Nikon Series E: 2nd-Rate Lenses for 2nd-Rate SLRs?

  Updated July 27, 2021

   It is common knowledge among Nikonistas that the Series E line of lenses are unworthy of the Nikkor designation, due to the copious amounts of "plaaaastic" in their construction and their intended audience of wet-behind-the-ears beginner hacks (the only thing worse than "plaaaastic" to a Nikonista is a "baaaattery", always uttered with head reared back and clenched fists shaking at the heavens). Even having "Nikon" engraved on these "re-badged third party" lenses went way too far for these gatekeepers. Seeing as the little EM consumer SLR that the E lenses were designed for deservedly "failed" on the market (selling a paltry 400,000+ units in its first full year of worldwide distribution and "only" 1.5 million in less than 5 years overall) it should come as no surprise that the Series E line of lenses turned out to be one of Nikon's greatest blunders. Read on to see how they barely survived and the lessons they learned (or rather, failed to learn ;-)). 

  When Nikon Went Native

   The late-1970's saw a major shift in the SLR industry as the professional and enthusiast markets became saturated and focus shifted (stinkin' focus-shift spoils many an image, as you well know ;-)) to previously untapped sectors. Canon was the first Japanese manufacturer to attempt to exploit a new consumer-level customer that was previously unreachable due to the heretofore high production costs of enthusiast SLRs. The AE-1 ushered in the era of engineered plastics (EPs), and electronic controls replaced mechanical systems as far as possible. The result was a greatly simplified design that incorporated as much automation in its assembly as was possible at the time, further slashing costs.

    Canon did so poorly with the AE-1 that the rest of the industry felt sorry for them and quickly rushed their own ill-conceived attempts at SLRs for dummies to market so that Canon wouldn't lose too much market share, 'cause that's what good companies do for each other. Nikon was the last to do so, due to their proper regard for proper SLR construction, regardless of what Canon was going through. But, by 1979, their compassion got the better of them and they couldn't help themselves from reaching for Canon's outstretched hand and (you know what's coming) ended up in the same consumer quagmire, from which they have yet to completely extricate themselves. Of course, you could never completely envelop the mighty Nikon spirit, and they never got so deep as Canon into the quicksand (5.7 million AE-1s sold in nine years, big freakin' deal, shrugs). Nevertheless, they were now in the same mud hole and there was no escaping, just more wrestling. So let's dig in to this whole Series E thing a bit deeper :-0.

  Series E? Surely You Can't Be Serious

   Ok, Ok, Ok. My chimpanzee fact-checker just returned from lunch, and is currently threatening me with forty lashings with a used banana peel for my...as he is putting it,  "fast-and-loose misuse of the typed word". Whaat?? How could something someone types for consumption (cough, cough) on the sticky ol' Interwebs be anything but truth and goodness for all humankind? I mean come on, I'm not even using spellcheck, for crying out lout. How much more real can I be?? #keepinitreal #thetruthisoutthere #nikonsucks #canonsucks #sonyforthewin #icantstophashtagging #ihavehashissues. STOP!

   Deep Breath. Let's start again. First, let's dispense with the "third-party designed" or "subcontracted" nonsense that has been immortalized on internet forums (renowned for their enlightening effect on humanity and thus why they are often found at the top of a Google search ;-)). Series E lenses were designed by Nikon and made by Nikon - end of story. Actually, if you want more story, go check out The Thousand and One Nights by Nikon, specifically Tales #42 & #76 to get the particulars behind their development and production.

    Next, let's establish the parameters that Series E lenses were conceived, designed, and constructed under according to Nikon optical engineer Kouichi Ohshita: ​  

​The price of the lenses was reduced by minimizing the number of lens elements required for optical components and using less expensive glass materials.

     As well as:

​In tune with this small Nikon EM, lighter weights were achieved through the use of plastic for the exterior parts of the Nikon Series E lenses, as well as their aperture rings and lens chambers that hold lens elements. Even the helicoid was plastic on some of the lenses.

