Nikkor Millenium 50

L

loneranger

Well-known
Local time
4:49 AM
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
427
View My Gallery
I recently bought a S3 2000 kit, mainly because I wanted to try the nikkor millenium 50 that I had read so much about.
After several rolls, I am surprised by two characteristics of the lens, how sharp it is wide open and how low the contrast is.. it is a damn good lens for black and white, but I am afraid it is not that great for most kinds of color work.
Of does of you who have this lens, do you feel the same way?
 
I've only owned this lens for a couple of months and ran B&W film through it only and plan to continue doing so. I'm not sure I'll ever want to run color through it. Personal preference.
That is also due to the fact that you've mentioned - I was amazed by the results this lens gave, sharpness at wide open, beautiful tones. I'm no expert, but I think this is one of the best (50) lens I've ever tried. At least the photos are a pleasure to look at.
 
Millenium Nikkor, Velvia 50 and K64. If you can't take color pictures with it, I'm afraid there is no medical treatement.

4cv.jpg


trac.jpg


catsburano.jpg
 
I find my Millenium Nikkor gives results for color that I like- but everyones taste is different.

It is also very nice for black and white, and I do not like most lenses B&W rendering.

3033042875_d663e2ab13_o.jpg
 
I used Ektar 100 and fuji reala, and the colors were somewhat muted out, but the sharpness and overall look, just stunning, medium format quality.
I will try a different vendor for processing to see if that makes a difference in the contrast/color.
 
I think you have to find a good lab, or process E6 or C41 yourself.

It is difficult to really see how a lens performs in color, if you use a film scanner, you will have as many results as there are different scan brands. And you can always adjust colors to your taste in PS.

I think it is preferable to print RA4 or Ilfochrome to really have an idea about how the lens performs in color.
 
I happen to like pastel colors:
s350_121108_1_11_diptychons.jpg

S3 2000 Limited Edition Black, Millennium Nikkor f/1.4 50 mm, Kodakt Ektar.
And, as has been hinted at, you can always add more saturation and contrast in scanning and post-processing, but the inverse is not true.
 
I haven't found the Millennium Nikkor to be low contrast either. Definitely look into the film processing, as that's probably where the problem is.

Here's some sample shots I posted in another thread a few years back.

attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php
 
Best 50mm I have used ( no experience with 50 lux asph). I recently sold 50/1.4 lux e46 because I use the millennium a lot more often.
 
After looking at the posted pictures and your comments, it looks like I am definitely doing something wrong (in processing). thanks for your comments. I will try a different lab.
Despite the muted colors I got from this lab, I think the way this lens renders comes through, I can only compare it to the look I get from my mamiya 7, there is a sharpness and tonal quality , that I have not seen in any 50, including the leica preasph (I have not tried the leica asph 50).
thanks again
 
Shoot some E-6 too. Negatives can be printed so many different ways that it can be hard to get a real sense of how a lens handles color unless you have a very consistent lab. As long as processing is done correctly a good transparency will do a better job of showing you just what the lens can do.

-Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom