What is the Rarest Nikon RF Lens?

[CameraQuest]

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

[skhan]

...and I thought 50/1.1 is one of the rarer ones!

Grey sounds rare.

[wlewisiii]

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

[aizan]

is the 35/1.2 nokton in s mount rarer than any of these?

[Alexander]

got to be the 35mm f3.5 Stereo-Nikkor....only 170 made...a

[CameraQuest]

We're talking about S-mount only, right?
Anyway I voted for the 50/3.5

yes, production Nikon S mount Nikkor lenses.

Stephen

[erikhaugsby]

35/3.5 #612 for sure.
They don't call them "prototype" lenses for nothing

[NIKON KIU]

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

[Harry Lime]

1000/6.3 Black

Total of 3-ish produced in RF mount?

HL

[raid]

I voted for the stereo lens, but it is rare and not "rarest". Maybe the 1000mm lens is the one?

[MikeL]

I voted for the 35mm 1.8 black rim, since no one else had.

[rxmd]

I voted for the 35mm 1.8 black rim, since no one else had.
That's a good criterion :)

On the black 1000/6.3 Stephen writes (http://www.cameraquest.com/100063f.htm) 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

[CameraQuest]

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]

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]

So I'm putting money down that it's one of the 35/3.5, 85/2, or 135/4 #ed series.

[jlw]

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..."

[Harry Lime]

Rigid 5cm/f2.0, serial #53422?

One example known?

HL

[jlw]

Clearly the 1000 6.3 was a production lens not a prototype. However the difference is a fine one.

I would define a lens as production if it is listed in literature, and price sheets, for general sale to the public. The 1000 was sold in small numbers not because it was sold to one buyer, but because it cost the same as a Volkswagen. Nikon sold at least $120,000 worth of them, which today would be $760000, so I suppose it was worth their effort.

Good definition. So, we can assume that all the lenses listed on the ballot were available for sale to the public, even if not very many members of the public bought them...?

I agree that availability for public retail sale is a good criterion, as it would screen out prototype, special-order, and industrial lenses (copier and process-camera lenses, for example) that were not intended to be sold to the public. Such lenses may be technically interesting, but don't tell us much about the conditions in the photographic industry at the time.

[CameraQuest]

Several were not, in my opinion, available to the public as distinct products... or are just cosmetic variations, but are collector variations



50/2 All Black
I am still not convinced this lens is an actual Nikon product, it seems to be a modified lens, but since I have never seen one except in photographs, I cannot really have any absolute opinion. A number of collectors disagree with me on this one.

!

Hi Fred,

I've owned two of the all black 50/2.

Both arrived on black "chrome dial" S2's.

Stephen

[surgiblade]

I am sure the 25mm f/4 nikkor is one of them-

Mike

[erikhaugsby]

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.

[CameraQuest]

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

[BillBingham2]

Rumor has it that some folks in BedSty are trying to make fake 1000/6.3 but in gang colors! I miss the Ave N stop on the F.

B2 (;->

[jsuominen]

After reading last night Bob Rotoloni's Nikon Rangefinder Camera -book, I'll vote "1000/6.3 Black". :)

[MikeL]

After reading last night Bob Rotoloni's Nikon Rangefinder Camera -book, I'll vote "1000/6.3 Black". :)

Don't just go along because "the man" says so. Oh wait, he is The Man. Uh, good choice, yah. :)

[CameraQuest]

Don't just go along because "the man" says so. Oh wait, he is The Man. Uh, good choice, yah. :)

yes, he is.
but a lot of info has been gathered since that book was published.

Stephen

[CameraQuest]

only 11 out of 55 voters got got either of the two reported rarest lenses correct.
that is because the rarest reported lens to Bob is usually not considered all that rare -- in error.

more later in the day.

Stephen

[erikhaugsby]

only 11 out of 55 voters got got either of the two reported rarest lenses correct.
that is because the rarest reported lens to Bob is usually not considered all that rare -- in error.

more later in the day.

Stephen
So that means the two rarest Nikon lenses are the 1000/6.3 (black) and either the 50/3.5 (non-micro) or the 35/1.8 (black rim).

So which one is it?

[CameraQuest]

# 15 50/1.4 All Black for Nikon RF Black bodies 700 to 800 lenses

# 14 350/4.5 429 lenses

# 13 50/1.5 389 lenses in NRF mount


Due to David Douglas Duncan, the 50/1.5 is arguably the most important lens Nikon ever produced. Without DDD, would Nikon have survived the occupation era?

Stephen

Copyright Robert Rotoloni, 2007, all rights reserved "The 15 Rarest Nikon Rangefinder Lenses"

[BillBingham2]

Why the 50/1.5 and not the 85/2?

B2 (;->

[CameraQuest]

# 12 50/1.4 Aluminum 300 Aprorx

# 11 85/2 801 Series, 300 Aprox

# 10 21/4 298 per factory


Stephen

Copyright Robert Rotoloni, 2007, all rights reserved "The 15 Rarest Nikon Rangefinder Lenses"









Copyright Robert Rotoloni, 2007, all rights reserved "The 15 Rarest Nikon Rangefinder Lenses"

[BillBingham2]

I thought it was the picture taken with the 85/2 that turned his head towards Nikon in the first place. Yes, after the 105 came out I woiuld bet that everyone dropped the 85 like a hot potato.

B2 (;->

[CameraQuest]

The 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th Rarest Nikon Rangefinder Lenses Are:

# 9 135/4 MIOJ 611 series for Nikon One 230/250 Aprox

# 8 500/5 157 in Nikon mount per factory

# 7 35/3.5 Sereo 146 or 176

# 6 35/3.5 MIOJ 612 series for Nikon One series 125 Aprox


Stephen

Copyright Robert Rotoloni, 2007, all rights reserved "The 15 Rarest Nikon Rangefinder Lenses"

[jonmanjiro]

I thought it was the picture taken with the 85/2 that turned his head towards Nikon in the first place. Yes, after the 105 came out I woiuld bet that everyone dropped the 85 like a hot potato.

B2 (;->

I've read conflicting accounts on this one. Was it the 5.0cm/1.5 (or 5.0cm/1.4?) or the 85/2? The account posted by VinceC below says it was the 8.5cm/2 :confused:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=517559&highlight=duncan#post517559

[CameraQuest]

The 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and Rarest Nikon Rangefinder Lenses Are:

# 5 50/3.5 MIOJ for Nikon One Aprox 100

# 4 35/1.8 Black Rim, aprox 75

# 3 1000/6.3 Grey "38 possibly, factory says 48 total 1000/6.3 production"

# 2 1000/6.3 Black "10 possibly"

# 1 50/2 All Black "5 or 6 verified"

The black 1000/6.3 is so rare most collectors have never heard of it, much less seen one. Very few have seen a grey 1000/6.3 in NRF mount either.

The all black 50/2 is quite a surprise. Most collectors have no idea so few are verified by Bob as being original. More will likely be reported now, probably making the black 1000/6.3 into the number one position as the rarest Nikon RF lens.

I believe the all black 50/2 were made to order to match black Nikon S2's. I have found two of them on black S2's. Presumably most people who paid extra for a black body also paid extra for the 1.4.

Stephen

Copyright Robert Rotoloni, 2007, all rights reserved "The 15 Rarest Nikon Rangefinder Lenses"

[jsuominen]

only 11 out of 55 voters got got either of the two reported rarest lenses correct.

What would be the prize for the 'winners'? Bob's new book, after it has been published or 1000/6.3 Black? ;)

[Harry Lime]

What would be the prize for the 'winners'? Bob's new book, after it has been published or 1000/6.3 Black? ;)


How about one of those new Nikon SP sets?
:rolleyes:


HL

[LeicaTom]

How many Nikkor S F1.5 50mm in LTM were ever made?

http://kevincameras.com/gallery/albums/albvn44/nikon_lsm_50_1_5_905114_1.jpg (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/)

Too bad they are so rare, I`d love to see what the photo results would be mated up with a really good Leica IIIC :D

Tom

[JonR]

Very interesting thread to read!
/jon

[VinceC]

Why the 50/1.5 and not the 85/2?

The 85/2 led Duncan to discover Nikkor lenses. However, he did nearly all of his shooting with 50mm lenses. He spent the first several months of the Korean War shooting for LIFE with a 50/1.5. He then switched to the new 50/1.4 in time to shoot the November-December 1950 retreat. In his landmark book "This is War!" the first two sections of photographs were taken with the 50/1.5. The final section was shot with the 50/1.4. His text says only one published book photo was shot with a non-50, a close-up portrait of a Chinese soldier shot with a 135mm Nikon.

In my version of "This is War!" there's no visible quality difference between the 50/1.5 and the 50/1.4.

[wes loder]

As I pointed out in my talk in 2006, and in my forthcoming book, NK did not start to sell the 35mm f3.5 until the spring of 1950. No 35mm lens was sold with the Nikon I. There was an initial series with the aperture ring reversed that was apparently a first run, and is quite rare, but it was not available in either 1948 or 1949. A few variframe finders were sold for the Nikon I, and these do have a marking for the 35, but that was in anticipation of production.

