The Underdog Nikkor-S 50mm F/1.4 F Mount Lens, and Why it’s My Favorite Lens

The Underdog Nikkor-S 50mm F/1.4 F Mount Lens, and Why it’s My Favorite Lens

2200 1238 Josh Solomon

I know what you’re thinking; “Do we really need another 50mm lens review?” I don’t blame you. A quick glance through our archive shows write-ups on fifties from MinoltaPentaxCanon, a shootout between Zeiss’ two best fifties, and a spotlight on Leica’s worst (but still pretty damn good) 50mm. It seems unnecessary to cover yet another, but here we are. To cut to the chase, I’ll probably say something nuanced about this lens, that it has some flaws, but that it’s actually one of the best lenses in whatever category we put it in, and ultimately, we’ll probably agree that it’s worth shooting.

Is there any reason to keep going? Actually, yes. I’d ask that we trudge on, and that’s because today’s lens isn’t just another 50mm lens. It’s the Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4, and it happens to be my favorite lens. Ever. Hear me out.

From its inception, the Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 seemed destined for greatness. Nikon’s previous lenses for its rangefinder system, the 5cm f/2 and 5cm f/1.4, put the brand on the map as a first-class lens manufacturer, setting the stage for the unveiling of their first pro-spec SLR and one of the world’s greatest cameras, the Nikon F. This new SLR was meant to be no less than the best system camera ever made, and Nikon needed a lens that could definitively prove their point. The Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 was created to do just that.

If the Nikon F is the NES of 35mm photography, the Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 is its Super Mario Bros. and Duck Hunt combo pack. This pairing was an immediate go-to for those who wanted a purely pro-spec SLR camera in the 1960s 35mm segment, and together they became the symbols of 35mm photography for that decade. Need proof that these two were nearly inseparable? Google “Nikon F” and the entire first page of results is filled almost exclusively with shots of the F wearing this glass.

But despite the lofty origins of the Nikkor-S, the lens has fallen out of favor with modern film and legacy lens shooters. Even though it was one of the most historically important, widely produced, and popular fifties ever, its name almost never comes up in any “greatest fifty ever” discussion. So why is such an important lens so consistently looked over? Let’s take a closer look.

The first immediately noticeable quality of the Nikkor-S is its , well, quality. When we find an example that hasn’t been trashed through hard usage, this lens stands with the sturdiest lenses in the world. Its massive glass elements are encased in chunky layers of thick, well-machined metal, which finds its greatest expression in the lens’ scalloped, all-metal focusing and aperture rings. The focusing ring spins with a fluidity and weightiness that even Nikon’s later AI-S lenses can’t match, and the aperture ring clicks with an authority that makes other lenses feel comparatively rickety. This all-metal-everything construction is simply luxurious, and when compared with its modern day equivalent, well, there’s really no contest.

But beyond its stellar build quality, the Nikkor-S fails to boast of much else to make it stand out from the crowd. It’s optically constructed just like every other quick fifty, with the same-old 7/5 Double-Gauss based lens formula. And the rest of the spec sheet doesn’t exactly impress. There are only six aperture blades, a single coating on the front element, and Nikon’s pre-AI “rabbit ear” meter coupler. While these features may have been commendable in the ‘60s, fifty years later they’re sub standard. And if we’re being honest, when compared even to its contemporaries such as Pentax’s eight element Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4, the Nikkor isn’t doing anything very special.

If this language seems strangely contrary to my earlier claims of greatness, this next section will seem downright bizarre. Image quality from the Nikkor-S is a divisive topic among Nikonians and fifty aficionados alike. For as many strengths as this lens has, it has an equal (if not greater) number of weaknesses.

Let’s lead with strength. Like the S series and LTM lenses of the 1950s, Nikon’s Nikkor-S debuted with remarkable resolving power. From f/11 to f/2.8 everything from shirt stitches to fine strands of hair are resolved clearly and accurately. The lens also features a smoothed-out type of sharpness, which when combined with the lens’s high resolution makes it particularly adept at portraiture and less formal people photos. Emphasis on resolution and sharpness often comes at the cost of contrast, but the Nikkor-S doesn’t suffer from this. Though it’s not the most contrasty lens out there, it treats its contrast with care and precision. Shadow and light grade ever so smoothly into each other, which makes that already finely resolved detail pop that much more to life.

