Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,200   Posts: 1,531,527   Online: 1054
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry S View Post
    I guess this is forgotten lore, but the Nikkor 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E is a fantastic little lens.
    Kiron made this zoom for Nikon, and some of the vivitar series one types e.g. 70-150mm were also made by Kiron, also Kiron made a 70-150mm zoom....anyone making a mental calculation on how to save money?

    But in choosing a Kiron, apparently some guys say:- Kiron made a blunder of using the wrong type of lubricant for moving parts, this over time MIGHT seep onto the Iris blades....so get from a reliable seller.

    I had the Kiron 70-150 zoom (long story why I mentioned "had") and now bought a vivitar 70-150 zoom (made by Kiron) with matched vivitar 2Xs extender.....haven't tried it out yet.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    England
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    534
    Images
    105
    I've got a 28/2.8 E that was given to me by my father. I haven't got an AI/AIS 28 to compare it to but the E's performance is pretty poor compared with my other AIS lenses. I generally avoid using it as the results are always too soft for me.
    My website: Light Work

  3. #13
    Monophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,691
    Images
    44
    As others have noted, back in the pre-point-n-shoot days of the late 1970's, all camera manufacturers introduced inexpensive, entry-level SLRs to appeal to those folks who wanted to move up from the disastrous Instamatic disc format but who were not prepared to deal with the complexities of real cameras. Nikon's entry was the EM, and they also had a line of inexpensive lenses (the "E series") to accompany it.

    At the time, the story I heard was that E-lenses used essentially the same glass as Nikors, but used an engineered plastic housing rather than brass or aluminum.

    My own experience was limited to the 100mm Series E lens that I picked up at a flea market for $50. One of the best buys ever! I've used this lens both as a portrait lens (for which it is ideal) and in combination with bellows or extension tubes for macro work. Have been very pleased with the results.
    Louie

  4. #14
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Monophoto View Post
    My own experience was limited to the 100mm Series E lens that I picked up at a flea market for $50.
    This is the one that I remember becoming a bit of a cult lens at the time, regarded as a real "sleeper" (an unexpected achiever of success) by many Nikon shooters. I've never used any of the E series Nikon lenses.

    Lee

  5. #15
    Denis P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Croatia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    466
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfeye View Post
    Are they good, bad, great? Why would you buy a series E lens? They sell for less than the non-E lenses, but are they just as good?
    THIS is a good resource on all things Nikon - the link will take you straight to Series E lenses.

    As others have said, they were introduced as "consumer" models, together with the cheapest Nikon camera at the time - the "EM".

    However, the lenses, IMHO, are not bad at all - at least for the price you usually pay secondhand. The 75-150/3.5 zoom is particularly handy. The 50/1.8 is even said to have somewhat nicer bokeh than other 50mm Nikon lenses... I can't testify to that, since I don't have that one.

    The 100/2.8 is also compact and lightweight - not bad at all. I like the results I get from it.

    The 28/2.8 isn't that good - but it may just be the sample I have (got it for free, with stuck diaphragm...). But, I've never heard high praise for that particular lens.

    In short, they are VERY good when you want to go light - that's probably why the late Galen Rowell liked his 75-150 Series E so much.

    I'd avoid the 36-72 zoom - the general concensus seems to be that it's not as good as the others.

    Denis

  6. #16
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    541
    When I need to carry a zoom instead of my 85mm and 180mm lenses, I use the 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E. I vouch for this sharp, portable, inexpensive, and easy to use lens.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SF Bay area, California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    92
    Images
    19
    As others have said, at the time they were first made (late 1970's) the Series E lenses were looked down on as being cheaper in construction than the standard Nikkors. Compared to some of the lenses made now they're tanks! I've got the 75-150 mentioned and outside of the looseness (kind of a trademark of this lens) it's excellent. You can also have a coupling prong mounted and use it on the pre-AI cameras.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Central England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2
    The 100mm is generally regarded as a very good lens. The 35mm f2.5 is pretty decent too at middle apertures. I use both alongside AI/AIS lenses without any reservations. Clearly, with all lenses you have to judge their strengths and limitations in relation to your needs and aims. -A-

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    195
    Images
    2
    I also own the 75-150mm which I often use with the TC-14 (1.4X teleconverter) which bumps the focal length up to 105-210mm.

    I've also got a 52mm lens reversal ring which works well for macro in conjunction with this lens, since it is so much easier for critical focus by zooming the reversed lens than adjusting the position of the tripod.

    But, as mentioned earlier, the focus/zoom mechanism was somewhat loose, and I have to use rubber bands to keep the zoom from creeping when the lens is pointed downward.

    And, yes, Galen used that lens for perhaps his most famous image of the rainbow over the Potala Palace, if I am not mistaken.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    I got my hands on a 50 f/1.8 series E lens with an FG that was headed for the dumpster. The body was not worth fixing, but I kept the lens. It's a good performer, if a little less nice to handle than the more expensive models. Up to 8 x10, I can't see any appreciable difference outside of a little extra flare in difficult lighting conditions. I don't usually print larger than that from 35mm negatives, so the rest I can't say. The flare is easily controlled with a lens hood unless you're shooting straight into a bright light source. But isn't that the case with most lenses anyway? I don't see it as a reason to avoid one.
    Frank Schifano

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin