I've fallen for manual focus lenses and I blame all of you!

[gryphon1911]

Got out at lunch today and was able to run the Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS...FINALLY!!  Such a pleasure of a lens to use.  I had the Olympus PEN-F with me today, so the Nikon with a Fotodiox Nikon to m43 adapter.  Shot between f/2.8 and f/8.    Mostly with f/4 because of the bright sun today.

[Matthew Currie]

The ancient 200/F4 Q remains an ongoing mystery to me.  I have this clunker of a lens, stiff focus, banged up, clumsily AI-ed with what looks like a hammer and chisel.  Even with ridiculously long extensions, it remains one of the easiest lenses I've ever had to focus manually, easy to hand hold.  It may not be state of the art sharp, but I think they coated the glass with some secret sauce.  Here's a shot straight out of the camera,  68 mm. extension tubes, D7100, hand held at ISO 400 (EXIF says it's a 55/3.5 because I forgot to change) - no sharpening, no nothing, just downsized to JPG.   

[Bent Hjarbo]

The ancient 200/F4 Q remains an ongoing mystery to me.  I have this clunker of a lens, stiff focus, banged up, clumsily AI-ed with what looks like a hammer and chisel.  Even with ridiculously long extensions, it remains one of the easiest lenses I've ever had to focus manually, easy to hand hold.  It may not be state of the art sharp, but I think they coated the glass with some secret sauce.  Here's a shot straight out of the camera,  68 mm. extension tubes, D7100, hand held at ISO 400 (EXIF says it's a 55/3.5 because I forgot to change) - no sharpening, no nothing, just downsized to JPG.   

Amassing what those old designs do even today 

[Roland Vink]

The 200/4 Q.C has almost identical optics as the original Nikkor-Q 20cm/4 from 1961. The optics were tweaked in 1967 for improved performance but the design is still essentially the same, the barrel was revised in 1969 (with possibly another minor revision of the optics) and multicoating was added in 1973. The original lens has a rather long focus limit of 3m, maybe because the designers felt it wasn't well optimised for close range, although the limit was reduced to a more useful 2m when the barrel barrel was updated. For a lens which originally only got to 3m, it is amazing how well it does at much closer distances.

[the solitaire]

The 200mm f4 Nikkor-Q and Q.C are indeed among the gems of the MF Nikkors.

Other gems, from short to long, and all just based on my personal experience with MF Nikkors:

16mm f3,5. Mine is a pre-Ai version. The Ai seems to be marginally better

20170903-DSC_7248 by b j, on Flickr

20mm f3,5 Nikkor-UD. I prefer this one over the later Ai and Ai-S versions, and over the f4 and f2,8 lenses Nikon made in this range

20170917-DSC_8172 by b j, on Flickr

35mm f2 Nikkor-O. I wasn't ever pulled towards the 35mm range, until I found this little gem.

20170910-DSC_7674 by b j, on Flickr

55mm f1,2 Nikkor-S.C. Who cares about perfect, measurable sharpness if there is so much to discover in the areas of an image that are not in focus?

DSC_0132-Edit by b j, on Flickr

200mm f4 Nikkor-Q.C. Very usable wide open. So much so, that I hardly ever see the need to stop this baby down

DSC_8207 by b j, on Flickr

The only thing that made me use the above 200mm lens less then I did before is buying another copy of a lens I sold. The 80-200 f4 Ai-S zoom Nikkor. I owned one for 20+ years, and selling it was a big mistake. When I got another copy, I immediately knew why I had missed this lens more then any other lens I ever sold. Ease of use AND excellent results. And as a cherry on the cake, it focuses all the way down to 1,2 meters.

DSC_9571 by b j, on Flickr

With the above kit in my bag, what does that leave to be desired? The 300mm f2,8*ED Ai-S of course!

20170912-DSC_7912 by b j, on Flickr

I do own a few other manual Nikkor lenses, but these are the ones that come along when I go outdoors. Not all of them, but at least 2 or 3

[David H. Hartman]

20mm f3,5 Nikkor-UD. I prefer this one over the later Ai and Ai-S versions

Your photograph could have been greatly strengthened by stepping forward about 3 meters to the Buick Special or backward about 3 meters to the Chrysler 300.  Sometimes life is unkind.

Dave Hartman

I remember the 20/3.5 UD Nikkor fondly.

[the solitaire]

David, you might have been right there, but I used different lenses to portrait the Buick and Chrysler because I thought the strengths in their designs were not made for the fish eye effect

[David H. Hartman]

    

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

I gave up on the 20/2.8 AFD (ugly plastic fantastic, poor handling) and took the alternative route with the 20/2.8 AIS instead. The new 20/1.8 AFS is very sharp, but like many of its contemporary siblings, in dire lack of charm and smooth handling.

The small 20/3.5 AI/AIS is excellent for close-ups but not my first choice for more distant subjects as the corners aren't very convincing before f/11 or so, at which point the entire image starts to fall apart. The 20/2.8 output has a nice overall feel to it, but once again, maybe not the candidate for distant landscapes.

I have not tried the Nikkor 20mm 3.5 AI/AIS.

However, I have the Nikkor 20mm 2.8 AIS and the Nikkor 20mm 1.8G ED AF-S. The AF-S version is better in the periphery, otherwise these two are largely equal. The superiority of the AF-S version is visible but not dramatic, so on the whole I have found that the AIS version holds up very well.

If used on a digital body, I will recommend the 20mm 1.8 AF-S since it is optically better and has AF.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Coatings/reflections are always nice to look at,,, shot by JA! Thanks 

26822992335_c22743d8db_o by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr

I would be very careful not to drop that one onto the gravel.

[Erik Lund]

Believe me - we where very careful,,,  Photo by Jan Anne 

Erik02 by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Believe me - we where very careful,,,  Photo by Jan Anne 

Yes, we can see that

[gryphon1911]

Was able to get out and use the Nikkor 135mm f/3.5 Q today.   Wanted to get some test shots for a review I am working on:
Various apertures from f/3.5 - f/8.   Performed well on the Df, but that will not be a surprise to most.

[pluton]

Performance looks decent as I interpret these results.  Similar to other Nikon 135's, like my 135/3.5 Ai, 135/2.8 Ais, and 135/2 Ais.  Don't ask why I have all of these!  I still want the older 135/2.8 K/Ai, just because it looks so cool.

[David H. Hartman]

Performance looks decent as I interpret these results.  Similar to other Nikon 135's, like my 135/3.5 Ai, 135/2.8 Ais, and 135/2 Ais.  Don't ask why I have all of these!  I still want the older 135/2.8 K/Ai, just because it looks so cool.

I own a 135/2.8 AIS NIKKOR with the latest Super IC coatings and consider it an exelent lens. I also own a 135/3.5 AI and it turns in a fine performance at f/5.6. I also own a 135/3.5 Nikkor-Q with single coating primarily for nostalgic reasons. I can recommend all of these, the Nikkor-Q would be for a vintage look.

Dave who is being paged by a cockatoo.