raid
Dad Photographer
What is different about the Nippon Tokyo as compared to the Japan version of the 5cm 2.0 Nikkor LTM? I just got today a Tokyo lens. Please share your views. Thanks.
AFAIK the optical formula is the same, but lenses marked "Tokyo" were manufactured during the occupation and lenses marked "Japan" were manufactured later.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Does that give collectors a glow? 
Bingley
Veteran
Does that give collectors a glow?
Yes. The famous "Nikon glow."
I understand that the Nikkor 50/1.5 (or is it 1.4) is at its best at close to medium focusing distances. Is that also true of the 50/2.0?
The 50/2 is the "all-rounder" lens, whereas the 50/1.4 was optimised for close up and wide open shooting.
Bingley
Veteran
So the Nikkor 50/2 would be a good landscape lens too?
How might it compare to the Canon 50/1.8, one of its contemporaries?
How might it compare to the Canon 50/1.8, one of its contemporaries?
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
The only real differences in "Tokyo" to "Japan" I see are with the SC f1.4 lenses......
"Tokyo" f1.4 IS SMOOTHER/CREAMIER than the somewhat SHARPER/KOOLER bokeh of the later "Japan" versions ~ some select others will agree.
When it comes down to the Retro PinUps I always use the "Tokyo" when it`s soft/sexy styles and with the more edgy/fetish styles I use the "Japan" also I use it for Crossprocessing.
I shot Crossprocessed work with the f2/50 today, (on my 45' IIIC K)
I`ll post some here shortly....
Tom
"Tokyo" f1.4 IS SMOOTHER/CREAMIER than the somewhat SHARPER/KOOLER bokeh of the later "Japan" versions ~ some select others will agree.
When it comes down to the Retro PinUps I always use the "Tokyo" when it`s soft/sexy styles and with the more edgy/fetish styles I use the "Japan" also I use it for Crossprocessing.
I shot Crossprocessed work with the f2/50 today, (on my 45' IIIC K)
I`ll post some here shortly....
Tom
The Nikkor 50/2 does well as a landscape lens. It's sharper into the corners, and has less field curvature than the Nikkor 50/1.4. Not sure how it compares to the Canon 50/1.8 though.
Edited to add: the Millennium (Olympic) 50/1.4 is a different formula from the old Sonnar formula Nikkor 50/1.4 and excels in any shooting situation.
Last edited:
There was a slight optical change in the 50/1.4 along the way (the rear group was enlarged). I wonder if the differences you're seeing are due to that? Someone like Brian Sweeney could probably provide more details. Are you out there, Brian?
The construction of the front module for the Tokyo lens is different and cannot be interchanged with the Japan lens. You have to try it to see why. Performance looks equivalent between my Collapsible 5cm f2 in LTM and my late black-rim 5cm f2 in LTM.
All of the optics for the Tokyo 5cm f1.4 look to be smaller in diameter than the later lens. The front element will pass through the fixture for the Japan lens. Looks to be about 1mm less in diameter. again- tried replacing a damaged rim on a 5005 lens.
All of the optics for the Tokyo 5cm f1.4 look to be smaller in diameter than the later lens. The front element will pass through the fixture for the Japan lens. Looks to be about 1mm less in diameter. again- tried replacing a damaged rim on a 5005 lens.
raid
Dad Photographer
All I know about the lens is that it is a Sonnar design lens. If optically there are no differences between the Tokyo and the Japan 5cm 2 lenses, then both lenses should be excellent.
I find it quite interesting to know that it was built during the occupation years of Japan and that the Tokyo lens module is smaller than the corresponding module for the 5cm 2 later version of the Nikkor.
I got lucky, and my example has no wipe marks. While the 5cm 1.4 got all the fame, the 5cm 2.0 is a sleeper lens that is awesome in my opinion.
I find it quite interesting to know that it was built during the occupation years of Japan and that the Tokyo lens module is smaller than the corresponding module for the 5cm 2 later version of the Nikkor.
I got lucky, and my example has no wipe marks. While the 5cm 1.4 got all the fame, the 5cm 2.0 is a sleeper lens that is awesome in my opinion.
ferider
Veteran
While Rotoloni confirms that the barrel changed for the 50/1.4, he states the barrel stayed the same for the rigid 50/2, Raid. I think Brian was referring to the 1.4.
There are two serial nr sequences of the same early lens: 5008xxxx (about 1000 lenses) and 617001 to about 622000 (about 5000 lenses). Production started likely in Aug 1950. Both series have no click stops in the aperture.
Best,
Roland.
There are two serial nr sequences of the same early lens: 5008xxxx (about 1000 lenses) and 617001 to about 622000 (about 5000 lenses). Production started likely in Aug 1950. Both series have no click stops in the aperture.
Best,
Roland.
raid
Dad Photographer
Roland,
My lens has serial number 619xxx, so it falls among the 5000 lenses you have referred to above. This still is a small batch of lenses, isn't it? Yes, the lens has no click stops in the aperture ring.
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Probably the reason that the f/1.4 model got the "fame" had more to do with what it competed against. The Leitz 50/1.5 Summarit was a coated version of the prewar Xenon. The Nikkor was a newer lens design, hard coated, a hair faster, and quite sharp by the standards of the day. It holds its own even by today's standards, as does the 85/2.
Leitz was not making the best lenses at the time. The old 50/2 Summar and Summaron were no match for the 50/2 Nikkor, and the 85/2 and 105/2.5 Nikkors were much better than the 90/2 first version Summicron.
Also keep in mind that the average amateur in the 1950's was shooting a TLR if he planned on making 11x14 or larger prints. The films were too grainy for 35mm. Wedding and portrait photographers didn't shoot 35mm. Many didn't shoot less than 4x5. Photojournalists were the ones who "discovered" Nikon during the Korean War and nobody much cared if a dynamic photo from the front lines was grainy or tack sharp. If it was good enough it made the cover of Life Magazine. On the homefront the average newspaper photo, even today, is smaller than 5x7, and half a century ago the newspaper was printed by letterpress using a relatively coarse halftone screen and printed on pulp paper, hardly a situation requiring a super sharp lens.
Leitz was not making the best lenses at the time. The old 50/2 Summar and Summaron were no match for the 50/2 Nikkor, and the 85/2 and 105/2.5 Nikkors were much better than the 90/2 first version Summicron.
Also keep in mind that the average amateur in the 1950's was shooting a TLR if he planned on making 11x14 or larger prints. The films were too grainy for 35mm. Wedding and portrait photographers didn't shoot 35mm. Many didn't shoot less than 4x5. Photojournalists were the ones who "discovered" Nikon during the Korean War and nobody much cared if a dynamic photo from the front lines was grainy or tack sharp. If it was good enough it made the cover of Life Magazine. On the homefront the average newspaper photo, even today, is smaller than 5x7, and half a century ago the newspaper was printed by letterpress using a relatively coarse halftone screen and printed on pulp paper, hardly a situation requiring a super sharp lens.
ferider
Veteran
AFAIK the 50/1.4 was the first 1.4 normal 35mm lens ever. Not that it matters, really (compared to 1.5, there is significant vignetting at 1.4, etc), just saying.
Roland.
Roland.
> While Rotoloni confirms that the barrel changed for the 50/1.4, he states the barrel
> stayed the same for the rigid 50/2, Raid. I think Brian was referring to the 1.4.
I'm referring to the 5cm F2. The glass looks the same, coating did change, but the fixture is different. The construction of the fixture used for the front group changed a little. I learned that when I tried to exchange a front module on Roland's lens. The serated rim of the front module, used to unscrew the lens, is different. The stand-off distance acheived when screwing the earlier front module into the later lens was affected by this change.
> stayed the same for the rigid 50/2, Raid. I think Brian was referring to the 1.4.
I'm referring to the 5cm F2. The glass looks the same, coating did change, but the fixture is different. The construction of the fixture used for the front group changed a little. I learned that when I tried to exchange a front module on Roland's lens. The serated rim of the front module, used to unscrew the lens, is different. The stand-off distance acheived when screwing the earlier front module into the later lens was affected by this change.
ferider
Veteran
Ohh yeah, I forgot about that one, Brian.
Cheers,
Roland.
Cheers,
Roland.
raid
Dad Photographer
Brian,
Do you know why they changed things around in that lens?
Do you know why they changed things around in that lens?
Anything that I come up with would be pure speculation.
In the case of the 5cm F1.4, the fixtures changed thread size as the diameter of the optics changed. Not the case with the 5cm f2- the threads are the same. Might be to make it easier to control stand-off between the front and rear group.
In the case of the 5cm F1.4, the fixtures changed thread size as the diameter of the optics changed. Not the case with the 5cm f2- the threads are the same. Might be to make it easier to control stand-off between the front and rear group.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Could be the same reason why so many different things happened at Wetzlar during the 1945 to 50 era
(Supplies and shortage of raw materials, change of suppliers etc.)
I can honestly say the Japanese pulled off something just short of a miracle being able to make such superb optics at a time when half their country still laid in ruins, I think things didn`t get to normal in Tokyo till the end of the 1950`s and by then Nippon Kogaku/Nikon was pretty much on their merry little way.......
Tom