I watched review of these lenses previously from red35 and someone else I forgot the name, those reviews are more like an paid ad and gloss over all the obvious flaws. I have been waiting for a real review and I'm really glad you did this review. I really understand the pros and cons. I like the flaws or characters as you said. Thanks Richard!
Thank you for the great review!! I have a few Ai-s lenses, including the same 50mm f/1.8 (Japanese version) you have, and you are correct; the large lens mount adapters very much change the look of the camera (not in a good way). I prefer Voigtlander M-Mount lenses when I adapter to mirrorless due to the much shorter flange distance. I keep my Ai-s lenses for my FM3a, but I will keep these Artralab lenses in mind for my Fuji XT cameras.
Thanks again for such an honest, straightforward review. My favourite of my vintage lenses is my Nikkor AIS 50mm f1.2. It renders really special portraits and some landscapes too, as you say not crisp and tack sharp. However, if stopped down to f2.8 or so it seems as sharp as my Z mount 50mm f1.8 S .
Oh i love my AIS 50 1.2 too!! Really love the rendering of that lens despite it is also far from a perfect lens as well. I think the flaws are really what makes a lens special
A comparison of the Nonikkor 35/1.4 with Nikon's legendary 35/1.4 Ai-S would have been fun. I actually think the original Nikkor might have performed better considering how much astigmatism there was already in the DX corners on the Nonikkor, although the over-corrected spherical aberration (evidenced by both the focus shift and the outlining of bokeh behind the place of focus) on-axis might be similar between the two. Regarding focus shift, at least with mirrorless cameras we can focus at taking apertures without having an impossibly dark viewfinder. Could you say which direction the focal plane curves for the 35/1.4, is it regular/petzval/towards the lens, or reverse/away from the lens? Regular is better than reverse. The triangular bokeh in the corners of the 24/1.7 is primarily because of astigmatism, mixed with the high levels of optical vignetting which truncates them. The focus ring for the 24/1.7 looks a bit cheap and plasticy, not like the nice rubber of the original Nikkors, or even the 35/1.4. Are the markings on both lenses engraved and filled, or only printed? They look printed to me, which is not very premium or authentic. The markings are also the wrong colours, the minimum aperture should be orange, not blue or red. Good review once again Richard.
Yes Great idea! I would love to compare it with 35 1.4 Ai-S. Re directional of focal plane curves, I'm not sure. I would need to do a bit of testing to find out. The markings I believe are laser etched then painted. Thanks for watching once again and sharing your thoughts and observations!
Nikon has clearly missed something with their ZFC and their ZF. Specifically with the ZF. They do have the opportunity to create a whole new retro style line. They just have to make a revisited version of some of their AIS lenses, with the Z mount and electronic contacts (no need of AF)...and they will get a bunch of new customers, even former leicas users. But I'm pretty sure they won't release anything.
Nikkor or Nonikkor?
I would have named them Nokkor instead.
haha that's a good name! But it might be too close and get into legal issues?
Seeing I have the Nikkor lenses of these focal lengths. Think I will stick with them.
I watched review of these lenses previously from red35 and someone else I forgot the name, those reviews are more like an paid ad and gloss over all the obvious flaws.
I have been waiting for a real review and I'm really glad you did this review. I really understand the pros and cons. I like the flaws or characters as you said. Thanks Richard!
Red35 has 0 credibility
Thank you Peter, glad you like the review.
Thank you for the great review!! I have a few Ai-s lenses, including the same 50mm f/1.8 (Japanese version) you have, and you are correct; the large lens mount adapters very much change the look of the camera (not in a good way). I prefer Voigtlander M-Mount lenses when I adapter to mirrorless due to the much shorter flange distance. I keep my Ai-s lenses for my FM3a, but I will keep these Artralab lenses in mind for my Fuji XT cameras.
Yes. M mount lenses in general are much better than SLR/DSLR lenses when adapting to mirrorless if size/look is important
Thanks again for such an honest, straightforward review. My favourite of my vintage lenses is my Nikkor AIS 50mm f1.2. It renders really special portraits and some landscapes too, as you say not crisp and tack sharp. However, if stopped down to f2.8 or so it seems as sharp as my Z mount 50mm f1.8 S .
Oh i love my AIS 50 1.2 too!! Really love the rendering of that lens despite it is also far from a perfect lens as well. I think the flaws are really what makes a lens special
Wow Richard, i was waiting for this lens review since 2023. 🙂
Hey Marc, oh glad i did this review! Hope you found it useful
A comparison of the Nonikkor 35/1.4 with Nikon's legendary 35/1.4 Ai-S would have been fun. I actually think the original Nikkor might have performed better considering how much astigmatism there was already in the DX corners on the Nonikkor, although the over-corrected spherical aberration (evidenced by both the focus shift and the outlining of bokeh behind the place of focus) on-axis might be similar between the two.
Regarding focus shift, at least with mirrorless cameras we can focus at taking apertures without having an impossibly dark viewfinder.
Could you say which direction the focal plane curves for the 35/1.4, is it regular/petzval/towards the lens, or reverse/away from the lens? Regular is better than reverse.
The triangular bokeh in the corners of the 24/1.7 is primarily because of astigmatism, mixed with the high levels of optical vignetting which truncates them.
The focus ring for the 24/1.7 looks a bit cheap and plasticy, not like the nice rubber of the original Nikkors, or even the 35/1.4.
Are the markings on both lenses engraved and filled, or only printed? They look printed to me, which is not very premium or authentic.
The markings are also the wrong colours, the minimum aperture should be orange, not blue or red.
Good review once again Richard.
Yes Great idea! I would love to compare it with 35 1.4 Ai-S.
Re directional of focal plane curves, I'm not sure. I would need to do a bit of testing to find out.
The markings I believe are laser etched then painted.
Thanks for watching once again and sharing your thoughts and observations!
As always a great review
Thank you very much
Very nice photos, Richard.
thank you very much Clarke!
Cool looking lenses! Maybe Nikon should ask them to make more LOL
Nikon really should make some retro style lenses with aperture ring for the Zf and Zfc
Would you recommend artralab 24mm f1.7 or voigtlander ultron 27mm f2 for fujifilm? Thanks
sorry i have no experience with the Voiglander Ultron myself
Nikon has clearly missed something with their ZFC and their ZF. Specifically with the ZF. They do have the opportunity to create a whole new retro style line. They just have to make a revisited version of some of their AIS lenses, with the Z mount and electronic contacts (no need of AF)...and they will get a bunch of new customers, even former leicas users. But I'm pretty sure they won't release anything.
Good job 'handling' these in this review. You should study law you would make a great litigator. I will stick with my (Yes)Nikkor lenses.
haha thanks, a bit too late for me to consider a career change!
First!! 🤪
haha you are always first!