Correct! Lens 2 is the reissue lens.
I think Nikon tried to keep the reissue lens as close to the original as possible. But they had to reverse engineer an old lens and make the reissue from scratch, so there must be minor differences other than the coating. Nikon certainly couldn't use Lanthanum in the reissue lens.
Nikon did make incremental improvements to coatings on vintage lenses over time, but that is not related to the C/no C engraving. All vintage lenses are single coated.
Lens #2 needs a bit of CLA
Both lenses are very clean, Kiu! I opened them up and cleaned them myself just before shooting this series of shots.
benmacphoto
Well-known
With the second and third batch of images it does look like lens #2 is the reissue, slightly better contrast.
But I'm surprised by the performance of the first set of images.
I've never used the reissue 35mm, had a vintage 35mm f1.8 and loved how it rendered.
Looks like Nikon did an excellent job recreating the original 35mm f1.8.
But I'm surprised by the performance of the first set of images.
I've never used the reissue 35mm, had a vintage 35mm f1.8 and loved how it rendered.
Looks like Nikon did an excellent job recreating the original 35mm f1.8.
Peter Jennings
Well-known
What's our prize?
raid
Dad Photographer
All of this makes me happy to own the original ltm version of the Nikon 35/1.8. It is a great performer after all these years. Thanks for this thread.
lynnb
Veteran
Very nice job with the comparison photos Jon. Thanks for the challenge! Time to go back to my day job
pyeh
Member of good standing
Excellent test Jon. Nice demonstration.
Bob
Leica M User
Thanks Jon for this lens comparison. Very nice.
I really enjoyed this visual exercise
I really enjoyed this visual exercise
gavinlg
Veteran
Crazy how similar they are given they had to use a different glass type in the newer one. Certainly there's no real disadvantage to using the older on3. These little 35mm nikkors look like really really nice little lenses though. Jon it seems it be particularly suited to the way you shoot.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Thanks again, Jon, I learned something. They do seem to be fairly identical from 2.8 on with the exception of the small difference in color cast, though I am still a little surprised by the differences wide open. The newer lens has an "older" look to me, almost as if it is less corrected--this probably says more about my preconceptions of older lenses than anything else.
Looking at the out of focus areas behind the statue in the first, wide open, series the newer lens seems to have more of a swirly bokeh than the original lens. At any rate, the character of the bokeh there is certainly different--same general idea but not the same. It was why I preferred what I thought was the older lens, (which I have) which turned out to be the newer lens (which I don't). I wish I knew enough about optics to know exactly what parameter made the difference there, just for the sake of understanding. Just curious. I can't see that being a coating issue, or a glass content issue, but I obviously don't know.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to do this.
Looking at the out of focus areas behind the statue in the first, wide open, series the newer lens seems to have more of a swirly bokeh than the original lens. At any rate, the character of the bokeh there is certainly different--same general idea but not the same. It was why I preferred what I thought was the older lens, (which I have) which turned out to be the newer lens (which I don't). I wish I knew enough about optics to know exactly what parameter made the difference there, just for the sake of understanding. Just curious. I can't see that being a coating issue, or a glass content issue, but I obviously don't know.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to do this.
briansilcox
Established
Jon, wonderful idea... you have sparked everyone's imagination!
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
raid
Dad Photographer
I know! It used to be your beloved lens, Johan.
MikeL
Go Fish
Thanks Jon for efforts, always fun.
When I get some time I'll put together a comparison of the 3.5 cm w-nikkor, pre-asph summilux, and hopefully Iron Riders 35 nokton and ultron for sh-ts and giggles.
When I get some time I'll put together a comparison of the 3.5 cm w-nikkor, pre-asph summilux, and hopefully Iron Riders 35 nokton and ultron for sh-ts and giggles.
Thanks for looking and commenting everyone.
Me too! No surprise at all that most people thought lens 2 was the vintage lens based on this set of images.
I'd be interested to know what causes the difference too, Larry. Particularly the extra glow the reissue lens shows wide open. Both lenses are clean and free of haze so it must be something the optical engineers at Tochigi Nikon intentionally designed into the reissue lens. I can understand that the bokeh would be slightly different due to different glass and a (perhaps) slightly modified optical formula, but that extra glow is intriguing. Intentionally under corrected aberrations I suppose, but I don't know enough about lens design to know exactly what they did.
Me too! No surprise at all that most people thought lens 2 was the vintage lens based on this set of images.
I'd be interested to know what causes the difference too, Larry. Particularly the extra glow the reissue lens shows wide open. Both lenses are clean and free of haze so it must be something the optical engineers at Tochigi Nikon intentionally designed into the reissue lens. I can understand that the bokeh would be slightly different due to different glass and a (perhaps) slightly modified optical formula, but that extra glow is intriguing. Intentionally under corrected aberrations I suppose, but I don't know enough about lens design to know exactly what they did.
raid
Dad Photographer
I went out today with the Nikkor 38/1.8 ltm and the M8. The color rendering was beautiful. This lens is a great little lens that performs very well.
WJJ3
Well-known
Cool comparison you did here Jon, thanks for that. I am not a S shooter, but the idea of getting a S2 with a fifty has been growing on me
Interesting about Nikon keeping the reissue of the 3.5cm close to the original. As I understand it, that is not the approach they took with the 5cm reissue?
Interesting about Nikon keeping the reissue of the 3.5cm close to the original. As I understand it, that is not the approach they took with the 5cm reissue?
uhoh7
Veteran
They are so close. I just see a tad more contrast in Lens #1 in some shots. I would have thought that was the new one, must be the chemical hazard LOL
What body did you use? Nikon needs to grow a pair and make us a digital RF But the 2000 was such a nice move, and they are way down in price now. I would love that 50/1.4
BTW lanthanum only yellows in storage. Put them back in sun they clear up. And shoot fantastic. I have that big FD 35/2 which is very distinctive, and thoriated.
FJ by unoh7, FD 35/2 A7.mod
I think this is my favorite FD lens. I do keep it in the closet. I should probably move it out of the house.
What body did you use? Nikon needs to grow a pair and make us a digital RF
But the 2000 was such a nice move, and they are way down in price now. I would love that 50/1.4BTW lanthanum only yellows in storage. Put them back in sun they clear up. And shoot fantastic. I have that big FD 35/2 which is very distinctive, and thoriated.
FJ by unoh7, FD 35/2 A7.mod
I think this is my favorite FD lens. I do keep it in the closet. I should probably move it out of the house.
Cool comparison you did here Jon, thanks for that. I am not a S shooter, but the idea of getting a S2 with a fifty has been growing on me
Interesting about Nikon keeping the reissue of the 3.5cm close to the original. As I understand it, that is not the approach they took with the 5cm reissue?
Thanks Will. Nikon S cameras tend to do that, so I suspect one might just miraculously appear in your dry cabinet one day
The 50mm lens that Nikon included in the Nikon S3 Limited Edition kit is a reissue, just not the sonnar optical version first released in the early 1950s (and engraved in cm). Instead, Nikon reissued the Nikkor 50/1.4 lens (engraved in mm) affectionately nicknamed the "Olympic Nikkor". This lens was first released in 1962-3 just before the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, so came out at the tail end of the Nikon rangefinder era. Its a gauss optical formula so is bigger than the sonnar optical formula lens.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Nice shot and thanks for the helpful info. I happen to like the added contrast from my built in yellow filter. Perhaps that is why the concences is that the older lens has a bit more contrast.
Also know I somehow stumbled into a deal of a lifetime and bought another Nikon 35/1.8 in LTM. The pricing was right so I couldn't walk away. I pulled out the plastic card with the magic numbers. Realize only about 1700 were ever made in LTM and I currently own two.
There is a little oil on the blades, and there are mild scratches in the coating on the front element, but for the price I purchased my second 35/1.8 I can get the front element recoated by John at Focal Point and have a perfect lens at a still remarkable price. Meanwhile the scratches in the coating are so minor that I have no problem just using the lens as is. How is $999.00 for a price?
BTW the Nikkor 35/1.8 in LTM is a match made in heaven on my Monochrom. Also I love that the distance scale is only in feet for that simple and uncluttered look.
Cal