Early Nikkor-HC 5cm F2 Rigid LTM NKT, compared with Classic Sonnars

I would be curious as to differences in weight of the various 5cm f2 Nikkors in Leica Thread, particularly the black-ring as opposed to the earier all-chrome versions. Also, have you ever compared the 4cm f2 Sonnar for the Tenax II to other 5cm Sonnars from the same time period (1937-1940).
 
Very interesting, Brian, thanks for the info. And very nice photos. Got me thinking, haha.

'Kinda hard to draw any conclusions from a few photos, but it looks to me like your early lenses, when used wide open, produce photos that are a bit clearer and with less loss of contrast than I usually get with with my more modern coated Sonnars at max aperture. Seems counterintuitive since your lenses are uncoated.

I probably need to refresh my recollection of my lenses -- including the more modern coated Nikon f1.4 LTM, Canon f1.5 LTM and 1950 Jupiter 3 -- wide open, but I recall coming away after initial testing of mine years ago having the feeling of a more pronounced overall haze wide open that diminishes dramatically by f2.

The contrast of your posted images isn't high (not a good or bad thing in itself) but seems a bit different in character than my lenses, as if the contrast fingerprint of your lens were being caused by lack of coating rather than by the results of increased spherical aberration. But, again, I'm hesitant to draw conclusion based on such a limited sample. I probably need to get my hands on a decent copy of an early lens and check it out in direct comparison to my more modern Sonnars.

You're making me think I need to devote some more time to using the Sonnars for the kind of photos I typically take, which is all natural light portraits and other people pics, usually outdoor, with the occasional small smattering of studio stuff when the weather is too bad to shoot outdoors or when we're just too lazy to go far from the house.

I'll see if I can find some examples of my Nikkor f1.4 shot wide open to illustrate what I'm talking about.
 
I found two of the very first photos I made with my 1950 Jupiter 3 immediately after I adjusted it to work on the M9 about 10 years ago. These are JPG generated by the camera and are taken of two friends while at a local coffee shop and lunch place respectively just to test the lens. I'm pretty sure both were shot wide open and they don't seem as soft and low contrast as I recall my Nikkor f1.4 being. In fact, I'd consider this lens quite useable at this aperture for these kinds of shots.

GeorgeOL1004434 by Brusby, on Flickr


Over lunch by Brusby, on Flickr
 
Nice images! Looks like you nailed the adjustment of the lens. Does this lens have CZJ serial numbers on the rear group?
 
dexdog said:
Nice images! Looks like you nailed the adjustment of the lens. Does this lens have CZJ serial numbers on the rear group?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't check. I'll have to look when I get a chance. Is there a listing of those serial numbers online?

I do recall when I cleaned the caked up lubricant from that lens I didn't have any decent replacement handy so I just used vaseline. Remarkably it has worked fine.
 
brusby said:
Very interesting, Brian, thanks for the info. And very nice photos. Got me thinking, haha.

'Kinda hard to draw any conclusions from a few photos, but it looks to me like your early lenses, when used wide open, produce photos that are a bit clearer and with less loss of contrast than I usually get with with my more modern coated Sonnars at max aperture. Seems counterintuitive since your lenses are uncoated.
Click to expand...
It is counter-intuitive BUT goes back to the early days of optics where an Old Lens was noted to have better performance than a new one. The surface of the glass oxidizes, and forms a "Bloom" on the lens. It's not as calculated, not as even, and a bit more unpredictable. What I found: Blue just comes out deeper. My favorite lens, that used here: looked like Wax Paper when received. Cleaned up beautifully, and was very careful to be very gentle in cleaning the surfaces.

RIMG0016.jpgRIMG0018.jpgRIMG0024.jpgRIMG0027.jpgsonnar_1607_3.jpg
 
Sonnar Brian said:
It is counter-intuitive BUT goes back to the early days of optics where an Old Lens was noted to have better performance than a new one. The surface of the glass oxidizes, and forms a "Bloom" on the lens. It's not as calculated, not as even, and a bit more unpredictable. What I found: Blue just comes out deeper. My favorite lens, that used here: looked like Wax Paper when received. Cleaned up beautifully, and was very careful to be very gentle in cleaning the surfaces.

View attachment 4852461View attachment 4852462View attachment 4852463View attachment 4852464View attachment 4852465
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember the discussions about the natural oxidation of glass surfaces and how it likely prompted lens designers to develop modern coatings. Fascinating.

You're fortunate to have such a nice lens.

All this is making me want to stick my Sonnars on a modern mirrorless body so I can get my subjects' eyes in best focus possible. Should work very well with the Jupiter 3. Looking at these old photos with M9 makes me wonder what is possible now.
 
wes loder said:
I would be curious as to differences in weight of the various 5cm f2 Nikkors in Leica Thread, particularly the black-ring as opposed to the earier all-chrome versions. Also, have you ever compared the 4cm f2 Sonnar for the Tenax II to other 5cm Sonnars from the same time period (1937-1940).
Click to expand...
I have not used the 4cm F2 Sonnar. Lots of 5cm F2 Sonnars, but have not owned a Tenax.

