Nikkor 50/1.4 and flare

Kiu: I am trying to make all tests as soon as I can. I am about to complete testing your Nikkor 50mm/1.1 and to compare it to the Canon 50mm/0.95.
The other two Nikkors and the two CV Noktons are next in line, along with the Zeiss 50/3.5 and the Zeiss C-Sonnar. Be paitient ...


Greetings,

Raid
 
Correct it is only the air to glass surfaces that would be (are) coated, but the coating process involves a vacuum deposition (e.g. of MgF) or electron beam coating or whatever and many of these processes require the glass to be separated from its companions, for the rough grind, polish grind, vacuum, ... which are necessary, and then reassembled.

All this is ok with an early lens which uses the natural glue, the later lens use synthetic glue and the glass elements may not be as easily separable. There is more risk of physical damage.

It would be a gain to coat an uncoated sonnar, it would not help (as much) to multi coat a coated sonnar. The difference between the single coat and multi coat for 6 air to glass coatings (three group) for a deeply curved lens are minimal. The lens was designed to be uncoated...

The new 2000 S3 nikkor is a computer optimised design with best glass and coatings. It may need the modern coatings more, it is probably a four group, it may employ high refractive glass and therefore need better coating and may have several less deeply curved surfaces and therefore need better coating.

Noel
 
Just a small and subjective test with three lenses. The light came from two fluorescent lamps, so this wasn't a demanding environment for lenses. I didn't test the flare.

Vintage (from 1955-56) Nikkor-S.C 5cm f/1.4 @ f/1.4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/325198614/

Modern CV Nokton 50/1.5 @ f/1.5:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/325198426/

Vintage (from 1956) Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50/1.5 @ f/1.5:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/325198826/

More photos later, when I have time to scan and upload my other subjective testshots with these lenses...
 
Actually I did not see myself any significant differences either.

I have more shots taken a bit different light conditions and subjects than this first set. So, maybe I can find some visible differences there. Anyway, a classic Sonnar and Nikkor seems to be quite equal, because their design is maybe almost the same (Sonnar type).

---
By the way, all of my Nikkor-S.C 5cm/1.4 photos are here:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=53094145%40N00&q=nikkorsc+501.4&m=tags

And all of my Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50/1.5 shots:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=53094145@N00&q=Sonnar+501.5&m=tags

I have shot many photos with CV Nokton 50/1.5. But if someone is really interested them they are here:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=53094145@N00&q=CV+Nokton+5015&m=tags
 
Last edited:
jsuominen said:
Just a small and subjective test with three lenses. The light came from two fluorescent lamps, so this wasn't a demanding environment for lenses. I didn't test the flare.

Vintage (from 1955-56) Nikkor-S.C 5cm f/1.4 @ f/1.4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/325198614/

Modern CV Nokton 50/1.5 @ f/1.5:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/325198426/

Vintage (from 1956) Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50/1.5 @ f/1.5:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/325198826/

More photos later, when I have time to scan and upload my other subjective testshots with these lenses...
Click to expand...

Jari: Thanks for the test photos. I am also comparing 50mm lenses, and the next batch of comparisons will include two samples of the Nokton and the Zeiss Opton 50/3.5. I already tested the old Nikkor 50/1.4. I now can compare my [future] results with your results as a double check.

Raid
 
jsuominen said:
Raid: I have also a CV S Heliar 50/3.5 (for Nikon S-mount), which I have compared to CV Nokton 50/1.5 (for Leica LTM). Both lenses were shot at f/3.5.

S Heliar:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/314217002/
CV Nokton:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsuominen/314216632/
Click to expand...


Jari: There are quite a few differences between the lenses that you have tested. The Nikkor 50mm/3.5 shows the lights as flare whereas the Heliar shows the lights clearly. Do you perceive the Heliar to be as sharp as it is being described to be?

Raid
 
Use it! Use it a lot!

Use it! Use it a lot!

Thank you everyone!

I'm going to stop fretting and just use it! Now, about this 1:1.6 thing. Where is that between 1:1.4 & 1:2.0?
 
When I say f1.6, I mean closing the lens down just a small bit. On the classic Nikkor 1.4, there is a lot of distance between 1.4 and f/2. I have found that stopping down a quarter of the way or one-third of the way from f/1.4 to f/2 -- in the realm of f/1.5 or f/1.6 -- can make performance more predictable in extreme light situations.
 
