Luddite Frank
Well-known
Guys, I appreciate all the comments and great photos from your lenses !
But, I'm afraid I'm a giblet.... Garret's question about whether my lens was marked "Tokyo" or "Japan" sent me to the camera closet to dig-out my Nicca, and it turns-out the darned thing has a Nikkor H-C 1:2 f=5cm lens.
:bang:
Interesting feature: the focusing scale changes to red at 3 ft, and there's a detent bewteen 3.5 and 3 ft. The scale goes-down to 1.5 ft.
Still a Nikkor 50 in LTM... I guess I was getting this lens mixed-up with the SC 1:1.4 f=5cm lenses from my two Nikon S cameras...
This Nicca Nikkor must be brass - it is HEAVY. Lens serial is 625xxx.
Camera s/n is 400xx.
Guess I'll be chasing the Nikkor 1.4 / 5 cm in LTM....
Sorry I mis-remembered which Nikkor LTM I had !
But, I'm afraid I'm a giblet.... Garret's question about whether my lens was marked "Tokyo" or "Japan" sent me to the camera closet to dig-out my Nicca, and it turns-out the darned thing has a Nikkor H-C 1:2 f=5cm lens.
:bang:Interesting feature: the focusing scale changes to red at 3 ft, and there's a detent bewteen 3.5 and 3 ft. The scale goes-down to 1.5 ft.
Still a Nikkor 50 in LTM... I guess I was getting this lens mixed-up with the SC 1:1.4 f=5cm lenses from my two Nikon S cameras...
This Nicca Nikkor must be brass - it is HEAVY. Lens serial is 625xxx.
Camera s/n is 400xx.
Guess I'll be chasing the Nikkor 1.4 / 5 cm in LTM....
Sorry I mis-remembered which Nikkor LTM I had !
goamules
Well-known
I always wanted to compare an F2 to an F1.4 Nikkor. I got one recently. While a nice, sharp lens, it doesn't have all the amazing, fantastic! features, discussed above.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
I guess I'll have to enjoy the 1.4 on my Nikons until I find one in LTM...
I have to say, I don't remember seeing any of the extreme bokeh in any of my Dads' pictures, but he probably didn't do much wide-open shooting, especially if he was shooting Tri-X...
I'm still feeling pretty darned foolish not knowing which damn lens I have...
I have to say, I don't remember seeing any of the extreme bokeh in any of my Dads' pictures, but he probably didn't do much wide-open shooting, especially if he was shooting Tri-X...
I'm still feeling pretty darned foolish not knowing which damn lens I have...
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
So I bought yet another one of these Nikkor 50/1.4 LTMs (anyone want to buy a Tower 3s cheap?). I did a little test shooting last night against a 50 ZM. Some observations, old and new.
The 50/1.4 Nikkor is an improved Sonnar (over the prewar original) in the sense that it's coated and more corrected for spherical aberration. The same is true of the Canon 50/1.5, which is very close to the same lens. Back in the day when no one cared about bokeh, these would have been considered better performing lenses than the originals. Nikon and Canon got a technological boost from the American occupation, whereby they got access to German technology and patents.
Although a lot of people ascribe magic to Sonnars, they are not all the same: aberration correction and bokeh are inversely proportional. Comparing today, a 50/1.4 Nikkor and a 50/1.5 ZM Sonnar are set up in different ways, the former being all about sharpness and the latter being about bokeh. Not surprisingly, the Nikkor has very little focus shift and the ZM has a lot. By the way, I'm not sure how Zeiss can call the modern one "compact;" it's noticeably larger than the Nikkor.
The major magic of Sonnars was in pre-war fast lenses, when Leica got hung up on correction but could not create a high-contrast lens without coatings. Consider the Summar and the prewar Xenons. Zeiss already had the Planar designed, but it figured out that by cementing six of the elements into two groups, it could avoid a large amount of transmissive loss. The cost was correction.
After the war, a bunch of things happened. Coatings leveled the playing field, which made Planar-type lenses practical. SLRs became popular, and Sonnars were not easily adaptable to clearing SLR mirrors (initially, SLR 50mm lenses were retrofocus, like the 7-element Nikkor 50/2, and then higher-index glass allowed more clearance for conventional designs). What made the Sonnar special was no longer special enough to save Contax. Even Nikon and Canon quickly replaced their Sonnar-style designs with Planars.
The 50/1.4 Nikkor SLR lens (which was made almost exactly the same way from the late 1950s to a couple of years ago) is a different design, though the overall look is similar to the old Leica-mount version.
If my hypothesis about the Sonnetar is correct, it should adjustable to resemble a Nikkor, a ZM Sonnar, or anything in between. We'll see when it gets here in a few days.
D
The 50/1.4 Nikkor is an improved Sonnar (over the prewar original) in the sense that it's coated and more corrected for spherical aberration. The same is true of the Canon 50/1.5, which is very close to the same lens. Back in the day when no one cared about bokeh, these would have been considered better performing lenses than the originals. Nikon and Canon got a technological boost from the American occupation, whereby they got access to German technology and patents.
Although a lot of people ascribe magic to Sonnars, they are not all the same: aberration correction and bokeh are inversely proportional. Comparing today, a 50/1.4 Nikkor and a 50/1.5 ZM Sonnar are set up in different ways, the former being all about sharpness and the latter being about bokeh. Not surprisingly, the Nikkor has very little focus shift and the ZM has a lot. By the way, I'm not sure how Zeiss can call the modern one "compact;" it's noticeably larger than the Nikkor.
The major magic of Sonnars was in pre-war fast lenses, when Leica got hung up on correction but could not create a high-contrast lens without coatings. Consider the Summar and the prewar Xenons. Zeiss already had the Planar designed, but it figured out that by cementing six of the elements into two groups, it could avoid a large amount of transmissive loss. The cost was correction.
After the war, a bunch of things happened. Coatings leveled the playing field, which made Planar-type lenses practical. SLRs became popular, and Sonnars were not easily adaptable to clearing SLR mirrors (initially, SLR 50mm lenses were retrofocus, like the 7-element Nikkor 50/2, and then higher-index glass allowed more clearance for conventional designs). What made the Sonnar special was no longer special enough to save Contax. Even Nikon and Canon quickly replaced their Sonnar-style designs with Planars.
The 50/1.4 Nikkor SLR lens (which was made almost exactly the same way from the late 1950s to a couple of years ago) is a different design, though the overall look is similar to the old Leica-mount version.
If my hypothesis about the Sonnetar is correct, it should adjustable to resemble a Nikkor, a ZM Sonnar, or anything in between. We'll see when it gets here in a few days.
D
raid
Dad Photographer
Isn't the Nikkor 5cm/1.4 following the (rare) Nikkor 5cm/1.5?
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Yes, but they're copied from the same antecedent. I'd be curious about whether the 1.4 vs. 1.5 difference (in terms of true speed) is anything but marketing. According to Rotoloni, the 50/1.5 was only sold for one year before the 1.4 came out.
D
raid
Dad Photographer
Brian S has both, and he has posted about the 5cm/1.5.
If your "Japan" version lens had a serial number around 328xxx to 329xxx (when the optical formula got tweaked to slightly larger diameter rear elements) or lower, it would render images identically to your "Tokyo" lens
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
If your "Japan" version lens had a serial number around 328xxx to 329xxx (when the optical formula got tweaked to slightly larger diameter rear elements) or lower, it would render images identically to your "Tokyo" lens
The one I just got is a 325xxx. We'll see. I have shots from 3 or 4 others to compare.
Dante
raid
Dad Photographer
I used to own a 5cm/2 Tokyo. Is it sharper than the 5cm/2 Japan version?
uhoh7
Veteran
Dante, I think you will find your Sonnetar is unique in one respect: brilliant and totally unique color signature, as the glass and coatings have been specially selected. Softer edges than the CZJ by a tad.
I hope you will do a write up of the Sonnetar
As to the Nikkor:
L1007379 by unoh7, on Flickr
This to contrast with the dog shot. Both with M9. The Nikkor in real life is very different to the CZJ, though you can see some common genes. I'm speaking of my own copy of course, which is contax adapted via amedeo.
The CZJ is very sharp in the central frame at infinity. The Nikkor is not, and appears to be adjusted for distances like the shot above, i.e. reportage. The truly wild and unique bokeh, which appalls many, though I love it----I mean what is that dog smelling? The bokeh, to me, is like a visualization of his smell----is only available WO, close, and with much varied detail in the background. Neither the CZJ nor the Sonnetar will do the same thing. Not even close really.
Which would be a relief to many LOL
Here is the Nikkor on the A7r:
Vic by unoh7, on Flickr
and the Sonnetar at f1.6 on M9:
Coffee Baron by unoh7, on Flickr
And here very fast on A7.mod
DSC01104 by unoh7, on Flickr
I'm sad to say the Sonnetar has been dissed at the L forum by the local barbarians who apparently have no clue what it is.
Here in landscape mode, around f/8, note heavy contrast between sharpness center and edge, and this is not a heavily edited photo: that is the color signature
L1031622 by WS Snails, on Flickr
I hope you will do a write up of the Sonnetar
As to the Nikkor:
L1007379 by unoh7, on Flickr
This to contrast with the dog shot. Both with M9. The Nikkor in real life is very different to the CZJ, though you can see some common genes. I'm speaking of my own copy of course, which is contax adapted via amedeo.
The CZJ is very sharp in the central frame at infinity. The Nikkor is not, and appears to be adjusted for distances like the shot above, i.e. reportage. The truly wild and unique bokeh, which appalls many, though I love it----I mean what is that dog smelling? The bokeh, to me, is like a visualization of his smell----is only available WO, close, and with much varied detail in the background. Neither the CZJ nor the Sonnetar will do the same thing. Not even close really.
