VinceC
Veteran
I gave away my only Zeiss lens a couple of years ago. I do have a Kiev Jupiter lens.
I suppose someone could solve the focal-length question by very precisely shooting a Zeiss and Nikkor 50mm lens at infinity on the same camera body, with some kind of boring brick-wall target. If one lens really is longer than the other, then one lens at infinity will show a little more telephone effect than the other.
I suppose someone could solve the focal-length question by very precisely shooting a Zeiss and Nikkor 50mm lens at infinity on the same camera body, with some kind of boring brick-wall target. If one lens really is longer than the other, then one lens at infinity will show a little more telephone effect than the other.
kid_a
Established
Well, I must admit, this thread has completely lost me! haha.. Anyway, I think I ordered the CV 25/4, so I won't have to worry about Contax mount stuff for now at least. From my research, it looks like the 15/25/50 will be my S2 kit. I'm not a big fan of tele, and especially with RF, I don't think I'll have the patience for it! Especially with a non-parralax corrected body like the S2.
I have already shot 6 rolls of black and white, I just bought 8 mroe rolls! Excited to use them all, and compare. I'll be doing my own developing soon, should have all the supplies tracked down for tomorrow. This thing has really taken my attention lately, all of my free time has been dedicated to the S2 and to various research I've been doing about it, and the RF philosophy in general.
I shot a roll of C41 to have done at my local lab last night, just because I was getting very impatient. I should get the prints and negs back tonight, and post some examples when I get home from work tonight. See you then.
Dylan
I have already shot 6 rolls of black and white, I just bought 8 mroe rolls! Excited to use them all, and compare. I'll be doing my own developing soon, should have all the supplies tracked down for tomorrow. This thing has really taken my attention lately, all of my free time has been dedicated to the S2 and to various research I've been doing about it, and the RF philosophy in general.
I shot a roll of C41 to have done at my local lab last night, just because I was getting very impatient. I should get the prints and negs back tonight, and post some examples when I get home from work tonight. See you then.
Dylan
VinceC
Veteran
You'll have to hunt for an extremely rare, rare adapter to be able to shoot 15mm on an Nikon RF system. CV makes the 15mm in F mount, and long ago sold out of the very few F-to-RF adapters they made. If y0u find one, grab it quick. If you find two, get 'em both and drop me a note. 
kid_a
Established
Can't wait to try everything
furcafe
Veteran
I wish someone w/optical expertise like Brian Sweeney were here to explain it themselves, but I think he did a good job in this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59603
And Dante Stella touches on many of the same issues here:
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html
My understanding of why the focal length difference matters, even a difference of less than 1mm, is that: (1) it directly affects the distance from the film plane that the normal lens has to move from closest focus to infinity focus; & (2) that distance is, in turn, effectively enshrined in the RF mechanism because it is standardized around the normal lens. As Mr. Stella noted in his article, the RF mechanism in all Leicas are built around the 51.6mm standard--while an individual "50mm" lens may vary from this standard focal length, adjustments are made w/shims, etc. in the lens itself to ensure that both the optics focus correctly from closest focus distance to infinity & that the entire focus range is accurately translated by the RF mechanism (e.g., Mr. Stella's reference to the special mounts for the DR Summicrons). The key point is, as Mr. Stella writes, that "the camera body does not know the focal length of the lens mounted." On wides & telephotos, the adjustments get more elaborate, but the idea is the same; the helicals & cams are made to ensure that the RF pickup moves the exact same distance as that on a normal lens, even though the optics may move a lot more or less relative to the film plane than a normal lens would.
The same principles apply to a Contax (or Contax-style system like the Nikon), i.e., the optical unit must move a certain distance from the film plane between closest focus & infinity & the RF is calibrated to that range of distances, w/the only difference being that the helical for the "50mm" lens is built into every camera body. The in-lens adjustments for wides & teles have to do the same thing that their Leica counterparts do, only via the external bayonet helicals. I can only assume that variations in focal length between individual normal lenses were dealt w/by adjusting the optical units since they don't have their own helicals.