I found my Five Nikkor 5cm F2 in LTM:
No caps, no filters, just lens:

Collapsible 8112168: 198g
Rigid, no click stops, 618104: 265g
Rigid, no click stops, 621144: 267g
Rigid, Click Stops, 628300: 276g
Late Black Ring, 735940: 218g

The lightweight champion: the first version.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
It is counter-intuitive BUT goes back to the early days of optics where an Old Lens was noted to have better performance than a new one. The surface of the glass oxidizes, and forms a "Bloom" on the lens. It's not as calculated, not as even, and a bit more unpredictable.
Click to expand...
I have this lens that I think exhibits the "bloom". Hard to capture a good pic of it, but the lens has a slight violet-blue color.
 
The LTM/s-mount f1.4 Nikkor wide open is soft all over with odd bokeh. Some people may like it and call it a painterly effect, but they are better photographers than I. At f2 all that goes away and it is very sharp in the center. Outside the center highlights are still a bit smeared. Colors are rich and saturated slightly warm.

At f2:


The late West German Opton-Sonnar f1.5 is better in the center wide open. At f2 the center is sharp and the edges soft but better controlled than the Nikkor. Colors are saturated and more neutral.

Also at f2:


The f2 Nikkor I used to have was a very early version and I think the rear elements were not coated at all. This had lower contrast and less saturated color, but it's not representative of the rest of the group. I sold that years ago and moved away from the location where I tested the lenses.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
I have not used the 4cm F2 Sonnar. Lots of 5cm F2 Sonnars, but have not owned a Tenax.

I found my Five Nikkor 5cm F2 in LTM:
No caps, no filters, just lens:

Collapsible 8112168: 198g
Rigid, no click stops, 618104: 265g
Rigid, no click stops, 621144: 267g
Rigid, Click Stops, 628300: 276g
Late Black Ring, 735940: 218g

The lightweight champion: the first version.
Click to expand...
A few images using the 4cm f2 Sonnar on a Tenax II. Sorry, did not record the exposure data.French Pete Creek Oregon (6).jpgPicking Wineberries.jpgRabbits.jpgDogwood seeds.jpg
 
I don't have many Sonnar pics, but since this thread is about comparisons of "classic Sonnars" with early Nikkor-HC 5cm F2, here are a few with my classic 1950's Canon 50mm f1.5 LTM. I think most if not all were shot at either f1.5 or f2. I like eyes sharp and in focus in portraits whenever possible so stopping down just a bit to f2 helps, particularly when the subject is farther away from the camera than just a head or head and shoulders shot.

M9, Canon 50mm f1.5 LTM, I believe @f2. All natural light with strong backlight from the sun just out of frame causing a little flare and local reduction of contrast mostly around her face.
L1007592 by Brusby, on Flickr

M9, Canon 50mm f1.5 LTM @f2. On the river at their mother's camp
L1007601 by Brusby, on Flickr

M9, Canon 50mm f1.5 LTM @f2
L1007673 by Brusby, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Beautiful Portraits.

Finding as Canon 50/1.5 with a clean rear triplet is not always easy, but well worth it. I also found my copies were optimized for F2.

With my Canon 50/1.5, at F2 and F1.5 respectively.
nikki1a.jpgallison2_wide-open_SMALL.jpg

The first picture, shooting one-handed because the other was helping to hold my Daughter up.
The second, the neighbor is laughing and telling me I can't get her picture because she is swinging too fast.
20 Years Ago, still have the same lens, still clean optics.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
I have not used the 4cm F2 Sonnar. Lots of 5cm F2 Sonnars, but have not owned a Tenax.

I found my Five Nikkor 5cm F2 in LTM:
No caps, no filters, just lens:

Collapsible 8112168: 198g
Rigid, no click stops, 618104: 265g
Rigid, no click stops, 621144: 267g
Rigid, Click Stops, 628300: 276g
Late Black Ring, 735940: 218g

The lightweight champion: the first version.
Click to expand...
Any insights if later black belt iterations of the LTM have better coatings, resolutions, etc. than earlier versions?
 
My 1948 Collapsible bought 20 years ago looked like wax paper internally: and cleaned up perfectly. Same with one just sent to me. I have seen some of the early Rigid lenses in the 5008 through to early ones with Click-Stops added have problems with damaged coatings and etched glass on the surface after the aperture. I suspect a lubricant used for a period of production. The black-belt lenses: less of them, but all I've seen are good. Mine is perfect.
 
Rollin said:
Any insights if later black belt iterations of the LTM have better coatings, resolutions, etc. than earlier versions?
Click to expand...
Might have better coatings, yes.

But I very much doubt you will see any effect of it on the pictures. That's actually one of the reasons many chose Nikon. Their lenses are remarkably consistent in rendition. This is of course if they are in comparable condition - if one's trashed and the other isn't ... well..

I have an early 1949 or so collapsible f2 lens and a very late f2. They render almost identically. Same with the 5005xx 1.4 and a later (but still labelled Tokyo) one... very very similar rendering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom