The 3 Multicoated S-Mount Lenses (Internal Mount)

[jonmanjiro]

The Nikon S3 Year 2000 Limited Edition kit released back in October 2000 came with the first ever multi-coated Nikon rangefinder mount (S-mount) lens, the Nikkor-S 50mm f1.4 (a.k.a. the Millennium Nikkor).

Since then, Cosina released eight multi-coated S-mount lenses (21/4, 25/4, 28/3.5, 35/2.5, 50/1.5, 50/2.5, 50/3.5, 85/3.5) using the optical components from their LTM lens line up, and then in January 2005 Nikon released a multi-coated version of the W-Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 lens with the SP 2005 kit.

10 new multi-coated lenses in just over four years - not bad for a supposedly orphaned rangefinder system.

Then just a month ago, Zeiss/Cosina released an S-mount version of their Sonnar 50/1.5. The 11th multi-coated lens for Nikon RF!!!

Of these 11 lenses, eight are external mount, and just three are internal mount. Just for the heck of it, I'm going to post a comparison of the three internal mount lenses (plus the vintage Nikkor-H 5cm f2). Pics taken with the lenses to follow in the next few days!

 

[erikhaugsby]

Beautiful glass you've got there. The Zeiss line of lenses has always struck my favor with their black-on-chrome (chrome-on-black?) looks and squared edges.

 

[splitimageview]

Looking forward to the photos. 🙂

 

[jonmanjiro]

Did anyone notice that the machining of the lens mount part of the lens on the Zeiss and Voigtlander lens is practically identical? "Lens made in Japan" is written in the same font in the same location, and the Zeiss has an "N" (presumably for "Nikon") where the Voigtlander has an "S" (presumably for "S-mount"). Pretty obvious these lenses came out of the same factory. Not that its a big deal at all, as the build quality of both lenses is first rate. The build quality of the Nikkor, manufactured by Tochigi Nikon, is as you'd expect also first rate!

 

[jsuominen]

Did anyone notice that the machining of the lens mount part of the lens on the Zeiss and Voigtlander lens is practically identical? "Lens made in Japan" is written in the same font in the same location, and the Zeiss has an "N" (presumably for "Nikon") where the Voigtlander has an "S" (presumably for "S-mount"). Pretty obvious these lenses came out of the same factory. Not that its a big deal at all, as the build quality of both lenses is first rate. The biuld quality of the Nikkor, manufactured by Tochigi Nikon, is as you'd expect also first rate!

Yeah, I noticed it now, when you pointed it out. Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses are maybe manufactured in same factory/plant - I'm not sure, if Cosina has many factories - as the other Cosina-made M-mount Zeiss lenses, too. They have maybe different production lines for different lenses (CV and Zeiss).

By the way, did anyone notice different tint on Nikkor and Zeiss lens? Sonnar looks a bit reddish. Maybe because T* coating? 🙂

 

[gavinlg]

That nikkor and the zeiss are so damned beautiful to look at... I love the red tinted zeiss coating. I take it you'll be posting images from the 3 in this comparison? If so I'm looking forward to it very much!

 

[selma-1]

Jon I do own the 8 Voigtlander Lenses as well as 2 Voigtlander R2S bodies. I will be looking foreward to the tests. Thanks for the effort. Steve.

 

[Sonnar2]

What amazes me is that the Nikkor is such a long lens compared to the "Sonnar" of Zeiss. The design is still kept as a secret, or is there a lens diagram available in the meantime?

What is not so amazing is the length of the Heliar. Heliars are long in most cases (as with triplets)

Nice pictures. Takes the breath away that these 3, each from a different company, came out as NEW lenses for a mount 50 years dead... The BIG question is: Which is the "best" of this unequal triple? (and please, if you, or anyone else will make a comparison, keep in a "normal" Nikkor-SC 50/1.4 for reference..)

 

[Captain]

I have been harassing Jon to do this test for a while. Good to see!

 

[jonmanjiro]

Finally, here's some test photos taken at minimum focus. I took this first batch to test for focus shift. I focused on the "N" in CABERNET on the wine bottle. I used Velvia 50 (new version) and shot all shots with my S2 on a tripod using a cable release. All photos were scanned and edited using the same settings.

P.S. I included a vintage Nikkor-H 50/2 in the test as a benchmark. I would have used a vintage Nikkor-S 50/1.4, but I don't have one.

More photos to follow tonight (Japan time!).

#01 Nikkor-S @f1_4

#02 Zeiss @ f1_5

#03 Nikkor-S @ f2

#04 Zeiss @ f2

#05 Nikkor-H @ f2

#06 Nikkor-S @ f2_8

#07 Zeiss @ f2_8

#08 Nikkor-H @ f2_8

#09 Nikkor-S @ f4

#10 Zeiss @ f4

#11 Nikkor-H @ f4

#12 Heliar @ f4

 

[jsuominen]

Finally, here's some test photos taken at minimum focus. I took this first batch to test for focus shift. I focused on the "N" in CABERNET on the wine bottle.

