Old School Nikon Primes

[Bjørn Rørslett]

At this point in time, may I call for examples of Nikkors that are used for non-photomacrographic applications? I also suggest that further posts of photomacrographs whether of an arachnoid nature or not are moved into a separate thread.

Such a thread is set up here: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3779.0.html

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Following up on my suggestion, here is an old favourite of mine: the 300 mm f/2.8 AIS. I was drawn to its isolation powers and the special delicate 'drawing' of colours typical for the early ED optics. On my large-format cameras at the time I used the 270 mm f/6.3 and 360 mm f/8 ED T-Nikkors and they both showed the same behaviour.

The 300/2.8 also was the first ever lens I had CPU-modified. The D1 functioned better with a CPU-enabled lens, simple as that. There have been 'a few hundred' more since then.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

This is the first digital image by the 300/2.8 I sold in the old days (to a CD cover if I recall correctly). What I distinctly remember though is the complaint from the printers about the deep 'digital' blue colour, apparently the digital world to them was so new they had no adequate colour profile for these cameras and their colour purity. I had to tweak the image to make it 'printable'. Later the printing situation improved as digital technology permeated the market.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Another early 300/2.8 picture that made its way into print.

Vodka and driving combine badly.

[Akira]

Love all these prime colors even on my uncalibrated screen.

Did you shoot all these three images with D1?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

No, only the moving wave reflections. The Iris was with the F4 and the Russian truck with an F5, according to my field notes. I got my first Nikon D1 late in 1999 and very rapidly switched to an all-digital work flow thereafter.

[Akira]

No, only the moving wave reflections. The Iris was with the F4 and the Russian truck with an F5, according to my field notes. I got my first Nikon D1 late in 1999 and very rapidly switched to an all-digital work flow thereafter.

Bjørn, thanks for the details.  I remember your review of D1 in which you proved that even the "lowly" 27MP sensor outperformed Velvia50 by a comfortable margin.

[Roland Vink]

I almost never use extension tubes, as they degrade things rather quickly IMO.

Just reversing a wide-angle on a camera is already adding extension, due to the length of the lens barrel and reversing a retrofocus optic. That's why such high magnifications are obtained ...

[John Koerner]

Just reversing a wide-angle on a camera is already adding extension, due to the length of the lens barrel and reversing a retrofocus optic. That's why such high magnifications are obtained ...

I disagree.

It's not the extension; it's the reverse-magnification that increases the macro magnification.

If I reverse a 50mm lens, and reverse a 20mm lens, the "extension" is the same between lens and sensor, from flipping both lenses over.

By your statement the macro magnification should be the same in both cases ... but that's not the way it turns out

The truth is, the wider the angle of the lens, the more inverse the magnification, which is why the specs are what they are (50mm reversed = 1:1, while 20mm reversed = 3.4:1).

So, back to what I said: reversing a lens isn't much different in "extension," between sensor and lens, from the original orientation of the lens.

The farther you pull the lens away from the sensor, the more degradation IMO (esp. as you increase ISO).

Therefore, getting greater-and-greater magnification through native lens width is a superior manner in which to retain image quality than by using "extenders" (IMO).

Jack

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The question of magnification of a reversed lens relates to focal length not its field of view.

From the equation of the 'thin' lens,

1/u + 1/v = 1/f

where u= front nodal distance (front node plane to subject), v=rear nodal distance (rear node to film plane), f=focal length. For infinity focus v=f.

Magnification of detail is m=v/f-1

Actual extension is e = v-f or v=e+f

When the lens is reversed, so are the conjugate distances, and the optical  extension increases concurrently. Hence the importance of the focal length of the reversed lens.

With regard to the format coverage of the reversed lens, it is actually beneficial to have lenses designated for a smaller format as the stray light input (non-image forming rays) is reduced.

[longzoom]

20130410-012-2 by 20130410-039-2 by longzoom, on Flickrckr.com/photo20131005-013 by longzoom, on Flickrs/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr.   Were taken with old Nikkor 35/2.8 AI.   EXIF is wrong cose I forgot to switch. Anyway, 105mm was 2.8, so, no difference to exposure. They are crops, less or more. THX!  LZ

[tdoan]

A quick question on the subject of old mf :  my GAS is growing more critical and I'm contemplating these

28 f2
28 f2.8
20 2.8

My first choice Would be the 20 2.8 then the 28 2.  but the 28 2.8 got so much love in this thread that it's hard to ignore.  I plan to get them all over time but what should be the order.

Alas, terminal GAS...

[pluton]

Having possessed all three over time, and with the note that I had the 28/2 only on film, I'd stick to your original plan, or if you place a very high value on the absence of distortion, maybe switch the 28/2 to the 28/2.8ais for it's extremely low distortion.

[John Geerts]

It depends on the way of shooting in my opinion. If a general lens and distant scenes are important, I would go for the 28/2.

[pluton]

It depends on the way of shooting in my opinion. If a general lens and distant scenes are important, I would go for the 28/2.

I agree with this.