Nippon Kogaku Japan or Tokyo

[Jan Pedersen]

Now that it is Nikon Range finder month all the way through March special attention to older Nippon RF lenses and the history of such lenses should be a special topic. Share please those of you with experience and knowledge.
Are there any serial numbers recorded that definitive make the cut from Tokyo to Japan lenses? I am mostly interested in the 50 1.4 but any other lens that have had both designations will be of interest.
My 50 1.4 NKJ have serial number starting with 330 At what serial number did the NKJ start?

 

[jonmanjiro]

Contrary to popular belief on this forum, the optical formula of the Nikkor-S 5cm F1.4 did not change when the engraving changed from "Tokyo" to "Japan". It changed later.

The engraving change from "Tokyo" to "Japan" happened around serial number 322001.

The optical formula change happened around serial number 329xxx.

 

[Jan Pedersen]

Good information Jon. Do you know what the optical formula looked like before and after the change?

 

[jonmanjiro]

Good information Jon. Do you know what the optical formula looked like before and after the change?

Jan, the optical formula is essentially the same but the rear optical group is slightly larger in diameter in the later version. The reason why Nikon did that is unknown, but we've speculated here in the past that it could have been to improve image circle coverage (less vignetting, better corner sharpness etc.) over the new larger 24mm x 35.5mm frame size of the S2 when that camera was released.

 

[wes loder]

5cm changes

5cm changes

Interesting. David Douglas Duncan received a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor sometime in 1951 to replace his beloved 50mm f1.5. He was not impressed and complained that it was not as good as the f1.5. Could that have been a factor in the change?
Note that the 24 X 35.5 frame of the S2 is not unusual. Most "full frame" 35mm do not actually cover 36mm, including some Leicas.
WES

 

[maddoc]

Interesting. David Douglas Duncan received a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor sometime in 1951 to replace his beloved 50mm f1.5. He was not impressed and complained that it was not as good as the f1.5. Could that have been a factor in the change?
Note that the 24 X 35.5 frame of the S2 is not unusual. Most "full frame" 35mm do not actually cover 36mm, including some Leicas.
WES

Interesting observation! On the other hand, the image circle of the optical unit of the Leitz Hektor 13.5 cm 1:4.5 is said to be sufficient large to cover 4x5.

 

[raid]

Roland favors the Tokyo version.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Interesting. David Douglas Duncan received a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor sometime in 1951 to replace his beloved 50mm f1.5. He was not impressed and complained that it was not as good as the f1.5. Could that have been a factor in the change?
Note that the 24 X 35.5 frame of the S2 is not unusual. Most "full frame" 35mm do not actually cover 36mm, including some Leicas.
WES

In 1951, DDD's 50/1.4 would have been one of the early ones. Maybe he was unlucky and got a poorly collimated sample. I guess we'll never know.

 

[furcafe]

Don't know if anyone else noticed, but in today's "In Focus - Japan In The 1950s" feature in the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014/03/japan-in-the-1950s/100697/ ) there's a shot by Bob Schutz of the AP of what appears to be 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S's being inspected in 1952:

 

[Jan Pedersen]

Thank you for posting this. Looks like LTM mounts.

 

[ferider]

Roland favors the Tokyo version.

Yes I do. Why is that statement of Raid, or my preference (when comparing to a late black rim copy) a problem for you, Jon ? I don't remember ever saying that I do not like any of the Japan copies. Might want to google "Logical fallacy" and/or "Negative proof", Jon.

Btw, I now have two Tokyo copies, one 5005 and one 3... LTM copy. Interestingly they are mechanically different, one has some screws where the other doesn't. Here is what Rotoloni wrote to me about these two lenses:

"NK was constantly improving and upgrading all of their equipment. In the early years this was quite easy since the rate of production was not overly quick although it would be in later years. Labor was cheap and modifying/improving items was easy to do. It is probable that by the time they got to your later lens they either had redesigned the lens and no longer needed those extra screws..or..their production methods had improved to the point where parts wree designed, made and fitted at a higher level of quality. In the early years nearly everything was hand assembled as well as hand adjusted/fitted ... As time passed all production elements had improved to where things were much more consistant and hand fitting was no longer needed."

Maybe one conclusion of this could be that "if you like your sample, keep your sample", whatever the Beauty Ring says.

Besides the rendering, there is one more thing I don't like about my black rim lens: the built is surprisingly cheap, compared to earlier lenses.

Best,

Roland.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Why is that statement of Raid, or my preference (when comparing to a late black rim copy) a problem for you, Jon ? I don't remember ever saying that I do not like any of the Japan copies.

I forgot I made that comment about lens versions (now removed). In retrospect I shouldn't have, and apologise to Raid. Categorise lens versions (NKT, NKJ, chrome, black, optical formula, bokeh, number of screws holding the lens together, whatever) as you see fit guys.

I don't remember ever commenting on your lens preferences, Roland.

 

[Highway 61]

As a copycat of a famous saying : "White lens, black lens, if it takes good pictures, it is good lens".