But while the Nikkor-S executes the fundamentals well, some of its secondary characteristics just aren’t up to snuff. The lens is only single coated, which means there’s essentially no flare resistance, and when shot without a hood near any sort of bright light source the lens loses contrast to an incredible degree. The relatively primitive single coating also renders images slightly cooler and gives color images a decidedly vintage flavor which may or may not serve every shooter’s needs or tastes, especially if that shooter is used to the clinical precision and accurate color rendition of modern lens coatings.

The Nikkor’s bokeh is also a particularly contentious subject, with fans and detractors saying with equal frequency that it’s either nice and creamy, or busy and annoying. Bokeh is the calling card of 50/1.4 lenses, and while the Nikkor-S does create really shallow depth-of-field, it’s by no means a bokeh-master. Shooting up close and wide open, I really enjoy the way it blurs. But outside of minimum focus distance I could understand why some shooters call it distracting.

But perhaps the most controversial subject regarding the Nikkor-S is its performance wide-open. Many criticize this lens for being unbearably soft and flat when shot wide open. We also find plenty of complaints over lack of contrast, heavy vignetting, focus shift, and field curvature. Some even call it absolutely unusable wide open, and end up ditching the lens in favor of more modern Nikkors. While I don’t think one should ditch the lens entirely for these issues, they are undeniably valid concerns. The lens loses quite a bit of contrast and softens up considerably at f/1.4, which can make low-light scenes look underwhelming. There’s certainly a focus shift problem, and field curvature softens up our edges and corners, without question. Though images do sharpen up and reclaim their contrast when we stop down to f/2.8 and beyond, this only begs the question – why not just shoot the Nikkor 50mm F/2?

It’s surely this long list of wide-open issues that keeps the Nikkor-S off of everybody’s 50mm wishlists. Factor this with the lackluster flare resistance, so-so bokeh, and weird color rendition, and it makes sense that shooters would prefer its technically superior contemporaries and the many 50mm lenses that came after.

All that said, I don’t think any of these flaws matter in the slightest.

To harp on the lens’ technical faults is to miss the point of this lens entirely. The essence of the Nikkor-S doesn’t lie in its MTF chart performance, but in the unmistakable way it renders a scene. I’ve heard the look described as creamy, milky, and rich which, aside from being good descriptors for a bar of chocolate, is completely accurate. This creamy look showcases itself in up-close and wide-open portraits. Through this lens, subjects seem to become idealized versions of themselves, their features being rendered sharp enough to be realistic but smooth enough to look painterly.

The signature look is also strangely familiar, which might have to do with the lens’ popularity among photojournalists working for LIFE magazine, National Geographic, and any number of leading publications of the era. The images made with this lens populated the pages of these magazines as well as the portfolios of many of the professional photographers who worked for them. There had to be a reason why so many of them trusted this allegedly troublesome lens, and I suspect that it had to do with the beautiful way the Nikkor-S rendered every scene.

A lens this beautiful, well-made, and historically important should come with an appropriately inflated price tag, but this isn’t the case. Nikon made these lenses by the hundreds of thousands back in the sixties and one can procure a copy today for not much more than $80 dollars, and you’re likely to score a bonus Nikkormat or F for only a few dollars more. The low price combined with its pedigree and simply beautiful imaging characteristics make this lens a no-brainer for every level of shooter.

So far, this review has played out exactly as I predicted, but I’ve not clearly mentioned why this lens is my favorite lens in all of photography. What makes me choose this admittedly flawed and near-ancient Nikkor over all the other amazing fifties, past and present? Simple. No other lens more clearly reminds me of why I shoot vintage glass in the first place.

There’s no denying that the Nikkor-S is a deeply flawed lens that’s completely inferior to its modern counterparts (and even inferior to a handful of its contemporaries). But to dismiss the lens on those grounds misses the point of not only the Nikkor-S, but of shooting vintage glass in general. Vintage lenses aren’t supposed to be perfect. They’re soft wide-open, they vignette, they flare like crazy, and yet we love them. We love them because they give us something much more valuable than perfection – they give us something beautiful. And for my money, the Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 is the most beautiful fifty of them all.

Want your own Nikkor-S?

Get it on eBay

Get it from our own F Stop Cameras

Follow Casual Photophile on Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

Josh Solomon

Josh Solomon is a freelance writer and touring bassist living in Los Angeles. He has an affinity for all things analog. When not onstage, you can find him roaming around Southern California shooting film and humming a tune.

