai.htm).
- "Optics
7 elements in 7 groups. Nikon Integrated multicoating (NIC). Conventional design, no CRC."
However, Rockwell also says this (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#crc):
- Nikon does not mark lenses that have CRC. You have to read the sales literature or look for yourself.
Two lenses in the 28 mm range do have CRC, viz. the 28/2 AI+AIS and 28/2.8 AIS. (plus the elusive 28/1.4 AF, but it is not relevant in the current context as there is no AI counterpart). Interestingly though these lenses did CRC by the front rather than the usual implementation with rear element(s).
Thank you.
Based on what I read, I think the probability exists that some of the late AI 28mm f/2.8s may have implemented CRC before the Ai-S versions became the norm, likely in 1981 (the Ai-S came out in August, while the AI continued to be made until September).
I am no expert, but most definitely interpreted the MIR site to suggest this.
-
Suggestion:
Roland, maybe you have time to go through your database with regard to CRC, since we in this thread now have more or less all of the variants covered,,,
I know it's a lot of work but I would suggest that you enrich you data with an indication whether the CRC is CRC-F or CRC-R
This is a very helpful suggestion.
-
If the AI also focused to 0.2m and the focus pitch was kept the same, it would require near 180° to cover the distance between 0.3 ~ 0.2m... :)
:)
I assume you are referring to the 28/2? If so, yes, it does have CRC, but the AIS the extends the focus range further, not sure if they made any other refinements to the optical design.
If you were referring to the 28/2.8, the AI and pre-AI versions don't have it, only the AIS.
See above quotes from MIR, referencing late AI 28/2.8s having CRC ...
As for how CRC is implemented, as Bjørn said, the AIS 28/2.8 and 28/2 versions have the floating group at the front - when focusing you will see that the front element rotates inside the mount, and the gap between the front element and filter ring increases slightly. Other lenses with CRC implemented at the front include the AIS and AF 20/2.8, AF 16/2.8 fisheye, and possibly the AIS 18/3.5.
Interesting distinction, thank you. Any research on which implementation is superior?
Jack
-
For me this is mixed: the AIS Nikkors are generally smoother focusing with a shorter throw on the focus ring. This is good for PJ, PR, candid and street photography. I used to have a strong preference for AIS. AI Nikkors even new out of the box never seemed as smooth as AIS Nikkors. The long throw of AI Nikkors is a benefit to accurate focus and focus with live view.
That is exactly my impression and interpretation of the difference, thank you.
This is why I prefer the AI-S 28mm f/2.8 to the AI version ... but would prefer more precision-focusing on something like the Noct., especially since it has a razor-thin DOF at f/1.2.
Diffraction stars: an odd number of straight blades give a star with twice the spokes as the number of blades. I like 9 blade straight apertures more prevalent on AIS Nikkors for their 18 spoke stars. 7 blade straight aperatures give 14 spoke stars which is fine. 6 blade straight blade apertures give 12 spokes but they are superimposed on each other and you see only six spoke stars.
Interesting, thank you.
I also prefer odd sided polygon bright out of focus highlights and more sides are generally better.
So AIS v. AI is mixed for me.
Dave Hartman
Appreciate the insight :)
-
The AI 28/2.8 Nikkor is a 7/7 design, has no CRC, and focuses to 0.3 m.
The AIS 28/2.8 Nikkor is an 8/8 design, implements front group CRC, and focuses to 0.2 m.
It is always best to look inside the lens instead of building a case on non-verified information.
Thus, in order to verify the existence of the mythical AI 28/2.8 with CRC, a lens that focuses to 0.2 m and has the non-linear aperture mechanism of AI, needs to be evidenced.
-
The AI 28/2.8 Nikkor is a 7/7 design, has no CRC, and focuses to 0.3 m.
The AIS 28/2.8 Nikkor is an 8/8 design, implements front group CRC, and focuses to 0.2 m.
Okay.
It is always best to look inside the lens instead of building a case on non-verified information.
That is pretty much what Rockwell said.
I wasn't "building a case," I mentioned a reference to this earlier ... and you emphatically said there was no reference ... and I showed you that, in fact, there was.
I realize there is a possibility MIR made a mistake, but there is also a possibility that "most" AI lenses don't have CRC, but that some may (if the reference from MIR is true).
Looking inside "a" lens (or even a few lenses) is not looking inside all lenses ever made of that type.
