Canon 50/1.5 vs. 50/1.4 type 1 vs. 50/1.4 type 2

[Meleica]

50-/1.4 diagram

50-/1.4 diagram

this is what i have for the 50/1.4 diagram - please see attached

 

[Sonnar2]

this is what I know as well (from D.Stellas website?). Looks like Jim's Pic 3. Pic 1 is that in question.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Here is the attachment posted on a previous thread. It is from the 1973 edition of Neblette's "photographic Lenses". The Nikkor 5.8cm F1.4 (upper right corner) is derived from the traditional 1-2-2-1 formula where the first element is split into two elements of weaker power. It is 7 elements in 5 groups. 1-1-2-2-1. The text talks about super-speed lenses being derived from the classic formula's by splitting front elements (the Nikkor 5.8cm) or back elements (Summarit).

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11537

I'll check which version of the 50mm Canon that I have, I suspect it is the second version as it came with a Canon 7 attached.

EDIT: Yes, mine is a type two with markings in feet and meters.

 

[Sonnar2]

Thanks Brian, this is very clear. In the 1965 edition of Neblette are some minor mistakes too. Sometimes he groups different lenses to a single picture a bit unprecise for my feeling. I.e. the Canon 1.2/50 and 0.95/50 - which of course are "basically" the same design, but the 0.95 elements stronger curved. Even he shows the right diagram for the 0.95/50 with clearly visible 7 elements, at page 105 he wrote it has 6! And I doubt seriously that any Nikkor 1.4/50mm or 1.4/85 Komura looks the same as stated. Also one picture he shows for 3 early SLR wideangles might be correct for the two other he mentioned but probably not for the 4/35mm Takumar. At least there is no evidence from Pentax that this is a 4-element lens, opposed to the later 3.5/35 which has 5.

Coming back to our issue, I wonder if nobody has proved this diagram wrong when it was published 1992 in "Viewfinder". Or if they were right, proved Canon Museum wrong. They lately enhanced the information given at screwmount lenses greatly, and corrected some minor mistakes that way, what was already discussed here.

Well, time to time readers of my website contact me for corrections if they feel I could be wrong in the information *I* give there... please do so !

Cheers, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras

 

[Mackinaw]

As I communicated to Frank in an off-list post, it's entirely possible that Randal Hooper is wrong about the 50/1.4 type 1 lens and the Canon Museum is right. I guess we won't know which schematic is correct until somebody takes apart a 50/1.4 type 1, or until we find Mr. Hooper who, unfortunately, seems to have vanished from the face of the earth.

But there's also the possibility that Hooper is right. Both Canon and Nikon weren't exactly known for original lens designs back in the 1940's and 1950's (look at the Canon 50.1.5 or the 50/3.5) and I find it entirely possible that Canon lifted the 50/1.4 type 1 design from Fuji (or somebody else). Stranger things have happened.

Jim Bielecki

 

[furcafe]

FWIW, I bought some items from Mr. Hooper a few years ago off eBay. I may have his contact info (which may be still good) somewhere if folks are really interested--send me a private message.

As I communicated to Frank in an off-list post, it's entirely possible that Randal Hooper is wrong about the 50/1.4 type 1 lens and the Canon Museum is right. I guess we won't know which schematic is correct until somebody takes apart a 50/1.4 type 1, or until we find Mr. Hooper who, unfortunately, seems to have vanished from the face of the earth.

But there's also the possibility that Hooper is right. Both Canon and Nikon weren't exactly known for original lens designs back in the 1940's and 1950's (look at the Canon 50.1.5 or the 50/3.5) and I find it entirely possible that Canon lifted the 50/1.4 type 1 design from Fuji (or somebody else). Stranger things have happened.

Jim Bielecki