Local Links:
Refurbished Nikon Lenses
Simple Lens Design is Best
Tale of 3 Nikon Lenses
(70-150mm E zoom beats macro 105mm?)

Related Links:
Olympus SLR FAQ
Zuiko (Olympus) Lens Tests

Don't Ignore OEM Lens Bargains

Don't ignore the many bargains among original Nikon, Canon, and other OEM lenses which may fit your camera body. Older OEM lenses by Nikon (AI/AIS), Pentax (M42 or K/KA), Minolta (MC/MD/X-rokkor), Canon (FD) and others are often available at prices little more than competing third party lenses. Snap up these bargains if they meet your photographic needs and goals!

OEMs competing with Third Party Lens Prices

In order to compete with third party lens makers, most OEM lens makers have come out with multiple tiers of lenses differentiated by speed and price.

The best known example is Nikon's Series E lenses. These Nikon lenses are relatively low cost OEM lenses designed to compete with the third party lens makers zooms and prime lenses.

Surprisingly, these Series E lenses get high marks for their optical quality and sharpness. However, they are not as well protected against flare, as all but one of the Series E lenses are single-coated rather than multi-coated optics.

These lenses are also controversial among Nikon owners as they have a high plastics content. The result of using plastic is a light weight optic that feels different from the typical metal nikkor lenses.

Besides this lower-end consumer Series E lens line, Nikon maintains its high end professional fast specialty lens lines and a higher end amateur lens line. The speed and price of Nikon's professional lens line puts them out of reach of all but the most affluent amateur buyers. But their regular amateur lens line is more competitively priced.

In the past, OEMs worked hard to get you into their camera lines, hoping you would stick with their OEM lenses. Rumors suggest that margins on camera bodies were shaved, sometimes to as little as 5%, to lure new buyers and lock you into their system.

Today, third party lenses have freed many photographers from being captive buyers of OEM lenses. The quality of the top professional third party lens lines is as good and sometimes better than the OEM offerings. These lost OEM profits will have to be made up somewhere else, either in higher body prices (cf. Nikon F5, top pro models) or a low-end consumer mass-market line. Can you identify what strategies your OEM camera body maker is using?

Using Older OEM Lenses on Newer Bodies

In our Lens Mount Adapter FAQ, we review what adapters may exist to allow you to use older OEM lenses on your current camera body.

For example, when Pentax switched from Pentax M42 Universal screw-mount lenses to Pentax-K bayonet mount lenses, they provided an inexpensive ($20 US) adapter to use the older screw-mount lenses on their newer K-mount bodies. Granted, you lost some automation functions, but you could mount your lenses and use them to take pictures. Stopped down metering and manually stopping down the lenses was used.

Today, OEM M42 Universal screw-mount lenses are considered obsolete and often very inexpensive lenses. There is a glut on the used market of the more common lens types. So in this case, you could probably afford to consider buying these OEM M42 screw-mount lenses for a more modern M42 body (e.g., later Fujica series with auto-aperture exposure).

Equally useful, you could use such an adapter to convert your older M42 screw-mount lenses for use on a newer camera body using a bayonet mount.

Picking the right camera series could be critical, however, since adapters are not available for all camera and lens combinations. See Lens Mount FAQ for some existing adapters listed there and rough costs.

Older OEM lenses on Newer Bodies

Other OEM brands such as Minolta (MC/MD) and Canon (FD) lenses can also be used on a variety of older and newer bodies. You can use newer Minolta MD lenses on an older SRT body. You can use older MC and Celtic lenses on a newer MD body, albeit lowing some automatic modes. Some of the later X-series bodies can also take some of these lenses too.

However, you need to check to ensure that your newer body will work these older lenses. Many new autofocus mounts cannot mount older manual focus mount lenses. Again, it may be worthwhile to consider the possible savings from buying an AF camera system that can use older lenses. This fact is obviously especially true if you have access to a stock of current manual focus lenses. However, keep in mind that you can also use an adapter to expand which lenses you can mount your lenses onto, and so expand your range of new body choices too.

Upgrade Paths

Nikon is the only major OEM that has retained its F body mount compatibility through a series of new pro and amateur camera models.

You can mount the latest AF lenses on the older bodies (e.g., Nikon F from 1959).

You can get older pre-AI lenses converted to AI mountings for $25 US for each lens.

A few more modern pro cameras such as the Nikon FE, F3, and F4 (and F5 via a $270 US camera mount update) can be used with the older pre-AI lenses without AI conversion. Stop-downed metering is required, and a small tab on the lens mount has to be pushed out of the way (using a small button release).

For Nikon owners (and other OEM brands and models with similar adaptability), this means you can look for a variety of older OEM and third party lenses for use on your recent model cameras.