Just like a Leica body, a Contax (or Nikon) body thinks that every lens is a normal lens, but because of the focal length difference between the Leitz & Zeiss standards, the distance that the optical unit has to travel from closest focus distance to infinity is different. As Mr. Sweeney wrote in the thread, "[t]he distance that [a 51.6mm lens] moves from the film as it is focussed between 3ft and infinity is smaller than the distance that a 52.4mm lens moves when focussed between 3ft and infinity." Thus, because the "50mm" helical is built into every Contax & Nikon RF body, you have the difference in rotational angle (formerly thought to be pitch) between the 2 helicals, as seen in the visibly different focus scales between the 2 systems.
Chris
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59603
And Dante Stella touches on many of the same issues here:
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html
My understanding of why the focal length difference matters, even a difference of less than 1mm, is that: (1) it directly affects the distance from the film plane that the normal lens has to move from closest focus to infinity focus; & (2) that distance is, in turn, effectively enshrined in the RF mechanism because it is standardized around the normal lens. As Mr. Stella noted in his article, the RF mechanism in all Leicas are built around the 51.6mm standard--while an individual "50mm" lens may vary from this standard focal length, adjustments are made w/shims, etc. in the lens itself to ensure that both the optics focus correctly from closest focus distance to infinity & that the entire focus range is accurately translated by the RF mechanism (e.g., Mr. Stella's reference to the special mounts for the DR Summicrons). The key point is, as Mr. Stella writes, that "the camera body does not know the focal length of the lens mounted." On wides & telephotos, the adjustments get more elaborate, but the idea is the same; the helicals & cams are made to ensure that the RF pickup moves the exact same distance as that on a normal lens, even though the optics may move a lot more or less relative to the film plane than a normal lens would.
The same principles apply to a Contax (or Contax-style system like the Nikon), i.e., the optical unit must move a certain distance from the film plane between closest focus & infinity & the RF is calibrated to that range of distances, w/the only difference being that the helical for the "50mm" lens is built into every camera body. The in-lens adjustments for wides & teles have to do the same thing that their Leica counterparts do, only via the external bayonet helicals. I can only assume that variations in focal length between individual normal lenses were dealt w/by adjusting the optical units since they don't have their own helicals.
Just like a Leica body, a Contax (or Nikon) body thinks that every lens is a normal lens, but because of the focal length difference between the Leitz & Zeiss standards, the distance that the optical unit has to travel from closest focus distance to infinity is different. As Mr. Sweeney wrote in the thread, "[t]he distance that [a 51.6mm lens] moves from the film as it is focussed between 3ft and infinity is smaller than the distance that a 52.4mm lens moves when focussed between 3ft and infinity." Thus, because the "50mm" helical is built into every Contax & Nikon RF body, you have the difference in rotational angle (formerly thought to be pitch) between the 2 helicals, as seen in the visibly different focus scales between the 2 systems.
Chris
Last edited:
kid_a
Established
You'll have to hunt for an extremely rare, rare adapter to be able to shoot 15mm on an Nikon RF system. CV makes the 15mm in F mount, and long ago sold out of the very few F-to-RF adapters they made. If y0u find one, grab it quick. If you find two, get 'em both and drop me a note.
Oh really? Too bad. The 15 isn't essential anyway. The 25 and the 50 with do me fine for a very long time
VinceC
Veteran
The biggest disadvantage of the Nikon RF mount is that it is an orphaned lens system. It was discontinued more than 40 years ago, briefly resumed by Nikon for a limited run of handbuilt cameras and by CV for a limited run of lenses and cameras. All those efforts seem to have been discontinued at this point.
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
wjlapier
Well-known
Oh really? Too bad. The 15 isn't essential anyway. The 25 and the 50 with do me fine for a very long time
If you want super wide check out the Zeiss 21/4.5 Biogon. A little pricey, but a splendid lens to use. What a chunk of brass and glass
And sharp too.
Sure its been done before Kiu. Successfully. With a Contax mount Tessar 5cm f3.5 on his S3, Golaithus showed us here that the actual focus point was 10cm behind the focus point indicated by the distance scale on the camera, whereas with his Millennium 50/1.4 there was no such error. What that means in practical use is another matter of course.
