Erik van Straten
Veteran
The Sonnar formula Nikkor that is closest to the pre-war CZJ Zeiss Sonnar 5cm F1.5 is (no surprise) the Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5. It really is close to my 1930s Sonnars. The Nikkor 5cm F1.4- much "edgier". David Douglas Duncan preferred the F1.5 lens over the F1.4.
Yes, this looks very nice. However, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.5 is a rare lens. I'm happy with my Zeiss (1628901) on my Nikon.
Erik.
dexdog
Veteran
I took advantage of today's snowfall in Virginia to use the last 5 shots on my 1936 Contax II (for Manchukuo), and 50/1.5 serial no. 1660874. I had this camera overhauled in 2005, and have taken it on 6 or 7 two week vacations around the world. Still works great.
I shimmed the Helical of one of my Nikon S2 bodies for Zeiss lenses.
The Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 was computed in 1937. I prefer it over the F1.4, the latter- I have several of them. Nikon changed the formula at about the time of the S2 being developed. I have two early 5cm F1.4 Nikkors, maybe 6 later ones in S-Mount.
These days- I'm shooting mostly the M9 and M Monochrom with the pre-war lenses.
Warm November Day by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
My favorite of the Sonnars is this one from 1934. 5cm F1.5, converted to Leica mount. Wide-Open on the M9.
I've seen several pre-war Sonnars converted to Leica mount when they were new. The Sonnar is sharper and has more contrast compared to the Xenon. I've shot both side-by-side.
The Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 was computed in 1937. I prefer it over the F1.4, the latter- I have several of them. Nikon changed the formula at about the time of the S2 being developed. I have two early 5cm F1.4 Nikkors, maybe 6 later ones in S-Mount.
These days- I'm shooting mostly the M9 and M Monochrom with the pre-war lenses.
Warm November Day by fiftyonepointsix, on FlickrMy favorite of the Sonnars is this one from 1934. 5cm F1.5, converted to Leica mount. Wide-Open on the M9.
I've seen several pre-war Sonnars converted to Leica mount when they were new. The Sonnar is sharper and has more contrast compared to the Xenon. I've shot both side-by-side.
dexdog
Veteran
I was gonna ask Erik about focusing the Sonnar on the S2. Has the lens been adjusted, or did you shim the camera as Brian stated?
View Range
Well-known
If pre-war Contax cameras were so wonderful, why was the Contax shutter a dead end while everyone, including Nikon, after the war copied the Leica shutter? The patents were removed from both of them by the Allies after all. Actually, the Nikon RF cameras were the first good Contax cameras that only went out of production due to the success of the Nikon F.
dexdog
Veteran
Nothing wrong with Contax shutters, but they were a lot more complicated to produce (all the aluminum or brass slats) and likely several times more expensive to produce than the Leica type cloth shutters.
raid
Dad Photographer
I got the Contax IIa and IIIa because I was curious about such cameras. The Contax I looks more elegant, but its reputation for needing repairs is bad. I love using the old Zeiss 5cm 1.5 lenses. The vintage 5cm 2 is also a very good Zeiss lens. It is interesting to discuss such old lenses while also using the new CV 50 2 APO. Different lenses, but both are fun to use and enjoy.
A dead end?
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to name a few miniature cameras presently in production that don't have a focal plane shutter that runs vertically. Of those which are horizontally running: how many have curtains made of fabric?
By the way, Nikon also copied the Contax bayonet mount for their rangefinders, sadly, they couldn't get it quite right. Probably just as well they didn't have a crack at the Contax shutter too, they might not have been up to it. As to their cameras being "a good Contax", well, if that was really the case they would have been fitted with better quality rangefinders. Compared to a II or III, the Nikon ones are junk.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
No, I didn't, I have no problems with the focusing, but I must say too that I hardly ever make close-ups.
silver gelatine print (zeiss sonnar 50mm f1.5) nikon s2
Erik.
Nikon lenses were built to the 51.6mm Leica standard, as was the Hansa Canon that their lenses were designed for. They could have easily copied the Contax mount exactly, but it would have meant recomputing their lenses.
9/10 of my Contax mount cameras all work, only one with a bad shutter. Several went to Eddie Smolov, RIP. The meters work on all but one Contax III. All 12 of my Nikon RF cameras work. These cameras are well designed and exceptionally high quality.
9/10 of my Contax mount cameras all work, only one with a bad shutter. Several went to Eddie Smolov, RIP. The meters work on all but one Contax III. All 12 of my Nikon RF cameras work. These cameras are well designed and exceptionally high quality.