​    To summarize: ​

• Less glass - This is a pretty simple concept: more glass = more weight = stronger components needed to hold said glass = heavier and more expensive, both of which defeat the whole purpose of a compact, light, and cheap consumer SLR system. So, Series E lenses featured the fewest elements required to achieve the optical performance goals of Nikon. Another means of reducing cost was with lens coatings. All Series E lenses, except the 50/1.8 and 100/2.8 (both single-coated), featured Nikon Integrated Coating (NIC), but it was not necessarily the top-level of multicoating used on standard Nikkors.
• Lighter-weight, less-expensive materials - Casting or forging and machining metal is resource- and labor-intensive. Nikon readily recognized that to keep the lenses matched to the EM in both weight and cost, they needed lighter, cheaper, more easily formed materials: thus the switch to engineered plastics for the lens barrels, etc. on the prime Series E lenses (Nikon felt that the plastics of the day were not yet capable of stable zoom constructions and so they retained metal barrels on the Series E zooms). The prime E lenses (excluding the "pancake" 50/1.8) also used a cut-out in the lens barrel to provide a "window" to view the distance scale on the focus ring similar to older Pentax Takumar lenses (this was yet another way to reduce weight). They also used more common glass types that were cheaper to produce (no extra-low dispersion aka ED glass, here ;-)) and easier to physically work with. 

     That approach was balanced with this tenet:

​There was absolutely no compromise on design, however, and one of the concepts behind the series was that the lenses would preserve the same quality as existing Nikkor lenses.

    Paradoxically, to design a good lightweight, and yet inexpensive lens takes a more deft touch than being able to just throw the latest technology and copious amounts of top-level materials at the problem (Exhibit A: the new Z-mount Noct. 58mm f/0.95 Nikkor). One sure sign that Nikon was not compromising on the optical design of Series E within the above-cited limitations was its choice in designers to execute them. These were not interns or apprentices cutting their teeth, they were the same men who had fashioned some of the most advanced Nikkor optics to date: from the then-widest rectilinear lens in the world (13/5.6) to high-performance telephotos like the 200/2 & 400/2.8 and everywhere in between. Another common myth concerning E lenses claims that they lacked popularity due to compromised performance and this was reflected in poor sales and they thus suffered a premature death in 1985, after only six years on the market. Was that actually the case? 

  The E-ntire Lineup

    We will now take each of the eight Series E optics in isolation and compare them with their illustrious Nikkor brethren in terms of optical quality and sales performance:

• 28/2.8 - Cheapo wide angle designed by Ikuo Mori, Nikon's then-resident wide-angle guru (his resume included the 13/5.6, 15/5.6, 18/4, 20/4, and the 28/4 PC Nikkor lenses). This was the simplest (5 elements in 5 groups) 28/2.8 F-mount lens ever produced by Nikon. That, along with its engineering plastic body enabled a weight savings of almost 40% over the Nikkor versions. It was not sold in Japan as it was felt that it would cannibalize Nikkor 28/2.8 sales (which was the truth). Its optical performance was close enough to its precursor, the 7-element 28/2.8 AI Nikkor, that Nikon faced a quandary when replacing the AI with an AI-s Nikkor. To put more distance between the E and the AI-s, they decided to equip the AI-s with their Close Range Correction (CRC) floating element technology, something normally reserved for their higher-spec f/2 and f/1.4 lenses. This allowed the AI-s to focus 33% closer than the E, providing that performance separation at close distances. So, if you are a fan of the close-up capability of the 28/2.8 AI-s, you have the E to thank for that :-). So what about sales? The 40 year (and counting) lifespan of the 28/2.8 AI-s speaks volumes to its performance and popularity, with just over 210,000 produced. Not too shabby for a manual focus lens that has lived almost 90% of its life during the Auto Focus (AF) era. The bulk of that number would have been sold during the 1980's, but it works out to a mean average of approx. 5,250 per year. The E, with its six-yearish lifespan, sold a bit over 250,000 copies, for a mean average of approx. 41,600 per year. But it gets even a more interesting. Yes, the manual focus Series E was cancelled in 1985, but Nikon retained the exact same optical formula for use in the first two generations of the 28/2.8 AF Nikkor (notice the name change?) which they produced for another 10 years, selling 130,000 more copies. Does that sound like such pitiful performance that Nikon was forced to preemptively scrap the design?

• 35/2.5 - One of the three original lenses introduced with the EM in March 1979 (the others were the 50/1.8 and the 100/2.8). Patented by Koichi Wakamiya, who later became known for his compact 35mm lenses including the now-legendary "Pikaichi" 35/2.8 Sonnar-style lens and subsequent versions of the L35AF (One Touch) series of compact AF Nikons. Unsurprisingly, because of Nikon's policy against naming such "economy"-grade lenses as Nikkors, rumors abounded that they were outsourcing the designs on their compact AF cameras as well. Hmmm, there seems to be a pattern developing here (eye-roll). Anyways, the 35/2.5 also sported a 5-element in 5-groups design like the 28/2.8 and the standard AI-s 35/2.8 Nikkor. The aperture value is important here: it was just different enough (on paper, at least ;-)) from the f/2.8 of the Nikkor version that Nikon figured that the buying public wouldn't make the connection between the two, so the 35/2.5 could be sold in Japan along with the rest of the world. Weight was also just under 40% less than its Nikkor counterpart. As for sales success, Nikkor AI & AI-s 35/2.8 production from 1979-89 was just under 173,000 for a yearly rate of 17,300. 35/2.5 E production totaled approx. 196,000 for a yearly rate of 32,600. None of Nikon's 35mm 2.5-2.8 lenses made the transition to AF, so it would seem that the Series E was not disqualified from AF due to performance issues, but rather, to the fact that "slow" 35mm prime lenses of all brands were being killed off by zooms in both the MF and AF categories.      

• 50/1.8 - Here we go. The number one reason why it can be stated that a Series E lens can be as optically good as a Nikkor: when it's the exact same design aside from coatings. Developed by Soichi Nakamura (creator of the professional-targeted 28-45/4.5 and 35-70/3.5 Zoom Nikkors and co-creator of the famed 200/2 Nikkor), the 50/1.8 (6 elements in 5 groups) was intended from the start to serve double duty as a Series E and an AI or AI-s Nikkor, with only the coatings (single vs. full NIC and close focus distance (0.6m vs. 0.45m) very deliberately providing market separation between the two. Introduced first in 1978 as a standard AI Nikkor with similar barrel construction to the previous 50/2 AI Nikkor, the new design was then installed in the much shorter Series E barrel and sold as the kit lens with the EM from March 1979 onward. It then debuted in Japan in identically-sized AI-s form in 1980 with the release of the EM to the home market. Production of all 0.45m/multicoated 50/1.8 AI or AI-s versions totaled just over 792,000 from 1978-85 for a yearly average of 99,000. Sounds pretty healthy. Series E production from 1979-85 came to almost 2.25 million for an approx. average of 321,000 per year. Seems strange that Nikon would discontinue their best selling lens in 1985, which is precisely what they did. Or did they, really? The real question we should be asking is "why?". As in, why did Nikon shelf, not just the 50/1.8, but the entire Series E line in 1985? As the forgoing has shown, it was not about lack of popularity or performance. It was about the technological tectonic shift from manual focus to auto focus. After the Minolta 7000 caught the rest of the SLR industry with their pants ankle-high in February 1985, it didn't take a rocket surgeon to know the direction that the consumer SLR market was going to take. Entry-level MF SLRs were already taking a beating from compact lens-shutter AF models, so the appearance of a practical AF SLR was the final death knell for them. Nikon immediately realized that they needed to prioritize AF lens development, and here is where all of their accumulated experience with the Series E line would bear its fruitage. The 50/1.8 is a case in point: Nikon simply moved the AI-s optical version to the AF Nikkor platform that they introduced in April 1986, albeit with a physical lens construction that was far more closely-related to the engineered-plastic Series E construction. Then in another testament to the overall soundness of the Series E physical design they slapped NIC on the glass of the E with its 0.6m close-focus distance, re-labelled it as the "New" AI-s Nikkor, and left it that way for the next 20 years, punching out almost 460,000 more copies. Oh, and as for the AF Nikkor version, they are still selling the last remnants of the 50/1.8 D iteration, bringing total AF 50/1.8 (excluding "G" series lenses without aperture rings) production to over 3 million. Some "failure", huh? So why do Nikonistas still complain about the Series E version? Got to have something to winge about, I guess. Single-coating? Single-coated Nikkors from the 1960s are said to have "character" and 'feel' when they flare and ghost. With Series E, single coatings make for lousy contrast and "artifacts" when they flare and ghost. Riiight ;-).