I remain curious about Stephen's 157 number for the 500 f5, since I have records of serial numbers from 021 through 272. Where is the gap or gaps? Thanks, WES

[CameraQuest]

As I pointed out in my talk in 2006, and in my forthcoming book, NK did not start to sell the 35mm f3.5 until the spring of 1950. No 35mm lens was sold with the Nikon I. There was an initial series with the aperture ring reversed that was apparently a first run, and is quite rare, but it was not available in either 1948 or 1949. A few variframe finders were sold for the Nikon I, and these do have a marking for the 35, but that was in anticipation of production.

I remain curious about Stephen's 157 number for the 500 f5, since I have records of serial numbers from 021 through 272. Where is the gap or gaps? Thanks, WES

Hi Wes,

the figures came from Bob Rotoloni.

I know from private emails that neither Bob or I agree with your take the 35/3.5 production did not start with the Nikon One.

Please explain how you came to that conclusion, and whether or not any Nippon Kogaku employees of the time agree with you.

Thanks
Stephen

[NIKON KIU]

Hi Wes,

the figures came from Bob Rotoloni.

I know from private emails that neither Bob or I agree with your take the 35/3.5 production did not start with the Nikon One.

Please explain how you came to that conclusion, and whether or not any Nippon Kogaku employees of the time agree with you.

Thanks
Stephen

I believe Wes reviewed the records of the Occupation forces:cool:

I guess those COULD be wrong:eek:

Kiu

[CameraQuest]

[QUOTE=NIKON KIU]I believe Wes reviewed the records of the Occupation forces:cool:

I guess those COULD be wrong:eek:

Kiu[/QUOTE

yes indeed.

Stephen

[NIKON KIU]

Are you implying Nippon Kogaku exaggerated? They built the lens and sold it but didn't report it to the occupation forces, even when they were required to do so?

The records at the National Archives of the United Stated should have some credibility, right?
The occupation forces endorsed companies such as NK to produce stuff,they even endorsed it so much that they let them sell it in their PX shops. Would it be wise to assume that NK designed,produced and sold the 3.5cm but slipped it past General McArthur?

IMHO
Indeed it is not!

Kiu

[CameraQuest]

Are you implying Nippon Kogaku exaggerated? They built the lens and sold it but didn't report it to the occupation forces, even when they were required to do so?

The records at the Archives of the United Stated should have some credibility, right?
The occupation forces endorsed companies such as NK to produce stuff,they even endorsed it so much that they let them sell it in their PX shops. Would it be wise to assume that NK designed,produced and sold the 3.5cm but slipped it past General McArthur?

IMHO
Indeed it is not!

Kiu

countless paperwork inaccuracies have been made
intentional and or unintentional

until Wes has time to reply and explain his source(es)
it's a waste of time for us to talk about it.

Stephen

[NIKON KIU]

countless paperwork inaccuracies have been made
intentional and or unintentional

until Wes has time to reply and explain his source(es)
it's a waste of time for us to talk about it.

Stephen

I guess we have to wait for the book!!

Kiu

[CameraQuest]

http://cameraquest.com/jpg2/nrf100063B%2025.jpg

[MikeL]

Whoa, any photos from that beast?

[jsuominen]

None he can publish? When I had a couple of them, I could shoot across the East River and read the brand name on the shower handles... oops!

Same dilemma, if you would have owned a Zuiko 800mm/8 mirror lens for Olympus Pen F. :)
http://www.cameraquest.com/olypenf.htm

I'll check from John Foster's Pen F book, how rare that lens is.
http://www.biofos.com/pub/index.html

[Hacker]

...and I thought 50/1.1 is one of the rarer ones!

Grey sounds rare.

There is always the 50mm f1.1 in LTM.

[F6Roger]

Surely got to be the 35mm f1.4 Nikkor-S or 50mm f1 Nikkor-O only one of each known.

[jonmanjiro]

Surely got to be the 35mm f1.4 Nikkor-S or 50mm f1 Nikkor-O only one of each known.

Yes indeed :)

But never made it to production unfortunately.

This poll was for (as per the first post) "production Rangefinder lenses" ;)

[F6Roger]

Yes indeed :)

But never made it to production unfortunately.

This poll was for (as per the first post) "production Rangefinder lenses" ;)

Doh :bang: I stand corrected ;) It was late, I'd had a hard day working on the railway and was pooped. Wondered why no one else had picked those lenses ! I promise to read ALL the words next time before posting :D

[skahde]

Honestly, I don't quite get the point.

