helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
'Sonnar Brian'
Thank You, Wonderful examples...
I prefer the punchy sharpness of the f2 lens BUT the way the Light falls ever so soft with the 1.4 version at 1.4 is tempting
Thank You, Wonderful examples...
I prefer the punchy sharpness of the f2 lens BUT the way the Light falls ever so soft with the 1.4 version at 1.4 is tempting
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
'Bingley'
arghhh, Steven,You made the decision even harder
I instantly loved your f2 lens photos but the B&W f1.4 lens looks so damn good, Thank You for them.
Yes, I totally forgot about the 1.4 /amadeo lens...
arghhh, Steven,You made the decision even harder
I instantly loved your f2 lens photos but the B&W f1.4 lens looks so damn good, Thank You for them.
Yes, I totally forgot about the 1.4 /amadeo lens...
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
'bluesun267'
Thank You for the comparisons, more food for thought
Love the lazy pooch photos, giggles.
Thank You for the comparisons, more food for thought
Love the lazy pooch photos, giggles.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
A great topic! They are both good lenses. I settled on the 5cm f/2 because I prefer the less-glowy wide-open performance, and it seems to suffer less from focus shift than the 5cm f/1.4. (Being sonnars, they both exhibit some focus shift until around f/5.6 when it becomes harder to notice.) The 5cm f/2 unfortunately also suffers from pincushion distortion, while the 5cm f/1.4 has minor barrel distortion. This makes both of them poor choices for photographs with architectural elements. The contrast on both lenses is pretty low due to the old single coatings. I like to use lenses of this era for b&w photography only. Here are a few images from the 5cm f/2, I've probably shared these before.
But my favorite 50 is the "Millennium" Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4, which was sold with the S3 reissue cameras from 2000 to 2002. 10,000 of these kits were produced, and over the past 20 years many of the lenses were separated from the cameras, so you can find them on their own today. It is an excellent lens, gaussian design rather than sonnar, some nice glow wide open but not severe like the 5cm f/1.4 sonnar. It is comparable to the Summilux 50mm f/1.4 Pre-ASPH. I like using it with color film due to the more modern multicoating and higher contrast, but it is great with b&w too. It has some very slight barrel distortion. These are with the "Millennium" lens:
But my favorite 50 is the "Millennium" Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4, which was sold with the S3 reissue cameras from 2000 to 2002. 10,000 of these kits were produced, and over the past 20 years many of the lenses were separated from the cameras, so you can find them on their own today. It is an excellent lens, gaussian design rather than sonnar, some nice glow wide open but not severe like the 5cm f/1.4 sonnar. It is comparable to the Summilux 50mm f/1.4 Pre-ASPH. I like using it with color film due to the more modern multicoating and higher contrast, but it is great with b&w too. It has some very slight barrel distortion. These are with the "Millennium" lens:
james.liam
Well-known
All lovely images.
As I recall reading once upon a time, the 5cm/1.4 "made" Nippon Kogaku in the earliest years of the 1950's and was the favored lens for photojournalists heading off to the Korean War from their Tokyo-based assignments; superior to any 50mm Leica was turning out at the time. Its optimal resolution was at the near end of its focusing range so reportedly best for portraiture and such. Or infinity at small apertures. Lots of Sonar-focus shift in between, so I guess best used nowadays with an EVF on a Leica M10+ or other mirrorless bodies. I have a Canon 50/1.8 as well as a 50 Summicron Rigid that are optically superior to both Nikkors, the Leica being far better with color sensors/emulsions than the earlier Nikons.
RF Forum member Dante Stella (a genuine polymath) did a write up on the Nikkor 5cm/2 on his old website-still accessible--and he's really a fan. Impressive resolution for such an antique optic.
What's with this 'Erik gone'?!?!?
As I recall reading once upon a time, the 5cm/1.4 "made" Nippon Kogaku in the earliest years of the 1950's and was the favored lens for photojournalists heading off to the Korean War from their Tokyo-based assignments; superior to any 50mm Leica was turning out at the time. Its optimal resolution was at the near end of its focusing range so reportedly best for portraiture and such. Or infinity at small apertures. Lots of Sonar-focus shift in between, so I guess best used nowadays with an EVF on a Leica M10+ or other mirrorless bodies. I have a Canon 50/1.8 as well as a 50 Summicron Rigid that are optically superior to both Nikkors, the Leica being far better with color sensors/emulsions than the earlier Nikons.
RF Forum member Dante Stella (a genuine polymath) did a write up on the Nikkor 5cm/2 on his old website-still accessible--and he's really a fan. Impressive resolution for such an antique optic.
What's with this 'Erik gone'?!?!?
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
David Douglas Duncan used the Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5, and when Nikon supplied him with the F1.4: he preferred the F1.5. Nikon, as the store goes, went back to the drawing board and revised the design. The Nikkor-sc 5cm F1.4 starting around 33xxxx has larger diameter optics and barrel.
bluesun267
Well-known
Mine is 393XXXX, a fairly late one. But from what I can ascertain from the few examples of the Nikkor 1.5 online, it appears closer in rendering style to the Zeiss-Opton 1.5 than the later Nikkor. The Nikkor 1.4 really is its own beast.
By the same token there is a preference for the earlier "Tokyo" 1.4s, at least from a price perspective. I have my doubts the engraving change from Tokyo to Japan was exactly concurrent with an optical change though
By the same token there is a preference for the earlier "Tokyo" 1.4s, at least from a price perspective. I have my doubts the engraving change from Tokyo to Japan was exactly concurrent with an optical change though
The first Japan Nikkors at 32xxxx are the older design. I have a 5005 series (first batch) Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4 and a 326xxx 5cm F1.4 (Japan) that are the same optically. The 33x - larger lens.
The Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 is close to the pre-war Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 Sonnars. I've done a few "My Three Sonnar" comparisons. The Zeiss Opton is sharper and has less field curvature.
These are back-on-track, 5cm F2 in LTM on the M Monochrom.
Wide-Open, Baby!
Probably f4-
At F2,
At F4,
Performance is almost identical to the pre-war 5cm F2 SOnnar, except colors- as the Nikkor is coated.
The Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 is close to the pre-war Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 Sonnars. I've done a few "My Three Sonnar" comparisons. The Zeiss Opton is sharper and has less field curvature.
These are back-on-track, 5cm F2 in LTM on the M Monochrom.
Wide-Open, Baby!
Probably f4-
At F2,
At F4,
Performance is almost identical to the pre-war 5cm F2 SOnnar, except colors- as the Nikkor is coated.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Here's an example, Helen, from an f2 with some element separation (as if you could tell):
Peeling Away by P F McFarland, on Flickr
I know I've taken some images with the f1.4, but can't seem to find them in my albums on Flickr, so probably haven't posted them. I do find though that when I'm using the S2 I tend to stick a 35mm on it and go with that for the whole roll.
PF
Peeling Away by P F McFarland, on Flickr
I know I've taken some images with the f1.4, but can't seem to find them in my albums on Flickr, so probably haven't posted them. I do find though that when I'm using the S2 I tend to stick a 35mm on it and go with that for the whole roll.
PF
I have two vintage Nikkors, both f/2, one being the collapsible in LTM, the other S-mount.
The 1.4 is too glowy for me wide open, but stopping it down even just a bit (1.8ish?) reduces the veiling flare considerably, f/2 is even better. It's a Sonnar, acts similarly to the 50/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar.
But I prefer the f/2.
Below: 50/2 Collapsible Nikkor LTM, ASA10 Kodachrome, my mom is driving a 1950 Ford convertible, this was shot about 1951.
The 1.4 is too glowy for me wide open, but stopping it down even just a bit (1.8ish?) reduces the veiling flare considerably, f/2 is even better. It's a Sonnar, acts similarly to the 50/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar.
But I prefer the f/2.
Below: 50/2 Collapsible Nikkor LTM, ASA10 Kodachrome, my mom is driving a 1950 Ford convertible, this was shot about 1951.
Darinwc
Well-known
I have a few Nikkor f1.4s in both LTM and S mount.
all of them are very soft and flare and some vignette at 1.4.
However at f2 things improve greatly. The center is sharp, no flare, even exposure. And it has a nice look to it. Outside of center is still not sharp but in a nice way. And it has very nice color.
Stopping down, the edges get better and better.
I see you have already chosen a 1.4. you will be very happy with it. Considering the prices.. f2's are closely priced to 1.4s.. I see no major reason to get one over the other. They are both excellent. But with the 1.4 you get a built in soft focus setting!
all of them are very soft and flare and some vignette at 1.4.
However at f2 things improve greatly. The center is sharp, no flare, even exposure. And it has a nice look to it. Outside of center is still not sharp but in a nice way. And it has very nice color.
Stopping down, the edges get better and better.
I see you have already chosen a 1.4. you will be very happy with it. Considering the prices.. f2's are closely priced to 1.4s.. I see no major reason to get one over the other. They are both excellent. But with the 1.4 you get a built in soft focus setting!
Darinwc
Well-known
Here is an example if the Nikkor 5cm f1.4 at f2.. note this is on an APS size sensor. You can clearly see the sign in the center and read "private road" -On the full size version, you can also read "no turn arounds" on the bottom of the sign as well. This was late in the day, so very warm hue but the lens give very nice color and contrast.
Nikkor 50mm f1.4 at f2.0 by Darin, on Flickr
Nikkor 50mm f1.4 at f2.0 by Darin, on Flickr
I had to look. I have eight 5cm F1.4's in S-Mount. From the 5005 series that came on a Nikon M to a late Black 5cm F1.4 on my Nikon S4. All are good.
Also have one in LTM and the 50/1.4 that came on the S3-2000. The latter- Nikons best 50/1.4 ever.
Bought back when an LTM Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4 was $95. The 5005 S-Mount 5cm F1.4, $30 with a Nikon M on the back of it at an antique store. Good Times.