• 100/2.8 - The third of the original Series E triumvirate. Also designed by Koichi Wakamiya. An impressive achievement of cramming 100mm of focal length into a package the size of 50/1.4 lenses from only a few years earlier. The 4-element construction further reduced weight to half that of the legendary 105/2.5 Nikkor. Over 190,000 produced in two-and-a-half years versus just under 165,000 AI-s Nikkor 105/2.5s from 1981-2005 for a yearly rate of 76,000 versus 6,600. Again, these rates are not actual, they are merely used to illustrate that production of Series E lenses was not some tenuous, barely-holding-their-own enterprise. They were very successful in their intended role until the whole industry was forced to pivot to AF. The 100/2.8 cost half of what the 105/2.5 Nikkor did, but provided considerably more than half the overall performance which is exactly what Nikon set out to do with this lens line. Production ceased in 1981 with sales continuing into early-1982. Its place was taken by the next Series E in our list.

• 135/2.8 - The final prime focal length added to the lineup, with production starting in the spring of 1981, and availability starting in January 1982. Not sold in Japan due to its overlap with the 5-element Nikkor AI-s of the same specification. Although it also used only 4 elements like the 100/2.8, these were thick, heavy pieces of glass which restricted weight savings over the AI-s version to 10%. It also received NIC. The designer was Sei Matsui, Nikon's resident Ernostar-type lens specialist (he was also responsible for the classic 180/2.8 Nikkor in standard and ED forms, and also the 135/2 Nikkor). Thus, next to the 50/1.8, the 135/2.8 E was probably closest in overall performance to its Nikkor counterpart. 

• 36-72/3.5 - The second E Zoom to be introduced (in Sept. 1981). If any one optic has served to reinforce the perception of this lens series as poor performers, this is it. While not appallingly bad, the 36-72 is definitely nothing to write home about. Although one would logically compare it with 35-70mm lenses, it actually had much more in common, including design & performance, with Nikon's long-running 43-86/3.5 lens, the original "affordable" kit zoom lens. It performed similarly to the 43-86 in terms of contrast, distortion, vignetting, and distortion. Bokeh is notably poor, as with the 43-86.

• 75-150/3.5 - From the outhouse to the penthouse...if any single E lens served to draw positive attention to Series E, here's your winner. At a relatively svelte 520 grams (18.3 oz.) the 75-150 was the hottest short telephoto zoom going amongst portrait and product-shooting Nikon pros in the early-'80s. Designed by Yutaka Iizuka as the first of the E Zooms, it was definitely the most popular and production outstripped its compatriots with nearly 265,000 produced over five years for an annual rate of almost 53,000. While it definitely belies its E roots with a loosey-goosey-creepy zoom ring, it is still a well-built lens, and remains a steal at current prices ($75 USD in excellent condition).

• 70-210/4 - Built nearly to Nikkor levels, as evidenced by its 730 gram (25.7 oz) weight, this was the last of the Series E lenses to debut in December 1981. Nikon saw fit to transition this lens into the first AF Nikkor telephoto zoom in 1986, so it couldn't be all that bad ;-). Mostly, it was too large and heavy for sustained success in the AF era, so it was quickly replaced with a 70-210/4-5.6 optic that liposuctioned over 20% from its weight (notice the loss of the constant f/4 maximum aperture to accomplish that). Nikon still managed to punch out 185,000 of the MF version in 4 years at a rate of 46,250 per year. Compare that to the 80-200/4 AI-s Nikkor with 150,000 produced from 1981-98 (8,800 per year). The Nikkor had a slight edge in performance, particularly with resistance to flare and ghosting, but otherwise, it was pretty much a wash optically.

  Should You Buy One Today?

    As far as value per dollar went, it was never a contest between Series E lenses and their corresponding Nikkors when they were new. You got 90-95% of the performance and optical quality for half the price. As with anything, the law of diminishing returns makes that last 5-10% the hardest and most expensive gain to make. But the demarcation between the two is more blurry in the used market of today, especially when we are talking zooms. The depreciation on MF Zoom Nikkors from the late-'70's to mid-'80s is staggering. We are talking 90+% adjusting for inflation. So you can often find a full-on Nikkor for close to the same price or even less sometimes than the corresponding E; the penalty in most cases being weight. That is why the 75-150/3.5 E continues to be the most popular E zoom. It is the only one with an appreciable weight advantage over a similar Nikkor (the 50-135/3.5 was the closest, and it weighs a third again as much) And that is what will be the deciding factor when it comes to the prime lenses, too. The major advantage of Series E primes over Nikkors today is weight savings. And that would be the only real reason to seek one out specifically, unless you are a fan of single-coated normal or medium telephoto lenses :-).   

    Okay, so searching out E lenses may not be as rewarding financially as it used to be. By far, your chances are highest of encountering an E as part of a kit or package, especially if you are shopping for an EM, FG, FG-20, or F-301 (N2000). So should you just toss it and get thee to the nearest Nikkor? That's totally up to you, but I would recommend giving the E a chance first. Even if you find that you prefer a Nikkor, having a lightweight backup lens is never a bad thing. Lens hoods are an excellent add-on for any Series E (or Nikkor, for that matter), and will help them to maintain contrast in brighter conditions. Aside from the 70-210/4 (62mm), all Series E lenses used Nikon's standard 52mm diameter filter thread, so any 52mm or 62mm threaded Nikkor hood will work for the corresponding focal length in E (all of which had dedicated or built-in hoods for each focal length). Here is a brief rundown of the pros, cons, and Nikkor alternatives to each Series E:

• 28/2.8 (HR-6 hood) - Pros: light weight and good performance. Cons: Very short 60-degree focus throw can make nailing focus quite challenging. Alternatives: the 28/3.5 AI or AI-s Nikkor can be had for the same money with equivalent or slightly better optical performance and a 200-degree or 90-degree focus throw and better build quality.
• 35/2.5 (HR-4 hood) - Pros: same as the 28/2.8. Cons: Prices are no better than equivalent Nikkors and build quality is obviously lesser. Alternatives: AI or AI-s NIkkor 35/2.8.
• 50/1.8 (HR-4 hood) - Pros: same as the 28 & 35. Cons: Close-focus distance of 0.6m vs. 0.45 for standard Nikkors; for some people single coating is a con, for others it means more character :-). Alternatives: If you want the light weight and pancake dimensions with 0.45m close focus, look for a New AI-s version from Japan: Serial #s from 2050001-226xxxx. If you want a traditional "long-nose", look for AI Serial #s from 176xxxx-16xxxx or AI-s Serial #s from 313xxxx - 330xxxx.
• 100/2.8 (HR-5 Hood) - Pros: same as the 28, 35, & 50. Weight savings over the 105/2.5 is considerable. Cons: For some, lack of multicoating, and the appearance of the bokeh is less-desirable than that of the 105/2.5. Alternatives: the 105/2.5 in AI or AI-s form. With patience you can score an AI for the same money as the E; the AI-s will almost always be another $50-100 USD.
• 135/2.8 E (Buit-in hood) - Pros: The lightest 135mm lens you will find from Nikon. Cons: Still relatively heavy for the focal length. Multicoating not as advanced as the 135mm Nikkors. Alternatives: the 135/3.5 or 2.8 AI or AI-s Nikkors. The 3.5s are roughly equivalent on price and the 2.8s are generally higher, but watch carefully, some E's are priced as high as 2.8 Nikkors!
• 36-72/3.5 (HK-8 hood) - Pros: Constant aperture (can you tell I'm reaching here? ;-)) Cons: Heavy for its category; not great optically, just meh... Alternatives: If you want a cheap, light, good little standard zoom for a Nikon, the 35-70/3.3-4.5 AI-s Nikkor that replaced the 36-72/3.5 is the ticket. Same or less money, better optically, 33% lighter, two-touch zoom (that might be a con for some). No. Brainer.
• 75-150/3.5 (HN-21 hood) - Pros: Optically excellent, light-weight for the era, cheap as chips. Cons: Develops loose, creepy zoom ring; early ones had cheesy stamped protective ears for rear element; go for Serial #s 189xxxx and up and you will avoid that issue. Alternatives: The 50-135/3.5 AI-s Nikkor is 35% heavier and a touch pricier, but still a great deal at $100 USD or less. It can also suffer from a creepy zoom ring, but is still more solid than the 75-150/3.5 E. Watch out for fungus and mold in the lowest-priced ones. Can't go wrong with either lens. Weight is the biggest difference.
• 70-210/4 (HN-24 hood) - Pros: Good all around, no glaring flaws; price. Cons: Heavy; not quite as good optically as the 80-200/4 or 80-200/4.5 Nikkors. Alternatives: 80-200/4 AI-s Nikkor or 80-200/4.5 AI Nikkor w/ Serial #s 760xxx to 913xxx. Weight is within 10% for all of them. The late f/4.5 can be had for $100 USD or a bit more and is still regarded by many as the best MF telephoto zoom in this class that Nikon ever made; the 800-200/4 has the best coatings, and thus flare and ghosting resistance, and runs about the same in price. The Series E can be had for less than $100 USD.

  Wrap-Up

    When held up to the standard of any other economy-level OEM SLR lenses of the late-'70s & early-'80s (such as Minolta Celtics and Pentax Takumar Bayonets) Series E glass is, at the very least, a match for (and often better than) them. And when they were selling new, the value proposition versus Nikkor optics was undeniable (you got far more than 50% of the performance for half the price :-)). The fact that most of them can go for nearly the same price as a corresponding Nikkor, nowadays, only serves to underscore that the optical quality is there. But, aside from the weight-savings, that is also precisely the reason why you should look at a Nikkor equivalent when considering a Series E lens today. The present value-per-dollar situation has reversed from 40 years ago: if you can get 5-10% more performance for the same or just a fraction more money, why not? The only real exception is when you purchase a package of an SLR and lens(es). In that case, the glass is often basically a throw-in and the value proposition goes back up. Bottom line? Series E glass is just as usable as it ever was (which was pretty darn good :-)) whether mounted on an F3 or FG, just don't overpay for it. Seriousl-E ;-). 

  References:

​    Roland's Nikon Pages @ http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#top
    Various Tales from The Thousand and One Nights @ https://imaging.nikon.com
    Nikon Series E Lenses Brochure (Feb. 1981) @ www.pacificarimcamera.com
    Nikon Series E  Lenses Brochure (May 1981)
    Nikon Series E Lenses Brochure (Sept. 1982)
​    Several entries on Google Patents