Nikkor HC 50mm F2... Wow, I am impressed

Beautiful images with a great lens. The rendering of the Nikkor-HC 5cm f2 is very close to the wartime CZJ 5cm F2 Sonnar "T", very different from the F1.4 lens. They are all good, the mechanics of the optical fixtures changed during the run. I was very lucky to have the correct front group for Alex's 1950 lens. Sometime early in the run of the Rigid lenses, the design was changed.
 
Lovely work Tim, I prefer these to the planar shots of the same models. (just my opinion of course)

Here's the winner from my last roll:
5334214373_326da35d58_z.jpg


note to self: stop shooting indoors in winter with ISO200 film
 
Wow, this is an old thread. Nothing wrong with keeping it going, I guess. I have since bought a Summitar as a replacement for the Nikkor and sold the Nikkor. There was something that seemed a tad too clinical in my eyes about the Nikkor (especially for a lot of the portraits that I do). However, here's some of my favorites from this lens. I can post more examples as well, if folks would like.

5365765366_57908c5997_z.jpg


5365764602_d073430cf5_z.jpg


5355287657_6dea56dfdd_z.jpg
 
I've never thought of the Nikkor-H 5cm f2 as too clinical. The contrast is higher than the contemporary Leica lenses, gives the impression of being sharper.

I just picked up a 5cm f2 Tanar- looks like a copy of the Nikkor, but in Black Paint.

waiting for the M9 to try out both, side-by-side.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I've never thought of the Nikkor-H 5cm f2 as too clinical. The contrast is higher than the contemporary Leica lenses, gives the impression of being sharper.
Click to expand...

That could be what I was seeing, Brian. When I got the Summitar, I ran a roll of portraits; half were shot with the Nikkor and half with the Summitar. I don't know what it was, but I liked the Summitar better.

Of course, to the average person, they would probably never notice the difference. But, like most photographers, I'm an OCD tinkerer that never stops obsessing about the "look" of my photos.
 
I've been trying to chase down the specs for the 50/2, namely the weight for the LTM. Any idea or links?

TY sirs
 
This lens is heavier than it looks! Really chunky piece of solid metal, very nice to hold. I keep thinking how great it would be to use this on a mirrorless camera like NEX or m43 due to the closer minimum focusing distance.
 
BTW, my copy is modified by our very own lens master Roland and it can focus down to 0.7m (goes little more than that after disengaging with the cam), it is spot on at 0.7mm on digital M. 😉
 
My Nikkor H 50/2 looks definitely sharper than v3 cron at infinity, can't speak much about closer distances with my scanner, but it seems to have more pleasant bokeh too. Gem of a lens.
 
I used my recently cleaned Nikkor 50/2 on the E-P2 yesterday. I am (again) impressed by this lens. Youxin did a good job.

U3565I1359261880.SEQ.0.jpg
 
I got one with an M5 outfit a couple weeks ago. It's a nifty little lens, but I'm finding myself using the Summarit that was also part of the deal more often for some reason.

Helen, Bliss street looks lovely. This is Walnut Street, but only one over from Pleasant. We don't ever get quite to Bliss here in W.Va. Well maybe at New Vrindaban 🙂


Walnut Street, on Flickr

M4-2, Nikkor HC 5 cm, TMY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Nikkor 50mm f1.4 Millenium - Misfocus at close distance @f1.4
Replies
4
Views
173
BlueOceanWaves
B
S
Bronica lens testing Nikkor 75 p, 75 HC, Zenzanon 80mm and 100mm
Replies
10
Views
3K
AgBr
A
Rogier
Focussing problem M10-R Leica Summicron-M 50mm F2
Replies
8
Views
342
AlanLee
AlanLee
Roastchestnuts
Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 LTM to M conversion
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
lukx
lukx
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
2K
aoresteen
aoresteen
Back
Top Bottom