Early Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4's and Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 compared

[Sonnar Brian]

The 5005 arrived today, just as clouds rolled in. So this is a physical comparison first.

1) 5005 weighs more that the Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5, but less than the 326xxx early NKJ Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4.
2) The exposed helical of the lens is chrome, like the Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5.
3) The diameter of the optics is the same as the 326xxx F1.4 lenses. At some time between 326xxx and 346xxx the diameter of the optics and fixtures increased about 1mm. I have speculated this was in preparation of the Nikon S2 and 24x36 format, up from the Nikon M and S 24x34.
4) The IR index is Black paint, like the F1.5 lens.
5) The aperture ring is shiny chrome, like the F1.5. The 326xxx lenses use brushed chrome.
6) four screws holding the mount are exposed, easy to get to like the F1.5. Later lenses- internal.
Probably more...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The F1.5 is not much lighter. I expected a bigger difference.
Stops down to F11, no click stops.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

326xxx #1,
Exposed helical is left in brass finish, external screws are gone from the mount.
IR index in Red.
Brushed Chrome aperture ring.
Lens is heavier.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

And 326xxx #2. Identical to the prior one.

 

[brusby]

Nice. Don't want to rush you, but I'm anxious to see how they compare on a variety of subjects both wide open and at f2, particularly to see how they handle veiling flare, if any.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Took the first picture with the 5005: will need more time for meaningful tests. Yes, this lens has more flare to it. The coating is light, and not as effective as the later 326xxx lenses. The latter- deep blue reflections in the coating. The older lens, including the F1.5: coatigs are not as effective. The difference- the curvature of the optics in the F1.4 is greater than the F1.5. I've shot the 326xxx side-by-side with the 5cm F1.5, and could not understand what DDD was talking about. Now I do.

 

[brusby]

Interesting. Just to be clear, I'm using the term "veiling flare" kinda loosely to refer to the loss of contrast and somewhat hazy look often seen in these lenses at the widest aperture, which usually cleans up significantly by even f2. So, probably more a combination of spherical aberration and/or other uncorrected anomalies besides just flare from differences in coatings.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I've got a 5005 and a later 300000 series and for my copies, the 5005 is slightly sharper at the wider apertures. But as these lenses are now 75-ish years old, each copy can is unique, so your mileage may vary.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I've been walking around outside, sunny day, with the 5005 Nikkor. What I notice: the coatings are not very effective in reducing reflections. I'd almost "GUESS" that the index of refraction for the coatings and the glass way way off.

The 5005 Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5, Desk Lamp shining on me as I look into the lens.
Face in the Frost, or
Ghost in the Machine?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The 326xxx. This lens is early, before the diameter of the optics and fixture was increased.
The coatings reflect back as deep blue, like they should for a single-coated optic optimized for visible light.
Scary Monsters...



I have not checked if the optics changed, like different curvature and spacing.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The 5cm F1.5. Hard to tell how much of a difference from the picture, but to the eye: it is substantially less than the 5005, but more than the 326xxx.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Focus is spot on, exactly the same as my F1.5.

F1.4 and F4 pairs.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

More F1.4 and F4 Pairs.
Note the flare- this is with a matched Walz Hood made for the Nikkor.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Just to add- I'll be looking for a day where Nina and Nikki are out, and I will head up to the Marine Museum at Quantico. I'll do the side-by-side test there, with the displays setup for the Chosin Reservoir, which is where DDD took the best photographs ever taken with these Nikkor lenses.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I took the front fixture off of my S-Mount Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4, SN 338815. It is the same diameter for the inner and outer diameter of the front group of the 326xxx Nikkors, 36.6mm and 41.44mm respectively. That narrows the change in optical formula to between 333815 and 346xxx. The latter- is "around" the time that the Nikon S2 was in development. 349xxx is pictured in my Nikon S2 manual.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I took the 5005 series 5cm F1.4 and my later 326x LTM Nikkor 5cm F1.4 to the Skating Rink today.
Wide-Open, on the Nikon Z5. They finally dimmed the main lights and went Disco.

This lens performed well in the harsh lighting. In this situation, I could not see a difference between this Nikkor and the newer 326x, which has different coatings.

 

[TenEleven]

I have found the same thing.
My very good condition 5005x with it's coatings fully intact is virtually indistinguishable from my later 316xxx "Tokyo" Nikkor.

To be honest I was a bit disappointed that after a long search, finally managing to get this lens very cheaply ($90!!) in 2024 after hearing all the myths around it. To find out it more or less behaved like the 316xxx 5cm f1.4 Nikkors. Not a bad lens by any stretch! But for me it at least did not live up to all the myth-making around it, especially in Japan.

From a precision manufacture perspective, I guess one also has to credit Nikon for their remarkable consistency across lenses and lens lines.

 

[brusby]

Y'all are better than I if you can draw any conclusions under heavy artificial lights. And I'm not being facetious. I almost always have to have some familiar subject, such as a home interior or landscape that I'm used to, or a friends face under good, hopefully natural (and not mixed) lighting. That's one reason I have so many natural light portraits and landscapes when I'm testing a new lens or camera. That way I can get an idea if things are looking natural or not.

But you're probably familiar enough with the lighting at that location to be able to make valid comparisons. I'd have a very difficult time. Thanks for the feedback about those lenses.

 

[TenEleven]

I have "tested"* my 5005 under a variety of conditions - mostly on film (the way it was meant to be played)... and what I found matches what Brian says.
He also has natural light shots up above..

*in scare quotes because for me testing is to just shoot the lens normally for what I like to shoot, after I have done an initial check that the lens is mechanically and optically OK

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I've been taking my Daughter to this skating rink for over 15 years, shooting with a lot of lenses. Given DDD's remarks on the first generation Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4: I was looking to see crazy reflections and all types of flare. Testing is not done yet, but it held up with some intense back lighting. I'm thinking the DDD comment about Flare being worse than the F1.5 may refer to sunlight hitting the front element. I have an S-Mount 5005 Nikkor 5cm F1.4, optics are the same- but wanted to compare the LTM with the F1.5 LTM. My S-Mount version, someone crushed the filter ring to take 40.5mm filters. I straightened it out enough to place a 43mm to S-VI adapter on it, then used silver tape to cover the damage. Optics are near perfect. For $30 with a Nikon M-Sync on the back of it, no complaints...