My Dad had his FE2 w/ a Series-E 28mm lense stolen a few weeks ago, and we are now in the process of replacing it. This brings up the temptation of using the cash value of the FE2 towards a new Nikon F80 vs buying a used FE2. We also have a MF 35-105mm lense that wasn't stolen

Upon looking at the F80 with the 28-105mm lense on it, I must say I do not know what to think. I could over look the plastic and light feel of it, but what troubles me is the new lense just feels, well loose. Changing the zoom does seem as smooth as with the old lense, and when it is in MF, focusing the thing not only is somewhat different without the focusing screen, but again the movement just doesn't seem very precise.

The jist of it, is to me AF isn't that big a deal, I don't find any problems with MF, and so if the only difference between the two was all the new auto features, then we wouldn't have second thoughts about replacing the FE2... But, we've been told the Series-E lenses were cheap, and that along with the fact that optics have greatly improved since then etc, that the new AF lenses are much sharper.( On another note I read that as zoom increases optics decrease, so does the AF 28-105mm compare with a prime 28mm Series-E? ) Which gives us doubts if we're giving up a better camera because of the "Feel of it".

We have found an FE2 in very nice condition with the same lense, so replacing it is not a problem. So the question is, do we stick with our FE2, or get a spanky new F80 ? Suggestions and similar expiriences very welcome.

A third option for us, is to take the added cash that we would spend upgrading to the F80 and spend it instead on a nice MF lense for the FE2.

Thanks agian, Jonathan

-- Jonathan davis (davis@snickers.org), February 10, 2002

Answers

In summary, Jonathan, my suggestion would be to replace the FE2 with another FE2, and replace the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 Series E lens with an AI-S Nikkor 28mm f/2.8.

The next umpteen paragraphs explain my reasoning. First the camera body.

Nikon's top-of-range cameras are the single-digit F cameras: F, F2, F3, F4, and F5. The FE2 comes from the next level down, sometimes called "semi-professional" or "advanced amateur" cameras. The FE2 was one level down from the F3: if you compare it with its modern equivalent, the F100, which is one level down from the F5, I think you will agree that the F100 is quite as well made as the FE2. You will, however, probably be horrified by the price of an F100!

The F80 comes from the one level further down, the "enthusiast" cameras. If you compare the F80, two levels down from an F5, with a secondhand FG, two levels down from an F3, once again I think you'll find a reasonable match.

One of the problems you have is that you all have grown used to a semi-professional build of camera. You suffer from buildqualititis, a disease that afflicts many Nikon users. The F80 is in no sense a bad camera (I have one myself): it has virtually every feature that virtually every enthusiast wants. But if you don't want or need to use autofocus, why trade down in build quality?

There are feasible alternatives to the FE2. The most obvious is its mechanical sibling, the FM2. This does not have an electronic shutter, so it doesn't have aperture-priority auto-exposure or TTL flash control: on the other hand it is not dependent on batteries, which it uses only for the meter. Which approach is better has been argued over by Nikon enthusiasts since 1972: please join the debate if you wish.

Another alternative would be a secondhand F3 (or, if you wear eyeglasses, an F3HP). This would be a bit of a trade up in build quality, and give you access to features like removable viewfinders (wonderful for mushroom photography), 100% viewfinders and a wide range of focusing screens. (Bias warning: this is my main camera.)

If you want to go to autofocus while maintaining build quality and not having to find the money for an F100, then the F100's predecessor, the F90X is an option. Either an F90X or an F3HP would be more expensive than an FE2.

Secondly, the lens. For manual focus, you want the focusing ring to stay where it is put, so a reasonable amount of drag is a Good Thing. But the tiny motors driving autofocus lenses can't cope with the drag of a manual-focus helicoid, so the lenses were redesigned to have minimal friction. Turn the autofocusing off and the focusing is horrible. Nikon's top-of-range lenses have switchable auto-manual settings. Other lenses, even mid-range zooms like the 28-105mm, don't.

The 28-105mm is in no sense a bad lens (again, I have one myself). Modern ray tracing programs have revolutionized zoom lens design and precision moulding of polycarbonate means that even inexpensive lenses have well positioned elements. An F80 with a 28-105 is an easy-to-use camera that gives picture quality unknown to any zoom point-and-shoot, as well as allowing the option of enthusiast photography when you need it; so I could never blame someone for choosing it as a main camera.

But it is still the case that the only zoom lenses that really compete with the better single-focal-length lenses (alias prime lenses) are the professional f/2.8 zooms. So, unless you can get a good deal on a secondhand AF Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8, you're probably best off on an FE2 with a manual-focus prime lens.

Since the mid-1970s, prime lenses have improved slightly because of better multicoating, and very slightly because of better lens design. The great improvement that your friends have told you about really applies only to zooms. Nowadays, prime lenses are very good, f/2.8 zooms are very good, midrange zooms are good, and consumer zooms are surprisingly good. (OK, *most* consumer zooms are surprisingly good.)

But there are special stories, one of which concerns Nikon 28mm lenses. (Hearsay warning: I don't have a 28mm lens myself.) Nikon's first 28mm lens, the f/3.5 Nikkor, which first came out in 1960, never had many fans, and was effectively superseded by the f/2.8 Nikkor in 1974. When Nikon started making consumer cameras with the Nikon EM in 1979, it also launched the inexpensive Nikon Series E lenses (it didn't use the more prestigious Nikkor brand name). The 28mm f/2.8 Series E lens was a less expensive construction (less metal, more plastic) and a simpler optical design (5 elements rather than 7): scorn was heaped upon it by everyone except those who could afford it but couldn't afford the AI Nikkor.

Two or three years later, the AI Nikkor was updated to the AI-S fitting, and Close Range Correction (CRC) was built in (when you focus close, some elements start moving the other way to compensate for potential distortion). This made what many say is the best wideangle lens Nikon has ever made. Five years later, when Nikon introduced AF, presumably in the quest for light weight, it based the AF lens on the Series E lens rather than the AI-S Nikkor, to the huge disapproval of the Nikon community. Nikon, to its credit, did listen to the complaints and the latest lens, the AF-D Nikkor, is of a similar quality to the old AI-S Nikkor.

All this explains, I hope, why I'm suggesting that you look for the AI-S Nikkor 28mm f/2.8.

An alternative would be to say that 28mm isn't wide enough, and to take the opportunity to buy a 24mm f/2.8 instead. (Bias warning: this is what I did.) The 24mm is genuinely wide, with a frightening foreground space. If you use this space and compose pictures with foreground interest leading back to the middle distance and the background, your pictures will have more impact. A 24mm definitely has to be learnt, but is worth learning.

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), February 10, 2002.

Jonathon. I have the 28mm AFD lens, and it is nowhere near as sharp as other primes such as the 24mm AFD. Very disappointing. I would suggest you avoid it. Leif.

-- leif goodwin (leif.goodwin@racalinst.co.uk), February 11, 2002.

Anybody ever hear of the FM3A? I'd skip the F80 for execrable piece of junk it is, and look seriously into Nikon's recent effort to combine the best of the FM2N with the late FE2.You'll have to pony up a few $, but if you like the feel of MF Nikon gear, this is the one.

-- Gary Watson (cg.watson@sympatico.ca), February 14, 2002.

I would tend to avoid the F80. The main reason is that it it will not meter manual focus lenses. I think you will also be disappointed with the build. If you are happy with manual focussing, I would go either with the FE2 or the FM2n (or if funds permit, the FM3).

I would not get too hung up on the 'cheapness' of E series lenses. They tend to be simpler in construction which offsets some of the downside of being only single coated. Provided they are not going to be subjected to pro type abuse it's not a problem. (Besides the 50mm f1.8 AF was actually based on the E series lens).

Simon

-- Simon Hickie (s.hickie@lineone.net), February 21, 2002.