Do You Know what the rarest Nikon Rangefinder Lens is?
Bob Rotoloni does, he has been collecting Nikon data for decades. Bob is the President and founder of the Nikon Historical Society. IF Nikon history and collecting is interesting to you, you really should join NHS. The next meeting is in Vancouver, April 2008. The NHS Quarterly Journal offers Nikon information simply not available elsewhere!
Bob has kindly supplied me with the list of the 12 rarest Nikon production Rangefinder lenses.
Vote in the poll for the one you think is the rarest.
Results 9/10/2007
Have Fun!
Stephen
Bob Rotoloni does, he has been collecting Nikon data for decades. Bob is the President and founder of the Nikon Historical Society. IF Nikon history and collecting is interesting to you, you really should join NHS. The next meeting is in Vancouver, April 2008. The NHS Quarterly Journal offers Nikon information simply not available elsewhere!
Bob has kindly supplied me with the list of the 12 rarest Nikon production Rangefinder lenses.
Vote in the poll for the one you think is the rarest.
Results 9/10/2007
Have Fun!
Stephen
skhan
Established
...and I thought 50/1.1 is one of the rarer ones!
Grey sounds rare.
Grey sounds rare.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Utterly no clue so I'll vote aluminum as a "just because" kind of thing. It'll be fun to learn just what is the rarest.
William
William
aizan
Veteran
is the 35/1.2 nokton in s mount rarer than any of these?
Alexander
Member
got to be the 35mm f3.5 Stereo-Nikkor....only 170 made...a
Zen-shooter said:
yes, production Nikon S mount Nikkor lenses.
Stephen
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
35/3.5 #612 for sure.
They don't call them "prototype" lenses for nothing
They don't call them "prototype" lenses for nothing
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
Here is a hint folks,
Every lens in the list above is believed to have production of less than 200 examples other than the big guns...those are the REAL rare ones.
The poll is tricky but at the same time revealing!
Why are there two types of 1000 f6.3s listed?
Ahaaa....question is which one?
Kiu
Every lens in the list above is believed to have production of less than 200 examples other than the big guns...those are the REAL rare ones.
The poll is tricky but at the same time revealing!
Why are there two types of 1000 f6.3s listed?
Ahaaa....question is which one?
Kiu
Harry Lime
Practitioner
1000/6.3 Black
Total of 3-ish produced in RF mount?
HL
Total of 3-ish produced in RF mount?
HL
raid
Dad Photographer
I voted for the stereo lens, but it is rare and not "rarest". Maybe the 1000mm lens is the one?
MikeL
Go Fish
I voted for the 35mm 1.8 black rim, since no one else had.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
That's a good criterionMikeL said:
On the black 1000/6.3 Stephen writes that "total 1000/6.3 production in Nikon Rangefinder mount was about 50 units. The first lens was number 100630. The last reported lens is # 100680. Total production in F mount was about 60 units. The first F mount lens was 631000 and the last reported lens is # 631056. The first three or so 1000/6.3's in NRF mount were all black. Production then shifted to a light gray crinkle paint." So at three or so it should be pretty rare already.
However, assuming that the answer to this poll can not be found trivially by browsing the web page of the site owner, one of the other lenses here is probably made in a number of "two or so".
(Incidentally, at this point it becomes a bit absurd to speak about rare lenses. I have an ultra-rare Industar 61 with a non-standard set screw fitted by me when CLAing the lens. Total number of lenses in existence is one. Anyone wants to pay me a five-digit sum for the lens?)
Philipp
NEW Research not found Elsewhere
NEW Research not found Elsewhere
Actually, so far as I know, the answer can be found NO place on the net or in ANY published writings.
Remember this is Bob Rotoloni's latest info after decades of study. It has not been published before. That is why the header of this forum includes the copyright info and the no copying and posting elsewhere warning. The results of his work will be shared here with Bob's copyright, not mine or RFF's.
My CameraQuest articles are not as accurate as Bob's more intensive research.
As a fairly rabid Nikon Rangefinder collector, I am personally facinated that even some of the most popular collectible NRF Nikkors aren't rare enough to make this "rarest dozen" list -- lenses like the 25/4, 50/1.1, 50/1.5, 50 Micro, 85/1.5, 105/4 and 180/2.5.
Stephen
NEW Research not found Elsewhere
rxmd said:That's a good criterion
However, assuming that the answer to this poll can not be found trivially by browsing the web page of the site owner, one of the other lenses here is probably made in a number of "two or so".
Philipp
Actually, so far as I know, the answer can be found NO place on the net or in ANY published writings.
Remember this is Bob Rotoloni's latest info after decades of study. It has not been published before. That is why the header of this forum includes the copyright info and the no copying and posting elsewhere warning. The results of his work will be shared here with Bob's copyright, not mine or RFF's.
My CameraQuest articles are not as accurate as Bob's more intensive research.
As a fairly rabid Nikon Rangefinder collector, I am personally facinated that even some of the most popular collectible NRF Nikkors aren't rare enough to make this "rarest dozen" list -- lenses like the 25/4, 50/1.1, 50/1.5, 50 Micro, 85/1.5, 105/4 and 180/2.5.
Stephen
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
rxmd said:That's a good criterion
(Incidentally, at this point it becomes a bit absurd to speak about rare lenses. I have an ultra-rare Industar 61 with a non-standard set screw fitted by me when CLAing the lens. Total number of lenses in existence is one. Anyone wants to pay me a five-digit sum for the lens?)
Philipp
Yeah, I agree.
I have a few pretty rare lenses because they have scratches and dents only I can make.
For a few hundred bucks I can make your lens also very rare if you like.
Just sent it over.
Please go out and shoot your rare lenses instead of guessing
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
So I'm putting money down that it's one of the 35/3.5, 85/2, or 135/4 #ed series.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
A philosophical point: If a lens was made only in an edition of one... two... or even three units, does it really qualify as a "production" lens?
Any well-equipped optical house would be able to make one-off or a small batch of lenses for any weird purpose or other. But such mutant lenses wouldn't really tell us anything about the company's optical philosophy or the photographic spirit of the times in which they were sold -- which is what makes collecting an activity of legitimate scholarly interest, right?
So, even though I'm looking forward to the answer to this question, I tend to be less interested in which lenses are rare and more interested in why they are rare.
Is it scarce simply because somebody mis-engraved a batch of serial numbers? That's amusing but hardly tells us anything except "sh*t happens," which we already knew. Same for a lens that's unusual because the company tried two different paint suppliers and one kind of paint dried a little more glossy than the other. That can be a pleasant reminder of bygone days when lens crafting was more of a cottage industry, but it doesn't seem very significant.
On the other hand, the stereo Nikkor is reputedly rare in part because Nikon overestimated public interest in stereo photography, and in part because (or so I read in the first Rotoloni book) they had to smash the unsold lenses to avoid having to pay tax on the inventory! Now that's both a striking mental picture and an interesting insight into corporate practices and laws of the time.
So, is the 1000/6.3 (for example) rare because Nikon screwed up and thought an unwieldy and very expensive tele lens was going to be of interest to a lot more people than it actually was? Or is it rare simply because some big customer wanted a small number of units and was willing to pay through the nose for them?
So, when Robert R. reveals the answer to this quiz, I hope he'll also reveal "the story behind the story..."
Any well-equipped optical house would be able to make one-off or a small batch of lenses for any weird purpose or other. But such mutant lenses wouldn't really tell us anything about the company's optical philosophy or the photographic spirit of the times in which they were sold -- which is what makes collecting an activity of legitimate scholarly interest, right?
So, even though I'm looking forward to the answer to this question, I tend to be less interested in which lenses are rare and more interested in why they are rare.
Is it scarce simply because somebody mis-engraved a batch of serial numbers? That's amusing but hardly tells us anything except "sh*t happens," which we already knew. Same for a lens that's unusual because the company tried two different paint suppliers and one kind of paint dried a little more glossy than the other. That can be a pleasant reminder of bygone days when lens crafting was more of a cottage industry, but it doesn't seem very significant.
On the other hand, the stereo Nikkor is reputedly rare in part because Nikon overestimated public interest in stereo photography, and in part because (or so I read in the first Rotoloni book) they had to smash the unsold lenses to avoid having to pay tax on the inventory! Now that's both a striking mental picture and an interesting insight into corporate practices and laws of the time.
So, is the 1000/6.3 (for example) rare because Nikon screwed up and thought an unwieldy and very expensive tele lens was going to be of interest to a lot more people than it actually was? Or is it rare simply because some big customer wanted a small number of units and was willing to pay through the nose for them?
So, when Robert R. reveals the answer to this quiz, I hope he'll also reveal "the story behind the story..."
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Rigid 5cm/f2.0, serial #53422?
One example known?
HL
One example known?
HL
surgiblade
Newbie
I am sure the 25mm f/4 nikkor is one of them-
Mike
Mike
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
25 f/4 Nikkor production numbers, from CQ:
* Chrome Nikon RF mount - approximately 1000
* Black Nikon RF mount - approximately 1500
* Chrome Leica Screw mount - unknown production, but probably only a few hundred, if that
I'll say that puts the 25/4 square out of the running.
* Chrome Nikon RF mount - approximately 1000
* Black Nikon RF mount - approximately 1500
* Chrome Leica Screw mount - unknown production, but probably only a few hundred, if that
I'll say that puts the 25/4 square out of the running.
All Black 50's for Black Bodies
All Black 50's for Black Bodies
the lens on the far right, 763100 is just a standard black 50/2 with the chrome filter ring unscrewed. I've seen it done at camera shows to get a few more bucks from the unsuspecting. It takes about 30 seconds to remove the chrome filter ring.
My take on the real all black 50/2's is that they were produced to match the black cameras. Since most buyers (99%??) choose the 50/1.4 with their new back Nikon, making the all black 50/2 rare due to few orders.
Whether people ordering black bodies had to specify all black 50/1.4's and 50/2's with their black body, or something done automatically by the factory, I am not sure. But I suspect the latter, only because so few black S2's were ordered that most dealers simply would not have known to specify an all black 50 on the order.
On the two all black 50/2 that I found, the owners of the black S2's gave no special notice or value to their all black 50/2's. And I did not realize at the time they were any rarer than the black bodies. So in my mind at least, I am 100% sure these were not altered lenses, and that they left the factory on those black S2's. This would account for the random numbering, as the lenses were presumably made one at a time to fill a black body order.
Stephen
All Black 50's for Black Bodies
the lens on the far right, 763100 is just a standard black 50/2 with the chrome filter ring unscrewed. I've seen it done at camera shows to get a few more bucks from the unsuspecting. It takes about 30 seconds to remove the chrome filter ring.
My take on the real all black 50/2's is that they were produced to match the black cameras. Since most buyers (99%??) choose the 50/1.4 with their new back Nikon, making the all black 50/2 rare due to few orders.
Whether people ordering black bodies had to specify all black 50/1.4's and 50/2's with their black body, or something done automatically by the factory, I am not sure. But I suspect the latter, only because so few black S2's were ordered that most dealers simply would not have known to specify an all black 50 on the order.
On the two all black 50/2 that I found, the owners of the black S2's gave no special notice or value to their all black 50/2's. And I did not realize at the time they were any rarer than the black bodies. So in my mind at least, I am 100% sure these were not altered lenses, and that they left the factory on those black S2's. This would account for the random numbering, as the lenses were presumably made one at a time to fill a black body order.
Stephen