Dante Stella mentions that the veiling flare of the Nikkor 50/1.4 is
uncontrolled field curvature.
so this veiling flare is a result of the design of this lens, probably a tradeoff
of sorts, the lesser of two evils and all that.
 
raid said:
The Nikkor 50mm/3.5 shows the lights as flare whereas the Heliar shows the lights clearly. Do you perceive the Heliar to be as sharp as it is being described to be?

Raid
Click to expand...

Raid: I think CV S Heliar 50/3.5 is sharp enough for me. Here are some examples:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Heliar%2050mm%2F3.5&w=53094145%40N00

I don't have a S-mount Nikkor 50mm/3.5 lens (just a Nikkor-S.C 5cm/1.4 and a Micro-Nikkor-P 55/3.5 for Nikon F-mount), so I can't compare Heliar to it. But I know that such lens exist according to Stephen Gandy's webpage http://cameraquest.com/nrf50mic.htm
 
VinceC said:
When I say f1.6, I mean closing the lens down just a small bit. On the classic Nikkor 1.4, there is a lot of distance between 1.4 and f/2. I have found that stopping down a quarter of the way or one-third of the way from f/1.4 to f/2 -- in the realm of f/1.5 or f/1.6 -- can make performance more predictable in extreme light situations.
Click to expand...

A lot of distance indeed. Guesstimating 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 the distance isn't too hard. Then I can take advantage of the Ugly Camera's :eek: useless feature: continuoulsly variable shutter timing to match the meter needles perfectly. :cool:

Most importantly of all, I need to USE the lens. 30+ years of neglect is horrible! I should be ashamed!

Thanks! Y'all are very nice and most helpful!

I wonder if I can "do the lens justice"? :rolleyes:
 
I don't have the old Nikkor or a canon RF lens but do have the new 50 millinium and the new asph Summilux 1.4. I did a somewhat informal comparison between my old tabbed summicron that I no longer have and the 50 millinium and asph summilux. I was mainly interested in back lit flare conditions and conditions where a bright light bulb would be in the shot, I have noticed over the years that the summicron 50 (tabbed version) suffered from more flare than I would have expected. In my test I shot a person against a very bright window and had a 150 wat light bulb in the shot. I used only slight fill in the persons face and exposed for the person. I was amazed at how much flare the summicron had compared to the Nikkor and asph summilux. When it all was finished I concluded both the Nikkor and asph summilux were very comperable even at f1.4. The summicron was terrible in comparison. Unfortunately I have trashed the scans and no longer have the summicron. Now agter shooting both the Nikkor and asph in real world shooting I will say the Nikkor is atleast 97% the lens the asph summilux is. Even at 1.4 it really stacks up very well in all respects with the Leica lens. Resolution, contrast and flare are tops in the Nikkor.

Think about the deal the Nikkor is. You can buy a new S3-2000 body with new 50 1.4 for less than a minty used asph summilux 50 and have some change left over for film. It's the best deal on the market.

Nikons other RF lenses aren't too shabby either. The 105 is a standard for medioum teles and I actually like my 105 for close work over my 90 apo asph summicron.

The LHSA magazine just had a similar article on the nikkor vs the asph summilus. I think the guys testing was a little flawed but he came up wit about the same conclusion that they are equal lenses.
 
Thank you! Thank you very much! I needed another reason to buy new hardware! :D

Seriously, we all appreciate your evaluations. I can't believe that Nikon didn't release that lens, and a few other focal lengths, like the 105, in LTM. It souldn't take someone more than 5 minutes of searching ebay sales to convince them of the incredible demand for the Nikkor LTM optics.

No kidding? Millenum body & 50/1.4 lens for less than the current Summilux?
 
I saw that filter. Also, if you haven't got one, you should use a lens shade. Really does wonders for older lenses.
 
I don't understand why Nikon doesn't sell the 35 1.8 that comes on the new release of the SP. If they were making a few thousand why not make another thousand.

My wife gave me an early Christmas present. She gave me a book on Nikon history. I haven't read much but I did see there was a 35 1.4 that was never released. Darn! There was also another experimental SP with TTL metering. Darn!

I think my new years resolution will be to take the S3-2000 out and shoot more with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom