Видео

Thanks for the nice video

Rather sharp between f5,6 and f11, I would even say surprisingly sharp :). It would be nice ( just for fun) to compare pixel peaking with a modern lens such as Nikon z 50 f1.8 and on a portrait. On my side I,love a lot the Jupiter 50mm f2. You can find a lot of them, a little more expensive but also more usable at larger apertures. The issue with Soviet lenses is the irregularity of production as the same lens can be produced by different factories with different quality controls. On my side I tend to prefer kmz productions.

Jules, now that is a cool looking lens and from your photos, appears amazingly sharp. Would love to see another review with this lens in the future maybe of people, and this time with your Z6. It would look so cool on the smaller camera. Thank you

Very informative video. Thanks

Does this only work with Nikon? I have a Sony A7iii. Understood I need Macro lens. Have JJC Photo Slide and Film Digitizer Converter from Amazon and have issue filling frame with 75mm lens compared with 90.

TY for the video. Excuse me, but it hurts my ears every time I hear "Naïkon" pronounced and not NIKON. Basically, yes the F2 is a very beautiful mechanical device. But it seems to me that the F3 is much better in every way. Except maybe the aesthetic but that's personal to everyone

Nicely described. Thank you!

I have a D700, D600, D500 and a D7200. After using the D500 and D700, the other cameras just don’t seem to be that exciting. I am spoiled by the D500 and D700 and will never part with them.

FINALLY! I've enjoyed this lens for 3 years now. I'm not a lens reviewer, and I've been looking for someone who could tell me more about it. It. This is one of my favorite lenses. This and the series e 100 mm are two lenses I will never ever get rid of.

I prefer the camera back of the Nikon F: push up the back along the guide bar - there's no need of gaskets and it seals forever. Just as you say I use the prism finder without metering; when it is replaced you need not use a waist level finder but you're enabled viewing from above through the lens. In the end I like them both F and F2 but the 'genesis' of the Nikon F system is and will remain the first model and therefore the most iconic, and that's the F type. I've been experienced at both and many other Nikons and about 40 different lenses since 1971 for some tens of thousands exposures with them, and there's no reason for regret.

Not a bad lens, not a very sharp one neither. We must remember that this lens was done for film which are more « merciful » than our sensors and particularly the one of the z8. They are not so pleasant to use because full plastic but they are light and small which can be an advantage for street photography done at hyper focale at f 8 for instance. I remember to bought one very cheap which was blocked since it falls done ( the hélicoïdal in plastic just swap on one side). The AI line is not so more expensive with limited apertures ( not too fast) and far more pleasant to use.

I have never owned or tried the Nikon 35mm Series E lens. I have, however, owned and used the Nikon 50mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8, and 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E lenses. All produce very good images for a very low price. Thanks for the review.

🥱

Great revue, you said that the Nikkor 35mm 2.8 lens is a better deal than this series E, Is that lens considerably larger or heavier? I have the series E 28mm and 50mm lenses and I like how light and compact they are

An interesting test as you did above would be 64 iso, 100 of the above tested models!! I do interior photography and use the lowest iso's I possibly can. Yes highlights can blow out but I always bracket and custom blend thereafter. As they say food for thought, please do. Kind regards.

Hi, just brilliant. We need more video's like this. So needed. You did a great job. Thanks a mil!

The effect you are seeing with the aperture changing is simply the inverse square law. A lens that uses only extension to get to life size magnification requires a doubling of the focal length to get there. The 55 micro by it's self extends 27.5 mm to get to 1/2 life size. That combines with a PK-13, which itself is 27.5 mm achieves an extension of 55 mm. The inverse square law states that doubling the distance by a factor of two decreases the amount of light by two stops. The 60 mm lens uses a combination of extension and shifting elements to achieve its magnification, which explains why you lose a bit less than two stops of light i.e. f/5 instead of f/5.6.This results in a slight loss of working distance compared to solely using extension to get to life size. In theory if you put the 55 on your camera with a PK-13 and focus to life size, the camera should indicate an aperture of 5.6 when the lens is set to 2.8.