Many of those older OEM prime lenses had multi-coating, solid all-metal construction, and surprisingly good optical performance.

Some Nikon lens designs (e.g., 105mm f2.5 nikkor) haven't changed in decades. Various online reviews can help you decide if an older OEM lens is a real bargain. Sometimes the older lenses are higher rated than the much more expensive newer ones!

Oftentimes, these older OEM lenses can be bought for under $75 US apiece. I have bought a set of 28mm f2.8 AI, 35mm f2 AF, 50mm f1.4 IC, 105mm f2.5 AI, 135mm f2.8 IC, and 200mm f4 AI nikkors all for under $350 US. Some of these fast lenses would be hard to find in third party offerings. So it is hard to compute the extra cost of going with OEM lenses versus third party lenses here. But my guess is that I am paying about $20 US a lens more to own these Nikkor lenses than similar speed third party lenses.

By contrast, my third party lenses have saved lots of dollars over similar speed OEM lenses outside this 28mm to 200mm focal length range. My used 300mm f/4 Sigma was a third of a similar 300mm f/4.5 nikkor, and worse for my 400mm and 500mm non-mirror lenses. For wide angle lenses, there is no contest. Some of my wierd wide angle lenses such as a 12mm fisheye have no Nikkor equivalent. The 13mm Nikkor costs more than most most cars.

Shopping online via Jeff Albro's IMPACT Used Photo Gear links makes it easy to hunt many dealers and online ads for bargains weekly.

Unpopular Lenses equals Expensive

OEM lenses outside this 28mm to 200mm focal length range will often be more expensive, often by a lot, than third party lenses listed below from the same time period.

Partly, this higher price reflects the optical and mechanical quality of these OEM lenses, and their greater prestige in the marketplace.

But it also reflects some collector interest in these rarer lenses. For example, my 135mm f/4 preset bellows nikkor is worth far more as a collectible than as a 135mm user lens - see my lens hacking use for this oldie OEM lens.

Exotic focal lengths below 24mm and above 200mm represented relatively rare lenses in the past. Many of the bettter examples of these OEM lenses are still in use (e.g., nikkor 8mm f/8 fisheye, which is no longer made).

But there aren't many of these lenses to pick from, simply because not many of these exotic OEM lenses were sold. Many of these lenses had total world-wide production runs of under 1,000 lenses. One OEM brand 200-600mm f/9.5 lens had a total production run of 186 lenses, while the Nikon 1000mm f6.3 lens had only 60 lenses produced. Today, you can buy a used one for $12,000+ US! (see lens envy page for details).

Have you figured it out yet? Suppose I told you that these resolution settings were for circa a 1:50 subject size?

The 105mm f/2.8 micro-nikkor is optimized for macrophotography, not distance photography. And the portrait telephoto 105mm f/2.5 lens is optimized for closer head portraits too.

Still, the cheapy 75-105mm f/3.5 Series E "OEM" zoom lens performed surprisingly well, didn't it? You'll have to read the rest of the article to find out about how the macro-ring plays into answering how it does it.

However, this table helps illustrate that the series E lenses are not slackers as optical performers, providing very good sharpness for a zoom or a prime lens!

Related Postings

mikefocus@aol.com (MikeFocus) wrote:

>Cosmetic.
>And the lens quality is passable but nothing to write home about.

If you are referring to the 100mm f2.8E, I cannot agree... It was the equal at infinity at f2.8 of the best I could put against it, which included some really excellent infinity-focus lenses, like the 105mm f2.5 and 105mm f2.8M Nikkors... It beat the excellent 85's, even... Near minimum focus, it easily beats the 105mm f2.5 at f2.8, but not the 105mm f2.8M. Quite a remarkable lens to write home about, I think, and really, really cheap for a lens of that image quality...

David Ruether
ruether@fcinet.com
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether

[ED. note: are you buying refurbished Nikon lenses as new at full price?]
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998
From: Robert McLaughlin Lckyrwe@discover.net
Subject: F5, N8008 upgrade

HOW TO TELL IF YOUR NIKON LENS IS REFURBISHED

>I just purchased a 24 m f 1/2.8 AF (non-D) lens that was refurbished by
>Nikon and comes with a 90-day warranty.  I had not known that such lenses
>existed and was wondering what experiences others have had with them.  I
>would appreciate opinions about their relative value to new lenses and the
>availability in other focal lengths (e.g., 180 mm).  Thanks.

Those who are in the know will devalue a refurbished lens just like a car that was returned to the dealership for a problem. Granted the lens trouble will not be as bad as car trouble, but with a reputation like Nikon, no one wants to bother with it. The refurbished lenses ought to be about 25% cheaper than new lenses as a minimum, but may only be a few dollars less depending on demand. You can tell if your lens is refurbished by looking at the serial number. There will be a little punch mark in front of the number, that is how Nikon says it is refurbished.

