Question about Old Manual Nikon Lenses

Chance White

Chance White

Well-known member
So yes I'm back again with more lens questions! Thanks again in advance for all responses.

Shopping around on KEH there are many nice old manuals. For instance if I were to pick up a 50mm AI 1.2, what should I keep in mind? I already have extra adapter rings.

More specifically how is the bokeh going to look in comparison to the Canon EF 50mm 1.4?

In general does the bokeh and sharpness compare to the newer Canon lenses? Is the major difference only manual aperture and lack of auto focus (which is not important to me since I'm mostly shooting video and have other lenses for photos)?
 
Ken Rockwell had this 50mm comparison test that had good detailed bokeh shots.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/bokeh.htm

He doesn't have the 1.2 or any Canons in there to help you out though.

I think one factor that people overlook is the bloom the Nikon manual lenses have vs newer glass. For me i find that shooting into light with the nikon manuals is beautiful...but you're not supposed to do that so....

I'd recommend buying both (or all 3) and put it on your credit card. Sell the ones you don't like.
 
Awesome thank you! I am very pleased to see the old Nikon Manuals seem to be an excellent option... and so affordable.

It also seems like Nikon lenses tend to beat Canon's in general, is this the consensus?
 
There isn't a consensus. Otherwise this would be easy! Anybody that says X lens is the "best" lens is FOS. You really can't judge what lenses will work for you because there are so many variables and shooting needs. Nikon AI lenses are great and so are Canons. But who knows what you'll end up liking best until you check them out. If possible I highly recommend that. Then there's always sample pictures, tests, and user reviews. I ended up with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 after owning a bunch of Nikon AI and the Canon 50mm 1.2L as well. I tried it out because I heard good stuff and I just liked it best for me. I also kept a Nikon 1.8 AI for the bloomy haze that it gets pointed at a bright source. I dig. Good luck.
 
Chance White said:
Awesome thank you! I am very pleased to see the old Nikon Manuals seem to be an excellent option... and so affordable.

It also seems like Nikon lenses tend to beat Canon's in general, is this the consensus?
Click to expand...

I spend a lot of time at the NikonCafe forum, and while they are not Canon bashers, they are certainly convinced that Nikon manual lenses are the finer specimens. Take that for what it's worth.

It's certainly true that Nikon has spent its life concentrating on photography, whereas Canon has had lots of other things, including copiers and scanners, to worry about.
 
Thanks for the video links!

Do all Nikon MF AI lenses feature the 'bloom' effect mentioned? I'm interested specifically in the 1.4 and the 1.2 (50mm). Also I read on Ken Rockwell's site that Nikon Manuals also feature 14 pointed flares as opposed to the 7 or so of comparable Canon lenses. Is this also true of most all Nikon Manuals?

Also any links to videos featuring this bloom effect?
 
I have a Nikkor 50mm 1.4 (Ai I think) and find it very soft under f2, to the point of being unusable wide open. At 4-5.6 it looks great though.

The new canon 1.4 usm I just got is much better and totally usable wide open, although the trade off is having a freely spinning and sloppy focus ring (kind of a big deal for a follow focus) and no aperture ring (not that big of a deal).

The nikon has a very small focus travel, which also makes exact follow focus pulls difficult too, so it's not like the 'perfect' cinema lens either.
 
Just an update. I followed advice and did some shopping on KEH. Grabbed Nikon 50mm 1.4 AI and a 135mm 2.8 AI. Received them this morning and I'm extremely pleased. Thanks for pointing me in this direction!

There's something special about procuring old beat up lenses. Ha ha.
 
Hark! I have a new lens query.

Besides my new Nikon primes (50mm 1.4 and 135mm 2.8, old AI manuals), I also have 2 Tamron lenses. The 17-50mm 2.8 to cover wides. I also have an older 35-300mm (3.5-6.3). What I'm wondering is if I will see a big difference in image quality if I were to pick up an old Nikon wide prime, over the Tamron 17-50. I imagine the Tamron would probably be the best way to go, but just wanted to confirm this or hear some other opinions.

Thanks!
 
Nope. :)

"ydgmdlu" is my first and last name put together and written in a sort of code. If you insist on an abbreviation, then you may use "ydg," as that represents my first name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top