--
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999
From: "Giorgio Ferrari" [email protected]
Subject: Re: legendary Nikon lenses
I'm on John side, but I think that these lenses are legendary too:
1) 20/f3.5: greta wide angle lens, much better than 20/f2.8;
2) 50/f1.4: one of the best normal lenses of the story;
3) 50-300/f4.5 IF ED: the first zoom with the same quality af simple lenses;
4) 180/f2.8 IF ED: the best telephoto lens.
Cheers,
Giorgio Ferrari
"[email protected]"
From: "Tony and Arlene Sanchez" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikkor Series E 75-150mm f3.5 Zoom Creep
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000
Hello:
The 75-150 and 70-210 Series E (I have or had both) use felt (as in the
cloth) instead of grease to provide friction. I have no idea why Nikon did
this. Even cheap after-market lenses use grease. Good optics, though.
- Tony
From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000
From: Alex Hurst [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nikon F Photomic
>George Landis wrote:
>Even if the meter is working now, it probably won't be for much longer. The
>resistor bands in the old Photomic meters have virtually all failed by now.
>(By the way...is this a FTn, FT, Photomic T or what kind of meter.)
>
>Also, it's very difficult to find 1.35 volt mercury batteries for these
meters
>and the various alternatives (1.5 v batteries, resistors, etc.) aren't very
>good.
>
This certainly doesn't square away with my experience. All my FTn and
DP-1 heads are working fine - that's four of them.
I did have some minor trouble with the FTn head on an otherwise
pristine black F I bought on ebay.This was way out of whack
calibrationwise, but may I commend the services of Robert Decker in
Utah, who overhauled it. It's now working like new and exposure is
spot on.
You can find him at:
http://hometown.aol.com/drwyn/myhomepage/index.html
Very good service, and reasonable prices too.
Interestingly, Robert says the dreaded ceramic resistor doesn't fail
that often - more likely it's dirty and needs cleaning. Apparently
CdS cells are more of a problem.
As far as batteries are concerned, Robert can recalibrate the meter
for 1.5V batteries if that's what you have to use. I have a
lifetime's supply of mercury 1.35Vs tucked away in my fridge - German
make, but I had to buy them via Canada!
Slan
Alex
Alex Hurst
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000
From: Rolland Elliott [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Manual Focus Lenses can be used on F80 via Matrix Chip
Upgrade
Manual Focus Nikkor Lenses can be used on the F80 by
upgrading them with a Matrix Metering CPU. See the
following web pages:
http://www.homestead.com/rolland/
and for frequently asked questions see:
http://www.homestead.com/rolland/FAQ.html
Peace Rolland Elliott
P.S. I won't be buying an F80 because it has IR
sensors to advance the film. What's the point of
buying a camera when you can't use infrared film in
it? Afterall that's what I like to shoot with.
From Nikon Mailing List:
Subject: Re: Macro 3X life size
From: Adriel [email protected]
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999
Sorry, I have no idea about other figures -- I got all that straight from
one of the nikon catalogs -- specifically the one on close up photography
=) ...
Sorry!
AD
__________
Sergei wrote:
> >ps-- With a Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 reversed on the belows fcusing
>attachment PB-6 and
> macro adapter >ring BR-5, you can get from 5:1 to almost 11:1...
> ----------
...
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Excellent primes to get.
....
My current Nikon M-F kit consists of the following, which I developed
after much testing a research. I am also a Leica rangefinder and
Hasselblad user, so I based my choice in Nikkors up against some stiff
competitors.
20/3.5 AIS
24/2.8 AIS
28/2.8 AIS
35/1.4 AIS
35/2.8 PC
55/2.8 Micro AIS
85/2 AIS
105/2.5 AIS
200/4 AIS
75-150 E
Note that all these lenses are late-model AIS which I believe have the
best coatings (hence, contrast and flare suppression). I still have my
original S and SC AI-converted set from the 60's which are sharp (at least
by a couple stops down from max) but overall of a lesser contrast than the
newer lenses.
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000
From: Bjorn Rorslett [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Bad review of Nikon 105 macro in Practical Photo.
Jansen98 wrote:
> I owned a manual 105 micro and it required an extension tube to go to 1:1.
> The newer auto focus versions go to 1:1 without an extension tube.
> Therefore it is definitely NOT the same old lens.
there have been at least 5 major versions of the 105 mm Micro-Nikkors,
starting with the Bellows-Nikkor 105mm f/4 from 1969 that developed in
the 105 mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor (non-AI). Subsequent models were 105 mm f/4
Micro (AI, AIS), 105 mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor (AIS, manual focus, to 1:2 on
its own and to 1:0.88 by the PN-11 tube), UV-Micro-Nikkor 105 mm f/4.5
(AIS), and two versions of the AF Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 (first AF, second
AF-D, both to 1:1). Several of these lenses performed best in the near
range while others were better towards infinity focus. All have
excellent flatness of field, which is one of the key features of a
'macro' lens. In my opinion, the recent AF 105 Micro isn't the best of
the breed (I do know a lot of people would disagree and each is entitled
to his own opinion, my reasons for this is expressed in my web review).
Read about all these and 100+ Nikkors at http://www.foto.no/nikon/
(Select 'Lens Evaluations' -> 'Special Lenses').
Regards
Bjorn Rorslett
Visit http://www.foto.no/nikon/ for UV & IR Colour Photography and other
Adventures in Nature Photography
From Nikon Mailing LIst:
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000
From: Ben Harper [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Cheap lens covers
In an effort to not go broke buying every little geegaw that Nikon
produces to meet our every need, and to attempt to recycle when
possible, I offer the following:
If you want to cover a HN-3 lens shade (35 mm, 43-86) use a plastic
tennis ball can cover.
If you want to cover a HN-12 lens shade for a polarizing filter or a
HB-6 for a 28-70 f3.5-4.5 AF-D, use a Pringles can cover.
If you want to cover a HB-7 for a 80-200 f2/8 AF-D, use a top for a 8
oz. Land-O-Lakes Spread with Light Cream (margarine type spread).
Cheers,
Ben
From: ed romney [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Why Nikon FG's jam
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000
When the battery gets a little weak or the contacts are dirty the camera
will lock up and the shutter will refuse to fire. Not to worry! Cure is
a new battery and to clean the contacts with a scratch brush. Always
keep a new battery, preferably Lithium... with the camera.
What actually happens most times after the FG locks is the customer
takes the camera to a camera store and asks what is wrong. The clerk
says it needs a full overhaul at $100 or more. Then the customer refuses
andthe Nikon FG appears in a yard sale for $25 or so, sometimes even
with a battery of fine Nikon lenses. . These are excellent cameras.
Another thing that can happen to the FG is the owner trys to use it on
Program without first stopping the lens to minimum aperture, like F22.
Then it won't program. So he/she takes it to the camera store and again
is told..."total overhaul.....$125! "
These are typical of many trade secrets of camera repair I have
revealed over the years. This has made the camera retailers spastic with
rage. They deny my books exist. I've had many e-mail requests for help
on FG's which is why I posted this.
For more see
http://www.edromney.com
Ed Romney
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kalimex Ordering
Jerry,
You are, obviously, looking at their 1980 website!
I have a 35mm f/2.8 and a 90mm f/2.8 in Nikon AI mount which I got
from Saul some time ago. Both are really good lenses. I tried out
the massive 300mm f/2.8 and found it pretty darned good but didn't
buy one. There is also a 35mm shift lens, and some others.
They are in Nikon mount because the current Kiev 35mm SLRs have
Nikon mount. I have one, I think it is a Kiev 19-M if memory
serves, that I picked up to play with because it was very cheap.
It is actually a pretty decent picture taker.
Bob
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000
From: "don ferrario" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: two F2s and 2 dead light meters
Your F2 meters *can* be repaired, and quite reasonably at that.
Visit http://hometown.aol.com/drwyn/myhomepage/index.html
and you can read about it. Robert Decker has done work
for me, and has done well.
If your "old F2" lenses are pre-AI, they would have to be
modified to work properly on an FM2. You can get that done at
http://www.aiconversions.com/ . John White has also done
work for me.
don ferrario
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000
From: Dan Slater [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Russian made telephoto lens
> From: Martin Schmelzer [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [NIKON] Russian made telephoto lens
>
> I own the Rubinar 1000 mm lens. Its a reflex lens, but mine is f10 rather
> than f8. Results are ok, if your taking price into account.
>
> But there is one thing you have to know: The rubinar is not a T2, but a
> M42 mount lens. This was not documented right in my manual, but I got a fairly
> discount for this. You need a ring with a glass element to retain infinity
> focus. This glasss element will reduce the quality of your picture. I use
> mine on my Nikons without a glass element in the ring, which gives a great
> macro lens, and got a used Minolta MD body for shooting at longer distances.
>
> If you don't expect fast AF and exeptional quality from this lens, you
> will get a good bargain.
The Russian 1000 mm f10 mirror lens will mount directly to a Nikon
camera if you remove the M42 adapter by loosening 3 set screws. This will
reveal a smooth conical flange. Now install the rear half only of a Nikon
T-mount adapter onto this flange. Although a bit unconventional, this
modification takes less than 5 minutes and requires nothing more than a
Jeweler's screwdriver. I have done this and the lens performs excellently
providing razor sharp images including for objects at infinity.
In general, the optical quality of this lens (at least my unit) is
truly excellent with essentially diffraction limited performance. There is
just a touch of residual astigmatism. Uniformity of illumination is
excellent. Mechanically the lens is excellent with the exception of the
two tripod sockets which are of marginal design.
The bottom line is that this is a lens capable of providing very
sharp, high quality images. Realize that getting good images with a lens
of this focal length requires paying careful attention to camera / tripod
/ ground vibration and to atmospheric conditions.
Dan Slater
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999
From: "Kok Hoo Lim" [email protected]
Subject: Variations in 300/4.5 lenses
Roland asked in digest No:
"Does anyone out there have any more information about the 300/4.5
Nikkor-P?
According to my information the first 300/4.5 had 6/5 elements groups
which
was
unchanged through to the AIS version. This would make it a Nikkor-H (H =
Hex=
6 elements). This was produced from 1964 with serial number 304501.
I don't have any information about a 5 element version. Any information
would be
welcome"
Dear Roland,
The NIKKOR-H 300/4.5 that you described is the second version of the
lens.produced in 1969. The first version NIKKOR-P with 5E/5G was produced
in 1964 and was cosmetically identical to the second version in every
respect except for the lens ID and a slightly lighter weight of 900G as
opposed to 1100G for the NIKKOR-H due to the additional lens element and
different optical formula.
The serial number of #304501 refers to NIKKOR-P and not NIKKOR-H. The
earliest NIKKOR-H NKJ I have seen is #329879 and the earliest NIKKOR-H
Nikon I have seen is #438727 and the latest NIKKOR-H Nikon I have seen is
#465827. I have seen also NIKKOR-H.C Nikon 300/4.5 lenses too but I do not
have the serial numbers.
According to Peter Braczko, the K version with rubberised focus collar,
dimpled aperture ring and a 360� rotating tripod collar (the above
versions have a 2 position fixed tripod socket) starts at #480001 and the
AI version starts at #510001. I think this may be correct as I have lenses
that do correspond to these numbers.
Regards,
Dr. Lim Kok-Hoo
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999
From: Alexander [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] DIY cords link
http://www.island.liu.se/~i96henel/nikon/release.htm
and
http://ltk.hut.fi/~suokas/diy/lankaeng.html
- --
Warm Regards,
Alexander
From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999
From: Simon Freidin [email protected]
Subject: re: [NIKON] DIY cords link
Hi Alexander
Add
http://www.infomaniak.ch/~bonavolt/fo_gun.htm
for mc-22/mc-30 pin-ins (n90x / f100 / f5) for DIY'ers.
Diagram is of cable end, mirror diagram for camera socket.
Personally, I'd just buy one of the cables (mc-20 with timer, mc-22 or
mc-30). It's a minor cost, considering the cost of bodies & lenses -
you'll probably use if for half of your shots - certainly for all
studio, landscape and micro shots - and like lenses and speedlights, it
can be transferred if you upgrade bodies in the current range
regards
Simon
From NIkon MF Mailing LIst:
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999
From: John Albino [email protected]
Subject: F3HP and F4 Prices
Has anyone else noticed that F3HP used prices have gone up about $100 or
so over the past couple months, while F4 prices have dropped by about
$100?
--
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: New URL: RUETHER "Subjective Lens Evaluations (Mostly
Nikkors)"
My web location at "imperium. bayside.net"
appears to have evaporated, alas... Don
Ferrario has kindly provided space on his
server for my site, which now includes
another lens review (Nikkor 28mm f1.4),
an "anti-AF rant", a comparison of several
Mini-DV camcorders, and the latest version
("5i") of my "Subjective Lens Evaluations
(Mostly Nikkors)", which includes all
Nikkor SLR lens -->optical types<-- (not
barrel types, like AF vs. MF or AI vs.
AIS, if the optics are the same - and many
of the lenses are evaluated) - all are
listed on my web page, under "I babble".
(NOTE: in "SLE[MN]" the ratings for the
zooms are NOT directly comparable with
those for the non-zooms! Don't forget to
read the general comments at the beginning
of the overall list, and at the top of
each lens catagory - there are details
there that you may find useful for
understanding the evaluation numbers.
Have fun with it, but don't become
preoccupied with it...!;-) The URL for
the Nikkor lens list is:
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html
Articles and reviews on some individual
Nikkor lenses, articles on seeing and
perspectve, a glasses solution for
age-related inability to focus easily,
etc. are at:
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/articles.html
An', stik aroun' fer th' purdy pit-churz,
tu - including some high-magnification
insect photos, 3-D photos (with viewing
instructions), lotsa fisheye photos (taken
with 6, 8, 12, 16, and 21mm fisheyes on
35mm film), L - O - N - G lens photos,
photos of the sun, wide-aperture photos
that use sun reflections to help form the
image, frame-grabs from video, photos of
some of the numerous Ithaca-NY-area
waterfalls, some of my "aht" photos, a
Cornell bell-tower set of images, and
even some weird MIDI and animation
thingies -- heck, th' ri-chez 'r' jes'
o'er wel-ming...! ;-), ;-), ;-)
Hunt around for these at:
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/
Have fun!
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999
From: Bill Briggs [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Nikon Info Site - Basic questions answered
In an attempt to provide information on the Nikon system which is
requested on a regular basis, I have built a small Nikon info site.
A majority of the info is Nikon equipment specific but some pertains to
any system.
The URL is http://www.csonline.net/unklbil
Click on Buy Nikon or Photo Links.
Info includes :
(Under Buy Nikon)
MY opinion of why buying Nikon makes sense.
Nikon body/lens compatability charts with camera specification sheets.
Nikon lens nomenclature (non-AI,AI,AIS,AF,AFD,AFI,AFS,etc.).
Nikon Teleconverters (what they do, compatibility with lenses, etc.).
Nikon Macro (reversing rings, bellows reproduction ratios, lens
reproduction ratios, extension rings, macro adapters, diopters).
Lens angle chart.
Focusing screen/lens compatability chart.
(Under Photo Links)
Lens review sites (subjective and objective tests).
Camera store / individuals (complaints, kudus, FTC guidelines).
Buying equipment (New or used, sources, stolen equipment registry).
News Groups (email and online)
Special Techniques (astrophotography,bokeh,macro,high speed,etc.)
Nikon related (camera specs,reviews,repair,manuals,Link pages)
General photography (lens angle chart,buying,cleaning,caring,what to
buy,building a system,traveling through airports,tips and techniques)
Regards,
Bill Briggs
[Ed. note: Surprise! converting nikon MF lenses to CPU use...]
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999
From: Rolland Elliott [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Nikon's Planned obsolescense
Hello Robert, I read an old post of yours on the Nikon Digest with a
grin. You are right in saying that Nikon is purposely obsolete its
older lenses. I have now started up a small internet business to add
matrix metering capabilities to old MF Nikkor lenses.
See:
www.homestead.com/rolland/
I'm not trying to throw you a sales pitch but I thought you would be
interested in this information.
I find it quite rewarding that I now can AI'd an old lens and add a
matrix chip to it. This let's me use a 3p year old lens on the latest
Nikon body. The only disadvantage is the lack of "D" information for
flash calculations.
Peace Rolland Elliott
From Nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999
From: "Roland Vink" [email protected]
Subject: Re: CPU retrofit in MF lenses!
From what I know, he gets CPU chips from AF lenses with the same or
similar focal length and max aperture and installs them into the manual
focus lens. The chip relays the focal length and max aperture via the
electrical contacts, needed for matrix metering. The end result is
essentially a manual focus lens with AF (non-D) electronics, similar to
the 500/4 P.
Roland
From Nikon MF mailing list;
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999
From: Rolland Elliott [email protected]
Subject: Re: CPU Upgrade for MF lenses
Hi, I'm the guy who does these modifications. I've
been emailing Lars back and forth, but I thought I
should clear the air here since there seems to be some
debate about this conversion.
First of all, the lens focal length information is not
needed for matrix metering. This is backed up by
Nikon Literature. The Nikon F5 Technical guide ( a
free SALES brochure published by Nikon different from
the standard F-5 sales brochure) lists all the
variables Color Matrix metering takes into account.
The focal length of the lens is not one of them!!!
Matrix metering does take in to account scene
brightness contrast which is dependent on the maximum
aperature though.
Nikon's sales brochure for the N90s camera also
describes how matrix metering works and all the
variables involves. Guess what? Focal length isn't one
of them!!!
Since the N70 and F100 use a similar matrix metering
system compared to the N90s, I'd say it's pretty safe
to assume that these cameras don't use focal length
information either. Call up Nikon at 1-800-Nikon-US
and request these free brochures if you don't believe
me!
So basically all of Nikon's top four AF cameras (in
production) for the advanced amerature/professional
line up don't use focal length information for matrix
metering. When people use my upgrade service they are
usually putting the modified lens on one of these
bodies.
Secondly, All the camera needs to know to matrix meter
correctly is the lens maximum aperature. I carefully
choose the correct chip and install it into the lens.
I realize there are a host of other questions and I'll
update my web page with a Frequently asked questions
section sometime in the next month or so.
By the way, I just joined this list and found it
ironically funny that the last couple of digests
seemed to talk more about automatic exposure than
manual exposure! I guess if you're using MF lenses,
it's still an appropriate topic for a MF list though.
I also have started buying up NON AI MF Nikon lenses,
now that I can convert them to use matrix metering.
I'll have to modify them to be AI'd lenses, but I
don't think it should be that hard. If I can shave
metal off lens mounts and tap screw holes, for
installing matrix chips, I can probably add or make a
ridge for meter coupling. I'm really fascinated by the
fast MF nikkors like the 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm f/1.4
lenses. Should work wonders with Fuji NHGII pushed a
stop to ASA 1600.
Peace Rolland Elliott
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Matrix Metering is now available for all Nikon Manual Focus
lenses! Upgrade for only $80
For details & pictures see:
http://rolland.homestead.com/
If you have questions after reading the web page email me at
[email protected] I check this email address daily.
That's right! You don't have to buy those new expensive Nikkor AF
lenses inorder to use Nikon's most advanced matrix metering system. I
can simply install a matrix metering chip into your manual focus lens
so you can take advantage of those razor sharp manual focus lenses you
own without having to worry about exposure.
I use only genuine Nikon matrix metering chips and expertly install
them into your manual focus lens. In addition to getting matrix
metering you will now get an aperature reading that appears in the
viewfinder of your newer Nikon camera like the N70, N90s, F100, or F5
(The modified lens is compatable with all AF Nikkor cameras' matrix
metering systems). Now instead of wondering what aperature was set on
your lens you can concentrate on getting the shot. You basically get
all the functionality of an AF lens, minus the AF ability.
I can use the exsisting lens mount and just install the matrix metering
chip.
The cost is $80.00 per lens plus the actual cost of shipping and
insuring your lens back to your address (usually $10 dollars).
This will be an inexpensive way to upgrade your old Nikkors to the
latest in metering technology!
If you are worried about getting ripped off you don't even have to send
me your lens in most cases. (Certain lenses like the 16mm f/2.8 and
the E-series zooms do require you to send them to me because installing
the chip into the lens' body is difficult.) All I need for the
modification is the len's F-Mount. This can easily be removed with a
small philips screwdriver.
Please note that I do NOT upgrade non "D" lenses to "D" lenses. Also
note that I cannot upgrade manual focus teleconverters or variable
aperature zoom lenses.
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: DP-1 ring resister (was 'Impure' F2SB & F2AS)
Hi Alex,
I opened a few DP-1s over the weekend, just for you, and I found DP-1s
with wire wound ring resisters start at around S/N 40XXXX. I have 10XXXX,
20XXXX and 30XXXX DP-1s and they have carbon ring resistors.
Happy shooting,
Sover
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999
From: [email protected] (Gabriel Schwartz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Cameras info on the net
You can find lots of helpful information in the following links.
Comparison of N90s with Other Nikon N-Series Cameras:
http://web.mit.edu/cai/www/nikon/compN.html
Comparison of N90s with Nikon F-Series Cameras:
http://web.mit.edu/cai/www/nikon/compF.html
Comparison Nikon F90x vs. Canon Eos-1N:
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~winstel/walter/f90x.html
35mm SLR Overview:
http://www.photozone.de/35mm.htm
Nikon:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon.htm
Cannon EOS:
http://www.photozone.de/canon.htm
http://www.bigfoot.com/~gabis
Date: 27 Mar 1999
From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which old Nikon is best?
Ring resistors and battery voltages can be resolved through an adjustment.
[email protected] does a commendable job doing this.
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999
From: "Scott D. Burnside" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: whacky ebay prices
Hi,
Did any of you follow the Nikon super lens auctions on ebay of the
following from some person in Buena Park, CA:
Nikon 400 F2.8 AF-S sold for $6100
Nikon 400 F2.8 AF-I sold for $4490
Nikon 400 F3.5 AIS sold for $1775
Nikon 500 F4.0 P sold for $2500
Nikon 500 F4.0 AF-I sold for $3305
Nikon 500 F4.0 AF-S sold for $4550
Nikon 600 F5.6 AIS sold for $2225
Nikon 600 F4.0 AF-S sold for $6425
Nikon 600 F4.0 AF-I sold for $6115
These were all supposedly new right out of the box/case. The starting
price on all lenses was $1.00, with no reserve.
Other than the outstanding selling prices, some $2000 to $3000 less than
any where else, I found it interesting that most of the interest was on
either the 400's or 600's. The 500's didn't appear to appeal to the
bidders as much as either the fast 400 or the long 600. Which brings up an
interesting question, which of the big 3 would you get if you had the
opportunity and why?
Here's some food for thought:
Nikon recommends that teleconverters be used on fast glass, i.e. any
teleconverter that creates an effective aperture of F8 is considered
unreliable for autofocus purposes. Therefore a TC-20E on a 600 F4.0 is not
recommended by Nikon because it would create a 1200 F8.0. So, given that
as a guideline you could do the following with these AF-S lenses:
No converter TC-14E TC-20E
400mm F2.8 560mm F4.0 800mm F5.6
500mm F4.0 700mm F5.6 Not Recommended, but a 1000 F8.0
with manual focus at least
600mm F4.0 840mm F5.6 Not Recommended, but a 1200 F8.0
with manual focus at least
Here are two other items of interest, weight and how close you can get
without having to use extension tubes (data subject to errors from Nikon
site and B&H Photo):
Lens Weight Closest marked focusing distance
400mm F2.8 10.6 lbs 9.0 feet
500mm F4.0 8.1 lbs 16.5 feet
600mm F4.0 12.9 lbs 19.5 feet
So, you could save two pounds and get a 400F2.8 with a TC-14E and get a
560mm F4.0 lens that focused down to 9ft. That might be useful if you are
a bird photographer shooting nesting birds from a blind, the extra ten
feet might be worth the loss of 40mm that the 600 F4.0 would give you.
But, will the 400 with the teleconverter be as sharp as the 600 without?
Probably not, but could you tell the difference in the two if they were
published in a magazine? You could go on and on driving yourself crazy
with stuff like this.
I'll leave it up to you, which would you choose....?
Scott D. Burnside
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999
From: " " [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Re: Anyone ever have problem with Nikon Service?
I have found that to my then amazement, they have a couldn't-care-less
attitude to service now and on complaining to Japan, incredibly even THEY
couldn't care less.
They tend to send out repair estimates for $200 for every minor repair on
the basis that no one in their right minds would pay such a large sum for
nothing. On one occasion when I challenged them to the repair (this was
an auto-focus mechanism which they badly designed on a F3AF) they admitted
to me that no one had even looked at the camera AND that they wouldn't
guarantee the repair if I was stupid enough to let them actually do it.
Check your warranty (if any) carefully before shipping it back. Even
better, - demand the money back.
Some might pretend you might have more luck with Nikon Service in Europe:
Be careful. Although they might claim better service, in reality they took
in that F3AF, held on to it for about five months and then when it became
obvious that they couldn't care less as well, even enough to do a proper
estimate, sent it back with a mysterious estimate charge!! (later
dropped). But at least THEY don't send out false estimates like America
does. The problem seems to be that whereas in the old days when they only
sold basically an ultra reliable F mainly to professional photographers
and could stand behind their product (because it was incredibly well made
and never went wrong), the world has changed: Now they produce the same
lets-hope-for-the-best products as everyone else so they can't stand
behind them any more. As far as I can see that F3AF was the first in the
new generation of lousy products produced in great haste to keep up with
the competition's advertising hype which didn't work that they now cant
afford to stand behind.
