You just have a defective lens. Most likely due to some DIYS repair self taught tech.
The 50/1.4 made Nikon's original reputation and sales success via the NYT and DDD.
Let's Talk Film Era 35mm Rangefinder Versus SLR Lenses
- Thread starter das
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 27
- Views 4K
You just have a defective lens. Most likely due to some DIYS repair self taught tech.
The 50/1.4 made Nikon's original reputation and sales success via the NYT and DDD.
Huss
Veteran
Other people with the same lens have reported the same results as me. The lens is in perfect physical shape with no signs of being opened.
Most photojournalism does not rely on infinity landscape shots. It is great at close to mid range photos.
Looking at DDD's pics, they are all close to mid. And freakin amazing.
I took this with my Nikor-S 5cm 1.4, and it looks great even pixel peeping but it was at mid range-ish. Things fall apart at infinity.
If you are not getting good infinity results with that lens, you have a problem with your lens, your camera, or maybe scanning.
Post about your results in the NRF forum or NRF facebook page.
You will soon learn your results are not typical.
Huss
Veteran
No issues at infinity with other lenses. Others using a lens like this have reported the same at infinity. There is a thread on it on this site.
DennisM
Established
Lenses
Lenses
Let me take a different tack to this discussion perhaps deviating from the stated definition of the forum. But, here goes anyway. I've been scanning B&W negatives from my early days in photography when I used Minolta SR-T bodies & Minolta lenses. Also scanning negatives exposed with a Minolta CLE, Leicas (M3, M4, M5, M6, M7), Konica Hexar RF, etc using various Leica, Minolta, Konica, Canon and Nikon lenses, both screw and bayonet mount. Also, my Father's Crown Graphic 2x3 with a roll-film back (f/4.5 Ektar) and Mamiya 6 with several Mamiya lenses.
Guess what? For my purposes, evaluating 5x7 prints all the way up to prints on 13x 19 paper, I really can't tell the difference between prints exposed with Minolta SLR lenses and Leica mount lenses (my "best" Leica lens is a 35mm f/2.8 Summaron). Oh maybe, if one were to ultra critically evaluate my negatives and prints, one could detect significant differences, but I doubt it. I find that Minolta lenses are superb; and the 101mm f/4.5 Ektar is superb as well; 99% of total rolls developed by yours truly. From when I started in photography, lens quality has been consistently great. Differences between lenses are minimal at best and only at the margin as far as I'm concerned. What's meaningful to me is the image. In the end, that's what really counts isn't it?
Lenses
Let me take a different tack to this discussion perhaps deviating from the stated definition of the forum. But, here goes anyway. I've been scanning B&W negatives from my early days in photography when I used Minolta SR-T bodies & Minolta lenses. Also scanning negatives exposed with a Minolta CLE, Leicas (M3, M4, M5, M6, M7), Konica Hexar RF, etc using various Leica, Minolta, Konica, Canon and Nikon lenses, both screw and bayonet mount. Also, my Father's Crown Graphic 2x3 with a roll-film back (f/4.5 Ektar) and Mamiya 6 with several Mamiya lenses.
Guess what? For my purposes, evaluating 5x7 prints all the way up to prints on 13x 19 paper, I really can't tell the difference between prints exposed with Minolta SLR lenses and Leica mount lenses (my "best" Leica lens is a 35mm f/2.8 Summaron). Oh maybe, if one were to ultra critically evaluate my negatives and prints, one could detect significant differences, but I doubt it. I find that Minolta lenses are superb; and the 101mm f/4.5 Ektar is superb as well; 99% of total rolls developed by yours truly. From when I started in photography, lens quality has been consistently great. Differences between lenses are minimal at best and only at the margin as far as I'm concerned. What's meaningful to me is the image. In the end, that's what really counts isn't it?
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Thank you Dennis.... I agree that's what counts
kymarto
Member
There are a lot of myths about the optical qualities of Leitz lenses' optical performance which simply is not true. It's a bit like asking if a Chevrolet Impala from the 1960s can accelerate as fast as a Rolls Royce of the same era. There are plenty of lenses from the era that were as good or better optically than the Leitz M lenses, and in many cases, in a number of optical categories they were better. A lot of those Leitz lenses are very sharp in the center but quite soft in the corners. They tend to have severe light falloff. There was no magic in those days: optical designs for normal and tele lenses, at least, were the same for both rf and slr lenses. Where those Leica lenses excelled was in build quality foremost, and of course quality control. But there are plenty of slr lenses that could give Leitz and Zeiss lenses a run for their money. As always, there are better and lesser performiing Leitz and Zeiss lenses, and better and lesser performing lenses by Nikon, Canon, Meyer, Steinheil, Schneider, Tominon, Topcon, and the like. You just have to investigate.
David Hughes
David Hughes
kymarto "There are a lot of myths about the optical qualities of Leitz lenses' optical performance which simply is not true."
I think that applies to everything. And there is a lot of vagueness about what "best" means when applied to a lens. In my early post I mentioned 12" x 8" prints. If I can't see any faults with them I reckon a lens is good and that applies even when I see one fault since a lot of people don't look at the photo as a print but simply look at the image in the print.
In other words I see 9 out of 10 points as excellent but that could be because I've never seen one that scores 10 out of 10. Apart from the adverts of course but all lenses are brilliant etc when brand new; 50 years later we may think differently.
Another factor we forget is that using a lens in a digital camera the software adjust the image, well it does with some; even my V3 Summicron is in the M9's menu...
Regards, David
I think that applies to everything. And there is a lot of vagueness about what "best" means when applied to a lens. In my early post I mentioned 12" x 8" prints. If I can't see any faults with them I reckon a lens is good and that applies even when I see one fault since a lot of people don't look at the photo as a print but simply look at the image in the print.
In other words I see 9 out of 10 points as excellent but that could be because I've never seen one that scores 10 out of 10. Apart from the adverts of course but all lenses are brilliant etc when brand new; 50 years later we may think differently.
Another factor we forget is that using a lens in a digital camera the software adjust the image, well it does with some; even my V3 Summicron is in the M9's menu...
Regards, David
Similar threads
- Article
