Daniel Nielsen Photography

Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms

Last Updated: October8, 2005

Previous page | Print this page |

SHORT REVIEWS: Selected old Nikkor lenses

And reviews of a couple non-Nikkor lenses, too

By Daniel Nielsen

These comments were written at various dates over the last few years. In some cases, I've sold the gear and moved on to newer or different optics. Time marches on, and gear is always being "improved." I could still argue the case that some of the lenses below, though they were built 30 or 40 years ago, can produce images on par with, or better than, the majority of lenses being manufactured today. But convenience and speed of operation, not to mention compatibility, are king. Digital imaging is today in the professional realm, and film was yesterday. Amateurs can still capture awesome images with film gear. Though dated, my notes belowe still reflect my feelings about the individual lenses.

Nikkor 20mm f4 AI
  This focal length was, for me, a worthwhile addition to a lens selection that already included a 24mm lens. It is noticeably wider and gives quite a bit more feeling of distance between close and far parts of the photograph. The f4 is admittedly a bit slow, but serviceable, especially since you can easily handhold this at 1/30 of a second shutter speed. If I was going to own just one wide-angle lens, I would probably choose the 24mm f2.8 because its faster speed allows shooting in dimmer light and yields a brighter viewfinder image.
  The step from 24mm to 20mm does make it more imperative that you consider framing much more - you have to consciously watch for toes, overhead wires and tilted horizons. With the 24mm, that's pretty easy. With the 20mm, you need to be much more vigilant. After using the 20mm for a year or so, I find myself carrying my trusty old 24mm just as often (never both at the same time). With the 20mm, I want to get really close to my subject to fill the frame - and I'm not always in the mood to do that, so sometimes choose the 24mm instead.
  The f4 Nikkor hasn't generally received a lot of good press, but then, it wasn't in production very long - just a couple of years before it was replaced by the infinitesimally faster f3.5. Galen Rowell still used this f4 lens up to the day of his death, and a few other pros have used it over the years. It's tiny size makes it a delight to carry. Yeah, wildlife photographer Moose Peterson and many others raved about the Nikkor 20mm f2.8, but this good ol' f4 works just fine for me.

Nikkor 24mm f2.8 converted to AI
One of my favorite lenses. I've got an old, all-metal example that someone converted to AI via the machining method (and whoever it was did a rather rough job of it). I bought it, already very used, in the early 1980s. This focal length is a bit easier to focus than shorter wide-angles, but still plenty wide to include a lot of foreground along with some distance scenery, or a person nearby and lots of scene around him or her. This one is sharp even wide open, and when you get to about f8, you can get almost everything within the depth of field. I carry either this or the similar 20mm virtually anytime I go shooting. I consider a wide-angle an essential tool because of it's ability to emphasize the foreground while still including the background. After several months of owning the 20mm above, I realized I never used the 24mm anymore, so I sold it.

Miida 28mm f2.8 pre AI
Bland. Even early in my career (I had this back in the 1970s for a year or two, then dumped it), I got used to the solid-brass feel and heft of that old Nikkor glass, and this thing didn't feel right. And the focus ring rotated the opposite direction to Nikkor lenses. And the front element was very large and required an odd-sized filter (I think it was 67mm or 68mm). And my pictures were consistently almost-good. Yeah, maybe some of it was the fact I was early in my learning curve, but I ended up with much sharper photos with the 50mm Nikkor I was using at the same time.
You'd be better off buying a Nikkor 28mm, even the inexpensive f3.5. I think 28mm is a good compromise focal length for many shooters: Wide enough to get that wide-angle feeling, but not so wide that obvious distortion creeps in when you're expecting it. Wider lenses can do that, so you learn to watch out for it. (I strongly prefer a 24mm or 20mm, but that's just me.) Off-brand lenses have gotten much better in the last couple of decades (I admit it - I'M OLD!), and the better companies like Tamron and Tokina sell many good products. So they probably deserve more consideration than I give them.

