Classic & Millennium 50/1.4 Nikkor compared

[VinceC]

Here is a quick kitchen table lens test of the classic 1950s 5cm f/1.4 Nikkor @ f/2 and its modernday progeny, the multicoated 50mm f/1.4 Millennium, the lens that comes with the S3-2000, also shot at f/2. (The classic has a chrome front ring while the Millennium has a black front ring.)

The classic is widely available in the LTM mount. The Millennium can only be bought in Nikon mount as part of the S3-2000 kit.

Posting the classic image first, plus a close-up of each.

 

[John]

Wow!!! Both sharp, beautiful bokeh. What do you think is going on with the colour? The classic looks like a filter is removing colour transmission, (I know its not), - or am I missing something? 🙂

 

[Trius]

The f2 seems to have warmer colours and less flare. As you say, it's "quick kitchen table test", so please do more under a variety of conditons!

 

[VinceC]

Both lenses have a max. aperature of 1.4. I shot them both at f/2 for the test.

No filters, no hoods. She's holding the lenses so that I remembered which was which. I'll try to compare them also with a Jupiter 8, since that's a lens many people on this forum are familiar with. Last time I compared the classic Nikkor to the j-8 at f/2, they were indistinguishable.

 

[xayraa33]

both 50s produce very pleasing results in their own way.

 

[awilder]

Great test. Huge improvement in all respects with the 2000 version. Optically it's performance looks close to the pre-asph. Summilux in terms of flare suppression and contrast.

 

[Trius]

Vince: Yeah, I messed up ... my fingers didn't type what my brain meant! Will you be doing more comparison shots? While the window/light source in the shot provides one significant type of scene, it would be interesting to me to see shots in other conditions.

 

[VinceC]

I plan on doing a few more tests.
I haven't got any Leitz or Canon lenses as I've confined myself to the Nikon RF / Kiev system, so I'm not sure how meaningful the comparisons will be to most folks on the forum. The Nikkor/Leitz/USSR comparisons seem to be the most helpful to people. In general, the Nikkors seem to be very close in peformance to classic Leitz and Zeiss lenses of same vintage.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Those are impressive.

You can see the benefit of the modern multi-layer coating. The new lens is a "planar" derivitive, the older lens is a Sonnar formula. You can see the veiling flare in the 1950's lens.

The Millenium Nikkor is probably Nikons best 50/1.4 ever. I'll have to compare it with the contemporary SLR lens to be sure. The S3-2000 outfit and the lens are less than the new Leica Summilux.

 

[VinceC]

So here's a new test.:
Nikkor Millenneum 50,
Nikkor Classic 50 and
1957 Jupiter-8

Both Nikkors have a maximum f/stop of f/1.4. The Jupiter has a maximum of f/2.

All three lenses shot at f/2. Shutter speed around 90 (the S3 allows in-between settings on the shutter dial).

 

[wlewisiii]

Thank you for this test. All it does is remind me that if I ever get any Nikon RF it will be the 2000, but that doesn't make it all that much easier to know I'll probably never have the spare coin for one. Still the look of that modern multi-coated planar is a delight.

Sigh.

OTOH, perhaps, there is that new Heliar... 😉

William

 

[Trius]

The Jupiter appears to be a longer FL than the other two, and the exposure is a bit less. The colour rendering of the Classic is a touch warmer than the Millenium, contrast is nearly identical.

I agree with William ... the Heliar would be an interesting addition.

 

[VinceC]

These are handheld without a tripod, physically changing each lens, then convincing her not to go ransack another dollhouse on the other side of the room. So it might not be possible to compare precise focal lengths with any accuracy. I remained seated on the couch, so each shot is within, say, 3 inches of the others.

 

[ch1]

Both lenses have a max. aperature of 1.4. I shot them both at f/2 for the test.

No filters, no hoods. She's holding the lenses so that I remembered which was which. I'll try to compare them also with a Jupiter 8, since that's a lens many people on this forum are familiar with. Last time I compared the classic Nikkor to the j-8 at f/2, they were indistinguishable.

Thanks for clearing that up....found the earlier posts to this to be "odd".

In all honesty, I see little (really no) difference.

Now let's all get a grip.

These are all Nikkors. Nikon has not "worked" on RF lens design in 40 years so there is no reason to expect any "dramatic" improvement.

What would most likely be a difference (if any) would be how well the older lens had been cared for versus the newer production model!

All things being equal, and unless you can really claim that your aging eyes can really detect the difference b/w the older and more modern coating of what are optically identical lenses that have both been scanned into digital images and downsized to "fit" as uploads each to then be viewed on your (various quality) monitors (some of which are LCD, some of which are cathode ray tube, some of which are LED etc.)

Well, I think you get the point....

There is no discernable difference!

If Vince C. mixed them up you couldn't tell!

 

[VinceC]

I frankly see no meaningful difference in the three newly posted images of her with the dollhouse. I do see a subtle but significant difference in the first kitchen-table shot. ... more contrast, better handling flare and color, etc.

The lens designs are not identical between the Classic and Millennium Nikkors. The rear element on the Millenneum is considerably larger, the mid-section is much fatter and the whole lens housing is about 25 percent longer to accomodate larger internal elements. The Millennium is not identical to the SLR F-mount 50 /1.4 because it sits a little closer to the film plane and has a smaller rear element (due to physical limitation of the RF lens mount). But when I look at a Millennium alongside an early SLR 50mm, they do seem to have a lot in common.

 

[wlewisiii]

George,

I'm no Nikkor partisan (Don't ask me about Canon lenses... 😀 ) but I will say that I do believe there is a difference from the difference in coatings. At the time the old 50/1.4 was shipped, IIUC, Nikon used the usual hard single coating that they used on all thier other lenses.

In the ~40 years since in optics that's really darn near the only place any real change has been made. Hence there is, I believe, a slight observable difference in the lenses. This will be most obvious in "flaring" conditions, but I do not believe that the difference is any less real as a result.

Let's face it - comparing a Canon 50/1.4 for the RF mount vs. the 50/1.4 for EF mount would be an equal exercise in pain. But I will say that there may well be a bit to see because I've seen what the differnces in coating tech has made. Not always for the best, mind you (I own a 1904 B&L uncoated Tessar that gives glorious results. Foo on coating _if_ it's all I knew 🙂 ), but it is visible to most eyes, I think.

And unless someone has found "a cure for pain", I doubt we can make much difference other than in buying what we happen to like a bit better.

William

 

[furcafe]

Putting aside the issue of whether anyone can tell a difference, as Brian noted in his post, the 2 lenses are actually different optical designs: Sonnar (the old 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S found on most Nikon RFs) v. Planar (the 50/1.4 Nikkor-S from the S3 2000). The ideal comparison would have been between an original Planar-design "Olympic" 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S from 1962-64 & the updated, multi-coated version of the same lens sold w/the S3 2000.

These are all Nikkors. Nikon has not "worked" on RF lens design in 40 years so there is no reason to expect any "dramatic" improvement.

What would most likely be a difference (if any) would be how well the older lens had been cared for versus the newer production model!

All things being equal, and unless you can really claim that your aging eyes can really detect the difference b/w the older and more modern coating of what are optically identical lenses that have both been scanned into digital images and downsized to "fit" as uploads each to then be viewed on your (various quality) monitors (some of which are LCD, some of which are cathode ray tube, some of which are LED etc.)

 

[VinceC]

Coatings are not insignificant to the final image.
In the early/mid-1950s, Nikon made a big deal advertizing the quality of its coatings. Nikon attributed its self-touted edge in sharpness not to the lens design but to the quality of its glass and the quality of its coatings. During World War II, Nippon Kogaku pioneered tough coatings for military optics and used them on its camera optics a few years later.

I've now shot perhaps 10-12 rolls that include the new Millennium lens. It and the CV 25mm (also a modern lens) have very "modern" contrast that makes the images jump out at you, even from a one-hour photo shop. My older classic Nikkors ... especially the 28, 35 and 85 ... have noticably less contrast. Last week I shot a performance for work and ended up using the new 50 and the older 85 and 105. On the images with the 85 and 105, I had to use PhotoShop to really punch up the contrast and USM so that their images would match the characteristics of the straight scan of the Millennium 50.

 

[VinceC]

>> The ideal comparison would have been between an original Planar-design "Olympic" 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S from 1962-64 & the updated, multi-coated version of the same lens sold w/the S3 2000.<<

I have never seen a photograph taken by an original Olympic. I don't think anyone actually uses them.

 

[ch1]

I will grant you all the issues of minor design changes and possibly even the lens coatings (although I'm not so sure of the latter and will gladly take your "old and worthless Nikkors" off your hands!

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 posed a stark test the other night b/w saturated and unsaturaed. The differences were glaring.

All I'm saying as that this kind of i test require a better "venue" than a web posting!

I hope the newer lens is better than the older (even though I don't have one of the newer ones) but I don't think we can really "judge" this (in a non-confrontational "jury sense") via a web post.

It's like comparing two great vanilla ice creams - but you don't really get to taste either one! 😀