Ai and K Nikkors 400mm f5.6 ED "non-IF"

[Akira]

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.

[John Geerts]

You are still using this lens, Akira?

[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.

[John Geerts]

That was bad luck with your previous sample I guess.  The AIS 300/4.5 non-ED must be pretty good too, I think?

[Akira]

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!

[Roland Vink]

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.

[Akira]

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.

[Birna Rørslett]

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.

[Akira]

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...   

[Matthew Currie]

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?

[Akira]

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...

[Birna Rørslett]

The first batch wasn't labelled *ED. Just PC-Auto.

Apparently all versions total just around 4000 units.

[Matthew Currie]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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.

[Jack Dahlgren]

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!