[wes loder]

I note that I never had a chance to follow up on the issue of the when the first 35mm f3.5 W-Nikkors for the Nikon Rf cameras became available.
For all of you who have read my book, you will know that the SCAP records indicate the 35mm, f3.5 as a "New product" in April 1950 with a production of 77 for that month. It is possible that NK had manufactured as many as 125 in the 1940s, but had not yet put them into mounts, getting around to that only in 1950 when they had both the market and funds to do that. While these first 35s are cruder than the production runs that follow, they do share a common feature with all the other Nikkors from early 1950: The MIOJ mark is on the rear of the rangefinder cam. Prior to 1950, the other accessory lenses such as the 135 f4 and the 85 f2 had the MIOJ mark on the outside barrel. For those two reasons, I stick my position that the 35mm f3.5 was not available for purchase prior to April 1950.

[wes loder]

I would question the numbers of 157 lenses for the 500mm f5 Nikkor T. Does this include the 500mm in all mounts, or just in Nikon bayonet? That might quite a difference in the total number.

My records indicate a production run from 647001 to at least 647123 with no noticeable break (nos 647021 is the earliest recorded). The changeover from the "INF" to the "lazy 8" for infinity occurs somewhere between 647090 and 647099. A small number of Leica mounts are in that range. The lowest number in the next series that I have records of is 647206 with a run up to 647285. Then a final series starting 647501 through at least 647531, all in direct Bronica mount. That would yield a total of at least 233 lenses. Perhaps there are other gaps, but they are not apparent, and as more lenses turn up, they may be closed. Hope tihs helps. WES

[Tom A]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3486/3809405657_c538b74723_z.jpg?zz=1

Maybe not the rarest - but with only 265 made, up there with them. The Zeiss C Sonnar 50mm f1.5 in S mount.
The Nokton 35mm f1.2 was strictly a one-off, maybe 4 or 5 made in total.

[CameraQuest]

I note that I never had a chance to follow up on the issue of the when the first 35mm f3.5 W-Nikkors for the Nikon Rf cameras became available.
For all of you who have read my book, you will know that the SCAP records indicate the 35mm, f3.5 as a "New product" in April 1950 with a production of 77 for that month. It is possible that NK had manufactured as many as 125 in the 1940s, but had not yet put them into mounts, getting around to that only in 1950 when they had both the market and funds to do that. While these first 35s are cruder than the production runs that follow, they do share a common feature with all the other Nikkors from early 1950: The MIOJ mark is on the rear of the rangefinder cam. Prior to 1950, the other accessory lenses such as the 135 f4 and the 85 f2 had the MIOJ mark on the outside barrel. For those two reasons, I stick my position that the 35mm f3.5 was not available for purchase prior to April 1950.

I disagree and believe the 35/3.5 was available pretty much from the git go with the Nikon One. I discussed this with Bob Rotoloni, who concurs.

Your theory seems to be based upon only one source, the "new product" reference in SCAP. All it would take for an error in that source is a bad translation from Japanese to English, or someone new on their job who was not familiar with prior lens production. Likewise does "new production" indicate a new focal length in the lens lineup, or a new version of 35mm lens?

Additionally there is no question the 35-135 Version 1 finder was introduced pretty much with the Nikon One. It would make little sense for such a finder if Nikon did not have a 35mm lens to go along with the finder.

Lastly, for decades after the Nikon One launch, most of the people who worked on the original Nikon camera and lenses were available to give interviews. Its inconceivable that they would have allowed the widely held belief that 35mm lenses were available and concurrent with the Nikon One to be circulated as fact, if that was in fact not the case.

When looking at the overall picture, not just an obscure single reference, it just makes no sense that Nikon's original 35/3.5 was not introduced until 1950.

Stephen Gandy

[wes loder]

Steve, you and Bob are certainly entitled to your opinions, but the SCAP records are a primary source and there is no indication that they are false at any point. Numbers are confused occasionally, but not dates. I find it a bit odd that Bob would so willingly accept SCAP dates and numbers for both the 85mm and the 135mm, but not the 35.
To back up the SCAP records, you might note that Nikon, Inc's own write-up on the wide-angles for the Nikon RF series that the company posted on the web indicated an availability date for the 35mm f3.5 of March 1950, only one month before the SCAP records indicated production start of this "New product."
In addition, all the early 35s have the MIOJ mark on the rangefinder cam, a location not used for either the 85s or the 135s until 1950. If the 35 was available prior to 1950, one would expect the MIOJ mark to be on the barrel exterior.
Yes, NK manufactured variable-frame finders with the 35 setting during 1949, and clearly intended to make a 35mm lens, but intentions and availability are two different beasts. NK had enough trouble in 1948 getting the camera working and out the door, let alone worry about the accessory lenses. The company didn't get the 135mm f4 into production until November 1948 and the 85 off the ground until the spring of 1949. Longer lenses were where the sales and money were. It made sense to postpone the production of the 35mm Nikkor until camera sales had picked up enough to create a market for the least-popular focal length.
It is possible that NK might have made an early production run of the 35 optics in the late Forties, perhaps the 612X series, but when did these get put into mounts for sale? NK probably held off until it was clear that there would be enough Nikon owners around willing to buy a 35mm lens. There would be no point in investing time and limited money in putting a lens out for sale that had almost no cameras to go on.
The 1947 book of all NK's products assembled for the Occupation authorities does list a 135 and a 35 lens for the new Nikon camera. But that is a dream sheet assembled to convince SCAP that NK was now a model citizen and not a munitions manufacturer. Not even the camera was in production, and the Nikoflex illustrated on the same page never saw the light of day. That same report shows a fisheye lens! And no one contends that NK put THAT into production in the 1940s.
If you had tried to buy a 35mm Nikkor in 1948 or 1949, the answer would have been "Yes. Wait. Coming soon." But you would not have been able to actually buy one until Spring of 1950. WES

[Bar8barian]

I have on my records the following:-

Nikon-S 3,5cm f3.5

Mar. 1948 Serial Nos. 612 - 61245 reverse f-stops (prototypes only).

Oct. 1949 Serial Nos.9101 - 9101700 MIOJ - presumably this batch of lenses was the first to
go into full production and would be issued possibly late 1949 or early 1950.

[wes loder]

Bar8barian:
Interesting. What is your source for these early 35mm W-Nikkor lens numbers dates? Were these productions in mounts, or serial numbered optical assemblies? The problem is that NK used serial number prefixes that were date-based, but the date was design-based, not manufacture date. Thus the 612X series would indicate a design approval date or finalization of December 1946. Not bad considering that NK had approved the "final" design for the Nikon camera in September [609X]. But just as camera would not go into "production" for another 18 months, and then only in ones and twos until August 1948, it is possible that the 35mm lens did not see light of day for some time.
The 910XX series that followed, as you note, would indicate October 1949 for design approval. That would match in well with a start of production in March, 1950 and the first lens out the door and on the SCAP lists in April.
So when were the 612X series out and available? Probably not until the spring of 1950 either, because not enough Nikons had been sold to generate a market for the least popular accessory lens—although they might have been sitting around the factory waiting for mounts until then. The 612X series might even have gone out at the same time with the 910X series. Remember, NK's biggest market for its lenses was not its new camera, but the screw-mt. Leica copies.
Or, it is possible that NK just held the 612X lenses in the factory until sales of the camera got going. That does not sound likely, since inventory on hand got heavily taxed.
Bob believes that a third of the first Nikon owners would have bought a 35mm lens. I would disagree. Sales of accessory lenses were always lower than one would imagine. If someone did buy an accessory lens, it was almost always the 135mm first—and that was the first accessory lens that SCAP indicates that NK put into production. Logical. This held true throughout the 35mm era. Only with the opening of the CPO to camera sales in the spring of 1950 were enough Nikons being sold on a continuing basis to support large numbers of accessory lenses.
An additional personal note: When Hans Liholm was in Tokyo in April-May 1950 to negotiate the export contract with NK, Nagaoka gave him a Nikon M with a 50mm f2 lens, an 85 and a 135 and a variable frame finder. Although generous, NK did not give him either a 35 or the new 50mm f1.5. Why? Because they did not have enough of these new optics to afford to give them away?
Where did these first 35mm Nikkors go? Almost all of them went to the CPO. Thanks for keeping up this discussion. WES

[furcafe]

Wow, had no idea they made so few. Thought they made at least 300.

Maybe not the rarest - but with only 265 made, up there with them. The Zeiss C Sonnar 50mm f1.5 in S mount.

[Tom A]

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/178/388757089_ed07d946c0_b.jpg

Very early Nikkor 50mm f3.5 collapsible. It came on an enlarger with a home made S to screw mount adapter. Turns it was a pre-production 50f3.5 for the Nikon 1 and it ended up in Hong Kong and later here in Vancouver. Supposedly the lowest serial number of any 50mm f3.5. I kept it for a while, used it on a S2 - but in the end sold it at Christies for a lot of money. This was all in the mid-nineties. I kind of like the dome shaped lens cap too!

