Lens recommendations for Nikon S3

[jonmanjiro]

Is this table for using Clenses on a S-mount camera, or viceversa?

As I commented below - both ways.

I dug up the table Cosina provided in the Voigtlander Bessa R2S/C manual. It shows whether the image will be in/out of focus at several focus distance/aperture combinations for a Nikon RF lens mounted on a Contax RF body or a Contax RF lens mounted on a Nikon RF body.

I find very interesting that the Voigtlander R2C/S leaflet shown here shows perfect infinity focus even with a 50/1.5 or 85/2. This would support the "both cameras have exactly the same lens-flange-to-film-plane distance", as a moderator has stated here.

This is not my opinion, this is known information as per the chart I linked (below) that Cosina is for sure aware of, and they certainly know a thing or two about making lenses.

Both Nikon RF and Contax RF have a 34.85mm register.
https://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html

BTW since you mentioned it, does me being a moderator have any bearing on this discussion? I think its irrelevant, but perhaps you think otherwise?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

There are so many variables at play here- you have to guess at the assumptions made, or just set your own values for optimization.

1) Effective focal length for a lens that is over-corrected for spherical aberration increases as you stop down, meaning the focus shifts towards infinity.
2) For B&W Photography, use of deep yellow, orange, and red filters cause a shift towards infinity.
3) For a Sonnar 50mm lens, the shift towards infinity is pronounced.

The difference in focus throw between the Nikon and Contax is about 0.1mm. Focus shift from F1.5 to F4 covers most of that.

SO- optimize the Sonnar for up-close and wide-open. Stopping down and using filters will shift focus towards infinity.

From one of the articles I wrote,



The Asymmetric layout and compact design of the Sonnar gives rise to its most difficult to master design flaw: focus shift. The focal length of the center of the Sonnar is longer than the focal length of the edges. This means the best focus point of light entering the Sonnar from the center is behind that of light entering from the edge. Used wide-open, the image is dominated by light coming in at the shorter focal length of the edges. This is responsible for the lower-contrast/spread-out depth-of-field of the Sonnar used wide-open. Stopping down the aperture eliminates contributions from the edge; the image that remains is the product of the longer focal-length center of the lens. It “shifts” towards infinity.

The post-war West German Zeiss 50mm F1.5 is sharper and has less field curvature than the Nikkor 5cm F1.4. Adapting it to a Nikon is easy. I've compared mine with the M-Mount C-Sonnar 50/1.5, very close in performance. The C-Sonnar in S-Mount is rare, and costs several times the West German Sonnar.

I only change focal length by changing the spacing between front and rear group as a last resort, and for lenses that were off to to begin with. With the J-3, the lfar end of the 1% tolerance. I've been given unusable Sonnars, set them straight by changing focal length. BUT- for most, prefer optimizing for wide-open/ close-up and stop down for infinity.

.

 

[flavio81]

This is not my opinion, this is known information as per the chart I linked (below) that Cosina is for sure aware of, and they certainly know a thing or two about making lenses.

Yes, you linked to a table that contained distances for many mounts. But sometimes such tables, provided by pages that don't specialize in a specific system- are wrong. For this kind of info i'd first trust more in a page specialist on Kiev. Contax, and Nikkon rangefinders than a page that is trying to cover all bases.

That's why I wasn't completely convinced by it.

BTW since you mentioned it, does me being a moderator have any bearing on this discussion? I think its irrelevant, but perhaps you think otherwise?

I didn't remember your name, this my only way to refer to you as a recent poster on a discussion was "a moderator". Please understand that it's not easy to remember everyone's name on a forum.

This discussion is not personal in any way, and I don't have any kind of intention of turning it into a personal discussion. I don't know you and I wish to remain absolutely neutral about people I don't know. I'm sure you also don't wish to turn the conversation into a personal topic.

But I can't be neutral about a third-party source that is not specialized in rangefinders.

I can trust the info provided by members of this forum, since it's specialized in rangefinders.

 

[flavio81]

There are so many variables at play here- you have to guess at the assumptions made, or just set your own values for optimization.

1) Effective focal length for a lens that is over-corrected for spherical aberration increases as you stop down, meaning the focus shifts towards infinity.
2) For B&W Photography, use of deep yellow, orange, and red filters cause a shift towards infinity.
3) For a Sonnar 50mm lens, the shift towards infinity is pronounced.

The difference in focus throw between the Nikon and Contax is about 0.1mm. Focus shift from F1.5 to F4 covers most of that.

SO- optimize the Sonnar for up-close and wide-open. Stopping down and using filters will shift focus towards infinity.
.

This good practical info. I was thinking on the "ideal" lens with no focus shift.

From my recollection of some "popular photography" or "modern photography" tests most normal lenses had 0.05mm, less, or zero focus shift. On the other hand, those were double gauss lenses. Sonnar lenses, as you mention, could have more shift, it all makes sense now.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Yes, you linked to a table that contained distances for many mounts. But sometimes such tables, provided by pages that don't specialize in a specific system- are wrong. For this kind of info i'd first trust more in a page specialist on Kiev. Contax, and Nikkon rangefinders than a page that is trying to cover all bases.

That's why I wasn't completely convinced by it.

I'm sure you can find the same information elsewhere on the internet. I suggest doing a search. You're bound to find a source you find more convincing.

I'm not sure if wiki passes the test for you, but the same information is there too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

I didn't remember your name, this my only way to refer to you as a recent poster on a discussion was "a moderator". Please understand that it's not easy to remember everyone's name on a forum.

This discussion is not personal in any way, and I don't have any kind of intention of turning it into a personal discussion. I don't know you and I wish to remain absolutely neutral about people I don't know. I'm sure you also don't wish to turn the conversation into a personal topic.

But I can't be neutral about a third-party source that is not specialized in rangefinders.

I can trust the info provided by members of this forum, since it's specialized in rangefinders.

jonmanjiro, my username, would be fine. And its right there on the screen. You can't miss it.

 

[Frontman]

One of my favorites for the Nikon S cameras is the 2.8cm f/3.5. I use one on my SP, which fortunately has a 28mm finder, but an accessory finder is easy enough to find for the S3. I've used most of the S mount lenses from the 2.1cm to the Millennium Niikkor, but most often use the 2.8cm.

 

[Capt. E]

I have a very nice S3 body with a Nikkor 5cm f1.4, 3.5cm f2.5 and 10.5cm f2.5. That is a complete outfit for the S3 taking full advantage of the marvelous viewfinder. The Nikkor 2.8cm is not that much wider than the 3.5cm and it is a slow f4. I have thought about getting a Voightlander 21 or 24. They are great and come with a nice finder. That is about the only addition I would consider except perhaps another body (S3 or SP).

Not to brag, but I just purchased an original black paint S2 at the crazy price of $695. It isn't mint, but not far from it. I intend to use it with the 5cm 1.4 (it looks too good to just sit on a shelf). I guess I'll put it in a half case. I have the same attitude towards a re-issue S3 or SP that no longer has the boxes and all that came with it. Take care of it, but "Use it!"

 

[splitimageview]

I would brag. 😎

Congrats!

 

[Capt. E]

Probably been said before, but just consider the frame lines on the S3. 3.5cm f/1.8 , 5.0cm f/1.4, 10.5cm f/2.5 is the obvious set of lenses. I'm also looking for a 10.5 f/4 at a reasonable price. This lightweight tele is great for a lightweight kit. Add a light meter on the accessory shoe.

 

[das]

The lack of parallax correction on the S3 makes effective use of the 105mm difficult. There is significant parallax shift with 105s, especially at close distances. The only solution is to get a PC 105mm external finder for accurate framing. With the 1:1 finder, using a 35s with glasses is difficult, and it is really meant to use right eyed shooting. The 50mm seems to be the ideal lens for it, although parallax correction is also an issue. The 35mm f/2.5 and the 50mm f/1.4 are both affordable and great lenses to start with.. The f/2.5 is actually a fairly fantastic lens. The f/1.4 Sonnar-types are really not "general purpose" 50s, better used for close up and wider apertures.

 

[Capt. E]

That is why I have a finder on my S3 when using the 105 (or 135 of course). I usually don't use anything but a 5cm or 3.5cm.

 

[Capt. E]

Probably been said before, but just consider the frame lines on the S3. 3.5cm f/1.8 , 5.0cm f/1.4, 10.5cm f/2.5 is the obvious set of lenses. I'm also looking for a 10.5 f/4 at a reasonable price. This lightweight tele is great for a lightweight kit. Add a light meter on the accessory shoe.

I've been wanting one as well. I know of one here in town...$499. Not bad actually. Seen them advertised for up to $2000. I should probably go snatch it up.

 

[keytarjunkie]

I've been wanting one as well. I know of one here in town...$499. Not bad actually. Seen them advertised for up to $2000. I should probably go snatch it up.

You know you are talking to yourself right?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I've been wanting one as well. I know of one here in town...$499. Not bad actually. Seen them advertised for up to $2000. I should probably go snatch it up.

I have this lens in F-Mount, which is much more common that S-Mount- but the same optics. Found at a great price. It's a very good performer. On the F-Mount, the symbol for Infinity is past the infinity mark- which drove me nuts until I looked up the lens and found this was be design.

 

[raydm6]

You know you are talking to yourself right?

Lol 🙂 That's ok. It's allowed here on RFF.

 

[keytarjunkie]

Lol 🙂 That's ok. It's allowed here on RFF.

I only mention it because he seems to respond to himself quite often 🙁

 

[stephen_lumsden]

Note: Consider that the J-12, a good, well manufactured J-12, is calibrated for the Contax flange-focal distance, which is different than the Nikon S flange focal distance. There's a 0.31mm difference, which is a very significant number. (Source)

As you probably know, Nikon used to make those lenses in a "C"-marked version; the very same lenses, but calibrated for Contax cameras.

A proper comparison would be to re-calibrate (reshim/un-shim) your J-12 so it attains precise focus at the film plane with your Nikon S3. Otherwise your J-12 is always technically out of focus. Of course DOF helps mask that problem, but if you want to extract the maximum out of the J-12, you'll need to do that.

I am getting the W-Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 and f3.5 very soon and will have to re-calibrate them since i plan to use them on my Contax IIa/IIIa cameras. One of my IIa is modified so the Jupiter-12 fits, but I feel that the exposed rear element of the J-12 makes it a slow lens to use out in the field -- it needs a lot of care when taken out or in. The Nikkors have well protected rear elements.

I thought for 35mm and wider s mount lenses did not need to be recalibrated for Contax. I have a voightlander 25mm f4 which seems to work ok and am eyeing up a w-nikkor 35mm f3.5 to go with my j12 for my contax ii. Could someone clarify.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The FSU Contax/Kiev mount lenses will do better in "nailing the focus" after shimming them. Same with the Zeiss Biogon.

 

[stephen_lumsden]

The FSU Contax/Kiev mount lenses will do better in "nailing the focus" after shimming them. Same with the Zeiss Biogon.

Does that apply the other way though, namely Nikkor lenses getting mounted on Contax?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Yes- the same is true, I have reduced the shim for a Nikon 3.5cm F2.5 to be used on a Contax.