Will my old lenses work on Nikon F6?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Dave, Nov 18, 2004.

  1. Dave

    Dave Guest

    I'm thinking of buying a Nikon F6 body, and was wondering if my three
    old lenses will work with it, or must I get shot of them?

    All my lenses were bought about 16 or so years ago. There are the
    following, in which I have always put the data in the same format as
    written on the lens, along with my own notes.

    1) NIKKOR 50mm 1:1.8. What I assume is the serial number is 4267718.
    This was bought new on an FA body. The minimum apeture is f22, and the f
    11, 16 and 22 are written in yellow, blue and red respectively. It has a
    52 mm filter thread.

    2) Tamron SP 60-300mm, 1:3.8-5.4 (that's means f 3.8 to f 5.4, although
    the way it is written might confuse people). Marked BBAR MC 40
    degress-8degrees (they use the degree sign, rather than the word
    degrees). 23A. It has a 62 mm filter thread. The minimum focusing
    distance on the imperial scale (green) is 6.5', and on the metric (in
    white) is 1.9m. This has a macro facility, and shows magnifications of
    1:2, 1:2.5, 1:3 and 1:4 (it is continuous not stepped I might add).
    Minimum apeture is f32. Under the f32, it is is marked "AE" in red. This
    I think I bought new at about this time of the FA, but I can't recall. I
    might have bought it used.

    This uses the Tamron adapters, so if the adapter I have will not mount
    on the F6, can I buy an adapter that will?

    3) Tamron 1:2.8 f=135mm. BBAR MC. The minimum focusing distance on the
    metric scale (red) is 1.5 m and on the imperial (white) 5'. I definately
    bought this used, so have no idea of its age.

    Same thing, it takes Tamron adapters.

    I would take a photograph of them, but just realised the person who
    recently burgled my house took the lead that connects the Fujipix
    digital camera to the USB port of my PC (they stole the monitor, which
    had a USB hub in it).

    Incedently, am I likely to get much for these lenses if traded in for an
    F6 body, and probably a lens too? I will need to buy the camera from
    Jessops in the UK - I have no choice on that matter. But I don't need to
    tell the sales staff about the vouchers until after agreeing a sale. I
    assume people are likely to be a bit more generous on trade ins if they
    think you are buying an F6 body, but perhaps not.
    Dave, Nov 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dave

    Roger Guest


    Your Nikkor 50mm f1.8 lens should work on the body OK. If you bought
    it with a FA, it should be at least an AI lens. You will have to set
    up a menu selection to tell the camera what lens you are using in
    order to get proper metering with the color matrix metering. This is
    an excellent lens but an AF version is available for $120 US. The lens
    quality is the most critical element equipment element to making good
    pictures. Either of these fits that requirement. However with a $2300
    body or $2600 with vertical grip, your current lenses are really
    generations out of date (with the exception of the 50mm f1.8 of which
    I still have and use three different versions).

    I'm not at all sure about the Tamron lenses and IMO this would be a
    good time to update these lenses.

    One of the strengths of the F6 is it's newest generation AF. You would
    really be passing up a lot of functionality by staying with the MF

    Perhaps this is a good time to buy a used F100 and upgrade your lenses
    for the next generation body when you've saved enough.

    I think you've got the cart before the horse. But the F6 is also my
    dream machine - but I'm having so much fun with my other cameras right
    now that I really don't think I'm going to jump. BTW: you can also buy
    a used F5 for 1/3 the price of the F6. Either the F100 or the F5 are
    great cameras. I use a F100 for a lighter weight travel body and a F5
    for other work.

    Have fun whatever you decide. Do think about upgrading the lenses.

    Roger, Nov 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ask Nikon.

    Sell all that Nikon crap and get a Leicaflex R9 and some REAL lenses.
    Uranium Committee, Nov 18, 2004
  4. Yes, they will work. However, if you have the cash for an F6, I question why
    you'd choose to keep these particular lenses (given that the Tamron 60-300
    is less than impressive, optically). Over here in the UK you could get a
    used F5, 50/1.8, 35-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 (all AF-Nikkors) for less than the
    price of a new F6, and your pictures would be sharper (and you'd have the
    option of autofocus and matrix metering with AF lenses), and a 1.4x
    teleconverter to bring you up near the 300mm mark wouldn't cost much.

