keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
The latest blog post on Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights features the Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4, the lens that was paired with the final run of black S3's for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics.
The author of the post, Haruo Sato, was responsible for the production of the later "Millennium" lens which came with the 2000-2002 S3 Limited Edition cameras, and is a Nikon expert with decades of experience at the company. There is a lot of really fascinating information in here! If you aren't familiar with the series, it covers many great classic Nikkor lenses, including many of the S-mount lenses.
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/s...Zl1-MjyGAT1lB14Q7oKT51C-M93vrdHUmmgrRx_ZzqJ34
The author of the post, Haruo Sato, was responsible for the production of the later "Millennium" lens which came with the 2000-2002 S3 Limited Edition cameras, and is a Nikon expert with decades of experience at the company. There is a lot of really fascinating information in here! If you aren't familiar with the series, it covers many great classic Nikkor lenses, including many of the S-mount lenses.
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/s...Zl1-MjyGAT1lB14Q7oKT51C-M93vrdHUmmgrRx_ZzqJ34
Interesting article. How many errors did you spot in it? I spotted at least three! Even Nikon engineers can have rusty memories at times 
First one, the "Olympic Nikkor" (the lens was around for the 1964 Olympics so the nickname is deserved) first appeared on the first batch of reissue Nikon SPs manufactured in 1963-4 (the SPs with s/n's starting with 623xxxx), not on the so called "Olympic S3s". There's documented evident of this.
Second, the so called "Olympic S3s" weren't manufactured until 1965 (released in late 1965). Newspaper clippings from late 1965 proving this exist. But to be fair, Sato-san did include a question mark at the end of "for the Nikon S3, the production of which was resumed in 1964" so he's leaving room for doubt there
Third, the reissue Nikon S3s (and Nikon SPs) were manufactured at Mito Nikon, not Sendai Nikon. You'll find that elsewhere on Nikon's website (here, for example). Mito Nikon is also where the F3 and FM3A were manufactured, as well as other cameras.
More details on the "Olympic Nikkor and "Olympic S3" below:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148099
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1341479&highlight=newspaper#post1341479
Might try reading through the article more slowly later to see how many more errors I can find!
First one, the "Olympic Nikkor" (the lens was around for the 1964 Olympics so the nickname is deserved) first appeared on the first batch of reissue Nikon SPs manufactured in 1963-4 (the SPs with s/n's starting with 623xxxx), not on the so called "Olympic S3s". There's documented evident of this.
Second, the so called "Olympic S3s" weren't manufactured until 1965 (released in late 1965). Newspaper clippings from late 1965 proving this exist. But to be fair, Sato-san did include a question mark at the end of "for the Nikon S3, the production of which was resumed in 1964" so he's leaving room for doubt there
Third, the reissue Nikon S3s (and Nikon SPs) were manufactured at Mito Nikon, not Sendai Nikon. You'll find that elsewhere on Nikon's website (here, for example). Mito Nikon is also where the F3 and FM3A were manufactured, as well as other cameras.
More details on the "Olympic Nikkor and "Olympic S3" below:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148099
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1341479&highlight=newspaper#post1341479
Might try reading through the article more slowly later to see how many more errors I can find!
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Thanks Jon. I thought there was some funny stuff with some of the dates, but I did not know about the first fact you mentioned. They ought to hire you as a fact checker! However, I did find some info on the lens interesting, like the modification from 51.6mm to 52mm when changing from Sonnar to Gauss design.
The lens info is indeed interesting and never made public before afaik. I've never seen that info elsewhere anyway. Thanks for posting it!
Fact checker? Nah, I've already done nine years as an in-house translator there. That's enough
Fact checker? Nah, I've already done nine years as an in-house translator there. That's enough
das
Well-known
Good catch on those errors. You should let him know.
What I have been wondering is why re-produce the 1964 Nikkor exactly (with modern coatings)? Or even the 35mm f/1.8 exactly? Since Nikon had to re-invent the entire production process anyway, it seems like a missed opportunity. The 2000 50mm f/1.4 is a pretty good lens, but it is not even as all-around good as say, a Konica M-Hexanon 50mm f/2 produced at the same time period. And the original 35mm f/1.8 has pretty noticeable focus shift -- which I would assume the new SP version also has. Any why didn't Nikon consider making Leica-mount versions of the re-issued 50 and 35 lenses if they were going to go through all the trouble anyway? This was the era of the Hexar RF, Zeiss Ikon, the M6TTL/M7, and the Bessas. Surely, people would have snapped up Leica-mount versions of rare Nikon designs.
Another interesting point in that article is the statement that 35mm-focal-length SLR lenses of the era were not that good and that pros wanted Nikon rangefinders so they could use the "superior" S lenses. Having looked at bunch of 1960s 35mm SLR lenses, it is definitely true that the 35mm f/2.5 and the 35mm f/1.8 performed better than any equivalent SLR lens of the era, where you can see on any mirrorless today their numerous shortcomings. And don't get me started on the 21mm f/4.5 Biogon -- the distortion control of that lens blew any SLR 21mm out of the water probably until the late 1980s/early 1990s.
What I have been wondering is why re-produce the 1964 Nikkor exactly (with modern coatings)? Or even the 35mm f/1.8 exactly? Since Nikon had to re-invent the entire production process anyway, it seems like a missed opportunity. The 2000 50mm f/1.4 is a pretty good lens, but it is not even as all-around good as say, a Konica M-Hexanon 50mm f/2 produced at the same time period. And the original 35mm f/1.8 has pretty noticeable focus shift -- which I would assume the new SP version also has. Any why didn't Nikon consider making Leica-mount versions of the re-issued 50 and 35 lenses if they were going to go through all the trouble anyway? This was the era of the Hexar RF, Zeiss Ikon, the M6TTL/M7, and the Bessas. Surely, people would have snapped up Leica-mount versions of rare Nikon designs.
Another interesting point in that article is the statement that 35mm-focal-length SLR lenses of the era were not that good and that pros wanted Nikon rangefinders so they could use the "superior" S lenses. Having looked at bunch of 1960s 35mm SLR lenses, it is definitely true that the 35mm f/2.5 and the 35mm f/1.8 performed better than any equivalent SLR lens of the era, where you can see on any mirrorless today their numerous shortcomings. And don't get me started on the 21mm f/4.5 Biogon -- the distortion control of that lens blew any SLR 21mm out of the water probably until the late 1980s/early 1990s.