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

Nikkor M39 screw mount lenses
I recently bought a 50mm f2 Nikkor in LTM. I am not very familiar with this version of the lens, and was surprised to see that the focusing mount seems to have two stages- down to a little less than 3.5 ft in black, and a continuation down to 1.5 ft, in red. There are not many index marks in this close range, so using the red focus scale for accurate close focus seems improbable. The focus cam keeps moving as the lens focuses closer, but uncouples from the M-mount camera (I have tried a few) at the end of the first focus scale. Is this the normal design for this lens? I am a bit mystified at the purpose of the close focus capability.

Cheers,
Dez
 
The close focus can be handy. Its close setting is 18 inches if I remember rightly and that is one cubit in my case, or the length of my arm from elbow to end of fingers. With enough light for a bit of depth of field it lets me get an occasional close up shot with my Leica. If I need to do more I'll get out a Nikon with my 55mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor. Try it and Good Luck. Joe
 
That certainly makes sense, and after all it is a free feature. There is so much emphasis on RFF on the use of lenses wide open that I need to remind myself that there are other modes as well.
The close focus index marks are at 3" intervals, so it shouldn't be a problem to get my subject positioned correctly.
Does the LTM f1.4 lens have the same close-focus feature? It has been a long time since I have handled one of those lenses.

Cheers,
Dez
 
I love the close focus ability of the LTM Nikkors. If your film camera doesn't allow you to use all the extension, a digital will. The 2.0 and 1.4 sonnars are excellent for closeups.
 
Around 1983 I had the 50mm f/2 Nikkor and used it on my M3. I liked until I was abled to buy the 50mm f/2 Summicron new in Germany in 1983. When I did some tests using both lenses side by side, I sold the Nikkor. It just did not stand up to the Summicron.
 
Both lenses are totally different. Some people like the look of lens A, some lens B. But I can't see comparing one to the other and saying it "can't stand up to..." It depends on what you're using it for. Like saying a Ducati can't stand up to a 1936 Harley, depends on what you're looking to do.
 
goamules said:
I love the close focus ability of the LTM Nikkors. If your film camera doesn't allow you to use all the extension, a digital will. The 2.0 and 1.4 sonnars are excellent for closeups.
Click to expand...

The Nikkor-Q.C 50/3.5 also has that close-focus feature. (At the least the rigid version does -- dunno about the collapsible.)
::Ari
 
Empirical testing

Empirical testing

As a great fan of empirical testing, I have acquired two Nikkors HC 5cm/2, one the Tokyo version, the other the black ring Japan version. Next week I'll do some comparisons between the two, and will also throw in the SC 5cm/1.4, specifically a Japan version. All in the name of science.

I'll post the results here. Feel free to make suggestions on what you'd like to see in the tests. Of course, there will be infinity and close up (with bokeh) at every aperture. But feel free to suggest anything else.
 
dsc_9605a-800x600.jpg

Dominique Leyva
Huesca
http://visualhuesca.wordpress.com/
 
I'm interested in your test too, I've done several comparisons too. I'd say from a tripod, at F1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 5.6, and 8.0 ought to do. One other internet legend I hear a lot is "XYZ lens is optimized for closeup, but ABC is optimized for infinity." I've still never figured out how that would work, optically, but If you want to either take shots at 6-8 feet, then landscapes, it might be nice. Or if not, I'd split the difference, and shoot at something 15 yards or so in front of the camera. Even lighting would be nice.

Are both lenses in excellent condition, with no cleaning marks or separation?
 
No idea, since I haven't gotten them yet. I suspect superficial front element cleaning marks, which, to be honest never make a difference unless they are in very large number. I don't expect that to be the case. I understand there are folks who obsess over "cleaning marks." As long as it's just a few, I don't, as I find other age related issues to have a greater impact on the lens.

Like I said, there will be infinity and close up, medium distance if you will, as well, at all apertures. I don't have a J3, or a J8, or a CZJ Sonnar, so no. I can add the Sonnetar and the FE 55/1.8 for Sony, both of which are Sonnar designs. However , this is not a test of the 50 Sonnars, but of the 5cm Nikkors.


goamules said:
Are both lenses in excellent condition, with no cleaning marks or separation?
Click to expand...
 
Red Robin said:
Might the J-8 have a place in your test?
Click to expand...

I tested all the fast Sonnars I had here, the Canon 1.5, J-3, and Nikkor 1.4:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=129340

I have a couple Tokyo Nikkor 50/1.4s and I believe one Japan version. I can measure them and may duplicate your test once you are done, just to see if cleaning marks make a difference. I've found if there are a lot, it increases flare and decreases contrast. If just a couple, no problem at all.
 
Hello everyone,
I just bought a 50's Nippon Kogaku 50/2 HC and I am also very impressed (very nice bokey like all Sonnars, very sharp). It fits well on my M8.
 
My 50 2.0 was permanently attached to my Waltz Envoy which I received around 1958 or 59. The transport mechanism was troublesome and finally gave up in 1966.

Looking back over those pictures, they were quite nice, however I did not appreciate it as special as it was my first and only camera.

I did replace it with a Pentax Spotmatic. The glass was OK, but not really what I wanted. I got replaced with Leica.

Digital came along and I got a Nikkor HC 50 mm. I think it is much like the 1959 RF lens.
 
Ronald M said:
My 50 2.0 was permanently attached to my Waltz Envoy which I received around 1958 or 59. The transport mechanism was troublesome and finally gave up in 1966.

Looking back over those pictures, they were quite nice, however I did not appreciate it as special as it was my first and only camera.

I did replace it with a Pentax Spotmatic. The glass was OK, but not really what I wanted. I got replaced with Leica.

Digital came along and I got a Nikkor HC 50 mm. I think it is much like the 1959 RF lens.
Click to expand...

I don't think the 50mm for the F system ever included a sonnar variant, but I'm no specialist...
 
Nestor said:
Sorry, it's my first post...:
/
Click to expand...

Welcome. I haven't posted picutres in a while, and have to remember how to link pictures from Flickr all over again.

Every year around this time I get on a fast lens kick, so have been experimenting with various 50's. I'm looking for 1.4'ish, but always get curious about the f2 Nikkor again. I took it out today and shot a roll back and forth with the 50 Summarit 1.5 lens with both shot at f2. I just looked at the negs and am heading to the darkroom to make some prints.

I thought the Summarit at f2 would be substantially sharper and contrastier, but any differences aren't all that obvious so far just looking at the negs with a loupe. Backgrounds do seem smoother with the Summarit, but I'm not sure I won't prefer the Nikkor when I see the prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom