NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: jhinkey on July 07, 2015, 07:29:36
-
According to the original owner, he bought it new from Nikon with an AI aperture ring already on it, although Roland V's serial number page says otherwise. I suspect that in the 35+ years that the original owner possesd it they forgot they had it AI-converted via a conversion kit.
It just came tonight all the way from the UK. We'll now put it through its paces on the D800 and A7RII (when it shows up sometime in the next month or so) and I'll report on how it goes.
- John
-
You don't see many of those. I'll really interested to see how much lateral color it shows, compared to it's replacement, the 300/4.5 ED-IF.
-
For Roland - here's some terrible cell phone images of the rear of the lens. I just noticed that the aperture tab appears to have been filed to be less wide than what it looks like it should be. Could this be part of the "conversion" this lens underwent?
-
Congratulations - a rare lens and hopefully you'll find a fine performer too !
Lateral colour shouldn't be a problem. It is parfocal in visible and IR.
-
Congratulations - a rare lens and hopefully you'll find a fine performer too !
Thanks Bjorn - I've been looking for 2 or 3 years for one. Had the ED-IF version, but was not impressed with the sharpness (at 12MP) which was pretty comparable to my 70-300AFS VR (i.e., not all that great), hopefully this lens will be better. It hopefully will make a nice companion to my 400/5.6 ED AI which sometime is too big and too long. Not concerned with CA for the most part.
I was told it was just fully serviced - whatever that means and by whom I don't know - but the focus ring is pretty firm (just a tad on the too firm side), aperture ring feels brand new, sliding hood is tight and has a reasonable amount of dust internally for an lens of such an age. A few super minor marks (maybe smudges) on the front element - normal for an older lens.
It will be a few days before I can really take it out for a spin.
-
My 300/4.5 ED non-IF has a pretty firm focusing feel to it as well so might be typical for the design. Tripod collar is OK I'd guess but the mounting plate is rather small and I'd like it to be much bigger.
-
OK - now to get it out into action!
-
For Roland - here's some terrible cell phone images of the rear of the lens. I just noticed that the aperture tab appears to have been filed to be less wide than what it looks like it should be. Could this be part of the "conversion" this lens underwent?
Thanks John, I can confirm your lens is a K lens with an AI conversion, not an original AI lens (answering a question first asked privately).
I'm not sure what you mean by the aperture tab being filed, everything looks normal to me. Do you mean the aperture coupling prong screwed to the aperture ring (for pre-Ai cameras)? During Ai production they changed from being carved from a block of solid metal to being pressed from sheet metal - cheaper and easier to manufacture. The newer type is thinner, this is what you have.
Look forwards to seeing some images with this lens. BTW, if you ever come across another with serial no 173813 let me know - it's the one I bought on ebay two years ago which went missing in transit.
-
Looks like pretty heavy wear on the aperture lever, from the camera stopping it down and up again many times...
-
Looks like pretty heavy wear on the aperture lever, from the camera stopping it down and up again many times...
I'll take a closer image, but it looks to me that it's been filed down.
-
I see what you mean now, the aperture stop-down lever at the rear has a chunk missing from the lower side. I have seen other lenses like this. I'm not sure it is due to wear since your lens does not appear to be heavily used, neither were other lenses I have seen. It is not part of the AI conversion process either since I have seen native AI lenses like this (including my AI 105/2.5). I can only guess that the tab was milled in the factory to calibrate it. With pre-AI and AI lenses the precise position of the tab is not critical, it's basically set to open (for full aperture viewing) or stopped down (as set via the aperture ring at the moment the picture is taken), but maybe some adjustment is needed so it properly engages with the lever in the camera.
-
I see what you mean now, the aperture stop-down lever at the rear has a chunk missing from the lower side. I have seen other lenses like this. I'm not sure it is due to wear since your lens does not appear to be heavily used, neither were other lenses I have seen. It is not part of the AI conversion process either since I have seen native AI lenses like this (including my AI 105/2.5). I can only guess that the tab was milled in the factory to calibrate it. With pre-AI and AI lenses the precise position of the tab is not critical, it's basically set to open (for full aperture viewing) or stopped down (as set via the aperture ring at the moment the picture is taken), but maybe some adjustment is needed so it properly engages with the lever in the camera.
Yes, it doesn't look like a hack job - definitely done on a mill as you can see the surfaces that have no wear have tooling marks. It could be that the lever didn't play well with certain camera bodies of that day. I've not mounted it yet. I did however confirm that a TC14EII (tab removed) will easily mount on it - another user of this lens had indicated he could not mount a TC (?) on his 300/4.5 ED AI.
-
Here's a much better picture of the aperture lever and the amount of material taken off of it. Shouldn't make a difference - should it?
-
Shouldn't make a difference. As I mentioned, I also have lenses like this, but not filed back as much. The real test is to take some pictures: if they come out exposed correctly, the lens is fine.
-
Shouldn't make a difference. As I mentioned, I also have lenses like this, but not filed back as much. The real test is to take some pictures: if they come out exposed correctly, the lens is fine.
Just tested it in A mode (via the aperture ring) and a very gray evening sky seems to expose right at the middle of the histogram with not much change as the aperture is stopped down other than the exposure curve getting more narrow (as the vignetting is reduced).
So, it looks like it's working fine with the cut back aperture lever.
-
John, this is an envious lens!
So long as the aperture is opend and closed properly, you shouldn't need to worry about the wear of the aperture lever of Ai (original or genuinely factory-modified) and older lenses.
-
So, it looks like it's working fine with the cut back aperture lever.
I own this very sharp lens too.
Mine come from the second (and last batch), numbers 19****, according to Roland' website.
No issue with it, I use it on my Df.
You posts and pictures intrigued me, so I checked my version and guess what ?
The tab has been filled too, as you can see on the picture attached...
But the job seems to have been messed up on mine :-[
Never mind, it works very well, that's the most important.
Here is my experience with Teleconverters :
# the TC 14E (AF-I version, same optics than the AFS) works fine, but I have modified it, filling a tab inside in order to adapt it on old Nikkor telelenses.
# the TC 16A modified for use on recent nikon bodies. That makes a 480mm AUTOFOCUS ! However, you have to ''pre-focus'' the lens.
You won't be disapointed... ;)
Francis.
-
Looks like pretty heavy wear on the aperture lever, from the camera stopping it down and up again many times...
-
Here's a much better picture of the aperture lever and the amount of material taken off of it. Shouldn't make a difference - should it?
This can have been made to prevent the loud bang-noice when firing the camera. I had an AIS 50/1.4 that was very loud and the lens moved a bit every time the camera's lever stopped the lens down. After filing the lever (not that much though) the lens was as silent as my other more modern lenses. I was not sure how the lever would behave after having filed it since it was anodized aluminum and the filing took the harder anodization away and a soft aluminum was left to fight against the cameras much stronger lever.
-
Here's a much better picture of the aperture lever and the amount of material taken off of it. Shouldn't make a difference - should it?
This can have been made to prevent the loud bang-noice when firing the camera. I had an AIS 50/1.4 that was very loud and the lens moved a bit every time the camera's lever stopped the lens down. After filing the lever (not that much though) the lens was as silent as my other more modern lenses. I was not sure how the lever would behave after having filed it since it was anodized aluminum and the filing took the harder anodization away and a soft aluminum was left to fight against the cameras much stronger lever.
Ah, anodizing doesn't do much for impact damage or mechanical strength, but is better at protecting against corrosion and rubbing wear - the underlying Aluminum is not that strong.
I just picked up another 400/5.6 ED AI (non-IF) and it appears to have the same treatment on the aperture lever arm, though much less material has been removed. Interesting as these are the only two MF Nikkors I've ever seen with the aperture lever arms filed down a bit.
-
Looks like pretty heavy wear on the aperture lever, from the camera stopping it down and up again many times...
Erik, I think your hypothesis is the right one : I had a look on most of my old Nikkor lenses. They all present more or less the same shape of my version. in addition, the tabs of newer lens are pristine.
So, I reckon that on the jhinkey's version, the tab has been filled purposely to make it nicer before sale it. :P
Francis.
-
Actually, now that I've inspected several of my old Nikkors almost all of them have the thin edge of the aperture lever worn or deformed a bit, some worse than others. So I suspect that someone took a file to a particularly badly worn edge and made it nice looking . . . :)
-
When inspecting older Nikkors for general condition and wear, finding the aperture lever heavily eroded was an indication that the lens in question used to belong to a newspaper photojournalist or other high-volume shooter.
-
This can have been made to prevent the loud bang-noice when firing the camera. I had an AIS 50/1.4 that was very loud and the lens moved a bit every time the camera's lever stopped the lens down. After filing the lever (not that much though) the lens was as silent as my other more modern lenses...