Yeah, I was aware of that Brian, I was being sarcastic before—I strongly disagree with the opinions expressed in post 65. That said, I think it was a lost opportunity, not to include full compatibility with Zeiss lenses.
I have no axe to grind apropos the quality of the Nikon rangefinder cameras, however I stand by my remark that, in comparison to the rangefinding installation of a Contax II or III, the Nikon installation is junk. Apart from anything else—if, (as has previously been suggested), they were the "...first good Contax cameras.." (what a load of BS) then, they'd not rely more heavily on optical magnification, to achieve a halfway decent effective base length—always an inferior approach to a long physical base length.
Anyone that has worked on these two cameras would never use the term "junk" to describe either of them. The Nikon is easier to adjust, which after many years- will keep them going. As far as the Contax standard- Nikon sold a lot of lenses in Leica mount, "about" the same number as in S-Mount.
Contax II with a 1955 KMZ J-3, After visiting Eddie Smolov.
Probably at F4. Nikki is on "Heelies", zipping along.
Probably at F4. Nikki is on "Heelies", zipping along.
raid
Dad Photographer
Contax IIa with Zeiss 50 2 Sonnar. I used this camera very rarely.
Off-topic, but this is with the Nikon S2 adjusted for Zeiss lenses.
My favorite on it is a post-war 50/1.5 Sonnar.
Wide-Open,
Focus is accurate enough to use the 13.5cm lens. I used precision washers to move the helical out 0.4mm, then adjusted the rangefinder to match at 8ft. This camera came to me from a collector- not a user. It was missing shims and the helical was loose. So I figured it was a good candidate for modification- almost 20 years ago.
My favorite on it is a post-war 50/1.5 Sonnar.
Wide-Open,
Focus is accurate enough to use the 13.5cm lens. I used precision washers to move the helical out 0.4mm, then adjusted the rangefinder to match at 8ft. This camera came to me from a collector- not a user. It was missing shims and the helical was loose. So I figured it was a good candidate for modification- almost 20 years ago.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I don't see the need for shimming my S2 when I see this picture with the Zeiss Sonnar. I never use lenses of longer focal length than 50mm. Incredible lens ... and camera.
gelatine silver print (zeiss pre-war nickel sonnar 50mm f1.5) nikon s2
Erik.
gelatine silver print (zeiss pre-war nickel sonnar 50mm f1.5) nikon s2
Erik.
My 1935 CZJ 5cm F1.5 Sonnar is very close to the Nikon standard, is accurate across the entire distance scale at F1.5. There is deviation in the focal length of these lenses. I used that particular lens on the Nikon, it was off on the Contax. Now- it is converted to LTM.
Highway 61
Revisited
I too use my various old 5cm Sonnars with my Nikon rangefinder bodies, and so far I haven't noticed any focusing accuracy issue with them. I may have Sonnars and Nikons with which the collimation tolerances annihilate themselves, which happens quite often. Good for me, because, as much I like the two (working and serviced) Contax bodies which I kept, I have to admit that my Nikons are way more user-friendly and reliable.
Nikon S3 - Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f/1.5 from 1937 (uncoated) @ f/1.5 - HP5+
Nikon S3 - Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f/1.5 from 1937 (uncoated) @ f/1.5 - HP5+
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Gabor is correct that the Nikkor 50/1.5 and later 50/1.4 are indeed Sonnar type lenses and that the S-mount variant was changed to a Planar-derivate for the "Olympic" lenses.
However if memory serves, the Camus picture was taken in 1944 when Nikon was still producing war materiel for Japan and most likely not concerned with civilian lens production at all. I'm sure an expert like jonmanjiro could tell us more here.
Anyways, in 1944 these however still existed in Leica thread mount. Zeiss even made some in brass barrel and finish (heavy) for what I assume was civilian use:
And if you look at the two Camus shots I quickly googled up you can see that both the de-focus behavior as well as how the highlights and general contrast/detail rendition looks is a dead ringer for a (pre-war) Sonnar type.
Here:
If there is a Leitz lens that draws like that I'd like to know because then I'd like to also get my hands on one of those.
I have a Jupiter 3 lens that gives a similar look to the out of focus areas in that Camus photo so it could have been taken by HCB's fast 50 mil Sonnar in LTM.
Certain Summitars can have that OOF look too albeit with some Petzval type looking swirl.
I wonder who would win in a cigarette chain smoking contest?
-Albert Camus
-Robert Capa
-Humphrey Bogart
or Rene Levesque ?
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The serial number of the lens used for the above picture is 1628901, pretty early I think, it is nickel with a black painted belt, uncoated, near mint.
Erik.