[CameraQuest]

Steve, you and Bob are certainly entitled to your opinions, but the SCAP records are a primary source and there is no indication that they are false at any point. Numbers are confused occasionally, but not dates. I find it a bit odd that Bob would so willingly accept SCAP dates and numbers for both the 85mm and the 135mm, but not the 35.
To back up the SCAP records, you might note that Nikon, Inc's own write-up on the wide-angles for the Nikon RF series that the company posted on the web indicated an availability date for the 35mm f3.5 of March 1950, only one month before the SCAP records indicated production start of this "New product."
In addition, all the early 35s have the MIOJ mark on the rangefinder cam, a location not used for either the 85s or the 135s until 1950. If the 35 was available prior to 1950, one would expect the MIOJ mark to be on the barrel exterior.
Yes, NK manufactured variable-frame finders with the 35 setting during 1949, and clearly intended to make a 35mm lens, but intentions and availability are two different beasts. NK had enough trouble in 1948 getting the camera working and out the door, let alone worry about the accessory lenses. The company didn't get the 135mm f4 into production until November 1948 and the 85 off the ground until the spring of 1949. Longer lenses were where the sales and money were. It made sense to postpone the production of the 35mm Nikkor until camera sales had picked up enough to create a market for the least-popular focal length.
It is possible that NK might have made an early production run of the 35 optics in the late Forties, perhaps the 612X series, but when did these get put into mounts for sale? NK probably held off until it was clear that there would be enough Nikon owners around willing to buy a 35mm lens. There would be no point in investing time and limited money in putting a lens out for sale that had almost no cameras to go on.
The 1947 book of all NK's products assembled for the Occupation authorities does list a 135 and a 35 lens for the new Nikon camera. But that is a dream sheet assembled to convince SCAP that NK was now a model citizen and not a munitions manufacturer. Not even the camera was in production, and the Nikoflex illustrated on the same page never saw the light of day. That same report shows a fisheye lens! And no one contends that NK put THAT into production in the 1940s.
If you had tried to buy a 35mm Nikkor in 1948 or 1949, the answer would have been "Yes. Wait. Coming soon." But you would not have been able to actually buy one until Spring of 1950. WES

Actually Wes, the real question is where is YOUR proof?
You are the one going against conventional wisdom in every standard Nikon RF reference book.

One reference in SCAP might make an interesting theory, but its certainly not proof. As you yourself point out, SCAP was inaccurate in claiming a early Nikon fisheye lens, so why should a claim of 1st production 35mm lenses in 1950 be any more accurate?

To make your starting 1950 production 35mm lens theory credible you need original Nikon data, either from NK records or from 1946 NK workers.

Failing that, the death knell to your theory is the popularity of Nikon collecting in the 1980's and 1990 in Japan -- while many of the Nikon One workers were still alive and able to share their experiences with Japanese collectors. IF indeed the 35/3.5's were not produced until 1950, that fact would have been shared and common knowledge long ago.

Lastly Nikon is still a going concern and arguably the most dedicated to its own history than any other Japanese camera company. Wes, do you really think Nikon would allow a misconception about the Nikon One's original lenses to continue 60 plus years? Really ?

Stephen

[wes loder]

Steve: Go to the National Archives in College Park Maryland and look at the records yourself if you doubt their "Proof." Sometimes "conventional wisdom" can be simply wrong.
Did you even read my last response? I noted that Nikon Inc., itself listed the 35mm f3.5 as coming out in March 1950 on the company's own web page. You are relying on fifty-year-old memories, not on documents. I am relying on documents, not on some company veteran recalling "Oh, yeah, we had the 35mm lens back then."
As for the 1947 fisheye lens, NK included a photograph of the lens in their booklet for the SCAP authorities. Neither NK or SCAP ever claimed that the lens was available or in production, just that the company had prototyped and was "capable" of making such a lens. That is not an "inaccurate" statement as you maintain. The booklet also included the Nikoflex, and we all know what happened to that camera.
A lot of false information went out about the early days of the Nikon camera. Some of that misinformation was deliberately sowed out by Ehrenreich to enhance his own reputation. The Oft-made Statement that SCAP banned the "Export" of the Nikon One is definitely false—as proved by research in contemporary publications, interviews with Liholm and Gasser and SCAP records, yet you have never gotten around to correcting that statement in your own web pages on the Nikon One.
What is possibly true is that the Nikon camera was not allowed to be sold through the CPO (military exchanges stores). But that is not the same "export."
To return to the 35mm f3.5 W-Nikkor. SCAP optical production records appear to have picked up and listed items when the various companies finished them and moved them to an availability-for-sale status. Which would mean that the 35mm Nikkor was not "Available" prior to April 1950. That does not mean that NK had not manufactured 35mm optics prior to 1950, it just means that a customer (whole-sale or retail) could not buy one.
NK manufactured a bunch of 80mm lenses for its Nikoflex, but they do not appear on SCAP records because NK never actually made the camera. They would have appeared on the Aires Camera entry when that camera appeared on the SCAP lists.
Please read through all my past entries on this topic. I am not relying on hazy memories, wishful thinkng or even just on optical production reports from SCAP, but a wide range of sources. When I first read the production reports, I was as surprised as you appear to be to find the 35mm lens not appearing until 1950, but then I went back and compared the records with all the other information I was gathering and what other contemporary writers was stating, and I had to reach the conclusion I have.
You may "wish" to believe that a person buying a Nikon in the fall of 1948 could buy a 35, or a 135 in addition to any normal that the camera came with, but it did not happen that way. NK planned to sell the 35mm lens, may have advertised it that way and even believed that would have that lens available "Real-soon-now," but it did not happen. Unless you, or Bob or someone else can show me a receipt for a delivered, production 35mm w-Nikkor dating prior to 1950, I will stick to my position.

