NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Akira on March 19, 2021, 11:28:01
-
Today I was struck with a hunch, ran into a second-hand camera shop in Shinjuku and bumped into this lens. :)
It is a very simple 5E3G design. As the sun was about to set when I came home, so I could only do a quick'n' dirty test to make sure if the sample is not troubled. And the result seems to be promising. My sample have some scuffs here and there on the lens barrel but fortunately no dints, and the optics is clean.
I had Ai 400/5.6 ED IF in the past and used it with D610. Given the AA filter in D610, the image quality of non-IF looks noticeably better.
I wonder which lens is made of ED glass (hopefully the third one, the single convex element).
-
Congratulations, Akira. This version of the 400 Nikkors has ED but only the later incarnations were engraved "Nikkor*ED".
It is a very fine performer for all things landscape, albeit slow to operatate due to the long focus throw. The image quality in general surpassses that of the subsequent ED-IF version in my view.
-
I also have this lens (the AI non-IF version) and it is wonderfully sharp. When I was shooting lots of film, I used it fairly often, and also found that it was pretty comfortable with a 1.4x converter (in this case the original TC-14). Not only the long focus throw but the lack of close focus make it a little inconvenient, but if your subject isn't moving too fast (or if you're lucky) it's pretty hard to beat for image quality.
This thread reminds me that I should get mine out and limber it up a bit (the focus helical tends to get stiff) now that the birds are showing up again. Having trouble seeing whether attachments get in, but edit to add a shot made in 2015 with D3200 hand held (cropped)
-
you now have ED :o :o :o
these are selling for quite a lot these days, these aren't rare either ::)
-
Congratulations, Akira. This version of the 400 Nikkors has ED but only the later incarnations were engraved "Nikkor*ED".
It is a very fine performer for all things landscape, albeit slow to operatate due to the long focus throw. The image quality in general surpassses that of the subsequent ED-IF version in my view.
Thank you, Birna. Actually I first knew about this lens when I was looking into the "Lens" section of your classic website which still offers various reference.
I also have this lens (the AI non-IF version) and it is wonderfully sharp. When I was shooting lots of film, I used it fairly often, and also found that it was pretty comfortable with a 1.4x converter (in this case the original TC-14). Not only the long focus throw but the lack of close focus make it a little inconvenient, but if your subject isn't moving too fast (or if you're lucky) it's pretty hard to beat for image quality.
This thread reminds me that I should get mine out and limber it up a bit (the focus helical tends to get stiff) now that the birds are showing up again. Having trouble seeing whether attachments get in, but edit to add a shot made in 2015 with D3200 hand held (cropped)
Matthew, thank you for the info on the TC. Now that I have the real thing, I do know how challenging to shoot an eagle in flight...
you now have ED :o :o :o
these are selling for quite a lot these days, these aren't rare either ::)
Rick, I had found a cleaner sample at Katsumido in Ginza on sale for 70,000 yen. I found mine at Shinjuku Kamera Shijou for 44,000 yen. The grease on the helix is dry, but the optics is clean. :o :o :o A good deal!
-
It may not be all that rare in the whole world (I think according to the Roland Vink site they made a little under 10 thousand of the AI version), I have seen very few for sale. In fact the only one I can recall is the one I bought from KEH many years ago.
Mine was a "bargain grade" one, and the first and only lens I've gotten from KEH that may have earned that rating. Though the glass was fine, it was engraved (LA Times) and a bit beat up, and was missing the tiny little setscrew in the mount that keeps it from over-rotating. Fortunately I found this out on a Nikon F, whose back comes off and allows removal without damage. If it had been a digital camera I'd have been in a mess.
-
It may not be all that rare in the whole world (I think according to the Roland Vink site they made a little under 10 thousand of the AI version), I have seen very few for sale. In fact the only one I can recall is the one I bought from KEH many years ago.
Mine was a "bargain grade" one, and the first and only lens I've gotten from KEH that may have earned that rating. Though the glass was fine, it was engraved (LA Times) and a bit beat up, and was missing the tiny little setscrew in the mount that keeps it from over-rotating. Fortunately I found this out on a Nikon F, whose back comes off and allows removal without damage. If it had been a digital camera I'd have been in a mess.
I don't think it is as rare as 300/4.5 ED non-IF, but it is far rarer than the IF version. I haven't seen that many even here in Tokyo over a couple of decades. Maybe it was sold more outside Japan?
I don't know how mine would be rated by KEH, but I think 400 USD for its condition was a fare price. FWIW, mine is a K version modified to Ai using the genuine aperture ring.
As I'm not a big fan of lenses using lots of elements like the modern AF zooms, I opted for a simpler one. And this one is perfect for me.
-
I have tried the "PC" version at a shop when I had D610 and I was not that impressed, even although it was impressing enough for its age. I only made a couple of test shots hand-held, but at least the image was not blurry.
I don't remember if the focusing ring went past infinity on the PC version. The focusing ring going past infinity indicates the usage of ED glass.
-
I have this lens as well and it is very sharp. I used it on my Nikon 1 V1 and took a picture of the back of my neighbours car, and I blew it up on my screen on the back of my camera I could read very clearly the letters on the little date sticker on the license plate. So I was very impressed with this lens. Unfortunately it’s a little hard To hand hold for my old shaky hands so I look forward to eventually using it with a Z6 with image stabilization. Is there anybody here who has tried this combination? Regards Gerry
-
Most if not all 400mm lenses benefit from tripod mounting.
Not that many of these transitional models exist. According to Roland's pages, around 3.000 of the K/AI predeccesors to the ED-IF were made. The 300/4.5 ED saw perhaps about the half in volume.
-
I have the P.C Auto version which I by chance found an AI conversion kit for. I like it a lot for being relatively compact and very sharp. Focus throw is long.
I think the ED-IF version is much more common.
Roland's numbers show less than 3500 of these in Pre-AI and AI form, so I think that is rather uncommon.
-
A tip for making focusing easier with the 400mm f/5.6 ED AI ...
Something I learned when using a 300/4.5 Nikkor-H was that one finger can be used to lift the front of the lens to make focusing easier. As the barrel is extended to focus close, pressure and leverage increases on the helical making the focus ring stiff. If one finger is used to take some weight off the helical focusing at near focus distance can be as smooth and easy as it is when the lenses is focused near infinity. This may seem awkward at first but once learned it can be done both hand held and on a tripod.
Dave
-
... I don't remember if the focusing ring went past infinity on the PC version. The focusing ring going past infinity indicates the usage of ED glass.
The P.C 400 focuses beyond infinity.
-
I think we have many examples where the older Nikkor version is the better?
I have the "wrong" 400/5.6......the IF-version. It is best to keep a hand on camera when lens is used on a tripod. Then it can make some quite sharp images.
Most if not all of my images that are not 100% sharp using this lens is because of lens-shake on tripod or lens was not focused 100% accurate.
After all it is not very often we can blame the lens for causing the image not to be sharp enough?
-
I think we have many examples where the older Nikkor version is the better?
I have the "wrong" 400/5.6......the IF-version. It is best to keep a hand on camera when lens is used on a tripod. Then it can make some quite sharp images.
Most if not all of my images that are not 100% sharp using this lens is because of lens-shake on tripod or lens was not focused 100% accurate.
After all it is not very often we can blame the lens for causing the image not to be sharp enough?
What I like about the 400 P.C Auto is that it is light enough to hand hold and when used with a Z series camera there is lens stabilization.
I have a 300mm f/2.8 AI-S and it is not fun to carry for long.
-
send it here for overhaul :o :o :o
-
I have this lens as well and it is very sharp. I used it on my Nikon 1 V1 and took a picture of the back of my neighbours car, and I blew it up on my screen on the back of my camera I could read very clearly the letters on the little date sticker on the license plate. So I was very impressed with this lens. Unfortunately it’s a little hard To hand hold for my old shaky hands so I look forward to eventually using it with a Z6 with image stabilization. Is there anybody here who has tried this combination? Regards Gerry
With all respect to Matthew's info on the TC, I would also think about using a smaller format camera to extend the "equivalent focal length", given today's performance of it.
The P.C 400 focuses beyond infinity.
Thank you for the confirmation!
A tip for making focusing easier with the 400mm f/5.6 ED AI ...
Something I learned when using a 300/4.5 Nikkor-H was that one finger can be used to lift the front of the lens to make focusing easier. As the barrel is extended to focus close, pressure and leverage increases on the helical making the focus ring stiff. If one finger is used to take some weight off the helical focusing at near focus distance can be as smooth and easy as it is when the lenses is focused near infinity. This may seem awkward at first but once learned it can be done both hand held and on a tripod.
Dave
Dave, I tried the trick in my room and it seems to work. Thank you!
I think we have many examples where the older Nikkor version is the better?
I have the "wrong" 400/5.6......the IF-version. It is best to keep a hand on camera when lens is used on a tripod. Then it can make some quite sharp images.
Most if not all of my images that are not 100% sharp using this lens is because of lens-shake on tripod or lens was not focused 100% accurate.
After all it is not very often we can blame the lens for causing the image not to be sharp enough?
My concern about the earlier IF lenses is relatively pronounced LoCA especially when the contrast of the background is high. The non-IF lenses seems to suffer from LoCA less than the ones with the IF design. I shied away from AF ED 180/2.8 because of that.
What I like about the 400 P.C Auto is that it is light enough to hand hold and when used with a Z series camera there is lens stabilization.
I have a 300mm f/2.8 AI-S and it is not fun to carry for long.
The absence of the mirror and the mechanical shutter altogether in SIGMA fp helps eliminate the blur caused by the camera itself.
-
send it here for overhaul :o :o :o
Thank you, Rick. I'm seriously considering that!
-
I don't remember if the focusing ring went past infinity on the PC version. The focusing ring going past infinity indicates the usage of ED glass.
I think I have a scan of a Nikon document that indicated that the 400mm f5.6 Nikkor-P.C (non-IF) used a fluorite element. Speculation was ED was used for the AI version.
