Classic & Millennium 50/1.4 Nikkor compared
- Thread starter VinceC
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 3K
C
ch1
Guest
Vince,
We're splitting hairs here - and there is not compairson with the earlier lens.
That said - great shot - what film did you use?
We're splitting hairs here - and there is not compairson with the earlier lens.
That said - great shot - what film did you use?
VinceC
Veteran
>>But c'mon, be honest, do you really think that you can judge the fine qualtiies of difference (if they exist) under the conditions I noted?
Scanned to digital, downsized to fit onto RFF, viewed by your monitor?<<
I'm an ex-newspaper photographer who takes a lot of pictures of his kids, mainly to be emailed to far-flung relatives. Every now and then I do photo assignments to be posted on my workplace website. The things I care about are flare, contrast, color rendition, enough sharpness to crop in really tight if need be. I get my negs scanned at a grocery store at 1.5meg resolution and the work negs scanned at a one-hour shop at 2 meg. And for me, it works. If the difference shows up in the grocery-store scans, then it matters. Otherwise, it doesn't.
I think the first couple of pictures in this thread pass the "computer monitor" test. There's a noticeable difference, and I prefer the qualities of the newer lens.
The main reason I posted the second set -- the three lenses side by side -- was to show that there wasn't any difference in that particular lighting condition.
Being a Nikon RF die-hard, unlike Leica shooters, I'm pretty much stuck in the "greatest hits of the 1950s" mode. It's been pleasantly fun to get a new piece of glass. But I'd never trade those old classic ones. They're still my workhorses.
Scanned to digital, downsized to fit onto RFF, viewed by your monitor?<<
I'm an ex-newspaper photographer who takes a lot of pictures of his kids, mainly to be emailed to far-flung relatives. Every now and then I do photo assignments to be posted on my workplace website. The things I care about are flare, contrast, color rendition, enough sharpness to crop in really tight if need be. I get my negs scanned at a grocery store at 1.5meg resolution and the work negs scanned at a one-hour shop at 2 meg. And for me, it works. If the difference shows up in the grocery-store scans, then it matters. Otherwise, it doesn't.
I think the first couple of pictures in this thread pass the "computer monitor" test. There's a noticeable difference, and I prefer the qualities of the newer lens.
The main reason I posted the second set -- the three lenses side by side -- was to show that there wasn't any difference in that particular lighting condition.
Being a Nikon RF die-hard, unlike Leica shooters, I'm pretty much stuck in the "greatest hits of the 1950s" mode. It's been pleasantly fun to get a new piece of glass. But I'd never trade those old classic ones. They're still my workhorses.
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
>>what film did you use?<<
Fuji 400. The stuff you get in a 5-pack for $8 at the grocery store.
Fuji 400. The stuff you get in a 5-pack for $8 at the grocery store.
C
ch1
Guest
VinceC said:
Great, I thought it was Fuji - as we chat I am in the process of scanning a bunch of Fujichrome slides.
They're SLRs from my F5 so will never see the light of day here on RFF! 🙁
VinceC
Veteran
I love Fuji. I got back into photography about a year ago after a long hiatus. I bought some Kodak 100 consumer print film at the drug store and just loved it. Went back to get more, and the drugstore had stopped carrying 100 speed film. So had every other place in town. So I returned to my old favorite, Fuji.
Sonnar Brian
Established
Ritz camera has an Outlet at Potomac Mills. With some patience, most every film made shows up there. That's where I found the last of the Royal Gold 100.
I still miss Ektra 25.
I still miss Ektra 25.
Last edited by a moderator:
VinceC
Veteran
With naive innocence, I hunted around last spring for Ektra 25, as it had been my color film of choice a decade earlier. Alas....
furcafe
Veteran
I agree & it matches my experience w/older v. modern Leitz & Zeiss glass. I can easily see a difference in color rendition & contrast between uncoated & single-coated lenses in most lighting conditions. The difference between single-coated & multi-coated glass is more subtle & is most apparent to me in difficult lighting where flare is more likely.
VinceC said:
Xmas
Veteran
Vince C
Ignore the lens buy the kinda cute kid the vinialla ice for tolerating the photographer.
Since the '60 the refractive index of optical glass has gone up allowing the:-
- tolerances to be relaxed
- simplification of design
- radia (of curvature) to be reduced
The glass plants can produce better glass e.g. with fewer bubbles
So the modern lens should be better with a MTF tool, & more contrasty.
Noel
Ignore the lens buy the kinda cute kid the vinialla ice for tolerating the photographer.
Since the '60 the refractive index of optical glass has gone up allowing the:-
- tolerances to be relaxed
- simplification of design
- radia (of curvature) to be reduced
The glass plants can produce better glass e.g. with fewer bubbles
So the modern lens should be better with a MTF tool, & more contrasty.
Noel
Similar threads
