Old School Nikon Primes

[John Koerner]

How could I forget to mention the 105/2.5....

I tend to use the Leica mount version more than the F-Mount version...

Nice lens collection, sir, and interesting ... thanks.

My definition of "Old School" tends to be anything pre-1960.

Would have to disagree ...

You're confusing old school with just plain old.

Old = chronological age.
Old School = modern item with elder design.

Most modern lenses are electronically-driven ... so a modern lens, with ZERO electronic gadgetry = "old school" design, as in the old days

The Nikkor-P 10.5cm F2.5 (Sonnar original) version was designed to be under-corrected for spherical aberration, ie smooth Bokeh. The rangefinder version has a rounded aperture using 10 blades, the F-Mount version has less blades. The optical formula changed in the early 70s.

Interesting, thank you.

I can tell I have a lot to learn 

The F-Mount Ai version is back row, to the right. These can be bought for under $150.
The 200mm F4 Ai and Ais lenses are compact, and can be found for $100 or so. Some threads just started on them. Some samples here:

Wow

Very good lenses for a few hundred ... maybe I'd better spend some more time on eBay

Thanks for the photos and input,

Jack

[John Koerner]

Thats because Canon dropped the FD mount for the EF mount in 1987 rendering all the manual focus FD lenses useless, until the mirrorless cameras appeared that is

I see.

Doesn't sound like a very good decision.

[John Koerner]

Canon made the 50/1.2 and the 50/1.2 L (asph), analogous to the Nikkor 50/1.2 and Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2. The high-end lenses used aspheric optics.

With the Canon - the Red L and Red ring as shown in the link are the identifiers to look for.

According to Ken Rockwell, the Canon 50mm f/2 was superior to anything of its time

What a shame they trashed their whole system.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Sources on the Internet need to be reliable before you can trust them.

[null]

According to Ken Rockwell, the Canon 50mm f/2 was superior to anything of its time

What a shame they trashed their whole system.

Canon has a history of making their SLR mount systems obsolete- from the first R series lenses up through FL and FD. Three lens systems in a little over 10 years. Their optics are first rate, played a come-from-behind game with Nikon. Canon's first cameras were sold with Nikkor lenses, when they came out with their own lenses- took years to catch up. They were first out with an F1.2 lens ~1956, and an F0.95 lens in 1961. I have a number of Canon lenses going back to the early 1950s in Leica mount.

When Nikon came out with the F-Mount, they sold an adapter to use the RF telephoto lenses with it. I've used a 1952 Nikkor 25cm F4 lens on the Df.

[Jan Anne]

Doesn't sound like a very good decision.

It was a mixed bag, it allowed Canon to start fresh with a fully digital mount, electronically controlled aperture and lenses with built in AF motors while Nikon was limited by the old mount with the screw driver AF, mechanical aperture, etc for many years (if not decades).

That said it must have been quite a shock to the Canon users back then that the value of their lens investment evaporated into thin air

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I can use Nikkors from the late '50s on my Df. Even earlier S-mount long lenses through the NF tube. That is why the decision to keep the basic F-mount was so compelling. It is highly likely Nikon engineers really want the contemporary and future Nikkors to become all "E", but they have the lens volume of close to 100 million existing Nikkors to take into account as well. Thus the "E" technology only slowly seeps into the current lens range and pro Nikons will probably continue to support the older interfaces for a very long time to come.

Also note that Canon optics have evolved and backwards compatibility against a fixed layout mount can cause issues for them over time. The width of the mount is not as important as people think because all of it cannot be used due to the positioning of the signal pins. Look into a Canon DSLR and see the true free space where the mirror works  is hardly any bigger than what most Nikons offer. They do have that coveted "E" interface though, but that limits the use of some lenses for very specific purposes (reversal of lens, mounting on non-automated bellows etc.).

Thus there are pros and cons for either system. But the Nikkor wins on backwards compatibility if nothing else.

[John Koerner]

Sources on the Internet need to be reliable before you can trust them.

LOL, understood.

[John Koerner]

Canon has a history of making their SLR mount systems obsolete- from the first R series lenses up through FL and FD. Three lens systems in a little over 10 years. Their optics are first rate, played a come-from-behind game with Nikon. Canon's first cameras were sold with Nikkor lenses, when they came out with their own lenses- took years to catch up. They were first out with an F1.2 lens ~1956, and an F0.95 lens in 1961. I have a number of Canon lenses going back to the early 1950s in Leica mount.

It seems almost criminal to render customers' lens investments obsolete overnight.

No wonder long-time Nikon fans are loyal ... their lens investments over the years have accumulated, rather than become obsolete 

[John Koerner]

It was a mixed bag, it allowed Canon to start fresh with a fully digital mount, electronically controlled aperture and lenses with built in AF motors while Nikon was limited by the old mount with the screw driver AF, mechanical aperture, etc for many years (if not decades).

That said it must have been quite a shock to the Canon users back then that the value of their lens investment evaporated into thin air

It certainly wasn't very considerate of Canon ... if not outright rude ... to render an old lens compilation obsolete.

Looks like maybe it's a case of "the tortoise and the hare" ... those who invested in Nikon lenses decades ago can still use them.

Equally fascinating is the fact Nikon is still making completely-manual lenses. I couldn't help but simply buy them. I think this is great.

[John Koerner]

I can use Nikkors from the late '50s on my Df. Even earlier S-mount long lenses through the NF tube. That is why the decision to keep the basic F-mount was so compelling. It is highly likely Nikon engineers really want the contemporary and future Nikkors to become all "E", but they have the lens volume of close to 100 million existing Nikkors to take into account as well. Thus the "E" technology only slowly seeps into the current lens range and pro Nikons will probably continue to support the older interfaces for a very long time to come.

Also note that Canon optics have evolved and backwards compatibility against a fixed layout mount can cause issues for them over time. The width of the mount is not as important as people think because all of it cannot be used due to the positioning of the signal pins. Look into a Canon DSLR and see the true free space where the mirror works  is hardly any bigger than what most Nikons offer. They do have that coveted "E" interface though, but that limits the use of some lenses for very specific purposes (reversal of lens, mounting on non-automated bellows etc.).

Thus there are pros and cons for either system. But the Nikkor wins on backwards compatibility if nothing else.

Again, fascinating.

(Pardon my very naïve perspective, but I am brand new to this system).

Only had a few years with Canon as well, but certainly understand the Nikon loyalists' perspective a lot clearer now ...

[Hugh_3170]

Of course Sony Alpha a7 Series camera users can be lens brand agnostic and cherry pick the best of breed from the best offerings of virtually all lens producers.  Adapters are a necessary overhead.

That said, it is very good indeed that nearly all Nikon lenses of old can in the main be used with the latest camera bodies. 

[Matthew Currie]

Let us not forget too that if you can do without metering, the low end Nikon DX cameras can take almost everything too, including unmodified (or unmodifiable) pre-AI. 

[Hugh_3170]

V ery true in respect of the DX cameras, but it is nice to use the old legacy lenses to their best, which usually means an Ai conversion and ideally adding a CPU chip.

That said, and with a little practice, the exposure histogram of a lower end DX camera (i.e. one with no aperture follower tab)  can still be used to yield accurate exposures with an unconverted lens.  Good to have options.

Such lower end DX cameras can at least still present the green focus dot - unlike many Canon DSLRs, which can handle the exposure side of things with legacy lenses, but give no electronic focus assistance to unchipped lenses.

Let us not forget too that if you can do without metering, the low end Nikon DX cameras can take almost everything too, including unmodified (or unmodifiable) pre-AI.

[Frank Fremerey]

I am in love with the 1.4/35 Ai-S ... again ... find lots of portaits I took with it during the last weeks on this site.

Concerning the 1.2 I am still undecided 50, 55 or 58???

The 2.5/105 is a must have lens but there are the 2.0/105, 1.8/105, 2.8/105 and tons of 105 Micro Nikkors all with
their special character and fan base. No wonder so many people here are infected with collecting and using plenty
of different and sometimes even same Nikkors.

I am more into shooting excessively with the few lenses I have. My philosohy is ... the more I use a lens the more
value I create for me .... if I know her inside out back and forth she is a gem.