How good are these old MF primes?

[jupeku]

How good are these old MF primes? based what shop says another lens they should work digital bodies:
Nikkor macro 55mm/f3.5
Nikkor macro 55mm/f2.8
Nikkor 24mm/f2.8
Nikkor 28mm/f2.8
there is only info what shop tells and ask maybe later if they are still here. at least these macros sounds nice. and maybe 24mm/f28mm for some uses if focuses closed than about 11inches/28cm. or have nicer bokeh than 17-50mm/f2.8 bim model.
i thinking get few good old primes if i found nice stuff suitable price and big shots are wellcome. and mainly bokeh stuff (=big aperture) and macro stuff if lens is macro. but i also ask if there is any nice and often cheap lens in about 85-135mm area ? and i talk mf lenses only and mainly Nikkors.

 

[*BBD]

They are ALL terrible, just terrible. Move along, now...nothing to see, here....

 

[jupeku]

Really ? which is macro which is focal lenght of 55mm and is Nikon lens which is good. i understanded there is such a thing...

 

[pforsell]

All macro lenses are good. Some versions of the 55 mm tends to get oil/grease on the aperture blades, but I don't remember which. Perhaps the AIS 55/2.8?

Sorry, can't give any info about the other two lenses.

 

[*BBD]

Really ? which is macro which is focal lenght of 55mm and is Nikon lens which is good. i understanded there is such a thing...

Sorry, I was being sarcastic, which probably didn't translate well. I LOVE the older manual focus lenses, having recently bought a 75-150mm Series E myself. The 55 has to be used with a PK 13 extension tube for true macro work, but is very well regarded.

 

[Smiert Spionam]

All are good, and the macros are exceptional. In general, older macros and longer teles fare well on a DSLR, though sometimes you have chromatic aberration/fringing issues that are better corrected in more modern designs. Wides (including those you're considering) tend to be comparatively worse, though. They often perform more poorly on a DSLR than they do on film in the corners. For good edge performance, DSLR sensors don't do well with off-axis light; they require designs that are much more telecentric in order to form a projected image that follows a straighter light path.

Ever notice how so many wide angle lenses today seem very big and long? This is part of why that is so -- they're designed to be something of a reverse telephoto lens, in which the lens is physically longer than its actual focal length (as an aside, a true telephoto lens isn't just one with a long focal length; it's one which is designed so that it can be physically shorter than its optical focal length).

Long story short: the 24 and 28mm lenses are decent stopped down, and quite good at the center, but the edges are usually weak until you reach f/5.6 or f/8.

 

[jupeku]

i try remember this oil leak thing.

ps. and even 1:2 is good to me most flowers what i want shoot is possible then and how good their bokeh is when we remember facts 55mm and 2.8/3.5 ? i mean some lens can be still better than another. any good reason pay about 50% more when we talk 2.8 version. when we talk other things than big aperture.

 

[catalyst]

You can find some very reliable opinions on Bjørn Rørslett's excellent lens pages here.

Choose "lenses" from the left side menu in yellow.

 

[sathyva]

I have a Nikkor Macro 55mm f/2.8 and i love it !
So sharp

best

 

[sambo.]

but i also ask if there is any nice and often cheap lens in about 85-135mm area ? and i talk mf lenses only and mainly Nikkors.

the 105/2.5. Gauss or Sonnar, they both rock.

 

[Pa]

i try remember this oil leak thing.

ps. and even 1:2 is good to me most flowers what i want shoot is possible then and how good their bokeh is when we remember facts 55mm and 2.8/3.5 ? i mean some lens can be still better than another. any good reason pay about 50% more when we talk 2.8 version. when we talk other things than big aperture.

The 55/2.8 is the one that is prone to get oil on the aperture blades. The 55/3.5 is a dandy micro and all-around lens if you don't mind manual focusing.

 

[vindex1963]

Here are some examples.

 

[jupeku]

the 105/2.5. Gauss or Sonnar, they both rock.

How i can know its either one ? and what is current value ?

 

[Thhe]

I can vouch for the 24mm f2.8. It is the sharpest wide-angle I've got, beating the Tokina 12-24 at 24mm and f8.

Here are some shots with pretty minor adjustments(only contrast and B&W):

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

View attachment 913462

View attachment 913463

This last one is straight out of the camera(D90/jpeg):

View attachment 913465

Link to a larger flickr version: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/5610977824_401817a07e_b.jpg