WES

[wes loder]

I believe this discussion of the earliest 35mm f3.5 W-Nikkor for the RF Nikons is not getting anywhere at this point and is certainly off topic for this thread. I would be happy to discuss this personally further via e-mail <MWL2@psu.edu>. Let me know.

But to return to the thread, how about a "production" lens of which there may exist only one, or maybe two or three?
The 1956 "R-Nikkor."
NK designed the first Micro-Nikkor as a lens for 35mm reproduction work, similar to that of an APO-Nikkor. Indeed, the first statements claimed that the lens was an apochromat. The first pictures (such as the one that Wolbarst wrote up for Modern Photography) show the beauty ring with a label of "R-Nikkor" and a serial number of 523001—the first in the regular production series for the Micro-Nikkor. Was this a once-off? Actually a prototype? or did NK change its mind almost immediately and go with "Micro-Nikkor" to better define the lens' use in microfilming? Anyone ever find another lens with the "R-Nikkor?" label? Where is that lens now? Now that would be a find. Cheers, WES

[CameraQuest]

Steve: Go to the National Archives in College Park Maryland and look at the records yourself if you doubt their "Proof." Sometimes "conventional wisdom" can be simply wrong.
Did you even read my last response? I noted that Nikon Inc., itself listed the 35mm f3.5 as coming out in March 1950 on the company's own web page. You are relying on fifty-year-old memories, not on documents. I am relying on documents, not on some company veteran recalling "Oh, yeah, we had the 35mm lens back then."
As for the 1947 fisheye lens, NK included a photograph of the lens in their booklet for the SCAP authorities. Neither NK or SCAP ever claimed that the lens was available or in production, just that the company had prototyped and was "capable" of making such a lens. That is not an "inaccurate" statement as you maintain. The booklet also included the Nikoflex, and we all know what happened to that camera.
A lot of false information went out about the early days of the Nikon camera. Some of that misinformation was deliberately sowed out by Ehrenreich to enhance his own reputation. The Oft-made Statement that SCAP banned the "Export" of the Nikon One is definitely false—as proved by research in contemporary publications, interviews with Liholm and Gasser and SCAP records, yet you have never gotten around to correcting that statement in your own web pages on the Nikon One.
What is possibly true is that the Nikon camera was not allowed to be sold through the CPO (military exchanges stores). But that is not the same "export."
To return to the 35mm f3.5 W-Nikkor. SCAP optical production records appear to have picked up and listed items when the various companies finished them and moved them to an availability-for-sale status. Which would mean that the 35mm Nikkor was not "Available" prior to April 1950. That does not mean that NK had not manufactured 35mm optics prior to 1950, it just means that a customer (whole-sale or retail) could not buy one.
NK manufactured a bunch of 80mm lenses for its Nikoflex, but they do not appear on SCAP records because NK never actually made the camera. They would have appeared on the Aires Camera entry when that camera appeared on the SCAP lists.
Please read through all my past entries on this topic. I am not relying on hazy memories, wishful thinkng or even just on optical production reports from SCAP, but a wide range of sources. When I first read the production reports, I was as surprised as you appear to be to find the 35mm lens not appearing until 1950, but then I went back and compared the records with all the other information I was gathering and what other contemporary writers was stating, and I had to reach the conclusion I have.
You may "wish" to believe that a person buying a Nikon in the fall of 1948 could buy a 35, or a 135 in addition to any normal that the camera came with, but it did not happen that way. NK planned to sell the 35mm lens, may have advertised it that way and even believed that would have that lens available "Real-soon-now," but it did not happen. Unless you, or Bob or someone else can show me a receipt for a delivered, production 35mm w-Nikkor dating prior to 1950, I will stick to my position.