The 28/2.8 AI lens was made for 4 years. If the first 3 years' worth did not implement CRC, but the last 6 months did, right before the AIS change, which also did, it is possible to have the situation MIR referred to.
Again, I don't know, but there is a suggestion to this end.
Thus, in order to verify the existence of the mythical AI 28/2.8 with CRC, a lens that focuses to 0.2 m and has the non-linear aperture mechanism of AI, needs to be evidenced.
It may be worthwhile to look for an AI version of this lens on E-Bay, and deliberately select one with the latest-possible serial number, and have a look. Might have to be an asterisk* on the "no CRC" status of the AI 28/2.8 ;)
If the mythical creature exists, might be considered a collector's item :-X
-
Few - if any - would consider K.Rockwell to deliver reliable information or be a 'reference'.
Some AI lenses do have CRC, yes, that has been known for a very long time. For example, 24/2, 24/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.4. However, one has to realise CRC is not just something one can add to an existing lens, the optical design has to be designed with CRC from the onset and in those early days with little or no computer assistance, this entailed long and gruelling efforts. The models I listed fall in this category. They had CRC in the initial design.
No reliable source documents the 28/2.8 AI had CRC at any time during its production run, comprising 150 - 200 thousand units. Adding CRC would entail computing the lens all over again, and retooling for its production. Which is what Nikon did when the 28/2.8 AIS with a new optical design, much improved near limit, and CRC, was launched.
-
When I read:
However, Nikon's CRC system was not incorporated into the design yet and that was not until the late Ai or the Ai-S version in 1981, such feature was incorporated
I see the statement stated as an uncertainty : or like if he is not sure,,,
Otherwise it would have benn stated like this: and
However, Nikon's CRC system was not incorporated into the design yet and that was not until the late Ai and the Ai-S version in 1981, such feature was incorporated
BTW: Easy to see from the repair manual for the specific lens - They are not serial # specific,,, ;)
-
Simon Stafford's most recent edition of 'The Nikon Compendium' is a useful reference on the successive models of Nikkors, summarizing practical experience in performance of some models.
He also makes a point of stating which lenses benefited from CRC. Albeit, one has no leaders to the authorities for this information.
-
The solution is opening up a lens and have a look inside .... Every Nikkor appears to have its own twist to the internal mechanical design. There are common approaches, but usually they are tweaked for a given lens series. I have looked into hundreds of these lenses over the years and never cease to be amazed of their constructional diversity.
These lenses are nearly always mass production items and as such don't change much, if at all, over time within a production run. Any change might be swapping a particular screw type for another or alter the engravings on the outside. Improvements in coating tend to be visible by the change in reflected colours.
-
Peter Braczko: The Complete Nikon System;
1981 Completely new construction for convertion to Ais: Now it had eight elements, CRC,,,,
All fits with all other references. So We can put that to rest ;)
-
If CRC was implemented in the AI 28/2.8 during production, the lens would have a different optical design. This is not a change which would happen silently, it would be launched as new model with closer focusing ... but all AI 28/2.8 manufactured right to the end focus to only 0.3m.
Also, I think lens catalogues during that period did mention if a lens had CRC - it was a desirable feature. It's certainly listed on the current Nikon website.
As for whether CRC acts on the front of rear group, I could add it to my database ... my question is what use is this information?
The primary function of CRC is to improve optical corrections over a wider range of focus distances, by altering the spacing between groups of elements. Whether the floating group acts on the front or rear is not relevant optically, you could build the same lens either way as long as the change in spacing between groups is the same.
It's really a question of mechanical design, for some reason Nikon chose to make the rear group floating in some lenses, for others the front group. As Eric mentioned, the front CRC may be more easily damaged by knocks. I have wondered if the front-CRC lenses might be more vulnerable to dust entering the lens since there is an open space between the front element and filter ring, although I see no evidence of this so far.
If I were to classify lenses by front or rear CRC, how do I classify the AIS 55/2.8 micro? Neither the front of rear group rotate like the wide-angle lenses with CRC, they are just move forward and back on focus helix with different pitch. I suppose the front group is attached to the upper barrel so the rear group is floating?
What about the AIS 105/2.8 micro? This has three groups - a fixed rear group that acts as a teleconverter, and two groups at the front with CRC. Is this an inner CRC lens? The AF micros also have quite complex designs ... actually the AFS micros don't have CRC at all, they use IF focusing which is also a form of floating elements that acts similar to CRC...
My feeling is that classifying CRC will lead to more confusion than it's worth ... but I am open to suggestions.