- ------------------------------

From: rschiller@worldnet.att.net (Rick Schiller)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Re: Nikon E Series lenses
Date: 26 Oct 1998

Based on my owning the 75-150E, the 100E, the 50E, using them, information from Moose Peterson's book, and general consensus, I'd have to say the following:

The 75-150/3.5 is a very good portrait lens, plenty sharp.

Construction is so-so and the focus and zoom will start to creep.

Better choice here would be the tack-sharp 50-135/3.5 AIS if you can find one, double the price though.

The 36-72/3.5 E is OK. A friend has one, nice compact lens but not sharp in the corners.

70-210 E I'm unfamiliar with.

The 50/1.8E is a plasticky odd little lens and you'd be better off shelling out another $20-$40 and getting a Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS.

The 100/2.8E is my favorite. Its a sharp compact little lens at a good portrait length. It appears to be made reasonabley well and holds up fairly well. Don't pay over $90 for even a mint one.

The 35/2.5 I'm unfamiliar with optically, although it looks in construction like the 100/2.8E

The 135/3.8E has a pretty good reputation and is probably OK.

Nikon made these lower priced lenses to compete with the after market brands at the time. Many Nikon Es are still around, though the zoom ones are probably getting tired mechanically. Most all of those after market lenses have long since bit the dust.

Rick

From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman-Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Price of Nikon 15/5.6 and 16/3.5?
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998

zhupanov@usa.net (Sergey Zhupanov) wrote:

>I am interested in these two lenses, and am wondering:
>1) Are they available new, or only used?

Only used - watch for AI versions... These are good examples of newer not necessarily being better - having had several samples of these, and the newer 15mm f3.5 and 16mm f2.8, one does wonder why the superior lenses were replaced with the (still excellent...) inferior... (well, there is the obvious answer of the increased speed - more a sales thing than useful, since the slower lenses were sharper at wider stops, and very short FL lenses are easy to hand-hold at very slow shutter speeds, making them effectively faster...).

2) What would a fair price be?

Whatever you must pay to get either in the condition you will accept...;-) These lenses are gems (see my web page for more on these, in the Nikkor evaluation list, under "I babble"). Be careful that the front elements are perfect - faults on the front (or just inside, with the 15) can show in photos at smaller stops.

David Ruether
ruether@fcinet.com
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998
From: Dmin@aol.com
Subject: What 3rd party lenses are "D" compatible?

According to my Nikon tech rep, the only 3rd party lens maker that has "D" technology is Tamron because it was part of the deal to let them assemble the new cheaper Nikon lenses. There are companies that have a pseudo-"D" but no one has the real stuff but Nikon and Tamron.

Jonathan Castner
Photojournalist
Denver

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998
From: Robert McLaughlin Lckyrwe@discover.net
Subject: nikon or tamron?

>    I, too, attended the Nikon School of Photography last month, and
>    agree that one of the instructors (Sam Garcia) was raving about
>    this lens. Since then, I've been looking around for a lens test.
>    Is there one at all yet ?

The lens mysteriously looks like the Tamron 90-300AF. VERY similar.

Robert

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: tonyv1998@aol.com (TonyV1998)
[1] Re: next best thing to Nikkors??
Date: Sun Dec 27 1998

Sam!

The reason you bought a nikon is because it is the best. So are the lenses. People are going to judge your photos not by you being an amateur or professional but how your photos look and what you did with the light to get that photo.

There are a few answers to your question.

The was a line of Nikkor lenses called E-nikon lenes. The glass was suppose to be the same but the inside was plastic in a lot of places that there brass or steel in Nikkors. They were 1/2 the price of Nikkors and I still use one. Other answer to your question is to buy used. There is a growing pile of AI lenes with many pros and people like myself trading up to Auto Focus. The larger photo shops have used equipment but beware. Used Nikkors are not cheap. Nikons don't lose a lot of money just because its old. They are like BMW cars .They slowly go down in price compared to other cameras or lenes. Read some books on buying used equipement or better still-ask the biggest photographer in your area for advise.

Now if all of this is so much, when I couldn't use Nikkors- I liked Vivitar Series One.

Photo by Tony

From: "Karl Juul" karl@wizvax.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: who gets the returned lenses anyway was Re: Nikon QC problems?
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999

Robert Monaghan wrote

>My real concern is "Who gets these returned lenses anyway?"
>
>When you return those lenses to the mail order store, do you think they
>return them to Nikon for reworking, or do they rebox 'em and ship 'em out
>to sell to some other buyer

Nikon does make available "factory refurbished" lenses which are lenses which were returned as defective during warranty. These refurbs are warranted by Nikon for 90 days and have a center-punch mark placed next to the serial number.

