View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Eriksen
 Joined: 15 Nov 2016 Posts: 112
|
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:57 pm Post subject: Nikon 50mm f/1.3 ?? |
|
|
Eriksen wrote:
I can buy this camera with the lens for $ 80.- included shipping. Will that be a good price? I have searched the web and not found anything about this lens. Is this a very rare item that may be worth a lot of money?
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Oldhand
 Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 4320 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: Nikon 50mm f/1.3 ?? |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Eriksen wrote: |
I can buy this camera with the lens for $ 80.- included shipping. Will that be a good price? I have searched the web and not found anything about this lens. Is this a very rare item that may be worth a lot of money?
 |
The lens is the Nikon Series E 50mm f1.8.
Not rare and not a bad lens at all.
I am unsure of the price but it sounds OK for the camera and lens including postage.
Not a bargain though
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Eddie46
 Joined: 05 Dec 2016 Posts: 131 Location: cardiff,UK
|
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eddie46 wrote:
Personally I only Buy old lenses for their usefulness and capability,not their monetary value.Speculation spoils things for everyone. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
blotafton
 Joined: 08 Aug 2013 Posts: 604 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
It looks like a 3 but it must be a damaged 8. You can see 1.8 on the top of the lens. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
james
 Joined: 25 Sep 2009 Posts: 289
Expire: 2011-12-28
|
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
james wrote:
Same optical design as the 50/1.8 AI in a flimsier package and coatings that aren't up to the standards of AIS glass. Expect colors that aren't as saturated.
You can do better. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
iangreenhalgh1
 Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15182
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
In the real world, you'll really struggle to see a difference, another example is the Oly Zuiko 1.8/50, which comes in both MC and pre-MC versions (I am reluctant to call it 'single coated' as that implies one single coating layer, but that isn't the case). Anyways, it is almost impossible to discern a difference between the MC and pre-MC variants. So the main difference you will see with the Series E is in the sturdiness and build quality which is still great, just not the 'built to survive a nuclear war' robustness of the older Nikkors. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
james
 Joined: 25 Sep 2009 Posts: 289
Expire: 2011-12-28
|
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
james wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
In the real world, you'll really struggle to see a difference, another example is the Oly Zuiko 1.8/50, which comes in both MC and pre-MC versions (I am reluctant to call it 'single coated' as that implies one single coating layer, but that isn't the case). Anyways, it is almost impossible to discern a difference between the MC and pre-MC variants. So the main difference you will see with the Series E is in the sturdiness and build quality which is still great, just not the 'built to survive a nuclear war' robustness of the older Nikkors. |
I respectfully beg to differ.
Have a series E 75-150; great lens, sharp, but it flares, colors are not very saturated and contrast is medium at best. Once owned the E 100/2.8 and it displayed similar characteristics. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
iangreenhalgh1
 Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15182
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Sounds like you had less than clean copies then, the 2.8/100 in particular, is not normally as you describe. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
james
 Joined: 25 Sep 2009 Posts: 289
Expire: 2011-12-28
|
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
james wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Sounds like you had less than clean copies then, the 2.8/100 in particular, is not normally as you describe. |
As best as I can recall, it's been a long time. Over time, the 100 was replaced by a CV 2,5/125 and Leica 100/2.8 R so my basis for comparison became a bit skewed.
In any event, the Nikon 105/2.5 was overall a better optical choice and for not a lot more ciost. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|