Dave
-
I have the "wrong" 400/5.6......the IF-version.
An optically better lens won't give better images if you can't focus fast enough. Moose Peterson got his start in bird photography with the 400/5.6 ED-IF Nikkor. It's a trade off: one finger focus of the ED-IF versions v. superior optics for the non-IF versions.
Dave
I own a 400mm f/5.6 IF AI but I've never owned the 400mm f/5.6 ED-IF AI so I'm going on reputation for the latter.
-
An optically better lens won't give better images if you can't focus fast enough. Moose Peterson got his start in bird photography with the 400/5.6 ED-IF Nikkor. It's a trade off: one finger focus of the ED-IF versions or superior optics for the non-IF versions.
Dave
I guess a sharper lens is more critical about the accuracy of focus.
-
"5 elements in 3 groups, use of fluorite crystal and special rare-earth glass (ED-glass?)" from a photo of the lens linked at Roland Vink's site.
That sounds like what I read in the Nikon Nikkormat Handbook by Joseph D. Cooper back in 1973. That was a dream lens for me back then.
Dave
-
How would such a lens hold up against a 200-500/5.6 VR zoom if you could find a good sample?
-
How would such a lens hold up against a 200-500/5.6 VR zoom if you could find a good sample?
Pretty well on a tripod. Here's a quick and dirty comparison, 200-500 on left, 400 on right, both at 5.6 and 400 mm. Aperture priority, ISO 100. This is straight from camera, heavily cropped and downsized in Irfanview. There was a little wind. The 200-500 was shot with autofocus and VR on (because I always forget to turn VR off on the tripod anyway). The 400 was hand focused, of course, and the confirmation dot on the D7100 is not very reliable with a 5.6 lens.
But given how close these are, I imagine it's not hard to understand that since I got that 200-500 I don't use the old 400 much.
edit to add: if you zoom even further in you will see a couple of differences. The old 400 has some pretty noticeable color fringing, uncorrected here, and the 200-500 has a somewhat stripey bokeh. You get one or the other, but neither is very serious unless you look pretty closely.
-
Thank you for the comparation.
I can see some green LoCA in the background bokeh fromt he 400/5.6 and maybe some red in the foreground?
The 200-500 has a very "clean" bokeh free from LoCA.
Regarding sharpness the 400/5.6 has be better sharpness......it is just a tiny bit more sharp?
But as it is snapshots we should probably not conclude anything abut the sharpness of the two lenses?
Did you get the 200-500 from new and did you get a good sample first time?
If I should have one I would try it out outside the shop and only buy it if it was tack sharp at 500/5.6. I assume a good shop would accept this.
-
I think in truly ideal circumstances the old 400 is probably a wee bit sharper, but the 200-500 is much easier to use and can get close even hand held. And, of course, there is a little post processing one could do that would likely make the difference appear even less in an actual print or posting. Both the images above were cropped in Irfanview, which doesn't do quite as good a crop as View NX-2. I think the Nikon program gets better definition from crops, perhaps because it either crops before converting to JPG, or converts a little better.
My sample of the 200-500 was bought new from an actual store, so I was able to test it on site. It's one of the first batch (6006xxx serial number). When I first tried it, it had just come out. I tested it on a D3200, and the focus issue for which it was soon recalled occurred, so I gave it a miss. A few months later I was back at the store, and there it still was. I asked if it had had the recall, and it had. So I bought it then, figuring it had been pretty well gone over. I think it's a pretty good sample, and have been generally pleased with it.
-
I think I have a scan of a Nikon document that indicated that the 400mm f5.6 Nikkor-P.C (non-IF) used a fluorite element. Speculation was ED was used for the AI version.
Dave
I think the old literature mentions a "Fluorite-like" element, in other words an ED element. The term "ED" hadn't been invented yet so it is not engraved on the P.C version, but it is on the K version like Akira's. The optical schemas of the P.C and K/AI versions are identical as far as I can tell so I regard them as the same lens with different outer appearance. I imagine the inner mechanics are very similar, for example both versions take the same AI conversion kit.
I have the AI version, a nicely built lens. The closest distance on the focus scale is 5m which gives 1:9.1 magnification, but it actually focuses a bit closer to about 4.8m with magnification better than 1:9. In comparison the IF-ED version focuses to 4m for 1:8.8 magnification, so both lenses give about the same magnification even though the focus distance is different - this shows the effect of IF causing the focal length to reduce at close range.
The non-IF version shows traces of LoCA but it is not bad. Focusing is on the heavy side as to be expected, but it is smooth and even. It would have been nicer if the aperture had more than 7 blades as the 7-sided blurs are very noticeable in the background with this focal length, but these are minor cons on a very good lens.
-
I think the old literature mentions a "Fluorite-like" element, in other words an ED element. The term "ED" hadn't been invented yet so it is not engraved on the P.C version, but it is on the K version like Akira's. The optical schemas of the P.C and K/AI versions are identical as far as I can tell so I regard them as the same lens with different outer appearance. I imagine the inner mechanics are very similar, for example both versions take the same AI conversion kit.
Is that the same glass used in the Nikkor-H 300/2.8 developed for the Olympic games in Saporo? The special glass was made by Schott and not developed or made by Nikon, which is the reason for Nikon not to mention the use of it.
-
Today I was struck with a hunch, ran into a second-hand camera shop in Shinjuku and bumped into this lens. :)
It is a very simple 5E3G design. As the sun was about to set when I came home, so I could only do a quick'n' dirty test to make sure if the sample is troubled. But the result seems to be promising. My sample have some scuffs here and there on the lens barrel but fortunately no dints, and the optics is clean.
I had Ai 400/5.6 ED IF in the past and used it with D610. Given the AA filter in D610, the image quality of non-IF looks noticeably better.
I wonder which lens is made of ED glass (hopefully the third one, the single convex element).
I checked the Nikon handbook by moose Peterson, and it’s actually the first element that’s ED glass. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
-
I checked the Nikon handbook by moose Peterson, and it’s actually the first element that’s ED glass. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Thank you, Gerhard, for the confirmation. I would have to be careful even when I need to clean the front element, but it isN7t necessarily bad news. It's good to know the truth...
-
...on the TC, I would also think about using a smaller format camera to extend the "equivalent focal length", given today's performance of it.
A benefit of using a smaller format such as a D500 is the viewfinder. The D500 offers a finder magnification of 1.0x with a 50mm focused to infinity. This will help with manual focus v. a D850 with a viewfinder magnification of 0.75x. I don't know about mirrorless viewfinders. I live in the land of "The Dirt People" and there are no real camera stores near by so I've never touched a Nikon Z6 ~ Z7 II.
Just a guess but I think the D500 w/o a Teleconverter would beat a D850 with a TC. I have a TC-14B somewhere if I can find it. If I do I'll give it a spin.
Dave
-
A benefit of using a smaller format such as a D500 is the viewfinder. The D500 offers a finder magnification of 1.0x with a 50mm focused to infinity. This will help with manual focus v. a D850 with a viewfinder magnification of 0.75x. I don't know about mirrorless viewfinders. I live in the land of "The Dirt People" and there are no real camera stores near by so I've never touched a Nikon Z6 ~ Z7 II.
Just a guess but I think the D500 w/o a Teleconverter would beat a D850 with a TC. I have a TC-14B somewhere if I can find it. If I do I'll give it a spin.
Dave
Dave, the magnifying function of EVF of mirrorless cameras (and of LCD screens of any digital cameras) are far more helpful to nailing the focus.
-
Dave, the magnifying function of EVF of mirrorless cameras (and of LCD screens of any digital cameras) are far more helpful to nailing the focus.
I'm concerned with the magnification of the complete frame not zooming in to a portion of the frame. You can't for example follow a bird in flight while zoomed in to 100% or even 50%, not in any practical sense. If the subject is static, say a bird sleeping on a branch you can zoom in focus and zoom out but not one in flight.
The Z50, a DX format, has a viewfinder magnification of 1.02x with a 50mm lens focused to infinity while the Z6 II, an FX format, has a viewfinder magnification with a 50mm lens focused to infinity of 0.80x. From this the advantage of the DX over cropping the FX might be the same as an optical viewfinder but if shooting with say a Z7 II is the frame shown with a grayed frame like a D850 might show or does the finder zoom in to show the full DX format. If the latter then a Z7 II in DX crop should be roughly on par with a Z50. As I say, I've never touched a mirroless Nikon. I'm sure a Z7 or Z7 II owner can tell me.
Dave
Now I find zooming to 100% with a D800, hand held almost, not quite useless. I did this with a 20/2.8 AIS in low light. I focused in live view then returned to the optical viewfinder to frame. I did my best to keep the lens to subject distance static. A tripod is surly the way to go if, and that's important, if a tripod is permitted. I think I stopped down to f/8 for DoF which helped.
I've messed around with focus peeking and found it quite useless for focusing a 50/1.2 AIS even stopped down to f/2.0~2.8.
Again I have no experience but I read or view that mirrorless viewfinders still have a lag that make them somewhat unsuitable for sports and wild life.
I've got to find out why this computer corrects my spelling on the fly using the correctly spelled, damned wrong word! :o :o :o
-
I'm concerned with the magnification of the complete frame not zooming in to a portion of the frame. You can't for example follow a bird in flight while zoomed in to 100% or even 50%, not in any practical sense. If the subject is static, say a bird sleeping on a branch you can zoom in focus and zoom out but not one in flight.
The Z50, a DX format, has a viewfinder magnification of 1.02x with a 50mm lens focused to infinity while the Z6 II, an FX format, has a viewfinder magnification with a 50mm lens focused to infinity of 0.80x. From this the advantage of the DX over cropping the FX might be the same as an optical viewfinder but if shooting with say a Z7 II is the frame shown with a grayed frame like a D850 might show or does the finder zoom in to show the full DX format. If the latter then a Z7 II in DX crop should be roughly on par with a Z50. As I say, I've never touched a mirroless Nikon. I'm sure a Z7 or Z7 II owner can tell me.
Dave
Now I find zooming to 100% with a D800, hand held almost, not quite useless. I did this with a 20/2.8 AIS in low light. I focused in live view then returned to the optical viewfinder to frame. I did my best to keep the lens to subject distance static. A tripod is surly the way to go if, and that's important, if a tripod is permitted. I think I stopped down to f/8 for DoF which helped.
I've messed around with focus peeking and found it quite useless for focusing a 50/1.2 AIS even stopped down to f/2.0~2.8.
Again I have no experience but I read or view that mirrorless viewfinders still have a lag that make them somewhat unsuitable for sports and wild life.
I've got to find out why this computer corrects my spelling on the fly using the correctly spelled, damned wrong word! :o :o :o
The difference between 1.0x and 0.7x doesn't make up for the lack of focusing accuracy. This non-IF 400/5.6 would be the last choice for fast moving objects like BIF!
-
The higher the viewfinder magnification the easier it is to see when focus is achieved. I preferred the F3 over the F3HP as the F3 has a 0.8x viewfinder v. the F3HP's 0.75x. The FE2 and FM2n were even better with a 0.86x finder.
I'm not checking now but the The D2H has a 1.0x with an DK-17M eyepiece. [I double checked]
If your telephoto lenses are a 300/4.5 ED-IF and a 400/5.6 ED you use what you have. Maybe I should have bought a 400/5.6 ED-IF for the ease of one finger focusing back when I could afford to buy one.
-
Even though I wear glasses, I also preferred the eye-level finder of F3 to the HP one for its higher magnification. That 0.8x vs. 0.75x difference did make sense before the presbypya kicked in. :'(
My current camera offers magnification of the LCD screen image by 8.0x, which is beyond comparison with the OVF images.
-
I'm concerned with the magnification of the complete frame not zooming in to a portion of the frame. You can't for example follow a bird in flight while zoomed in to 100% or even 50%, not in any practical sense. If the subject is static, say a bird sleeping on a branch you can zoom in focus and zoom out but not one in flight.
The Z50, a DX format, has a viewfinder magnification of 1.02x with a 50mm lens focused to infinity while the Z6 II, an FX format, has a viewfinder magnification with a 50mm lens focused to infinity of 0.80x. From this the advantage of the DX over cropping the FX might be the same as an optical viewfinder but if shooting with say a Z7 II is the frame shown with a grayed frame like a D850 might show or does the finder zoom in to show the full DX format. If the latter then a Z7 II in DX crop should be roughly on par with a Z50. As I say, I've never touched a mirroless Nikon. I'm sure a Z7 or Z7 II owner can tell me.
Dave
Now I find zooming to 100% with a D800, hand held almost, not quite useless. I did this with a 20/2.8 AIS in low light. I focused in live view then returned to the optical viewfinder to frame. I did my best to keep the lens to subject distance static. A tripod is surly the way to go if, and that's important, if a tripod is permitted. I think I stopped down to f/8 for DoF which helped.
I've messed around with focus peeking and found it quite useless for focusing a 50/1.2 AIS even stopped down to f/2.0~2.8.
Again I have no experience but I read or view that mirrorless viewfinders still have a lag that make them somewhat unsuitable for sports and wild life.
I’ve used the EVF on the Z6 to shoot rowing competitions. The boats move pretty fact, but in a predictable direction (they are very slow to turn). With the 400mm hitting the F1 key to zoom and confirm focus is quite doable. Focus peaking is unusable as there are so many areas of high contrast that faces are never highlighted. I have to say that AF is less tiring and mentally taxing. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is easy.
-
Is that the same glass used in the Nikkor-H 300/2.8 developed for the Olympic games in Saporo? The special glass was made by Schott and not developed or made by Nikon, which is the reason for Nikon not to mention the use of it.
The original Nikkor-H was released in Jan 1972 for the Sapporo Winter Olympics, using Schott ED glass (see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0011/index.htm). Serial numbers started at 603011 with 72 units made. In late 1975 Nikon produced another batch with multi-coating applied and using Nikon's ED glass. Serial numbers start at 604011 with 78 units made.
The Nikkor-P.C 400/5.6 was released mid-way during this period, in Jan 1973, so it is interesting to guess whether Schott glass was used or if Nikon had already developed their ED glass. I have an old Nikon dealer catalogue which already mentions a "Nikkor-P" (no .C) 400/5.6 in 1971. It looks exactly like the Nikkor-P.C 400/5.6 and uses special glass to eliminate chromatic aberrations (I'll have to dig up that catalogue and double-check, I'm not sure why I haven't put that date on my site...).
Why the big delay between its announcement in 1971 and the release date in early 1973? The original lens must have used Schott ED glass since it is even earlier than the Nikkor-H 300/2.8, and we know Nikon did not have ED glass at that time. I think production was delayed until Nikon had developed their own ED glass. In the mean time Nikon had also developed multicoating so the prototype Nikkor-P 400/5.6 using Schott glass finally appeared as a Nikkor-P.C using Nikon ED glass. The only reason it is not marked with "ED" or have a gold band is that the marketing department hadn't thought about it yet. The same lens then continued more or less unchanged to the K and AI versions but with an updated outer appearance - including the *ED marking and gold band.
-
The original Nikkor-H was released in Jan 1972 for the Sapporo Winter Olympics, using Schott ED glass (see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0011/index.htm). Serial numbers started at 603011 with 72 units made. In late 1975 Nikon produced another batch with multi-coating applied and using Nikon's ED glass. Serial numbers start at 604011 with 78 units made.
The Nikkor-P.C 400/5.6 was released mid-way during this period, in Jan 1973, so it is interesting to guess whether Schott glass was used or if Nikon had already developed their ED glass. I have an old Nikon dealer catalogue which already mentions a "Nikkor-P" (no .C) 400/5.6 in 1971. It looks exactly like the Nikkor-P.C 400/5.6 and uses special glass to eliminate chromatic aberrations (I'll have to dig up that catalogue and double-check, I'm not sure why I haven't put that date on my site...).
Why the big delay between its announcement in 1971 and the release date in early 1973? The original lens must have used Schott ED glass since it is even earlier than the Nikkor-H 300/2.8, and we know Nikon did not have ED glass at that time. I think production was delayed until Nikon had developed their own ED glass. In the mean time Nikon had also developed multicoating so the prototype Nikkor-P 400/5.6 using Schott glass finally appeared as a Nikkor-P.C using Nikon ED glass. The only reason it is not marked with "ED" or have a gold band is that the marketing department hadn't thought about it yet. The same lens then continued more or less unchanged to the K and AI versions but with an updated outer appearance - including the *ED marking and gold band.
Sounds quite logical.
-
Is the Nikkor-P this one?
I don't have it......only as picture in an old Nikkor catalogue. Before the "Noct-time" and where the fastest 85mm still was the Nikkor-H 1.8.
The 6/2.8 fisheye and 2000mm mirror is also in this catalogue.....I don't have those either.....
-
Yes that's the one. Note how the optical design is identical (as far as you can tell without precise measurements) to the optical schema of the K version that Akira posted.
-
On Roland's Ser. No. Page have a look at the 400mm f/4.5 Nikkor-Q.C and imagine trying to photograph birds in flight with that piece of artillery! Imagine trying to photograph a low flying airplane at an air show. I makes my back ache just thinking about it. :o
(http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/c40045.jpg)
-
...
The Z50, a DX format, has a viewfinder magnification of 1.02x with a 50mm lens focused to infinity while the Z6 II, an FX format, has a viewfinder magnification with a 50mm lens focused to infinity of 0.80x. From this the advantage of the DX over cropping the FX might be the same as an optical viewfinder but if shooting with say a Z7 II is the frame shown with a grayed frame like a D850 might show or does the finder zoom in to show the full DX format. If the latter then a Z7 II in DX crop should be roughly on par with a Z50. As I say, I've never touched a mirroless Nikon. I'm sure a Z7 or Z7 II owner can tell me.
Dave
...
I confirm, if you put a DX lens on a Z6/Z7/Z6II/Z7II/Z5, or choose DX image area with an FX lens, the image projected in the EVF (and LCD screen) is the -enlarged- cropped image.
...And you can still zoom in up to 200% (or 400% ?) Very useful!
Ciao from Massimo
-
That is what I hoped the Z7 II and other FX mirroless Nikons would do.
Dave
-
On Roland's Ser. No. Page have a look at the 400mm f/4.5 Nikkor-Q.C and imagine trying to photograph birds in flight with that piece of artillery! Imagine trying to photograph a low flying airplane at an air show. I makes my back ache just thinking about it. :o
(http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/c40045.jpg)
For reference for more info on these lenses, CPU chipping and the like, enjoy this thread 8)
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=5202.0 (https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=5202.0)
If you want to skip to chipping the AU-1 / CU-1
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=5202.msg82572#msg82572
-
Processed in ACR applying the new Super Resolution but no sharpening. The quality of this moon image is the best I've ever got with my own photographic equipment.
The camera is SIGMA fp with the color mode "off" in which no in-camera processing is applied.
-
Great result Akira.
-
Great result Akira.
Thank you, Fons. Yes, I was amazed to see the result.
-
Incredible, Akira ;) I used to look at the sky with a telescope and had some negs of the moon, but even with my "small) refractor, was never able to get such a nice shot 8)
-
Incredible, Akira ;) I used to look at the sky with a telescope and had some negs of the moon, but even with my "small) refractor, was never able to get such a nice shot 8)
Thank you, Jacques. Indeed, it is pretty unbelievable to be able to shoot the moon in such a crispness using rather ordinary photographic (not at all specialized for the astronomy) equipment.
-
A successful image, sharp and detailed, Akira. The lens works good ;)
-
A successful image, sharp and detailed, Akira. The lens works good ;)
Thank you, John. Yes, it performed as I had expected for the distant subject. :)
-
A 400mm f5.6 was not described in this patent but I believe this is the one:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3774991A/en
The glass with abbe number is 81.5 is described as fluophosphoric acid glass. This is the ED glass.
-
A 400mm f5.6 was not described in this patent but I believe this is the one:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3774991A/en
The glass with abbe number is 81.5 is described as fluophosphoric acid glass. This is the ED glass.
That may be the patent for the lens system here which used a focusing element with a head and came in 400, 600, 800, 1200mm lengths:
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=5202.0
-
That may be the patent for the lens system here which used a focusing element with a head and came in 400, 600, 800, 1200mm lengths:
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=5202.0
I don't have the schemas for those lenses so it is difficult to say.
But we do know for example:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/US003774991_Example03P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis
https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/US003774991_Example01P.txt
Does anyone have schemas of the telephoto nikkors from around 1972-1974?
Regards
-
A 400mm f5.6 was not described in this patent but I believe this is the one:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3774991A/en
The glass with abbe number is 81.5 is described as fluophosphoric acid glass. This is the ED glass.
Thank you for the link. The design of Nikkor 400/5.6 seems to be of a popular basic one.
-
I don't have the schemas for those lenses so it is difficult to say.
But we do know for example:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/US003774991_Example03P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis
https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/US003774991_Example01P.txt
Does anyone have schemas of the telephoto nikkors from around 1972-1974?
Regards
I only have like these.......
-
I also found this:
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00769/00769.pdf
What's interesting is that the 800m and 1200mm are described as apo-chromatic.
However, going by these I'd say the patent is for the later ED versions.
-
IIRC, Birna has the ED version of 1200mm (not the later IF one, but the one for the focusing unit).
-
Wish it were so, Akira. I do have the 800/8 ED lens head though, which is even more elusive. Very very sharp and very very cumbersome to use.
It is a long-focal not telephoto design thus the overall contraption is nearly 1m long and heavy. Using it demands the very best of tripod support. Funny this came up as I retrieved the lens head from its storage yesterday and set it up for use wih the PrimaLuce Z5 today (or tomorrow, my plans involve a more conducive weather than at present).
I do own the 1200mm f/11 ED-IF, which is much smaller and lighter.
-
Wish it were so, Akira. I do have the 800/8 ED lens head though, which is even more elusive. Very very sharp and very very cumbersome to use.
It is a long-focal not telephoto design thus the overall contraption is nearly 1m long and heavy. Using it demands the very best of tripod support. Funny this came up as I retrieved the lens head from its storage yesterday and set it up for use wih the PrimaLuce Z5 today (or tomorrow, my plans involve a more conducive weather than at present).
I do own the 1200mm f/11 ED-IF, which is much smaller and lighter.
Oh, yes, the 800mm ED. It is easy to suspect its cumbersomeness is twice as much as that of my 400/5.6 with the totally dry helix. :o :o :o
I won't urge you but am looking forward to seeing some images with the 800 ED!
-
It seems a good test is to check how the lens can render stars at full aperture like this test?
https://www.astropix.com/html/i_astrop/eq_tests/n400mm.html
....if lens can render stars as round dots without any CA.....at full aperture it is well corrected?
.....at least at infinity.....and that may be the "problem" designing a tele for normal photography that it should not only perform well at infinity?
Even that Nikkors is not perfect many still use them for star captures so probably still among the best?
-
It seems a good test is to check how the lens can render stars at full aperture like this test?
https://www.astropix.com/html/i_astrop/eq_tests/n400mm.html
....if lens can render stars as round dots without any CA.....at full aperture it is well corrected?
.....at least at infinity.....and that may be the "problem" designing a tele for normal photography that it should not only perform well at infinity?
Even that Nikkors is not perfect many still use them for star captures so probably still among the best?
In general, long lenses of non-IF design wouldn't be good at closer ranges anyway. I bought mine with the premise of shooting distant scenes.
I was also attracted to its simplistic 3G5E design and I'm very much interested in Leica's Telyt 800mm/f6.3 lens which is of 1G3E design.
-
this is 田代's lens :o :o :o
how is it? is it all scratchy and ugly? I asked the guy at the counter he told me that someone bought it. we agreed that the price was reasonable ::)
the people there are friendly with me, except for the owner who never smiles. he's just like that according to his staff but he greets me anyway.
-
What about the Leica Apo-Telyt 1600 f/5.6?
I also wonder how good the Nikkor 1200 - 1700 zoom really is.....?
About 1600mm is needed on a FX camera to get the moon to fill the whole frame?
-
this is 田代's lens :o :o :o
how is it? is it all scratchy and ugly? I asked the guy at the counter he told me that someone bought it. we agreed that the price was reasonable ::)
the people there are friendly with me, except for the owner who never smiles. he's just like that according to his staff but he greets me anyway.
I don't know who ”Tashiro” is. There are scuffs here and there on the lens barrel, but there are no dents. The optics are clean and the image quality turned out to be just as expected. And yes, it was a good deal.
-
What about the Leica Apo-Telyt 1600 f/5.6?
I also wonder how good the Nikkor 1200 - 1700 zoom really is.....?
About 1600mm is needed on a FX camera to get the moon to fill the whole frame?
Apparently, yes:
https://www.nikon-image.com/products/compact/lineup/p1000/features01.html
I'm interested in Telyt 800/6.3 is more for its simplistic optical design than its focal length. Up from 300mm or so, the atmospheric turbulence and haze often degrade the image quality. Also, you have to use a big sturdy tripod to make the best of the lens. So, 400/5.6 would be about the upper limit of practical usability.
-
I also wonder how good the Nikkor 1200 - 1700 zoom really is.....?
My guess: pretty good. From http://183.181.162.36/about/feelnikon/recollections/r16_e/index.htm:
In order to obtain high-quality images, the surface of this large-diameter lens had to be polished to a hitherto unprecedented degree of precision ... At the assembly stage too, an unprecedented level of precision was required with regard to the camera lenses. Accordingly, at the suggestion of the person in charge of assembly, adjustments were carried out using equipment used to adjust IC steppers and scanners. The technology of IC steppers and scanners—dubbed the "most precise machines in history"—was thus applied to the 1200-1700mm.
-
Maybe Nikon will donate a 1200-1700 til NikonGear.......
By reading the article I can understand that the AFS 200-400 /f4 zoom was also high quality. I remember that it was expensive.
-
What about the Leica Apo-Telyt 1600 f/5.6?
I wonder if the Minister of Qatar who ordered this 1600/5.6 is the same person who ordered that 1600/4.0 lens to Hasselblad?
-
He likes 1600mm lenses?
If it is small birds then even with a 1600mm you need to be close......if not the "dot" in picture is just a bit larger.....?
-
He likes 1600mm lenses?
If it is small birds then even with a 1600mm you need to be close......if not the "dot" in picture is just a bit larger.....?
You won't be able to small agile birds with those monsters!
-
I'm interested in Telyt 800/6.3 is more for its simplistic optical design than its focal length. Up from 300mm or so, the atmospheric turbulence and haze often degrade the image quality. Also, you have to use a big sturdy tripod to make the best of the lens. So, 400/5.6 would be about the upper limit of practical usability.
https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/cameragossip/cameragossip.github.io/blob/master/lensdesigns/Leitz-Telyt-S-800mm-f6.3-US3536379.ipynb
Its available here:
https://www.mwclassic.com/product/leitz-wetzlar-800mm-f6-3-telyt-s-c1971-complete-lens-system-in-makers-carryig-case-one-of-only-400-units-made-in-1971-uncommon/
-
Here is the elusive (and imposing) Nikkor ED 800mm f/8, combined with the focusing "adapter" AU-1, on my beefy Sachtler ENG 2 CF HD tripod. The total makes for a less than compact package :) ordinarily I would mount the lens directly to the fluid head using a Sachtler video plate, however the outline of the 800 makes the fit very tight so difficult to remove the lens without splitting the assembly. Thus an all-metal sandwich to give Arca mount is provided.
This 800 ED Nikkor is among the sharpest long lenses I have ever used.
-
https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/cameragossip/cameragossip.github.io/blob/master/lensdesigns/Leitz-Telyt-S-800mm-f6.3-US3536379.ipynb
Its available here:
https://www.mwclassic.com/product/leitz-wetzlar-800mm-f6-3-telyt-s-c1971-complete-lens-system-in-makers-carryig-case-one-of-only-400-units-made-in-1971-uncommon/
Unfortunately, it is way beyond my reach...
-
Here is the elusive (and imposing) Nikkor ED 800mm f/8, combined with the focusing "adapter" AU-1, on my beefy Sachtler ENG 2 CF HD tripod. The total makes for a less than compact package :) ordinarily I would mount the lens directly to the fluid head using a Sachtler video plate, however the outline of the 800 makes the fit very tight so difficult to remove the lens without splitting the assembly. Thus an all-metal sandwich to give Arca mount is provided.
This 800 ED Nikkor is among the sharpest long lenses I have ever used.
That is indeed a spectacular lens! I wonder how it performs on today's digital cameras.
-
That is indeed a spectacular lens! I wonder how it performs on today's digital cameras.
In fact, it does exemplary. Did use the 800 for false-colour Infrared Ektachrome emulation today and results were very crisp indeed. The 800ED joins the legendary 200-400mm f/4 Nikkor ED as representing the very best of the old-timers. A true pity both are so hard to find due to the low production volume.
-
In fact, it does exemplary. Did use the 800 for false-colour Infrared Ektachrome emulation today and results were very crisp indeed. The 800ED joins the legendary 200-400mm f/4 Nikkor ED as representing the very best of the old-timers. A true pity both are so hard to find due to the low production volume.
Oh, yes, IR! I'm going to try some IR90 images, after I get Fujifilm 4x4" IR90 filter.
-
Thank you for the link. The design of Nikkor 400/5.6 seems to be of a popular basic one.
Most early non-IF telephoto Nikkors follow a similar optical design consisting of a front front section with three elements: convex-concave-convex, and a rear group with two elements: concave-convex. The rear group acts as a weak teleconverter but its primary purpose is to reduce field curvature and coma. Most have 5 elements arranged in 3 groups, a few have extra air space between elements giving 4 or 5 groups. The Nikkor-H 300/2.8 ED and 300/4.5 ED have slightly more involved designs with an extra element still show a strong family resemblance to the other models:
180/2.8 ED (5E 5G - see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0010/index.htm)
300/2.8 ED (6E 5G - see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0011/index.htm)
300/4.5 ED (6E 4G)
400/5.6 ED (5E 3G)
600/5.6 (5E 4G)
600/5.6 ED (5E 4G)
800/8 (5E 3G)
800/8 ED (5E 3G)
1200/11 (5E 3G)
1200/11 ED (5E 3G)
-
Despite the "family" similarities, these Nikkor differ significantly in their imaging properties.
-
Not least, the early models don't use ED glass and are not multi-coated...
-
Most early non-IF telephoto Nikkors follow a similar optical design consisting of a front front section with three elements: convex-concave-convex, and a rear group with two elements: concave-convex. The rear group acts as a weak teleconverter but its primary purpose is to reduce field curvature and coma. Most have 5 elements arranged in 3 groups, a few have extra air space between elements giving 4 or 5 groups. The Nikkor-H 300/2.8 ED and 300/4.5 ED have slightly more involved designs with an extra element still show a strong family resemblance to the other models:
180/2.8 ED (5E 5G - see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0010/index.htm)
300/2.8 ED (6E 5G - see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0011/index.htm)
300/4.5 ED (6E 4G)
400/5.6 ED (5E 3G)
600/5.6 (5E 4G)
600/5.6 ED (5E 4G)
800/8 (5E 3G)
800/8 ED (5E 3G)
1200/11 (5E 3G)
1200/11 ED (5E 3G)
Patents related to the early ED nikkors.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3774991A/en
Believe this covers 300mm f4.5, 600mm f5.6, 800mm f8, 1200mm f11.
-
Focused almost at the closest distance of 5m at f11.
-
Grey alder Alnus incana. Catkins fluttering in strong wind. Nikkor 800mm f/8 ED @f/11, distance approx. 35 m. ISO 800 on my PrimaLuce Z5. The amount of detail is impeccable, one can see the individual anthers of the male flowers :) and there is not a trace of CA. This is 100% crop and the filtering is for false-colour infrared ektachrome emulation..
-
Grey alder Alnus incana. Catkins fluttering in strong wind. Nikkor 800mm f/8 ED @f/11, distance approx. 35 m. ISO 800 on my PrimaLuce Z5. The amount of detail is impeccable, one can see the individual anthers of the male flowers :) and there is not a trace of CA. This is 100% crop and the filtering is for false-colour infrared ektachrome emulation..
Indeed, amazing details!
-
The super-teles from this period performs nicely when shot at distant scenes.
-
Has anybody tried this 400 mm F 5.6 lens with a TC 1.4B tele-converter? I’m just wondering how it handles teleconverters? It seem to be pretty sharp compared to the 200-500 AFS zoom lens.Regards Gerry
-
Has anybody tried this 400 mm F 5.6 lens with a TC 1.4B tele-converter? I’m just wondering how it handles teleconverters? It seem to be pretty sharp compared to the 200-500 AFS zoom lens.Regards Gerry
I'll try to find my TC-14B. Maybe I can pick it up tomorrow.
Dave
-
Has anybody tried this 400 mm F 5.6 lens with a TC 1.4B tele-converter? I’m just wondering how it handles teleconverters? It seem to be pretty sharp compared to the 200-500 AFS zoom lens.Regards Gerry
Gerry, hope you would allow me to piggyback my question on yours.
I found a second-hand TC-20E II offered at a reasonable price. I wonder if "could" perform better than the TCs designed during the same period as the non-IF 400/5.6 ED, or if an APS-C or even m4/3 body would be a better choice for the purpose?
FWIW, I have the experience of Ai200/4.0 and Panasonic GH5 combo performing noticeably better than D610 and 400/5.6 ED IF combo.
-
When I first got the 400 in question, I also got a TC-14 (no letter suffix) teleconverter, which is, I think, the AI verion of what became the TC-14B for AIS. I found it worked pretty nicely with the 400 on film, and the quality seemed quite good. I haven't done a lot of comparison recently, but back when I first started shooting digital with a D3200, I tried it just to compare teleconverter use with cropping. It seemed about a dead heat, and not too long after that I got the 200-500 anyway, so the TC-14 hasn't seen much use.
I'll have to try it again in daylight, with the D7100, and see if I can do a better test.
-
When I first got the 400 in question, I also got a TC-14 (no letter suffix) teleconverter, which is, I think, the AI verion of what became the TC-14B for AIS. I found it worked pretty nicely with the 400 on film, and the quality seemed quite good. I haven't done a lot of comparison recently, but back when I first started shooting digital with a D3200, I tried it just to compare teleconverter use with cropping. It seemed about a dead heat, and not too long after that I got the 200-500 anyway, so the TC-14 hasn't seen much use.
I'll have to try it again in daylight, with the D7100, and see if I can do a better test.
Matthew, thank you for sharing your experience. I also had the no-name TC-14, but when I had it, my only compatible lens was Ai 300/4.5. The combo along with Nikon 1 J1 enabled me to shoot Vinus in Transit, but I wasn't able to assess its performance when combined with better optics.
Unlike TC-14C or the current TC800-1.25E ED designed for specific lenses, other TCs are designed for general use with other long Nikkor lenses, hence my assumption of the newer TCs.
-
Gerry, hope you would allow me to piggyback my question on yours.
I found a second-hand TC-20E II offered at a reasonable price. I wonder if "could" perform better than the TCs designed during the same period as the non-IF 400/5.6 ED, or if an APS-C or even m4/3 body would be a better choice for the purpose?
With a 2X converter you would have an 800 F11 lens. I had the 1000mm F11 lens and it was a bear to focus accurately, I would think using the 400 w/ TC14 would give you 1 extra stop and the smaller sensor with give the narrower field of view and with mirrorless you could focus on screen better. Regards Gerry
-
With a 2X converter you would have an 800 F11 lens. I had the 1000mm F11 lens and it was a bear to focus accurately, I would think using the 400 w/ TC14 would give you 1 extra stop and the smaller sensor with give the narrower field of view and with mirrorless you could focus on screen better. Regards Gerry
Live view or either LCD or EVF would handle the large f-stops, but the difficulty of manual focus of elongated lenses will be more painful for sure.
A better solution may be to combine a 1.4x TC and a smaller format camera.
-
Small not large f-"stops".
-
Small not large f-"stops".
I should have said large "f-numbers". :)
-
No, small f-numbers. f/0.5-f/1 are extremely large, f/45-f/90 very small. To give an indication of the inverted scale used here. One always needs that extra split second to reorientate one's mindset.
-
OK, here's another quick and dirty test. Taken in the back yard. A cold sunny morning, in which the thermal effects were enough to make the image a little woozy, so though not ideal for sharpness, it's a real world sort of day. D7100, on a tripod, ISO200, 5.6 aperture on lens, Aperture priority, shot with self timer. The converter is a Nikon TC-14. The crops are done and converted to JPG in View NX-2, conversion and downsizing of uncropped original, and juxtaposition of crops, in Irfanview. No post processing of any kind.
In the comparison, left is without TC, right is with.
As you can see, the image quality is not much different, but interestingly, along with getting a less pixellated image from the TC, it looks as if the chromatic aberration is less with the TC.
-
Just for grins and giggles, I did another little test of the same subject, this time using the 500/4 AIP. Not surprisingly, at least at any realistic setting, the 500 is a little sharper than anything and seems to give better overall contrast, and it seems to be at its best wide open, despite being so big that it's hard to keep perfectly steady on the tripod. Cropped to outrageous depth, some of that visible advantage disappears, but all three combinations are pretty impressive, I think. Here is a crop down to a single letter on the sign. This crop was done on the JPG of the larger crops, so does not benefit from the slightly better performance of View NX-2 on raw crops. 400 no TC on left, 400 with TC in middle, 500 with no TC on right. Once again, the fairly surprising result is that the TC seems to undo some chromatic aberration, and the overall takeaway is that if you need to crop very deep, the TC is probably a good bet.
-
Just for grins and giggles, I did another little test of the same subject, this time using the 500/4 AIP. Not surprisingly, at least at any realistic setting, the 500 is a little sharper than anything and seems to give better overall contrast, and it seems to be at its best wide open, despite being so big that it's hard to keep perfectly steady on the tripod. Cropped to outrageous depth, some of that visible advantage disappears, but all three combinations are pretty impressive, I think. Here is a crop down to a single letter on the sign. This crop was done on the JPG of the larger crops, so does not benefit from the slightly better performance of View NX-2 on raw crops. 400 no TC on left, 400 with TC in middle, 500 with no TC on right. Once again, the fairly surprising result is that the TC seems to undo some chromatic aberration, and the overall takeaway is that if you need to crop very deep, the TC is probably a good bet.
Wow thanks for posting Matthew this test really shows the quality of both the 400 5.6 lens and the TC and comparing it to a 500 that actually looks really good. I wondered how it would compare with the newer lenses and your test is like super pixel peeping. This wouldn’t show up on normal pictures on my D 700 or my D 300. Thanks again for your investigative report. Regards Gerry
-
I miss the BF-3 front cap for my TC-14.
Would a BF-3A or BF-3B work?
The BF-3 is a metal cap?
-
Mine came without caps or case, and I don't seem to have any of that series, only original Nikon F caps (which do not fit being too shallow) and BF-1B, which fit fine, though a little loose. You might want to file a little notch in the cap to engage the latch pin.
-
Ok....a BF-1B may be an option.
I put the cap from a TC-300 on my TC-14 as I used that more.....but then the TC-300 may get its cap back :-)
-
No, small f-numbers. f/0.5-f/1 are extremely large, f/45-f/90 very small. To give an indication of the inverted scale used here. One always needs that extra split second to reorientate one's mindset.