Jon, thank you for this interesting test! I have seen these kind of test objects before in RFF, by some other member. 🙂 Am I right, but S-mount C-Sonnar 50/1.5 looks a bit front focus to me? At least, if I compare it to Mill. Nikkor. Anyway, they all look good. Waiting for more shots.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Jon,
based on the reflection on the glass cabinet, it appears that you shot these with outdoor ambient light and fluorescent light above. The "white balance" / tonal range from this Fujifilm looks pretty good. Or did you touch-up the white balance digitally?
Cheers,
Akira

Your guess is spot on, Akira. I did indeed take these shots using outdoor ambient light and also had the flourescent light on in the room for a little more illumination. I didn't alter the colour balance or contrast, and the colours are as-is out of my Coolscan V scanner.

Jon

 

[migtex]

P.S. I included a vintage Nikkor-H 50/2 in the test as a benchmark. I would have used a vintage Nikkor-S 50/1.4, but I don't have one.

Jon-San
In case you need a Vintage, let me know. I only have vintages.....🙁 (black or chrome)
Great and very interesting work. Thanks.
The Nikkor -H has the better appealing .. to me of course. Not has sharp, but as whole photo, really like it.
The Bokeh on the S is again IMHO, the best.
The Heliar is so, so sharp the hurts!

 

[Highway 61]

A few quick remarks :

- best lens at f:1.4, f:2 and f:2.8 is clearly the Millenium Nikkor-S 50/1.4
- very noticeable "focus shift" with the C-Sonnar at f:1.5, f:2 and even f:2.8
- quite identical performances with the two Nikon lenses and Zeiss Sonnar at f:4 (the Nikkor-H-C maybe being a little lesser in sharpness on the two forefront beer cans inscriptions)
- the CV Heliar looks to have a bit of focus shift even at f:4 : seems to be rather focused on the 1st forefront beer can inscriptions while the other lenses all look to be, at f:4, well focused on the "N" of "Cabernet" and has a harsher OOF rendition (not unexpected).

My conclusion : I'm very happy to have bought a mint Millenium Nikkor-S 50/1.4 from Jonmanjiro when I had the cash for it some months ago !

🙂

 

[jonmanjiro]

Highway 61, I basically agree with your assessment, however although the DOF distribution is a little more biased toward the front, I'd give the Zeiss one more stop and say it pretty much equals the Millennium at f2.8. Also note that while the focus point is within the DOF at f1.4, the Millennium also exhibits some front focus shift, but improves greatly at f2. The Millennium really hits its stride by f2.

Also remember that the images above are at minimum focus. Interestingly, the front focus of the Zeiss at f1.5 and f2 is less and less of an issue as the subject gets further from the camera. Photos to follow soon.

 

[Highway 61]

Interestingly, the front focus of the Zeiss at f1.5 and f2 is less and less of an issue as the subject gets further from the camera.

Well, this is just how DOF works... it increases in the back focus area as soon as the subject gets further from the lens focal point... 😉

 

[jonmanjiro]

Ok, here's two shots taken 10 feet from the focus target (Nikon logo on the FM3A camera). Again, the shots were taken on Velvia 50 using a tripod and a cable release. The difference in exposure is probably more related to the intermittent cloud coverage that day than the difference between f1.4 and f1.5. Colours are as-is from the scanner.

My take on these two photos is that the Sonnar nailed focus and the Millennium is back-focusing slightly. Also, the Millennium is exhibiting some ni-sen bokeh whereas the Sonnar is pretty smooth.

#01 Millennium Nikkor-S 50/1.4 - f1.4 @ 1/250 sec

#02 Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 - f1.5 @ 1/250 sec

 

[Highway 61]

Holy cow, a blast of wind and all you get off testing is a mint FM3A falling down that fence !

Kidding aside, yes the Millenium Nikkor seems to be slightly less sharp on the FM3A logo, but frankly sharper corner-to-corner wise (not unexpected, the Sonnar design puts it on center sharpness even wide-open).

 

[BillBingham2]

Jon,

Great work. I am surprised to see the shift in the ZI. It makes me even happier to have a 50/1.4 Millennium.

Thank you for everything!

B2 (;->

 

[awilder]

I found your test shots very interesting, but without greater cropping it's hard to see much difference in sharpness (softness?) in the Sonnar from it's inherent focus shift compared to the others. It certainly appears less objectional in the S mount than in an M mount, due most likely in how the RF cam system is set up (built-in to the camera).