abenner
undecided
A Nikon S mount 50/1.1 for your S2 or SP? The M version is $1150, add a little premium for the S version, perhaps $1299. Would you buy it?
BillBingham2
Registered User
The only reason I would not is I have the new 1.4 Nikkor and it is a good enough lens for everything I do.
If I need more speed I'd buy faster film.
B2 (;->
If I need more speed I'd buy faster film.
B2 (;->
I need another 50mm lens like I need a hole in the head, but I would certainly be tempted if the Nokton 50/1.1 was available in S-mount. I would have selected "maybe" in the poll if that option was available, but instead selected "yes".
However, the Millennium Nikkor is such a good lens at f1.4 that its all I really need though.
However, the Millennium Nikkor is such a good lens at f1.4 that its all I really need though.
rbsinto
Well-known
No. But only because the 50 mm focal length is one I don't use, either with my rangefinders or SLRs.
But if they brought out a really fast 35 or 24/25 in a Nikon S mount, I'd seriously consider spending the money.
But if they brought out a really fast 35 or 24/25 in a Nikon S mount, I'd seriously consider spending the money.
Last edited:
No, it's too big. 1.4 is fast enough and a lot cheaper. 
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I would get one - no practical reason, just would like to have one as a companion to my SC 35f1.2. It would work very well on a S2 with its 1:1 finder.
Of course, using the same "ring" for the LH7 hood - it would be easy to make a slightly smaller version of the largish, original 50f1.1 Nikkor hood.
It would also be a really good 50f1.1 for a Nikon Rf - the 50f1.1 is VERY good - compared to any other super speed lenses around.
Of course, using the same "ring" for the LH7 hood - it would be easy to make a slightly smaller version of the largish, original 50f1.1 Nikkor hood.
It would also be a really good 50f1.1 for a Nikon Rf - the 50f1.1 is VERY good - compared to any other super speed lenses around.
Pioneer
Veteran
I certainly love mine, though it seems to work better with film than my M9. Not real sure why, maybe it is easier to focus it with my ZI.
And size is relative. Compared with the Canon EOS 50/1.2 this one is downright tiny.
And size is relative. Compared with the Canon EOS 50/1.2 this one is downright tiny.
David Murphy
Veteran
yes, if I could find the money
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Yes, I would certainly buy one. I have one, and it's great, notably for portraits, very sharp wide open. As Tom says it will work great with the 1:1 finder of the S2.
Leica M3, Nokton 50mm f/1.1 @ f/1.1, Tmax400.
Erik.
Leica M3, Nokton 50mm f/1.1 @ f/1.1, Tmax400.
Erik.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Hello abenner,
YES I would...
Hi Erik...Lovely Portrait
Best- H
YES I would...
Hi Erik...Lovely Portrait
Best- H
sp9107sp
Well-known
if it was comparable to my nikon 5cm 1.1 yes, i would.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Thank you, Helen!
Erik.
Erik.
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
Immediately after winning the lottery.
Cheers,
Dez
Cheers,
Dez
maddoc
... likes film again.
I would buy one, the 1:1 VF of the S2 is ideally suited for such a lens.
thompsonks
Well-known
Soon after they came out, I noticed on LUF that a number of people who bought 50mm Noktons for Leica sold them again. I just did a LUF search and saw that the main issues were focus and bokeh.
I once owned a 35 Nokton 1.2, and it was an OK lens (except for some CA); but IMO its bulk and viewfinder blockage defeated the point of using a RF. I have an S-mount CV 50 1.5 in a drawer, to use at the beach or among scrambling children; but its bulk is a problem for normal/regular use. With a heavy lens externally mounted, you can't use the focusing wheel.
IMO f1.1 would be more trouble than it's worth. I've used a 75mm Summilux and find that the % of wide-open 'keepers' is too low because of difficulty in focusing, esp. when photographing people who move a cm or two. I'd expect the same difficulty with a 50mm 1.1. Fortunately for my finances, this view makes me immune to f1 or f.95 Nocti-lust, too.
At 50mm, f1.4 seems a nice max aperture. I prefer to use RF Nikons with their own lenses, or with f1.5 S-mount Sonnar.
Kirk
I once owned a 35 Nokton 1.2, and it was an OK lens (except for some CA); but IMO its bulk and viewfinder blockage defeated the point of using a RF. I have an S-mount CV 50 1.5 in a drawer, to use at the beach or among scrambling children; but its bulk is a problem for normal/regular use. With a heavy lens externally mounted, you can't use the focusing wheel.
IMO f1.1 would be more trouble than it's worth. I've used a 75mm Summilux and find that the % of wide-open 'keepers' is too low because of difficulty in focusing, esp. when photographing people who move a cm or two. I'd expect the same difficulty with a 50mm 1.1. Fortunately for my finances, this view makes me immune to f1 or f.95 Nocti-lust, too.
At 50mm, f1.4 seems a nice max aperture. I prefer to use RF Nikons with their own lenses, or with f1.5 S-mount Sonnar.
Kirk
It's interesting to read what I wrote three and a half years ago. The fast Nokton is no doubt a fine lens but these days my back prefers lighter gear so now I'd definitely vote no.
In the interim, I also sold four of the six S-mount 50mm lenses I had including the Millennium Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 and the ultra fast Nikkor-N 5cm f/1.1, and now have just a late black Nikkor-S 5cm f/1.4 which weights in at a paltry 141 grams (just two grams more than the late black Nikkor-H 5cm f/2) and a CZ Tessar 5cm f/2.8 (not really Nikon-S mount but it focuses just fine) which weighs even less.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Off topic, but my late black Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 414866 weights 143 grams, my chrome Nikkor-S.C 50mm f/1.4 361184 152 grams and my chrome Nikkor-H.C 50mm f/2 136 grams, so my chrome Nikkor 50mm f/2 weights 3 grams less than Jonmanjiros black one!
Erik.
Damn, caught out red handed relying on a slightly faded memory
I weighed these lenses a few years back and my memory indeed is a bit rusty. I just checked now, and low and behold my Nikkor-S 5cm f/1.4 weighs 143 grams, the same as yours. I wasn't too far out
I don't remember the exact weight of my late Nikkor-H 5cm f/2 which now resides in Oslo but the difference was not much at all. FWIW Rotoloni's latest Nikon RF book has the chrome version of the Nikkor-H 5cm f/2 listed as weighing 175 grams and the black version as weighing 131 grams, so you must have a rare collection worthy version there, Erik
Attachments
tojeem
Enthusiast
I would love to, but it's a liiiiiiittle out of my price range. And by "little" I mean a ridiculous amount.
EDIT: Whoops, mistook it for the Nikon 50/1.1.
I still wouldn't buy the Nokton. My Nikkor suits me well enough.
EDIT: Whoops, mistook it for the Nikon 50/1.1.
I still wouldn't buy the Nokton. My Nikkor suits me well enough.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
FWIW Rotoloni's latest Nikon RF book has the chrome version of the Nikkor-H 5cm f/2 listed as weighing 175 grams and the black version as weighing 131 grams, so you must have a rare collection worthy version there, Erik
The number of my chrome Nikkor-S.C 50mm f/2 is 653635, so it isn't exactly early. Rotoloni states that the early ones, starting at 622xxx, are over 6oz and the latest ones, ending at 661551, are 5oz. As an European, I don't know what "oz" means, but I'll look it up.
Erik.