Best digital camera for Nikkor ais lenses

[henryr]

I have old Nikkor lenses, in excellent condition, that were used on my Nikon F2AS. I haven't used that camera in many years and my darkroom has been dismantled. The lenses produce very nice images and I would like to use them on a modern digital camera. Since they can't be used on a camera with auto focusing I would like to know what basic digital camera would be best suited for these lenses.

Thanks
henryr

 

[Ysarex]

I have old Nikkor lenses, in excellent condition, that were used on my Nikon F2AS. I haven't used that camera in many years and my darkroom has been dismantled. The lenses produce very nice images and I would like to use them on a modern digital camera. Since they can't be used on a camera with auto focusing I would like to know what basic digital camera would be best suited for these lenses.

Thanks
henryr

Any modern mirrorless camera including those from Nikon will work well. I also have a bunch of manual focus Nikon ai mount lenses and they work great with my Fuji and Nikon Z cameras with an appropriate adapter. The mirrorless cameras make it possible to easily focus those lenses.

 

[henryr]

Thanks for the reply. I don't know much about digital cameras except that I believe higher mega pixel number mean better photos. How is focusing done, with my old lenses, on the mirrorless digital cameras?

 

[henryr]

Thanks for the reply. I don't know much about digital cameras except that I believe higher mega pixel number mean better photos. How is focusing done, with my old lenses, on the mirrorless digital cameras?

Maybe a better question is, are the lens that come with these new digital cameras better than my fifty year old Nikkors?

 

[henryr]

I just found some posts about digital backs for Nikon f2 cameras. What are thoughts on this conversions?

Thanks

 

[Ysarex]

Thanks for the reply. I don't know much about digital cameras except that I believe higher mega pixel number mean better photos. How is focusing done, with my old lenses, on the mirrorless digital cameras?

Your old lenses focus manually -- you turn the focus ring. Problem is that in your older film cameras the screens had built-in focus aids but digital cameras don't. You likely had a split-image with micro-prism collar in the screen of your F2. As auto focus got better and better and eventually better than you they started to drop the focus aids from DSLR screens. Now they're special order only items if the camera can have the screen replaced. You'll find that focusing your older lenses without the focus aids you used to rely on can be a problem. Along comes mirrorless cameras with a solution.

In a mirrorless camera you don't see the scene through an optical viewfinder but rather you're viewing a small very high-res electronic view finder (EVF). Well the EVF image can be magnified at the push of a button. On my Fuji there's a thumb wheel directly under my right hand thumb and pushing it in magnifies the focus area in the EVF. With that assist I can focus with excellent precision. Same is true for my mirrorless Nikon.

 

[Ysarex]

Thanks for the reply. I don't know much about digital cameras except that I believe higher mega pixel number mean better photos. How is focusing done, with my old lenses, on the mirrorless digital cameras?

Maybe a better question is, are the lens that come with these new digital cameras better than my fifty year old Nikkors?

Good question. Will a newer lens designed for a digital camera outperform an older lens that was designed for a film camera? I'm going to hem and haw over that one a lot and very tentatively give you a yes, but that's a very weak yes. If you're a lens designer and you know your designing for one or the other (sensor/film) you can optimize your design. For example; film doesn't much care if the light exposing it is at a more oblique angle whereas that matters more for a sensor -- sensors like the light coming right at them. A sensor is covered with micro lenses that capture and funnel the light down to the sensels.

I have a Nikon ED 180mm f/2.8 lens from the film era. It's great and on my digital cameras it performs fabulously. I do not expect a newer lens would perform better. I'd be inclined to consider that 50 year old prime lenses if they were good to begin with are likely to still be good. Buying a zoom lens however I'd probably be more cautious and go with a modern lens.

For what it's worth: in the years since digital replaced film some other tech advances have taken place. When I'm asked what's the most amazing new tech in photography over the last 20 years I answer auto focus. I remember the first Minolta Maxim and how we laughed at it when it showed up on the market. Phase detect auto-focus in the newest DSLR cameras is jaw-dropping amazing and has revolutionized the fields of sports and wildlife photography, FANTASTIC! Another advance that over the last 20 years carries some weight is zoom lenses. Zoom lenses have matured to a performance level that makes them the lens to shoot. I have some pretty impressive prime lenses but my go to lens is the 16-55mm zoom on my Fuji and that is the lens nobody is taking away from me. Did that lens exist 50, even 30 years ago? I don't think so, not at today's quality level.

 

[henryr]

Thanks for all the info. Now a question about focusing. It seems most digital cameras, including mirrorless, have auto focusing and I'm guessing that won't work with old SLR lenses. So will the auto focusing capability be an unused feature?

 

[Ysarex]

Thanks for all the info. Now a question about focusing. It seems most digital cameras, including mirrorless, have auto focusing and I'm guessing that won't work with old SLR lenses. So will the auto focusing capability be an unused feature?

Correct. For the auto-focus to function there have to be motors and/or linkage for motors to move the lens elements. Nothing like that is present in your old lenses. The best you may be able to get is a focus confirm in the form of a color highlight along in-focus edges visible in the camera's EVF.

In your situation I'd consider a mirrorless camera and lens adapter so you can use your old lenses but I'd also suggest you consider a standard zoom for the camera with auto-focus capability. Odds are you'll find the auto-focus a valuable feature and end up like me. I grab the camera and it's standard auto-focus zoom most of the time. The older prime lenses get taken out (often with a tripod) when a specific photo is planned ahead of time. For example I'm going for an afternoon walk with my wife and may grab some snaps -- camera with zoom. My wife and I are gardeners and when I plan to take a photo say of the dahlias I'll grab an old manual focus macro lens and head for the garden.

Joe

 

[mrca]

I use numerous Nikon lenses from the 1990's including the 180 2.8 and 135 2.0 dc as well as a host of zeiss mf lenses. Both are still made unchanged 25 years later. There is a reason. On nikon digital slr's, in the lower L of the viewfinder are 2 arrows and a circle between them. With auto focus the meatball lights up confirming focus. With mf lenses, I use the scale on the barrel to approximate distance then when focusing, turn the lens barrel in the direction of the arrow, go slightly past the meatball to the arrow and turn back til the meatball lights up. You have nailed focus. It's as fast as a film camera with split screen and is dead on focus. Are your older lenses better? My 135 has 7 glass elements and the 180 has 8. My zeiss 85 planar has 6. Every piece of glass sucks up and reflects light preventing low energy shadow light from reaching the sensor. A 70-200 2.8 has 22 elements. I don't care what you coat them with, they still reflect some and still stop light. And many of the older lenses and newer zeiss use leaded glass that has been stopped because of environmental issues by nikon and canon. Those extra pieces of glass help make the corners sharper. I usually shoot with fairly shallow dof so don't care. Chromatic aberation can appear. If you stop down, that can be eliminated and limit shooting into bright sun or background and is gone in a click or two in post. Or convert to b&w. And for b&w, which is nothing but contrast, all that couble digit glass is like having an 8 box of crayons instead of the 64 so areas of shadow detail become mud. If I can use a mf low element lens, I do. Not where instant focus ins needed, events. But the 135 and 180 are auto focus. With 46 mp I can crop the heck out of a 135 shot so stopped lugging the 70-200 and get way better images. The 135 2.0 dc with it's sister the 105 are considered by many the best portrait lenses. They are plenty sharp and those that only talk about lens sharpness are like people buying wine on alcohol content. I have a voigtlander 58 1.4, 7 elements, and when ever I look at the camera lcd I always say one word, wow. The color rendition is amazing. Same for skin tones with the 135/105. I use a zeiss 35 mm distagon for street as a "no focus" lens. I just zone focus from say 8-15 feet then just point and shoot.

 

[mjcmt]

4 months ago I purchase a Nikon D750 to use my old 20mm 2.8 AIS, 35mm 1.4 AIS and AF 180mm 2.8 EDIF. Works perfect for manual and aperture priority, while the AF180mm works for all programs.

The cool thing about the D750 (and D610) is you can set a preset for focal length and max aperture of each manual lenses (up to 4 lenses) so you can choose the lens and the camera will automatically index that lens, so info will show in finder and EXIF info.

Another option is the more expensive Nikon DF as you can use any Nikon lens ever made (except Z lenses), but it has a lower resolution sensor, but a good one the same as D4.