I wonder if that is the reason why they now have to charge stratospheric
prices for their professional cameras?
Jonathan Steinberg
ps I did eventually get the F3AF to work, (more or less) by taking it to a
small individually-run repair shop in New York where the guy DID Care
about his workmanship and DID understand how the thing worked. (and
didn't try to charge me more for the paperwork and transportation to some
repair station in Outer Mongolia than the repair: He did it in a day or
so and charged $60). Incidentally, the acid test of whether you are
dealing with this type of outfit or the Nikon type of outfit is whether
the guy doing the repair has enough confidence in his ability (not to
over-charge), to do the estimate for free. The wrong type of repair
station will charge more for the estimate than the cost of most normal
repairs. I suppose it is only a matter of time before Nikon start
charging for estimates
Dave Cruikshank [email protected] wrote
> I sent my 8008 in to Nikon Pro Service. It wouldn't wind a complete
> roll of film through. It was gone a month and cost $200 to repair
> winder, and clean. It still sounded weak, but I thought I would try
> it. I got one roll of film through it, now it won't even wind up a roll
> to start. Is this rare from them ?
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re : Foam
Gruss Duri,
I have a large piece of black anti-static foam which I cut to size for all
my F2s. I have enough foam for 100 F2s so I can spare some for you. email
me your address and I'll send a piece to you.
I just scrap off the front mirror box foam using a small screw driver,
with the camera inverted. But before you remove the foam, remember take
off the screen. Otherwise bits of foam will fall on it and it's impossible
to remove afterwards. I use double sided sticky tape to stick the new foam
on. The size of the foam you need to cut is 4mm x 4mm x 4cm. For the film
chamber, I cut a long strip about 3mm x 3mm and insert it along the grove.
Happy shooting,
Sover
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999
From: Mark Walberg [email protected]
Subject: Re: FOAM...
>Its best to remove the mirror when doing the replacement, if you know how.
>I don't know anything about the FM or FE.
>Shin
Shin, Removing the mirror would make this an enormously harder job than it
really is.
I've replaced th foam in lots of cameras, including F and F2. It takes
about five minutes. A tooth pick works OK. However, the best thing I've
found is a steel dental pick that I got at the local hardware store for
about a dollar. This has an angled pick that is good for this. As Sover
said, take the screen out. Then hold the camera upside down so the the
black sticky stuff falls out of the camera. If a few pieces of the sticky
black foam fall on your mirror, they are easy to get off. Just bring a
tissue close and touch the black pieces wiothout even touching the mirror.
The pieces are really sticky and willstick to the tissue much more
strongly than to the smooth mirror. They come right off. Then get a
piece of an
old cotton T shirt and clean off the surface with a solvent - ethanol
works
fine for me. It doesn't have to be perfectly clean. Take a look around
the
mirror box and pull out any stray pieces with the tissue method. Then
put
in your new foam. Some foam is sticky backed and goes in directly (get
that from Fargo). Some needs either double stick tape or contact cement.
It is really, really easy.
The thickness of the foam is not critical. Fargo sells sheets of the
sticky back foam. $5 or so will buy you enough to do all the cameras you
will ever own. You can also find foam in lots of other places that will
work. Nikon Parts in the US still sells foam replacement pieces preceut
for the F2. These were 40 cents each the last time I looked.
-Mark Walberg
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst (MSX)" [email protected]
Subject: Full AI modification should include a MAIP ..
On the NikonRepair list we have had some discussion on how to AI modify
pre-AI lenses.
> With the help of Rick Housh and Howard Passman I have prepared some pages
> on the subject and below is most of the content of
> http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/FullAImod.htm
>
> When one AI-modifies a pre AI lens it is common just to provide the lens
> with a METER COUPLING RIDGE (by either milling away some of the aperture
> ring or by fitting a new aperture ring). The MAXIMUM APERTURE INDEXING
> POST
> is usually ignored. This is in itself paradoxical since AI stands for
> Automatic (Maximum Aperture) Indexing.
>
> Most people won't mind lacking the the MAXIMUM APERTURE INDEXING POST as
> it is only used by EM (1979), FG (1982), FA (1983), FG-20 (1984), F-301
> (1985), F-501 (1986) and F4 (1988). It is used for three major things:
> 1 "Smart" auto flash by EM and FG-20
> 2 Aperture range assessment in P mode by FG, FA, F-301 and F-501 (and S
> mode for FA)
> 3 Evaluative multi segment metering (AMP or matrix) by FA and F4
>
> This functionality is of course lost if the AI'd lens is not given a
> MAXIMUM APERTURE INDEXING POST.
>
> In order to fit a MAIP one needs to know where it should be positioned.
> The exact MAIP position corresponding to the maximum aperture can be
> measured if one has an appropriate lens or a scan of a lens.
>
> @ http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/lensscans.htm is a table of
> lens scans demonstrating MAXIMUM APERTURE INDEXING POST positions on true
> AI-coupled lenses.
>
> And @ http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/MAIPposition.htm is the
> beginning of a table of measured MAIP angles.
>
> You can contribute to this project by submitting lens scans.
> Best regards,
> --
> Lars Holst Hansen - [email protected]
> http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen
> http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/NikonRepair
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst (MSX)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Distinguishing AI-S (was: AIS 300mm 1:2 ED-IF .. tw o
versions!)
Hi,
> Larry Kopitnik wrote:
>If I'm remembering correctly --and somebody please correct me if I'm not
--
>Nikon's "official" way to distinguish AI-S from AI lenses is
> that AI-S lenses have the minimum aperture on the aperture ring in orange.
>
>I believe the only exceptions to this are some early Series E lenses
>which are AI-S despite not having an orange minimum aperture.
The only official source of info on AI-S lenses I have ever come across is
the FA instruction manual (supplied as a pdf file by Leonard Foo @
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/manuals/fmfefa/nikonfa.pdf. I
am not certain to which extend he is faithful to the original - perhaps
someone can comment!).
Bellow is the content of page 11 (numbers in brackets refer to
illustartion
on page 5).
--
Al-S Nikkor: An Updated Version of Al-Nikkor Lenses
In 1977, Nikon introduced Al-Nikkor lenses which feature full
aperture metering via Nikon's "Automatic Maximum Aperture
Indexing" or "Al" system. Just by mounting an Al lens on the
camera, the maximum aperture is automatically indexed into the
camera's metering system. All Al-type lenses feature a meter
coupling ridge (48) and a meter coupling shoe having two holes
(Illust. 1).
Then in 1981, Nikon modified their entire line of Al-Nikkor lenses,
so that they would be fully compatible with the upcoming
Nikon FA. These new lenses, called Al-S Nikkor, are easily
distinguishable by (a) an orange minimum aperture on both
regular aperture (64) and aperture-direct-readout (ADR) scales
(66) (Illust. 2), and (b) a special notch on the bayonet mount
(Illust. 3). In addition, the Al-S symbol appears on the front cover
on the instruction manual for each lens.
When used with the Nikon FA in the programmed mode, Al-S
lenses provide either a normal or high-speed program depending
on the focal length in use; in the shutter-priority mode, they give
you uniform exposure control in any lighting situation.
Nikon Series E lenses also have the same features as Al-S
Nikkors, but do not have a meter coupling shoe. Of course, older
Al-Nikkor and Al modified Nikkor lenses can be used with all
current and older Nikon cameras, including the FA Nikon's new
series of teleconverters-the TC-201, TC-301, TC-14A and
TC-14B-have been specially designed for Al-S Nikkor lenses, but
can be used with older Al-type lenses too. As soon as they are
attached, they automatically switch the FA to the high-speed
program in the programmed mode.
--
See also the illustrations!
It seems that orange smallest aperture number _on the ADR row_ (not only
the normal aperture number row; AI 16/2.8 has that) is indeed mentioned as
a distinguishing feature (exceptions with Series E is not mentioned!).
Aperture rings can however easilly be replaced. A factory AI modification
is indeed a replacement of the aperture ring. The best distinguishing
feature is therefore the LENS TYPE SIGNAL NOTCH (this is what is read by
cameras - not aperture number color!).
Best regards,
--
Lars Holst Hansen - [email protected]
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen
http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/NikonRepair
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000
From: "George R. Wilde" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Nikon Lens Data Calculator
For those of you having trouble converting the BinHexed version of the
Nikon
Lens Data Calculator to an xls file I have added a zipped version of this
file on my site at http://www.wilde.org/Nikon/index.html. The zip file is
also smaller in size and should download faster.
The original post appears below (with index.html added to the Nikon
directory name because some were having trouble accessing this page with
only the directory name specified - although it works fine for me). This
is
a UNIX Server so the URL is case sensitive.
Available free at my Web Site (http://www.wilde.org/Nikon/index.html). The
Nikon Lens Data Calculator is an Excel Workbook that works with Microsoft
Excel version 97 and later. The Nikon Lens Data Calculator solves lens
equations for all current Nikon Nikkor Lenses. It allows the user to
input desired subject distance or magnification to produce information
for all lenses, such as subject width and height, depth of field,
hyperfocal distance, required additional lens extension, effective
aperature, effective focal length, and much other valuable information.
It also provides flash and exposure computations to simplify flash and
camera placement. A graph is also produced that shows lens coverage for
all lenses at any subject distance you choose. The Nikon Lens Data
Calculator includes data for all AF and Manual Focus Nikkor Lenses
currently being produced. A nifty feature is the indication of
equivalent 35 mm focal length for each lens when used with APS (all
three formats) or D1 cameras. Data can be displayed in any one of
several units of measure. Please let me know of potential errors or
inaccuracies in either the data or computations. I hope you find the
Nikon Lens Data Calculator useful.
George Wilde
From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] best old nikon lenses
Guido,
One of the best old Nikkor wide angles is the 28 f/3.5. It is extremely
sharp and contrasty. A real jewel that can be had for a song in most
cases. Otherwise certainly the 24 f/2.8 or 35 f/2 are fantastic lenses. Im
assuming that you want to go relatively inexpensively..(I always assume
that unless specified otherwise)...because you will get floods of people
talking about the 35 f/1.4 or 24 f/2. These are certainly superlative
lenses, but very pricey.
Steven K Witt
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000
From: Ernie [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] best old nikon lenses
105 f / 2.5, 28 f / 3.5 Nikkors and macro 55 f / 2.8 ""Vivitar""--Oh and
the chrome F2 body.
Ernie
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000
From: Rome [email protected]
Subject: Re: FGs and FM2n
> Marvin Thomas wrote:
> I bought my own first SLR in 1986, a chrome Nikon FG that I still ownand
>treat like a family heirloom. Last year I bought a black FG that looks
>nearly new. I'm considering selling both FG cameras and associate flash
>units and buying an FM2n.
> Am I making a hasty decision?
> I don't believe in computer enhancement of photos, and not just becauseI
>don't have the software. Ok, my question is, what are the pros and cons
> of going from two FGs to one FM2n? Are there FG features I might miss if
> I sell them to by an FM2n?
> Todd wrote:
> I hope this is a 'lively debate' Marvin. When I read your post, I felt
> like it was the wrong move for you. I certainly could be wrong, and
> perhaps others can weigh in with different opinions.
Greetings pop-pickers! There's nothing like a discussion on the FG to
bring old Tube out his hole...
Marvin - I also have two FGs, one chrome, one black, and one MD-E
winder, one 50mm 1.8 lens and one cheap Vivitar 28-70mm zoom to share
between the two, which at only about �30 (for the drive) on the
second-hand market makes the FG into a pretty useful tool for the
serious amateur. These are the only two Nikons I own as they're the only
ones I can afford. But they do me just fine. I bought them both
secondhand in the early-to-mid nineties.
At first I just had the chrome one with the motor drive and the standard
50mm lens. Then I started to make a little bit of pocket money shooting
portraits, and decided I needed a second body as a backup in case one
camera failed on a commissioned shoot, and also to load with different
film stock for shoots where I wanted both colour and black and white
pictures or slow and fast film handling.
So I started hankering after an FM2 or FM2n. Obviously it is a higher
quality camera than the FG. But it was a higher price too, and at the
time I just couldn't afford it. I too thought of trading in both FGs for
one FM2, but that would have defeated my initial purpose of having two
bodies to back each other up.
In the end I decided that for what I needed it for, there really wasn't
much more that the FM2 could do for me than the FG could, so I just
bought another FG, the black one. (It's nice to have one of each colour
isn't it - makes it less confusing about which one has which film type
in it).
I think if you've got used to having two bodies, then perhaps like me,
you'd be unwise to put all your eggs in one basket by selling both FGs
and getting just one FM2n; you'd be back to just having only one serious
SLR camera then, and no backup if it fails or gets lost.
If you can afford it, just sell one of your FGs, the chrome one I guess,
keep the black one (which sounds to be in better condition) and stretch
your cash finances to an FM2n. Then you'd still have two bodies - The
FG, almost a point and shoot SLR which you're very comfortable using
already, and the FM2n, a kick-ass mechanical/manual Nikon that no
Nikon-lover should be without.
It's tough, as you say, beautifully made, I've heard it doesn't need
batteries, so you can travel (nearly) anywhere with it , has DOF preview
and a faster range of shutter-speeds than the FG, and will hold a higher
value on the second-hand market than the FG.
I hear that many FGs have died recently - they have a circuit board
inside them for the metering which just get's old and dry like an old
man and cracks in half, and on an FG, when the meter stops working, the
shutter won't fire on anything but bulb and 1/90th.
So you would do well to start looking around for a better or newer
manual camera pretty soon anyway, before your FG's start geting too old
and let you down on the day you really need to get 'that shot'.
I've had both FGs repaired - They both developed the same fault within
months of each other - The film counter doesn't reset after the back's
opened to change films - it just goes off the scale after 36 and stays
there, which disables the meter, which in turn (as mentioned above)
disables shutter-speed selection and program modes.
But my local camera repair guy fixed them both for less than �20 each
and they're fine now. (I think he uses parts from a Minolta to do this
fix ??!!)
Of course your other options are the FE, FE2 F3 or FA. FA's a fine
camera - sort of a luxury FG and probably the most appealing of Nikon's
bells and whistles, but pre Auto-Focus cameras, as it still looks like a
classic Nikon, as distinct from the (I think) horrid 301 series which I
regard to be Nikon's 'wilderness years' cameras that were just trying to
look like some sort of Canons.
F3's a serious piece of kit of course, but it's big and heavy, costs a
lot more and probably isn't your cup of tea. It's not mine either - I
don't think I'm man enough for an F3, and probably never will be. One of
these days I'll give up on myself completely and buy an F70, and F3
users will queue up to come and kick sand in my face.
Anyway, as a heavy FG user that's used to some program modes, I'd say
your upgrade path is probably a shootout between the FM2n and the FA. FA
might be easier to use than the FM2n, and should outlive your FGs, but
if you want that go-anywhere, mechanical purity of the FM2n, there's no
contest - get the FM2n and you'll be fixed up for life with a beautiful
little camera that won't ever let you down. Keep one FG as a backup
though.
As to computer enhancement and the software for it - Depends on what you
need it for. I have a cheap flatbed scanner I use to scan prints into
images for my website - The scanner turns out slightly wishy-washy,
muddy images. So I boost the contrast and sharpness using Adobe
Photoshop Limited Edition (which was bundled free with my web-authoring
software, and usually also comes free with many scanners) and the images
look just fine at 72dpi on a web page, better than how the scanner
throws them out raw. Look on the initial scans as proofs - Just like you
would if you were making your own prints in a darkroom (which I also
do): You choose the best or favourite one, and use the enlarger to
manipulate the print until it's how you want it. It's the same with
digital manipulation - just not so wet and messy and you don't waste all
that photopaper or catch dermatitis from the chemicals.
If you do any desktop publishing or just a simple family newsletter that
you print yourself on your computer printer, it's real nice to be able
to just run the scans through Photoshop, cropping here, blurring or
cutting out extraneous background distractions there, holding back the
reds, sharpening up the brickwork on snaps of my son's Lego creations
etc, and so on.
I've been too busy to do much serious photography for a couple of years
now, and having moved to live in another country where I don't speak the
language well, so I've not really taken much opportunity to drum up some
photo-portrait business here. But the purchase of a flatbed scanner has
given me a lot of new-found pleasure and satisfaction in turning fairly
mundane snapshots into useful digital images that I can drop into
documents or illustrate web-pages with. It's rekindled my interest in
colour photography as well, so don't be shy of getting to grips with
digital 'mucking about'. It's cheap now (at a home/amateur level) and
it's great fun.
> Todd wrote:
> The FM2n is a rewarding camera for those who have (or desire) a complete
> understanding of the photographic 'process'. This body features manual
> exposure *only*, a mode that your FGs don't do particularly well.
Todd could you clarify that please? Are you simply referring to the fact
that the FG will only do Bulb and 1/90th without a battery? ie, meaning
'mechanical only', rather than 'manual only'?
The FG can of course be used fully manually with batteries - it just
lacks some superior or useful features and build quality of the FM2n,
and is battery-dependent, right?
Hey Marvin, I also am very wordy, don't worry about it!!
Tube.
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000
From: Rick Housh [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: FGs and FM2n
Tube wrote:
>I hear that many FGs have died recently - they have a circuit board
>inside them for the metering which just get's old and dry like an old
>man and cracks in half.
My FG and I may both be old, and I suppose neither of us is exactly what
we were at one time, but both of us are still in one piece and quite
functional, thank you. My FG has also required very little maintenance,
although I can't quite say the same for myself lately, I suppose.
As far as advantages of the FG, Marvin, taking SLR closeups of grandkids
and for travel is mostly what I use my FG for. Things change quickly if
your grandkids move as fast as mine, and I just don't have enough time to
change exposure as necessary with an FM series body, so either the P or A
modes of the FG are what I use in those situations. The "older and drier"
I get the more true this becomes. I know you said you don't particularly
like flash, but if you ever do need to take a flash picture when taking
closeups of your grandkids, or use fill flash outdoors, you'll certainly
miss the TTL flash capabilities of the FG. Although the FG won't do auto
fill flash either, manual fill flash is much easier with the FG's exposure
compensation dial than trying to do it completely manually.
Frankly, overall, I can't think of any advantage of the FM2n over the FG
in your situation, Marvin, except perhaps its reputation for ruggedness
and parts availability. But you already have a backup FG, and even
another used replacement FG body in good condition wouldn't cost much more
to buy than a CLA for the FM2n. In many Nikon comparisons the FM2n would
have an advantage in compactness and light weight over other bodies, but
it has nothing over the FG on either of those scores. My own personal
view is that the FM series isn't that much more physically rugged than an
FG either, but then, I think I'm in a distinct minority on that.
If you decide to go with a motor drive or winder (which is a little
self-defeating on either body), the MD-E is very light and small, much
more so than an MD-12, and is probably fast enough for the uses you
described. It has proved very reliable, probably more so than the MD-12.
For example it is not prone to failure due to cracks around the shutter
release button. The MD-E has no such button, using the camera's shutter
release instead.
- Rick Housh -
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst (MSX)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: AI-d Nikkor lenses and Matrix Metering
Rodrigo asks:
> Is it possible to add something to an AI-d lens to allow for
> Matrix Metering on FA, F-301, F-501, and F4 bodies?
Well, in case of the FA and F4 it is indeed (F-301 and F-501 do not have
evaluative multi pattern metering, aka matrix).
The thing that needs to be added is a MAXIMUM APERTURE INDEXING POST.
I am compiling a list of the positions of the MAXIMUM APERTURE INDEXING
POST and have earlier requested people to scan the rear of their true AI
coupled lenses for measurement purpose.
A list of the covered maximum apertures (with corresponding scans of
MAXIMUM APERTURE INDEXING POSts) can be seen @
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/lensscans.htm
The MAXIMUM APERTURE INDEXING POST is described in details @
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/MAIPposition.htm
and a discussion of how to fully AI-modify is to be found @
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/FullAImod.htm
Best regards,
Lars
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000
From: "J. Nielsen" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Home Built MC-12 Remote Release
I just finished using the directions shown at:
http://ltk.hut.fi/~suokas/diy/lankaeng.html to build a home built MC-12
style remote release for my N70. It works great!
I bought the parts I needed from Radio Shack, plus a Kodak film
canister, and some wire I had laying around. The parts from Radio Shack
cost $6 and provide enough pieces to build two. The hardest thing to do
was to fiddle with the crimp on style wire connectors that I used to
connect to the terminals on the camera. All told it took about an
hour. Quite a savings compared to $50 for a true Nikon MC-12.
If you would like more information on how I assembled it or on the part
#'s from Radio Shack, you can email me directly.
- -Jim
FRom Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000
From: Phil Musk [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Home Built MC-12 Remote Release
[email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 5/27/00 8:50:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> I just finished using the directions shown at:
> http://ltk.hut.fi/~suokas/diy/lankaeng.html to build a home built MC-12
> style remote release for my N70. It works great!
According to "Moose", the F801s requires a resistor in the circuit of a
remote release, whereas the F801 doesn't.
Be careful out there folks!!
Phil
From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000
From: Mike Perkowitz [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: FG
the other notable difference between FG and FG20 (aside from the flash
stuff) is that the FG has leds in the viewfinder and the FG20 has a
match-needle. before i got my fg20 i read these pages obsessively:
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/fg20/index.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/index.htm
those pages are absolutely fantastic if you like to obsess over something
you hope to eventually buy. :)
m
> > Whenever I am thinking about adding another Nikon body to my collection
> > (adding - not replacing,) the first MF body I think of is the FG. The FG's
> > are the lightest body Nikon has ever produced.
>
> Both the EM and the FG-20 are lighter than the FG, but the few extra
> grams are worth carrying around. At least I think so. The EM and the
> FG-20 lacks the TTL option, databack capability and program mode. But
> except for that the FG and the FG-20 are pretty much the same, (the EM
> have no manual mode).
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000
From: [email protected] (ramt)
Subject: [NIKON] Re: fake nikon lens
Be careful of those "hard-to-believe" prices. They are normally used and
rebuilt lens sold as new. I encountered one recently. A 50 1.4/D but the
foam inside the box had 28 2.8/D printed on it. Price was very good.
Roberto A. Moreno T.
Panam�, Rep. de Panam�
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Favorite pre AI glass..was 400mm 5.6
!!!First Boot!!!,
[email protected]
writes:
May I ask everyone..What is your favourite `oldtimer'
lens? What do you regard as classic pre-AI (F-mount)glass?
Thanks and Best Regards
David
Hi David,
A few of the "classic" Nikkors come to mind. No particular order. First,
the 85 f/1.8, both non AI and the rarer AI. Extremely sharp and very
contrasty. Next is the 55 f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor both versions. A real sleeper
is the 28 f/3.5. Extremely sharp and very snappy. The venerable 105 f/2.5
would also be on my list.
That's all that come immediately to mind, but I know there are more!
Geoffrey Witt
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000
From: Marc Martineau [email protected]
Subject: RE: Favorite pre AI glass..was 400mm 5.6
Hi David!
I agree with Geoffrey about the 55 mm f:3.5 macro AI ; incredibly sharp !
! !
Plus my 20mm f:3.5 old style AI'd by Nikon is a killer...extremely sharp
and contrasty !
And, I bought on Ebay a 135mm non AI AI'd by www.aiconversions.com and he
did a superb job ! This lens is as clean as it could be and super sharp
also. You should see the conditions of that lens ; and for 37.00$ US ! ! !
Marc
...
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000
From: "Lan Tu" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Soft shutter releases
Just a coincidence, but today I spoke to a camera repairman who
warned me that those soft-shutter plungers, through impact and the
extra leverage exerted on the collars they attach to, will sometimes
cause those collars to break. He stated that he had ten F2 bodies
with this problem.
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Soft shutter releases
> Lan Tu wrote:
> Just a coincidence, but today I spoke to a camera repairman who warned me
> that those soft-shutter plungers, through impact and the
> extra leverage exerted on the collars they attach to, will sometimes cause
> those collars to break. He stated that he had ten F2 bodies with this
> problem.
The AR-9 soft shutter release button for the standard thread of
Nikkormats,
FM-series, FE-series, F3, FA etc. fortunately does not have this damaging
effect. I find it (AR-9) very useful with my FM2 for the cold occasions
where I keep on my mittens. The AR-9 reaches just a bit higher than the
shutter speed dial. To activate the meter I can just put my mitten'ed hand
on the shutter speed dial and push the AR-9 to the same level. This turns
the meter on. To trigger the shutter the AR-9 needs a bit more leverage.
Best regards,
--
Lars Holst Hansen - [email protected]
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen
http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/NikonRepair
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst" [email protected]
Subject: AI modification report
Dear members,
I have made an illustrated report on my first attempt with DIY
modification.
It is at
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/repair/aimod/aimod.htm
Best regards,
--
Lars Holst Hansen - [email protected]
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen
http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/NikonRepair
From Nikon MF Mailing List
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: AI modifications
Hello Todd and everybody!
Although this topic is probably more appropriate on the Nikon Repair list
(and I have posted it there), several people on this list have asked me
about it, so please excuse the cross-posting. Anyway, after much prodding
by Lars and others I finally completed my AI modification page, which
explains and illustrates the process I use. You can find the page at:
http://hometown.aol.com/wdshpbiz/AImod.html
I would appreciate any comments or suggestions. Thanks!