WES

Hi Wes,

I'm happy you, or anyone else, is researching the early Nikons and their lenses. I'm fine with whatever position you care to believe regarding them. What I do care about is you representing your theories as established fact on my site when they are not. Saying you have a theory or belief is one thing, but steadfastly maintaining your theory about 1st 35mm lens production is right and established early Nikon Rangefinder history is wrong is quite another.

First of all its disrespectful to all the historians who worked hard on putting Nikon Rangefinder history together. How could they have missed something like that ? Very serious Nikon Rangefinder collecting has been around at least since the 1970's. There was ample opportunity to interview the people who worked on the Nikon One before their passing.

1) the earliest 35/3.5's serial numbers start with 612, suggesting December of 1946. Why would that serial number be delayed and not used during M production of 1950 ? SFAIK that was not done with any other lens, so why the 35mm serial numbers ?

2) the earliest 35mm, 50mm 85mm and 135mm all share the same production characteristics: hand MACHINED rear caps and hoods, and very heavy duty front cap. These expensive items were soon replaced by stampings. Why would a 35mm lens 1st introduced in 1950 have the early machined front and back caps of the 1948 lenses ? Obviously a 1950 lens would have period lens caps, not machined 1948 rear lens caps.

3) if you add up the MIOJ lenses in Bob's book, 35mm MIOJ production is consistent with the other early 85 and 135 lenses. That is unlikely if 35mm lenses started production in 1950

4) The two Nikon ONE brochures on Nikon's site both list the 35/3.5.
In fact, the 35/3.5 and 135/4 lenses are listed at the first Nikon One lenses besides the 50's.

Furthermore brochure B specifically says "five lenses being available" referring to the 50/2, 50/3.5, 35/3.5, 85/2, and 135/4.
see http://www.nikon.com/about/feelnikon/recollections/r03_e/index.htm I can't believe they would list the 35/3.5 with the Nikon One unless it was available for sale.

5) The fisheye lens you refer to may have existed. It depends upon what they were calling a fisheye. As I understand it, the first Nikon fisheye lens was for the sky camera, vintage 1948 according to the NHS Journal. A few sky cameras were in fact produced.

Wes, you may not believe the two Nikon One brochures represent accurate information concerning 35mm lens production, but its a very safe bet that most serious Nikon collectors take the info in the Nikon One brochures at its face value.

Best,
Stephen

Nikon Rangefinder Newbies: its essential you buy Bob Rotoloni's The Complete Nikon Rangefinder Book - its the Bible for Nikon RF collecting! http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Nikon-Rangefinder-System/dp/1874031770/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366590776&sr=8-1&keywords=Complete+Nikon+Rangefinder+System

[enasniearth]

Thanks for the link to the early brochures which were quite interesting .

The first Nikon one brochure A. Lists the 5 cm 1.5 for sale with the first lenses for the Nikon one . The 8.5 cm is not listed .
Usually early numbers are based on completed design dates or perhaps introduction .
The 8.5 cm was designed / intoduced jan 1948
The 5 cm 1.5 was designed / introduced may - July 1949
Odd that. 1.5 was listed but the 8.5 was not .

The second brochure B lists the 8.5 cm
Also there is a 5 cm 1.8 availible - however this was a prototype
That did not reach production - the glass types were not availible ( rotoloni )


The 3.5 cm 3.5 design existed as a Nippon kogaku prototype for the prewar canon Hanza camera ( dechert ) perhaps two known . So the optical design is early .

Zeiss and leitz had wide angle lenses of 3.5 cm and 2.8 cm availible prewar .
Any system camera that desired to compete with the German cameras would have to have a 3.5 cm availible at the minimum .

Once nippon kogaku was able to perfect their camera , many innovations followed . I don't think the German industry was prepared for the advanced
Large aperature optics that were developed and introduced at a quick pace .

The early cameras and lenses were produced in a time of shortages of the required materials . Some optical glasses were not availible although prototypes were produced .

Since unlike leitz exacting production records are not availible , exact dates and numbers are difficult to determine .
The idea of using other delivery records does add another dimension to the picture and makes it clearer .

I want to know what happened to the prototype motor driven black dial Nikon s2's
From the NYC show in 1957 .