Nikon world

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi folks

 

A used equipment dealer near me has recently got hold of something approaching a set of older Nikon AI and AIS lenses. They have 24, 28, 50, 85 and 135mm types, mainly around 2.8. A 35mm is conspicuously missing, as is something around 100mm, but they do exist (or is there a 105? I can't recall).

 

These are quite commonly used by ultra-low-budget stuff, frankly because they range from £50 to £150 apiece. I had considered springing for a set of four and using them with (cheaply available) adaptors to Canon EF. They have manual focus and iris and could, presumably, be used with some sort of clamp-on follow focus accessory.

 

They are presumably terrible - they can't possibly be any good at the price, but it would occasionally be nice to own something. I shot some stuff last year with a Blackmagic 4K camera on if-I-remember-correctly something like these and didn't see anything so wrong with them as to make the results unwatchable. I assume they won't match at all and probably are best considered one or two stops slower than the maximum aperture they actually advertise.

 

Does anyone have any experience to hand down?

 

P

[Aapo Lettinen]

I have a 105mm F2.5 .there is also other versions of it.

 

They are usually optically quite good lenses, I use them for 4k shooting with gh4, sony fs7 and bmpc4k. You have to stop down one or one and half stop to get rid of chromatic aberrations. Make sure that they are mechanically sound, there is often some play on the focus ring which can make movie use difficult. I have mostly the 2.0 versions which are a bit newer. Make sure they are not e-series stuff which are plastic body lenses and a bit cheaper glass

[Satsuki Murashige]

Yes, optically they are quite nice. There's a bit of chromatic aberration, distortion, veiling glare, and some softness wide open but those actually make for a more interesting image in my opinion. Definitely add a 35mm and a 20mm. The build quality is not quite as nice as Contax or Pentax, the focus ring is not as buttery smooth. As I recall, there is also a 60mm macro that is quite good. You'll probably lose a 1/2 stop at most due to f stop/T stop discrepancy.

 

If you go the adapter route, have a look at Leitax in Spain. They make hard mount adapters that physically screw onto the back of the lens for a very secure fit. This will eliminate play in the mount, but it won't get rid of any image shift inherent to the lens.

[rob spence]

There are good reviews on Nikon lenses here:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

[Phil Rhodes]

Yes, Ken's site is very handy. I did notice some general rattliness in the lenses on offer, and one of them had oil on the iris blades. I'm not sure how big a deal that is.

 

The usual approach seems to be to purchase one low-cost adaptor per lens and keep them permanently mounted, but the Spanish solution seems interesting.

 

I have a lathe. I need to find a source of large-diameter delrin gears!

 

P

[Satsuki Murashige]

Avoid buying any lenses with oil leaking onto the iris blades, it will find its way onto the internal glass elements.

[Stuart Brereton]

Some of these old lenses are relatively easy to strip down and clean, as long as you have a steady hand (and nerves of steel), so oil on the aperture blades is not necessarily a deal breaker. Soaking the iris assembly in lighter fluid overnight will clean the oil off.

 

For that kind of money, you could always consider the Asahi Takumar M42 lenses. They date from the late 60s and early 70s. Lovely build quality and images. They focus 'backwards', but then again, so do Nikons. I have a set of them, collected gradually from eBay. i have a 35/2, 50/1.4, 55/1.8, 85/1.9, 105/2.8, 135/2.5, 150/4 and a 200/4. i don't have the 28mm because it's a f3.5, instead I have a Vivitar 28/2.8. A Fotodiox M42 to EF mount adapter is about $15, or $30 if you want the dandelion chip.

[Phil Rhodes]

Well, quite, I wouldn't hesitate to dive into a prime.

 

Ideally one would have a projector to line it all up again, but... I suspect these sorts of things were never individually trimmed when they were first built.

 

And the adaptors are... well, it's a $1=£1 thing, of course. Grrngh.

 

P

[Stuart Brereton]

I've yet to see a vintage stills lens that focuses where the focus ring says it should, but as long as you reset infinity focus when you rebuild it, you should have no problems. My set cost less than $1000, and with the exception of the 50mm, which is decidedly warm because of thorium elements, they all match pretty well.

[Phil Rhodes]

Is this something you ever manage to charge for?

 

I'm not expecting to do so, for the sake of full disclosure.

 

As to the focus marks, as far as I know more or less all lenses, even at the highest of high ends, are individually characterised for distance marks, in a long room with a projector. This is certainly true of, say, Cooke. Possibly the German stuff, the Schneiders of the world, are machined with sufficiently microscopic tolerances to allow the distance markings and the position of the glass to be held to the appropriate relationship with absolute predictability, but I'm not sure.

 

Strikes me there's nothing stopping anyone running such a characterisation on any lens, subject to its own mechanical repeatability.

 

P

[Stuart Brereton]

Charge for them? God no. That's why I didn't spend huge amounts on them. They are strictly for personal projects.

[Phil Rhodes]

Oh, well. One man's personal-project toy is another man's longed-for ideal.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Accurate back focus is actually one of the benefits of the Leitax mounts in my experience. I've used Fotodiox adapters for my Pentax glass and they always end up focusing past infinity. Of course, some lenses were designed that way for various reasons, but my lenses were not. When I put the Leitax mounts on my Contax glass, they all hit infinity focus perfectly at their end stop. I have no financial ties to them by the way, I'm just a happy customer.

 

I was able to charge $100/day for my small Contax set (35,50,85,135) plus a 24mm Sigma macro thrown in. But I have also brought them on for free when there wasn't the budget.

[Stuart Brereton]

Oh, well. One man's personal-project toy is another man's longed-for ideal.

Phil, they're not a toy project. I like these lenses a lot, and I wish i could use them more, but the fact is that any project that is small enough to want my stills lenses is also small enough to not want to pay for them.

[Stuart Brereton]

I've used Fotodiox adapters for my Pentax glass and they always end up focusing past infinity.

My Pentax glass all focuses at infinity. No problem there. It's all the other marked distances that are inaccurate. Not really a problem for stills photographers who focus by eye.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

I have some N-Ai lenses (before they added the little notch), which are really nice. The 35 1.4 did ghost a bit beyond 2. The other great thing is that they're cheap to get professionally serviced, should you decide to have a camera shop do it for you. Their ubiquity means a lot of techs know them.

 

My one issue is they focus the "wrong" way. And they're not all telecentric. Otherwise they're a great set of lenses to own at a low price of entry. I agree wth Satsuki on the Leitax. Redrock makes a decent bolt-on adapter too.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Kenny N Suleimanagich

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I still often use my Nikons. In face, my E Series 50 F1.8 is one of my favs. I also am lucky enough to have the 60 Macro 2.8. I personally like the E Series, as they are cheap enough not to really worry about; but yes, I do get rates for them on occasion.

The reversed focus is; well, just something you adjust to pretty quickly.

[Phil Rhodes]

The problem I'd have is that I'd feel the need to get some sort of radio remote focus, which isolates one from most of the indignities of stills lenses. Unfortunately, that's another £5k.

 

And no, nobody pays for lenses here!

 

Going past infinity is, I suspect, not so much a problem as failure to reach it.

 

P

[Aapo Lettinen]

I would only buy the very well working ones, if some of them have oil or mechanical problems just don't buy the problematic ones. These lenses are so common that you can pick them from ebay very easily in great condition and reasonable price, so you can substitute the missing or badly working ones very easily

[Phil Rhodes]

Well, quite.

[Satsuki Murashige]

The problem I'd have is that I'd feel the need to get some sort of radio remote focus, which isolates one from most of the indignities of stills lenses. Unfortunately, that's another £5k.

 

Or just design shots that require a minimum of focus pulling. You can't be expected to provide everything if there's no budget.

[Phil Rhodes]

Oh, but I can.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

Lol, how did I know you'd jump on that sentence instead of the other one... ?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I mean; the other option if you're looking for something Cheap, Rokinon Cine lenses are super cheap even new, and while not the best thing since sliced bread aren't bad lenses in and of themselves-- plus can get them native EOS and in theory use a remote FF on them-- then again; that is another 5K.

[Phil Rhodes]

The nice thing about Nikon is that it's an even deeper mount than EF, so they can be adapted to more or less anything.

 

My philosophy - get cameras with shallow mounts and lenses with deep mounts, then you can put anything on anything.

 

Idle musing: use AVR dev board, Nordic RF radio modem and robotics servo to make remote focus for about $50 in parts.

 

And weeks in time.

 

P