    Or save even more and get a used F100- it really isn't that far off the F6

    (BTW, ignore Uranium Committee- his attitude is that one should prove their
    commitment to photography by using the most expensive gear possible,
    otherwise one should give up. If he genuinely follows this, one can only
    assume that he applies it to every stage of his life- that he drives to work
    in a Ferrari and posts to the internet using the best home computer money
    can buy. Otherwise, it is safe to assume he is trolling for attention).
    Martin Francis, Nov 18, 2004
  5. Dave

    Dave Guest

    Cheers. I read the documentation and determined what lenses it would
    take, but were unsure what mine were.
    Yes, that does make the manual one seem rather unattractive. Perhaps
    I'll get an AF and keep the manual focus one as a spare - I gather its
    resale value is next to nothing, which is hardly surprising if an AF one
    is only $120.

    I realise they are rather old, and would give limited functionality.
    It is the pennies really.

    I must admit I did consider betting a used f5, and spending more on
    lenses. I'm sure in the short term that would be more sensible, but
    perhaps in the longer term, after which I should have some money to get
    better lenses, the F6 route is better.
    Yes I realise that.

    I will certainly buy one auto focus lens with the body, but quite what
    one I don't know. Jessops said I should be looking at the 'D' lenses for
    such a body, but someone else suggested a 28-200 G lens, whilst not the
    best lens ever made, is still pretty good and at quite an attractive
    price. But perhaps I'll splash out a bit more and get a 'D' lens.

    I sort of feel once I buy a body I am stuck with it - If I buy an F5, Io
    doubt I will ever upgrade it to an F6.

    Whereas if I upgrade the lenses when I have some more money, I will have
    the best of each. I would really like a long telephoto more than
    anything, but they do cost serious money.
    Thanks, I will bear these constructive comments in mind.
    Yes, will do. There is no doubt I will upgrade at least one.
    Dave, Nov 18, 2004
  6. Dave

    Dave Guest

    I was mainly looking for a short term solution - in the longer term I
    will replace them all, but in the short term I can't afford to buy all
    new autofocus ones.
    Matrix metering should work on the older lenses I believe - autofocus of
    course will not.
    I'd not considered that.

    I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the autofocus would work better on
    the later camera. Obviously that is irrelavant using manual focus
    lenses, but in the longer term I will replace them all, which is why I
    thought of buying the latest body, and updating the lenses later.
    I can't even be bothered to reply to someone like him.
    Dave, Nov 18, 2004
  7. The F5 and F100 are in no way shoddy, by anyone's standards- however, unless
    you use AF-S lenses, you won't get top-notch AF speeds from an F5 or an F6-
    Nikon AF is primarily body-driven, which is seemingly the real performance
    bottleneck. Comparing AF speeds between F6 and F5 with non-AFS lenses is
    pretty much like splitting hairs.

    Older 35-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 lenses are used bargains (circa £300-400 each
    in reasonable condition, from the right sources), or an 85/1.8 and 180/2.8
    combo wouldn't set you back much more than £500. Used F5 bodies are at an
    all-time low- £500 seems the minimum, with £600-650 more common. 300mm f4.0
    AF-ED lenses are around £400 too...
    Martin Francis, Nov 19, 2004
  8. If he were really committed, he would just hire the pro of his choice, and
    have him/her go to wherever and take the pictures for him.........
    William Graham, Nov 19, 2004
  9. Dave

    Jerry L. Guest

    Why not find a price on a AF 24-85mm f2.8D~f4D Nikkor lens to go with
    the intended purchase of the F6 body?

    The 'older' glass you have is just that.

    Chances are the older lenses may work, but not with Maxtrix metering,
    and if Matrix metering does not matter to you, you can save a lot of
    money and just get a Nikon F100 body.
    = = =
    Jerry L., Nov 19, 2004
  10. Dave

    Guest Guest


    I agree with Roger. The newest generation AF used on the F6 is the same as
    Nikon uses on my D2H. Unless you have a particular requirement for a manual
    focus lens, as long as you are paying for an F6, why not maximize your
    investment and spring for the extra dough to upgrade your glass to AF-D. You
    will definitely appreciate the AF system with its functionality and
    responsive performance.

    Guest, Nov 19, 2004
  11. Dave

    DALLAS Guest

    I don't know about that, Martin. I used an 80-200mm /2.8ED (2-ring
    version) on my F5 back in the old days and I was in awe of the
    auto-focssing ability. The 180mm f/2.8EDIF wasn't a fast, but it was
    pretty good nonetheless.
    If I was the OP I would look at getting the lenses first and then thinking
    about the body last.
    DALLAS, Nov 20, 2004

  12. I use Leica reflex cameras/lenses and enlarging lenses in my photography.

    At home I listen to music on Yamaha NS-1000 speakers or Stax Lambda headphones.

    On the go, I use a Sony MZ-R50 minidisc with Sony MDR-D77 Eggo headphones.

    I drive a nine-year old Volkswagon Jetta.

    I would not be caught dead using Nikon.
    Uranium Committee, Nov 21, 2004
  13. No matter what some man can make, some other man can improve on, and charge
    more for. But there is a place on the cost-benefit curve that is optimum,
    and to go very much further out on that curve is to basically just be
    wasting your money. If you are doing very specialized work, where extreme
    sharpness at the edges of your prints is very important, then it might be
    wise to pay 2 to 5 times as much money for all your lenses. but the fact is,
    most people can't tell the difference between pictures taken with an $800
    Leica 50 mm lens, and a $100 Nikkor 50 mm lens that is just as fast. Even if
    they inspect the photos with a magnifying glass. So why would one want to
    spend all that extra money for a Leica lens set? We are talking many
    thousands of dollars here. The 800 dollar lens is probably the only lens
    Leica sells that is under 1000 dollars. Both of their top of the line pro
    camera bodies are about the same price ($2000, or so) But you can easily go
    broke buying Leica glass, and, for what?
    William Graham, Nov 21, 2004
  14. Dave

    PhotoMan Guest

    I've read several responses to the OP, and now I need a Tylenol or three.
    Good Lord, I'm glad I use Canon EOS gear.
    PhotoMan, Nov 21, 2004
  15. Dave

    WHV1143 Guest

    Hi Dave,

    It looks like you are looking at quality equipment for the long term. The
    Nikon F6 is a good choice. However, I would trade all the other lenses for one
    AF-D lense, some thing around 35-70mm f2.8. This will let you take advantage
    of the many features in the F6.

    In any case, enjoy the experience.

    WHV1143, Nov 22, 2004
  16. It's a myth that 'sharpness' is the key to lens quality. What
    separates Leica glass from the others is the tonality and
    contrast/color saturation. It's hard to put into words, but you don't
    need a magifying glass to see it. You can see it easily on a small

    About 30 years ago I did a test of the Nikkor 50mm f/1,4 vs the 50mm
    Summilux-R (f/1,4) for the Leicaflex. The Leitz lens was $441 at the
    time. The Nikkor was probably $175. I used a single roll of
    Panatomic-X and switched it between two bodies. The cameras were
    mounted on a sturdy tripd and focused carefully. The test target was
    the Paterson lens test chart. I made 8x10 inch prints using the same
    contrast of paper. The Leitz lens had better overall contrast and less
    astigmatism. It was easily observable on the 8x10's. I sold tons of
    Leica stuff using that test.
    Uranium Committee, Nov 22, 2004
  17. Dave

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: (Uranium Committee)
    And now, scenes from next week's episode of "That 70's Show."
    Annika1980, Nov 22, 2004
  18. Dave

    DALLAS Guest

    I still haven't used my Leica R4 yet (time isn't on my side), but I can
    appreciate why people would buy Leica over any other brand. Retention of
    DALLAS, Nov 23, 2004
  19. Dave

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: DALLAS
    I'd say you got the "retention" part right.
    Annika1980, Nov 23, 2004
  20. Well, about two years ago I bought an R3 with a 50 mm f/2.0 summicron lens
    attached in pristine condition for $500. I use it occasionally, and It works
    well, but I really can't tell the difference between the pictures I take
    with it and the ones I take with my Nikon/Nikkor 50 mm combination. It is a
    good back-up camera, and I tend to carry it with me when I am driving places
    just so I'll have something in an emergency situation. I doubt if I'll ever
    buy any other Leica lenses for it, unless I fall into a good deal sometime
    in the future.......
    William Graham, Nov 24, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.