Had the same problem on a used AI 50/1.8 and I started to apply the same fix, but changed my mind almost immediately after starting. The problem was occurring at the end of the cycle when the aperture is reset to wide open, which explains why filing the lever works. I repeatedly disassembled and reassembled the lens looking for a worn, damaged or incorrectly installed part that could cause the problem.
I could not see a way to adjust the radial position of the iris assembly without opening the optical unit, and I resisted doing that. Turns out there is a way to adjust the optical unit to the focussing unit that seems to solve the problem. On the optical unit (of this lens) there is an eccentric "cam" that looks like a large slotted screw. That cam fits a slot in the focussing unit to provide radial positioning. It was so simple even I could do it. I just had to find it.
Sam
-
Here's a much better picture of the aperture lever and the amount of material taken off of it. Shouldn't make a difference - should it?
I should not post when I'm so tired. My logic is backwards and I've been inside a few manual focus Nikkors so I never should have posted such rubbish.
Sorry
Since that lever stops down the lens if it is a problem I'd expect it would be at the smallest apertures where a telephoto lens is seldom used. Even if shooting close-up with tubes you probably won't want to stop down past f/11 marked. I doubt that it will cause a problem with any apertures.
Dave
-
Since that lever stops down the lens if it is a problem I'd expect it would be at the smallest apertures where a telephoto lens is seldom used. Even if shooting close-up with tubes you probably won't want to stop down past f/11 marked. I doubt that it will cause a problem with any apertures.
Dave
Dave,
I do not think the filed down part would do you any harm at any aperture. However, I respectfully disagree about the purpose of the lever being to stop down the lens. I see it having the function of holding the aperture wide open between exposures. When an exposure is made, the camera releases that lever completely and the setting of the aperture ring is what controls where the iris stops. If using a lens with a CPU and shooting in P or S mode, the above does not apply.
What filing the lever might do, is keep the aperture from being opened hard against the limit and causing a bang.
Sam
-
I see it having the function of holding the aperture wide open between exposures.
Absolutely correct: the lever holds the aperture open. A spring pulls the aperture closed.
Dave
-
Wow! Revival of a year-old thread with more great info. :)
-
Wow! Revival of a year-old thread with more great info. :)
Just showing appreciation to Jukka L for the posting I found when searching for that particular symptom. It was useful, so I wanted to give feedback on how it led to an alternate solution.
Also, I am really envious of the cool 300 ED you showed. May you always enjoy it!
Sam
-
I don't post here much as I mainly use this site for technical discussions, but yes the 300/4.5 ED has been a very nice lens on my A7RII.
It's just the right size to carry in my bag and still have room for other lenses.
One of these days I need to compare it to the 300/4 PF which is smaller and lighter, but you never know how the IQ will compare.
Plus the mechanics of the /4.5 ED lens are great.
-
The lever filing issue interested me, so I dug in my pile of lenses. Some of the oldest ones show considerable wear, but the newer ones almost none. I enclose a shot of a selection.
The 400/5.6 AI has a long lever that moves in a visible arc, lots of wear, no filing evident. An ex-LA Times workhorse bought from KEH as bargain grade long ago.
The 35/2.8K pre-AI shows lots of wear, no filing but suggests why one might want to file it, if the dent becomes deep enough to catch.
The 50/1.4 pre-AI was bought new in 1970 and certainly has never been serviced. It looks to have been filed, though.
I don't know what it all means, but thought it interesting. None of my AI, AIS, or AF lenses show any sign of filing.
-
...One of these days I need to compare it to the 300/4 PF which is smaller and lighter, but you never know how the IQ will compare.
Plus the mechanics of the /4.5 ED lens are great.
That would be a difficult choice. Good thing that you are nicely covered while you decide. :)
Sam
-
...The 50/1.4 pre-AI was bought new in 1970 and certainly has never been serviced. It looks to have been filed, though...
Matthew,
Thanks for the information you posted. I was especially struck by the comment quoted. Perhaps the older lenses were "hand tuned" or maybe it was done pre sale. Either way it has given you an impressive service life.
After wondering how many ways these modifications can be explained, showing up on a new lens adds possibilities. Do you have any ideas about why it was done? It seems unlikely that a new lens would need to be filed to repair uneven wear.
Sam