furcafe
Veteran
Indeed it was a strange choice of lens + body combos, but it was a great incentive to buy both reissues & swap lenses!
Nikkor SC 5cm 1.4 vs 7A 50mm 1.1
- Thread starter Huss
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 54
- Views 3K
Indeed it was a strange choice of lens + body combos, but it was a great incentive to buy both reissues & swap lenses!
Although the Nikkor was more optimized for performance at closer distance, this looks extreme; optimizing for close doesn't imply 'infinity is woefully poor.' Would you be interested in comparing against another copy?
Might also help to shoot both on the same camera to eliminate potential film plane discrepancies.
Might also help to shoot both on the same camera to eliminate potential film plane discrepancies.
furcafe
Veteran
There is a lot more sample variation in 1950s lenses than today's, but Huss's results are generally consistent w/my experience w/the 5 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S I've owned (3 in S mount, 2 in LTM). I think my post WWII 50/1.5 Zeiss-Opton/Carl Zeiss Sonnars for the Contax perform better than the Nikkors as landscape lenses, but I would chalk that up to my prior point of the Nikkors pushing the Sonnar design (in this case the pre-WWII Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm/1.5 Sonnar) to its late 1940s-1960s limits.
If you can find one, the rare Carl Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar in S mount for the Japanese market in 2008 is the best option for a modern Nikon RF Sonnar as it has the same design as the C Sonnar in Leica M mount. The CV 50/1.5 Nokton is S mount is also a good all-around fast 50.
Huss
Veteran
My solution arrived today.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
That looks nice!
Huss
Veteran
Only from that angle! Add the hood and look at it any other way, and it has a face only a mother could love...
😉
furcafe
Veteran
Ha, I think the CV 50/3.5 Heliar in S Mount does come from the "Buck Rogers" school of industrial design!
TenEleven
Well-known
I just want to add my couple of cents to this:
1. I do not think Huss' Nikkor 5cm/1.4 is an outlier. Mine (I have 3 copies in LTM (one 'Tokyo' one) and S mount) behave similarly. The corners are just not as sharp as the center until f/11 ~
2. The Nikkor 5cm/2 is the overall more balanced lens and you get sharp corners by f/5.6
3. The Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnars especially the post-war ones are also more balanced and you get landscape-sharp corners by f/8 the latest, most by f/5.6 (depending on your copy) the price you pay is less central acutance than the Nikkors
4. If you find a rare good-condition post-war Zeiss 50/2 Sonnar you get good corners by f/4 - the conclusion is that "speed" comes at a price. Always did, regardless of design.
In conclusion, there is nothing "wrong" with Huss' lens or the Nikkor 5cm 1.4. The plain fact is that the optical designers have to make certain compromises and are perhaps going after different goals.
Edit: Just saw that furcafe basically said the same. I also like your shots on your flickr! *tips hat*
1. I do not think Huss' Nikkor 5cm/1.4 is an outlier. Mine (I have 3 copies in LTM (one 'Tokyo' one) and S mount) behave similarly. The corners are just not as sharp as the center until f/11 ~
2. The Nikkor 5cm/2 is the overall more balanced lens and you get sharp corners by f/5.6
3. The Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnars especially the post-war ones are also more balanced and you get landscape-sharp corners by f/8 the latest, most by f/5.6 (depending on your copy) the price you pay is less central acutance than the Nikkors
4. If you find a rare good-condition post-war Zeiss 50/2 Sonnar you get good corners by f/4 - the conclusion is that "speed" comes at a price. Always did, regardless of design.
In conclusion, there is nothing "wrong" with Huss' lens or the Nikkor 5cm 1.4. The plain fact is that the optical designers have to make certain compromises and are perhaps going after different goals.
Edit: Just saw that furcafe basically said the same. I also like your shots on your flickr! *tips hat*
TenEleven
Well-known
I just wanted to add a bit more helpful info for people reading this later: The black f/1.4 s-mount Nikkors generally do a little bit better than their silver brethren. But they all exhibit the same tendencies (not very amazing corner performance).
RObert Budding
D'oh!
The rangefinder wars were won by Nikon with the F-mount.
TenEleven
Well-known
Correct. Also I think things would have gone better for Nikon/Zeiss if Nikon hadn't messed up the back-focus distance of the Contax and made a 100% faithful replica as that would have meant a bigger ecosystem.
Some of my Contax lenses absolutely trounce their period Leitz brethren. "Better" does not always figure.
Huss
Veteran
Nikon made an F mount rangefinder?
TenEleven
Well-known
Nikon released the F and the subsequent SLR boom basically buried Leitz. Post 1960 almost no pro newspaper photographers used a Leica. They limped on - only to get later swallowed up by a French fashion bag maker... I guess they're still a fashion brand, sort of ...
Huss
Veteran
Ohhh so Nikon quit making RF cameras. While Leica makes them to this day.
Huss
Veteran
The Nikon 50 1.4 is fabulous at close to mid distance:
Similar threads
