Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Did any manufacturer ever make any Nikon or Contax mount wide-angle lenses (wider than 35mm) faster than the f/3.5 we see normally? I love the 2.8cm f/3.5 Nikkor because it's sharp, incredibly small and light. I'd just love another stop of speed.
Sub question: has anyone modified any faster 28mm or 24mm lenses for use on a Nikon RF? I'm thinking WITH RF coupling so this would be a permanent mod sacrificing two lenses probably.
I'm just ruminating on how wonderful it would be to have a 28mm f/2 hanging off the front of my SP.
Phil Forrest
Sub question: has anyone modified any faster 28mm or 24mm lenses for use on a Nikon RF? I'm thinking WITH RF coupling so this would be a permanent mod sacrificing two lenses probably.
I'm just ruminating on how wonderful it would be to have a 28mm f/2 hanging off the front of my SP.
Phil Forrest
back alley
IMAGES
the cv wides for nikon...but they aren't fast...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It's very hard to get the rear element of a fast wide through the ridiculously tiny hole in a Contax lens mount. This is no doubt one of the many reasons why Contax/Nikon RFs dried up and blew away in the early 1960s. By then, Leica was already offering a 35/1.4.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I think Canon made a (now extremely hard to find) 2.8/28 in the Contax mount. Edit: no I guess it was a 3.5 after all.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Well, Nikon made a wonderful 35mm f/1.8 in 1956. They made a good 28mm f/3.5 since 1952. In those years, Leica made only 35mm f/3.5 and 28mm f/6.3 and f/5.6 lenses. Leica made a 35mm f/1.4 in 1960 (hardly usable at that speed) and a 28mm f2.8 in 1965. A faster 28mm came many years later, 2000. So the differences in the early 1960's were actually very small. Nikon made in the early 1960's a working prototype 35mm f/1.4, but this lens was never put in production.
Erik.
VinceC
Veteran
No one to my knowledge ever did this. It's an issue you have to live with in the Nikon system.
I don't think the limiting factor is the size of the Contax/Nikon mount. Glass on the 35/1.8 is quite large. Most Nikon/Leica adapters come with serious limitations on existing wides because the rear elements of the Nikkor lenses (21mm, fast 35, etc) will interfere with Leica M focusing and metering mechanisms.
Mainly, I would say the reason for this is that the popularity of the Nikon F meant the bottom fell out of their RF market just as faster lenses were becoming more technically feasible.
I don't think the limiting factor is the size of the Contax/Nikon mount. Glass on the 35/1.8 is quite large. Most Nikon/Leica adapters come with serious limitations on existing wides because the rear elements of the Nikkor lenses (21mm, fast 35, etc) will interfere with Leica M focusing and metering mechanisms.
Mainly, I would say the reason for this is that the popularity of the Nikon F meant the bottom fell out of their RF market just as faster lenses were becoming more technically feasible.
thompsonks
Well-known
"Leica made a 35mm f/1.4 in 1960 (hardly usable at that speed)...."
Puh-leeze! We call those aberrations 'Leica glow.'
Kirk
Puh-leeze! We call those aberrations 'Leica glow.'
Kirk
enasniearth
Well-known
Nikkor 1.8 summilux 1.4
Nikkor 1.8 summilux 1.4
I had both these lenses back in 1990 , both performed very well ,
Kept the summilux due to the nice quick focus tab . The nikkor
Was not as quick to focus with the infinity lock and more rotation
To achieve close focus . The summilux will only focus to 3 feet , just a
Little closer than the nikkor .
At 1.4 the summilux is sharp , however it loses contrast opening up
From f2 , so appears not as sharp .
The nikkor 35/1.8 is a great lens , perhaps as good as the summicron ,
And performs as well as the summilux .
The nikkor 28/3.5 is still regarded as one of the best in this focal length .
All the leitz wide angles wider than 35 were f 2.8 or slower , until
The recent incarnation of high specification summicron and summilux
Of f2 and 1.4
The nikkor is about 1/2 the price of a 2.8 leitz lens , and very cheap compared to the recent high spec leitz offerings .
Since the optical center of the 28 nikkor is deep in the body ,
My experience is that you can shoot at 1/15 second with nice results .
Nikkor 1.8 summilux 1.4
I had both these lenses back in 1990 , both performed very well ,
Kept the summilux due to the nice quick focus tab . The nikkor
Was not as quick to focus with the infinity lock and more rotation
To achieve close focus . The summilux will only focus to 3 feet , just a
Little closer than the nikkor .
At 1.4 the summilux is sharp , however it loses contrast opening up
From f2 , so appears not as sharp .
The nikkor 35/1.8 is a great lens , perhaps as good as the summicron ,
And performs as well as the summilux .
The nikkor 28/3.5 is still regarded as one of the best in this focal length .
All the leitz wide angles wider than 35 were f 2.8 or slower , until
The recent incarnation of high specification summicron and summilux
Of f2 and 1.4
The nikkor is about 1/2 the price of a 2.8 leitz lens , and very cheap compared to the recent high spec leitz offerings .
Since the optical center of the 28 nikkor is deep in the body ,
My experience is that you can shoot at 1/15 second with nice results .
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It is unlikely, as the stock wide angle on the Contax almost from day one was the 35/2.8 Biogon - the fastest wide angle for many years. And while that sits very close to the shutter, it is a less tight fit in the actual mount than e.g. the 50/1.5. If any, Zeiss (who were in a class of their own in wide angle designs at that time) held off building 28mm and wider lenses based on the same f/2.8 Biogon design because the 35mm already hit the limits of the Contax shutter box (and later exceeded those of the Contax IIa).
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Come on kids, this is the Nikon RF forum! Given the mount compatibility for shorter focal lengths, Contax wides are on topic, and comparisons to Leica wides may be historically relevant - but merely listing recent SLR wides is rather beyond being on topic...
grapejohnson
Well-known
True, but at the same time RF lenses can be so prohibitively expensive that it's good to keep in mind other options --
VinceC
Veteran
Let's not forget the Contax landmark Biogon 21/4.5 of the mid-'50s -- still holds its own against modern competition except for the extraordinary weight.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Now modification of lenses...
Now modification of lenses...
Thanks for the replies. Coming from years of Leica into the Nikon RF system, I had forgotten that the latter was cast off by the time Leica had the 2nd version of the Summilux out in the mid 60's.
Considering the Nikon RF has the focusing mount built in and we have wide angle lenses that could serve as wide-angle helicoid donors (I'm talking the CV lenses) there is only the prospect of butchering of the lenses which stops someone from shoehorning a fast wide into a Nikon. I'm thinking Olympus 24mm f/2. The rear element of the superlative Canon FD 24/1.4 is too big to get into a Nikon RF but it could be done with a Leica M body. Getting RF coupling would be easier on the Nikon RF since the 51.6mm normal focusing rate is built into the body.
I just keep looking at this SP and the gloom outside (Portland, Oregon area) which necessitate superspeed film or a superspeed lens (when it's not raining and I don't need a Nikonos.)
Thanks all.
Phil Forrest
Now modification of lenses...
Thanks for the replies. Coming from years of Leica into the Nikon RF system, I had forgotten that the latter was cast off by the time Leica had the 2nd version of the Summilux out in the mid 60's.
Considering the Nikon RF has the focusing mount built in and we have wide angle lenses that could serve as wide-angle helicoid donors (I'm talking the CV lenses) there is only the prospect of butchering of the lenses which stops someone from shoehorning a fast wide into a Nikon. I'm thinking Olympus 24mm f/2. The rear element of the superlative Canon FD 24/1.4 is too big to get into a Nikon RF but it could be done with a Leica M body. Getting RF coupling would be easier on the Nikon RF since the 51.6mm normal focusing rate is built into the body.
I just keep looking at this SP and the gloom outside (Portland, Oregon area) which necessitate superspeed film or a superspeed lens (when it's not raining and I don't need a Nikonos.)
Thanks all.
Phil Forrest
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It will be more complex than that - retrofocal SLR lenses are designed to have a pretty wide space behind them. The mount might be too narrow to allow for a fast lens of that design, fully open, without vignetting. Besides, the ultra fast (f/1.4) ones tend to have complex helicoid steered CRC/moving group constructions that are critical to their performance, and which could not be transplanted short of designing and machining a entirely new complex multi-stage helicoid.
Mid speed Leica M lenses (and if you are willing to spend more for less coverage, cine lenses) would be more likely donors, and the 35mm f/2 ones look very much as if they could be made to fit. But who is going to butcher a Summicron-M ASPH (or Biogon 35/2) and a Nikon mount 35mm f/2.5 CV, when the price of a extra M6 to go with the former would be lower than the price of the latter lens and conversion cost, for the benefit of a 2/3 stop?
VinceC
Veteran
I did nearly all my RF work in often-overcast Germany, so I can relate to the original poster's plight.
Concerning Leica 35mm lenses, the existing Nikkor 35/1.8 is considered by most Nikon RF users to be one of the finest lenses ever produced, and it tends to be more affordable than it's Leitz alternatives, so there's no practical need. The original poster was asking about 28mm and wider.
I long ago ended up using a compromise of carrying of 21/4 and 28/3.5 for 90 percent of wide work, and relying on the 35/1.8 for low light. I dislike carrying a 28 and 35 at the same time, but that's the tradeoff for both speed and wideness. The 28/3.5 is only about a half-stop slower than a 2.8 and is an excellent lens that I shoot usually wide open all the time.
You could probably get around the three-lens wide conundrum by pairing the 35/1.8 with a CV or vintage 25/4. The CV is a superlative lens, but I've grown too fond of the built-in 28mm viewfinder on an SP as well as the S3's ability to accurately frame a 28mm with a bit of practice.
In the Nikon F-mount, I used to rely exclusively on the 24/2.8 as my wide. With the Nikon RF mount, I usually up carrying three separate wides (21/28/35) in order to deal with the issues of speed and built-in vs separate viewfinder.
Concerning Leica 35mm lenses, the existing Nikkor 35/1.8 is considered by most Nikon RF users to be one of the finest lenses ever produced, and it tends to be more affordable than it's Leitz alternatives, so there's no practical need. The original poster was asking about 28mm and wider.
I long ago ended up using a compromise of carrying of 21/4 and 28/3.5 for 90 percent of wide work, and relying on the 35/1.8 for low light. I dislike carrying a 28 and 35 at the same time, but that's the tradeoff for both speed and wideness. The 28/3.5 is only about a half-stop slower than a 2.8 and is an excellent lens that I shoot usually wide open all the time.
You could probably get around the three-lens wide conundrum by pairing the 35/1.8 with a CV or vintage 25/4. The CV is a superlative lens, but I've grown too fond of the built-in 28mm viewfinder on an SP as well as the S3's ability to accurately frame a 28mm with a bit of practice.
In the Nikon F-mount, I used to rely exclusively on the 24/2.8 as my wide. With the Nikon RF mount, I usually up carrying three separate wides (21/28/35) in order to deal with the issues of speed and built-in vs separate viewfinder.