-
It is important to know if the lens has CRC of any type.
On the issue of denoting how the CRC is implemented, I agree with Roland: Merely denoting front or rear CRC doesn't cover all the technical implementations.
-
I would call it FLE like we do for Leica, Floating Lens Elements.
But yes, not sure if you should add it,,,
BTW durability of the front when changing filters etc also takes it's toll on some of the CRC-F lens! Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8
-
CRC has been the Nikon terminology for floating elements for decades, and my site does list Nikon lenses ... :o
The front group of the AIS 105/2.8 micro is directly attached to the upper barrel, so technically it is the group behind that floats... but as Eric says, that still does not guarantee durability ...
-
Front or rear CRC designation will do. The actual details in the implementation vary between the lenses and no need to delve deeply into those.
I can, unfortunately, confirm, that the 105/2.8 Micro AIS has a CRC design that makes it quite susceptible to wear and tear.
-
I would doubt the necessity of adding the info on the difference of the types of CRC in Roland's list.
When the manual focus lenses were made, CRC was relatively new technology. The additional notion of CRC made sense to separate different versions of lenses of the same focal length/speed designation, most notably Ai28/2.8 and Ais28/2.8. Also, it is interesting to know when the new technology was employed.
On the other hand, the modern lens designs are more complicated. The rear focus designs like those of AF-D 85/1.8 and all of the current AF-S f1.8 and f1.4 wideangles double as CRC. All the IF designs of tele lenses doubles as CRC. The modern zoom lens designs triples as focusing, zooming and CRC. So, even specifying whether a has CRC would make no sense anymore.
I don't think there were lenses of the same focal length/speed designation whose CRC was changed, say, from CRC-F to CRC-R during the MF era.
Considering that Roland's list is for separating different versions of the "completed" lens by the serial number, any addition of the info to the list would be unnecessary.
-
CRC has been the Nikon terminology for floating elements for decades, and my site does list Nikon lenses ... :o
,,,,
I was suggesting to call it CRC-FLE for all of the lenses where it is not a group,,, :o
Never mind. Leave it out.
For some of us there are more to these data than just to tell the apart for identification,,,
-
For some of us there are more to these data than just to tell the apart for identification,,,
Well, I consider Roland's list to separate the lenses without taking them apart... ;)
-
Few - if any - would consider K.Rockwell to deliver reliable information or be a 'reference'.
Ken Rockwell's site is a good place to get ideas but a bad place to make a buying decision. The quality of the information varies. Some times he contradicts himself. Some information is out of date. Some is superficial. Some is just wrong. If something is interesting my advice is get a second opinion from a more reliable source.
An example of a situation where I became interested in a lens at Ken's site is the 50/1.2 AIS. I liked what a read so I checked Bjørn's old site. The review there gave me the confidence to place an order. Two more lenses I became aware of a Ken's site are the AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D and AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D Nikkors. The are small and discreet. The bang for buck at $100.00 (USD) or less is great. I find them good enough for a D800. Before placing an order I got an opinion from a more reliable source.
Dave Hartman
-
Few - if any - would consider K.Rockwell to deliver reliable information or be a 'reference'.
Ken Rockwell's site is a good place to get ideas but a bad place to make a buying decision. The quality of the information varies. Some times he contradicts himself. Some information is out of date. Some is superficial. Some is just wrong. If something is interesting my advice is get a second opinion from a more reliable source.
Another mistake.
Ken Rockwell was the individual who agreed with every point Bjørn made (no CRC, not marked, have to actually look at the lens).
It was actually the MIR site (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/28mm1.htm) that provided the quote that late AIs would have the CRC.
I doubt there's anyone here who's not referenced the MIR site. Again, the author may be mistaken, happens to all of us, but MIR has an extensive database of articles and history, so they also might know some things most don't.
Truthfully, the real folks to ask would be someone in Nikon's senior engineering. I was looking at the article in Nikon's 1001 Nights (http://www.nikkor.com/story/0057/), and wondering if Kouichi Ohshita (the author) or Daijiro Fujie (the actual designer of the Ai-S) are reachable by the public. Would probably be the best way to resolve the question, than by speculation. The 1001 Nights article hints at the evolution from one to the other:
- "It was important that our Nikkor lenses offer clearly superior performance than Series E lenses. This is how optical design of the 28mm lens was renewed. Mr. Daijiro Fujie was put in charge of design.
...