Nikkor 28-45mm f4.5 zoom pre AI
  Very sharp, very contrasty, excellent all around as far as quality. But not a very useful range of focal lengths when you consider its large size (72mm filter size) and slow aperture. This was my first wide-angle lens, and I found myself using it only at 28mm.
  I picked it up cheap when I answered a classified ad for a Nikon FTN body in Carson City, Nevada, in 1981. The commercial studio photographer was getting rid of all his 35mm gear after having switched to medium format years before. I snapped up the pristine FTN, and he gave me a deal I couldn't refuse on both the 28-45mm and an ancient and battered 135mm f2.8 Nikkor. I sold the 28-45mm on consignment in a Milwaukee camera shop soon after I bought the 24mm mentioned above.
  You'd be better off with a 28mm f2.8 or even a 28mm f3.5. Or spend a bit more money and get a 24mm. Conversely, some shooters stick with a 35mm as their sole wide angle lens. It depends on what you shoot and how you shoot it. Or, if you're living in the present, get a 17-35mm or the pricey 12-24mm Nikkor.

Nikkor 35mm f2 converted to AI
Wide maximum aperture makes for bright viewfinder images, and allows for some selective focus (sharp foreground subject with blurry background). This is a great focal length: It includes a wide area, but gives almost none of the perspective distortion of wider lenses. This particular model seems sharp at any aperture. The big-spending pros rave about the sharpness of the Nikkor f1.4, but there's no way I could justify spending the steep price.
I don't often carry my 35mm lens these days, but when I go out sans camera bag, with only a single body and a single lens, this is usually the one I go with. It's fast and can function as a "normal" lens. But it can squeeze more of a tight room into the frame than a 50mm. Anything wider than a 35mm forces you to get considerably closer to the average subject and begins introducing the wide-angle effect (which I love, but don't want in all my pictures). In the pre-zoom era, many photojournalists used the 35mm as their "normal" lens. A few of them even considered a 50mm a mild "telephoto." I can see their point.

Nikkor 35-135mm zoom AF
This is my first and only autofocus lens designed for film bodies. After I'd had my F4 body for awhile, I wanted to try autofocus. This lens showed up at a reasonable price. Right out of the shipping box, it began capturing very sharp, contrasty images. And the autofocus worked great in daylight. Even inside, if the light was reasonable, the F4 could focus it in a second or so as long as I put something with a bit of contrast inside the focus brackets. Loaded with slow slide film, the F4 and the 35-135mm were a bit heavy and bulky, but were a versatile unit, and helped me create a variety of satisfying images.The macro feature, which is available only at the 35mm focal length setting, proved very useful, and image quality was great!I have found very little mention of this beauty on the Web.

Nikkor 43-86mm f3.5 zoom pre AI and AI
I owned a later example, made in the early 1980s, and it was reasonably sharp and distortion-free. I used two earlier examples - one from the 1960s, one made in the 1970s, that introduced a truly amazing amount of pincushion distortion, exaggerated almost to the point of comedy. All three examples gave less contrast than the average Nikkor lens. This was Nikon's first popular zoom lens, dating from the Nikkorex era. But manufacturing consistency apparently was a problem on this lens. I've read several places that the later 35-105mm Nikkor was the heir-apparent to this unfortunate trait; it also is said to have suffered from variations in quality.
The zoom range of the 43-86mm and comparable lenses appeals to many, since it includes both normal and short telephoto focal lengths. But that doesn't appeal to me: I tended to use this lens at 86mm all the time, and the 43mm end just wasn't wide enough for my taste. I'd rather take a step forward or a step back with a nice, contrasty 50mm rather than push or pull this zoom.

Nikkor GN 45mm f2.8 pre AI
  This short-lived lens offered a unique capability: By locking the focus and aperture rings together, it allowed photographers to use a manual flash at full power and still get accurate exposures at any distance. That feature was outmoded years ago by auto thyristor flash units, then by through-the-lens flash capability.
  Even so, I found this simple little lens to be so sharp and so compact and lightweight that I used it fairly frequently. Since the flash feature is unneeded these days, it's compact size and sharp glass are this lens' main attractions. I found I was using this lens rarely, so sold it.
  For the collectors among you, it is unique among Nikkors in another aspect: It's focus ring rotates in the opposite direction from all other Nikkor lenses. In order to make the diaphragm open up as the lens is focused farther away, Nikon designers had to make the helicoil rotate left toward infinity, rather than Nikkor's norm of right toward infinity.

