Vintage Nikon primes I found... Should I buy??

legrevedotcom

legrevedotcom

Veteran
I just found a deal... 2 Nikon lenses:

Nikkor-S, Auto, 35mm F 2.8, Nippon Kogaku Japan.

and

Sigma HL Wide, 28mm F 2.8, Multi Coared.

for 50 dollars for both. If they work like they are supposed to, should I get them?
 
legrevedotcom said:
I just found a deal... 2 Nikon lenses:

Nikkor-S, Auto, 35mm F 2.8, Nippon Kogaku Japan.

and

Sigma HL Wide, 28mm F 2.8, Multi Coared.

for 50 dollars for both. If they work like they are supposed to, should I get them?
Click to expand...

YES!. I am not familiar with the Sigma lens, but I have the 35mm f2.8. It is a very good lens and is quickly becoming one of my favs. Nikon made a 35mm f2.0 lens that gets a lot of praise, for the slight edge in speed, but that lens will cost you 2.5 X more then those two lenses above. As a general rule of thumb a Nikon manual prime lens, that is in at least decent shape and less than a hundred bucks, is a good deal. IMHO.
 
Heh... next time I'll move instead of asking questions :D They were of course sold already (after 22 hours on the list...) dammit :(

Found a Soligor 28-70 2.8 macro now though. Alas it's been on the list a little longer.
 
I am not familiar with Soligor lenses, but I just bought a Vivitar 28-80mm f2.8-3.8 macro zoom lens in Minolta MD mount that I plan to use on the FS100. I got it on an eBay auction for $13.52, with shipping. I already have a set of Nikon manual primes and am now looking at getting some older zooms. I recently got a Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f2.8 to 3.5 macro lens with a MD mount. I got it for about $30.00 and have been very pleased with the image quality. Part of the fun of having these new cameras is now going out and trying older vintage lenses. If you are just getting lenses. I would suggest trying to get a set of manual Nikon primes, they are just outstanding and should be adaptable to most every lens mount we are probably going to run into for a long time. I would get them now, as I have noticed that the prices are starting to creep up.
 
Thanks for the link :) I'll have to read that once I have room in my head.... loooots of text there :D

In the mean time, I discovered that there exists such a thing as a Hasselblad > Sony Nex adapter :o We have loads of hasselblad at work, and that is really good glass! I might have to try those out.
 
Not as bad as it seems. Skip the text, go straight to the lens list and find your lens - Nikkors only. Good, short, practical reviews, not test charts or brick photos.
 
I'd have a tough time recommending super old slow lenses unless you are on a serious budget or are looking for a particular character for your lenses. I have a tough time justifying primes that are f2.8 or slower when there are great modern zooms for reasonable prices that will likely perform better and give you more options with fewer lens changes. If they are f2.8 or slower they are either really old and likely quite bad mechanically (most old nikkors I've seen have seriously worn helicoids and shifting elements) or really designed inexpensively and are likely to be bad mechanically and optically... or they are slow because they are a special design for macro or some other feature, and if you do not need it, you may be sacrificing something you need for something you do not need.

That said, if you have a particular reason for wanting those old lenses, I'm sure you can work around their faults and I do not doubt they are able to make great images. I have plenty of lenses with limitations of some sort or another, all of them do, and you just have to understand it and be realistic about what they can and cannot do.
 
I have 3 Canon Ls but new lenses don't go well with dumb adapters. The main reason was to be able to control aperture, I don't shoot as open as possible as default. Every situation has its right aperture setting...
 
I agree with nyvz that you should avoid primes that are slower than 2.8. But I have to respectfully disagree that you should avoid old Nikkors wholesale. Nikon AI-S primes, assuming you find lenses in good shape, are fantastic for digital cinema, and can be a fantastic bargain if you do your research and understand what to look for. My issue with zoom lenses intended for stills is that many are not parfocal and many do not have hard stops (i.e., endless focus ring). Just a different perspective -- everyone has to find what works for them.
 
I'd say the cheaper and nastier the better!!!
I've been experimenting with video using a variety of my own lenses on a friend's Nikon D7000 which I'm condidering purchasing one for myself.
My new Nikkors and Sigmas are sharp with good contrast and edge-to-edge sharpness, just like the stills they take, and they make excellent crisp video with every parameter exactly how I want it to be.
But my old crusty "junk" lenses that I bought for laughs from junk shops are even better for filmic video!
It could be because I'm on a bit of an organic crusty retro grunged-up cinema fixation at the moment, but those old crappy lenses look great to me :)
Half the fun is the random flare, halos, ghosting, non-uniform focus and other anomalies which are a bit analogous to recording a slightly squeaky Hammond organ + Leslie onto 1" analogue tape - you never know what you're going to get and the performance can never be repeated the same way twice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top