Karl.

[Ed. note: Nikon's Series E consumer lenses are not the first dual track lens lines from an OEM - Minolta's Celtic vs. Rokkor lenses are an earlier example...]

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: clintak@aol.com (ClintAK)
[1] Re: ? on MD Celtic lens
Date: Wed Mar 17 1999

Optically, very little if any compromises. The build quality of the Celtic line wasn't as nice as the Rokkors and that primarily accounted for the price difference between the two.

Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999
From: "Bill H. Hilburn Jr." bhilburn@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: Nikon MF vs AFD results [v04.n314/12] [v04.n315/3]

Hi,

Patrick wrote

Aside from mechanical construction and 'feel' which most prefer, it's hard to believe that the optical design, glass and coatings have not been improved upon over more than 20 years.

Hi Patrick,

If you restrict it to manual focus prime lenses, I would be surprised if there is much difference between the older polycoat lenses and the newer multicoat lenses. From what I understand, the change to multicoat was prompted by the growing popularity of zoom lenses which have more glass, and more complicated design, and a resultant greater tendency to flare. I shoot some very old Nikkor primes, and they are as sharp as any I have seen, and no more prone to flare than my later AF lenses. I have one of the "Nikon MF 200mm f4 (the old one with the chrome ring between the aperture and focus rings)" that has been converted to AI, and yes it does have a better subjective "feel", but it is also very, very sharp. Improvements in technology have made drastic strides in their zoom cousins, and more moderate improvements in MF primes, but the differences would be hard to perceive for all but the most stringent users.

Adios,

Bill Hilburn Jr.

[Ed. note: since many Japanese companies now make their cameras in lower labor cost countries such as China and Indonesia etc., should we be surprised that they are slapping their names on somebody else's hot lenses?]

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999
From: "Joe Win" jwin@hort.cri.nz
Subject: Re: Nikon lens on Nikon camera [v04.n316/4]

Here's yet another suspicion on Nikon 70-300 ED...

All Nikon lenses I've seen have their serial numbers engraved on their aperture rings whereas 70-300 has a stick-on serial number just like my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro. Aperture blades of all Nikon lenses have wide rounded tips while 70- 300 ED has the blades with pointy narrow tips just like a Tamron.

Coincidence? I've no idea....But it has the same colour rendition and sharpness as Nikon 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 (as far as I can see on Velvia and Sensia II 100! Nothing scientific..). I've bought these two for maximum versatility and minimum weight during bush walking with a heavy pack.

I'm not complaining.......yet :-)

Joe

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999
From: "James MacDonald" jlmac@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Zoom 75-150 Series E [v04.n316] [v04.n318/5]

As the former owner of two examples each of the 75-150/3.5-E and 50-135/3.5 AIS, I have to comment about perceptions of these lenses. First, I found both of them excellent by any reasonable standard. Unless a present-day buyer has specific needs that would be addressed by one or the other, the choice should probably be governed by cost. By this measure, the 75-150 is the clear winner.

I don't think it's been mentioned before in this thread that there were/are two versions of the 75-150: The latter version, which is the more desirable of the two, has a bright chrome knurled grasping ring just forward of the aperture ring. It came new in a box that had a green dot in the lower right corner of the front panel (and perhaps other places). The earlier version -- which I have seen but never used -- has a black grasping ring. It had the reputation of beeing weak structurally. Don't know about optical performance.

As has been mentioned here, the 75-150 is incredibly sharp. With one exception, I consider it the equal of any of the fixed focal length lenses, stop for stop ,in that focal length range that I had then. The exception is the 85mm f/1.4 AIS. It is an extremely flexible lens, having a fairly close (~24" or so, as I recall) close focus distance. Its performance with the 3T and 4T closeup attachments is excellent, and with the addition of the TC-14A extender, the 75-15 can achieve nearly 1:1 reproduction ratio. As to hoods, Nikon's folding rubber hood HR-1 is still available and works quite well.

On the negative side, the 75-150 simply isn't as strong, structurally, as are the other AIS zoooms. Anyone I ever knew who used these lenses professionally had two of 'em, just for this reason. I never had a problem with mine, but I'm not as hard on gear as are many others. The often-heard complaints about loose zoom barrels are probably legitimate. One of mine was significantly less tight than the other. It's front filter ring rotates, making it difficult to use with a polarizer or with a split-density filter. Finally, the 75-150 - mine anyhow - exhibited a very slight cyan tinge on film. For this reason, I used these lenses with a skylight filter for general-purpose work when no other filter was in place (very infrequent).

The 50-135 is an excellent lens, but I never could get to like it. I found it neither short enough for many situations, nor long enough in others. Neither of the two examples I had were as sharp as I wanted, and one of them had a distinct misalignment optically, which rendered one side of the frame less sharp than the other. The single feature that distinguishes it is its non-rotating filter attachment. For this feature alone, I put up with the lens for a lot longer time than I should have.

As a parting shot, I'd like to say that neither of these lenses, 75-150 nor 50-135, exhibit anything like the pronounced (to my eye, anyhow) vignetting characteristics seen in recent Nikon efforts. I have in mind particularly both of the current versions of the 80-200.

Jim
jlmac@worldnet.att.net

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999
From: "Colin Povey" cpovey@paradyne.com
Subject: 70-300 Lens [v04.n319/23]

A lot has been said recently about who makes the 70-300mm f/4-5.6D Nikkor lens, Nikon or Tamron.

Nikon has "ED" glass. ED means Extra Low Dispersion. Tamron makes LD or Low Dispersion glass. Since the idea is to reduce the amount of chromatic dispersion (I think this is the correct term), the marketing 'name' given to the glass is meaningless, as long as it performs.

If you examine the test results for the two lenses at www.photodo.com (all lenses tested by the same person using the same equipment) you will find that they are, in essence, identical:

Weighted MTF Nikon: 2.4
Weighted MTF Tamron: 2.4

Effective focal length Nikon: 72-290mm
Effective focal length Tamron: 72-290mm

Close focus is the same on both lenses, as is the number of lens elements and groups. Weight differs by <1%, the diameter is identical, and the length is only 9mm different.

Working in the computer industry, where a lot of products that are sold by one company are actually made by others, I strongly suspect that Tamron makes this lens for Nikon. I also suspect that Tamron makes a 'version' for Nikon. What's different? Tamron put on Nikon's finish, redesigned the front to accept the standard Nikon 62mm filters (since the Tamron normally takes 58mm filters, going up is easy), made the aperture close to f/32 instead of f/22, boxed them up and shipped them to Nikon.

Why is Nikon doing this? To make money. We have read in this list (thank you so much, Andrew) of the fact that Nikon was not profitable last year, and we have learned that more than 50% of Nikon's income comes from machines used to make computer chips. Other income is derived from ophthalmic instruments, surveying equipment, scientific tools (Nikon microscopes are great, by the way), and the like. Therefore, Nikon's camera division is probably under pressure to make money. The camera business has changed a lot in the last few years, with less profitable point-and-shoot cameras becoming a lot more capable and popular, and SLR's dropping in popularity.

While Nikon caters a lot to the pro's, there are a lot more amateurs buying cameras than pro's. And while pro's may buy the 50-300mm f/4.5 ED lens (B&H; $2700), most amateurs will not. However, they will buy something like the 70-300 f/4-5.6 (at B&H; $275) or 1/10 the price. And what does the amateur get for 1/10 the price? A little less zoom range, a little less speed, 1/4 the weight, and a lot fatter wallet. Is the optical quality as good? Probably not, but it's not 1/10 the lens, and it's good enough for most people. Heck, I bet a lot of pro's may own this lens.

As we have heard, Nikon has taken quite a few lenses out of production. Lenses like the 6mm f/2.8 fisheye, the 13mm f/5.6 ultra wide angle, and the 2000mm f/11 ultra telephoto. Odd lenses that, even at the cost that Nikon places on them, result in little profit. This is a typical strategy of companies that are experiencing financial difficulties, to concentrate on what's most profitable. And if Nikon can increase their profits by getting Tamron to make a few lenses that meet Nikon specifications (lenses good enough to put the Nikkor name on), then I say more power to them. Because when they make money selling 70-300mm lenses to large groups of people, that means they have the $$$ to devote to make other interesting cameras and lenses for us, like the new 28-105 f/3.5-4.5D, or F100.

So what do you get if you buy the Nikkor instead of the Tamron? An increased warranty (in the USA), Nikon support, standard filter sizes (a big reason for some people), and let's face it, a little snob appeal. Personally, I would buy the Nikkor over the Tamron for these features, since were only talking about a small difference in price. In the long run, this helps Nikon make money, which they will invest in other interesting products for us to buy in the future, like maybe a 200-400 f/4-f/5, which I would love.

I'm now getting off my soapbox.

Colin

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999
From: Richard Dong rdong@home.com
Subject: 70-300 Lens [v04.n319/23] [v04.n320/14]

> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999
> From: "Colin Povey" cpovey@paradyne.com
> Subject: 70-300 Lens [v04.n319/23]
> Message: 23
>
> Working in the computer industry, where a lot of products that are sold
> by one company are actually made by others, I strongly suspect that
> Tamron makes this lens for Nikon.

Nikon is not alone in this practice. When Pentax came out with their 28-200, they freely admitted that it was made by Tamron and that the only difference optically was the use of Pentax's multicoating. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon and Minolta have done the same...

[Ed. note: Fred's post highlights that older simple designs may be crisper with less flare and more contrast than more complex new designs]
From: "Fred Whitlock" afc@cl-sys.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 105 2.5 vs 85 1.4 Nikkor
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999

The 5 element 105 F2.5 is a crisper, snappier, contrastier lens because of its very simple design. There is no question that it is better optically than the 85 f1.4. You do pay a price for that speed. If you were to compare the old 85 f1.8 then it would be a horse race. That and the new AF 85 f 1.8 are sensational. The 85 f2 is also inferior to the 105 f2.5 in my opinion. The reason these old designs are "classics" is that they are simple designs with few elements and, of course, that the designers got them right. That makes them quite contrasty compared to the fast, complex lenses of later years. Another really nice AIS lens to consider is the 105 f2.8 Micro Nikkor. Good shooting.

Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999
From: "Languillier, Bernard" Bernard.Languillier@solvay.com
Subject: [NIKON] test of AFS 28-70 in Ch d'I

Dear all,

I just received the new Chasseur d'image. As some of you probably know, it features a test of the new AF-S 28-70 F2.8. The lens received 4 stars, but its results in terms of image quality at large apertures and short focal did not sound really outstanding to me. It sounds hardly better than the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 that was tested a few months ago (and that got 4 stars as well for a price about 3 times lower...). Distortion is lower with the Nikon though.

No flames intended, but I wonder if Nikon did not go too far this time with the price of their AF-S lenses. They do not seem to be functionnally or optically superior to their Canon counterparts, but cost 25% more in Japan...

Regards,

Bernard

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999
From: "Roland Vink" roland.vink@ait.ac.nz
Subject: [NIKON] Re: upgrading optics

> I totally agree. maybe this should be added to our wish list that I am
> compiling to send to Nikon. More primes, faster primes. That's just one
> suggestion. Does anyone remember when the 50 1.4 optics were upgraded?
> Well, if my sources are correct, it was when Jimmy carter was president...

According to my info, the 50/1.4 was last upgraded (optically) in 1976. But that is not the oldest. The 28/2 and 35/1.4 were both introduced in 1970, and the current 105/2.5 also appeared in that year. All are still regarded as excellent lenses, nearly 30 years after they first appeared.

From: Wes Jansen wjansen@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon Vs. Tamron
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999

Something to consider is the resale value of the lens. The Nikon will hold its value much more than a Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, or any other after-market lens maker. So if it's not a GREAT optical or price difference, the Nikon may be the better buy.

wes jansen

From: Anders Svensson Anders.-.Eivor.Svensson@swipnet.se
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tamron vs. other Brands
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999

I don't have this lens !!!

But, according to people and press I usually find thrustworthy, Nikon has a two lenses where Nikon actually may be worse than third party makers.

One is the 28-200, where there are other makes that are "as good" to a lower price.

My suspicion is that the market analysts won this one. I would like to think that the optical engineers at Nikon was opposing them - these lenses are *never* any good - it is IMHO a case of "bad" and "slightly worse" absolute quality.

The other is the new, slow 80-200 in plastic barrel. Even the old 70-210 I have is better (much better) and not even that one was one of Nikons finest. I mention this, because that one may be suggested as a complementary lens to a "normal range" zoom.

Anders.

paolello@my-dejanews.com skrev:

> I own a F-100 and a couple of Tamron lenses (I usually use the 28-200).  I am
> very happy with the lens(es), but a camera store employee told me the Nikon
> 28- 200 would give me 'much better results'.  I just wanted some feed back.
> Are Nikon 'low end' lenses really that much better than the Tamron,  Sigma and
> Tokina lenses?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> rich

From: Bill Briggs unklbil@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tamron vs. other Brands
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999

paolello@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> I own a F-100 and a couple of Tamron lenses (I usually use the 28-200).  I am
> very happy with the lens(es), but a camera store employee told me the Nikon

I have no doubt they told you that, and you should take it with a grain of salt. If you are happy with the lens you have, disregard the advice. If you think there is some truth to it and you are thinking you made a mistake, go to the lens test sites and check it out. If you're not a pro, what do you intend to gain by changing? I own all Nikon lenses, but that was a personal choice I made after researching the facts and determining that was the way I wanted to go. If you need help finding test sites, go to my site : http://www.csonline.net/unklbil

Regards,

Bill

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999
From: nfan avreview@jps.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: who makes FM10?

