Comparing RF & SLR wide open

[Timmyjoe]

Thanks Garrett. Really wasn't trying to start any controversy, just found the results surprising.

And again, this is where I really miss Tom A., because I know he would have had an interesting explanation. I remember talking with him many years ago over the phone, about just this type of thing, comparing vintage rangefinder optics to vintage SLR optics, and the theories of why one was easier to design, or optically superior, to the other and vice versa.

Again, thanks for your comments.

Best,
-Tim

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

But just smug internet writing about how you are wrong holds a lot less weight than looking at your results. To me.

Yawwwwn, you're beating a dead horse.

See my post @15:10 CET:

The approach that would help is: «The Pros And Cons Of Retro-Focus Construction»

Let me suggest: Read e.g. some of Roger Hicks's books, and you'll find answers. 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hey Roger,

Being a photographer, not a research scientist, I've got a project coming up, and I have the equipment I have on hand. It's gonna be a low light situation, I want to shoot it on film, I want to shoot it with a 35mm, and I have a Nikon F with a 35mm and a Nikon S2 with a 35mm. So I took them out to compare how they would do on the wide open end. And was surprised that the rangefinder lens did better than the newer SLR lens. Now would another sample of the 35mm SLR lens beat another sample of the 35mm rangefinder lens, who knows. But I don't own those other samples, and have no access to those other samples, so I "shot with what I got".

And I posted here, (as I was surprised by the results) to ask if anyone had a theory of why these results might be as they are.

Not trying to make a "Rangefinders are always better than SLRs" thread. Just asking, "Why do you think this came out this way?"

Sorry to have misread you -- but I still think you're reading too much into your results. Sample variation with the same lens can be surprisingly large, and it is likely to get larger as the lens ages. I've had two Linhof-selected Zeiss 100/2.8 Planars. The first was stunning. Like a fool I sold it. Then I bought another, maybe five years later. It was nothing like as good. So I sold that one too, and didn't miss it.

Of course it is difficult for a retrofocus (reverse-telephoto) design to be as good as a "plain" (non-retrofocus) lens of the same focal length. When the retrofocus lens is faster (f/2 instead of f/2.5) it grows more difficult again. It can probably (just about) be done but it's going to be more expensive, and bigger and heavier.

So: the 35/2.5 Nikkor starts with two inherent advantages (slower and non-retrofocus) and one inherent disadvantage (older design). It was however a cutting edge design, and probably impossible to equal with a retrofocus for some years. Multicoating would be all but essential, for a start. Also, though I don't know, I suspect that the 35/2 was probably designed without a computer and using ray tracing rather than wavefront optimization.

Then there's focus. If both cameras are perfectly adjusted, the RF will often have the advantage with a 35mm lens, even an f/2, and in any case you'd need the right screen (Nikon recommended the A, D, F, G1, G2, H1 and H2) and to take some time and care.

It would have been extremely interesting to compare a brand new 35/2 SLR Nikkor with a 35/2.5RF Nikkor in pristine condition but as I say, with as few decades' age, all you can realistically say is that your RF lens performs better than your SLR lens. It may well be that this would be true of other samples of the same lenses in similar condition, but I don't think I'd draw any broader conclusions than this.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Thank you Roger. That is the kind of information I was hoping to have a discussion about.

It seems like I ended up with a good copy of the 3.5cm W-Nikkor-C f2.5 for my S2, which I'm really happy about, as buying such old lenses from the auction site can be a pig-in-a-poke.

One other question, if you happen to know. My rangefinder lens has the red C on it, which I'm assuming means coated, and my SLR lens is a Nikkor-OC, which again, I assume the C means coated. The 35mm SLR OC lens was made somewhere around 1973 and the 3.5cm Rangefinder lens was made somewhere around the early 1950's. Are we talking totally different kind of coatings on these two lens designs?

Best,
-Tim

 

[tunalegs]

And, recently you drew the hypothesis that I'm a fellow citizen — I shall reveal: I am NOT a WASP, at least 😉

I just find it interesting that you always act in exactly the same ways you say Americans act. 😀

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

One other question, if you happen to know. My rangefinder lens has the red C on it, which I'm assuming means coated, and my SLR lens is a Nikkor-OC, which again, I assume the C means coated. The 35mm SLR OC lens was made somewhere around 1973 and the 3.5cm Rangefinder lens was made somewhere around the early 1950's.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount#Designations :

C — Indicates a multicoated F-type lens. Appears with an interpunct after the number of optical elements (in the form "Nikkor-X·C"). This designation was introduced in 1971 and discontinued in 1974 with the introduction of "Modern" (K-type) Nikkors, when multicoating had become standard practice. [emph.mine]

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_S-mount :

Nikon made a small number of longer focal length lenses specifically designed to focus properly when mounted on a Contax. These were the 85mm, 105mm, and 135mm lenses. Each was marked with a "C" on the side of the lens barrel. This is not to be confused with a "C" mark used as a suffix to the serial number. Some early Nikkors used this mark to denote that the lenses were coated. [emph.mine]

 

[Spanik]

The only thing this says is that your copy of one lens on one body is sharper with those photo's you took than one copy of another lens on another body. I'm far from convinced that this points out to some universal law.

 

[Scrambler]

1) Lynn is a professional photographer with an interest in using older cameras - I would listen to his thoughts (and I know you have).
2) There are a variety of possible explanations, but essentially since what you wanted to know was "will setup A that I have work better or worse than setup B", you have answered your key question. WHY would require a whole lot more work, and may be issues with a range of elements in each camera, each lens and each combination.

And since no-one seems prepared to say it, many thanks for posting this interesting, if as yet unexplained, result.

 

[goamules]

Yawwwwn, you're beating a dead horse.

See my post @15:10 CET:

The approach that would help is: «The Pros And Cons Of Retro-Focus Construction»

Let me suggest: Read e.g. some of Roger Hicks's books, and you'll find answers. 😀

I hope you're not talking to me yawny boy. I'll wake you up with a little knowledge if you're feeling sleepy.

Where is that ignore button, I'm thinking I don't want to hear any more of this guy's tripe.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

I hope you're not talking to me yawny boy. I'll wake you up with a little knowledge if you're feeling sleepy.

Where is that ignore button, I'm thinking I don't want to hear any more of this guy's tripe.

Garrett, old chap: Why are you in front of a computer screen? Shouldn't you swing your gun and Make America Great AGAIN?

 

[tunalegs]

Garrett, old chap: Why are you in front of a computer screen? Shouldn't you swing your gun and Make America Great AGAIN?

How about you just stop being an asshole to people? It's not cute. 😉

 

[goamules]

Thanks Tunalegs. All I see for radi(c)'s insightful posts now is:

"This message is hidden because radi(c)al_cam is on your ignore list."

I recommend EVERYONE that is tired of his tirades set him to ignore. If he can't be civil, he can be invisible.

 

[Steve M.]

RF lenses are closer to the film plane, which often contributes to their sharpness, but of course it is not that simple and just depends. Not all lenses are created equal, and some excel at close up while others are better at mid range and infinity.

Unless you shot your test on a tripod and w/ the mirror locked up on your SLR you do not have any idea of how sharp the lens actually is.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Unless you shot your test on a tripod and w/ the mirror locked up on your SLR you do not have any idea of how sharp the lens actually is.

Steve, while I agree with you in principle, remember, this was a "real world test" and one of the things I wanted to take into account is that maybe the mirror slap on the SLR would cause a slight blurring of the image. On the project I was testing for, I won't be able to use a tripod. Everything will be hand held. If the SLR is sharper when used on a tripod with the mirror locked up (which I would guess it might be), that's not going to help me in the field where mirror lock up and a tripod won't be available. I wanted to see which would be sharper, wide open, hand held, the way I will be using them on this project.

Make sense?

Best,
-Tim

 

[one90guy]

Hey Roger,

Being a photographer, not a research scientist, I've got a project coming up, and I have the equipment I have on hand. It's gonna be a low light situation, I want to shoot it on film, I want to shoot it with a 35mm, and I have a Nikon F with a 35mm and a Nikon S2 with a 35mm. So I took them out to compare how they would do on the wide open end. And was surprised that the rangefinder lens did better than the newer SLR lens. Now would another sample of the 35mm SLR lens beat another sample of the 35mm rangefinder lens, who knows. But I don't own those other samples, and have no access to those other samples, so I "shot with what I got".

And I posted here, (as I was surprised by the results) to ask if anyone had a theory of why these results might be as they are.

Not trying to make a "Rangefinders are always better than SLRs" thread. Just asking, "Why do you think this came out this way?"

Hmm also not a scientist or a really good photographer I understand where you are coming from. Your testing seemed logical to me, you have 2 cameras and need the best of the 2 to use.

David