Nikkor 50mm f1.4 pre AI
The standard lens sold with thousands of Nikon bodies back in the 1960s and 1970s. There are hundreds of them available on the used market. The wide aperture makes it very useful when shooting in low light and makes it easy to focus in any light. I've used a couple examples over the years, and they both produced reasonably sharp images wide open and very sharp images stopped down a stop or two. A solid lens.

Nikkor 50mm f2 pre AI
A stop slower than the f1.4, but it is extremely sharp and contrasty. Crisp to focus, sharp even wide open. The quality of this lens always amazed me. The one I loved in the late 1970s and early 1980s was among the last of the pre AI variations, the one with the rubberized focus ring. I'd still have it if it hadn't been stolen. I've had two co-workers in the past who swore by the Nikkor 50mm f1.8, both pre AI and AI. From their reports and what I've read, it may be even better than the f2. Even in these days ruled by the zoom, the standard lens still has its fans.

Nikkor 55mm f3.5 Micro converted to AI
Sharp as can be. Just the ticket for extreme closeups. Admittedly a bit slow. I love it and most likely will keep it forever. After all my gear was stolen in a suburb of San Francisco in 1982, this f3.5 is the lens I bought to start rebuilding my system from scratch. It had been knocked around a bit when I bought it, but the optics were, and still are, perfect. I had John White convert it to AI in the late 1990's so I could use it with my then newly-purchased Nikon FM in addition to my retro Nikon FTN.
If I was starting again, I would probably opt for a 105mm micro, just because it could do double duty as my oft-used medium telephoto. If you prefer a 55mm Micro, consider the slightly faster f2.8, which these days probably won't cost any more than the f3.5, though some say it may not be as sharp close up as the older f3.5.

Nikkor 58mm f1.4 pre AI
One of the original lenses introduced with the Nikon F in late 1950s. One of those very few, very early Nikkor lenses that don't fit on bodies other than the original F and F2. (It's the standard Nikon mount, but the aperture ring extends farther back from the lens barrel than normal. Bodies newer than the F and F2 offer less clearance there. You can mount this lens on some Nikkormats, but the aperture ring scrapes on the front of the body. The fit on one Nikkormat I had was so tight I couldn't adjust the aperture at all once the lens was mounted!) But this lens' lack of compatibility is no great loss, since I don't think it was quite as sharp as the much more common 50mm f1.4.
I was looking at a flash unit when the seller convinced my to buy this, but I used this lens only occasionally for a couple of years, then sold it.

Nikkor 80-200mm f4.5 zoom converted to AI
May have been the first really good zoom lens ever made. It is sharp, even wide open. Mine is one of the first ones made, and it's darn good, though the loose push-pull zooming action irks me a bit (a repairman can tighten it right up with no problem, but with use, it loosens up again - it's just a by-product of the way the lens mechanics were designed).
I had John White convert this to AI soon after I bought it in the mid-1990s. But I guess I'm just a fixed-focal-length kind of guy, because this lens, despite its solid performance, doesn't excite me. What else can I say? I'm trying to force myself to carry it more often so I'll start getting into the modern, zoom-lens mentality, but my cantankerous side is still rebelling and surrepticiously taking it out of my camera bag when I'm not looking.

Nikkor 85mm f2 AI
  Sharp, fast, a perfect focal length for portraits. Great for scenics. Useable in low light, such as during storms or inside dimly-lit theaters. Fine for unobtrusive street photography and close-in sports. It doesn't get any better than this.
  Some will say the older Nikkor 85mm f1.8 or the newer autofocus f1.8 are better. I don't know about that, but I just love my f2 and am considering being buried with it when I go. Just kidding, but you get my drift. I acquired it used in 1983 and don't foresee selling it.
  This focal length is perfect for basketball shots from under the hoop, for portraits, for candid shots at parties, for picking out architectural details. More often than not, when I go out trolling for photos with nor particular subject in mind, I'll carry one body and two lenses - 85mm and either my 24mm or 20mm. Frequently, I'll also add a TC-200 Nikkor teleconverter, which, when added to the 85mm, gives me a 170mm f4 that may not be perectly sharp wide open, but is just fine for use in bright light when closed down a stop or two.

Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AI
  I've fallen in love with this lens. After a disappointing experience with an older version of the Nikkor 105, I was leery of trying it again. But I kept hearing others - in person, in print, on the Web - rave about it. So when one showed up in a local camera shop that looked new despite the two decades since it was manufactured, I bought it. This time around, I chose the newest AI version, which has a completely different internal design; compared with the old version, it has a larger rear element. That's because the optics were completely redesigned.
  So far, I'm pretty pleased with the purchase. It is only slightly longer than my trusty 85mm, and a tad slower. But the viewfinder image looks somehow smoother, and my first test rolls bear that out. The images aren't necessarily sharper - I think the difference is a slight increase in edge contrast plus that "bokeh" thing some other lens reviewers talk about. That's a smoothness in the quality of the parts of the image that are out of focus, usually the background. Not that I'm comparing this lens to Leitz products, but it's my opinion that what makes Leica-produced images stand out from the crowd is high contrast and good bokeh. The combination results in images with sharp, clearly-defined edges and smooth, milky backgrounds.
  I had been seriously considering a 105mm macro when I found the f2.5. For closeup work, I decided to stick with my old 55mm f3.5 Micro, perhaps supplemented by my "new" 105mm f2.5 plus extension tubes. I'm happy I chose the f2.5. Read about the history of the 105mm f2.5.

Nikkor 105mm f2.5 pre AI (see above for update)
  The example I owned was really old, even back when I used it in 1980-81. It predated multi-coating, so it had that homey, warm amber glow on the front lens element. For you techies, it was the old version of this lens, the one with the smaller rear element.
  It was a good compromise lens as far as focal length goes, and it was plenty fast. My example wasn't particularly sharp wide open, but improved drastically when stopped down a couple of stops. This lens was a long-time favorite of many excellent photographers over the years. It does the job for many shooters. I get more turned on by the 85mm or 135mm. But any of the three will serve you well when combined with a wide angle.
  If I decided I wanted a 105mm, I'd seriously consider the Nikkor f2.8 macro. It's widely regarded as the sharpest Nikkor 105mm ever made, with the added bonus of very close focusing capability.

Nikkor 135mm f2.8 pre AI
  This lens balances perfectly in my hand, making it very easy to hand hold at relatively low shutter speeds. I picked this one up in the early 1980s and used it for more than 20 years. It served me well over those two decades; andpictures i took with it appeared in many newspapers and several magazines. Its relatively wide aperture, combined with the moderately long focal length, makes it easy to focus even with my bodies' relatively dim viewfinders.
  135mm is long enough to just begin flattening facial features in tight portraits, but short enough to keep you at just the right working distance for full-length portraits. It's long enough to just begin showing that attractive telephoto compression effect for scenics, yet is short enough to use inside at wedding receptions or concerts.
  135mm is about in the center of the common 80-200mm zoom range. With a bit of thought, it can do most anything the heavier, larger, slower zoom can do, and is easier to use in low light conditions.
  Even after I bought my 85mm lens, I held onto the 135mm for 15 years before selling it.

Nikkor 200mm f4 AI
I decided to give the 200mm focal length another chance after disappointing experiences with the ancient version below. So I acquired a redesigned copy 20 years newer. And the difference is both surprising and astounding. The old version was dull, bland and useless to me. The newer version is bright, sharp, clear, contrasty and delightful. Though I find myself using telephotos less often these days, the 200 is a useful focal length for me. These days, my ancient 300mm rarely sees the light of day. The 200mm is much more likely to ride in my bag and jump out to grab a scenic or action shot. If you want a long Nikkor, I recommend this new design, either the AI or newer AIS version, which apparently has the same optics. Do not consider the horrible old version below - it stinks.

Nikkor 200mm f4 pre AI (see above for update)
Relatively light and small, handled very easily, the one I owned in the early 1980s and another I used extensively a few years later both were quite sharp and reasonably contrasty. But it always seemed like this focal length was a bit too long for portraits and not quite long enough for sideline sports. Just personal bias, perhaps, but I prefer a 135mm. The 200mm is an effective compromise telephoto for some shooters.

Nikkor 300mm f4.5 converted to AI
  About the longest lens the average person can handhold. Great for shooting the action at first or third base from behind the batter. Can give you really close-in shots from the sidelines of the football field. And can really compress together mountains for interesting scenics.
  This particular lens was the standard long lens of many Nikon shooters for a couple of decades. It's fine, but you do need to close down a stop or two to get good sharpness with this Nikkor lens.
  I bought this lens in Salt Lake City while en route to start a newspaper job in Nevada in 1980. The first time I used it, I got the best football shots I'd produced up to that point, strictly a product of the long focal length (previously, my longest lens had been 200mm) The 300mm let me get closer to the action and the emotion of the game.

Vivitar 800mm f11 Solid Cat pre AI
  Talk about big - short but very large in diameter. This catadioptric (mirror) lens came in its own hard case, and needed it. Fixed aperture, like all mirror lenses, so exposure is controlled only by shutter speed.
  Though I normally can't reliably handhold anything longer than 300mm, I used this without a tripod a few times to photograph wild horses in rural Nevada and other fast-moving subjects.
  Even on a tripod, a focal length this long is useful only is very special cases. Save your money - buy film and processing to hone your skill instead. I'm mighty glad this belonged to the newspaper I worked for at the time instead of me; it was fun to try out, but of extremely limited use in the long run.

Nikkor TC-200 AI
  A two-power teleconverter. This one mates to many AI Nikkor lenses, generally any Nikkor lens that does not have a protruding rear element. In my case, it successfully mates with all my current AI lenses: 20, 24, 35, 55, 85, 80-200, 300mm. Nikon warns that the TC-200 may cause vignetting or uneven exposure across the film. I haven't noticed that, but then I haven't used this thing much since I bought it a couple of years ago. I find myself carrying it "just in case" I need a long lens, but rarely actually use it.
  While this teleconverter multiplies focal length by two, it likewise cuts f-stop by two. You need a fast lens to make a teleconverter worthwhile. Adding it to my 20mm f4 would be stupid; I'd end up with a 40mm f8 lens. But in combination with my 85mm f2, it produces a 170mm f4; this is the combo I envisioned when I decided to buy the converter. It works, especially if I close down a stop or two, which means outside shots only. I'd never attempt to use a teleconverter indoors. I've tried using the TC-200 with my 300 f4.5, which requires a tripod, with mixed success; I got a few acceptable shots along with a few fuzzy ones. Some of the problem might be my middle-aged eyes and shakey hands, but some of it is just the optics.
  In theory, teleconverters are mighty attractive: They give you the equivalent of more focal lengths for relatively little money. But since you're basically magnifying the center of the base lens' image field, you magnify any weakness of the base lens. If you have a marginal base lens, the teleconverter will make it twice as bad. And cheap teleconverters introduce additional optical defects of their own. Add a cheap converter to a crummy lens and you'll get putrid results, as in fuzzy and muddy.
  In my early days of photography, I bought a Vivitar 3X teleconverter, used, for $10. I stuck it between my trusty Nikkormat FTN and a Nikkor 200mm f4 and shot off a roll stupidly expecting grand results from this 600mm, f12 concoction. Instead, I produced a roll of predictably blurred, fuzzy, worthless garbage. I soon took the 3X to the local trading post as a down payment on a used tape player.
  My next foray into teleconverter madness happened half a dozen years later, in the form of a new Bushell teleconverter. Combined with a 135mm f2.8 Nikkor, this a bit closer to the realm of optic reality at 270mm f5.6. This combo worked, sort of, but never felt right. I still have the non-AI Bushnell, but I literally haven't used it in a decade. I really don't know why it's still rolling around in my spare camera bag.
  The moral of this story is simple. Don't believe everything you read in photography magazines. If you must have a teleconverter, don't bother with anything but the same brand as your body: Nikon, Canon, Minolta, etc. The smaller the magnification, the better (1.4X is better than 1.5X is better than 2X and anything higher is worthless). In the end, you'll get more use out of a separate telephoto lens, or even one of those weird, new-fangled zoom lenses, like an 80-200 or 70-300mm.

Advice you didn't ask for it, but you got it

  1 - Buy the top brand names.
  2 - Buy used and shop around.
  3 - Get a wide angle and moderate telephoto, then get experience before buying anything more.
  4 - You don't need to "cover" every focal length. Prosper with a wise selection of focal lengths; do not covet focal lengths you don't need.
  5 - In the long run, focal lengths between 20mm and 200mm or perhaps 300mm are what you will use. Any lens outside that range will gather dust (unless you are active in a specialty like bird photography).