When Mr. Fujie, who loved photos and photography, was put in charge of renewing the 28mm lens, it is certain that the idea of differentiating the lens from others through its minimum focus distance came to him quite naturally. Making a wide-angle lens the most "approachable" lens (the lens with the shortest minimum focus distance) would enable differentiation in brochure specifications from the Series E lens with the same focal length and maximum aperture, and make it “the one and only” lens that would be popular for a long time to come. After two goes at trial production, the AI Nikkor 28mm f/2.8S was released in 1981."
-
Some AI lenses do have CRC, yes, that has been known for a very long time. For example, 24/2, 24/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.4. However, one has to realise CRC is not just something one can add to an existing lens, the optical design has to be designed with CRC from the onset and in those early days with little or no computer assistance, this entailed long and gruelling efforts. The models I listed fall in this category. They had CRC in the initial design.
No reliable source documents the 28/2.8 AI had CRC at any time during its production run, comprising 150 - 200 thousand units. Adding CRC would entail computing the lens all over again, and retooling for its production. Which is what Nikon did when the 28/2.8 AIS with a new optical design, much improved near limit, and CRC, was launched.
I think MIR is a great source of info, but I agree it's a far cry from the Nikon engineers.
Could very well just have been a simple mistake on the MIR site ... and mistakes happen to us all.
Thanks for all the input, it is interesting reading, all of it.
-
Roland,
If you would like to add CRC information as to the type of implementation I suggest adding a lens schematic illustration in the photos link along with the photos of lens. I'm think many of these schematic images are available though some of the oldest probably are not.
Best,
Dave
-
Ideally I would like my list to click through to a page about each lens, instead of just one picture. The page would have pictures of the lens, schematics, specifications, serial numbers, accessories, some notes on optical performance - sharpness, distortion, flare etc, some general commentary, and most important - pictures taken with the lens (that's what it's all about right?)
Given my limited time and resources, this won't happen any time soon. Nobody pays me for this (I get a few $100 donations per year if I'm lucky), and I certainly don't get any support from Nikon Inc. It might be a project for when I retire, but that's years away. In the mean time I make use of the pages from Richard de Stoutz for pre-AI lenses, and for cameras I link to dpreview. I suppose I could link through to MIR - there is a lot of good information but also mistakes and I find the commentary rambles on a bit. KR actually has some good reviews on AI and AIS lenses (such as AI 28/2.8 ), but not always accurate either - I suspect he lifts his figures on production numbers from my site, but sometimes they are really out - I contacted him about it once but never got a reply.
-
I can, unfortunately, confirm, that the 105/2.8 Micro AIS has a CRC design that makes it quite susceptible to wear and tear.
This is a curious lens in some ways. It comes after the AI and AIS 105/4 micro which has a remarkably simple optical design with just 5 elements in 3 groups and no floating elements (or AF, VR ...), It focuses purely by extension giving a very long working distance for this class of lens. Optical performance is pretty even at all distances, perhaps a little weaker at infinity, and contrast is excellent due to the simple optics. It also has a useful built-in hood (especially the AIS).
The AIS 105/2.8 by contrast has much more sophisticated optical design. It has 10 elements in 9 groups - twice the number of elements and three times the air-glass surfaces. It has three "groups" of elements - a fixed teleconverter group at the rear, and two at the front in a double-gauss configuration with CRC. All this achieves a one stop advantage in speed. Sharpness is excellent, better than the old lens at distance, and about the same up close. But the working distance is shorter due to focal length shortening at close range. Operation with extension tubes is somewhat compromised due to the CRC mechanism. Contrast is lower due to the higher number of elements (my sample has newer SIC coating, looking into the front it does not look very transparent, even compared to other lenses with similar number of elements, not sure why). And for all the optical wizardry it still only gets to 1:2. There is no longer a built in hood either.
The AF 105/2.8 micro has a similar but refined optical design with 9 elements in 8 groups. It can go directly to 1:1 without extension tubes and contrast seems to be a little better - the front lenses do look more transparent. However it is relatively bulky and has more extreme focal length shortening at close range, and the focus throw is short - focusing near infinity requires a very fine touch.
Between the AIS 105/4 and AF 105/2.8 micro (and 105/2.5) I bypassed the AIS 105/2.8 micro for many years. Last year I decided to buy one and have not been disappointed. Of the 105 micros it is the most compact and the f/2.8 makes it useful as a general purpose tele which focuses closer than my 105/2.5. Sharpness is excellent and the bokeh is smooth - better than the AF which is a little harsh. The lower contrast hasn't been a problem either. Maybe it is not as robust as some other lenses, but I'm not hard on my gear so it should last for years.
-
f/2.8 is also much more useful for focusing :o :o :o
especially when fully extended ::)
-
A full set of extension tubes from the PK-11a, PK-12, PK-13 and PN-11 can allow keeping the 105/2.8 AIS Micro with the focus ring close to the near focus limit. One will use the shortest tube necessary. This should keep the CRC in a better position for flat field subjects.
I'm nots having the CRC in wrong possition that important if the corners are well out of focus with large aperture like f/2.8?
Dave Hartman
-
Did anyone notice this :
When I read:
However, Nikon's CRC system was not incorporated into the design yet and that was not until the late Ai or the Ai-S version in 1981, such feature was incorporated
I see the statement stated as an uncertainty : or like if he is not sure,,,
Otherwise it would have benn stated like this: and
However, Nikon's CRC system was not incorporated into the design yet and that was not until the late Ai and the Ai-S version in 1981, such feature was incorporated
BTW: Easy to see from the repair manual for the specific lens - They are not serial # specific,,, ;)
-
The mir.com site is plagued with inaccuracies. Just yesterday, I was reading there about Nikon teleconverters, and the site stated that the TC-14B (which a a protruding front element) is useable with the 135/2 Ai/AiS (which has a protruding rear element).
-
The TC-14B will fit the AI/AIS 135/2.8, maybe the 135/3.5 as well...
-
According to Nikon catalog from 1982 (before TC-14 splits into -A and -B), the only 135mm lens that is compatible with TC-14 is the f3.5 version. The protrusion of the front elements of both the TC-14 and TC-14B looks the same.
-
No the TC14A doesn't have a protution in the front!
-
TC-14 and TC-14B are the same, the first is AI, the second is AIS. These are designed for telephotos and have a protruding front lens.
The TC-14A is designed for shorter lenses, no protruding element, so will fit any lens.
-
The mir.com site is plagued with inaccuracies.
The MIR site is plagued with more historic Nikon photos, and information, than any site I know of.
There are some inaccuracies, including typos, but it is a colossal effort that I am grateful someone took all that time to do.
It is easier to "point out the cracks" in a tremendous skyscraper ... than it is to build a better skyscraper ;)
-
The TC-14B will fit the AI/AIS 135/2.8, maybe the 135/3.5 as well...
No. TC-14B does not fit AI 135mm/2.8.
-
Thank you for the correction. The TC-14B does fit the AIS version of the 135/2.8. Although it is optically the same as the AI, the collar around the rear lens is just a little wider so that TC-14B will fit.
-
The MIR site is plagued with more historic Nikon photos, and information, than any site I know of.
There are some inaccuracies, including typos, but it is a colossal effort that I am grateful someone took all that time to do.
It is easier to "point out the cracks" in a tremendous skyscraper ... than it is to build a better skyscraper ;)
True, true. It is a resource.
-
Hi all I recently purchased the ai-s 200mm f/4 nikon lens and love it. I use the nikon d7100 and would like a little more reach of course[everyone does right]. I have found a kenko teleplus pro 300 dgx 1.4 teleconverter and was wondering if this is a good fit with the lens. Is this teleconverter too new and could I spend less on an older teleconverter and get the same results?
-
The 200/4 with a 1.4x TC gives you a 280mm f/5.6 lens. The Kenko will probably fit the lens but I doubt the resulting combination perform well at full resolution on the D7100.
At this focal length and aperture I suspect you would be better off using a 70-300VR lens, where you get the benefit of VR as well.
-
ok thanks for the help.
-
I will add what BR mentioned about Ai/Ais metering on my D800. The only minor bug is that my D800 sees my 105.f2.5 as 2.8. My D700 does the true 2.5 metering using the camera's ring.
-
If you set the D800 CPU lens aperture = f/2.5 it should report the correct aperture wide open (unless the lens has an "unofficial" AI conversion and the AI cam isn't in quite the right place)
-
a simple and broad generalisation from me from a teardown point of view.