Really?! I might have learned the wrong way. :o :o :o
-
Matthew, thank you very much for sparing your time to take the comparison images. These are really helpful.
Interestingly, long Nikkors and TCs seem to be designed so that at least the chromatic aberration could be canceled when a master lens and a TC are combined.
I miss the BF-3 front cap for my TC-14.
Would a BF-3A or BF-3B work?
The BF-3 is a metal cap?
So far as I remember, the BF-3 was beautifully made of metal, possibly aluminium.
-
Really?! I might have learned the wrong way. :o :o :o
It is just math. f = focal length so f/2 means the aperture is half the focal length. Using a 200mm lens as example, f/2 =100mm, f/4 =50mm. f/8 =25mm.
-
It is just math. f = focal length so f/2 means the aperture is half the focal length. Using a 200mm lens as example, f/2 =100mm, f/4 =50mm. f/8 =25mm.
Aha, the "result" of the division, not the denominator.
-
Aha, the "result" of the division, not the denominator.
Yes. It is easy to miss that / is a mathematical operator since photographers talk about apertures using phrases like "F Eight"
-
Aha, the "result" of the division, not the denominator.
This brings an added benefit: you can estimate the size of the front element of your lens (practically, the filter size and/or the lens cap diameter...)
Your "new" 400mm/5.6 will have a front element of 400/5.6 = 71.42 mm. I'll bet the filter size of your tele is 72 mm.
Another example: a 600mm/4 will have a frontal element with a diameter of 150mm, just the same as a 300mm/2.
Ciao from Massimo
-
Without reference material: F over R equals D where F is the focal length (any focal length for generality), R is the aperture ratio and D is the aperture diameter. For example...
100mm/2.0=50mm, a 100mm f/2.0 lens.
The f-number is not the Focal Length as its name implies but it is the Aperture Ratio and should be called the "R-Number." f-number has got to be one of the stupidest terms used by photographers.
From grade school math "The larger the divisor the smaller the quotient."
"The larger the divisor (R value) the smaller the quotient (D value) where F (focal length) divided by R (aperture ratio) = D (aperture diameter).
The larger the f-number (cough, cough) the smaller physical size of the opening allowing light through the lens, e.g. 100mm/2=50mm v. 100mm/16=6.25mm.
I hope I'm not talking trash here. :o
Dave
What we really need to know is any f/2.0 lens of any focal length will allow the same amount of light to strike our image sensors (ignoring f/stops v. t/stops). t/stops are relevant to videographers and cinematographers, not so much photographers.
-
Without reference material: F over R equals D where F is the focal length (any focal length for generality), R is the aperture ratio and D is the aperture diameter. For example...
100mm/2.0=50mm, a 100mm f/2.0 lens.
The f-number is not the Focal Length as its name implies but it is the Aperture Ratio and should be called the "R-Number." f-number has got to be one of the stupidest terms used by photographers.
From grade school math "The larger the divisor the smaller the quotient."
"The larger the divisor (R value) the smaller the quotient (D value) where F (focal length) divided by R (aperture ratio) = D (aperture diameter).
The larger the f-number (cough, cough) the smaller physical size of the opening allowing light through the lens, e.g. 100mm/2=50mm v. 100mm/16=6.25mm.
I hope I'm not talking trash here. :o
Dave
What we really need to know is any f/2.0 lens of any focal length will allow the same amount of light to strike our image sensors (ignoring f/stops v. t/stops). t/stops are relevant to videographers and cinematographers, not so much photographers.
As someone who spent too long in engineering classes I prefer the derived number (what you call R) to be isolated on one side of the equation. f/D = R, or R = f/D for example. f and D are physical measures, R is derived as the ratio of the two, is dimensionless, and does not exist alone.
I completely agree that the naming convention of "f stop" works against clarity.
-
Hehe ~ Turning back photography calculus 150 years, maybe do it in inches as well good fun!
or
Follow standard aperture values f /n,,, and accept that not all minds work alike ;)
-
This brings an added benefit: you can estimate the size of the front element of your lens (practically, the filter size and/or the lens cap diameter...)
Your "new" 400mm/5.6 will have a front element of 400/5.6 = 71.42 mm. I'll bet the filter size of your tele is 72 mm.
Another example: a 600mm/4 will have a frontal element with a diameter of 150mm, just the same as a 300mm/2.
Ciao from Massimo
Unfortunately, this is not that simple. The entrance pupil is not the same as the front diameter of the lens. Thus it is entirely possible to have an entrance pupil vastly different from the size of the front element. Think of a 15mm f/3.5 lens with a large front. The numerical value of the entrance pupil can be larger than the physical diameter of the lens as well.
-
The main benefit of f numbers is exposure equivalency among lenses. Take a light meter reading and the aperture indicated is the same for any lens set at that f number (plus or minus a tiny bit due to rounding, light fall-off, and some f number cheating) at a constant shutter speed and ISO.
I do not know why folks have such as issue since "shutter speeds" are also written as reciprocal values on their cameras. Shutter speed is actually the bigger nomenclature issue as exposure duration would be better. Shutters move at high speed but different shutters can move at different speeds to yield the same marked exposure duration.
-
I do not know why folks have such as issue since "shutter speeds" are also written as reciprocal values on their cameras. Shutter speed is actually the bigger nomenclature issue as exposure duration would be better. Shutters move at high speed but different shutters can move at different speeds to yield the same marked exposure duration.
I don't think people actually have much issue. We are just being pedantic.
-
Unfortunately, this is not that simple. The entrance pupil is not the same as the front diameter of the lens. Thus it is entirely possible to have an entrance pupil vastly different from the size of the front element. Think of a 15mm f/3.5 lens with a large front. The numerical value of the entrance pupil can be larger than the physical diameter of the lens as well.
True with wide angles and fisheyes, but beyond 85mm this simple rule-of-thumb works,
Ciao from Massimo
-
Somewhere in the back of my head I'm hearing something like "Pupillary magnification" that applies to telephoto lenses. I believe that's telephoto lenses but not long lenses of non-telephoto design. Anyone care to take this further?
Dave
If memory serves me it seems the 180/2.8 ED with tubes looses more light than if it were not a telephoto design. A TTL meter takes care of the exposure change. Calculation is only needed for a hand held meter. I'm away from home and can't check my references, probably one of John Shaw's books.
-
I found my Nikon TC-14B and tried it with my 400/5.6 ED AI Nikkor. The focus distance was near the minimum. I shot from a Bogen 3021 tripod which is much less than ideal for a 560mm lens. The shutter speed was 1/2000th and the aperture was f/8.0 (f/5.6 as marked on the lens). The ISO was 800. Focusing was damned near impossible for me on a D850 using the LCD monitor at 100%. I tried focus bracketing. The original focus seemed best, not the plus or minus focus settings. This crop was produced by Capture NX-D set to "Latest Picture Control" and using the "Standard Picture Control" with no additional adjustments by me.
I said I'd get out my TC-14B and try it so here is a 100% crop of the frame. On a D850 I don't find the combination of a 400/5.6 ED AI and TC-14B practical. I suspect cropping maybe more practical. Down sampling to 50% (4128x2752) looks pretty good (not shown here). This test may indicate my limitations more than anything else.
Dave
-
I found my Nikon TC-14B and tried it with my 400/5.6 ED AI Nikkor. The focus distance was near the minimum. I shot from a Bogen 3021 tripod which is much less than ideal for a 560mm lens. The shutter speed was 1/2000th and the aperture was f/8.0 (f/5.6 as marked on the lens). The ISO was 800. Focusing was damned near impossible for me on a D850 using the LCD monitor at 100%. I tried focus bracketing. The original focus seemed best, not the plus or minus focus settings. This crop was produced by Capture NX-D set to "Latest Picture Control" and using the "Standard Picture Control" with no additional adjustments by me.
I said I'd get out my TC-14B and try it so here is a 100% crop of the frame. On a D850 I don't find the combination of a 400/5.6 ED AI and TC-14B practical. I suspect cropping maybe more practical. Down sampling to 50% (4128x2752) looks pretty good (not shown here). This test may indicate my limitations more than anything else.
Dave
Dave, thank you for taking time to test the lens with TC. I found the lens even used without TC is not very good at its closest focusing range. So, it is understandable that TC will exaggerate the flaw. That said, considering that the lens performs quite nicely at distant scenes and objects, a 1.4x TC might make a bit more sense, I guess? Of course, you would need a really sturdy tripod even with a mirrorless camera in the electronic shutter mode.
-
Of course, you would need a really sturdy tripod even with a mirrorless camera in the electronic shutter mode.
Sometimes extraordinary measures can yield good results from a less that ideal tripod. A counter indication is a Linhof tripod I own that is light and very rigid. The legs are extruded aluminum and can catch a breeze and resonate. A work-around is to stuff socks in the channels to dampen vibrations.
Tripods that allow spreading their legs wide can help if the lowest legs are not extended. I was testing a lens with my heavy Bogen 3068 video tripod. The wind was so strong that even this tripod was showing vibrations. I might have. been testing my 300/4.5 IF-ED AI with my TC-14B or TC-16A. Lowing the rig to about 1 meter (39") helps greatly.
A way to test a tripod, head or lens collar is attach a laser pointer to a lens. I've used a laser pointer on my 200/4.0 Micro-Nikkor with various cameras. The light from the pointer will dance indicating vibrations. I found my F2, FM2n and FE2 vibrate more on tripping the shutter compared to later cameras like my F3 and F5. This type of test and show if vibrations can be tamed with a self timer with early mirror release or mirror up mode will solve tripod and camera vibrations. I found the lower legs on my Bogen 3021 and vintage C. M. Marchioni Tilltall are really squishy.
I wish I had several thousand dollars to spend on a couple of really rigid and stable medium and HD tripods.
Dave
-
Here is a result of a kind of "torture test" for flare and ghosts in an extremely high-contrast situation, with shooting earthshine on the moon in mind.