Thank you for sharing this. This ship was christened just a few months after I was born, and was retired the year I graduated from high school. In May of 1958, I arrived from Scotland with my family, watching the New York skyline come into view from her decks. We weathered quite a storm during that crossing with near hurricane winds and waves exceeding 21 feet. Like her, I have deteriorated over the last 28 years. I spent most of my working life as a photojournalist, and I also had to learn how to make fences disappear when I had no choice but to shoot photos through them. The last time I was in New York was on an all expenses paid trip to receive a first place award in the Time-Life building for winning a Canon sponsored contest in Sports Illustrated magazine.

Never had any of the series E lenses. I enjoy your reviews of these older lenses, especially the much older stuff. Thanks again Jules.

I appreciate that this review was of the lens (only), but it would have been nice to see it tested on the camera it was designed for (i.e. The little EM). Enjoyable video - thanks for posting.

Hey Jules, I bought the newer version of this E lens knowing it had fungus. I have disassembled the lens and cleaned the fungus. Problem is that I am confused on the orientation of two of the elements. Do you know where I can find a diagram of the lens design? Not available from Nikon and my searches have come up empty

Thanks so much for your long-term review. Really appreciate your discussion and your excellent pictures! Good advice on this lens.

I have the earlier version of this great camera, Jules; purchased it in '73 while serving with the USN on the island of Guam. Think I paid around $145 for it, which included the FD 55mm F/1.2 lens. I still have prints of many lovely photos that I captured with this jewel of a SLR (wish I could share some here). When one of my daughters (now a pro photographer herself) asked if I might help her select/buy a SLR when she registered for her first photography course, I knew exactly what I believed she needed. Within days I found the 1973 model at a pawn shop; it included the mint condition camera, a couple lenses (one or 2 primes & a zoom, if I recall correctly), a good quality hot shoe flash, a few filters, cleaning supplies & a case -- all for $125; she still, thankfully, owns it. I shoot older Nikon DSLRs almost exclusively now, Jules, but still have my FTb QL & hope to find an occasion to take it out again in the near future. P.S. Thanks for the tip about the FL and newer FD lenses; this was new to me! Ed

Thank you very much. I'm very excited to get started with this camera. I got them as a gift - the owner thought they were useless. I gladly took them.

Very nice Jules. As a volunteer for our local state park, I do take pictures of our public events. They are much smaller events, so sometimes, I am the only photographer. At our 5k, 10k race, we had two photographers, one at the start/finish line and i was at the 5k turn around point. It's fun taking pictures of our guests and of the staff.

Great video - many thanks. Do you know if the various focusing screen are still available?

Nikon did put a Hot/Cold Shoe on the Nikon F3P and also the F3 Limited. I think that Nikon may have put Hot/Cold shoes on other F3 variants as well.

I just found my grandmas 68 Nikon F with the photomic prism and it is in pretty good condition. I look forward to shooting my first roll of film!

I am late to the video but found it very useful. As I have the 70-200. Thank you

Good video. I've been an avid photographer since the 1960's. I used to develop contact prints as well until I got an enlarger. I had a Nikon F in the early seventies, then switched to a Pentax MX and 6X7 and used those until moving to digital. They were my favourites. I have a Nikon D700, a D810 and a Z7. I had a Leica M9 for a while but as much as I really wanted to like it, we just didn't mesh. I still use my Nikons, especially the Z7. This year I bought a Fujifilm XT-5. The body and the lenses are smaller, I like the manual controls and I absolutely love the film simulations. The jpegs are amazing! I use it in conjunction with the Nikons, depending on the photographic application. I hope that these will serve me for a long time. As you say, changing gear is expensive.

