soap said:
Before viewfinders had a LCD display showing you your aperture, they had a little window segment (normally at the bottom) which worked periscope-like to show you the numbers you're talking about off the aperture ring itself.

If you are not going to be using the lens on an old film camera, then you don't need the numbers added that show up in the viewfinder of these old cameras. The numbers are tucked away under the viewfinder, and light is restricted. So the slotted coupler had holed drilled in to it to let light in behind it, around the 5.6 area. You also would not need the holes if it won't be used on an older film camera.

You are most welcome!

Thanks RC, that made me feel a lot better :^)

That's it, all hands on deck, I'm going straight ahead with the AI conversion! ;^)

You're right, I'm no freakin' collector, I actually use this stuff, and the conversion is going to let me use it. Yes, it seems very logical now. It should have been converted anyway in the first place, and I should make sure it happens before I lose the opportunity.

I'm going to talk one-on-one with my parents. You're right, this is the right thing to do, and I won't regret it. I can just imagine myself years from now still using my grandpa's lens (perhaps even professionally)... :^)

I can't thank you enough, you've really set me in the right direction :^)

No, you didn't accuse me of mucking . . . I just prophylactically wanted to assure you that I am serious with my advice. As for "Jim", I really meant to say "John" as in John White. ( http://www.aiconversions.com/ )

One more word on this: let's assume you would want to preserve your grandpa's lens in its original state for "keep-sake" reasons. You would then go out and get an identical lens on ebay, and then have it converted. For reasons of piety and respect for your grandpa, you will never sell the original one. Then what? You'll have an original lens in your vitrine and a second one on your F2 and your D300. That's silly. You will never sell the lens. To hell with the "collector value" of an un-converted lens! You are a photographer (and a good one at that, I have seen some of your stuff). You don't collect old stuff, you use great lenses. Think about it, and then go ahead and convert. I guarantee: you will never regret that.

Thanks Recent Convert. I really like the way you put it :^)

I'll see what I can do then. Who is this Jim person? Do you have his website?

BTW, I never accused you of mucking—if you want to see "mucking" go look at the other thread ;^)

Happy New Year!

Alphanikonrex:

Let's go back to basics: if your grandfather were still alive, he would be delighted if you used that beautiful f/1.2 on both the F2 and your digital equipment. At 59 years, I almost feel like a grandpa, though I'm not one yet - though my son is 28.

Anyway, I am also an engineer and I must tell you in no uncertain terms that home-conversions are for people who have worked to "tenths" (that is 1/10000 of an inch) habitually. They are toolmakers, and an apprenticeship lasts 3 or 4 years for good reasons. Don't attempt to do that until you have done a lot of millwork on something less valuable than a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2.

Your grandpa wouldn't want that lens being kept as a useless keepsake in some glass vitrine. He would want you to use it. Go to Jim in Ann Arbor and have your lens converted. That man charges reasonable rates, he knows what he is doing, he works to "tenths" and he has a good reputation.

Soap and Chris have given you good advice. I am not mucking with your thread, and I give you the follwoing advice:
- have your lens converted by an expert
- fix your D300
- be happy ever after . . .

Cheers - Happy New Year

pher said:
The conversion is cheap. Just mail it behind her back. Save your lunch money.

LOL, my parents will figure it out, and then I probably won't have any camera's left to use the lens on :^(

I have saved up enough for the conversion though. I told them that. (I also said that if I could afford it I'd just buy a new AIS one.)

The conversion is cheap. Just mail it behind her back. Save your lunch money.

soap said:
A - He does hundreds of these. If him breaking it was an issue the internets (!) would be full of bashes.
B - The lens is useless on modern bodies. IF he SOMEHOW breaks it, it isn't like it was working before!

Nope, doubt those'll work. I'll just have to try hard to persuade them.

Why? Their response:

A - You can't believe everything that's on the internet. You never know. What if he accidentally messes it up or something?

B - The lens wasn't even designed for modern bodies! Put it back on the F2!

Though I really got my mom to reconsider when I told her that you can buy the AI version brand new today for ~$700.