I think the simplistic 3g5e optical design almost like those of astronomical telescopes and multi-coating are working nicely...
-
I realized that my sample suffered from a fairly pronounced field curvaturre which makes the landscape shots tricky. Stopping down to f11 already softens the image a bit. Wide open or f8.0 seems to be the sweet spot.
As its color correction, center sharpness and flare/ghost resistance are impressive, I will try to shoot the sun with this lens fitted with my Kenko PRO ND100000 filter. For the super-telephoto landscapes, a m4/3 body can be the best match.
-
You are still using this lens, Akira?
-
You are still using this lens, Akira?
Unfortunately, no. My sample showed a field curvature which was strong enough to ruin distant scenes even stopped down to f11 or so and with the entire frame far enough and/or well within the DOF. I'm not sure if that was just for my sample or by design.
Now I have Ais Nikkor 300mm/f4.5 non-IF non-ED lens and I don't detect any field curvature. Its lateral chromatic aberration can be easily mitigated in ACR.
-
That was bad luck with your previous sample I guess. The AIS 300/4.5 non-ED must be pretty good too, I think?
-
That was bad luck with your previous sample I guess. The AIS 300/4.5 non-ED must be pretty good too, I think?
Yes, I believe so.
Previously, I had used an Ai version of this lens and really enjoyed to shoot the moon, small birds around my place and, most of all, the Venus In Transit which was shot with the 1.4xTC. They were all shot either on APS-C cameras and Nikon 1 J1. But after reading the "Nikkor 1001 Nights" for the lens and saw sample images shot on Z6, I was confident that it would perform nicely on a full-frame camera, which turned out to be right!
-
I realized that my sample suffered from a fairly pronounced field curvaturre which makes the landscape shots tricky.
That seems strange, long focal length lenses with relatively small aperture don't usually suffer from field curvature, it's more of a problem with shorter and faster lenses.
Having said that, I do have trouble focusing my AI 400/5.6 ED accurately. There have been cases where no matter how hard I try - even using live focusing - I simply can't seem to get a truly sharp image. I sometimes wonder if my copy is a little soft. But it was definitely sharper than the Tokina 400/5.6 I had before that.
-
That seems strange, long focal length lenses with relatively small aperture don't usually suffer from field curvature, it's more of a problem with shorter and faster lenses.
Having said that, I do have trouble focusing my AI 400/5.6 ED accurately. There have been cases where no matter how hard I try - even using live focusing - I simply can't seem to get a truly sharp image. I sometimes wonder if my copy is a little soft. But it was definitely sharper than the Tokina 400/5.6 I had before that.
My sample was sharp in the central area, so it was very satisfactory to capture the full moon, for example.
Compared to the 6E5G design of Ai(s) 300/4.5, the 5E3G design of 400/5.6ED looks a bit too simple. Perhaps there was a bit of compromise in the correction of the field curvature for the correction of the chromatic aberration? The Film should be more tolerant of the field curvature than the image sensor, and the narrower angle-of-view of 400mm could mitigate the issue.
-
ED elements need sometimes considerable time to adjust to a changed temperature. I have encountered this issue with the Nikkors 300mm f/4.5 ED (non-IF), 400mm f/3.5 ED-IF, 400mm f/5.6 ED (non-IF), and the Zoom-Nikkors 200-400mm f/4 ED (non-IF) and 360-1200mm f/11 ED (non-IF). Until they have 'acclimatised' properly, on occasion no convincingly sharp images could be obtained.
I have used several samples of the Nikkor 400mm f/5.6 ED (non-IF) and all have featured a very flat field, even wide open. My own copy is the 'K' version and it behaves as expected.
-
ED elements need sometimes considerable time to adjust to a changed temperature. I have encountered this issue with the Nikkors 300mm f/4.5 ED (non-IF), 400mm f/3.5 ED-IF, 400mm f/5.6 ED (non-IF), and the Zoom-Nikkors 200-400mm f/4 ED (non-IF) and 360-1200mm f/11 ED (non-IF). Until they have 'acclimatised' properly, on occasion no convincingly sharp images could be obtained.
I have used several samples of the Nikkor 400mm f/5.6 ED (non-IF) and all have featured a very flat field, even wide open. My own copy is the 'K' version and it behaves as expected.
Birna, you may be right. My post on March 29, 2021 shows great image quality for the distant scene. At that season of the year, the temperature of the inside of my place and that of the outside are not too different.
Then I sensed a pronounced field curvature in the image of, ironically, the same scene in July 8, 2022 when the temperature of the well air-conditioned room and that of the outside could have been quite different at least by around 10 degrees.
I think I made a big mistake by selling it... :o :o
-
I just noticed on another site that collector Richard de Stoutz got one of these, and noted how few there were in the second serial number run. It appears that there were two separate series of these (and not many of either), and I'm wondering if anyone knows whether there was a difference between the two, or why there was a serial number gap. Mine appears to be the 70th to last of them. In an older post I seem to have read the number of these as something around 10 thousand, but now it appears that there were 855 overall. Could they really have made that few?
-
I just noticed on another site that collector Richard de Stoutz got one of these, and noted how few there were in the second serial number run. It appears that there were two separate series of these (and not many of either), and I'm wondering if anyone knows whether there was a difference between the two, or why there was a serial number gap. Mine appears to be the 70th to last of them. In an older post I seem to have read the number of these as something around 10 thousand, but now it appears that there were 855 overall. Could they really have made that few?
We may want to wait for Roland to chime in...
-
The first batch wasn't labelled *ED. Just PC-Auto.
Apparently all versions total just around 4000 units.
-
That would make sense, but if so then Roland Vink's count is off, because of the two I've found on-line pictures of, one with a serial number of 261,087 falls in the earlier group but definitely is labelled "ED." Not, I suppose, that it really matters, but it's cold outside so I'm wasting some time. :)
-
I think Matthew is referring to the two serial number ranges for the AI version of the 400/5.6*ED lens.
The lens made its first appearance as a prototype, I think at photokina in 1971 or 72. This was marked as "NIKKOR-P Auto 1:5.6 f=400mm". Note that is was not a "P·C" lens so is not multicoated. It also lacks any "*ED" marking but the literature mentions special glass with fluorite-like properties. In other words, ED glass. At this point Nikon had not yet developed its own ED glass, the preset Nikkor-H 300/3.8 from the same year used ED glass from Schott, so it is likely the same glass was used for the 400mm lens.
This lens made it to market in early 1973 as the "NIKKOR-P·C" Auto 1:5.6 f=400mm". The "P·C" engraving indicates that this lens is multicoated, and by that time Nikon had probably developed its own ED glass for this lens. Nikon hadn't yet indicated the new glass on the lens so it does not have the *ED marking or gold band. At the time, this was a very advanced lens, a powerful yet compact telephoto with special coatings and glass.
In 1975 the cosmetics were upgraded to give it a new modern look. This is the K or "New Nikkor" version. I suspect optically and mechanically the lens is substantially the same as the previous version. The optical diagrams for both versions look identical and both accept the same AI conversion ring.
Production of the K version continued to 1977 and Nikon state the series ended at number 261177. They must have had a lot of parts which hadn't been used for the K version which they used for the AI version because the AI serial number starts directly where the K finishes, at number 261178. This is unusual, most other lenses are given a new serial number in the transition from K to AI. This series continues to a high of at least 261634, a total of 457 units. It's only at this point where the AI lenses are given a new "AI" serial number starting at 270001 and continuing to at least 270398 for another 400 units. Except for the new serial numbers, there is no difference that I can see between the early and late series.
Regarding the post saying 10000 were made, if one ignores the gap between the 26xxxx and 27xxxx series then it could look like there are 10000 in the range, but it really is much less common than that. Or the post was confused with the AI and AIS IF-ED version, of which around 11700 were made in total.
-
1973 - so 50 years old this year. I’m fortunate to have one, and love to use it hand held because it is so light, but not an easy lens to focus on objects in motion!
-
It's a great lens. I am lucky to have an Ai'd K version sample.
First one also posted in Daily March 2023 On the Z9
The last one was with the Nikon D850
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10638.0;attach=57168;image)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10654.0;attach=57171;image)
-
Wow, these pics are really sharp. Thanks for sharing John. Got to take my lens out more often especially now that I have the Nikon Z5, which with IBIS will help my shaky hands with that old 400 5.6 lens. Regards Gerry
-
How much better is it compared to the ‘IF’ version?
-
Wow, these pics are really sharp. Thanks for sharing John. Got to take my lens out more often especially now that I have the Nikon Z5, which with IBIS will help my shaky hands with that old 400 5.6 lens. Regards Gerry
Thanks Gerry. Focus on D850 and Z camera's is easy now. The lens is not so difficult to get in focus.
Posted Earlier in Daily March 2023
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10638.0;attach=57153;image)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10638.0;attach=57197;image)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10638.0;attach=57188;image)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10503.0;attach=57181;image)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10638.0;attach=57178;image)
-
I haven't been using mine much these days (the 200-500 is so handy and the VR is so good), but I found that, although the focus travel makes action shots difficult, it also makes it pretty easy to nail focus when you have time. Also that, although the lack of close focus is a nuisance, it gets along well with an extension ring, and a short one makes it ideal for staking out a bird's nest and such.
I probably already posted this at some point, but here's a slide from long ago, taken through a window, with Nikon F, 400/5.6 and a short extension.
-
Pigeons
D850 400mm f/5.6
-
You mean black-headed gulls imitating pigeons. ;D
-
You mean black-headed gulls imitating pigeons. ;D
Cheap actors! ;)
-
Cheap actors! ;)
Looking at their perch it seems be a long running show.
-
Hmm... the thread seems to be turning into my regret of selling 400/5.6 thread...
-
Hmm... the thread seems to be turning into my regret of selling 400/5.6 thread...
Would this take your fancy? ;-)
https://page.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/u1080459209
-
Akira:
These things happen, you know :)
Can be avoided either by never selling stuff, or never regretting earlier decisions to sell.... If the latter, at least don't show the tears of regret ...