Last edited:
kid_a
Established
Here is a small selection of my first roll of 24 exposures.. These are just scans of actual prints, can't be bothered to actually scan the negs for the test roll. Keep in mind, they're boring because I shot the entire roll in about 4 minutes at the end of a work day, after we closed. I just was too excited to wait for the developing stuff I have coming tomorrow, so I burned through this roll to get it done C-41 in the lab
I am VERY impressed. Contrast and sharpness really are top notch, even at 1,4 I seem to be getting great results. I really can't wait to shoot some more with this beautiful machine! I'm very happy and excited about my purchse.
Is there a limit to the amount of photos generally accepted? From the 24 I scanned 12 of them to show..
Here they are, let me know if it's a bit too many:
I am VERY impressed. Contrast and sharpness really are top notch, even at 1,4 I seem to be getting great results. I really can't wait to shoot some more with this beautiful machine! I'm very happy and excited about my purchse.
Is there a limit to the amount of photos generally accepted? From the 24 I scanned 12 of them to show..
Here they are, let me know if it's a bit too many:
Last edited:
Jan Van Laethem
Nikkor. What else?
I spotted a diopter correction accessory on this page a while back
http://kevincameras.com/
I'm not sure if the link takes you straight to the home page or not. If it does, click on NIKON RF, then on the album MISC. You will find the diopters at the end of page 2. These do not attach via the accessory shoe on the camera, but directly to the viewfinder. Are we talking about a different device altogether? Kevin claims this is new old stock but doesn't quote any prices. Not that I'd like to ask though, I'm sure they will be very expensive.
"Extremely Rare,once in your lifetime!!! available on +1.5,+2.5,+3.5,+4.5,+5,-1.0,-2.5,-3.5,-5 "
http://kevincameras.com/gallery/album129
http://kevincameras.com/gallery/album129
Jan Van Laethem
Nikkor. What else?
These must have been on his website for a long time, it mentions "last change 05/07/05". Anyway, anyone wants to ask how much they go for?
awilder
Alan Wilder
Thanks for the pix of the diopter lenses, I stand corrected. I must be thinking of diopter corrector from another company, possibly Zeiss.
furcafe
Veteran
Or possibly diopters for the later Nikon models, which don't have the same eyepiece design.
wes loder
Photographer/Historian
Are you thinking of the eyepiece magnifier and diopter corrector that Nikon made around 1950 that fit the early Nikons? It fit the accessory shoe and placed a magnifier over the viewfinder to offer better focusing accuracy. The attachment included another accessory show for mounting a separate finder. Never officially imported into the United States as far as I know. It is in Bob's book. WES
kid_a
Established
Anyone have any opinions on the VC 21/4 and the VC 25/4? I got a call back from the Camera Store saying that they can't get the 25/4 at the advertised price
Ignore the focal length and stuff, that's up to me, but what about sharpness, build quality, size/weight etc?
Thanks again! This thread is a goldmine already haha
Ignore the focal length and stuff, that's up to me, but what about sharpness, build quality, size/weight etc?
Thanks again! This thread is a goldmine already haha
kid_a
Established
Or any other wide angle suggestion would be great. I want to keep it under $600 though. 35 or wider
awilder
Alan Wilder
I've used the 21/4 and I suspect the 25/4 is equally good. Image quality is excellent and only exceeded by offerings by Zeiss and Leica. Build quality is very good although not as rock solid Leica or Zeiss. OTOH it's beats the heck out of the 25/4 Nikkor epecially with the ergonomics. If you plan on getting only one wide angle to complement the 50, I'd go for a 28/3.5 or 25/4 CV. Both are real gems. You might have to bite the bullet on price, I suspect it's a sellers market now that CV stopped production on these lenses in the SC mount. Obviously if you plan on buying more wide angles, a 35/2.5 Nikkor shouldn't be hard to find and would be a natural (same optic as the 35/2.5 for the Nikonos). In that case, I go more towards a 21 or 25 as my wider lens to complement a 35.
Last edited: