NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: BW on April 29, 2017, 14:50:14
-
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 :o
-
Nikkor makes lenses for Nikon and Nikon makes the bodies, though the latter also made some budget lenses like the old Series E lenses.
-
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.
-
Thanks for clearing that up :) Essentially they are two different companies or are both owned Nikon?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
A small final tidbit on the Series E lenses: as far as I can ascertain, they all are good performers in IR.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I havent gotten around to try it yet, but flowers popping up every day now so its on my "to do list" :)
-
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 (http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/slemn.html)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. [...]
It would be interesting to test this, but I would be surprised if the 100/2.8 E is sharper at close range. The Xenotar 105/2.5 is a relatively symmetrical design, and such designs usually do well at close range. That's why the close focus limit was able to be reduced compared to the older non-symmetric Sonnar version. The 100/2.8 E is also not a symmetric design, and such lenses usually perform poorly at close range unless they also have close range correction.
-
A testable question. Hopefully I can do the comparison in the very near future.
-
The 100/2.5 E I used for a while was not remarkably sharp. I was not impressed by the lens, especially when you compare it with the 105/2.5
-
As for whether a lens must be worthy of the name, I wonder. I note, for example, that the Cosina-made 35-70 zoom on my FM10 is a Nikkor, as is the very plasticky 28-80 AFG that came on an N65, and the very plasticky 18-55 that came on my D3200. Entry level kit lenses all. Whatever the reasoning behind the dual names, it appears it did not last long.
-
Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights
Tale 5...
Rendition characteristics and lens performance
So how is the rendition of the AI Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens?
As I have said before, evaluations are always subjective, so please consider my comments as my personal opinions, for reference.
As mentioned above, this lens has the features of [asymmetric] design, and in particular distortion is extremely low. The image is flat to the periphery, and astigmatism is very small.
The lens also has characteristics of spherical aberration and coma. Basically close-range aberration variation is small, but at portrait distances the correction for aberration seems to be slightly insufficient. The insufficiency as far as spherical aberration in particular is what makes defocus background appeared beautiful. The aberration balance has been calculated carefully for use in portraits. When the aperture is open contrast is good, and delineation is soft.
--Haruo Sato
The underlining above is mine. Stopping down to f/5.6 apparently cures the insufficient correction of spherical aberration. I found maximum center sharpness with three 105/2.5(s), N.C, AI and AIS to be f/5.6. The third paragraph explained my findings.
---
105mm f2.5 later
4.8 (several samples)
(large rear element [late non-AI with black front]), performance declines at wide stops near minimum focus (both conditions together), otherwise this lens is excellent even wide open
--David Ruether
This also fits my findings though it doesn't explain them as Tale 5 does. I did my test on Tech Pan at 2 meters and focused with a 6x finder on my F2.
I'd be interested if others find a similar trade off of image sharpness at 2 meters or portrait distance at wide apertures, say f/4.0 and wider.
Dave Hartman
-
Whatever the reasoning behind the dual names, it appears it did not last long.
A decade? I don't remember. Today any piece of junk seems worthy of degrading the Nikkor name in favor of sales and profit.
I can't remember if I posted this above or not but I tried and sort of repaired a 50/1.8 Canon FD lens for a nephew. It was a piece of plastic junk and from what I've seen of the Nikon Series-E lenses they were much better made.
A public relations customer who I printed for who turn in a lot of film with really bad image quality. She blamed her self. On day while printing I say the plane of focus was not parallel to the camera. I stopped by and check the lens and an element or group was clunking around inside. I took it to Gayson's Camera, Glendale, CA where she bought it and they shipped it to Canon. Canon repaired or replaced it free. There was no sign of impact or abuse. She asked me to test it when it came back. I found the image quality excellent. The build quality sucked! Same 50/1.8 Canon FD as my nephew's.
I wish these companies had more respect for their name. I wish Nikon still reserved the Nikkor name for their better lenses.
Dave
-
And who is to decide what constitutes a "better lens" ? There are plenty of examples of acclaimed 'inferior' lenses actually being very good for some purposes.
Canon users talk about "L" lenses as these always are pinnacles of optical performance, but the truth is not that simple and many "L" items aren't that impressive at all. We used to think likewise of the golden 'ED' ring and ED designation on lenses made by Nikon, but those times are long gone.
-
In days of old a lens that didn't meat Nikkor standards of quality and performance it didn't get the name. Now anything gets the name. Junk that's taped together with a plastic bayonet. The name "Nikkor" doesn't stand for much anymore. If the bean counters make the decision any lens sold with the Nikkor name is "good."
Dave
-
A quick example of what a 'non-Nikkor' and by implied extension , inferior (?) lens can do for you. Taken yesterday with the likewise low-end, long discontinued and utterly obsolete D40X and the Nikon 28 mm f/2.8 SE lens. This is an IR capture and no obvious issues with hot-spots etc. can be noticed.
-
In days of old a lens that didn't meat Nikkor standards of quality and performance it didn't get the name. Now anything gets the name. Junk that's taped together with a plastic bayonet. The name "Nikkor" doesn't stand for much anymore. If the bean counters make the decision any lens sold with the Nikkor name is "good."
Dave
Try to run a company without bean counters, it will not end well. Optical quality has been good with the Nikkors I used to own. Polycarbonate materials in modern lenses should not be confused with cheap plastic.
-
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.
The mount is metal, but I believe the outer barrel and several other non-stressed components are polycarbonate. But it's certainly more solidly built than many later lenses. I agree with your evaluation of "albeit not of the highest performance." The non-D 28mm f/2.8 AF used the same optical formula; it too was a mediocre performer. The other Series E lenses I've used (50mm, 100mm, 75-150mm, and 70-210mm) were all quite good.
-
Try to run a company without bean counters, it will not end well. Optical quality has been good with the Nikkors I used to own. Polycarbonate materials in modern lenses should not be confused with cheap plastic.
Where the Nikon Series-E lenses were well constructed with decent optical performance but did not receive the name "Nikkor" now anything gets the name "Nikkor." A lens with a "Polycarbonate" bayonet should be confused with a quality product. A lens that is literally held together with a band of sticky tape should not be confused with a quality product.
Dave Hartman