-
Would this take your fancy? ;-)
https://page.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/u1080459209
Good or bad, the auction has been closed... :)
Akira:
These things happen, you know :)
Can be avoided either by never selling stuff, or never regretting earlier decisions to sell.... If the latter, at least don't show the tears of regret ...
Oh, Birna, please don't take it too seriously. Although I have good memories of all the cameras and lenses I bought over the years, I haven't regreted overly about the ones I've parted with. I just don't like things accumulating around me, although I appreciate the Merzbau concept by Kurt Schwitters. :)
I just enjoy the images shot with this venerable lens and posted by other folks!
-
Just teasing, Akira :)
-
from inspecting the innards of your flat at Sørumsand I can infer that you are not worried about the cumulative effects of not selling.
p.
-
Good or bad, the auction has been closed... :)
I bought it! Almost on a whim. Not delivered yet, but if it turns out to be as ‘good’ as the description I’d be happy to pass it on for the price I paid :-)
-
I bought it! Almost on a whim. Not delivered yet, but if it turns out to be as ‘good’ as the description I’d be happy to pass it on for the price I paid :-)
Good for you! Hope you enjoy it. You would need to get used to its handling, but you will be rewarded by the image it offers.
-
Damn!
So I bought an AI converted PC Auto on Yahoo Auctions, and although the description stated ‘Considering its age, it maintains a good appearance. There is no noticeable damage to the mount, and it is generally in a beautiful state.’, the bayonet is clearly damaged.
Pardon my own terrible photos, but ironically the bent part of the bayonet is more clearly visible on the photo included in the auction listing! (Third image). I didn’t notice the buckling, or I wouldn’t have bought it …
Here’s the thing … The lens attaches easily and smoothly to an FTZ adapter, and it seems to function without issue. However, how serious is this buckling of part of the bayonet? Is it going to damage an FTZ, or have any other negative results? In short, should I complain and return it for a refund, or live with it?
-
Is the bent part the end of the light baffle? So long as it doesn't interfere with the adapter mechanically, or you don't feel any mechanical resistance or friction when you mount the lens to the adapter, it won't cause any problem.
The entire barrel looks reasonably clean. If the optics is free from any potential problem (haze, fungus, scratch, etc.), then you would be able to live with the lens depend on the price you paid for it.
-
Sorry for the lack of clarity! I circled the damaged part on this image.
Indeed, it’s the baffle, not the bayonet itself which is damaged.
The weather today is too gloomy to be able to test the lens in any meaningful way, but operationally it seems OK. Optically it’s very clear.
I paid the asking price of ¥33,800 (about $260), so I guess I need to ask myself if I am Ok with a slightly grungy item.
-
Sorry for the lack of clarity! I circled the damaged part on this image.
Indeed, it’s the baffle, not the bayonet itself which is damaged.
The weather today is too gloomy to be able to test the lens in any meaningful way, but operationally it seems OK. Optically it’s very clear.
I paid the asking price of ¥33,800 (about $260), so I guess I need to ask myself if I am Ok with a slightly grungy item.
The price seems to be reasonable, if it works fine. My sample was 44,000 JPY. I saw the one with the "golden ring" sold for 77,000 JPY at Katsumido which I think is the Ginza price.
-
I don't think I'd worry about the damage, but make really really sure that the tiny little setscrew in the mount, about 180 degrees from the top center of the lens, is still present. This little screw prevents the lens from being accidentally over-rotated the wrong way. When I got mine, this screw was missing. Fortunately I had mounted it on a Nikon F whose back could be removed. If you over-rotate, it goes past the aperture lever of the camera and can't be gotten off without either getting behind it, taking something apart, or causing damage. One of my old Nikon F's showed signs of this having happened before I got it, because the aperture lever was bent, but I don't think newer ones are made of nice malleable brass. I mention this because I'm imagining that such a jam could cause damage to that neighboring light baffle.
The ones on the gold band AI are actually a little different and very thick. I think they'd break before they bend. Placed a little differently too, because the one nearest the setscrew is the max aperture post.
-
I don't think I'd worry about the damage, but make really really sure that the tiny little setscrew in the mount, about 180 degrees from the top center of the lens, is still present. This little screw prevents the lens from being accidentally over-rotated the wrong way. When I got mine, this screw was missing. Fortunately I had mounted it on a Nikon F whose back could be removed. If you over-rotate, it goes past the aperture lever of the camera and can't be gotten off without either getting behind it, taking something apart, or causing damage. One of my old Nikon F's showed signs of this having happened before I got it, because the aperture lever was bent, but I don't think newer ones are made of nice malleable brass. I mention this because I'm imagining that such a jam could cause damage to that neighboring light baffle.
The ones on the gold band AI are actually a little different and very thick. I think they'd break before they bend. Placed a little differently too, because the one nearest the setscrew is the max aperture post.
Thanks for the heads up. Set screw checked, and at first I was worried as I couldn’t see it - but after a little probing I found it hiding under 50 years of filth.
-
Sorry for the lack of clarity! I circled the damaged part on this image.
That tiny bend in the rear baffle will not interfere with the lens performance in any way. Use the lens without any concerns and enjoy taking pictures with it :)
-
Good to hear it is optically all right, Richard
Forsthia in bloom now. On the D850 - wide open, handheld
-
Handheld on a DSLR! And a high MP one at that!
You have a steadier hand the me!!!!
-
Maybe temporarily remove the rear lens stray light baffle and repaint it with Humbrol mat black paint (No.33). It will hide the worn areas and will have the baffle looking like new.
Link: https://uk.airfix.com/products/no-33-black-matt-tinlet-no-1-14ml-aa0360
That tiny bend in the rear baffle will not interfere with the lens performance in any way. Use the lens without any concerns and enjoy taking pictures with it :)
-
Maybe temporarily remove the rear lens stray light baffle and repaint it with Humbrol mat black paint (No.33). It will hide the worn areas and will have the baffle looking like new.
Link: https://uk.airfix.com/products/no-33-black-matt-tinlet-no-1-14ml-aa0360
I’ll do that, if the baffle is easy to remove. Can’t find any relevant ‘repair’ instructions online though.
-
Usually the baffle is retained by three small screws (around M1.4 size). Occasionally you may have to also remove the anti rotation screw mentioned by Matthew Currie. Usually the baffle will then come straight out, but with some lenses you will need to very carefully wiggle and manouvere the baffle out around the aperture stop down lever.
I’ll do that, if the baffle is easy to remove. Can’t find any relevant ‘repair’ instructions online though.
-
In! But the bayonet screws were held by the jaws of the devil …
Horrendously filthy, but I was easily able to bend the baffle into shape with pliers. Now I need to source suitable Matt black paint in Japan.
I noticed some stubborn spots on the rear element I couldn’t clean well without further dismantlement. Hunted around, but couldn’t find any repair guides for this, or similar lenses. I imagine it would be quite easy though, as all the set screws and retaining rings seem clearly visible - with the caveat that the original glue/resin is stubborn as hell, plus a heck of a lot of grime.
The lens has had a LOT of use!
-
It was very soothing to crack open the toolbox after a long dormant time, even though my workspace is shared with fermenting sauerkraut.
-
A good hobby shop that supplies paint to those folks that assemble plastic kits (ships, planes, cars etc) should have similar mat black paint to the Humbrol product.
...........................................
Now I need to source suitable Matt black paint in Japan.
..........................................
-
The bluebirds never left this winter, and are busily nesting already, perhaps to get a jump on the competitive tree swallows. Anyway, I figured it's a good time to break out the old 400. Here's a crop, 400/5.6 AI, F8, ISO 640, Nikon D7100.
-
Gosh, it's hard to focus! The overcast weather didn't help.
Should you ever need to clean the optics, it's easily done as you long are ready to handle some large and heavy hunks of glass. Amazingly 'simple' design.
-
Looks like you nailed the focus what camera did you use? This is one sharp lens, the detail in the feathers is awesome. Regards Gerry
-
Z6ii.
I think the problem was the weather conditions - dull doesn’t even come close to describing it. The EVF view was dull too, whereas on the same day with the reflex 500mm the EVF was brighter.
-
I love my version of the 400mm f/5.6 P.C. Nikkor - I have started using mine for astrophotography! Turns out have a slightly stiff focus is a really good thing as it stays where you set it.
taken with my DF at ISO 800, ten 45 second photos stacked
second one is the Orion Nebula - again with the awesome 400 f/5.6 P.C. nikkor!
Art
-
Good tracking! Very nice head for the purpose.
-
I am also planning to use my 400mm f5.6 PC AI Nikkor with a Z6 for astro photography.
My copy of the 400mm is fine but I recently tried to get it serviced anyway.
FixationUK said they don't do manual lenses anymore (in the past they serviced my old manual lenses).
Nikon UK also said they can't.
Wondering if anyone knows where to get the 400mm lens serviced in the Uk.
-
I am also planning to use my 400mm f5.6 PC AI Nikkor with a Z6 for astro photography.
My copy of the 400mm is fine but I recently tried to get it serviced anyway.
FixationUK said they don't do manual lenses anymore (in the past they serviced my old manual lenses).
Nikon UK also said they can't.
Wondering if anyone knows where to get the 400mm lens serviced in the Uk.
I guess Grays of Westminster, a reputed Nikon shop in London, should know the right repair persons or facilities to repair old MF Nikkors.
-
I guess Grays of Westminster, a reputed Nikon shop in London, should know the right repair persons or facilities to repair old MF Nikkors.
I guess I can ask them but not sure if they would tell me who they use.
I once bought a mint F2AS from them - to find later that it was actually serviced and renovated prior to sale by Sover Wong - who sent me images when I asked him by the serial number. From that time, I am a bit wary of buying used from Grays.
-
If Greys of Westminster had the camera serviced by Sover Wong, that is a good thing. He's probably the best person to service F2 cameras in the universe. It would be worth asking them if they know who can service manual lenses.