Planar vs. Nikon AIS

[Roger Vadim]

It might seem like a stupid question... I was scanning some B/W negatives from some mixed rolls and was just blown just how much better the gradation and tonality (let alone the sharpness) of the pics taken with the G and the Planar 45mm where compared with the shots i took with a Nikon AIS 50/1.8.
I always held the AIS high in regards of sharpness, but the Planar pics had a certain kind of magic the Nikon just lacked...
The Question is: I Don't really like the squinty finder and the AF of the Contax (ducks for shelter...😱). After the smoke has cleared: Is there any comparable lens in say Nikon AIS mount? or do I have to go the expansive path of aquiring a M Camera - to get a better finder?

And hey, G-Folks: its a great camera, it's not just for me (and on long - term loan from a friend who went digital 😛)

 

[Keith]

I picked up a 50mm f1.4 ZF Planar for my D700 from matsuiyastore for a little over $400.00 and I have to say it's definitely my best 50mm non RF lens.

I'm not particularly enamoured with my FM3A but I will eventually find a Nikon body I'm comfortable with because this lens is just too good not to use with black and white film.

Zeiss lenses in general are amazing IMO.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS "Pancake" lens is basically the old Series E lens in a new housing. Personally, I preferred the AI Series 50/2 and AI series 50/1.8 to the Series E lens.

 

[Turtle]

perhaps sell the Contax G and get a Bessa R2/3/4 with a 50 planar i.e. swap out the G system for M mount - after all you say you dont like the camera.

 

[ZeissFan]

I've owned the f/2.0 50mm Nikkor for years and have never been that impressed with it. The 50mm Planar is noticeably better, I think.

 

[gavinlg]

50mm f2 makro-planar is the pick of the 50mm lenses if you can deal with the f2 maximum. It has the same sort of optical performance as the 100mm f2 makro-planar - stunning.

 

[Roger Vadim]

Thanks for the replies!
Turtles suggestion doesn't work because I've got the contax on loan from a friend... I also have the Nikon Ai 50/2 but its not very sharp wide open. Suitable for Portraits, though.
I was mustly stunned by the rendition of the tones in B/W, great tonality and out of focus drawing. Sharpness came in as an extra. I thought that the Planar might be to clinical in B/W, but au contraire - it renders extremely nice...

Seems like i am on a Zeiss path here.

 

[sevo]

The Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS "Pancake" lens is basically the old Series E lens in a new housing. Personally, I preferred the AI Series 50/2 and AI series 50/1.8 to the Series E lens.

Though it is debatable whether the AI 1.8 and E 1.8 are significantly different. The catalogue schematics might be interpreted as the elements on the E being slightly thinner at identical curvatures, but the published materials on the E series have a different layout than the Nikkor catalogues, so that may be a mere difference in the graphics.

The E lens has a purple coating visibly different from the green or golden coating common on its contemporary Nikkor MC counterparts and more reminescent of the blue coating on single coated Nikkors. Back then, that created many legends that it is single coated, but the E and all AI lenses are well past the time when Nikon were multi coating anything down to eyepieces, so it is far more likely that the E was merely multi coated with a new process that gives a different look. Later on, similar purple coats also appeared on top of the range professional Nikkors, so they are certainly not indicative of single coating.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Zeiss lens is newer and more expensive than the Nikkor 50/2, my copy was $30 or so.

At F2.8 it sharpens up greatly. The "dot" is its performance, the bar is other lenses like it. The Summicron represents the top of the bar.

 

[kshapero]

I picked up a 50mm f1.4 ZF Planar for my D700 from matsuiyastore for a little over $400.00 and I have to say it's definitely my best 50mm non RF lens.

I'm not particularly enamoured with my FM3A but I will eventually find a Nikon body I'm comfortable with because this lens is just too good not to use with black and white film.

Zeiss lenses in general are amazing IMO.

News to me, Keith. No enamor with the FM3a, why?

 

[Pickett Wilson]

The pages of Nat Geo over the years are filled with, as well as many of the Iconic images of our times were made with, these ratty old AI and AIs lenses. I always find these discussions of the minutia of lens characteristics odd. 🙂

 

[Keith]

News to me, Keith. No enamor with the FM3a, why?

Not sure Akiva ... I can't really put my finger on it! The shutter has a very sharp intense sound which I'm not keen on but there has to more to it than that. I used it for a bit when I first got it then went back to my OM's ... it never leaves the cupboard now.

It's a shame because I like the Zeiss 50mm Planar I have in F mount far more than any Zuiko I own!

 

[Roger Vadim]

Picket, couldn't agree more - when it comes to color images the AIS lenses I own are great and capable! I was speaking about the B/W characteristics of that Planar which left me stunned. There is a general consensus also over here that older lenses - idealy single coatet- are better for B/W. This modern Planar on the other hand works just extremely great in noir et blanc.
Therefore this rather nerdy question on lens characteristics....

 

[uhligfd]

Well, you have found one of the best lenses and cameras; clearly you will notice a difference with all the Contax G lenses. Then you could start to work with a Rolleiflex and you would see more still, then 4 x 5 cameras until 8 x 10s etc. The quality is there, And the N... lenses are middle of the pack, not Zeiss G glass, no way.

Good eyes and awareness on your part to see the obvious. Congratulations!

Now you have to embrace the camera (a G2 i hope) and your pics will take off, until you get a Rollei..., and so on up the evolution trail. Good luck!

 

[monochromejrnl]

I read that a lens need only resolve 30 lp mm in order to produce a sharp 8x10 print. What I can't recall is what size film this applied to. Any of the more technically inclined RFF members able to clarify this assertion?

 

[rxmd]

I read that a lens need only resolve 30 lp mm in order to produce a sharp 8x10 print. Any of the more technically inclined RFF members able to confirm or debunk this assertion?

Well the enlargement ratio on one of those is approximately 1:8, throwing out a little on the side. So your 30 lp/mm become 4 lp/mm in the final print, or approximately 100 lp/inch. Assuming that a line pair can be considered equivalent to an adjacent pair of black and white dots, you get the equivalent of a resolution of 200 dpi, which isn't too bad.

I'm aware that this is very crude and there are all sorts of extra considerations about lens resolution and contrast, but basically you're right.