Which would be a relief to many LOL
Here is the Nikkor on the A7r:
Vic by unoh7, on Flickr
and the Sonnetar at f1.6 on M9:
Coffee Baron by unoh7, on Flickr
And here very fast on A7.mod
DSC01104 by unoh7, on Flickr
I'm sad to say the Sonnetar has been dissed at the L forum by the local barbarians who apparently have no clue what it is.
Here in landscape mode, around f/8, note heavy contrast between sharpness center and edge, and this is not a heavily edited photo: that is the color signature
L1031622 by WS Snails, on Flickr
goamules
Well-known
Back to the topic of this thread, the Nikkor 50/1.4 (Tokyo) can be spiderweb sharp.
Ektar 100 I believe.
Fuji XE-1
Ektar 100 I believe.
Fuji XE-1
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Nice shots, Uhoh7. Some of your earlier sample pictures were very fascinating, and that played into that not-so-cheap impulse buy. That and Bellamy Hunt informed me that production had ended, and he was on his last one. Part of the fascination with the Sonnetar is that it can adjust for things you previously could only adjust by changing lenses. Also that it is build by a madman in his basement.
As to people not understanding the purpose of various lenses or that they may have aesthetic justifications, I'm totally used to that. And your observation is correct; the L-camera-forum people like Leica lenses and Zeiss but only on alternate Wednesdays.
I will of course do a write-up. The cool thing about the new Ms is the live-view that lets you verify focus pretty much instantly. That said, I was planning to test the lenses on an M 246, so the color signature thing may have to wait!
D
As to people not understanding the purpose of various lenses or that they may have aesthetic justifications, I'm totally used to that. And your observation is correct; the L-camera-forum people like Leica lenses and Zeiss but only on alternate Wednesdays.
I will of course do a write-up. The cool thing about the new Ms is the live-view that lets you verify focus pretty much instantly. That said, I was planning to test the lenses on an M 246, so the color signature thing may have to wait!
D
If your "Japan" version lens had a serial number around 328xxx to 329xxx (when the optical formula got tweaked to slightly larger diameter rear elements) or lower, it would render images identically to your "Tokyo" lens
It will be interesting to see your results, Dante!
FWIW (and my apologies if I'm repeating something you're already familiar with) Nikon switched from the "Tokyo" engraving to the "Japan" engraving when the post WWII occupation ended and product branding rules put in place by the occupation forces were lifted. The "Made in Occupied Japan "engraving was changed to "Made in Japan" at the same time. However, during the changeover period Nikon mixed and matched parts to use up old parts, so it was not a clean switchover, and occasionally you can find a lens marked "Japan" + "Made in Occupied Japan" or "Tokyo" + "Made in Japan". The Nikon S was in the early stage of its production run when the switchover occurred.
We've speculated here in the past that the Nikkor-S 5cm F1.4 optical formula got tweaked (rear elements got slightly enlarged) when the Nikon S2 was introduced to be better suited to the wider film gate on that camera compared to the Nikon S it superseded. The serial numbers of pre/post tweaked lenses provided by Brian Sweeney and others, plus the ones I've seen, match this speculation fairly well, but I guess we'll never know for sure.
thompsonks
Well-known
Thx for the info about differences between lower and higher SN 5cm Nikkors. I'd used an S-mount 5cm Nikkor on Nikon RFs and on digital M (with Amadeo adapter); and was surprised when I acquired an LTM (334xxx) that it was noticeably less sharp and clear when wide open.
IMO the later 334xxx lens at 1.4 is strictly a 'special effects' lens; but the flarey blur goes away at 1.8 (or whatever is right between 1.4 and 2 – the aperture markings being proportional, not linear). I'd frequently shot my S-mount Nikkor at 1.4, but don't do that with the later LTM.
Kirk
IMO the later 334xxx lens at 1.4 is strictly a 'special effects' lens; but the flarey blur goes away at 1.8 (or whatever is right between 1.4 and 2 – the aperture markings being proportional, not linear). I'd frequently shot my S-mount Nikkor at 1.4, but don't do that with the later LTM.
Kirk
goamules
Well-known
I just bought another Nikkor 50/1.4 Japan to compare to this one I've had. I really like these lenses, all versions. When the new one comes today, I'll have an F2 and F1.4 Tokyo, and two F1.4 Japans. I'll probably sell one of the latter, but want to do an A-B comparison first. Both are the later serial numbers. Here is the one:
goamules
Well-known
Looks like I got a keeper! Everything looks in good condition, and the shutter is smooth and sounds right.
Nice. Niccas are my favorite Leica clone.
As far as the Nikkor goes, the veiling flare disappears around f/1.7 to f/2. It's like having two lenses in one.
As far as the Nikkor goes, the veiling flare disappears around f/1.7 to f/2. It's like having two lenses in one.
uhoh7
Veteran
What a nice rig, Garrett
goamules
Well-known
Thanks folks. Yeah, I know these lenses, I have 2 others, a Tokyo, and Japan version. I'm going to sell the slightly later date one, I wanted the earlier. PM if interested.
With the soft focus wide open, and the close focus macro ability, they are very versatile lenses.
With the soft focus wide open, and the close focus macro ability, they are very versatile lenses.