All stories by:Josh Solomon
  • I inherited one of these from a relative. It’s attached to a Nikon F from 1972. Even though the lens is pretty beat up I really liked the results from the test roll I shot. The F has a Photomic prism with a broken light meter, so I used that as an excuse to buy a cheap Nikkormat FT2 on eBay. Once it arrives I’m going to give the lens another spin.

  • Nice article about a nice lens.

  • Maybe good to add that this lens is pre-AI and will damage post-AI camera’s if not converted.

    • Definitely! It’s worthy to note that not all post-AI cameras will be affected, namely the FM and the F3, whose metering tabs can be flipped up to accommodate for pre-AI lenses. AI conversions can also be done for not a lot of money; John White would be the guy for that job!

      • Yes! I’ve had john do some conversions for me and he does a great job! I intentionally seek out pre-ai glass to use on my more modern, ai-only bodies because I love the build quality and character of the old glass. Plus it’s usually cheaper to get a pre-ai version converted to ai than it is to buy and ai or ai-s lens

      • I have this lens too although the later S-C multi-coated version. Also works fine on FE and F4 which I use it on. Great review!

      • Don’t forget the F4 and Df, both of which also have the flip up prong

  • A valuable perspective. Older lenses often offer a look, despite their flaws, that modern lenses can’t. Modern lenses can be almost too perfect.

  • Personally I like the 50mm reviews. I’d like to see some…less desirable…lens looked at; 1:2’s, plastic construction, etc. You explanations of the technical measurements of this lens makes me not want one. I mean, when we start comparing specifics, there are other lenses that appear to be ‘better’. I have this lens and I love it as well. I don’t tend to care about the specs on 50’s as points of comparison – they are almost meaningless.

  • I got one with one of my first Nikon F2 bodies. It is my one of my most used 50s!

  • Looks like a great lens. To this day the best 50 I’ve used is the Rokkor x 50 1.4 by Minolta.

  • I liked mine so much I gave it away for free attached to my spare Nikkormat FT2. Ok, I gifted it to my nephew, but yeah for all the reasons you mention. I even had it CLA’d before turning it over, and the focus ring still felt a lot drier than it should. I’ve noticed that with all old Nikon/Nikkor lenses that I’ve used/owned, even a 50 1.2 AIS.
    My old Minolta glass still is super smooth in comparison.
    Outside Zenitars, nothing flares as badly as this Nikon. Problem is the flaring is an awful lot of that veiling stuff that kills any contrast, and any semblance of an acceptable result. It would be ok if it was that cool directional flaring.

    Either way, composition matters more than sharpness etc and those are some nice compositions Josh!

    • Talk about “cool directional flaring”- I got this on my new old Contax iia (50mm f2 Sonnar):

      I also have one these Nikkor-S Auto 50mm f1.4 lenses, and I need to either adapt it to my Fuji XT-2 or pick up a Nikon/Nikkormat body.

  • Randle P. McMurphy December 4, 2017 at 9:30 am

    There was always this big circus around the Nikkor H 2,0/50 and it´s sharpness which I definitly can´t confirm – the Nikkor P 3,5/55 is much sharper.
    Going for a beautiful Bokeh or rendering the Nikkor S 1,4/50 ist far superior too – but the best one I ever tested/used was the Nikkor S 1,2/55 !
    Another optical callange, another price level and with it´s DOF very hard to master the 1,2 is my personal favourite of all time when it comes to standard lenses.

  • I compared this lens to a Leitz 50mm Summilux-R (Leicaflex lens) in about 1973 (a single roll of Panaytomic-X was used, moved between cameras). No contest. The Summilux trounced the Nikkor, which had noticeably lower contrast. I would not promote this lens for anything but a paperweight!.

  • This lens design is from 1966. I wouldn’t call it a dog, but last night I saw several coyotes trying to mate with it.

    • Dear Enver,
      I was a “Leicaman” too for a while owning serveral M´s and R´s.
      Best 50mm lens I ever used was the Carl Zeiss Sonnar 1,4/50 made for Contax (in Japan).
      Actually I think that Zeiss still is the creator of the best lenses available !

      • I have not used that particular lens; reviews are mixed on its merits. I do know that both Leitz 50mm Summilux-R lenses are superior to this (1966) Nikkor. The first Summilux-R was designed in 1969. I tested it against the Nikkor and there was no contest. I can see why someone would want to use such a lens: it’s so fuzzy (especially wide open) that it flatters old wrinkled faces.

        • Haha that comment really made my day !

          But serious the clinical perfection can be boring sometimes
          so why not take advantage of a little imperfection ?

          • It depends on the nature of the imperfection. The 1969 Summilux-R is not perfect (a little vignetting can be seen in the extreme corners) but the overall impression is much ‘stronger’ than that of this Nikkor. I really dislike the 1966 Nikkor 1.4 lens. Later ones were far better. I own the 1997 Summilux-R and it is simply astonishingly good!

    • If that is the best you can do for humor, keep your day job. Do you even have one, or do you just like to hear yourself talk?

  • Well to bad it dosn´t mount on a Nikon then……haha !
    If it comes to a 50mm lens my first pick would be still
    the Nikkor 1,2 50 (or older 1,2 55).
    Thank god Nikon has it and even affordable compared
    to Leica stuff.

    The most impressive R lenses I own was the R 2,8 19mm
    and the Tele-Elmar 4,0/80-200 which was way more practicable
    then my R 1,4 80 (and less expensive) !
    I disliked the R 2,0 50 and 2,8 24 they were nothing special at all.

    Funny but true after all that expensive gear I owned I love to use
    one of the most budget lenses Nikon ever made as my favourite
    the Nikkor Q 3,5 135 !

  • Brandon Hopkins May 17, 2018 at 5:29 pm

    I picked up one of these to put on my F, just because I wanted an era specific lens to match. I didn’t think it’d be all that great when I got it based on price alone, but it turned out that I liked it for all the reasons in the article.

  • Great article. Think the comments on a Leica 50mm 1.4 being better is a bit out there. My Nikon S C 50 1.4 cost me $40, the old Leica 50mm 1.4 start at $700 used, the later model 50mm 1.4 Summilux R goes for around $3K. The fact that some lenses that cost 20 to 50 times as much are better doesn’t really enter into my thought process when trying out an old lens from the 60’s..

    • But it is better, and not by a small margin.

      • “my new mercedes s-class is better than my old honda civic” adds little to the conversation.

      • Trevor Nicholson Christie January 5, 2022 at 11:46 am

        A bit late to the party, me, but please Enver, give it a bloody rest will you?

        I came to this article and paid my dues TO LEARN about a particular subject. There’s a lot of useful discussion to which you are adding nothing of value to anyone who might be thinking of buying the lens in question in this article.

        Why is it ALMOST ALL discussions on photography websites are corrupted by one-up-manship, snobbery and bitching? Why, James/Josh?

        • Hey Trevor, I hear you pal! It was a long time ago, but about half of the reason that I started this site was because back in 2013 or so when I was getting back into photography after a long break, I had a hard time finding anywhere online that didn’t suffer from the plague of negativity and complaining. Luckily, my site kind of worked and the people who visit/comment tend to be amazing, positive, constructive, and generally just great people. We’ve got tens of thousands of comments on the site nowadays, and I can honestly think of maybe…. twelve which are egregious or mean-spirited.

          Enver was something of a celebrity on the site here amongst the staff for a while, to be honest. Notorious for their somewhat caustic tone and dogged repetition of “Leica is best.” We never took him too seriously, but always read his comments and had a bit of a smile. Enver sort of dropped off lately, so maybe (as you suggested) they’ve given it a rest. But if and when Enver comes back they will be welcome as long as they’re not being offensive.

          Anyway, I really hope that this site is a positive place for you and that you’re getting something useful, entertaining, or fulfilling out of it.

        • Trevor: It’s been six months since my last post about this lens. I was frankly surprised that someone would write an article praising this particular optic, since my experience with it was that it was mediocre at best. In general, the most progress in lens design has been with ‘extreme’ lenses (extremely fast, extremely wide, and extremely long), but even Leica has issued re-designed versions of some of their more modest lenses. Nikon as well as others have revised their fast lenses more often than their more modest offerings. So, when choosing a vintage piece, the more modest lenses are more likely to offer performance close to state of the art, whereas the vintage extreme lenses often disappoint.

          I have been using Leicaflex cameras and lenses for 50 years now, and I am still amazed. I have a copy of the revised 50mm Summilux-R from 1997, and it is better than the 1969 version which I previously owned. That lens (1969 version) was in every way superior to the Nikkor discussed here.

