Nikkor SC 5cm 1.4 vs 7A 50mm 1.1

[Huss]

Placed the order w Stephen/Cameraquest.

 

[Huss]

Checked the Nikkor 5cm 1.4 just now. It's in perfect shape.. Clear, no haze, no separation.
Guess I couldn't expect it to match up to a P&S. No wonder Leica won the RF war!!
😉





Sweet lens for close up to mid distance. Useless for landscape.

 

[Huss]

I bought the S Skopar really cheap, but some time ago.

I don't think it is the same lens as the Color Skopar 50mm f/2.5, it is much sharper and does not have that very, very tiny amount of distortion. The coating is different too.

Show us your pics with the 3.5!

Erik.

Cameraquest says this about the 3.5:
https://cameraquest.com/voigt_r2s_heliar.htm
What's so special? Only that the 50/3.5 Heliar is probably the sharpest lens ever made in Nikon Rangefinder Mount

And this about the 2.5 that I have in Leica mount:
The SC 50/2.5 has the same glass as its Leica screw mount cousin.
https://cameraquest.com/nrfVClens.htm

 

[Erik van Straten]

Maybe the same glass but not the same formula. I see differences, but both lenses are very good - extremely good. The coating is different too. Maybe a different production run with small alterations, who knows.


Erik.

 

[Huss]

Maybe the same glass but not the same formula. I see differences, but both lenses are very good - extremely good. The coating is different too. Maybe a different production run with small alterations, who knows.

Erik.

Either way you create wonderful work with that lens. I should use mine.

 

[splitimageview]

Checked the Nikkor 5cm 1.4 just now. It's in perfect shape.. Clear, no haze, no separation.
Guess I couldn't expect it to match up to a P&S. No wonder Leica won the RF war!!
😉

Sweet lens for close up to mid distance. Useless for landscape.

Leica won the war based on a single out-of-spec lens?
😀

 

[Corran]

Leica won the war based on a single out-of-spec lens?

😀

I have owned/used probably over a dozen Nikkor 5cm f/1.4 lenses, from a variety of productions time periods. None of them behaved any better than Huss shows. The lens is well known to be sharp at closer distances and fairly poor at distance. And I don't think Sonnar lenses of any stripe were particularly known for edge-to-edge sharpness - just excellent contrast and good OOF rendering. The f/2 model was known for better sharpness. I assume it is simple field curvature at distance, not simply bad performance on the f/1.4.

Of course sharpness up close looks great for shooting test images of line charts...🙄

PS I have the 50mm f/3.5 Voigtlander in native S-mount and it is a fabulous lens, as long as you don't need faster apertures. Also, it's exceedingly light, which is a nice bonus.

 

[splitimageview]

In my experience, these lenses have low contrast/veiling flare wide-open, which goes away by f/2, and by f/5.6 they are quite contrasty, with good resolution to the edge; certainly by f/11 they should be sharp to the corners. Typical Sonnar performance. This looks to me like an individual case.

 

[Huss]

Leica won the war based on a single out-of-spec lens?

😀

Doesn't sound like it's out of spec according to Corran's experience w multiple copies.

So, yes.
😀

 

[Huss]

I have owned/used probably over a dozen Nikkor 5cm f/1.4 lenses, from a variety of productions time periods. None of them behaved any better than Huss shows. The lens is well known to be sharp at closer distances and fairly poor at distance. And I don't think Sonnar lenses of any stripe were particularly known for edge-to-edge sharpness - just excellent contrast and good OOF rendering. The f/2 model was known for better sharpness. I assume it is simple field curvature at distance, not simply bad performance on the f/1.4.

Of course sharpness up close looks great for shooting test images of line charts...🙄

PS I have the 50mm f/3.5 Voigtlander in native S-mount and it is a fabulous lens, as long as you don't need faster apertures. Also, it's exceedingly light, which is a nice bonus.

Thanks for your comments. Yep it is great at short to mid distance. Now I know and will use it accordingly. Good thing I had my p&s and Noblex with me., so I have sharp images of Donner Lake.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I remember reading a few years ago, and I wish I could find where I read it, that the Nikon rangefinder lenses, particularly the 3.5cm, 5cm, 8.5cm & 13.5cm, were all optimized for close to mid focus distance. At the time I was debating about a set of lenses for a project, and I found information talking about the different rangefinder glass available in the early 1950's.

My experience with the set I have from the late 1940's & early 1950's has proved that to be true.

I think they're great lenses for portraiture and close to medium distance work, but mine wouldn't really hold up to newer glass when it comes to architectural or landscape photography.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Corran]

I agree there's lots of veiling flare at f/1.4 to f/2 (and some copies have had it worse than others) but casual perusal of Flickr images of distant landscapes at middling apertures all have about the same drop in performance towards the edges:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55299472@N07/31125580906/in/album-72157676868469405/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/csbtimothy/5817030315/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/17916504@N06/5736080863/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35466349@N07/17263275186/in/pool-nikkorsc-rf/

The 5cm is still a good lens for many things and perhaps there are a few golden copies out there with stupendous corners...but not the norm I don't think.

