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