The best old Nikkor primes

[iangreenhalgh1]

I really love my old Nikkor-N 2.8/24 and Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55 so I'm thinking of collecting some other old Nikkor primes as I see them cheap.

Which are great like the 2.8/24 and 3.5/55, are there any that are best avoided?

I read the Nikkor-H 2/50 is great, what about the Nikkor-P 2.5/105?

Ken Rockwell says the 3.5/135 is sharper and better than the 2.8/135, he also says the 2.8/28 is 'remarkable' and better than the older 3.5/28, is he right? (I never trust his word without verification).

[fermy]

The only old Nikkor prime that I've used is Nikkor-N 35/1.4 and it is great, but large and heavy. http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1242685.html Highly recommended if you can get it for reasonable money.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I doubt I'll be able to afford that one, but a Nikkor-O 2/35 would be nice if I can find one cheap.

[Attila]

Usually all okay, I did try many , no dog, no spectacular either.

[anscochrome]

Ian,

Since you are a fan of Sonnar look (from reading previous posts), a 105mm F 2.5 Nikkor with the Sonnar design should be a no brainer. I used one in the film days on a Nikon F body, and I reacquired one last year for use on a Canon 5DII. I love it now just as much as then. It was , after all, the gold standard portrait lens of the 1960's and early 1970's. Nice thing, is that the Sonnar design is now considered the "junk" lens by sharpness fanatics, so it is possible to pick one up at a reasonable price. I bought mine at a show in Omaha last year for $100.00, it even included the box and platic storage bubble:), and not a scratch on it (I was lucky). But, excellent examples can be had for 125-150$ tops (what is that in British pounds)-you pay a lot more for the later AI and AIS redesign ones.

[SkvLTD]

50/2 is pretty solid for the price IMO, but that's more of a discussion for price point...

http://skvltd.wordpress.com/?s=50mm

[anscochrome]

Shots from 105mm F 2.5 Nikkor (Sonnar design)

[bernhardas]

Edited

[bernhardas]

Edited

[ManualFocus-G]

The old 28/2 is eye burstingly sharp.

[barryreid]

Anscochrome - those are really nice, particularly the B&W portrait and B&W building shots.

[DR.JUAN]

A friend of mine was very happy with his pre AIs Nikkor-N 4,5/300.

Was he wrong?

[ckrook]

The 35mm f1.4 is wonderful, but maybe a bit expensive?

The 35mm 2, 50mm 1.8/2 and 85mm f2 are all great lenses and very reasonable.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Thanks guys, this is the sort of feedback I was hoping for.

Ansochrome, wonderful shots, and yes, I'm a Sonnar fan, so the 2.5/105 earlier type is one I will look for, your shots show a very nice character and ample sharpness, I particularly like the second one, and it looks very sharp on my screen.

Does anyone have any experience of the Nikkor-H 3.5/28? I know it is widely held that the 2.8/28 AI-S is the one to have, but the older 3.5 is much cheaper. I have read some negative comments about it, one person even called it the worst in the business and said that Nikon shooters all bought the 2.8/24 instead because the 3.5/28 was crap.

Also, I was wondering about the merits of the Nikkor-S and Nikkor-H versions of the 2/50. The S has 7 elements, the H has 6 and replaced the S. I'm not too worried about absolute performance, as I'm sure both are more than good enough, but how does their character differ? Or should I skip em and get a 1.4/50 instead?

[hoanpham]

my fav are ais 28/3.5, 28/2, 35/1.4, 180/2.8 ED, 400/5.6ED,
special usage: 28/3.5PC, 200/4ED ais macro.

The 28/3.5PC has distorsion and need attension when shifted.
The 35/1.4 has short focus throw, good on nex, less good on optical view finder (canikon) but sharp.

28/2 and 28/3.5 are very sharp. Prefer 28/2 ais instead of distagon 28/2 due to weight and not hit mirror on canon.
28/3.5 ais must yield for distagon 28/2.8.

50/1.4 ais is average, prefer planar 50/1.4.

180/2.8ED is very sharp; my preference is equally between LeicaR 180/2.8 and OM mc 180/2.8.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Cheers Hoan, good info, thanks. The 2.8/180 is one I would love to have, but I would be happy with the 4/200 which I have read is very sharp even wide open and surprisingly small and light. I did read that the first Nikkor-Q version is to be avoided as the later AI and AI-S versions are much better. Anyone got experience of the 4/200?

[hoanpham]

The 200/4 ED micro is going to 1:2 only. Very good internal focus mech.

I'll find some samples for you later. very sharp, and light weight.

Otherwise, I use a kiron 105/2.8 macro (1:1) with a good tc 2x on canon - this setup is heavy.
or with AF: 105/2.8G micro with tc on nikon - this setup is relatively ok with multiple purpose (kids/portraits).

[flaviomaia]

[philslizzy]

I got the pre AI Nikkor 135 f3.5 and it is sharp. Blows my other 135's out of the water. Cost me about £15 on ebay.

[cooltouch]

I'm gonna assume that by "Old Nikkors" you mean Pre-AI Nikkors. I have a few:

35mm f/2 OC
55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor
105mm f/2.5 P

And just let me state that I would like to add two more to this list someday: the 20mm f/3.5 UD and the 135mm f/2.8 OC

But of the lenses I actually own, my most favorite by a significant margin is the 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor. It's one of my most favorite lenses, period. It's also one of my sharpest.

[RnR]

I have a few Nikkors which I'm enjoying on a Metabones Speedbooster.

Nikon 28mm f3.5 H.C @f8

[anscochrome]

Ian,

I have a very nice 50mm F 2.0 Nikkor-H. It has a bluish coating (single coated) and produces very good results. You can probably get a better deal on one if you find it "thrown in" with a beat up old Nikkormat body (default "kit lens" with Nikkormat FS, FT, and FTN), which is how my brother acquired it. Pair it with a nice deep 52mm metal lens hood (some proclivity to flare) and you have yourself a winner.