There’s a song called Portra 400 by Arlo Parks

I wish camera manufacturers would put ASA 10 in digital cameras now (instead of some of these BS crazy 30 images per second features that I’ll never want.)

how should I choice between nikon fg and el😊

Kodachrome was indeed a fantastic film! I think i remember that Playboy would shoot it's centerfolds on Kodachrome 4x5 film. One reason they discontinued it was that the chemicals were extremely hazardous, and recycling was prohibitively expensive. I remember in the late 60s, i shot Agfachrome. It came in an envelope that you would send the film back for developing pre paid.

I shoot film because I don't do cheap.

Is the reason behind that Kodachrome cannot be reviewed that the chemicals are illegal today?

In 1972, I began shooting film with a Pentax Spotmatic F. Incredible camera. Of course, I shot Kodachrome along with B&W and color negative film. Always loved Kodachrome above all other color film. I finally got my Nikon F2A while station in Japan. I continued to shoot and shoot Kodachrome. It is the best. Sometime in the 1990s, I slowed considerably until I got the bug again. It was the time with Sony had a number of cameras but it was the a6600 that caught my eye. It was a baby Leica, a rangefinder style camera that I absolutely love. It wasn't until I got my Sony A7R3 where I noticed how wonderful images looked. Many will say that the A7R3 is one of the best out there with its 42mp sensor. It's incredible. I did try film again, running 4 rolls of film through my two Nikons, and was extremely disappointed. The cost was too high, the processing was way too high and the quality was crap. It was a $100 experiment that told me to ditch film if I expected to eat. As a hobbyist, digital is fine. The quality of pictures from these cameras is impressive. But I will never forget the happiness I got from Kodachrome. I, too, have 40 year old slides that are as bright and crisp as when they were processed.

As to the costs, what isn’t expensive these days. Yes, I have thousands tied up in my gear both used and collector items. Computers are expensive too. Storage both onsite and in the cloud have costs. But it is my hobby and so while I do have to exercise some restraint it is money I gladly spend. All hobbies have costs. Cars/hot rods/off road vehicles can be very expensive, Flying, fishing, hunting and just travel all can run into the thousands. People gladly spend $5-$10 a day on just coffee. So I don’t always worry about the cost of the film and developing, it’s part of my hobby.

Kodachrome is the only color film that meets the archival quality of B/W films. That is most likely because of the process used to make it and the 12 or 13 steps to process it. Kodak was the only ones that did process it. I have slides my father took of me as a baby 1952 that are in fantastic shape.

George Bernard Shaw once described the 35 mm camera as "like the cod fish, that spawn a million that one may survive." I wonder what he would think about digital. I was a Fuji Velvia guy and in the eighties a roll of thirty-six exposure Velvia was a bit over $9.00 and processing by New Lab in the City was a bit over $10.00. Twenty dollars for thirty-six exposures is incomprehensible to me now! A day of bird photography would cost me hundreds today. I appreciate that digital has made taking images so much less expensive.....

A great, really informative video. Thanks for this and all your hard work.

It's a great time to be a photographer yesterday, today and tomorrow. Vision is timeless. Tools of the trade come and go.

Check out the price of 8x10. Yeesh. I think with film one has to budget it for special occasions, have a definite purpose for it, and set a limit.

You mean an artist? When isn’t it?

Very good video !

I've taken stunning and editable images on an old 10 megapixel

Nice story :) I'm not a professional. I've started in 2008 on a...film with an old Zenit E. Still shooting only on film - now finally on Nikon (I have F3 and I love it). Beetwen Nikon and this first Zenit I've had other Zenits and Praktikas, Canon AE-1 and Fujica ST-801 as a main SLR. Thank you for great story, Nikon rules!

Hello and Great review. I like to see a review about 18mm 3.5 ais if you have it in your arsenal . And what do you think about havibg both 18mm and 24mm ?

Yeah I picked up one today at an antique store. Every time I take a picture the view finder stays dark until I turn the shutter handle. Is that normal.

I've just bought a D200... holy cow what a camera! I've been shooting with a GFX50r but have been looking for some simpler shooting. I might just try the D700.