William Sampson
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000
From: paul easton [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: F3 out of production
The current status of the F3 models (based on my most recent
trip to Japan in June)....
1) Production has ceased on all three models (F3, F3HP, F3T). The
actual date the last batch was manufactured wasn't known. Moose
is probably correct claiming that the production line turned off
in 1999. That may be applicable to all three models, since
the regular F3 and F3T had always been available in Japan even though
only the F3HP remained on offer in some other countries.
2) Retail stock of the F3HP in Japan remained plentiful, and Nikon
still had F3HPs to sell to the stores.
3) Even in June, the F3 and F3T were scarce in the Tokyo shops, and
several reliable salespeople insisted that there were no more available
from Nikon Japan. When the retail stock was gone, that was it.
4) The first signs of Collector Fever had appeared. The regular low point
F3 finder was totally sold out. The prices of used finders had already
matched or exceeded the old price price. This did not apply to the F3HP
finders, which were still plentiful and discounted.
Bottom line: If you've always wanted a new F3, you better buy it
real soon. And don't throw out your old low point F3 finder.....although
it's too soon to flog 'em on ebay.
Paul E
From: [email protected] (JC)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Micro 55m vs. 105mm
Only the 2.8 55 had the oil problem, not the 3.5. The 3.5 is a great
lens.
I like to shoot flowers too. I think by far the best bang for the buck
macro lens for this is the Vivitar series 1 90mm 2.8 macro. Actually,
it might be the best macro lens for any buck. Vivitar makes a lot of
inferior lenses, but they more then got it right with this one. Very
substantial metal construction. I landed a minty one on ebay for about
$150. THE lens goes 2:1, but be sure to get the equally excellent
optical adapter to go to 1:1. The 90mm length is much better than 55 for
taking fowers.
Good luck
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000
From: John Albino [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] F3 Is Officially Dead ) Was: Re: aperture control on the
body)
Cathal Gantly wrote:
> don't see Nikon killing the FM2n or F3 just yet. If they did it
>would be a big mistake. The scenario you describe is one of my most favoured
>features of the Nikon system
It's been widely reported, and officially confirmed by Nikon, that the F3
is dead, there are no more being made, and orders now are being taken for
one last batch of 4000 F3HP bodies, and after that one batch, there will
be
no more made.
- --
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: DP1 Do It Yourself repairs.
I've just been looking at Glen Walperts DP1 meter repair site
http://www.netaxs.com/~gwalpert/DP-1/DP-1.html
I'm hooked! As the owner of an F2 with DP1 I'm now hopeful that I can
keep it going when it tries to turn up its toes. The process of
dismantle clean and repair don't look too difficult for anyone with a
keen eye, a steady hand and a minimum of tools. My DP1 functions fine
so I'll leave well alone but if I'd seen this site sooner I might not
have passed up the chance to buy a faulty DP1 at a camera fair last
week. The price? �10. I would certainly have bought it and learned
on it in preparation for tackling the overhaul of my current DP1 when
the time comes, but I hope it never does. So how much is a
non-functioning DP1 worth? I would only buy one with no signs of
tampering, no bright screw heads etc?
Best wishes
Ed
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
From: Alex Hurst [email protected]
Subject: Re: DP1 Do It Yourself repairs.
.....
Ed - there's a lot more to overhauling F/F2 meter heads than meets
the eye. it's not just the mechanics, but how they're calibrated etc.
Along with a number of others in this group, I'm a member of the
Robert Decker fan club. He's out in Utah, and seems to be the only
guy in the world who's a real specialist in bringing Nikon heads back
to 'as new' condition. Even better, he appears to be able to handle
any model from DP-1 to DP-12, plus the old F Photomics. His charges
are very reasonable too.
You can contact him by email at:
[email protected]
He also has a website. The address is somewhere on Don's Nikonlinks.
Unless you really enjoy tinkering, why not leave it to a guy who
really excels in this area?
Best
Alex
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: cleaning focus screens
you wrote:
>I wouldn't mind getting replies to this.
After removing it from the body you can use compressed air to blow off
lint, etc. I use Leland PowerClean since never leaves any of the
unremovable propellant that some others are prone to. A camel-hair brush
or a blower squeeze bulb will also do.
If you require a liquid cleaner, ROR is best. A dab on a lint-free or
microfibre cloth is all it takes.
Keep in mind that this is a soft surface and gentle is better.
- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: cleaning focus screens
you wrote:
>I've been told never to use compressed air to clean focus screens. You might
>want to check on doing this first.
Some are prone to leaving a residue when used improperly, but the Leland
(http://www.lelandltd.com/) does not. With cleaning fluids remember that
most screens are a sandwich of two pieces of glass and/or plastic and
moisture within is almost entirely unremovable.
- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000
From: "Thom Hogan" [email protected]
Subject: re: Nikkor 180mm
The System Handbook is wrong about many things, but not about the
difference between MF and AF 180's. Nikon has made 7 versions of the
180mm, four MF and three AF:
Original (non-AI, not ED, not IF): 5/4 design
Type 2 (also non-AI, not ED, not IF): 5/4 design
AI version (not ED, not IF): 5/4 design
AIS ED version (not IF): 5/5 design, lighter weight
AF ED-IF original: 8/6 design, lighter weight
AF ED-IF Type 2: 8/6 design, distinguished by AF/MF switch
AF-D ED-IF: 8/6 design.
Optically, there's nothing to distinguish the AF versions, though the AF-D
is preffered due to it's wider focus ring. Of the MF versions, only the
AIS ED version really is worth pursuing, IMHO.
Thom Hogan, writer/photographer
author, Nikon Field Guide 2nd Ed.
author, Nikon Flash Guide (coming soon)
www.bythom.com
From nikon manual focus mailing list:
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000
From: paul easton [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nikon F body serial numbers Part 1
For the Nikon F, the complete listing of date of production and serial
numbers has been published in Japanese. However, the sources are
relatively hard to find, even in Tokyo. I've never seen the list in
english.
Anyhow, I will try to post the list in pieces. It's tedious to scan and
post it because the Kanji in the document confuse english OCR software.
For a first hand listing, and some other obscure info about the F, keep
an eye on eBay. A couple of weeks ago, I was surprised to see some
Japanese Nikon books auctioned by someone from this area (western
Canada), including one book where the auction specifically mentioned
this serial number list. And no, I'm not shilling for the seller, who
sold the books for premium prices. But, considering the time and expense
of tracking them down in Japan, if you can buy this stuff on eBay, it's
a bargain.
To find the range of production dates for a Nikon F, check the first 3
digits of the serial number:
640XXXX 1959/4---1960/1
641 1960/1---1960/8
642 1960/7---1961/1
643 1960/11---1961/4
644 1961/4---1961/8
645 1961/9---1962/2
646 1962/1---1962/9
647 1962/6---1962/12
648 1962/10---1963/2
649 1963/2---1963/6
650 1963/5---1963/9
651 1963/8---1963/12
652 1963/11---1964/2
653 1964/1---1964/2
654 1964/4---1964/6
655 1964/5---1964/9
656 1964/8---1964/12
657 1964/10---1965/1
658 1964/12---1965/4
659 1965/3---1965/5
660 1965/5---1965/6
661 none
662 none
663 none
664 none
665 none
666 none
667 none
668 none
669 none
670 1965/6---1965/9
671 1965/7---1965/10
672 1965/10---1965/12
673 1965/12---1966/3
674 1966/2---1966/5
675 1966/5---1966/7
676 1966/7---1966/9
677 1966/9---1966/11
678 1966/11---1967/1
679 1966/12---1967/3
680 1967/2---1967/4
681 1967/4---1967/6
682 1967/5---1967/8
683 1967/7---1967/9
684 1967/8---1967/10
685 1967/10---1967/12
686 1967/11---1968/1
687 1967/12---1968/3
688 1968/2---1968/4
689 1968/4---1968/5
690 1968/5---1968/7
691 1968/5---1968/8
692 1968/6---1968/10
693 1968/8---1968/10
694 1968/9---1969/1
695 1968/11---1969/2
696 1969/1---1969/2
697 1969/2---1969/3
698 1969/3---1969/5
699 1969/4---1969/6
700 1969/5---1969/7
701 1969/6---1969/9
702 1969/8---1969/9
Paul Easton
Calgary
From Nikon Mailing List
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000
From: Oliver Reddaway [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Nikon F body serial numbers
Hi,
The rangefinders actually started with 6091, the first prototype of what
became known as the Nikon I. This camera, though incomplete, is still in
existance and has been exhibited by Nikon at shows in Japan in the last
few years.
The serial numbering scheme was derived because the design was completed
in 1946, September. That date can be written as (4)6/09 if you ignore the
4 and remove the slash you end up with 609 which was used as a prefix to
which was added an incremental serial number.
This went on until 6099999 at which point they went on to 60910000 which
was now an 8-digit serial number, the logical conclusion was that there
would be at some time in the future an overly long serial number so after
about 1200~1500 cameras with an 8-digit number the numbering scheme was
rationalised to become 61xxxxxx.
This was during the early fifties and the manufacture of the model "S",
whose serial numbers ran up to a recorded number of 6129520.
When the S2 was launched it began with 6135000 as there were some concerns
that there could be a duplication of numbers if they followed straight on,
the S2 finished with a recorded high of 6198380 so the SP started with
6200001 and the later models followed a similar pattern i.e.:-
SP 6200001
S3 6300001
F 6400001
S4 6500001
S3M 6600001
the following URL gives more information:-
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/d-archives/camera/history_e.htm
Rgds.,
Oliver.
Oliver Reddaway
...
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000
From: Ashok K [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Nikons Market share
Greetings.
Henry asked for the URL of the Nikon Fact Book. Here it is:
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/fb2000.htm
You can down load the entire book or parts of it. The size of the file is
381 Kilo Bytes (for the entire book).
Regards
Ashok from India
Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video wrote:
>I found the following information in the Nikon Fact Book 2000, ......
...
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why Leica? (Differences?...)
"max_perl" [email protected] wrote:
> The AFD 18/2.8 is a relative new design (ASPH), and the AFD 14/2.8 is a very
> new
> design. But the 18/2.8 proves that new design not always are better
> then older designs.
> The 20/2.8 is much better and with one more lens element than the 18/2.8.
> The AIS 15/3.5 is old but still very good if you can keep distubing light
> from the sides away.
> This lens have 14 elements as far as I remember. Zeiss and Leica has a
> similar lens with same number of elements.
> If you do a lens design right the first time you don't need to upgrade it
> every year.....
As someone who has bought twelve Nikon lenses in 2000 I looked carefully
at the history of the line and was surprised at what I saw. Rather than
a range of consistently good performers, I saw a hotch-potch of
dissimilar designs with greatly differing performance that was by no
means always linked to the price asked.
As someone who has tried hard to like zooms but still ends up using
fixed focal length lenses, I find that the most disappointing part of
the range is in those fixed focal lengths. There is no consistent set
of performance parameters among these lenses; with designs dating from
the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s inconsistency seems to be built in.
I disagree with your comment "If you do a lens design right the first
time you don't need to upgrade it every year" insofar as it applies to
Nikon fixed focal length lenses. There are distinct signs of Nikon not
having done "a lens design right the first time", but continuing to sell
the same design for many years, including putting the (unchanged) AIS
optics into a new plastic AF mount barrel.
Where Zeiss have scored is in refining their fixed focal length lens
designs from (many) years back to a point that's much nearer perfection
than Nikon's range. They have not rested on their laurels as Nikon have
appeared to, and as a result the Zeiss range for Contax SLRs is of a
very consistent high quality. I get the feeling that Nikon feel many of
their designs are "good enough", and that as long as they sell in
sufficient numbers there is little financial value in Nikon trying to
make improvements.
Perhaps this explains why Zeiss (and Leitz?) have managed to stay ahead
of the pack by constant improvement of their fixed focal length lens
designs. Where Nikon lead the pack is in zooms, and this is clearly
where the Nikon R&D budget has been spent. This perhaps explains why
Zeiss fixed focal length lenses are generally optically superior to
Nikkors and why the best of the zoom Nikkors are generally optically
superior to Zeiss zooms. This is a sweeping generalisation, and within
it there are some exceptions, but in the main, it holds true.
As a user of (mainly) fixed focal length lenses I deplore the relative
lack of development of the fixed focal length Nikkors when compared with
the now-excellent Nikkor zooms.
--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000
From: Rich Kurtz [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: More Juicy Little Tidbits
Hi Bob,
Yes, you are correct. Starting somewhere around the MID-1960's Nikon
introduced what they called the "TELE-NIKKOR" Lens System, which consisted
of 4 separate lens heads and one focusing mount adapter {which was
redesigned several times during its lifetime}. The thinking at the time
was how economical this would be. The photographer would only have to buy
one focusing mount, thus saving money so he could afford to have more than
one lens head. These mounts were made available for both the Nikon F mount
and the Bronica S2 mount {after removing the helicoid focusing mount from
the camera body,used for the smaller Bronica/Nikkor lenses}.
To answer your question about whether or not any of these "TELE-NIKKOR"
lenses had "Pre-set" or "Manual" Diaphragms, the answer is "YES" !!! The
800MM F/8.0 & the 1200MM F/11.0 Nikkor's both had a "MANUAL" diaphragm
ring near the rear of the "LENS HEAD". In the case of the 800MM lens you
could go either way. You could use the auto-diaphragm on the focusing
mount or you could use the manual diaphragm on the lens head, so long as
you stayed within the aperture range of either diaphragm system. The
diaphragm ring on the lens head offerred smaller apertures for increased
"Depth-of-Field". In the case of the 1200MM it was manual diaphragm only.
The aperture ring on the focusing mount was to be set to wide open and
left there. However, if you were going to be using either F/11 or F/22,you
could set the manual diaphragm ring on the lens head wide open to F/11 and
then set the auto-diaphragm ring on the focusing mount to F/11 or F/22 and
just have at it. You see the auto-diaphragm on the focusing mount offerred
lens apertures from F/4.5-F/22,whereas the manual diaphragm on the 800MM
lens head had apertures ranging from F/8-F/64 and the 1200MM lens head had
manual diaphragm apertures ranging from F/11-F/64.
Hope that clears up a lot of things concerning those old Nikkor lenses.
However,if at anytime you have a question concerning any of these lenses
please don't hesitate to ask,as at one time I was classified as a "NIKON
SPECIALIST" by E.P.O.I. {Nikon Distributors at that time}. Please don't
ask
me anything about the new stuff{from Nikon F3 to present}because I don't
know anything about these newer products.
One word concerning the adaptation of one of the Tele-Nikkor lens heads to
the focusing mount made for the KOMURA Teles {300/400/500MM}. I don't
think
I would try that one, because that mount screws into the threaded portion
of the Helicoid focusing mount for the smaller lenses. The weight of these
Nikkor lens heads is such that I am afraid it might rip the mount right
out of the camera.
As for 120 Kodachrome, I haven't shot a roll of that since I got my FIRST
Bronica S2A back in August,1971. So like yourself,I've been forced to fall
in love with 120 Ektachrome EPR 64 and like yourself I have found that it
will more than do the job.
See Ya,
Rick
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Date: Thu Mar 01 19:04:21 CST 2001
[1] Death of Mr. Fuketa (Nikon "F")
Just saw this on the Nikon Historical Society web site,--Mr. Fuketa,
former VP of Nikon, developer of the Nikon F (F is for Fuketa, BTW) died
on 24 Feb. His funeral was on Tuesday this week.
Dan Lindsay
From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001
From: Clive Moss [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] New Japanese Nikon Image website has MTF data
I looked at the site, and it looks like it may have interesting data --
but my ability to read Kanji is limited -- like, almost zero.
Looking at the graphs, it looked like the 24-120 outperformed the 24-85 --
which contradicts what I read here and elsewhere.
I am not sure at what aperture the tests were run at, or any of the other
test conditions.
Does anyone with skills in Nihongo care to shed some light on the
commentary that goes with the tests? I have not tried to decipher Kanji
since I lived in Tokyo in 1981, and am now completely rusty
Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
>New Japanese version of Nikon Image website has MTF data for Nikkor lenses.
>
>http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/af_nikkor/index.htm
>
>Regards
>Dibyendu
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001
From: "John Owlett" [email protected]
Subject: Re: MF vs AF Lenses
Phil Clark wrote:
> I am new to the group & would like to say hello & thanks for the
> info on my first question ealier: which camera. Now for one even
> more obtuse. With everything now either auto or even digital, & of
> course excluding tradition, would I do better to look at AF lens for
> my outfit; say an AF 28mm f/1.4 over the manual 28mm f/2.0. The AF
> is faster, can still be manually focused, and put on an AF body, my
> sisters or future purchase. Thanks for your input, Phil.
As far as I can tell, Phil, nobody has answered this question of
yours; it's been a while since I last wrote an interminable, rambling,
post, so I thought I'd have a go.
This time, instead of starting with three assumptions, I'll begin with
three dogmatic assertions:
(1) With a few much-discussed exceptions, when Nikon replaces a lens,
the optical design of the new lens is at least as good as the old
one.
Probably the exception discussed most on the List is the 28mm
f/2.8. The AI-S version and the AF-D version are highly regarded;
the AF version that came between them comes in for a lot of
criticism.
This dogmatic assertion is at its most true when applied to zoom
lenses. The computer has completely changed the world of lens
design, and has been applied most assiduously to zoom lend design;
because that's where the need was, and where the money is. Manual
focus enthusiasts who know both the 80-200mm f/4.5, and its
successor the 80-200mm f/4, usually say that going for the extra
speed made the optics very slightly less good: but nearly all
are agreed that the latest 80-200mm f/2.8 AF lenses are far better
than either.
(2) Nikon's multicoating technology has improved steadily and without
announcement.
What this means is that, given two lenses of the same optical
design, the more recent is likely to handle flare just a little
better.
The best-known Nikon multicoating is "Nikon Integrated Coating",
which used (I understand) technology licensed from Asahi Optical
(and which Asahi used on the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses for
its Pentax cameras), and which was introduced during the 1970s. I
believe that this introduction was complete by 1977 and that all
AI lenses have NIC.
But there was the "C" multicoating, which preceded NIC, and Nikon
brochures now advertise that modern lenses have "Super Integrated
Coating". Changes seem usually to have been small enhancements
made without announcement.
(3) Marketplace demands, especially consumer marketplace demands, for
light weight seem to have led to a lot of corner cutting; the
robustness and the manual-focus feel of many lenses has suffered.
It's this factor which makes your question difficult to answer.
The first two factors give rise to steady improvement: this one
gives rise to steady degradation ... at least in the eyes of some
of the List's more curmudgeonly members.
Some quests for light weight are good. Titanium is stronger than,
and lighter than, brass. (Though titanium is not a material for
the consumer marketplace.) And going for a modest aperture (say,
f/4.5 rather than f/2.8 for a 300mm lens) can save weight without
affecting build quality at all.
Even polycarbonates are not all bad (he says through clenched
teeth). Precision moulding is possible with polycarbonates and
this means that even the most inexpensively built lenses can be
rather good optically.
But polycarbonate doesn't resist wear well, & most polycarbonate
manual focusing rings are abominations.
So, how do these factors work out in practice? When the AI lenses
were launched in 1977, there must have some who lamented to slight
reduction in size, but NIC makes such a difference that new is better.
When AI-S lenses were launched in 1982, there was once again a certain
amount of slimming down, and some focusing rings turned through fewer
degrees -- making them faster and less precise. But time has shown
that AI-S lenses are just as robust: you can destroy one by impact,
fungus, or salt water, but it doesn't wear out. Probably most of us
use some AI and some AI-S lenses, and don't really notice much of a
difference -- not even multicoating neurotics like me.
When AF lenses were launched in 1986, Nikon users recoiled in horror.
Real lenses should stay where they are focused: they should be smooth
but have a moderate stiffness so that only conscious refocusing will
shift them. The little AF screwdriver didn't have the power to move
a helicoid, so focusing was made terribly light and focusing rings
became afterthoughts.
Nikon responded to the horror, and many later AF designs had proper
manual focusing rings, and AF-MF switches that could add or remove
stiffness. This means that there are few general rules about AF
lenses. Inexpensive, "consumer", lenses tend to have vestigial
manual focusing rings and abominable manual focus; expensive,
"professional", lenses often have quite acceptable manual focus.
As a card-carrying curmudgeon, I have so far bought only AI and AI-S
prime lenses for use on my F3. I do have two computer-designed AF
zooms. The 35-70mm f/2.8 is robust and has quite acceptable manual
focus feel -- I often use it on my F3. It is also expensive and heavy.
The manual focus on the 70-300mm ED zoom is too sloppy for my taste,
so I no longer use it on the F3.
Later,
Owl
----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK
[Ed. note: I have to concur with this assessment of the 20mm f/3.5 - it
just blows me away how it handles sunsets etc.!]
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001
From: Bjorn Rorslett [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Best Nikkor for Lens Flare Control ?
James Shadle wrote:
> I am looking for the Nikkor lens in the 20mm-24mm range that will handle
> Flare the best. AI/AIS or AF.
> Thanks James
You are looking for the 20 mm f/3.5 Nikkor (the one with 52 mm filter
thread). It blows all other 20-24 mm lenses away with respect to flare
control. Put the narrow K-1 ring on it and enjoy dramatic close-ups with
truly steep perspective.
Regards
Bjorn Rorslett
Visit http://foto.no/nikon/ for UV & IR Colour Photography and other
Adventures in Nature and Digital Photography
[Ed. note: Thanks again to Lars Hansen for these tips on Nikon Lens
Hacking! ;-)]
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst" [email protected]
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
Subject: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/obsolete.html
Dear Robert!
I think this account owes to give some information on the possibility of
compatibility "hacking" of old and new Nikon lenses.
Pre-AI Nikkors can be AI-modifed (see
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/repair/aimod/aimod.htm) and
new
lenses can have meter coupling shoes added to for metering compatibility
with pre-AI cameras (e.g.
http://www.aiconversions.com/images/VGA501.8ERetro27.jpg).
For a quick overview of the evolutionary steps of the Nikon F-mount check
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/fmountsteps.htm
Best regards,
--
Lars Holst Hansen - [email protected]
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonRepair
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: Rick Housh [email protected]
Subject: Re: MF lenses with chips (was: Non-AI, AI, AIS lens)
Lars wrote:
>Your "105/1.8 P" is available!
>Check http://rolland.homestead.com/index.html
Yes, Rolland Elliot has a very useful service to add CPU chips to existing
MF lenses, principally to turn on matrix metering in bodies that have it.
But note there is no conversion or CPU chip available for the 105/2.5, and
there are limitations, so be sure to read the "fine print" FAQ on Rolland
Elliot's site, at:
http://rolland.homestead.com/FAQ.html
Also on that page is a note to Rolland from Bjorn Rorslett, commenting
that the CPU conversion may not work properly on some AI lenses. This
would be because the aperture lever action is nonlinear. Because the
conversion to CPU is limited and doesn't send current aperture information
to the body, certain bodies such as the F60/N60 may not stop down properly
in any mode, and other bodies may not set the aperture correctly in S or P
modes. In other words, where the body will set the aperture internally,
the CPU chip addition will not cure an AI lens's inherent lack of
linearity in the mechanical action of its aperture lever. Of course the
problem can be avoided by using either manual or A mode on bodies which
sense the position of the aperture ring to determine current aperture.
For further explanation see the message in NikonDigital here on Yahoo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonDigital/message/190
See Rolland's subsequent comments at
http://rolland.homestead.com/FAQ3.html
Of course, the 105/1.8 is an AI/S lens, so this inherent nonlinearity
won't be a problem, and the addition of the chip should work properly with
respect to maximum and minimum aperture information. However, also note
that Rolland says the CPU may not transmit correct focal length
information to the body for some lenses. He uses CPU parts for existing
AF lenses for the conversion, and if there is no matching chip for that
particular focal length he will substitute a chip with the same maximum
aperture, but a different focal length. Because (I think) there is no AF
105/1.8, the focal length programmed into the conversion chip will
probably be wrong, if this matters to you. I don't know which AF lens
chip Rolland uses for the 105/1.8 (I guess if it were I, I'd use the AF
85/1.8 chip). This should be close enough for auto flash zooming
purposes. Note also that Rolland only uses older "non D" AF chips, so the
selection is somewhat limited. You might want to ask him.
My comments are not based on personal experience. I don't care that much
about matrix metering, so I haven't found it worthwhile to have a lens
converted, but Rolland's idea seems quite clever and useful for those who
do.
- Rick Housh -
[Ed. note: Special Thanks! to Nick Walker for sharing his lens testing
results and ideas and observations!]
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000
From: Nick Walker [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: lens quality
Please excuse the long ramble but I thought the following lens tests might
be of interest. A professional photographer I have sadly become interested
in lense design purely with regard to final image quality as evaluated by
the human eye and not based purely on laboratory tests.
Exacting comparison tests were conducted using the same piece of film
(Velvia) through both cameras so that processing errors would be limited.
Cameras used Nikon F5 and Leica R8. ( Heavy duty tripods X 2 for super
telephoto lenses one for camera one for lens. mirror lock at all times
cable releases etc,etc.) Pics taken in consistent lighting within minutes
of each other.