Ai:
tougher construction
heavier
more screws
Nikon loves using glues in this generation but not as much as the New-Nikkors
tough,traditional construction with the lens barrel and optics separated
Ai-S:
lighter
clever tricks used to simplify complicated assemblies
cost-cutting on some parts (plastics, scotch tapes, plenty of brass shims)
optics casing sometimes incorporated in the lens barrel as cost-cutting and making things more compact/simplification
I personally like fixing the older Nikkors compared to Ai-S ones. it's like fixing a beetle compared to a ford focus :o :o :o
Not to shoot the messenger, but since the above is very interesting it would be great if you can elaborate a little more.
- If scotch tapes and plenty of brass shims are used, in which Ai-S lenses have you observed this and where?
- As for plastics, do you have examples of plastic being used in Ai-S lenses in such a way - or with such types of plastic - that the sturdiness or longevity of the construction would suffer as a result?
- What would be the downsides of incorporating the optics assembly in the lens barrel?
-
I'm not Richard, but I can offer 2 from my own personal observation: 85/1.4 AiS and 135/2 AiS: Scotch tape for locking the infinity focus adjust. Makes infinity adjustment very easy to do at home with camera zoomed-in on live view. Not a downside IMO. The tape is easily replaceable if it should disintegrate.
-
I'm not Richard, but I can offer 2 from my own personal observation: 85/1.4 AiS and 135/2 AiS: Scotch tape for locking the infinity focus adjust. Makes infinity adjustment very easy to do at home with camera zoomed-in on live view. Not a downside IMO. The tape is easily replaceable if it should disintegrate.
It would be good if it can be elucidated whether the Ai-S versions are really mechanically inferior to the AI versions.
Just one comment on plastic.
The use of plastic is in itself not indicative of lower quality. It depends on what kind of plastic it is, and where it is used. Chap, recycled plastics which are not resistant to UV/oxygen and ageing is always bad if you want something to last. However, UV- and oxidation resistant plastics of premium quality does not reduce quality.
-
Simpler can be better. Plastic can be better. Tape can be better than glue. Rubber can be better than metal. But the converse can be true as well. The old lenses (AI and AIS) I’ve worked on are easier to actually repair as the entire thing can usually be disassembled, rebuilt and readjusted. Perhaps this does not make them more robust, but certainly makes them more satisfying to work on.
-
The early AI-S lenses are mostly (all?) metal, I think the beauty ring of the AI-S 50/1.4 and AI-S 50/1.8 (long nose) are plastic but that's about as far as it goes. The series-E lenses from the same period did use plastic. By the mid 1980s the series-E line was discontinued, or rather, merged with the Ai-S line, and you start to see series-E features appearing in Ai-S lenses. The most obvious is the newer pancake 50/1.8 which has a mostly plastic exterior, and is really a remodeled series-E lens. Zooms from that period also have plastic parts, the Ai-S 35-70/3.3-4.5 has a mostly plastic exterior and the aperture ring of the 28-85/3.5-4.5 is also plastic.
AI-S lenses introduced in that period also tend to have a black anodized finish on the metal parts, like Series-E lenses, rather than the black enamel finish of earlier AI-S lenses. For example, the AI-S 100-300/5.6 at first glace seems like a longer version of the 80-200/4, but the design and finish is really closer to the Series-E 70-210/4.
Overall I would say there was a small decline in build quality which already started during AI production. Very early AI lenses were engraved LENS MADE IN JAPAN which was filled in white paint. This soon changed to unpainted MADE IN JAPAN. This is not really a reduction in build quality but it's less "luxurious" and shows Nikon was trying to reduce costs and simplify production. Early AI lenses also have 5 screws in the mount, but this dropped to 3 screws for most primes 85mm and shorter. Having 5 screw probably wasn't really needped for small lenses so this was a sensible simplification in production. With the transition to Ai-S most lenses up to 135mm have only 3 screws in the mount.
I can only guess there were similar internal changes to streamline the assembly process and reduce costs. I don't know much about the internal workings, but I know that early production of the Japanese AI-S 50/1.8 pancake lens used brass focus helix, but this later changed to aluminium, so it's possible the same occurred with some other AI-S models as well.
-
I can only guess there were similar internal changes to streamline the assembly process and reduce costs. I don't know much about the internal workings, but I know that early production of the Japanese AI-S 50/1.8 pancake lens used brass focus helix, but this later changed to aluminium, so it's possible the same occurred with some other AI-S models as well.
What other early N/K/Ai/AiS era lenses had dissimilar metal helicoids? My impression is that very, very few of them did.
To be fair to Nikon, all of Nikon's direct competitors in the SLR market seemed to mostly use all-aluminium helicoids, so that was the market Nikon had to compete in.