Thank you Paul.

Pauls0627 wrote:

> >I heard that FM10 is not made by Nikon itself, is that true?  Could
> >someone tell me please, thank!
> >
> The FM-10 is manufactured by Cosina, as is the 35-70/3.5-4.8 zoom that  it is
> usually sold with. It is essentially the same camera as the Olympus  OM-2000,
> but the Oly adds spot metering. I think there are other versions out  there as
> well (Vivitar and Ricoh come to mind, but I'm not sure). The OM-2000  got some
> pretty good reviews. It's apparently a well built camera, and offers good value
> for the price.
>
> Paul

From: rmmm9999@aol.com (RMMM9999)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: who makes FM10?
Date: 24 Apr 1999

Yes, Nikon openly acknowledges that the FM10 is manufactured by Cosina, and marketed by Nikon.

It is still a very good camera FOR THE PRICE, and should serve you well for many years. Also, it gives you access to a wide universe of Nikon/Nikkor lenses, which are the most important equipment anyway.

Subject: Re: who makes FM10?
From: "Jim Williams" jlw@nospam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999

>I heard that FM10 is not made by Nikon itself, is that true?  Could
>someone tell me please, thank!

Per this month's 'Popular Photography,' Cosina -- a major OEM-supplier manufacturer -- makes both the FM10 and the FE10 to Nikon's specifications. (They also make the Olympus OM2000 on the same basic chassis.)

There are almost certainly other camera manufacturers who subcontract out manufacture of some bodies to a third party, but this is one of the few cases in which the arrangement is publicly acknowledged.

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999
From: "Bill H. Hilburn Jr." bhilburn@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: pre ai lenses

Hello Folks,

"imagineero" wrote: imagineero@hotmail.com Wrote Hi guys, got a question for you older fellows who would know about the pre-ai lenses.

I have two of the old aluminum barreled 50mm f2 Nikkors, and they, and their pre-AI cousins are just a "prime" delight. I bought a box of pre-AI lenses from an older gentleman who was going to AF to compensate for his failing eyesight. I ended up with a 28mm, 35mm, two 50mm f2s, 105mm, 135mm, and 200mm primes, and have had them converted to AI by Henry Paine, of Henry Paine Camera Repair, 147 E. Alpine Ave., Stockton, Ca. 95204, (209)942-2821. Henry does very clean and precise work, for $40 plus shipping, and is currently doing a 55mm f3.5 Micro for me. Prices for these lenses are humble, and if you want to use them on camera bodies that require AI lenses, conversion is relatively inexpensive.

I love the old pre-AI primes. They are sharp and clear, with great color rendition, and good bokeh. I don't see much flare, especially compared to zoom lenses from the same period, and to me the color rendition is better than the some of the "new and improved" coatings. But then they don't have as many elements as later lenses and the lens designs are, generally speaking, simpler. Simpler lenses, again generally speaking, produce less flare than zooms and specialty lenses with many large elements in complex groups. I have even heard the opinion that these lenses seem to be improving as time passes, something to do with "aging" the lens elements and coating. I can't say this is true, but I can't contradict it either. I do know that lens coatings "outgas", releasing the more unstable chemical compounds until they become more resistant to the effects of normal heat and moisture. Along the way they can also succumb to excess heat, moisture, and fungus, but either Nikon owners seem protect their gear more than the average camera owner, or flog hell out of them in a semi-mad quest for better images. They just don't seem to neglect them from lack of interest.

Some of the best cover art ever shot was done with this generation of Nikon lenses, and while the state of the art of optic design has seen great strides, they are still more than sufficient for the photos I generate.

Good luck.
Adios,

From: joe-b@dircon.co.uk (Joe B.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How do AF Minolta, Canon, Nikon etc lenses compare?
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999

Roland roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net wrote:

>Has anyone done a comparison between the quality of AF lenses (both
>prime and zoom) for the major makers such as Minolta, Nikon and Canon?
>
>Roland

I didn't do a deliberate comparison but I have used several lenses from each of these 3 manufacturers. They all make very good lenses. What is useful is to check out which of the various lenses in a manufacturers lens line are the better ones, and which, if any, are the ones to avoid. The better lenses do not necessarily always go along with the higher prices, or the newness of the design, so it can be an interesting and rewarding kind of research to do. For example, four of the best Nikon lenses I ever used were less than GBP 100 each on the used market. But if I check the Subjective Lens Evaluations of Nikkors on David Reuthers site, I can see that these three lenses are rated about as highly as any of the Nikkors are, regardless of price.

One thing I will say; for someone on a budget it may be easier to go for older manual focus Nikkors of high quality at really low prices.