 

[Huss]

I remember reading a few years ago, and I wish I could find where I read it, that the Nikon rangefinder lenses, particularly the 3.5cm, 5cm, 8.5cm & 13.5cm, were all optimized for close to mid focus distance. At the time I was debating about a set of lenses for a project, and I found information talking about the different rangefinder glass available in the early 1950's.

My experience with the set I have from the late 1940's & early 1950's has proved that to be true.

I think they're great lenses for portraiture and close to medium distance work, but mine wouldn't really hold up to newer glass when it comes to architectural or landscape photography.

Best,
-Tim

Thanks for your input Tim, my results bear that out.
And I'll repeat myself, as long as no landscape pics no problem.

I find it interesting that the knee jerk reaction is my lens is defective. Smacks of fan-boism. I own this stuff and I have been honest and critical about my gear and feel it helps the general knowledge-base to let people know how things perform.

Perhaps others never actually really looked at their results?

I'm not disappointed per se, just educated. I don't think it has anything to do with the Sonnar design as the 7A 50 1.1 is (I think) also a Sonnar design unless I am mistaken. And that lens stopped down is sharp corner to corner. As is that Samsung P&S with zoom lens!

Anyway, I'll use this lens for portraiture/around town/low light work and the incoming CV 50 3.5 for anything that does not require a fast lens.

 

[Huss]

What is funny is that the results remind me of the lens on my Zeiss Ikon Nettar scale focus folder. Really nice n sharp in the center 3rd, loses the plot as it goes to the edges. But that was a budget kamwah. (and delightful to use, I highly recommend it!)

 

[james.liam]

As noted above, whereas the Nikon was optimized for its best performance in close-to-mid, the Canon LTM’s were the opposite and with lower contrast, resolution wide-open and close.

 

[Corran]

Regarding the 7A lens - I would suppose 6 decades of design and production improvements helps too! I'd like to try one...if only they made it in S-mount...

I will have to dig out my test images that included the Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar from the same era as the Nikkor as I don't remember how the corners performed.

I do remember that I have a very early 5005 serial block Nikkor 5cm f/1.4 (Tokyo) that seems to be a bit better than my other, newer 5cm lenses. I haven't really tested that one fully as I haven't owned it as long.

 

[Huss]

Is the "current" 50mm 1.4 that was sold with the 2000 and 2005 limited edition S3 and SP models better?
If not, boy am I glad I did not pull the trigger on one of those sets!

 

[Corran]

Yes! Those are a totally different design lens. It was sold originally as the "Olympic" lens. Fabulous lens that rivals the best Leica lenses out there. Physically bigger than the older lens.

PS: it comes normally with the S3 reissue, despite the S3 having native 35mm frame lines, while the reissue 3.5cm f/1.8 comes with the SP, that has the 1:1 viewfinder that works best for 50mm lenses and just has a smaller squinty "wide-angle" VF. Strange choice!

 

[Huss]

Yes! Those are a totally different design lens. It was sold originally as the "Olympic" lens. Fabulous lens that rivals the best Leica lenses out there.

Good to know!
Alright alright alright.

And yes I always thought it was weird that Nikon packaged that lens choice w the S3 and SP.

 

[furcafe]

I have owned/used probably over a dozen Nikkor 5cm f/1.4 lenses, from a variety of productions time periods. None of them behaved any better than Huss shows. The lens is well known to be sharp at closer distances and fairly poor at distance. And I don't think Sonnar lenses of any stripe were particularly known for edge-to-edge sharpness - just excellent contrast and good OOF rendering. The f/2 model was known for better sharpness. I assume it is simple field curvature at distance, not simply bad performance on the f/1.4.

Of course sharpness up close looks great for shooting test images of line charts...🙄

PS I have the 50mm f/3.5 Voigtlander in native S-mount and it is a fabulous lens, as long as you don't need faster apertures. Also, it's exceedingly light, which is a nice bonus.

The Ernostar & Sonnar designs & their descendants, including the 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S, are well-known for not being the best choice for landscape photos. I would have assumed this to be common knowledge to lens nerds 😛 since at least the beginning of the rangefinder renaissance in the late 1990s-early 2000s(?), when Dante Stella wrote an article about the LTM Nikkors: https://www.dantestella.com/technical/nikoleic.html

I think the 5cm1/.4 Nikkor-S (& IIRC also the 5cm/1.1 Nikkor-N) are extreme examples of the benefits/drawbacks of the Sonnar design because Nikon was pushing existing technology to its limits at the time. DJ Optical/7Artisans has the benefit of over 50 years of improvements in glass as well as a significant increase in size.