Also have one in LTM and the 50/1.4 that came on the S3-2000. The latter- Nikons best 50/1.4 ever.
Bought back when an LTM Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4 was $95. The 5005 S-Mount 5cm F1.4, $30 with a Nikon M on the back of it at an antique store. Good Times.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have one Nikon 50/2 for the Tower 35 camera and one Nikon 50/2 for the Nikon F cameras. I also have the Nikon 50/1.4 Millenium in S mount.
TenEleven
Well-known
I have a couple of these in LTM and S mount they seem to behave identically. Nikon clearly had top noch QC.
Without turning this into a super lengthy response, they basically behave similarly in nature to the Sonnar 50/1.5 and Sonnar 50/2.0 - however in the case of Nikons lenses the trade-off for the higher speed is more visible. This means that if I want a "good all-rounder" for daylight and evening shooting - I'll go for the f/2 Nikkor.
Earlier f/1.5 Sonnars (especially war-time) will give better results at full aperture than Nikons efforts. They also get "good corners" a bit quicker than Nikons 50/1.4 - I assume since they did not have to throw as many corrections in for the center to keep f/1.4 center performance at least acceptable. Basically, I think Nikon bit off a bit more than they could chew there - mainly because while they could apparently match Schotts glass (still a remarkable achievement in such a short time!) they could not exceed it in quality which is what would have been needed to stretch the design without adding additional lens elements.
[Small digression: Interestingly, as film got faster Zeiss (with the Opton and later) lenses opted to go for less correction wide open making the lenses perform closer to the Nikkor 50/1.4 at full aperture, but offering "landscape worthy" resolution from f/4 onward. Also lots of punch in the contrast.]
Without turning this into a super lengthy response, they basically behave similarly in nature to the Sonnar 50/1.5 and Sonnar 50/2.0 - however in the case of Nikons lenses the trade-off for the higher speed is more visible. This means that if I want a "good all-rounder" for daylight and evening shooting - I'll go for the f/2 Nikkor.
Earlier f/1.5 Sonnars (especially war-time) will give better results at full aperture than Nikons efforts. They also get "good corners" a bit quicker than Nikons 50/1.4 - I assume since they did not have to throw as many corrections in for the center to keep f/1.4 center performance at least acceptable. Basically, I think Nikon bit off a bit more than they could chew there - mainly because while they could apparently match Schotts glass (still a remarkable achievement in such a short time!) they could not exceed it in quality which is what would have been needed to stretch the design without adding additional lens elements.
[Small digression: Interestingly, as film got faster Zeiss (with the Opton and later) lenses opted to go for less correction wide open making the lenses perform closer to the Nikkor 50/1.4 at full aperture, but offering "landscape worthy" resolution from f/4 onward. Also lots of punch in the contrast.]
The performance of the Nikkors tend to be more consistent than the post-war Zeiss lenses. A good 1950s Zeiss 50/1.5 comes very close to my C-Sonnar.
The Nikkor 5cm F2 had changes in the coating, and changes in the mechanics. All the ones I have perform equally, from the 1948 Collapsible through to the Black-Rim LTM.
The Nikkor 5cm F2 had changes in the coating, and changes in the mechanics. All the ones I have perform equally, from the 1948 Collapsible through to the Black-Rim LTM.
TenEleven
Well-known
Adding to what Brian correctly stated:
Nikon also used harder glass and coatings for their f/2 versions compared to Zeiss. Most of them survived in much better condition. Since they are still (comparatively) cheap they would be my pick. Especially for someone starting out but not wanting to pay for German glass - it's a sharp, very well behaved lens with much less in the way of surprises (good and bad) compared to their f/1.4 or f/1.5 brothers.
Nikon also used harder glass and coatings for their f/2 versions compared to Zeiss. Most of them survived in much better condition. Since they are still (comparatively) cheap they would be my pick. Especially for someone starting out but not wanting to pay for German glass - it's a sharp, very well behaved lens with much less in the way of surprises (good and bad) compared to their f/1.4 or f/1.5 brothers.
Bingley
Veteran
bluesun267 : I should have thanked you sooner for your comparison photos taken with the Nikkor 5cm f1.4 and f2.0 at the same aperture. I looked closely at those comparison shots, and I could not detect much, if any, difference between the two Nikkors at common aperture. This tends to support the point that darinwc made above: the Nikkor-S 5cm f1.4 stopped down gives you the same sharpness as the f2.0, but you also get the glowy/soft look at f1.4. Maybe, for Helen’s purposes, the 1.4 is THE lens for her S2. Any way you slice it, it’s a good choice.
For me, on a Nikon S-mount camera, a wonderful kit is the Nikkor-S 5cm f1.4, the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2.8, and the Nikkor-PC 85mm f2.0.
For me, on a Nikon S-mount camera, a wonderful kit is the Nikkor-S 5cm f1.4, the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2.8, and the Nikkor-PC 85mm f2.0.
bluesun267
Well-known
I've been flirting with trying an S2 myself; as if I need another camera system...