Is there any user reviews out there for this rather hard to find Nikon lens. I've searched the net and came up with very limited mixed reviews. I have an opportunity to buy this lens and I would like your thoughts before I spend my hard earned money :) It will be paired up with a F3. Thanks.

-- Nick (nick_m99@yahoo.com), January 01, 2001

Answers

Nick,

In both Moose Peterson's book, "Nikon System Handbook" and the "Nikon Compendium" from Hove books, this lens has received positive reviews. There is mention of little to no distortion, and the fact that it was after discontinuation that it got more popular.

I was lucky enough to locate one in a camera store in my town, and it was in perfect condition and relatively inexpensive. I feel I was lucky because I was able to handle the lens rather that ordering it sight unseen. My problem with the lens is that it is huge! The combined group of lenses that this lens replaces is cumulatively smaller than the zoom. Additionally, I was not looking forward to using expensive 72mm filters, when I had been spoilt by the 52mm filters for my prime Nikkors. Lastly, on my F3 with MD-4 motor, this combination was approaching the size and weight of some medium format cameras.

I did not buy the lens, settling on the 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4... to cover this range. I can go out with any or all of them, depending on the subject, and enjoy a lighter package, faster glass and the same small filter for all of these lenses. I think that a zoom has to offer something, if you add weight, size and expenses of use (filters)... what does this lens add? It is only a 2 to 1 zoom, so your feet can fill in the gaps even with only a 24mm and 50mm lens.

Good luck.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 02, 2001.

Thanks for your comments Al. I've thought about getting primes but decided that getting a slightly slower zoom would work better for me. Do you remember how much that 25-50mm lens cost when you were looking at it?

-- Nick (nick_m99@yahoo.com), January 03, 2001.

Nick,

This was over a year ago, but the lens was on a used shelf in a camera store in Daytona Beach, Fla. It was 399 Dollars. They also had a very nice AIS 28-50mm f/3.5 (constant) for 350 Dollars, which as far as the size was very nice, but I love the 24mm focal length.

I really don't mind primes at all. f/1.4 is three stops faster than f/4. When you close the prime down to equal the zoom's f/4, it is at its best aperture, but the zoom is at its worst... wide open. Add to that the bright viewfinder for ease of focusing and composing and the prime really shines. If you use a polarizer on a lens and rotate it to its maximum contrast, you can lose over two stops of brightness. with the prime, you are still plenty bright, but an f/4 zoom is starting to get into the range where the focusing screen is pretty dark.

I do have several AIS zooms, but when I want the best possible image, it is a prime on my camera. The extra effort is worth it when my film comes back.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 03, 2001.

I have never used this lens, but I thought you might like to know what Moorse Peterson says about this lens in his Nikon System Handbook, 4th edition (1996):

"The 25-50mm f/4 is an extremely sharp lens that attained popularity only after being discontinued. . . . Its price when introduced was quite high compared to other lenses (as in, way up there). This prevented many from purchasing it. Those few who own the lens rave about its sharpness throughout its entire zoom range, but even this acclaim did not help initial sales. in 1982, the 25- 50mm f/4 was closed out by Nikon at half the original price. It was not until then that the majority of photographers got to experience its qualities. Since that time, it has been hard to find because of its popularity and reputation."

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), January 03, 2001.

Hi, Nick

I purchased this lens about a year ago, but have had little time for photography since. The few informal test rolls i have shot, I have been very happy with.

The lens is sharp, and quite resistent to flare. I have heard of others who were not so impressed with flare resistance, so there may be some sample variation.

My main use is landscape photography, and the lens is sharp through out the depth of field, with little to no colour fringing.

Also check out Bjorn Rorslett's site at

http://www.foto.no/nikon/index2_nPC.html

Bill

-- Bill (937607@primus.ca), January 03, 2001.

I have had a 25-50 nikon zoom for about a year now.I shoot mostly scenics and have used this lens 95% of the time.I also have a nikon 24,50,55macro,100 and 80-200 f4.The 25-50 is razor sharp from edge to edge and people think that my 11x14 and16x20 pictures were taken with a medium format camera.I sold my f-100 and auto focus lensed as I never used them once I started using the 25-50.I would not trade this lens for any nikor.Most of my shoots are done at f11.I also shoot with a older tokina 100-300 ais ATX.this lens is as good as it gets.

-- (james.p.downing@gte.net), June 25, 2001.

I used a 25-50mm AIS for a couple of years and I agree with Bjorn Rorslett's and Moose's glowing critiques of it...except my particular sample had lots of flare and ghosting, even more than the original 35- 70 f3.5 AI with the 72mm filter ring. Maybe it just needed cleaning.

-- Charles Miller (chasmill@swbell.net), August 30, 2001.