105mm Micro Nikkor V Leica R8 100mm Apo Macro
Nikkor F2.8, 80-200 mm AFS V F2.8, 80-200 AFD (Two touch version) V Leica
R8 70-180 F2.8
Nikkor 600mm F4 AFS V 560mm F4 Apo Telyt modular lens (two different 560mm
Telyt lenses tried)
Nikkor 400mm F2.8 AFS V 400mm F2.8 Apo Telyt modular lens (Two different
400mm Telyt lenses tried)
The Leica Apo Macro is stunning and reputed to be Leicas best performing
lens to date. At F2.8 right through the range it noticeably out performed
the Nikkor. It was judged by professional photographers and non
photographers as superior to the Nikkor lens in terms of sharpness and
contrast right across the frame at all apertures.
The Nikkor AFS 80-200 mm lens displayed greatly improved edge definition
and contrast across the frame over the previous two touch Nikkor AFD
version. The difference jumped out upon viewing between F2.8 -F4 apertures
after which both lenses displayed similar caharacteristics. The AFS showed
slightly less crisp rendering of small deatail in the very centeral area
in comparison to AF D version, which I can only assume is a trade off for
the vastly improved performance across the entire frame.
Once again the Leica 70-180 F2.8 lens was ahead in terms of sharpness and
contrast at F2.8 and F4 against the Nikkor from edge to edge, although the
margin was not so noticeable in comparison to the Macro lens test above.
However the difference was easily detected by all persons examing the
slides. The Leica displayed neutral colour balance which is some
achievement for a zoom lens. The Nikkor zooms displayed whites with a
noticeable magenta cast upon comparison with the Leica.
My test of the 400mm and 600mm lenses threw a spanner in the works as the
Nikkor lenses out performed the Apo Telyt lenses in terms of sharpness and
contrast. For once I actually felt that Leicas colour balance was slightly
less than satisfactory, as was commented on by others, which appeared
slightly yellower than expected. Several strict repeat tests were made to
allow for any operator error with these unwieldy beasts but the Leica
super telephoto lenses were unable to match the Nikkor lenses in terms of
sharpness and contrast.
I am sure that the quality of Leicas Anamalous partial dispersion Glass
(Nd 1.544) used in their Telephoto lenses will be of the highest quality
but somewhere along the design or manufacture process they simply didn't
match the Nikkor types. Both Leica 400mm and 650mm lenses, tested on
seperate occasions, displayed an identical lack of sharpness in comparison
to the Nikkors. All I can say is that the Nikkor Super telephoto lenses
were noticeably better to the same degree as the Leica lenses tested above
out performed the Nikkors. The special Leica 3D effect was not evident in
these lenses as a rescue factor. The Leica 100mm macro and 70-180mm lenses
displayed excellent tonal differentiation and colour balance
(uncontaminated whites) in addition to sharpness and contrast superiority
which helped provide the rounded appearance often described.
Nikon have been making fast aperture (F2.8/4) super telephoto lenses for
several years now and practice at producing them than Leica which rightly
or wrongly I believe has something to do with the resulting differences
found in my tests.
As a result of my findings the reputation of a manufacturers lenses as
superior in every focal length department as based upon the findings of
pure laboritory testing and folk law should be treated with great caution
for those persons who seek out what is perceived to be the very best
optics through previous reputation alone.
At the end of the day though there are several other matters to concider
nowadays since the introduction of AF systems than just the quality of
optics used. AF lenses using ultrasonic lenses up 200mm have little feel
when manually operated. The 80-200mm AFS in manual is poor. Although the
focussing ring is stiffer than the older two touch type one it rotates in
small judder type movements making it almost impossible to control
accurately. All of the lenses so far tried have behaved the same. I can't
say thet I have ever come across a new slack or sticking manual lens form
quality German or Japanese manufactures.
Like all ultrasonic motors used in lenses up to 200mm due to their AF
design they are best used in AF as primarily intended to operate. The
super telephoto ultrasonic lenses with their large focusing rings are an
exception to the rule and perform slightly better with regard to mimicking
their older manual cousins. As for Leica stating that pro's more than not
turn off their AF systems in preference to manual focusing nothing could
be further from the truth. A professional sports photographer I can
confirm that whilst AF is not perfect for every situation it is being used
more times than not in preferrence to manual focus. I am often working
within inches of other Sports photographers and at events such as tennis
and golf where you can hear those ultrasonic motors quietly chattering
along as one time anti AF award winning sports photographers frame their
intended victim.. Shots will be lost using either technique.
For high speed subjects that are moving at a fairly even pace such as 100
meters race, motor cars, etc, the best manual focus sports photographer
will never achieve the same hit rate as the latest generation AF systems
running at 8 + frames per second.
However for static work AF can be a nuisance hence using Leica lenses up
to 180mm with the R8 ultra crisp viewfinder. On commisioned editorial
assignments where subject movement is limited I use Leica equipment as the
manual focus is so smooth and positive I can focus quicker and more
acuurately with confidence as against trying to manually focus one of
todays short travel and jerky AF lenses which are primarily designed to
cater for fast and smooth AF response.
Whilst I have found that German lenses up to 200 or maybe in some cases
300mm out perform Japanese types these differences are immaterial to the
picture editor and viewer. It is also a fat lot of good having the best
manual optic if you can't focus it accurately as against a lens of
slightly less optical quality fitted with excellent AF capabilities which
could produce a higher rate of sharper images when used appropriately.
Regards
Nick Walker
Date: 21 Jul 2001
From: [email protected] (ChrisPlatt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikomat EL
I wrote:
>>Not if you've got a bunch of non-AI lenses.
>>Then you'd have to use stop-down metering only...
To which [email protected] responded:
> Non-ai lenses have not been the standard since 1978.
> Do you think maybe it's time to consider upgrading?
If satisfied with those pre-AI Nikkors,
and with the features of the EL,
what is the advantage of upgrading?
The EL allows full-aperture metering with nearly any
MF Nikkor lens (including AI and AIS).
This is an advantage if the user already owns pre-AI lenses.
If he buys any later model, the user will be forced to
replace or modify those lenses at great expense
if he wishes to perform full-aperture metering,
the method most photographers prefer.
Sure it's an old camera. But so is an FE2!
It's cheap, built like a tank, and takes nearly any Nikkor lens.
I say go for it!
"Excelsior, you fatheads!"
-Chris-
Date: 23 Jun 2001
From: [email protected] (DBaker9128)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikkor 20 mm 3.5 AIS lens
Tomas wrote:
>Does anyone have an opinion on the Nikkor 20mm 3.5 AIS lens?
I have the slightly older AI version of that lens which I have used since
the late 70's. It is a nice compact unit which has held up well over the
years and takes affordable 52mm filters. It does not have a floating
element design like the newer 20mm 2.8 AF-D and as a result is optimised
for best performance at 15 to 20 feet. Distant landscapes are best when
stopped down to f 8. I use mine on a N70 all the time and it is a really
nice combo.
Doug from Tumwater
From Nikn Mailing List
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001
From: Alex Hurst <[email protected]>
Subject: Bringing meter heads back from the dead(was Which pre-AI camera?)
Fred wrote in part:
>When the DS1 finder dies, and it will, although it
>still works perfectly, I have a plain glass pentaprism
>that I bought when the FTn finder on my F died.
Maybe you need the services of the great Robert Decker in Utah, who
seems to be able to bring almost any Nikon meter head back from the
dead at a very reasonable cost.
Contact him at:
[email protected]
He also has a website, which is listed on
http://www.nikonlinks.com/
I keep forgetting that this is an expanding group, and people may not
have caught previous posts about this unique guy. Highly recommended.
Best
Alex
From: "Max Perl" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why are Un Leicas So Inexpensive ?
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001
"Paul Chefurka" [email protected]> skrev
> "Max Perl" [email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Interresting test. When did you do this test?
>
> I did the test earlier this summer. You've drawn similar conclusions to
> others who've looked at it. To address your conclusions:
>
> >I am quite surprised about the Nikon AFD 50/1.4. I think it is a good lens.
> >Not impressed about the Nikon 50/1.8 at 2.0.
> >The Nikon 55/2.8 is not bad I think (I don't regret I have this lens).
>
> Agreed. Others think the 50/1.8 should have done a lot better. The 55/2.8
> is great in-focus. Out of focus it's a whole different world, though.
>
> >Is the Leica 28/2.0 ASPH really so bad at 2.0?
>
> No, nowhere near that bad. I think I pooched the focus, but in the
> interests of "objectivity", I presented the results I got.
>
> >The Leica 35/1.4 ASPH is another world at 2.0 (very good).
> >Not impressed about the AFD 35/2 at all.
>
> Yup, me too.
>
> >The Leica 75 and 90 mm seems to be very good lenses.
> >I am surprised how bad the Nikon AFD 85/1.8 is......the old AI 85/2.0 is
> >much better in this test.
>
> That 85/1.8 did better than my 90/2.0 AA in a portrait shoot I did right
> after those pictures were taken. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
> Oh, and I like the 85/2.0 a lot, too.
>
> >Could be interresting to see how the AFD 85/1.4 is.
> >
> >I have to look more at the pictures to be sure I made the right conclusions.
>
> Be careful about drawing too many conclusions from them. Most lens tests
> presented on the net do not carry enough information to permit that. This
> test is definitely one of them.
>
> Paul
>
I have made at list of the Nikkors I have used and marked those with an "*"
Which I think could go into competition with any other lens on the market.
(*)AIS 15/3.5 (sharp stopped down a little bit.....much better than the
18/2.8).
AFD 18/2.8 (sold....to much color frigning in the corners).
AFD 24/2.8 (sharp but bad in against the light situations).
*AIS 28/2.0 (perfect in against the light situations and sharp).
AI'ed 35/2.0 O-C (very good lens....maybe it deserves a "*").
*AIS 35/1.4 (from 2.8 - 8.0 very sharp.....my favorite lens in many years).
AIS 50/1.2 (sold.... bad at 1.2....else perfect sharp stopped down).
AIS 50/1.8 (need more practise with this lens).
*AIS 55/2.8 (use it for macro use only and here it is very sharp).
*AIS 58/1.2 noct. (perfect at 1.2, 1.4 and 2.0......especially in low light
situations).
*AF 80/2.8 (F3 AF) (my best quality for the money lens ($100 or so)....very
sharp lens).
*AI'ed 85/1.8 H-C (many think this is the best portrait lens ever made by
Nikon...(nice out of focus) ).
*AIS 105/2.5 (sharp.....my newest lens....need more practise but have seen a
lot of pics. with this lens).
*AFD 180/2.8 (very sharp at 2.8.......and has still optimum at 5.6).
AIS 300/2.8 (sold....needed AF for my use).
*AF 300/2.8 N (for me it is as good af the manual version.....works perfect
with the TC-14B).
I could have written much more for every lens but here you have my opinions
of the Nikkors.
I have no scanner so I can't show any examples on the web. I use Provia 100F
only and I do
Ilfochromes in my little darkroom.
Max
From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon/Nikkor Quality-- General
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002
Caffinefan [email protected]> wrote:
> I'm wondering which Nikon/Nikkor lenses are better stand above
> the others. I've heard that the 200mm 2.8 is considered good,
> but what primes rank highly?
Being mainly a rangefinder guy who likes to travel light I value lenses that
perform well *and* don't weigh a ton. For outdoor/landscape/close-up
photography Nikon makes some real good ones. My favorites (note that these
are manual focus lenses...I'm not familiar with the AF versions):
-- 20mm f/3.5 (second version) or f/4.0. Both are compact and flare
resistant.
-- 24mm f/2.8. IMO AF is near useless with lenses this wide. I use zone &
hyperfocal
focusing with a 20 or 24 most of the time. The manual versions have
better
depth-of-field scales for this purpose. The 24's optical formula hasn't
changed
since 1977.
-- 55mm f/2.8 macro ("micro" in NikonSpeak). Deadly sharp, a great standard
lens.
I've heard the AF 60mm macro is excellent too.
-- 105mm f/2.5. IMO among the finest lenses ever developed by anyone. Sharp
as a
tack, lovely out-of-focus rendition, not heavy.
-- 200mm f/4.0. I had one of the early non-AI versions and wasn't impressed.
Just got
an AIS version (different optical formula), though, which is very nice.
Sharp, compact
and light. The 180mm f/2.8 is great if you need the extra speed or
shallower DOF
but it's bulkier and weighs about 50% more.
Every one of these lenses takes the same 52mm filters, which IMO is a big
plus.
None of the Nikkor 300 or 400mm lenses have impressed me much. They're sharp
but cool & kinda harsh in tonal rendition compared to the Leitz and Pentax
long teles I like. I've used the 200 f/4 with a 2x extender...results were
quite good but an effective f/8 makes for a dim image in the viewfinder.
-Dave-
From: [email protected] (Colin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon/Nikkor Quality-- General
Date: 7 Jan 2002
My all time favorite Nikkor's are:
- 50mm F:1.8 (the regular AIS version, not the smaller compact
version) - a must have lens and it is so inexpensive so you should not
even think twice.
- 20mm F:3.5 (the version that takes 52mm filter, not the older
version which takes 72mm) - very compact and very sharp with almost no
distortion and less expensive than the newer 20mm F:2.8 (which is also
very good)
- 28mm F:2.8 AIS (there are many versions of 28mm - make sure it is
the 28mm AIS that has CRC) - the 28mm E Series is not very good and
the early 28mm AF has the same optical formula as the E Series.
- 85mm F:1.8 (I love the old HC version which takes the 52mm filter)
but have found that the new AF version with the 62mm filter as good
(but I have to admit that these 2 lenses are different in how they
render the image, both excellent)
- 105mm F:2.5 - I consider this the classic Nikkor that is a must
have. Dont leave home without it.
- 180mm F:2.8 - either the ED version or the AF version - (I consider
the 1st 180mm version way inferior)
- 80-200 F:2.8 zoom - to be considered in place of the 180mm but it is
a heavier and not as sharp throughout the range and also more
expensive.
- 24-50mm AF - not the best and not the sharpest lens, but I usually
take this lens with me instead of the 28mm because of convenience.
I have put down my favorites here and these are more than you would
want to start so you may want to ask where to start. My short list
would be (1) 105mm, (2) 50mm, (3) 20mm. You can fill the gap later.
Cheers.
[email protected] (Caffinefan) wrote
> I'm wondering which Nikon/Nikkor lenses are better stand above the others.
> I've heard that the 200mm 2.8 is considered good, but what primes rank highly?
> Thank you for any comments, I'm glad for the forum
> Steve
From: [email protected] (Ed Glass)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon USA Warranty Policies
Date: 11 Aug 2001
[email protected] (EDGY01) wrote
> "That was true for the first three years the F5 was out. Now 3rd party
> repair shops can fix them also."
>
> I don't know where you get this information, but if you need parts for it, you
> better have a USA serial number to support that parts order.
> Otherwise,--forget it.
>
> dan
I don't think you can say "Nikon absolutely won't touch any grey
market items for repairs."
I had a shutter problem with a grey F-4s that I bought from Del's. I
lived in N.J. at the time and thought it would be faster and safer to
bring the camera to Nikon in Long Island rather than ship it to Del's
in Ca.
I told Nikon my tale of woe and they took the camera, repaired it, and
CLA'd it for a grand total of $75.00 bucks. It came back shrunk
wrapped and beautiful.
I think that it depends on the circumstances and how it is presented
to Nikon, will.
Andy
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001
Subject: [Rollei] OT: Bye, bye Nikonos
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
I just got an odd and interesting press release from Nikon announcing
that the will cease production of the Nikonos product line.
What's unusual about this is that companies almost never formally announce
that they are discontinuing something. They usually list it as a production
item so long as they have any in their warehouses. The letter is also
unusual in its frank honesty in saying that underwater photography is simply
declining in popularity and they aren't selling enough to continue
production.
Accessories will be available through 2002, they expect.
I find the demise of this interesting camera, whose roots go back to the
Frenchy Calypso, sad.
Bob
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Nikomat FTn Meter
The notes I have on FTn meter system (FT-2 is the same plus hot shoe,
different focusing screen, and single threaded sync socket), : Turn on the
meter system by pulling the wind lever past red dot on top cover.
The resistance of the variable resistor is determined by the
ASA-shutterspeed-f/Stop settings.
Calibrate the meter system by setting to ASA 100 at f/5.6 and check the
following points: EV14 1/500; EV11 1/60; EV 9 1/15. Calibrate by moving the
meter calibrating arm in the meter movement cutout. Then turn off the meter
to see if a correct "off" position is obtained.
If the indicator points below the off position change r2 (in plastic sleeve)
and start the calibration procsss over again. The most common problems with
meter in order of probability are: Battery, switch, variable resistor ring,
meter coil, cells, and wire.
To: [email protected]
From: Ron Schwarz [email protected]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Nikon EM & Nikkor 50mm f2 problems
>the second problem is a Nikkor-H.C 50mm f2 recently purchased on
>ebay - the focus ring has a lot of play in it, about a 1/4 inch of
>slack. Is it possible to fis this, or would I be better off leaving
>it alone?
The most common cause of sloppy focus in Nikkor helicoids (IMO) is the
plastic "key" that prevents the inner helicoid from rotating as you turn
the focus ring. It's held in by two screws, and they tend to loosen up.
Ususally there are two holes you can use to access the screwheads, you've
got to remove the control rings to get to them, but once you do, it's a two
second repair to tighten them. If you wait too long, one will fall out,
and lodge somewhere in the lens. If you ever get a Nikkor that has a
strangely restricted focus range, it's probably because one of those screws
fell out and migrated to where it didn't belong.
From: Zeljko Kardum kardum@DELETE_THISzagreb.cc>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon - primes that deliver creamy bokeh
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001
The only one I could suggest is 50/2 AI
Absolutely beautiful
People overlook this lens cause it's not high speed and it's too cheap
to be considered seriously.
--
Kardum
http://www.kardum.com/
Robert Alvarez wrote:
>
> I'm in the works of purchasing a nikon set.
> the primes I was planning to pick up was the 24mm 2.8, 50mm, and the
> 85mm 1.8. If price wasn't a factor, I would go with the 105 dc.
>
> How's the boken on these 3 lenses. Afaik, these three are all great
> performers in regards to sharpness but hows the bokeh? Haven't shot in
> a LOng while and I used to carry a M3 back in college. Can't afford a
> Leica these days!
--
Kardum
http://www.kardum.com/
To: [email protected]>
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Nikkormat counter advance
There is an adjustment for this. You have to get the top off, though.
Hardest part is getting the cap off the film advance lever. This screws
off (left hand thread!!!) using a rubber tool, but often have been locked
in place with shellac and can be stubborn. If it doesn't come off easily,
put a piece of brass shim or several layers of aluminum foil on it and
put the tip of a soldering iron on it until it is hot, and then try. Don't
get it to hot it melts the rubber, though! You can also put some WE-40 or
Liquid Wrench around the circumference and let it soak in for a day or two.
Anyhow, if you're lucky that will just unscrew with no hassle and the rest
of the process is simple.
Bob
> From: "stiltonkopf" [email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [camera-fix] Nikkormat counter advance
>
> Dear group,
>
> A friend of mine owns an old Nikkormat (all-metal advance lever), the
> model I don't know.
>
> The camera is operating well, unfortunately recently the film counter
> has started to advance 2 counts per actual exposure. Is there an easy
> way to repair this?
>
> Many thanks,
> Steven (stiltonkopf)
To: [email protected]>
From: "Robert Chiasson" [email protected]>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Nikon FG draining batteries
One possibility is that Nikon built this "undocumented feature" into your
camera, as they did with the early F3's.
They didn't clean the flux off the circuit boards after soldering the
components on, they merely chemically deactivated it. But the goop can
absorb moisture and create short circuit paths on the circuit board.
The solution (for a tech) is to clean the circuit boards with isopropyl -
the solution (for Nikon) was to change production technique.
Not being an electronic camera tech, I have no personal experience with
this - but I did work at a place that had C&C Associates repair guides, and
this is covered in their electronic camera troubleshooting guide. What you
do is hook a DVM on a milliamp (or microamp - autoranging would be best)
scale into the battery power supply circuit and look for current draw with
everything switched off. (In their specific camera guides C&C did give the
current draws for various normal operations.)
The easy (for you) work-around is to simply remove the batteries when not
shooting!
This atmospheric-moisture-water-damage thingie to is common on the damp East
coast.
------
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Maquiling" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 7:59 PM
Subject: [camera-fix] Nikon FG draining batteries
> Hi all,
>
> I bought a Nikon FG for parts. The owner said that it only worked on B or
> on M90...which is the description when there are no batteries.
>
> Got the camera and popped in fresh, new batteries. Thing worked great!
> No problems. 24 hours later, it didn't work. I put the batteries on
> another camera and it was dead. I put batteries from my other camera to
> the FG and it works.
>
> So the question is, what can cause the battery drainage like that? Is
> this something that I can do without specialized tools (besides small
> screwdrivers and pliers..that's about all I got).
> --
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002
From: H Miller [email protected]>
Subject: Stacking Rings
Folks:
I've been out looking for stacking rings. So I
thought I would follow up on an earlier thread on
finding stacking rings with the current info I've dug
up.
Two sources have them now: Kirk's and B&H. I've not
found any other sources.
Kirk has some stacking rings left, but generally not
the most commonly used ones (Kirk told me that these
had sold out and he's having trouble finding more).
B&H has all the common sizes of stacking rings and
lacks only the 77mm->77mm ring. B&H said it's out of
stock and won't be produced anymore. This ring,
however, Kirk has.
With the stacking rings between Kirk and B&H and
appropriate step-up and step-down rings, I have been
able to connect every lens I have (even combinations
that make no sense). As more of these go out of
production though, that may not be as easy in the
future.
Kirk sells his rings at $13.00. B&G sells theirs at
either $6.95 or $7.95.
URLs for Kirk and B&H are:
http://www.kirkphtoto.com
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Hope that helps.
Hugh Miller, a newby to this group.
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev 19, 19M, and 20 SLRs?...
My Kiev 19M has a metal body but what appear to be polycarbonate
top and bottom covers. I've had it five or six years and it still works
fine. Metering is pretty accurate. Viewfinder is bright. They work
with all Nikon Ai type lenses. The Arsat which comes with the camera
is very good. Other Kiev lenses in Nikon mount I have are pretty good.
Bob
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Buying Used Lenses
--- In NikonMF@y..., "fagun" fagun@h...> wrote:
> I live in Bombay, India. So www.keh.com and ebay are beyond my
snip>>>>>>>
> available is immediately picked up. So all that is normally
> available is much abused equipment of which as rookie I don't think
> that I am able to coorectly estimate a fair price. I greatly
> appreciate the various suggestions given to me and will incorporate
> those possible in my search for a good used MF lens.
snip>>>>>>>
Different markets, different challenge I guess. We may not make a
"confident shopper of used Nikon glass" out of you, but here are some
of my thoughts on the subject:
* Manual focus lenses made by Nikon are remarkably rugged and
durable. Some of the cheaper series E lenses had some structural
failures, but for the most part the AI and AIS lenses are very strong.
* Beat up paint finish on a lens only drives the price of the lens
down, it doesn't alter its usability.
* Even 'swirl marks' and other minor blemishes on the glass don't
have as much affect on the image as many photographers think.
If I am offered a beater of a lens at an attractive price, here's
what I check for:
* Does the lens not have any unusual looseness (e.g., can I make the
front lens barrel point slightly off axis)?
* Does the lens focus smoothly throughout it's range (no rough spots)?
* Is the lens free from fungus (fungus looks like spider webs on the
glass, and it can be on the internal elements; you might need a
flashlight to check)?
* Does the aperture stop down quickly? With the lens off the camera
and the aperture set very small (f/16), give the aperture tab on the
lens mount a 'flick'. It should cycle very quickly from closed to
open to closed again. Compare it to a "known good lens" if you're
not sure about this. Also, the aperture blades should not have oil
on them.
* With the lens on your camera, will it focus at infinity? Will it
focus at its minimum marked distance?
If you can answer 'yes' to all those questions, the lens is most
likely functional. If it has a 'nice price', say quite a bit below
www.keh.com "bargain" grade, it's probably worth a test roll of film
to find out. (Obviously, your local market may influence your
opinion on pricing.)
If you're still stuck buying new AF lenses, I'll throw in a vote for
the Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AF or AFD. Not particularly cheap, but
well-built, excellent performance optically, and pretty good MF feel
as well. Is there anything comparable in say a Tokina ATX for less
money that has a good MF feel?
-Todd Peach
[email protected]
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001
From: Michael Briggs [email protected]>
Subject: RE: lens repair books
Nikon Camera Repair Handbook by Thomas Tomosy.
You probably should also get Camera Maintenance and Repair by Tomosy, which
explains camera repair procedures generally applicable to all makes of
cameras.
An experienced repair person probably doesn't need a manual specific to a
particular lens. If you know the general procedures, you should be able
to figure out a specific lens.
...
From Nikon Mailing List:
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Hey! what about Nikon N80?
From: Andrew Koenig [email protected]
Date: 31 Aug 2001
Ed> Just because it lacks the labels of "pro" camera or "for the
Ed> serious photographer", don't sell it short on it being a great
Ed> camera with good features. It is newer than the n90 with faster
Ed> AF, and is sometimes referred to as the "baby" F100. The main
Ed> drawbacks for most pros or "serious photographers" is the lighter
Ed> body than what they like, a "plasticky" feel, no mirror lockup,
Ed> and flash sync of only 125th.
Also the shutter lag is significantly greater than on the N70.
On both cameras, the mirror takes its own sweet time about coming
down after the exposure -- but on the N70 the shutter fires
immediately after the mirror has gone up, and on the N80 the shutter
fires immediately before the mirror goes back down.
Listen to the two cameras while looking at the shutter and the
difference will be immediately obvious.
--
Andrew Koenig, [email protected], http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
From: Ruscello Claudio [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001
Subject: [Nikon] Home made cable release F90x / Fxx with the 10 pin connector.
Hello all, this is the Nikon MC-22 Cable Diagram and using these wires you
can made your own cable.
Drawing show the 10 pin F90x connector LOOKING @ THE FRONT OF THE CAMERA
V (Key)
2 3
1 4
> 9 10 (Key)
5 8
6 7
Colours are the 3 banana plugs of the MC-22
1 = Fire (Yellow)
2 = Output Shutter Release Button Status
3 = +5V Output
4 = TTL Serial Rx (NOT RS232 LEVEL WARNING !!!)
5 = TTL Serial Tx (Same as above)
6 = Gnd
7 = Fire Gnd (Black)
8 = Shutter Release Pulse To 2nd Camera
9 = ? Probabilly N.C.
10= Expos ON + AF (Blue)
1 - Shortening the Black wire (7) with the Blue one (10) the Exposure and
the motor AF will go on.
2 - Shortening the Black wire (7) with the Yellow one (1) the camera fires
the shutter (according to the priority type selected on the camera)
If the step 2 is performed when the camera meter is switched off the
shutter won't fire.
These are the instructions provided by Nikon on the booklet inside the
MC-22 box.
If you want to fire the shutter at once when the camera meter is off, then
you have to act the 1st step OR first depress the camera button OR
shortening the Blue (10), Yellow (1) and Black(7) wires together at once.
I have to do a try, but is possible that inserting a diode between the
Black and the Blue wire, the
camera swith on the exposure meter WITHOUT turning on the AF motor.
PLEASE PLEASE NEVER PUT BATTERIES BETWEEN THESE CONTACTS !!!!
THEY ARE UNNECESSARIES AND SERIOUS DAMAGE ON THE CAMERA MAY OCCUR.
There are not my opinions, are the hardware drawings charts. :-)
I thnk may be a good idea if Alexander can put this type of infoes on a
section of the site maybe the DIY Section.
From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002
From: Kari Kuutti [email protected]
Subject: EM queries
Some instructions how to deal with jumpy EM meter , see
http://sites.netscape.net/sndk1999/nikonem
--Kari Kuutti
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002
From: "hippo_griff" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: cheap lenses, expensive lenses and EM queries.
Andrew,
Jumpy EM meters are pretty common. If the cause is a dirty resistance
it's a fairly straightforward fix, detailed instructions are
available in the files section of the NikonEM group. At that price,
(AUD$112 is pretty cheap!!) I'd buy one, but there are some who like
the EM and some who don't.
Leo
From nikon mailing list:
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001
From: "Ron Barlow" [email protected]
Subject: Re: MF PC lenses
Ernie,
The PC 35 f2.8 AIS is the best for optics as well as compatibility with
other cameras (ex. FE2). It's best to check the serial numbers to verify
if its an AIS. Stop down metering with all cameras except F3. I use mine
all the time with the F3 for buildings and other structures.
See http://www.uscoles.com/pclens.htm for a good article on this lens.
Good luck, Ron
From nikon mailing list:
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001
From: Larry Kopitnik [email protected]
Subject: re: MF PC lenses
>>What are peoples opinions re; the 28/3.5 vs. the 35/2.8 PC lenses.
Whether the 35 or 28 mm PC lens is better for you depends on your
needs. I bought the 28 for architectural photography, for which the
35 would not be wide enough.
With its non-automatic, preset aperture, the 28 is a slow lens to
use: Turn the aperture to set exposure, turn the preset ring to where
the aperture is set (essentially to mark that spot, because you don't
want to focus or shift with a closed aperture and darkened finder),
turn the aperture ring back to wide open, focus, shift, turn the
aperture back to the preset position. Then you're ready to shoot.
The 28 is generally a sharp lens, except sharp edges (not just
corners) when fully shifted require the lens being closed down a
couple stops.
While I bought the 28 principally for photographing buildings, where
it really does make a difference, I've also used it at crowded
festivals, where movement is limited, and shifting has gotten
unwanted tree limbs out of a shot.
Larry
from nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002
From: "yanquiidoodle" [email protected]
Subject: Nikkor lenses on non-Nikon cameras
I've been curious about the extent to which Nikkor lenses can be used
in cameras besides those of Nippon Kogaku.
According to Braczko's Complete Nikon system, the 1935 Canon
rangefinder used Nikkor lenses, as did a 1964-1966 Ricoh Singlex SLR.
In Medium Format, he also mentions Nikkor lenses designed for the
Zenza Bronica. A nice list and description of this and other MF
cameras appears at
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/shinsaku/hiura/camera/mednikkor/index-e.html
The cameras listed and described are: Airesflex Z (1951), Zenza
Bronica EC-TL (1975), Zenza Bronica D (1959), Marshal press (1966)
and Plaubel Makina 67 (1979).
I know there are others. What are they? When I was at the B&H used
department (are you listening Henry Posner?) I spotted a different
Plaubel with a huge Nikkor lens. I'll find out more when I go back.
AFAIK, Plaubel was a German camera made and designed by a Japanese
man.
What about large format lenses? Did Nikon make LF lenses?
How about using the enlarger lenses? All I have is a rather small El-
Nikkor 50mm f/4 and I'd like to find some way to use it on a camera.
What about the bigger enlarger lenses?
Hoping to hear of other cameras and other uses.
Dan
From Nikon Mailing list:
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002
From: Rick Housh [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nikkor lenses on non-Nikon cameras
you wrote:
>I've been curious about the extent to which Nikkor lenses can be used
>in cameras besides those of Nippon Kogaku.
>
>According to Braczko's Complete Nikon system, the 1935 Canon
>rangefinder used Nikkor lenses, as did a 1964-1966 Ricoh Singlex SLR.
Of course, Nikon has made lots of lenses for non-Nikon cameras in the other
manufacturer's own mounts. As far as the Nikon mounts themselves are
concerned, the Nikon RF bayonet mount is a clone of the Contax mounts, so
Nikon and Contax RF lenses are interchangeable, with one caveat: the
rangefinders are cammed slightly differently, so the rangefinder is
slightly off.
In the Nikon SLR F-mount, there were/are two other manufacturers' bodies
Nikon rebadges as their own, the 1960's Nikkorex F, made by Mamiya, and the
current Cosina-made Nikon FM-10 and FE-10. Then there are three other
bodies I know of that will accept Nikon lenses: the Ricoh Singlex (not the
Singlex TLS, which is Pentax mount), the Sears Roebuck SL11, which is a
rebadged Ricoh Singlex, and the (currently available) Ukrainian Kiev 19.
These all accept Nikon SLR F-Mount lenses, and each but Sears have made one
or more of their own lenses in the F-mount which would also fit Nikon
bodies. The Mamiya-manufactured F-mount lenses are called
"Nikkorex-Sekors", the Ricoh was called "Rikenon", and the lenses for the
Kiev have various names. The Sears used the Ricoh Rikenon lenses. The
Nikkorex-Sekors had only semi-automatic diaphragms, but the others were
fully automatic, although none were meter-coupled at all, except the
"Russian" lenses.
I've owned all of these bodies but the Kiev at one time or another, and
have long had a web page illustrating the similarities and differences of
the Nikkorex, Ricoh Singlex, and Sears, which is here:
http://home.swbell.net/houshr/camera/nikon/specams.html
- Rick Housh -
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku
Posted with Richard's permission:
----------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002
To: 'Bob Shell' [email protected]
Subject: RE: Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku
Good morning Bob:
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've prepared and forwarded the
following information for our customers relations department.
1. The letter "F" was specifically chosen by Nippon Kogaku (as related to
me by several of the early time engineers), and was derived from the word
reflex ... "flex." Not "just because we liked it," but because we
"specifically chose it."
2. Nikon is an independent, public corporation, owned by stockholders. As
is common in Japan (and other countries as well) it does cooperate within a
group which happens to include Mitsubishi. Contrary to rumors, Nikon is
neither owned nor controlled by "Mitsubishi."
3. The name Nikkor was developed by Nikon and as one may infer, it evolved
from the original name, "Nikon," which evolved from the company's original
name of "Nippon Kogaku ... Ni-Ko ... evolved to Nikon. Nippon Kogaku,
translated from the Japanese means Japan (Nippon) Optical (Kogaku).
Similarly, Nikonos evolved from Nikon.
The company originated as an optical glass maker and evolved into its
current role as a company that specializes in ultra-high-precision products
and technologies. I imagine you are familiar with the full complement of
products made by our company, all of which are leadership products in their
respective markets.
Dinner was very nice and I'm glad we had the chance to chat about topics of
mutual interest ... and passion. Photography is my life, as I believe it is
yours as well. Isn't it wonderful!
Best regards,
Richard
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku
Ferdi Stutterheim at [email protected] wrote:
> I have not followed this thread from the beginning. As far as I know the
> name of the designer of this camera started with F..
>
> So, it became the Nikon F.
That's just one thing I was disputing. The designer's name may well have
started with an F, but that is not why it was called Nikon F. In Japanese
culture it was considered unseemly to name things after the designer.
That's why it caused so much turmoil in the 70s when Dr. Maitani had the
temerity to name the M-1 (OM-1) after himself. This was considered very
un-Japanese. F came from "Flex", and there is no question of that fact.
Bob
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Unbiased Sources -- NOT!
Bob Shell wrote:
>I see no reason to insult Richard. To me he has much more credibility than
>those web sites. You can put anything on the web. He's been with Nikon
>since the very early EPOI days, and I venture to say that he knows more
>about the company than any outsider possibly could.
>
I'm hardly insulting this fellow but, by your own statement, he is a paid
employee of Nikon and thus, as part of his serices to the firm, he will
waffle and warble over the fact that Nikon is still part of the Mitsubishi
zaibatsu.
And you clearly did not examine the web sites I suggested, Bob -- a number
of them were Japanese business sites and a number of others were government
sites. That Nikon is part of Mitsubishi is well known to economists and
diplomats and polticians and even to the Japanese government. You and this
Richard fellow seem to be the last to be informed, an unusual state of
affairs in your case.
The Japanese polity has every reason to "deny" the connection but Japan is
under intense pressure from other nations -- among them the US -- to adopt
anti-trust laws in accord with those in force in the rest of the world.
The EU is considering anti-trust actions against a number of these Japanese
conglomerates, incidentally. Japan's refusal to do this is simply part of
their failure to deal honestly with their economic structuring. Japan is
now back-sliding from the pinnacle of financial power it held a decade back
and, unless some sound and solid steps are taken soon, their economic
future is most bleak.
Ask Richard how often the head of Nikon attends the Mitsubishi "President's
Club". That tells all.
Marc
[email protected]
from nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Photomic CCT diagram
You might check Robert Decker's website before you start. It's at:
http://hometown.aol.com/drwyn/myhomepage/index.html
There are repair manuals available for the finders, which I believe include
the circuit diagrams. Check Craig Camera, which is at:
http://www.craigcamera.com/
Hope this helps.
William Sampson
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku
Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) at [email protected] wrote:
Never thought of that but Nikon was actually a combination of 3 companies
which took place in 1917.
The Japanese government merged the Iwaki Glass Company, Tokyo Keiki Seisaku
Sho (Optical Company) and the Fujii Lens Seizo Sho to form Nippon Kogaku
Kogyo K.K. or the Nippon Optical Manufacture Corporation, the company we now
know as Nikon.
The name Nikon was first used on the Nikon I made by Nippon Kogaku whose
development began in 1946 and marketed in 1948. This post-war camera
featured a focal plane shutter with rangefinder focusing but had a picture
format of 24mm x 32mm.
Now if this was an IKON copy then what you say may be true.
Would anyone know if this model was similar in design to the Ikon?
I think the name Nikon was chosen because it sounded like Zeiss Ikon, just
as Pentax was picked because it sounded like Contax.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002
From: Todd Belcher [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku
Didn't Zeiss Ikon warn Nikon over the Nikomat name? Zeiss deemed it too
close to their moniker 'Ikomat'. Hence Nikomats became Nikkormats or
something like that during their production run.
todd
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku
Todd Belcher at [email protected] wrote:
> Didn't Zeiss Ikon warn Nikon over the Nikomat name? Zeiss deemed it too
> close to their moniker 'Ikomat'. Hence Nikomats became Nikkormats or
> something like that during their production run.
I don't think so. They were called Nikomat in Japan and Europe and
Nikkormat in the USA. This was so EPOI could easily distinguish US import
from gray market.
Bob
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku
David Seifert wrote:
>It
>is my understanding that the peculiar frame size was an export restriction
>designed to protect the home market. As soon as the restriction was
>limited Nikon switched to the standard 24x36.
Well, no. Nikon first moved to 24 x 34, THEN to 24 x 36. Big Yaller just
would NOT agree to process 35mm Kodachrome in anything other than 24 x 36.
Marc
[email protected]
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002
From: Dan Kalish [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku
Hi, Bob:
Please excuse repetition of information from other postings.
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku
Dan Kalish at [email protected] wrote:
> Then there's maintaining the mark. I understand the name Nikon was changed
> to Nikkor in West Germany as the result of one or more lawsuits.
Where are you geting this stuff, Dan?
http://www.cameraquest.com/nikkorcs.htm
Peter Braczko, "The Complete Nikon System". pg. 52.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonMF/message/21700
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonMF/message/21704
This simply did not happen.
The cameras have always been called Nikon in Germany, and the lenses
have always been called Nikkor (except for the E series as someone
pointed out, which were called Nikon worldwide).
(Dan) Nope. "Due to a lawsuit alleging trademark violations of the name "Zeiss-Ikon,"
Nikon cameras were not imported into Germany during the early and mid
1960's. Nippon Kagaku's temporary solution was to turn Nikon cameras into
"Nikkor" cameras. This new naming extended even to small accessories and
instructions books."
http://www.cameraquest.com/nikkorcs.htm
(Dan) As you know, other RUGgers have make Nikkor sightings.
Dan Kalish [email protected]
From Rollei Mailing list
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku
> So first Canon used Nikkor lens? I never heard of it.
Yes. Nikkor lenses were the second commercial lens to be produced in Japan
but the first from glass made in Japan.
Konica made the first lens based on the Tessar formula but used imported
glass from Germany.
Interesting point here, little know but Nippon Kogaku actually hired 8
German optical engineers to help them develop optics in the 1920s leading to
the first lens made around 1931 (from memory). I have the names of all 8 for
the non believers.
Peter K
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002
From: Dan Kalish [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku
Follow-up on facts I couldn't pin down in the previous posting.
From: "Dan Kalish" [email protected]
To: [email protected]>; [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku
> > Yes, Zeiss Ikon was concerned about the "Nikon" name and so Nikon cameras
> > sold in West Germany (from 1963 to 1968) had the name Nikkor.
>
> First I've ever heard that assertion!!
"Due to a lawsuit alleging trademark violations of the name "Zeiss-Ikon,"
Nikon cameras were not imported into Germany during the early and mid
1960's. Nippon Kagaku's temporary solution was to turn Nikon cameras into
"Nikkor" cameras. This new naming extended even to small accessories and
instructions books."
http://www.cameraquest.com/nikkorcs.htm
> > The "F" in Nikon/Nikkor F was to give recognition to the engineer who had
> > designed it. I forgot his name and its not in Braczko's book.
>
> The F stands for Flex !!!
The name is Masahiko Fuketa, a/k/a Fuketa-san. "The famous F designation
is taken from name of chief designer of every camera from the Nikon I to the
Nikon F - Masahiko Fuketa."
http://www.nikon.co.uk/aboutni.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonMF/message/23611
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonMF/message/23612
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonMF/message/23613
...
an Kalish [email protected]
Flushing, NYC, USA
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Nikon and Mitsubishi, Zaibatsu to Keiretsu
Bob Shell wrote:
>That has nothing to do with whether Nikon is a subsidiary of another company
>or not. They say they are not a subsidiary of Mitsubishi or any other
>company. They say they belong to the Mitsubishi family of companies. Ask
>them yourself if you don't believe this. I think subsidiary is an English
>word with no exact Japanese equivalent, and is the wrong word to use in this
>case.
Bob
It has EVERYTHING to do with Nikon's status. Nikon began as a subsidiary
of Mitsubishi but was oestensibly "freed" when the conglomerates were
broken up. Actually, the conglomerates were not "broken up": the Japanese
simply shifted from an open vertical alignment to an "informal"
arrangement. Due to the outbreak of the Korean War, we let them get away
with this. In the case of Mitsubishi, the arrangement today is called,
"the President's Club". Trust me, the head of Nikon is a faithful attendee
of meetings of this association!
These zaibatsu -- now called keiretsu -- are VERY old. Mitsui and
Mitsubishi have existed for centuries.
See
http://vikingphoenix.com/public/JapanIncorporated/postwar/zaibatsu.htm
http://www2.gol.com/users/mmcb/modall/Companies2.html
http://www.ewc.co.jp/archive/grp_cmp.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_11/b3620009.htm
http://www.mind-advertising.com/jp/mitsubishi_jp.htm
and the references cited in several of these.
Marc
[email protected]
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002
From: "yanquiidoodle" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Non-Nikkor Lenses for Nikon
More links for adapting excellent lenses to a Nikon camera:
http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptnew.htm
http://www.cameraquest.com/viso5.htm
(AFAIK, the Visoflex system is Leica RF lenses adapted for SLR use.
It doesn't seem to work with wideangle lenses, though).
Dan
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: incompatible F5 etc. Re: Nikon's incompatibility
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002
Robert Monaghan wrote:
>
>I don't know any nikon users who understand or like the G lenses, none.
>It is a blind alley etc. But you can rest assured that nikon is busy
>trying to figure out how to obsolete their current stuff so we will have
>to buy all new lenses and cameras and flashes and .... ;-)
Hi Bob,
You are precisely right.
All new AF-S Nikkor designs will be G lenses ... from the sublime to
the ridiculous. Have Nikon lost their way? I believe they have.
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon's incompatibility with older lenses
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002
"Skip"
>The upcoming 70-200 VR is rumored to be a "G" lens
... plus the new 24-85mm zoom, and every new AF-S lens.
I suspect that, before long, all new Nikkors will be G lenses.
From: Robert Kirkpatrick [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon's incompatibility with older lenses
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 1
http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_release/2002/afsvr70-200.htm
I would call that a little more than a rumor.
Skip wrote:
> The upcoming 70-200 VR is rumored to be a "G" lens
From: [email protected] (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 05 Feb 2002
Subject: Re: Just 13 Nikon MF Lenses????
>Subject: Just 13 Nikon MF Lenses????
>From: Zeljko Kardum [email protected]
>Date: Mon, Feb 4, 2002
>
>Lewis Lang wrote:
>> There are only 13 Nikon MF lenses listed in their most current product
>line
>> catalog (Volume 7) - they are:
>>
>> 24mm f/2, 28mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2, 45mm f/2.8P, 85mm f/1.4, 105mm
>> f/2.5, 135mm f/2.8, 500mm f/8 (Reflex - I'm assuming this is their mirror/"cat"
>> lens), 35-200mm f/3.5-4.5, 50-300mm f/4.5 ED, PC 28mm f/3.5 and PC Micro-Nikkor
>> 85mm f/2.8D. And that's all she wrote folks ;-) :-).
>>
>> Lewis
>
>Are you sure?
>
>There's much wider selection on Nikon Japan web page:
>http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/Nikkor_Lenses/index3.html
>or
>http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/Nikkor_Lenses/mf_spec.pdf
>that was updated in November 2001.
>
>I bought "new" 24/2.8 AIS last year at B&H photo New York despite the
>fact that such a lens did not exist in Nikon USA catalogue. (24/2 AIS
>only)
>
>Is it possible that Nikon USA does not import the complete Nikon
>production line?
>
>Kardum
>http://www.kardum.com/
Kardum:
Just because a lens is not listed in the Nikon catalog it doesn't mean that it
doesn't exist new for sale in some store as stock. Nikon's list should probably
be considered worth a pinch of salt since it just mentions those that are still
in production (I suppose) and not those still left to be sold new in stores.
There even may be some special order/rare lens that Nikon builds to spec when
there is enough demand for it (super wides/supertelephotos/super zooms? I don't
know)... All I can do is quote the catalog, the reality of what MF lenses you
can buy new is probably a lot bigger than the Nikon catalog ;-), but you won't
know until you search/find out on a store by store basis, though...
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
From nikon mailing list:
From: "Andre" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Nikon acronymes
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002
Try this one:
http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/LensGuide/opt_tech2.html#AFS
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002
From: "charalambosvioform" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nikon DP-20 Shoe?
The dp-20 service manual is 48 pages ..
http://24.237.160.4/files/photography/Nikon/Manuals/DP20srv/
Did you or anyone , has removed the top cover of the dp-20 ?
Since you talk about the shoe circuit , I presume you did.
I know the technical stuff , but it seems that after removing the
screws and the 2 knobs (diopter correction - meter selector) I cannot
remove the top cover ..
I am doing something wrong ?
vioform
--- In camera-fix@y..., "russ1302" ae9978@w... wrote:
> I have a DP-20 on my F4, It has two wires loose from the shoe
> circuit, green and purple. does anyone have a diagram, or
> information to help?
> Thanks
> Russ
from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: What about Exaktas? (Mamiya)
Robert Chiasson at [email protected] wrote:
> They scream "Nikkorex"! If we ever needed proof that Mamiya made the
> Nikkorex line, there it is!
You know, Nikon still denies that Mamiya built those! I had dinner Sunday
night with some people from Nikon and during dinner someone asked what their
most disappointing product ever had been. Richard LoPinto looked at me and
said, "Bob will know." I said Nikkorex and their were universal groans from
the Nikon people. They admitted that they would like to take that one off
their family tree. But they also said it was built by Beauty, not Mamiya.
Bob
From nikon mailing list:
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old Nikkor 105mm and 135mm
[email protected] writes:
> Saw some old Nikkor Q, non AI, AI 105mm and 135mm (f2.8 & f3.5) at low price
> (below US$100). Any of these lenses worth getting nowadays? How's the
> quality compare to today's zoom (eg. 28-105mm)? Are they good for portrait
> shot?
I always have to smile at questions like this. Some of the most memorable
photos in the history of photojournalism and untold excellent portraits were
taken with these older lenses. We admire these pictures when we see them
reproduced in books today. Of course, they were taken with lenses we might
consider "technologically inferior" to modern computer-designed glass. But
we're missing the point. The focus should be on the pictures, not technical
specs. Brick walls and lens charts aren't my preferred photo subjects.
Nikon made its early professional reputation in large part on the 105/2.5 in
both rangefinder and F mounts. Those old lenses took great pictures then, and
they'll take great pictures now. If I had a choice between a classic,
well-built Nikkor prime lens in excellent condition and one of today's
plastic zooms, I wouldn't hesitate to reach for the "antique."
William Sampson
http://hometown.aol.com/wdshpbiz/AImod.html
From nikon mailing list:
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: More battery questions!
you wrote:
> > Is there any difference, ie. which is more suitable, for an FE.
> > I have both Silver Oxide PX76 (LR44 Alkalines?) type cells at 1.5v
> > & Lithium CR1/3N cells at 3v
> > Are both suitable for use in an FE?
When Nikon USA ran Nikon House in Rockefeller Center in mid-Manhattan their
tech guy told me in no uncertain terms that two 1.5v batteries were better
than one 3v in my FM2n. I do not recall the reason but I do recall his
certainty.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002
From: "Sam Anderson" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Best overall value...
Here are my 2 cents worth as a user of both the F100 and the N80 (recently
sold the N80):
1. The F100 AF is faster
2. The F100 flash sync is 1/250th vs the 1/125th of the N80
3. The F100 can be used with manual focus lenses where as all metering is
lost with the N80
4. The F100 shutter lag is less than the N80
5. The F100 shutter feels much better, the N80 shutter feels mushy
6. The F100 has a true vertical grip with a shutter release button and AF on
button where as the N80 has a battery pack that makes it look like more
camera
7. The F100 uses AA batteries (including NiMH) where as the N80 use
expensive CR123 batteries unless the MB-16 is added which does allow use of
AA batteries
8. The N80 has a great feature in that gridlines are available on demand
where as the F100 has different screens
9. The N80 is a nice compact little camera
10. The N80 has an onboard flash that could come in handy but I never u
it
Both are wonderful cameras and I would love to have another N80 for backup
and for travel when I want something compact. I sold my N80 to further
invest in my contax G system which is fantastic and very compact. But back
to the question at hand.... I would suck it up and invest the extra $$ for
the F100 if you can. However, the N80 is very nice if the money is tight of
if you want to invest the extra $$ in glass.
Sam
"Paul" [email protected] wrote...
> Need some advice from some of you pro and serious amateurs. I have
> decided on a nikon for my next camera. I was looking at the N80 but
> am troubled by the extreme light weight and poly carb exterior. I
> also looked at the F100...what a difference in the two! In actual
> usage by a serious amateur, is this camera worth the additional $600?
>
> My budget is limited, so I want bang for my buck. However, I also
> know the value of quality and I am willing take this into
> consideration. I am not a pro, but use my cameras often and need to
> know that it will work when needed.
> Thanks for any insight you can provide.
>
> Paul
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Newby Question - lenses
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002
...
I just bought two 24-120mm Nikkors and tried
another (after reviewing one on my web page, at
www.ferrario.com/ruether/articles.html#24-120
a few years ago), and was astonished how good
this lens is - it is not only wide-range (with
only moderate linear distortion), but it is sharp
to the corners *wide open* and at all commonly
used distances, VERY rare for a wide-angle zoom
(or even a wide angle non-zoom).
I have not tried the Tamron 24-135 (I have the
old 28-135 Tamron, and while very good, the
Nikkor is better), but it would be hard to imagine
that any WA to tele zoom could be better than the
Nikkor 24-120. I'm now kicking myself for not
completely recognizing the value of this lens
when I first tried it, and keeping it at the
time...;-)
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002
From: "nomathjobs" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nikkormat EL battery
You also have to lift a bit with your fingernail.
I have an ELW (same as you EL, but acceps the AW-1 autowinder). If
you can find them, I'd suggest the PX28 silver oxide battery and stay
away from the alkaline variety. The EL/W is an old design w/high
current draw and I've had bad luck w/alkalines in older cameras.
Not sure about Lithium....anybody?
doug
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Opinions:Tokina 70-210 f/3.5 MF Nikon AI
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002
[email protected] wrote:
>> Hmm, I think the Series E 70-210 and the constant aperture 4/70-210 AF
>> (same optics) are very good. Mine is certainly sharp at F4.
>Yes these lenses are a bit better than the ones we're talking about. Sharp
>at F4, though, is a stretch. These lenses usually don't sharpen up in the
>corners until f8 or so.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........! ;-)
I have had quite a few of these, and all were sharp to the
corners wide open (though contrast is not the highest I
have seen in Nikkors...) I think you have a bad one.
I still have two (I valued it *that* much) even with
an 80-200f2.8 due to its smaller size and weight. It is
even pretty good on a TC14A by one stop down, giving a
compact 100-300 or so option. Overall, it is a tad less
"able" than the famous E 75-150, but close enough that I
sold that one to go for the wider range 70-210 f4E (which
is also sharper than any Series I 80-200 that I have
seen...). Now I would like to find the original-version
Nikkor 70-210 f4 (constant) AF, which is the same design
and better than the slower 70-210 f4-5.6 AF Nikkor.
BTW, also, the 70-210 is pretty low in linear distortion
as zooms go...
For more, see: www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html
>> > > Also, PS--opinions about the Nikkor 135 mm f/3.5 (also AI).
>> Currently one of my favorite lenses. Tiny, and very sharp all
>> over the frame. It is not that well-know because most people
>> got the F2.8 version, which is not that much larger. If you
>> can live with the slow speed, I can recommend the 3.5/135.
It is generally better than its reputation...
>I agree, these were excellent lenses and likely never became popular because
>the faster 105 f2.5 was just as good. Most photographers opted for the
>faster optic and the 105 became a classic while the 135 was never very
>popular with Nikon shooters. All the Nikkor 135's have been excellent, even
>the often maligned 135DC Nikkor which I own and appreciate a lot.
>
>Fred
>Photo Forums
>http://www.photoforums.net
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: Chris Quayle [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Nikkors do I need in my set?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002
Kevin Neilson wrote:
>
> I'm leaning toward the 180mm--I've heard good things about it. It's bigger,
> so more of a pain to carry around and requires different filters, but the
> extra f-stop is always sweet.
>
> Do you know what one would expect to pay for this lens, used? I notice the
> 200 f/4s seem to be under $150-$200 on Ebay; often cheaper than the 105mm
> f/2.5s.
>
> -Kevin
I bought my 180 on Ebay last November for $219. There always seem to be
a few for sale. If you are buying from Ebay, the best thing is to wait
until there are several for sale at once, as this tends to dilute the
price a bit.
Have the ED glass version, which is supposed to be an improvement and
the lens produces excellent results, even if it's a bit bulky for some
work. For that price, it's a bit beaten up on the outside, but has
perfect glass.
You can always identify the ED glass version by the gold coloured line
around the main body, near the eperture control ring. Have seen a couple
on Ebay described as such when the photo quite clearly showed no gold
band, so watch out. Probably worth looking for the ED glass version if
you can find one though.
Someone else mentioned the 200 f4. Have found this quite a usefull lens
and quality seems fair. Lens review sites seem to agree and it (later ai
version) has the advantage of compact size compared with the 180. It
seems a little unloved and unfashionable, so prices are quite low on
Ebay.
For subjective lens reviews:
http://www.cs.kau.se/~nicke/private/photo/lenstest/david.html
Chris
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Nikkors do I need in my set?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002
"Kevin Neilson"
wrote:
>I'm leaning toward the 180mm--I've heard good things about it. It's bigger,
>so more of a pain to carry around and requires different filters, but the
>extra f-stop is always sweet.
>
>Do you know what one would expect to pay for this lens, used? I notice the
>200 f/4s seem to be under $150-$200 on Ebay; often cheaper than the 105mm
>f/2.5s.
The 200 f4 is not a popular lens, but it is an excellent,
very compact lens, good for travel (and tiny, cheap, and
surprisingly good on a TC14A - and I use one as a macro
lens [!]). Considering the size/weight difference, I
would prefer the 200 to the 180, or the 70-210E for
versatility, for travel - and would include the tiny TC14A
(these give you long lenses of good quality with minimal
bulk...).
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: Stefan Patric [email protected]
Subject: Re: Which Nikkors do I need in my set?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002
...
Here's the "Rules of Thumb" I learned years ago for picking a selection
of fixed focal lenses that will provide the most range with the least
amount of lenses, and therefore cost:
1. Lenses shorter than your personal "normal" should be spaced
around 20 degrees horizontal angle of view apart;
2. Lenses longer than your "normal" should be spaced about twice
the focal length of the preceeding lens.
Your little selection of a 28, 50, and 105 follow these guidelines,
more or less. (These are guidelines, remember, not gospel.)
So, you next wide angle should be 20 degrees wider than the 28, which
has an angle of view of 65 degrees horizontal, so you'll want an 85
degree lens. That would be around a 20mm, which has an 84 degree angle
of view. The next, 104 degrees, which would be a 14mm.
For your next telephoto, a 200 would be the choice, but you if you need
a "fast" 200 and there's not one, you could opt for the 180 f2.8.
There's not much difference in the angle of view between the 180 and a
200. And so forth. . . .
When picking your arsenal of lenses, you have to take into account what
you'll be shooting and what you like to shoot. For example, if you are
mainly a portraitist, you won't need lenses much longer than 200 or
wider than 28. If you are a wildlife photographer, you'll need very
long lenses and rarely, if ever, a wide angle. A 200 with wildlife is
a "normal" to "wide angle" lens. I find a fast 400 to 600 to be good
general purpose lenses for shooting animals in the wild or in a zoo,
and versatile, if coupled with a matched 1.4x or 2x extender.
Here's my lens "kit." I've been shooting with it professionally for 24
years, and it handles 98% of everything I've been called on to shoot as
a general commercial photographer. All are AI Nikkors.
24 f2.8
35 f2.0
50 f1.4
85 f2.0
180 f2.8
TC-200 2x extender (used exclusively on the 180)
I rent or borrow, if a job calls for a lens I don't have. I have 3
FM2n bodies (Replaced the original FM bodies that wore out after 20
years.) with motor drives, plus various ancilliary do-dads.
With my setup, I've never experienced a "gap" in my coverage.
I try not to have lenses that are too close together in focal length,
unless it's a specialty lens like a maco. As you can see, I don't own
a macro. I rarely do any macro work, but when I do, I use either a
closeup lens or extension tubes. I see no reason to have an 85, 105
and 105 micro. Waste of money. Just pick one and let it do for all.
No reason to have a 24 AND a 28. They are only 10 degrees apart in
angle of view. Like a giant step's worth. Waste of money to have
both.
Later. . . .
--
Stefan Patric
[email protected]
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Nikkors do I need in my set?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002
"Kevin Neilson"
wrote:
>I'm trying to figure out which (manual focus) lenses I need for a complete
>set. I'm trying to avoid zooms, because of the lower quality. I now have:
>28mm f2.8
>50mm f1.8
>105mm f2.5
>
>and would probably like to get
>200mm f4 (would actually like f2.8, but you know how that is)
>and maybe a 16mm fisheye if I can afford it
>
>Does this leave any major gaps? I'm just confused about some of the overlap
>in the offerings. For example, if you have a 105mm, you don't need an 85mm
>or a 135mm, do you? Or why is there both a 24mm and 28mm, as well as both a
>180mm and 200mm? Is the difference that stark?
>-Kevin
Well, jumping back in at your original post (and having
tried to "sequence" lenses several times, and having given
up and just bought them all...;-), given what you started
with, here is a possible sequence:
16mm f3.5 (better than the f2.8 versions)
28mm f2.8 (the best: AIS version, which you have)
50mm f1.8 (all are good in good samples, with some
possibly important differences)
105mm f2.5 (I prefer the late version, or the Micro)
200mm f4 MF Micro-Nikkor (supplies the missing
macro capability, with good short tele performance)
TC14A (works well with all of the above lenses,
providing in-between FLs [including a nice
"20mm-equivalent" when used with the 16mm, and
a longish 280mm with the 200mm])
Possible additions:
500mm f8 (older version - a remarkably good
long-but-compact tele)
35mm f2.8 PC (latest version)
20mm f2.8 (noticeably wider than the 28mm, but
not as wide as the 16, and excellent)
Possible substitutions:
180mm f2.8 AF + extension tubes for the 200mm f4 M
(faster, excellent, and can still serve as a
moderate-magnification macro lens).
28mm f4 PC for the 28mm f2.8 (preset diaphragm
instead of auto, and not as good at f2.8-4,
but fine otherwise)
105mm f2.8 MF Micro-Nikkor for the 105 f2.5
(still compact, but excellent at all focus
distances)
As for the multitude of closely-spaced Nikkors
(with often several versions of the same FL lenses
available), Nikon has offered a very wide range of
lens selection for a very long time, and Nikon often
redesigns lenses (the newer version is not always
better than the older, though...). For more on specific
lenses, see www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html.
BTW, I have settled on these sequences at various
times (or parts thereof...):
16, 20, 35, (50), 85, (135), 200, 300, 500
(current favorite) (or 80-200 f2.8)
8, 15, 28, 50, 105M, 200, 500
8, 15, 28, 50, 70-210/80-200
16, 20/24, 35, 85, 80-200, 300, 500, 700 (500+TC14B)
(or 24-120) (or 75-300)
(Throw in a TC14A and a PC and/or macro lens,
too, here and there, and substitute speed non-zooms
when needed...;-)
16, 35-105, TC14A
16, 28, 85, 300 (a favorite early sequence)
16, 28PC, 85/105M, TC14A
(Caution: one can get nutty doing this...!;-)
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
Hey, check out www.visitithaca.com too...!
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Nikkors do I need in my set?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002
Christoph Breitkopf
wrote:
>[email protected] (Neuman - Ruether) writes:
>
>> Well, jumping back in at your original post (and having
>> tried to "sequence" lenses several times, and having given
>> up and just bought them all...;-)
>This seems like an excellent solution. Recommended ;-)
But with the attendant hazards, described below...;-)
>On the other hand, it get difficult to locate specific
>lenses. Last time I needed to use the small 3.5/20 I
>could not find the little beasty ... without the hood,
>it is the same shape and size as the various 50mm's...
>and those are all over the place. And I certainly
>have fewer lenses than David.
Hey, thet'z wha' kab-i-netz iz fer...!
Mine run in FL sequences, two rows deep, on several
shelves...;-)
>Also, every time you leave home you still have to
>decide. _Every time_. Again and again. Maybe settling
>for less is not that bad... ;-)
NOW you have hit on the REAL problem...
Takes days to decide on the set for a particular
job, and by then the weather has changed and a
new selection must be made... This *is* a real
problem....!;-) For fun shooting, though, I grab
just one and go (I once took a western-US trip
with only the 16mm fisheye on a small camera
body - worked fine...;-).
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: John Miller [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Need info on Nikon FE
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002
McEowen wrote:
> Don't buy a MD-11. THey had a lot a problems with the MD-11 -- it drained
> the camera battery if I recall correctly. They soon replaced it with the
> MD-12 which is still available and will work just fine on your FE. You can
> buy them used on ebay for about $75-$100. If fact, I've got one I'd sell
> you if you're interested. I never use the motor on my FE2. It's just too
> sweet of a camera without the motor (and I've got much nicer motorized
> bodies in my cabinet at work).
Yes, the MD-12 is a current model (to fit the FM3a; B&H has 'em for
$394.95.) The MD-11 "problem" was highly overrated. What it was, was that
the camera meter was on as long as the motor drive switch was "on." Easily
solved with a tiny piece of Scotch tape on one of the contacts, then the
meter would only be on when the camera's rapid wind lever was pulled out.
--
John Miller
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Resolving Power of Nikkor Lenses
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002
Rod Gotty [email protected] wrote:
>Can someone please point me to a reputable source which provides
>resolving power for the Nikon Nikkor Lenses. I've looked at Nikon's
>website and didn't find it there.
Not what you ask for, but maybe more useful:
www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html. Here, the
quality of the lens image at the first likely
good stop for the lens type is compared with
others, and given a subjective evaluation number.
Raw resolution does not tell you very much, since
it does not include contrast and other "real world"
info of value in describing lens performance in
making photographs - and resolution alone is a
very complex issue, since it varies with position
in the frame, aperture used, and distance focused
on, and it often is not easy to determine exactly
even when all the above are fixed (excluding many
useful variations, which would give different
results, anyway - which is why I do not do "chart
testing"). With most Nikkors, one can assume that
in the image center at medium-long focus distances
that the resolution is diffraction-limited by
f5.6-8, so this can be used as a reference when
judging the lens performance under other
conditions (assuming the film/processing and
lighting have not changed during the test...).
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: where are all the loooong zooms?
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
[email protected]
(dogg) wrote:
>anybody have impressions on the sigma 170-500?
>i'm looking for a decent longzoom, new or old,
>af or manual, for nikon, that goes to 500mm.
>
>i have a monster tokina atx 400/5.6 af for nikon.
>it seems to be ok, but i'm thinking that if i'm
>going to carry all that weight, i should have long
>zoom that goes to 500.
>
>i already have a nikon 70-300 ed af. for a heavy
>fixed lens, the tokina doesn't seem to be sharper
>than the miniscule nikon zoom at 300, and 400
>doesn't pull in much more.
>
>my tele subjects are animals, boats, birds, doggz,
>and people. thanx
The old 100-500mm Cosina was a surprisingly good lens
up to around 400mm, and useable at 500mm, though
the lens was s - l - o - w . . . (slower than rating,
and too slow for most hand-held work, and not much
longer than the 400 you have...). My favorite long lens:
the old-style Nikkor 500mm f8 mirror, which is still
good on the Nikkor TC14/14B converter for a light/small/
VERY-slow/very-long lens - and this one is sharp, even
with the converter (though hard to use...), unlike most
mirrors.
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: Roger [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Manual Lens on New AF Body...
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
I use a F100 with a battery of MF AI/AIS lenses. It works very well,
but even with the F100 you are limited to center weighted or spot
metering, the matrix function doesn't work with MF lenses. If you need
the matrix functions, try the F5 or F4s. The F4s is an ideal choice.
The N8008/N8008s is a less expensive alternative along with the N70.
If this is to be a MF lens only platform, the N8008 is a good choice.
It has good ergonomics and is usually available at a good price. If
you are mixing in AF lenses N8008s may be preferred for faster AF (and
spot metering added).
If you are looking for old lenses but matrix metering, the body cost
is going to be $1000-$1700 (F4s/F5) in the Nikon line.
IMO the N80 is not an option.
Why not consider the good MF bodies for this task? FM3a, FE2, FM2,
F3... The F3 is a pro-line body, but not well suited for daylight fill
flash due to a slow strobe sync speed, the FE2/FM3a are better suited
for TTL flash use.
Regards,
Roger
"kramer" [email protected] wrote:
>What would be the best value on a new AutoFocus Body which is backward
>compatible with Manual lenses?? I have read that the Nikon f100 has this
>ability, and the N80 will mount older lenses, but not operate properly with
>them. I know Canon is out, but what about Pentax, Minolta or Olympus??
>
>thanks
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: To replace Nikkor 24-120?
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
"Aidan" [email protected] wrote:
>Am debating replacing my Nikkor 24-120 with a new lens when I get a new body
>because although I really love the range it covers, I'm not overly pleased
>with the image quality I've seen. I'm considering the Sigma (I know, I
>know, Third Party) 24-70 f/2.8 EX, the reviews seem to be pretty good as far
>as third party lenses go and I really like the 2.8 thing. Not so hot about
>the reduced range though. A sale of the 24-120 would cover most of the cost
>of the Sigma but I just don't know. So far I have all Nikon glass in the
>bag because of a Sigma I used a while back and wasn't at all pleased with.
>Could this be the turning point though? For about 1/4 of the cost of the
>equivalent Nikkor it is very tempting. Anyone compared the two lenses at
>all (24-120 and the Sigma)? Are they even in the same league to be
>compared? Any experiences with either or both lenses would be much
>appreciated. Thanks much.
Borrow another sample of the 24-120 - you may have a poor
one. This lens is surprising in that normally it is sharp
to the corners wide-open, quite unusual for wide-range
zooms... It is VERY unlikely any replacement with about
the same range will perform as well as a good sample of the
24-120 Nikkor - and the f2.8 28-70's I've seen aren't very
good at the widest two stops, so what is the point...?
Your best bet (other than replacing the 24-120 with
non-zooms, and you may not see all that much improvement,
especially at the short end, except in the availability
of wider stops), is replacing the 24-120 with a better
sample...
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 20 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: Goodbye to Zooms
Some zoom lenses, like the 17-35mm/2.8 Nikkor, have substantially less
distortion than prime lenses within their range. Even in cases where
distortion does occur it can be corrected with extreme precision:
http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/TutorialsDistortionAndColorFringing.html
Thanks for the well done tutorial, Brian.
Dan Lindsay
Santa Barbara
From: "Alexander Mcleod" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Nikon V. Canon
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002
An honest man who cuts to the chase. Nice to read evaluations like this.
Too bad we often get hung up in other agendas.
"Sage586" [email protected] wrote...
> I am a Nikon shooter myself, but bird and wildlife photography is not a big
> part of what I shoot. If it were, I would probably go with Canon also. Better
> telephoto lens technology and options (such as auto-focus with tubes, IS
> technology with USM. I love my Nikkor 80-400 VR for what I use it for. But
> for bird photography, it focuses too slow. Just my honest opinion.
>
> Richard
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] An interesting quote...
Tom Just Olsen wrote:
>
>> Nikon, while part of the Mitsubishi Zaibatsu,
>
>- This I didn't know. How large a share do they own? Nikon's stock is
Every Monday morning, the senior officals of the Mitsubishi Zaibatsu meet
and are given their instructions. The current head of Nikon is in their
midst. I suggest that you try http://www.google.com and some creative web
searches. You might want to try, say, "+Nikon +anti-trust"
Marc
[email protected]
From: [email protected] (RD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format vs. 35mm
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002
[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
>I prefer the 5X chimney finders on med fmt partly for that reason; on 35mm
>a good option is the eyepiece magnifiers (2x to 5x) which pop down for
>critical focusing (or a loupe on Nikon F2/F with finder removed ;-)
>and aging eyes complicate the process - see mf/vision.html
The SLR I use (N6006) isn't considered professional, so Nikon hasn't
offered many accessories of that type. I seem to recall that dipoters
are available, but not much else. I do have an outboard eyecup, and
that helps, but it would be nice to have some additional magnificaiton
once in a while.
I've tried to find a different Nikon model to resolve this, but they
all sacrifice at least one of the features I find useful. For example,
the 6006 has an excellent quality spot meter (scratch the F4), and the
rear curtain sync (which I use a lot) is entirely built-in (scratch
both the F4 *and* F5). It uses a cheap-to-buy remote release, has TTL
AE as well as TTL flash (and exposure compensation can be adjusted
individually for each), will accept nearly all the AF and AI lenses
(and many non-AI aftermarket lenses in stop-down mode), and it has an
excellent record for reliability and shutter life. In addition, I can
buy a near-mint replacement for $150 or so any day, compared to
something like the F5 which would drain my photo budget for a year.
That's not to say the 6006 doesn't have shortcomings. It would be
great to have DOF preview and MLU, but for the work I do, they are
much less necessary than the other features. DOFP is a convenience,
not a necessity, and the clarity of shots taken with my 500mm f/7
Komura seem to indicate MLU as not being too important (I do almost no
macro work).
Anyway, nothing in the Nikon line that I've found has those two
features while retaining everything this body does now. I did buy an
FE at one point so I would have DOFP and MLU, but then I realized I
would have to carry two SLRs all the time. If I'm going to do that,
and I'm going to relegatre the second body to shots that don't need
the 6006's advanced features, I might as well buy a manual MF camera,
right? That way, I can use the SLR for those fast, not-so-critical
shots of jumping dogs and humorous street signs, while the 6x7 can be
put to work capturing the feeling of landscapes, ghost towns, and
other, more artistic or nostalgic subjects.
Incidentally, there is one situation in which I use the Nikon's AF
capability. I always take a 50mm AF lens so I can hand the camera off
to someone else if necessary. When I do that, I set the camera to
aperture priority, stop down the lens to at least f/11, and attach a
SB-20 to be sure the fill-flash compensates. It hasn't failed yet!
Sorry to ramble on so long about this. Your advice is always right on
the money, and you've reminded me that I do need to continue looking
for a way to improve the situation with the SLR. My eyes are stil
changing, and eventually, my present technique won't be enough.
JL
From MF Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: 35mm F1.4 Discontinued?
Folks, rumors I hear from Japan indicate that stocks of the 35mm F1.4 AIS are
running out. Can anyone substantiate this?
Kind regards from sunny Brighton
Peter
From Manual SLR Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Amazing New CV Stuff
Hi Folks,
Courtesy of a CameraQuest spy at Photokina, a few minutes ago I learned
of some rather amazing things about the new Voigtlander SL lens lineup.
To this point in time, the widest lens available for a Nikon F mount SLR
was the 13mm Nikkor. The widest Nikon or classic Contax rangefinder
lens was 21. Soon all of them can shoot with a 12 !
Next year Voigtlander will be marketing the 12/5.6 and 15/4.5 in Nikon F
mount, for mirror lock up. I am told these lenses will fit the Nikon F,
Nikon F2, F3, and F4. A special finder will be made to replace the
pentaprism on the F or F2. scale focus of course.
now the really neat stuff comes to play.
Voigtlander will make an adapter to mount the F mount 12's and 15's on
Nikon Rangefinders (and classic Contax RF's too, since they have the
same outside mount and back focus).
to go one stop further, the same adapter can be used to mount ANY Nikon
F mount lens on Nikon or Contax rangefinders -- scale focusing only, of
course, no rangefinder coupling.
and of course, if you buy the Voigtlander R2S or R2C, you will be able
to use any of these lenses with TTL metering.!
it's amazing these lenses are being made at all, just amazing.
Stephen
From: T. P. [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens testing
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002
"William E. Graham" [email protected] wrote:
>That probably explains it's poor construction, but you'd think Nikon
>would be ashamed to put their name on it. They should copywright a
>different name for their "cheaper line" of products. From now on, I will
>have to be careful what I buy that carries the Nikon name......
All manufacturers are forced to make entry-level cameras and kit zoom
lenses to a price point in order to survive. They rely on the fact
that, once people buy into a brand, the majority stick with it.
Nikon are no exception, and they have done this for years. Look at
the Nikon EM, FG and FG-20, plus the F301 (N2000), F501 (N2020) and
F401 (N4004).
However, the entry-level lenses have undoubtedly got worse. I
remember the 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 AIS Nikkor I bought as a travel lens
for my FE2 back in 1986. It was a good, sharp lens with metal
construction and very well controlled distortion.
Look at the dreadful kit lenses they now offer. The 28-80mm G, and
70-300mm G are dire. There's a new 28-100mm G which is also a budget
lens but I haven't seen one yet, let alone tried one. But I cannot
believe that such a cheap zoom can be much better than the 28-80mm,
except that it has more range. Of course range sells, regardless of
optical quality.
You would be surprised if you knew how many Nikkor lenses are made
under contract, and which ones.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Mirror lock-up
From: Magus [email protected]
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
"Wes J" [email protected] wrote
> That was true with the Nikon FM and FE series but not on the A ad T
> series Canons.
Indeed - its a great 'undocumented' feature. Certainly when using the self-
timer on the FM2n, not only does the mirror lock up as soon as the timer
starts, but the aperture diaphragm is stopped down straight away too.
This means there is nothing extraneous to vibrate by the time that shutter
pops off :) Nice!
Later model Olympus such as Om3 & Om4 had this feature too.
(and the OM2 Spot/Program I think - but definitely not original OM2)
M.
From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002
From: "Riccardo Polini" [email protected]
Subject: Re: 180mm ED wide open
"robert5227" robert5227@h.. wrote:
> > I just acquired an 180mm ED AIS 2.8. Is it good wide open, or do
> > you get a lot of improvement at f4?
and "Denis Graham" [email protected] replied:
> You do get improvement at middle apertures, as with any lens.
> However, you may not notice them as the 180 is very good wide open.
> Or, at least mine is, which is also an AIS ED. don't have the 85mm so
> someone else will have to comment on that.
According to MTF tests performed in Italy by Centro Studi Progresso
Fotografico (CSPF) and published in early '80s in Tutti Fotografi magazine
www.fotografia.it ), the AIS 180 ED was a very good lens, better than the
Leitz 180/2.8. Both lenses exhibited their best MTF behaviour at f/5.6, and
not w/open.
According to instrumental measurements both the Nikkor and the Leitz were
about 1/2 stop darker than f/2.8 (around f/3.5 w/open).
The more recent MTF test of the AF version indicated a better performance at
f/2.8, but - again - to get the best resolution the lens has to be stopped
down at f/5.6. The CSPF instrumental measurements indicated that the max
aperture of the AF lens is f/2.8.
I owned the AIS 180/2.8 ED and now use the AF 180/2.8 ED.
In my opinion the AF is more contrasty at full aperture. However, the
rendition of the MF 180 at f/5.6 in portraiture was awesome (with an
excellent balance between sharpness, contrast and roundness of details).
Check out http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/nikkor/n10_e.htm for a
good discussion about the photographic performance of the AIS 180/2.8 ED.
There, you can find also a brief comparison with the AF model.
Regards,
Riccardo Polini
http://www.naturephoto.it
[email protected]
[email protected]
From: [email protected] (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon 28m m PC on N90?
Date: 31 Oct 2002
Christoph Breitkopf [email protected] wrote
snip
>
> I was really disappointed by the AI-S 2.8/180 ED, by the way. The
> lens has an extremely good reputation, but here the color-fringing
> _is_ visible at 10x. Funny no reviewer mentions this. Of course
> the center sharpness is extremely good. Does anyone know if
> the AF version has strong color fringing, too?
>
> Regards,
> Chris
Hi Chris:
I've read some posts by Ron Reznick over on the DPReview forums in
which he described noticeable color fringing in the 180/2.8 AF. I've
never used the AF version, but I do know its a completely different
design than the manual focus lens. Interestingly, the 70-180 Micro
Nikkor has almost no fringing at all at 180mm.
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon 28m m PC on N90?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002
David Littlewood [email protected] wrote:
> brian [email protected] writes
>>David Littlewood [email protected] wrote
>>> Brian, my comment was a general one and not based on any contact with
>>> the particular lens. I suppose I should have known better than to get
>>> involved in a Nikon thread!
>>>
>>> On a more general note, yes it is true that (most) larger format lenses
>>> have lower resolution figures (I suspect those on my Mamiya 6 come
>>> pretty close though). This has always puzzled me; simple logic suggests
>>> that if you simply scale up the design it should give similar results. I
>>> appreciate this might be mechanically difficult, but I do wonder if an
>>> element of "we only need to build to the spec required and no more"
>>> comes into it. As you have a background in lens design, perhaps you know
>>> why this difference exists?
>>Hi David:
>>If you simply scale up a design the aberrations will increase by
>>exactly the same amount. If these aberrations remain small relative
>>to the Airy disc (diffraction) then the performance will be similar,
>>but in photography this is rarely the case and performance in terms of
>>MTF or resolution will be significantly worse in the scaled up design.
>> Some of this drop in performance can be recaptured by re-optimizing
>>for more modest specs, such as a smaller aperture.
>Duh! Must have been the middle of the night when I asked that, it's
>quite obvious when you say it.
>
>Thanks anyway, Brian.
There are exceptions, where the scaled-up lens (and
coverage) do not affect performance much (most of the Nikkor
PCs are good examples - well the latest 35mm f2.8, and
the early 28mm f4, anyway...;-), like the Kodak 203mm f7.7
view camera lens, lots of the best 2 1/4 lenses, etc. - but
there generally is a sacrifice in speed or in something
else like coverage (many older "telephoto" lenses were
similar to wide-coverage optics, but redesigned to perform
better over the smaller angle recorded on smaller film
formats), as Brian noted...
>As it happens, I think my Canon 24 TS-E is an excellent lens, which
>suggests Canon did a good job on it, but I've never done any structured
>tests on it.
It is an excellent lens, from what I've seen of its
images... (I also liked the AF Canon 24mm f1.4, listed
at: www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html [a Nikkor
list ;-]).
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From nikon MF mailing list:
From: "Adam Kosterski"
To: "Nikon user group"
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 23:57:13 +0100
Subject: [Nikon] 50mm quandry
Reply-To: [email protected]
Dear Joe
With deference to the author Marcin Gorko here, from the Polish Foto Kurier magazine, is part
of his review of a sampling of Nikon 50 mm lenses.
The chart lists appraisal of centre and edge resolution in lines per millimeter.
Also star ratings are given, from a maximum of 6, for 'centre', 'edge' and 'macro' sharpness (1:2
on bellows at f11) and for 'vignetting and distortion'.
star ratings f1.2 or 1.4 1.8 or 2 2.8 5.6 11
Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P 5, 5.5, 5, 5 - - 70/ 70 100/ 85 85/ 85
Nikkor-S 50mm f/2 3, 3.5, 3.5, 4 - 60/ 40 65/ 50 70/ 55 70/ 55
Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 6, 6, 6, 5 - 85/ 85 90/ 90 100/ 100 100/ 90
Nikkor 50mm f/2 'N' 6, 6, 6, 5 - 85/ 80 100/ 90 100/ 90 100/ 90
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 'N' 5, 6, 5, 5 - 70/ 65 90/ 85 100/ 90 100/ 95
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 'E' 5, 5, 5, 5 - 70/ 65 80/ 75 80/ 80 95/ 90
AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 5, 5.5, 5, 5 - 70/ 70 90/ 80 90/ 80 100/ 90
Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 3, 3.5, 3, 5 50/40 60/ 40 70/ 60 70/ 55 60/ 60
Nikkor-S.C 50mm f/1.4 5, 5, 4, 5.5 70/60 90/ 60 100/ 80 100/ 85 85/ 75
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 'K' 4, 5, 4, 5.5 65/50 70/ 50 80/ 70 90/ 80 100/ 90
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 'N' 4.5, 5, 4, 5 70/60 85/ 70 85/ 70 90/ 80 90/ 75
AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D 4, 4.5, 4, 5 60/55 75/ 70 75/ 70 80/ 80 90/ 80
Nikon 50mm f/1.2 'N' 3.5, 4, 4, 5 60/50 75/ 55 70/65 75/ 70 80/ 70
Nikkor-S.C 55mm f/1.2 3.5, 4, 3, 4.5 60/50 70/ 50 75/ 60 85/ 65 80/ 60
Nikkor-S 58mm f/1.4 3, 3.5, 3.5, 4 50/45 60/ 45 70/ 55 70/ 55 70/ 60
Best wishes,
Adam
PS Correction.
The first two figures in the star ratings are NOT centre/ edge but for Overall
sharpness of lens when 'opened up' and when 'stopped
down' respectively.
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: AI Modification
John,
I'm still able to offer this service with a one week turnaround, and the
charge is $35 plus return shipping. Check my web site or contact me directly
for further information.
William Sampson
http://hometown.aol.com/wdshpbiz/AImod.html
From Manual SLR mailing list:
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002
From: Gregory Harris [email protected]
Subject: RE: Electronic meets Mechanical
Rolland Elliott also does AI conversions and can put CPU chips in many
(not all) Nikon lenses. I'm not sure if he works on non-Nikon lenses.
Another problem with the older lenses on the non D1/D1H/D1X digital
bodies is that they won't meter without at CPU in the lens. Anyway, he
has converted a couple of my lenses and I've been happy with both his
service and the lens' performance. It's great to be able to use old
Nikon glass on new and old bodies!
Greg. :^)
You can reach Rolland at [email protected]
14019 Southbridge Forest Drive Charlotte, NC 28273
704-504-3528
++++++++++++++++++
Dante Stella wrote:
> It's not the prongs; it's the shroud on the rear of the lens mount,
> which will bust the little tab that reads the aperture. Go to
> aiconversions.com. I think that John White said he can modify
> non-Nikon stuff too.
>
> The other issue is programmed automation; you can't get it with non-CPU
> lenses. Many Nikon lenses can be retrofitted with CPUs, but there has
> to be a CPU for the aperture of your lens (i.e. it can be 1.8 or 2.8
> but there are no f/2.5 CPUs).
...
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: lens quality 'pecking order'?
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002
mike II [email protected] wrote:
>There seems to be a great variance between lens manufacturers' quality
>standards. Is a list available somewhere showing the bad ones? What
>order would these makers of bad stuff be listed? Would the 'Image' line
>be on this black list?
>
>Are these bad lenses of a consistently bad nature or is the problem with
>a lack of consistency even in the same batch of lens models?
>
>My reason for asking is the local availability of used equipment and I
>have no way of knowing how good/bad it is short of buying it. That can
>build a huge pile of expensive junk very quickly.
It used to be easy...;-)
Nikon made a great range of lenses, with only a tiny
minority of well-known "dogs", and with the vast majority
better than the average of most other lines. Unfortunately,
marketing forces have degraded the line with several
bottom-end cheap AF lenses that are no better than
bottom-end lenses of other lines, lowering the average
(and the reputation) of the maker... If you are interested
in Nikkors, though, look here for evaluations:
www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html. Note that for many
lenses, several samples have been checked, and the
variation-range noted (some lenses show very little sample
variation, a few show quite a bit...). Beware the unchecked
cheap f3.5->5.6 zooms, and the cheaper "G" lenses, though...
As for other lines, each has its "stars" and "dogs", with
only a few predominantly excellent - but some of these, like
the Contax line, are very limited in FL choices and are
expensive. Other lines, until recently, were more "cult"
than really good - but this is changing, with new lens
versions that finally live up to their reputations...;-)
The "independent" lines' lenses are generally inferior to
the bulk of the best line's lenses, but may roughly
approximate the quality of the bulk of a lesser camera
line's lenses. These lines are Tokina, Tamron, and
Sigma - though exceptional lenses have been offered by
others (Kiron 100mm macro, Vivitar Series I 90mm macro,
etc.). Cosina-Voightlander are offering very interesting
high-end lenses for Leica screw and bayonette mounts, and
for SLR mounts - which appears to be an exception from
the above...
With all, remember that the "bottom-line" is marketing
(which involves balancing "product" placement, pricing,
manufacturing costs, quality-level-for-price, desired
sales rate, available design and manufacturing skills,
etc.) - no one starts out to "make the best gosh-durn
lenses available at any price, at rock-bottom prices";
the quality/price ratio prevails, with some exceptions,
both up, and down...;-).
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: [email protected] (Sebastian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Nikon Quality...
Date: 8 Dec 2002
what a laugh!
One fine day in a lifetime I though to buy me something quite good
and longlasting thing. I bought me NIKON F100 Prof. with the AF-S
2.8/17-35.
I think, I dont't have to mention here the costs that I had for this.
I'm not a Pro, so I didn't took so much pics. But just after 9 months,
I had the first problems with the lens. There was some liquid going out
internal on the aperture which caused to stuck the leafes together.
I got it off for more than 2 months for reparation.
After this it took almost a year and another thing damaged:
there was strong resistance moving the zoom.
Again, I got it off for almost two and a half month. This time I had to paid
the half costs of reparation, because the warranty time was gone.
Again almost a year later the camera body now had a problem. It powers
on by itself. THe power switch is in OFF, but you could took pics.
Very strange, I though.
Again to dealer (he' knows me very well now) and another 2.5 month without
the possibility for taking pics.
But this time it was rather problematical to repair it, so only the
NIKON headquarter in germany could done it - and even with no costs for me.
They had to changed the whole CPU thing and replaced all the head-sealings.
You may now thing, that I'm playing soccer with my equipment, but nope!
I treat'em like raw eggs. The parts are in very good condition and I never took
pics in the desert or something like that.
The dealer told me, that I'm the first customer he ever had with such
frequent problems with such professional NIKON parts.
But in fact: more than a half year (I've got them now almost 2.5 years)
I had NO chance to taking pics!
When I told this my neighbour (he has a cheap CANON EOS) he laught at
me loud.
Sorry, maybe this it not the right place here for posting something like
that. But I only want to spread my experiences a bit for others who think
something like theses parts where a guarantee for all situations.
From nikon MF mailing list;
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
From: "lhhansen [email protected]
Subject: New "DX" Nikkor concept - bad news for NikonMF'ers?...
Hello,
Nikon has today announced the development of a new DX Nikkor lens
range with a smaller image circle.
It is meant for use with the DSLRs, and could indicate that Nikon
does not plan to release a full frame (24*36mm) DSLR anytime in the
near future. This implies that new lenses may no longer be usable on
MF Nikons - no longer only due to the lack of an aperture ring (G-
series).
See the press release:
http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_release/2002/afsdx12-24.htm
See also:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0212/02121201nikondxlenses.asp
Best regards,
Lars
From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
From: Rick Housh [email protected]
Subject: Re: New "DX" Nikkor concept - bad news for NikonMF'ers?...
..(quotes above posting)
With respect to the coverage limitations Lars points out, particularly
significant is the statement:
"DX Nikkors are designed for the precise coverage of this sensor format [25
x 16]"
Elsewhere Nikon refers to larger digital formats as "slower". Taken
together, these probably indicate a marketing decision to continue to
support the 25 x 16 CCD size, in the face of the announcement of Kodak's
full 36 x 24 sensor; at least for now. We'll see what Canon does.
When Nikon earlier made limited coverage lenses in the IX mount, it made it
impossible to mount them on F-Mount cameras, even though the bayonet was
the same, as was to register (distance) from the mount face to the film
plane. I wonder if these new DX/G series lenses will be physically
mountable on an F-Mount body.
I don't know about this being bad news, but it's probably not good for
MF'ers (or film AF'ers, for that matter).
- Rick Housh -
From: "MarkB" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.misc,rec.scuba
Subject: Re: UW Nikkor use on land???
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002
"Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com wrote
> There are some other wide angle lenses that have concave front elements that
> are not underwater lenses - Note I'm not disagreeing with Mark here as all
> he has said is correct, just noting that some lens designers have used the
> concave approach for reasons other than for an underwater lens. I don't
> know what specific effects on the lens' performance this part of its design
> has - but I do know that they all seem to be pretty expensive lenses...
>
> Peter
Found this quote at this website
http://www.cameratech.com/Articles/LensVSLens.html that explains more than I
know:
"Most do not know that this lens is the only water corrected lens available
for the Nikonos that actually has an out of water focus point usable by the
photographer. If you set the lens focus on the 28mm to three feet it will
attain infinity focus out of water. Giving a lens focal length approximately
of 20mm. I will often use the lens this way to pop above the surface to get
a water level perspective."
Looks like it can be used out of water, but on a limited basis.
Mark
www.uwphotographer.com/forum
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003
From: Rick Housh [email protected]
Subject: Re: fix of zoom creep?
Martin wrote:
>I tried to search the archives, but did not find anyone who wrote how
>to fix zoom creep. I have a Serie E 75-150 which has almost no
>resistance regarding the zoom, but quite good resistance regarding
>the focus.
>
>Is there a easy way to fix this myself or do I have to leave this to
>a repairman? I do not feel comfortable disassembly the lens myself,
>or maybe it is not so hard..?
The damping on the zoom action on this lens is provided only by the
friction between a ring of felt on the inside of the zoom/focus collar and
the barrel of the lens. When the felt wears out the zoom action "creeps",
and it is the rare lens of this variety that doesn't have a lot of creep.
The only way to "fix" it would be to replace the felt inside the collar, or
shim it up with something. I don't know where to obtain new felt. Do
*not* attempt to grease it to increase the friction. This may well ruin it.
You may not have found any threads in the archives here at NikonMF, but
there are a number at [email protected]. Here's one:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonRepair/message/751, or just search the
archives there with the string " 75-150 ", and you will find some others.
- Rick Housh -
From: [email protected] (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS (old) vs. 50mm f/1.8 AIS (new)
Date: 21 Jan 2003
This was a surprise to me. Bjorn Rorslett alerted me to the
possibility that there might be a significant difference between these
two lenses, and sure enough, its true. I located one of the older
lenses to test against my newer version. The test scene was very
exciting: a blank painted wall. The older version has no trace of
the bright central flare spot that plagues the newer version when used
as small stops: http://caldwellphotographic.com/50oldnew.jpg
I've heard reports that the autofocus versions also suffer from the
bright spot, but I can't yet confirm this.
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
From: "Malcolm Stewart" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS (old) vs. 50mm f/1.8 AIS (new)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003
Back in ~1974-5 I carried out some pseudo real-world flare tests at night by
shooting the same scene including deep shadows and street lamps with a variety
of exposures on Kodachrome. My SLR cameras were Minolta (MC lenses) and Canon
with early FD breechlock SC lenses. (No access to SSC multicoated lenses.
Minolta were claiming achromatic (double?) coating for their MC lenses.) I
didn't use f22 but the results at around f5.6 to f8 were very revealing.
Minolta's flare was much more diffuse than that from the Canon lenses where
quite sharp edges were produced to the patches of different colour. (I took the
precaution of removing the (probably single-coated) skylight filter for some of
the shots.)
Away from the flare the Canon images looked "cleaner" but I think overall I
preferred the Minolta "look".
I now use Canon EOS and have yet to repeat the tests with modern lenses - and
our street lamps no longer have a wide spectrum tungsten lamp.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS (old) vs. 50mm f/1.8 AIS (new)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003
[email protected] (brian) wrote:
[...]
>It would be a pity if Nikon is mistakenly using an
>inferior design for their latest version of the 50/1.8 when they had
>it done correctly decades ago. Fortunately there are plenty of the
>older lenses available on the used market.
>Brian
>www.caldwellphotographic.com
Unfortunately, newer lens designs are not always better.
(See www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html for a Nikkor
evaluation list...) Examples I can think of, in the Nikon
line: the 21mm f4 was better than the 20mm f3.5 that
replaced it, which was better than the compact 20s that
replaced that (though Nikon got it right with the next one,
the excellent 20mm f2.8...;-); the 15mm f5.6 was better
than the 15mm f3.5 that replaced it; the 16mm f3.5 was
better than the 16mm f2.8 that replaced it (the 16mm f3.5
Nikkor is a VERY good lens!); the 28mm f4 PC was a better
lens than most samples I've seen of the 28mm f3.5 PC; the
70-210 f4 was better than the f4-5.6 version; the 75-300
was better than the two later 70-300s (though the long
gone 100-300 was the best of all); the 500mm f8 mirror
was better than the compact macro version that replaced
it - but most other replacement lenses in a very actively
evolving lens line are equal to or better than the earlier
versions (the 85mm f1.8 AF and 180mm f2.8 are the best yet
in long series of excellent versions, as is the 300 f4 S,
etc. - and the expensive versions of the zooms are MUCH
better than some early versions...).
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From nikon mailing list:
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:02:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Vladimir Ferdman
Subject: Re: Difference batween E-series and regular lenses
Thank you, Bill and everyone else for the info. My main question was weather
the E-series are the same optically as their AI or AIs counterparts and I had
that answered very clearly. I have owned a 50mm f1.8 E lens before and was not
crazy about it, but I also did not do much shooting with it and sold the FA
body along with that lens since I was not using either. Now I am getting back
into photography and have acquired an FM body with the said 50mm E lens. From
my AF Nikon (N6006) days I remember getting much better results with AF lenses
than I ever got with the E lens, but to be fair, I really did not go through
the rigors of comparing the lenses properly. Just remember getting much more
vivid and detailed images with the AF 50mm. I have since lost my N6006 along
with the lens (stolen) and have sold the FA I replaced it with. I have taken
photos with a P&S and a digital a lot in the past few years and the urge to use
"real" equipment has come up again. Though I must say, Nikon 35Ti, though it
receives a lot of bad press as a yupie P&S, is really a very, very good camera
with a surprisingly good 35mm lens (alas it's only f2.8). I have yet to
venture out with my new (old) FM for a roll or two, but am looking at getting a
"better" 50mm, wide angle and a portrait, say the 80mm f2.0. Any
recommendations are welcome.
I am enjoying the list very much. Seems like there is a great deal of
collective wisdom here.
Thanks,
Vladimir
--- [email protected] wrote:
> Vladimir,
>
> E-series lenses, with a few exceptions, are largely different optical
> formulas than AI or AIS lenses of the same focal length. In addition, while
> they offer AIS metering capabilities, they do not have the meter prong to
> mate with older, non-AI lenses. (A repairman can often add a prong to an
> E-series lens, and I have done this for customers who want to use E-series
> lenses on older bodies.)
>
> Build quality gets mixed reviews, but many of the lenses are considered quite
>
> excellent optical performers. Your E-series 50/1.8 is an excellent lens and
> very compact. I don't think you'll see dramatic improvement in going to the
> 50/1.4 unless you really need the larger aperture. Another E-series lens that
>
> gets outstanding remarks from users is the 70-150 zoom. On the issue of
> durability, it really depends on what you do with your equipment. I'm very
> tough on my equipment and use it in hostile (dusty environments). I don't
> regularly use E-series lenses. However, I've borrowed my wife's 50/1.8 E lens
>
> on several occasions and been pleased with the resulting photos. I also have
> had to repair that lens once when an internal spring became disconnected.
>
> William Sampson
> http://hometown.aol.com/wdshpbiz/AImod.html
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003
From: Ben Micklem [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Nikon news
It might sound like heretical, but the Cosina/Voightlander AIS mount lenses
seem to be extremely attractive, if you're looking to spend money on new,
well-built, newly computer-designed optics.
Nikon may not be actively developing lenses dedicated to manual focus users
(with the exception of the 45mm AI-P) recently, but the Voightlander is.
http://www.cameraquest.com/Voigt%20SL.htm
If Nikon had released these lenses, we'd be buying them and praising Nikon
all day, I think we Nikon MF users should support what Voightlander/Cosina
is doing.
I have my sights on the 125mm f2.5 APO which focuses to 1:1, and comes with
that cool square hood! The Aspherical 40mm f2 looks like a good competitor
to the 45 AIP, though larger and faster.
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003
From: Rich Evans [email protected]
Subject: Robert Decker F meter repair site
For anyone interested - I found the info on Bob Decker's meter rapair service - I had referenced it in an earlier posting.
http://hometown.aol.com/drwyn/myhomepage/index.html
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop
Subject: 7000 Posts of David Ruether on Photography and Video, with Search Engine
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003
Well, over the last 7 years or so I have all too
diligently one-finger typed about 7000 posts on
video, photography, seeing, perspective, etc. on
several newsgroups - and at long last, they are
all collected and can be viewed by title, and can
also be searched with the included search engine.
Not quite a FAQ for photography and video, but
you may find basic questions (and otherwise...;-)
answered here:
www.nikonlinks.com/ruether/posts
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS (old) vs. 50mm f/1.8 AIS (new) - L
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003
...
>- Is the Series E the same design as the older AIS or the newer 50mm/1.8 AIS?
See www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html.
There are only two 50mm f1.8 versions listed, since
I only list *optical types*, not barrel variations...
The older version, BTW, is generally a tad better in
the corners wide-open, and it shows some barrel
distortion, unlike the newer version... The newer
design, for those into barrel types, appeared in
two versions of the E, two versions of the MF AIS
(one with plastic, one with all-metal barrel parts),
and three versions of the AF (small focus-ring,
rubber-ring, and "D"); the E were single-coated; the
others multi-coated; the older version appeared in
two forms, the AI, and the AIS. Do you see why I don't
bother with listing all the barrel types? ;-).
>- I noticed that you have said in effect that the reflection is a
>catadioptric-like effect caused by reflections between the rear? elements
>whereas on Nikon's explanation page it mentions the reflectance of the CCD
>and/or the low pass filter being the problem. Are you right or they or are you
>both right and both these factors contribute to the flare spotting?
>Lewis
I have never checked this lens for this problem, but
I have never observed it, either, with film cameras...
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Measurbation: The best Minolta lenses v. Canon, Nikkor
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003
Alan Browne [email protected] wrote:
[...]
>Why did I post this? I get tired of people (usually Nikonites) crapping
>on Minolta, so I decided to see how bad Minolta was. Second place
>amongst Canon and Nikon ain't bad, is it? Esp. with Nikon getting a
>third place showing!
[...]
Hmmm....;-)
Well, in my little test, I bought a Minolta
system that its owner praised (he also owned
Nikon gear...). Of the four common lenses,
a 28mm, a 35-105, a 50 macro, and a 100-300,
I would have to rate all but the macro
"mediocre", and considerably inferior to the
Nikkor equivalents. The macro was excellent.
Minolta and others do make individual lenses
that are quite good, but my impression over the
years of trying out MANY lenses is that (until
fairly recently, with the cheap Nikkor AF
lenses) the Nikkor line consisted overwhelmingly
of "better-than-average-performance" lenses,
unlike other lines where the poorer lenses
occupied a much greater percentage of the line.
It is not just the top-end lenses that define a
line's quality, but the performance level of
the bulk of the lenses in the line. With
Minolta, Canon, etc., "cherry-picking" has
been more necessary than in the Nikon lens
line to assure having a set of good lenses,
and among Nikkors, every important FL is
represented by a high-quality lens version
(and the VERY few "dogs" that existed in the
line were well-known, and represented a very
tiny proportion of the line...). Alas, with
these bottom-end cheap AF Nikkor lenses, some
of this is gradually changing...
(see: www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html)
David Ruether
[email protected]
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003
Cc: Ken Rockwell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
From: Ken Rockwell [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] Nikon PMA intros
So no new Digital SLRs? So what? The D1 series, professional standard
since 1999, remains indomitable in the face of Canon's amateur
attempts. So what about megapixels? They are not very important
except to people who spend more time reading than shooting.
We all know the D2 is on it's way with the 7.9MP Foveon sensor and 8FPS
since you get 3x the throughput. Just calm down.
I attended PMA as press this week. The Canon rep showing me the 1Ds
could not show me where the zoom playback mode button was. He asked a
pal, and it turns out that you need to download some extra firmware
into the camera to do that since Canon forgot it again just like they
did on the 1D!
I asked the guy, with my EDITORIAL PRESS badge clearly displayed, if
the 1Ds was a pro camera since it lacked the very basic zoom playback.
He said "No, real pros can't afford the 1Ds. It's for amateurs, and we
just call it pro so amateurs will pay this much for it." Criminy, did
he realize who he was talking to? Even I'm too genteel to print that.
Anyway, the 10D Canon is great for $1,500, but with only a 1/250 flash
sync and confusing menus I have to pass on the 1Ds. I prefer the
usability of the D1X/D1H/D100.
And what that comment about "no new DSLRs but just lenses?"
Nikon introduced some of their most significant lenses in years:
First VR 70-200
First VR 24-120 (both lenses a decade after Canon but significant for us)
and, the real bombshell for digishooters, the 12-24.
I used them all, and the 12-24 is GREAT for the digicams. It feels
much better made than my flimsy but good 24-85 AFS. If you went with
any DigiCanon save for the 1Ds you still cann't get anything anywhere
near as wide as with any DigiNikon and the 12-24.
Sooooo, I think it is a landmark PMA for Nikon.
Rocky
www.KenRockwell.com
From nikon MF Mailing list:
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003
From: "Riccardo Polini" [email protected]
Subject: R: Nikkor 105 mm comparison
Andrew,
I have owned the AIS 105/2.5, the AIS Micro-Nikkor 105/4 and the AIS
Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8. Now I use a AF Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8. Therefore my
comments below come from my experience with the mentioned lenses.
If you don't have a macro lens and you love the feel of MF Nikkors, I'd
suggest to buy a AIS Micro-Nikkor 105 mm f/2.8.
It is as fast as the 105/2.5 and is very sharp over the whole focusing
range (infinity to 1:2).
Probably the rendition of out-of-focus areas (bokeh) is not as smooth as the
105/2.5, nevertheless the AIS Micro 105/2.8 is rightfully considered a
"great" lens.
The AF versions ('non-D' and 'D') can reach life size (1:1) magnification
without accessories (the MF 105/2.8 requires the PN-11 estension tube to get
1X). Both the AF lenses share the same optical design and are very good too.
Therefore, if you plan to do a lot of macro work, the capability to reach
1:1 is a great advantage over the MF 105/2.8.
Another beautiful macro lens is the AI (AIS) 105 mm f/4 (my AIS Mint sample
was stolen too :( ). However, it is one stop slower than the f/2.8 versions
and does not have a floating elements design (CRC) which allows to the f/2.8
macro lenses to have very good performance even at infinity. As a matter of
fact, the optical performance of the Micro 105/4 was maximized at 1:10
reproduction ratio. It reaches 1:2 without extension tubes.
I have tried also the AF Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 EX and the AF Tamron SP 90 mm
f/2.8.
I was really impressed by the excellent optical quality of these
third-party lenses, even w/open, however their built quality as well as the
antireflective coating are not as good as the Nikkors' one. They are cheaper
and represent alternatives to Nikkors, with very good quality-to-price
ratios.
However, if you love MF Nikkors and don't need to go often above 1:2, the
AIS Micro 105/2.8 probably represents the best choice.
Riccardo Polini
http://www.naturephoto.it
[email protected]
[email protected]
From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003
From: "Mike \"vK\" Kovacs" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Manual Lens Kit
The advice so far sounds pretty consistent with my F3HP rig (all 52mm
filters):
AI-S 24/2.8
AI 50/1.4
AI 105/2.5
AI 200/4
AI 80-200/4.5
TC-200 2x AI teleconverter
Complete set of Nikon extension tubes (there are 4 tubes to collect)
Nikon 3T/4T closeup diopters
My shooting style is very similar to what you propose. I'm hoping to
add some micro lenses eventually but I have to admit I'm getting
addicted to the 80-200/4.5 with the diopters. Very flexible to use
since zooming changes the magnification. The 105/2.5 works great
with extension tubes but is very inconvenient to use compared to a
real micro. But it is razor sharp as pictured here with a 27.5mm
extension tube: http://www.members.shaw.ca/mike- kovacs/Orange_Starfish.jpg
The zoom duplicates the 105 and 200 but the 105/2.5 is such a sweet
lens I won't part with it. The 200/4 works great for extreme macros
when I reverse my 105 or 50 in front of it with a male to male
coupling ring. (giving 2:1 or 4:1 magnification!)
--- In [email protected], "Jayanand Govindaraj" jgovindaraj@h... wrote:
> I was thinking of buying a set of 3-4 manual lenses second hand which
> share a 52mm filter thread, as a lightweight set to use with my F3. I
> shoot a lot of macro, portraits and urban scenes and would like to start
> on landscapes. What would be the suggestions of our knowledgable list
> members?
> Jayanand Govindaraj
> Chennai, India
From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003
From: [email protected]
Subject: Bargain-Grade Bang for the Buck
Hi group -- given the load of questions posed by new or soon-to-be new Nikon
users as to which body/which lens can be had within a slim budget in order to
take landscape/portrait/fine-art/family/whatever photos, I just did a little
research. There are more such questions on AF lists, but we get 'em here too,
so I set myself a budget of $400 for the best kit I could come up with and
went in search of bargain-condition Nikon tools at KEH. I sure don't work for
KEH, and you could find these same things elsewhere for similar or even less
dough, I'd guess, but their website makes this process easy.
So just for fun here's what I came up with for a paltry US$365, and I would
suggest that with this classic kit anyone could take repeatably good,
Time-cover-quality photos without spending the earth for all those wonderful
1.4 lenses and whiz-bang bodies. Heck, I've even got some fastish glass in
here and it's all multi-coated:
Nikkor 24 2.8 NC non-AI -- $84
Nikkor 35 2.0 OC non-AI -- $72
Nikkor 50 1.4 SC non-AI -- $41
Nikkor 105 2.5 PC non-AI -- $69 (or engraved 80-200 4.5 AI zoom, loose)
Nikkormat FTn black -- $99
Total cost -- $365
I find this extraordinary, especially given the thousands some of us pay to
do essentially what this kit would accomplish. For another $50 you could even
have a Nikon Photomic FTn with a working meter or a black FT2. Four
first-rate lenses and two bodies for $415! And for you doubters out there,
'bargain' grade stuff is perfectly useable in my experience.
I have exactly this setup, including the options, and much, much more
besides, but I've been seriously wondering lately about trimming it all back
in a Zen minimalist sort of way to this sort of kit and simplifying my
photographic life. I could even get rid of six or seven bags! And spend much
more on film.
I need reasonably broad capability for professional reasons, but NAS strikes
me all too often, as it does with many of us. I don't feel guilty, just a
little cluttered or something like that. Anybody else feel this way?
Rolf in Toronto
From nikon MF Mailing list:
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003
From: Jim MacKenzie [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bargain-Grade Bang for the Buck
--- [email protected] wrote:
> ...I've been seriously wondering lately
> about trimming it all back
> in a Zen minimalist sort of way to this sort of kit
> and simplifying my
> photographic life. I could even get rid of six or
> seven bags! And spend much
> more on film.
I understand your temptation. Perhaps NAS hasn't
quite gotten me yet; I only have two bags full. (One
for my master and one for my dame?)
I have a bit of my own minimalistic bag:
Nikkormat FT3 $200 Cdn/$135 US
Nikon EM Free
28/2.8E Traded an old cell phone for it
50/1.8E Free
135/2.8E $35 US
80-200/4.5 AI'd $80 US
SB-22 flash $65 US
So that's $335 US.
Of course my fisheye is in there too, and that brings
up the price a little above your budget. ;)
Jim
Photography on the North American prairies & plains:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 16:56:19 -0700
From: Todd & Sharon Peach
Subject: Re: Bargain-Grade Bang for the Buck
[email protected] wrote:
>...
> Nikkor 24 2.8 NC non-AI -- $84
> Nikkor 35 2.0 OC non-AI -- $72
> Nikkor 50 1.4 SC non-AI -- $41
> Nikkor 105 2.5 PC non-AI -- $69 (or engraved 80-200 4.5 AI zoom, loose)
> Nikkormat FTn black -- $99
I posted a vaguely similar thread last September. Mine was along the lines of:
28/3.5 non AI
50/1.4 non AI
105/2.5 non AI
200/4 non AI
F2/DP-1
All for about $425 in 'BGN' shape. This was the kit I took off of my
cousins' hands. He bought it when he was stationed in Vietnam, and he
was interested in selling it and getting something more current. I took
it home (after a family reunion) and I was surprised at how 'cheap' it
all priced out, considering that it was a fairly capable well-built
setup. After pricing it out, I sent him a check; he was fine with the
total.
There are bargains to be had in these old bodies/lenses.....
-Todd
--
Todd & Sharon Peach
Seattle, Washington
[email protected]
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003
From: WARD ROBERTS [email protected]
Subject: Re: Quality of the 135 2.8
Nice work Brad. It must have been a joy to have that kind of subject material all round.
Regards,
Ward Roberts
brad vance [email protected] wrote:
When I used Mf Nikon excuslivly, the 135 was a favorite of mine. It is small, light and east to focus. Sharp? I have over thirty 12 X 16 Ilfochromes done with this lens and the results are IMHO quite acceptable. If you are curious you might want to take a look at some things I did in Nepal a few years ago. the first nine shots were all doen with the 135 2.8.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=283722&ratings=true
You may have to copy and paste the url into your browser. I hope not!
From MF Nikon Mailing list:
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: now Nikon MF lenses (ai'd) with Nikon D100 don't work
Ken,
This is very interesting. Was the problem because the people who did the
machined AI modifications cut away only material near the AI tab? I always machine
all the way around the aperture ring so that my modifications closely match a
stock AI aperture ring from Nikon. I did this from the beginning, suspecting
that Nikon might make use of or need the extra clearance around the lens mount
for additional features or designs, and apparently I was right. I would think
your previously AI'd lenses could easily be corrected with additional
machining.
William Sampson
http://hometown.aol.com/wdshpbiz/AImod.html
From MF Nikon Mailing list:
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003
From: Jim MacKenzie [email protected]
Subject: Re: now Nikon MF lenses (ai'd) with Nikon D100 don't work
--- Ken [email protected] wrote:
> Warning, I tried out a Nikon D100 last week with my
> Nikon MF lenses. To my
> surprise allot of my AI'd lenses would not work.
John White discusses this on his website
(http://www.aiconversions.com). Your lenses need the
EE coupling tab on the aperture ring. AI lenses (and
newer) have this, as do Nikon-modified non-AI lenses.
Very few milling-modified lenses have this, although
John White can and does do it if you ask and pay a
little more.
Jim
Photography on the North American prairies & plains:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/
From manual nikon mailing list:
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003
From: sover wong [email protected]
Subject: F2 production dates
Hi Nikon F2 Fans,
I have just uploaded the F2 serial numbers vs the
production year/month on :
http://www.geocities.com/sover_wong/F2_productions.JPG
Happy F2 shooting,
Sover
From: [email protected] (DBaker9128)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 12 Jun 2003
Subject: Goodby Nikon F Mount :-(
Well, what I had hoped never would happen, has! Nikon will be moving on from
the "F" lens mount and will obsolete all of us loyal Nikon owners of the past
43 years.
Why now? In the pursuit of a full 24mm x 36mm digital chip Nikon made the move,
the F mount was just to small to accommodate the perpendicular light ray path
which today's digital chips require. My source for this disturbing news comes
from a newsletter called Leicainfo.com and it references the German Photo
magazine Color Foto. The new mount will come out later this year along with a
whole new line of lenses.
I wonder why Nikon did not hang on with the F mount until a new chip arrived
which could accept oblique light rays? It can't be that far off! I'm
disappointed in Nikon. :-(
Doug from Tumwater
From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003
From: "peninhal" [email protected]
Subject: Nikon Compendium....
If like me you ordered the newest Nikon Compendium#2 last year
(Amazon.com) and have been wondering where the h*#% it was, I finally went
to Hove's web site ( http://www.hovebooks.com/newsletter/index.html ) and
found the answer. They were trying to add in all of Nikon's newest (a lot
of digital) equipment in before publishing. They added more than 25% new
material and even have a contest for guessing the correct number of pages
eventually in the finished book, now slated for shipping mid-July 2003'ish.
I hope my coffee table has the approved GWV - LOL.
H*
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003
From: "aaron_ngsh" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Right angle finders for FE
I have one. it is the DR-2. It has a thread that fits the FM, FE,
FM2, FE2, FA and FM3A. It also has a removable section so that it can
fit Nikkormats.
There is a step up ring that lets you use this finder on the F3, F4
and F5. Otherwise, there also exists a DR-3 for the F3, F4 and F5
with a larger thread.
So to answer your question, DR-2 is the one you want.
Regards,
Aaron
--- In [email protected], "Simon Chung" nosingchum@y... wrote:
> Can someone tell me which right-angle finders I can use with the FE?
> Thanks.
>
> Simon
[Ed. note: an interesting rumor - or do the Germans know something we don't? ;-)]
From: "Marko B." [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Goodby Nikon F Mount :-(
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003
I got the same note from minoltainfo.com
---
Dear Minoltainfo.com members,
the surprise is perfect - According to one of the biggest German
photo-magazine (Color Foto), Nikon will come out later this year with a
newly designed lens mount.
This new lens mount will be bigger to be able to use also a fullsize chip
appropriate. New lenses have to be designed too. They will be obviously
bigger and heavier and according to Color Foto also significant more
expensive :(
Reflecting this, Nikon seems to go the same direction as Contax did it
already a couple of years ago with its new N-System. Contax announced on the
RG webpage the stop of the production of the ND. Although this is nothing
special in the life cycle of digital cameras after 12 months on the market,
it confused many costumers, since there was no further communication from
Contax to them. Contax also refused to give hints/information about new
Contax ND-models, but it is obvious, that there will be new models in the
future.
Time will tell whether the road of Nikon and Contax will be the right
direction or other roads will lead further. Leica spreads rumours about a
digital back for the R-System in 2004...
---
m.
From nikon manual mailing list:
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003
From: "KPPhotography" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens Questions
The sites given should help, besides a trip to nikonusa.com.
The various designations are:
AF - Auto Focus
AFS - Auto Focus, Silent Wave motor
D - Distance chip. relays focus distance to the camera for better flash exposures
IF - Internal focus. front of the lens does not rotate; useful for when using polarizers
G - no aperture ring. the aperture is controlled by the camera body and
therefore limits the functionality of the lens on certain older Nikon bodies.
VR - Vibration reduction. similar to Canon's Image Stabilization
ED - Extra low Dispersion glass. Used in a number of Nikon's better lenses.
AIS - Automatic Indexing - Shutter. Small 'scoop' in the mount tells the
camera what the focal length is. Used for Shutter priority mode or Program.
From: Chris Quayle [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Old Nikon vs Old Pentax
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003
MJS wrote:
>
> I have the opportunity to buy a Nikormat Ftb...with 1.4 lens..50mm..It
> appears emaculate and comes with a one year warranty from one of the local
> repair shops.......it has recently had a cla....
> I have been using Pentax older models ie Spotmatic with a 50 1.4 - 300
> f4....135 etc......
> Would i be moving up by buying the Nikormat....
> Lens's for the Nikormat seem to be readily available though a little more
> expensive than the Pentax equipment i have gathered over the years.....
> I enjoy using the older equipment and have no desire to use the later
> plastic...auto everything photo stuff out there now.....
> Any input would be appreciated......
> Merv
There wasn't a Nikkormat Ftb, though IIRC, there was a Canon of that
name. Sounds like an FTN to me, which was one of the earlier Nikkormats.
In total, there were 4 all manual Nikkormat models + some aperture
priority autoexpeosure models. The manual only models were:
FT: Non ai lenses, whole scene average metering, mercury cell power
FTN: Non ai lenses, centre weighted metering, mercury cell power
FT2: Non ai lenses, ditto, 'F2' cosmetics, silver (SR44) cell power
FT3: Ai lenses, ditto, ditto, ditto
You can identify an FTN by the upper case N above the meter window on
the rewind side. If this is missing and there is no FT2 or FT3 ident on
the camera, then it's an FT, which is not the most desirable in terms of
metering.
Have rebuilt many Nikkormats and a few Spotmatics and while both are
good and have good lenses, the Nikkormat is better engineering
internally. Stuff like solid brass machined rack in the shutter advance
mechanism vs pressings in the Pentax, for example and much more besides.
They don't wear out, just need a cla and foam replacement every few
years. Contrary to myth, the metering ring doesn't wear out either, but
the track can get get dirty over the years to the point that you get
poor contact. A clean usually fixes this. They are quite a joy to work
on and you can get the mirror box assy out to reveal the internals in
about 15-20 minutes with practice. The shutter assy comes out as a
complete subassembly for cleaning. All stuff that keeps the cost of
maintenance down. There are also plenty of used / fixer examples cheap
on Ebay if you need spares. The best of bunch is the FT3, which takes ai
lenses and thus will work with all lenses which have the ai tab on the
aperture ring. That means everything right up to the present, except for
G series.
In comparison with the Spotmatic, (Have examples of both) the Nikkormat
is, IMO, a better handling camera overall. Simple stuff like meter
switch on the advance lever rather than the fiddly Spotmatic meter
switch that I always forget to turn off, convenient mirror lock up and
self timer, lens stop down button on the top deck all contribute to ease
of handling.
If the price seems right, go for it. I doubt you will be disappointed. I
have the FT2 that I bought new in 1975 and it's still faultless in
use...
Chris
From: T P [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Old Nikon vs Old Pentax
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003
...
This could be a recipe for a flame war along the lines of 1990s/200s
Nikon versus Canon. However ...
The Nikkormat and the Spotmatic are both competent camera bodies. If
you are going to choose between the brands it should really be on the
basis of the lenses, where the differences are significant.
Generally, from the outset, F Nikkors have been optimised for
sharpness and low rectilinear distortion at the expense of other
desirable qualities such as the smooth rendition of out of focus parts
of the shot (sometimes called smooth "bokeh"), especially highlights.
Screw mount Takumars were a more rounded design, where sharpness was
not pursued to the exclusion of good bokeh.
Unfortunately, the screw mount Pentax designs do tend to suffer from
significantly higher rectilinear distortion than would normally be
acceptable from Nikkors. This was partly corrected in later Pentax
bayonet mount fixed focal length designs, but taken as a whole, the
Pentax zooms have never been low on rectilinear distortion.
It is still true to say that later Pentax lenses do tend to distort
more than contemporary Nikkors, although many still retain the smooth
bokeh more often associated with Zeiss and Leica glass. All depends
on what you want out of your lenses, and their purpose.
It is possible to own a Nikon outfit with lenses that have good or
even outstanding bokeh, but you have to be *very* selective about
which Nikkors you buy. It is possible to buy a much wider range of
Pentax lenses with good or even outstanding bokeh, but these do tend
to suffer from levels of rectilinear distortion that many Nikon users
would find totally unacceptable.
You must choose which lens range best suits *you*.
From: T P [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikkor lenses
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003
"Motorcyclesaur" [email protected] wrote:
>
>I need some advice regarding the range of Nikkor lenses. In particular, I
>would like to know what optical performance difference there is between the
>G class and the D class with ED lenses, i.e. how do they compare for
>brightness, sharpness of the image, etc.?
>
>The lenses that I am looking at are the zoom 28-100 G, the 28-105 D, the
>70-300G, and the 70-300 D ED.
It is impossible to generalise about G lenses, because they include
some of the best *and* the worst lenses available today. The two you
have chosen for comparison are among the worst.
They are very cheaply made so they can sell at very low prices,
competing with third party junk lenses. However there are some
outstanding G Nikkors further up the price range.
The 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D AF Nikkor is an extremely good lens for the
money and is capable of producing superb results in the right hands.
The 28-100mm G is a consumer lens built to a very low price point and
is unlikely ever to produce results on a par with the 28-105mm.
The 70-300mm G is also a very cheap lens and you should not expect
great things of it. The 70-300mm D ED is much better and produces
sharp results from 70-200mm, especially when stopped down. However it
gets increasingly unsharp as it reaches 300mm when it is decidedly
soft. Treat it as a 70-200mm lens with ther 200-300mm range for
emergencies and you may be very pleased.
There is an alternative; the Tamron 70-300mm LD is almost as good
optically as the Nikon ED but is far better than the Nikon G, yet its
price is much nearer that of the Nikon G. An even better option might
be the discontinued 75-300mm AF Nikkor which can be found used at
about the price of a new G lens, and represents superb value at that
price. Its 200-300mm performance is also better than the 70-300mm ED
Nikkor.
From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 26 Jul 2003
Subject: Re: What AF Nikon to accept old AI or AI'd lenses
Is there an autofocus Nikon SLR to which my old AI & AI'd lenses will
mount to and work? Even if most of the new features won't work with
them, will the lenses mount and create an image?
If there is no AF body that'll work with them, what's the newest body
in the Nikon line that'll use them?
Mounting AND metering is what you need. These days if a lens won't meter
easily (none of that stop-down metering is acceptable to me) then it's not a
player.
Nikon's film cameras that mount and meter AF-Nikkors as well as AIS, AI and
AI'd Nikkors include the F5, F100. The older F4 will also matrix meter with
the AIS and AI lenses. (That's something the F5 will not do). The "P" mode or
Program mode will not work without the CPU-equipped lenses. (Of course, who
uses that anyway?)
The digital cameras that do all this include the D1, D1X and D1H. The D100
will not meter with the AIS lenses without resorting to stop down metering
(BS!). The latest D2H is reported to be able to handle AIS, AI and AI'd lenses
nearly as well as the F4,--good news to the old Nikkor lens collectors.
The general rule of thumb is that you have to go with the professional bodies
to retain more capability. The 'consumer' grade bodies don't. The assumption
there is that consumers don't have the extensive collection of older Nikkors
that the professionals have.
Dan Lindsay
Santa Barbara
From nikon Manual mailing list:
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003
From: Jim MacKenzie [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nikkor 200mm f4 - Q (2nd series 1966 - NAI)?
> --- peninhal [email protected] wrote:
> > Does anyone own, or have used, the above 200mm
> > lens? Is it good, bad or
> > indifferent? It looks well designed and that chrome
> > "mid-rif" will look
> > tre' chic on my F.
It's considered to be the worst of the 200/4s, but
mine was outstanding. It didn't focus very closely,
but the quality of the images was really good. It is
the lens that made me realize how bad my 90-300 Tamron
was. That a single-coated 1960s lens could blow it
away was a huge surprise. I rarely used it and thus
sold it, but not because of the quality. And yes, it
does look very cool.
Jim
From nikon mailing list:
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003
From: Oliver Reddaway [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nikon F book
Hi,
My Nikon F Book set by Uli Koch arrived last week and having read bits of it and
browsed through most of it over the weekend I have to say it is an amazingly
detailed analysis of the F System. It only deals with stuff up until the end of
the Nikon F era in around 1974. There are no discussions about AI lenses and
systems and the F2 is only mentioned where it is relevant to the final stages of
the F camera.
If the Nikon F is your interest, and no matter how well you know the subject
this set will add to your knowledge and deepen your appreciation of one of the
truly legendary cameras.
Best Regards,
Oliver.
Oliver Reddaway
From manual nikon mailing list:
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003
From: John Albino [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nikkor 85/f2 (was Nikkor Q (non AI) auto lens 200mm f/4)
Randy Holst wrote:
>Moose is the only person I've ever heard badmouth the 85/f2.
Not exactly. I've "badmouthed" the 85/2 many times, also. IMO, it does not
stack up well against either the "old" MF 85/1.8 or the current AF 85/1.8
-- I've owned each of those lenses over time. In fact, back when the 85/2
came out, I actually traded the 85/1.8 in on it, because I thought having
the 85/2 with its smaller size would be an advantage, and I didn't think
the slight difference between f/1.8 and f/2 made that much difference.
I didn't like the contrast of the 85/2, especially in (my) typical uses for
the lens, which was available light pro basketball at the time. Since I
used the 105/2.5 for portraits, I also felt the 85/2 did not stack up as
well against that lens as did the 85/1.8.
As I recall, there were several of us at the time who were less than
impressed with the "new, improved" 85/2, and didn't like it very much. Many
of us "upgraded" to the 85/1.4 and dumped the 85/2.
--
John Albino
End of Page
Nikon Digest List Archive Search Engine