The way I would try and sell it (the conversion) is:
A - He does hundreds of these. If him breaking it was an issue the internets (!) would be full of bashes.
B - The lens is useless on modern bodies. IF he SOMEHOW breaks it, it isn't like it was working before!

ChrisLange said:
Oh my god this is so over complicated it's ridiculous.

You're right, Chris, I just need to "KISS" my lens ;^)

Now I just need to convince my parents that this is the right thing to do...they're afraid the guy will break the lens or something...

Yup ! I am planing to "fix" my 50mm 1.2 ..... when I get it from my brother. one day .... LOL

Oh my god this is so over complicated it's ridiculous.

Ai conversions are the SIMPLEST aftermarket conversion that you can get done, that won't effect a single thing about compatibility on your lens aside from making it more widely compatible. Basically, John White or whomever will either mill the lens mount, or providing he has the appropriate supplies, will simply replace the retaining ring with one that meets Ai specifications (ie. one that has the right cutouts in the back of the lens). The lens, will then work, completely flawlessly on every single manual focus Nikon SLR ever made, as well as any DSLR supporting Ai or Ai-S lenses.

Simple solution :).

I haven't. I tried my right-click dictionary popup-window but it couldn't find the word. If you don't think I need to know it, then I'll just stay away. Simple enough and thanks for the warning pher.

Now, back on topic...

Alpha doesn't need to know what goatse is (don't google it).

Teehee—that's what I'll do from now on then ;^)

But I only need to do that with "personal" sites right? Not like Nikon would do such a thing I suppose.

alphanikonrex said:
I didn't realize that—I'm sorry :^( I won't do that anymore.
Would it be OK if I moved KR's photo (or whatever) to my own online disk and used that link instead?

It's likely a copyright violation, but you don't run the risk of goatse! ;)
And while you're /infringing/ copyright, you're not stealing bandwidth. ;)

soap said:
Before viewfinders had a LCD display showing you your aperture, they had a little window segment (normally at the bottom) which worked periscope-like to show you the numbers you're talking about off the aperture ring itself.

Oh, I understand now—thanks for the explanation soap :^)

soap said:
PS - deep-linking somebody else's photos is considered rude and sometimes ends up with NSFW consequences. There is nothing stopping Ken Rockwell (or whoever you are deep-linking) from seeing the link traffic in their logs, replacing the photo with goatse, and simply remapping their own pages.

I didn't realize that—I'm sorry :^( I won't do that anymore.
Would it be OK if I moved KR's photo (or whatever) to my own online disk and used that link instead?

Before viewfinders had a LCD display showing you your aperture, they had a little window segment (normally at the bottom) which worked periscope-like to show you the numbers you're talking about off the aperture ring itself.

PS - deep-linking somebody else's photos is considered rude and sometimes ends up with NSFW consequences. There is nothing stopping Ken Rockwell (or whoever you are deep-linking) from seeing the link traffic in their logs, replacing the photo with goatse, and simply remapping their own pages.

pher said:
I was just teasing you trying to derail your topic w/ pie.

LOL, and I thought you were telling me to lose weight or something. Funny considering I weight >100 lbs., less than almost everybody else my age/size.

I'm not thrilled about how video is now going to interfere with my photography though.

soap said:
They are the ones which were visible through the peephole at the bottom of older viewfinders.

??? Please explain a little better soap.

They are the ones which were visible through the peephole at the bottom of older viewfinders.

By the time you get out of college you're going to be expected to do video also. That's the way things are developing now. I've learned more about photography from doing video/cg animation as far as composition goes.

I was just teasing you trying to derail your topic w/ pie.

pher said:
Alpha - you mean your DoF scale?

No, I mean the second set of F-numbers on the AI lens.

BTW, can you explain your whole "lighten up" and "pie" thing?

pher said:
I still think you're going to get a lot more mileage out of that 50 on your D300. If you ever get into doing video on an SLR it's going to be your goto lense.

I know I am. I'm not crazy about video, but I'll see.

I think I just don't want to take a step in either direction. For now, it's all good, and that's all the matters. It'll be years before I get my hands on another body, and I'll make my decision about what I want to do then I guess.

Alpha - you mean your DoF scale?