My personal preference between these three makers is for Minolta lenses, because the out of focus parts of the image are redered as soft and so are not distracting. I found from those lenses I used that Canon and Nikon do not do this quite so well, and I tend to have a lot of out of focus areas in my pictures, so this is one example of how to pick a lens line. Depending on your priorities, one make may suit you better than another. But I don't think there is one manufacturer that is generally higher quality.

Joe B.

From: edgy01@aol.com (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Series "E" Lens ?
Date: 2 Jun 1999

Contrary to several of the earlier responses, not all series "E" Nikkor lenses are AIS. For example, the 100mm f/2.8 lens as originally produced in Mar 79 lacked the AIS capability. By May 81 those 100mm's were updated. The 135mm was updated to AIS standards later as well. Ditto for the 28mm and 35mm.

From: Tony Polson news.polson@btinternet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Better camera or just better lens?

Jeff S 4season_wonderfulspam@boulder.net wrote:

>Zoom lenses are handy, but *good* ones tend to be on the expensive side:
>These are complex optics and you shouldn't expect much from a zoom with
>a street price of $150 or so--I call these "transparent body caps"! I
>think I paid around 4x as much for a 35-70/2.8AF-Nikkor and it was lots
>heavier too, but a very fine performer. Unfortunately I don't know of
>any smaller, lighter zooms which still offer premium quality save for
>maybe Leica but that'll cost you.

I have one, but it is extremely rare in the UK. It is the Nikon 36-72mm f/3.5 Series E lens, with constant maximum aperture throughout the zoom range. In US lens tests it rated above the average for SLR *prime* lenses, let alone zooms. It is not the only Series E lens to have a performance that belies its cost.

It also shares the main advantage of most other E Series lenses by being extremely compact. It is hardly any larger than a 50mm f/1.4 and feels lighter.

I used to own a 35-70/2.8AF-Nikkor and, like you, found it to be an excellent lens. Its sole weakness was a tendency to flare; the 36-72mm f/3.5 Series E is more resistant to flare as well as being a fraction of the f/2.8's weight.

I have recently changed back from autofocus to manual focus. One of the joys of making this change is taking advantage of the supreme quality of some of the pre-AF Nikon lenses. Now that the punters are heading towards AF, the MF equipment is at last available used at sensible prices, and it is possible to pick and choose when building an outfit.

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000
From: John Albino jalbino@jwalbino.com
Subject: Re: (no subject)

Todd Peach wrote:

>Another great bargain in that range is the 75-150 f/3.5 Series E.
>Currently selling for $99 at KEH in 'bargain' grade.

Todd, you beat me to the suggestion -- I also was going to recommend the 75-150, certainly one of the all time "sleepers" in the Nikon line. I don't know why it's still available so inexpensively, since as you said, it's practically a "cult" lens.

I'm going to add a second one to my set one of these days, just to make sure I always have one. Image-wise, it pretty well matches my 80-200/2.8 ED-AF for sharpness and contrast, and is a *lot* smaller and handier to carry, and isn't that much slower. Great carrying lens, especially if one doesn't really need the extra 50mm of an 80-200.

--
John Albino
mailto:jalbino@jwalbino.com

From: mceowen@aol.com (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 06 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: A budget on 300 USD. What to buy?

 Canon FDs have an advantage in that they are now pretty cheap --
while old Nikon lenses are being sold as if they were collector's items.

OK, I checked KEH. Let's put this silly notion to rest. All the following
prices -- comparing Canon FD lenses to Nikon AiS manual focus glass --
represent equipment in excellent condition at KEH:

24mm f 2.8 -- Canon $205/Nikon $235
35mm f2.0  -- Canon $140/Nikon $179
50mm (f3.5 vs. 2.8) macro -- Canon $200/Nikon $215
85mm f1.8 (vs f2.0) -- Canon $250/Nikon $265
200 f2.8 vs 180mm f2.8 -- Canon $275/Nikon $525

So, with the exception of the 180mm (which is ED glass and was always a lot
more expensive than the Canon lens), the Nikon lenses really are only a few
dollars more than the Canon glass. Consider that the Nikon lenses cost quite a
bit more than the equivilent Canon glass when they were new. Take into account
that the Nikon lenses will perform 100 percent on most current Nikon bodies
while Canon hasn't made a body that will accept these lenses in over 10 years.
Now ask yourself, which brand's old lenses are the collector's items and which
are the bargains?

Clearly, if you have old Canon FD equipment already by all means continue to
use it and maybe even buy some more lenses. But it would be an act of utter
foolishness to start a Canon FD system today! You don't have to buy Nikon but
don't throw your money down a hole by choosing an obsolete system.

End of Page