thompsonks
Well-known
I've just acquired an S2 and haven't used a Nikon RF since I owned an SP in the '70s. The S2 seems to be in very good condition: it had always been in a case, and exposures are linear at all shutter speeds @ corresponding apertures.
I didn't post its picture in the thread where folks show off their Nikon RFs because it looks like all the others with silver dials. But I've posted some pictures from my first test roll on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thompsonkirk/sets/72157629370166446/
My first question to experienced Nikon folks is about lenses. I think I just want 50mm (because I have an array of lenses for Leica). To start out I'm trying the CV 50mm f1.5 – a hulking thing that I'm hoping will be good for color. It front-focuses a little bit wide open at close distances (are they optimized for f2.8?). And it's pretty contrasty, but that's not a problem because I use 'raw' Imacon 3f scans & just don't do anything to boost the raw-file contrast.
What I'd like to know is what sort of image or 'drawing' I might expect from one of the original f1.4 Nikkors.
On my SP I used mostly a 35mm, but I remember that I thought the 50 was 'too soft' at wide apertures. Now, however, I wonder if I'd like it better. I understand it's a Sonnar design. Does it render like the f1.5 Zeiss Sonnars that were often preferred over the early Leica lenses (before 1.4 Summilux v2)?
I'm thinking that maybe my younger self disliked the 50 1.4 Nikkor because I over-valued sharpness for its own sake. Now I wonder if the old Nikkors produce the gentle rendering & attractive bokeh that an older guy might appreciate?
My second question is about film: when using film I currently make color negatives on Portra in a Rolleiflex: ISO 400 in winter, 160 in summer. I'm thinking of using Portra 160 all the time in S2, so that I can use wider apertures. A goo9d policy, or not?
Thx for all available advice,
Kirk
I didn't post its picture in the thread where folks show off their Nikon RFs because it looks like all the others with silver dials. But I've posted some pictures from my first test roll on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thompsonkirk/sets/72157629370166446/
My first question to experienced Nikon folks is about lenses. I think I just want 50mm (because I have an array of lenses for Leica). To start out I'm trying the CV 50mm f1.5 – a hulking thing that I'm hoping will be good for color. It front-focuses a little bit wide open at close distances (are they optimized for f2.8?). And it's pretty contrasty, but that's not a problem because I use 'raw' Imacon 3f scans & just don't do anything to boost the raw-file contrast.
What I'd like to know is what sort of image or 'drawing' I might expect from one of the original f1.4 Nikkors.
On my SP I used mostly a 35mm, but I remember that I thought the 50 was 'too soft' at wide apertures. Now, however, I wonder if I'd like it better. I understand it's a Sonnar design. Does it render like the f1.5 Zeiss Sonnars that were often preferred over the early Leica lenses (before 1.4 Summilux v2)?
I'm thinking that maybe my younger self disliked the 50 1.4 Nikkor because I over-valued sharpness for its own sake. Now I wonder if the old Nikkors produce the gentle rendering & attractive bokeh that an older guy might appreciate?
My second question is about film: when using film I currently make color negatives on Portra in a Rolleiflex: ISO 400 in winter, 160 in summer. I'm thinking of using Portra 160 all the time in S2, so that I can use wider apertures. A goo9d policy, or not?
Thx for all available advice,
Kirk
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Hello Kirk,
This one was shot with an S2 and the Nikkor-S.C 1:1.4 f=5cm lens @ f/2. The film is Kodak TmaX 100.
Erik
This one was shot with an S2 and the Nikkor-S.C 1:1.4 f=5cm lens @ f/2. The film is Kodak TmaX 100.
Erik
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Kirk, I am a 35mm lens fan, and like wide angles too. However, given that the S2 is really optimized for the 50mm view, I'd recommend that you get the nice, fast Nikkor lens that used to be sold as a kit with the S2: the 5 cm f1.4.
I never really warmed up to the 50mm focal lenght, but I certainly enjoy it with my S2 and with my Leica M3. I don't have anything to say about your choice of film (after all, that's a personal preference), but when it comes to sharpness, this particular lens isn't a slouch.
Take care and enjoy your new toy!
I never really warmed up to the 50mm focal lenght, but I certainly enjoy it with my S2 and with my Leica M3. I don't have anything to say about your choice of film (after all, that's a personal preference), but when it comes to sharpness, this particular lens isn't a slouch.
Take care and enjoy your new toy!
enasniearth
Well-known
S2 with 5 cm
S2 with 5 cm
For many years my only camera was a black dial s2 with the late black 5 cm 1.4 Nikkor .
Many say the f 2 is a better all around performer .
I like the 1.4 , it has an extra stop of speed , wide open the corners are a little soft by f4 this is gone ,at f8 it is at its best .
Somewhere I read that Nikkor 1.4 was optimized for closer distances and slight higher contrast .
I have many nice Kodachrome and ektachrome slides shot in the late 1970's early 1980's with this setup.
Hope this helps .
S2 with 5 cm
For many years my only camera was a black dial s2 with the late black 5 cm 1.4 Nikkor .
Many say the f 2 is a better all around performer .
I like the 1.4 , it has an extra stop of speed , wide open the corners are a little soft by f4 this is gone ,at f8 it is at its best .
Somewhere I read that Nikkor 1.4 was optimized for closer distances and slight higher contrast .
I have many nice Kodachrome and ektachrome slides shot in the late 1970's early 1980's with this setup.
Hope this helps .
Highway 61
Revisited
True.
The old Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 is by far a better choice, it's as good as the 1.4 at closer distances but sharper at medium distances and infinity, and better than the 1.4 at f/2 already (less glow and less corners light fall-off).
There is no optical difference between the early chrome and late black 50mm lenses, all have the same formula and produce the same results (given that you compare a chrome 1.4 with a black 1.4 etc). The late black lenses are lighter.
Of course there is the Millenium Nikkor 1.4 which is by far the best of all 50mm lenses in Nikon RF mount but this is another story, it's been made in 2000 on the basis of the 1964 "Olympic" lens, and its optical formula has nothing to do with the classic 50 1.4 one.
thompsonks
Well-known
OK, I'll try the 5cm f1.4. Erik's photo has the qualities I'd said I liked about old Sonnars: Low contrast, a slightly soft look, and yet in focus on certain details (hair; printed matter in her hands). And gentle bokeh.
And I'll try re-photographing some of the same subjects as in the first roll of test shots (linked above). The nice thing about using mannequins for test shots is that they tend to stay there in the same position (if not quite the same light).
Kirk
And I'll try re-photographing some of the same subjects as in the first roll of test shots (linked above). The nice thing about using mannequins for test shots is that they tend to stay there in the same position (if not quite the same light).
Kirk