          That said, if someone prefers the softness of the Nikkor, who am I to complain?. Leica recently re-introduced a lens they made decades ago that was designed with lots of spherical aberration (the Thambar):

          What makes the Nikkor soft is exactly the same thing (spherical aberration), but in that case it was not done deliberately; it was just the best they could do at the time.

  • I have this lens and really enjoy it for black and white; the softness at times really works with the image. My lens has 7 aperture blades. Should I assume that this is a later (rather than earlier) version? I have recently gotten a non ai 50mm f2 nikkor h, but have not used it yet. How does that lens compare to the 50mm f 1.4? Is it better in terms of sharpness, or just incomparable?

    • Yes, I used both of these lenses back in 1969-71. The f/2 is sharper and snappier.

      • In 1966 I got the H f/2 with my Nikon F PhotomicT and soon thought I should have sprung for the 1.4 which cost more. But I heard later that the f/2 is a much better lens than the f/1.4. I started with a Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm f/1.4 in 1966 but when I saw Blowup I thought I had to have a Nikon even though the new one I bought had a “mere” f/2 lens. But I traded my Pentax for the Nikon Photomic not knowing anything about the higher quality of the Pentax lens. I recently learned it was considered the best lens in the world at that time, specially made to overthrow the Zeiss Icon 50mm. I still have my Photomic T, but recently found a near-mint Spotmatic with the lens and a near-mint Nikon pyramid top with a near-mint 50mm f/1.4. I have everything I ever wanted now — mostly for my mantlepiece. Flickr-GerardOwmby

  • This is probably the most beautiful photographic gear text I’ve read! It doesn’t read like a review — it’s almost lyrical in quality. And it conveys oh so precisely why I use old analog cameras — for the dreamlike effect no modern digital camera will deliver.

  • Hi guys

    I have this great lens and have only used it on Nikon a Dx body.
    Guess the lens needs to be AI converted to use on full Frame Nikons?

    Would be great if anyone could share their Fx experience with the lens


  • I just bought the S.C version of this from a seller in Japan. It is in beautiful condition. I’m no pro photographer, in fact my first entry level dslr is the Nikon D3400, The S.C 50 slips on nice to it. Photographers are artists, so it may not always be the gear used, but the imagination and sometimes luck of the shot. Sharpness may not always be there in this lens, but it gives a more human feel to it. I am still learning, and shooting in manual with the S.C and the other lenses I now have, helps me to learn more. I am pleased with the S.C even if it does have flaws 🙂

  • Francis DeRespinis February 3, 2020 at 10:55 am

    I’ve had this lens for a couple of years (a gift from a friend of my wife) and have had it sitting on my F3, which I rarely use as I now shoot digital. However, I recently put it on my Nikon Dƒ and love shooting with it. I shoot mostly street and embrace its imperfections!

    • You probably have little experience with truly first-class lenses of this type. This lens is basically awful, even for 1966! Read the review:

      “But perhaps the most controversial subject regarding the Nikkor-S is its performance wide-open. Many criticize this lens for being unbearably soft and flat when shot wide open. We also find plenty of complaints over lack of contrast, heavy vignetting, focus shift, and field curvature. Some even call it absolutely unusable wide open, and end up ditching the lens in favor of more modern Nikkors. While I don’t think one should ditch the lens entirely for these issues, they are undeniably valid concerns. The lens loses quite a bit of contrast and softens up considerably at f/1.4, which can make low-light scenes look underwhelming. There’s certainly a focus shift problem, and field curvature softens up our edges and corners, without question. Though images do sharpen up and reclaim their contrast when we stop down to f/2.8 and beyond, this only begs the question – why not just shoot the Nikkor 50mm F/2?”

  • Francis DeRespinis February 4, 2020 at 5:52 pm

    Actually, I know excellent glass, including Leica, Zeiss and Nikon. My point was that I enjoyed shooting it because of its imperfections. I’m definitely not shooting it wide open. In no way is this my go-to lens, my only 50mm, or to be used that much. Sorry if I gave that impression.

  • As a working professional for over 20 years I don’t pay too much attention to MTF curves and the like. This is a gorgeous lens with a lot of charm and character. I still shoot a lot of film and my FTn and 50mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/2.5 are my favorite lenses.

  • Says you. Do you even have one or are you just parroting what other people say? You sound like those annoying as hell “talking” photographers, as opposed to us “shooting” photographers.

    • Do I have one what? I do not own the Nikkor, but I used one quite a lot back in 1969-70. Then I bought a Leicaflex SL and shortly thereafter a 50mm Summilux (7 elements). Last year, I bought one of the second design (8 elements). It’s fantastic!

  • Many iconic images were taken with that lens, including ones in Vietnam. Apparently none of them were yours.

  • Well, Josh, based on your description of this lens and my experience with the Super Tak 1.4 8 element, I pulled the trigger just a few hours ago. You’ve got a way with words, man. I’m excited to see what happens.

    I do see how some would want only perfection, or their interpretation of it. It reminds me of a conversation I had a long time ago where the guy I was talking to could not fathom how I could say that Jeff Beck was more proficient on the guitar while liking Jimmy Page’s playing more. What could I say? The two of them take me different places.

  • I just bought one of these – the S.C, multicoated variant – because of your review. I have a f1.4 for every one of the camera mounts I have collected, just not for Nikon. Hoping to put it to use on my new-to-me FE, as well as my Panasonic mirrorless.

  • Lauren K Chapple April 26, 2021 at 5:02 pm

    I have this lens and I am trying to adapt it to my Canon EOS for astrophotography. I found a Kiwi Nikon F to EOS adapter but it did not fit my lens. Apparently the diameter is slightly smaller in the “old” Nikkor lenses like this one. Doses anyone know where/if I can find the adapter I need? or suggest another solution. I also have Zoom – NIKKOR Auto 1:35 f=43mm – f=86mm i would like to try for AP. Any serious suggestions would be appreciated. Even “you can’t do it.” if that is the case would be welcome.:[)

    • Alberto Jehezkiel April 30, 2021 at 2:07 pm

      hei, i am not sure because it supposed to fit but maybe you can try to find a converted Ai F mount for this one, they usually convert it back them. but i am not sure if it solves the issues. This version usually found in Pre-ai version in which it was not produced for a very long time if i am not mistaken. it usually fit for mine, but i only uses it for film camera.

  • Alberto Jehezkiel April 30, 2021 at 2:10 pm

    love this lens, but i came from a tropical country where more often than not, this lens would have haze at the rear optics sadly.

  • I love this lens. It was the lens that came on my first Nikon FTn body bought used in 1972. I used this lens to take pictures of relatives, friends and lovers who are now deceased. I used this lens on memorable trips and at my first photography job with a weekly newspaper. It was eventually stolen in a burglary and I didn’t replace it because I had been swept into AF Canons and Leica M rangefinders by then. But I returned to Nikon later, using digitals with “D” and “G” AF lenses. I found I liked the images produced by the Nikkors on Nikons better than the images produced by the Canon and Leica/Leitz lenses. No doubt Canon and Leica made/make some great lenses but I found the Leica lenses to be excellent but over rated. Canon’s lenses were just tools, excellent performing tools but lacking passion. But talented photographers can use anything to make great pictures so even over rated lenses can be outstanding in talented hands. Then I started playing around with old Nikkor AI adapted lenses on my Nikon digital cameras. Nope, not as sharp as the “perfect” lenses but more interesting in character. I recall how I liked the coolness of Kodachrome images done with those old Nikkors in the past compared to Leitz. After using the early Nikkors for a while, I have to say something has been lost to photography these days. Pictures no longer seem to have the soul they once had because everyone is making Perfect pictures. Perfectly boring but damn sharp, damn high contrast and resolution and still damn boring. Me, I prefer non-perfect lenses and photographs that speak to the heart.

    I love this lens. It’s far from perfect. But I like aberrations, I suppose. Better than cold perfection anyway.

    • One of my favorite photos ever was taken with the old Nikon 43-86 zoom. It was a terrible, terrible, awful lens, with poor sharpness and lots of distortion. The photos was taken through a window that was at ground level, splashed with mud and leaves, etc.The lens made it look even more obscure. This is the one and only photograph that I took with that lens that was any good, and it was all because of the lens’s defects.

Leave a Reply

Josh Solomon

Josh Solomon is a freelance writer and touring bassist living in Los Angeles. He has an affinity for all things analog. When not onstage, you can find him roaming around Southern California shooting film and humming a tune.

All stories by:Josh Solomon