Nikkor 50/1.4 and flare

[venchka]

Looking at the recent test of the Nikkor 50 vs. the Canon 50 Sonnars I wonder if the Nikkor lens would benefit from a facelifting modern coating treatment? Where could I have this done in the USA? Do y'all think that today's coatings would help to reduce flare in this lens?

Thanks!

 

[dexdog]

Based on what I have seen from Raid's test, I would not consider the flare to be a big enough problem to warrant new coatings. I believe that RFF member ferider has used FocalPoint for this type of work. I have never used their services, but the company has an excellent reputation.

 

[xayraa33]

other than the characteristic veiling flare at full bore, this lens is as prone to flare as any of the quality japanese 50mm lens of that era.
re- coating it by modern coatings might take away some of its vintage charm, esp. for B&W work.

 

[35mmdelux]

i'd rather place a super duper MRC filter on it. Any recoating would change the lens characteristics, never mind the high cost of recoating in the USA.

 

[VinceC]

The original coatings are really quite good. I don't know enough about lens optics to know if recoating would address the flare, but as ferider says, the flare isn't a huge problem ... it's something to be aware of. In practice, I use this lens at f/1.6 (stopped down a tiny bit) unless I'm in extreme low-light situations and need maximum aperture. That frequently is a flat lighting situation anyway. I think the "veiling flare" is a product of the design, and it can be compensated for in the darkroom (wet or digital) by boosting contrast.

With a lens hood (I use a collapsible rubber hood/filter combo from B+W), this is just a dynamite lens.

 

[raid]

I agree with Roland's assessment of the Nikkor lens. Older lenses have good and bad features, if you can call them that way. It is a sharp lens. I prefer the Canon 50/1.2 @ 1.4. I must be biased.

Raid

 

[venchka]

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thank you all!

I guess this is a classic case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

The lens is definiteley not broke. It was perfect when I bought it. It has sat virtually unused for 30 odd years since then. Best $50 I ever spent! 🙂

I have two hoods for the lens. I'll see which one does the best job on the lens.

Thanks for putting my mind at ease.

 

[venchka]

...

I prefer the Canon 50/1.2 @ 1.4. I must be biased.

Raid

I want one! 😎

 

[dexdog]

Well, you did, indirectly 🙂

Roland.

Yes, I did, Roland. I did not forget, I had just never sent anything to Focal Point myself for service. I have shot a couple of rolls of film with the R-Sonnar, but just don't have anything worthy of posting yet ( I am a lousy photographer). One thing I have noticed is that the color rendition on the R-Sonnar is outstanding...I think that the colors appear a bit brighter (i.e., higher value, less gray) than on a comparable Carl Zeiss (circa 1955) 50/1.5 made for the Contax. It might be my imagination, but maybe the 50+years improvement in coating technology makes a difference.

 

[VinceC]

>>It might be my imagination, but maybe the 50+years improvement in coating technology makes a difference.<<

That's certainly true. The original 5cm Nikkor is a great and historic lens. But for the past year I've done nearly all my shooting with the 5mm/1.4 that came with the reissued S3-2000. Modern coatings and a recomputed formula make it just about the best lens I've ever used, resparking my interest in the 50mm focal length.

 

[venchka]

:bang: 🙄 😕

PLease don't confuse me. Now you have me wondering again. I'll send a request for quote to Focal Point. Put it on next year's Christmas list maybe.

 

[trittium]

Canon 50/ 1.2

http://flickr.com/search/?q=50/1.2&w=40755145@N00

Canon 50 / 1.8

http://flickr.com/search/?w=40755145@N00&q=50/1.8&m=text

Nikkor 50 / 1.4 with hood

http://flickr.com/search/?w=40755145@N00&q=50/1.4&m=text

Nikkor 50 / 2 no hood

http://flickr.com/search/?w=40755145@N00&q=50/2+nikkor&m=text

 

[Xmas]

I thought the S3 2000 1.4 was a double gauss derivative (origional 4 group) where as the origional '50-60s 1.4 was a update on the 1.5 Sonnar (triplet)?

Multi coating a 1.5 Sonnar (or derivative) would require the two multiple (3 glass) sandwitches to be separated for the vacuum or EB process which would be difficult for a early 60s lens as it might not be canada balsam sealed, the early '50s lens should be easier?

Hey I dont know anything?

Noel

 

[VinceC]

>>I thought the S3 2000 1.4 was a double gauss derivative (origional 4 group) where as the origional '50-60s 1.4 was a update on the 1.5 Sonnar (triplet)?<<

That's correct. The new 50 Nikkor is a new, completely different lens. Its formula is what makes it such a good lens, not just the coatings. So the comparison is apples and oranges (Sonnars and Gausses?) Recoating the older 50 isn't going to change its characteristics. They are different lenses. The coatings on the 1950s RF lenses look to be nearly identical to the coatings on the 1960s SLR lenses, and those are great coatings.

 

[tom_f77]

I thought the S3 2000 1.4 was a double gauss derivative (origional 4 group) where as the origional '50-60s 1.4 was a update on the 1.5 Sonnar (triplet)?

Multi coating a 1.5 Sonnar (or derivative) would require the two multiple (3 glass) sandwitches to be separated for the vacuum or EB process which would be difficult for a early 60s lens as it might not be canada balsam sealed, the early '50s lens should be easier?

Hey I dont know anything?

Noel

I don't know much either, but I think coating is only for air/glass surfaces; you wouldn't neet to coat the ones that would be/are cemented.

Tom

 

[VinceC]

Okay. Here's a portrait with the original 5cm/1.4, handheld about 1/8th second (isn't that how you always shoot at 1.4?). Also attaching two photos of a kitchen-table non-scientific test that shows the difference between the original 1950s Nikkor (1st photo) and the new 2000 Nikkor (2nd photo). Both wide open. The new lens shows a touch more contrast and a touch better color rendition compared to the 50-year-old lens. But both are excellent. The first page of my gallery also shows ten or 12 pictures of my kids all taken with the original 50 wide open at 1.4.

 

[raid]

Okay. Here's a portrait with the original 5cm/1.4, handheld about 1/8th second (isn't that how you always shoot at 1.4?). Also attaching two photos of a kitchen-table non-scientific test that shows the difference between the original 1950s Nikkor (1st photo) and the new 2000 Nikkor (2nd photo). Both wide open. The new lens shows a touch more contrast and a touch better color rendition compared to the 50-year-old lens. But both are excellent. The first page of my gallery also shows ten or 12 pictures of my kids all taken with the original 50 wide open at 1.4.

Vince: I now have Kiu's 2000 Nikkor and the older 50/1.4 Nikkor so that the same comparisons can be made [as you have done]. Once I complete the roll of film with the Nikkor 50/1.1, I will try out the 2000 lens.

Raid

 

[VinceC]

Raid,
I always look forward to your lens tests! You do a great job for real-world situations.

 

[xayraa33]

Looking at the recent test of the Nikkor 50 vs. the Canon 50 Sonnars I wonder if the Nikkor lens would benefit from a facelifting modern coating treatment? Where could I have this done in the USA? Do y'all think that today's coatings would help to reduce flare in this lens?

Thanks!

I would not tamper with this classic from the 1950s.
it is, pardon the pun, an icon of sorts.

 

[NIKON KIU]

Raid,
You have both!! I sent them to you!
Do you have any opinions?

Kiu