Nikkor S.C. 5cm 1:1.4 Photos only

venchka · 10-04-2006

1950 something Nikkor 50mm f:1.4 S-C, Ilford XP2 Super. Please, photos only.

VinceC · 10-04-2006

Nikkor 5cm 1.4 (sorry, not LTM, original Nikon-S mount, but the same glass).

venchka · 10-04-2006

My bad. I typed LTM out of habit. All examples of the Nikkor 50/1.4 should be included.

clarence · 10-05-2006

It seems a bit soft to me, to be honest. I hope this doesn't violate the 'photos only' request.

Clarence

Nachkebia · 10-05-2006

I don`t like samples, sorry... I think af 50mm f/1.8 (%99) could have done better, sharper with better bokeh

jja · 10-05-2006

I really need to try my Nikkor 50/1.4 with B&W. My version is LTM. Here are some test shots, in the first, aperture is probably around 2.8 or 4, and in the second it is at 1.4:

furcafe · 10-05-2006

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/231427243/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/77341274/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/41001211/

xayraa33 · 10-05-2006

I could never figure out how Nippon Kogaku thought their Sonnar type 1.4 was an improvement over the 1.5, whether made by NK, Zeiss, Canon or the FSU J-3 lens makers.
the Canon Sonnar type 50/1.5 and the J-3 are IMHO always more pleasing at full aperture esp. for portraits, than the Nikkor 50/1.4 Sonnar type.
I do not own an original Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar, but the example photos I have seen , that are taken by it, are in the Canon 50/1.5 category , if not even better.
Does anyone else feel that the Classic 1950s Nikkor 50/1.4 is not so pleasing at f1.4?
I know personal tastes are subjective.

VinceC · 10-05-2006

>>I could never figure out how Nippon Kogaku thought their Sonnar type 1.4 was an improvement over the 1.5, whether made by NK, Zeiss, Canon or the FSU J-3 lens makers.
the Canon Sonnar type 50/1.5 and the J-3 are IMHO always more pleasing at full aperture esp. for portraits, than the Nikkor 50/1.4 Sonnar type.<<

First of all, the Nikkor 1.4 came our two years before the Canon Serenar 1.5, autumn 1950 versus November 1952. The J-3 was not widely available and had quality-control problems. The Nikkor was intentionally faster than the Zeiss lens, using generally excellent coatings that have stood up well over time, resulting in better flare control than the 1.5 Sonnar. Zeiss also had quality-control problems connected to its postwar breakup -- lenses were being built on both sides of the iron curtain -- and in any event didn't sell lenses in the LTM mount. The Nikkor has click stops. Life magazine photographers, the discriminating 35mm photographers of their era, considered the Nikkor to be sharper than Zeiss or Leitz lenses. The Nikkor 50/1.4 set the bar for modern lenses. It certainly has "bokeh" problems and was reformulated about 12 years later to address those, but by then the SLR era was in full swing.

furcafe · 10-05-2006

IMHO, while the Life photographers were correct that the Nikkor is a fine lens, equal to the contemporary Western products, IMHO they were laying it on a little thick stating that the Nikkors were superior to the Zeiss Sonnars, except perhaps in build quality. True, build quality is not a trivial factor considering that sample variation between lenses was often greater back then--it's also my understanding that the Life guys got to choose the "best of the litter" from the Nippon Kogaku factory (something they couldn't easily do w/the German lenses @ the time)--but it doesn't mean that the Nikkor was categorically a superior lens, particularly when compared to the W. German Sonnars once they got Oberkochen up to speed around '51 or so (but those were never made in LTM) or even a good example of the E. German Sonnars (wide-open example: http://static.flickr.com/7/6935549_99ec6d03f6_o.jpg ). As to the Leitz products, let's just say even Leicaphiles will acknowledge that none of their f/1.5 lenses performed up to Zeiss or Nikkor standards @ the time.

IME, which includes shooting good examples of both lenses in all of their various mounts, I haven't found the Nikkor to be superior to the post-WWII Sonnar, E. or W. German, in either flare control or sharpness, whatever the aperture, & f/1.4 on the Nikkor is only a teeny bit brighter than f/1.5 on the Sonnars (judging from TTL metering): I've found them to be pretty much equal in all respects, except for a bit more veiling flare & boke "swirliness" in the Nikkor wide-open, which I think is a direct result of the Nikkor's design (in my non-technical opinion, a "stretched" Sonnar). I've reached a similar conclusion re: the 85/2 Sonnars v. Nikkor-Ps. It was certainly a major achievement by Nippon Kogaku, indeed a major achievement for post-WWII Japanese industry, just to make a lens that was among the best in the world, & it helped cement the Nikon brand's well-deserved reputation for quality, but I think there was some hindsight mythologizing going on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceC

The Nikkor was intentionally faster than the Zeiss lens, using generally excellent coatings that have stood up well over time, resulting in better flare control than the 1.5 Sonnar. Zeiss also had quality-control problems connected to its postwar breakup -- lenses were being built on both sides of the iron curtain -- and in any event didn't sell lenses in the LTM mount. The Nikkor has click stops. Life magazine photographers, the discriminating 35mm photographers of their era, considered the Nikkor to be sharper than Zeiss or Leitz lenses. The Nikkor 50/1.4 set the bar for modern lenses. It certainly has "bokeh" problems and was reformulated about 12 years later to address those, but by then the SLR era was in full swing.

jja · 10-05-2006

The Nikkor is also really solid and well made, and extremely compact for its speed. Even though it has a 43mm filter thread, my Nikkor is more compact than my 50/2 Summicron (latest, w/ built-in hood).

I have just sent the Nikkor off to DAG for a routine CLA b/c I want to see how it compares to the Summicron w/ both lenses at the top of their form.

VinceC · 10-05-2006

>> can you tell us more about the Nikkor 50/1.5...?<<

My knowledge isn't authoritative. I'm simply an interested user. My understanding is that the experimental Canons of the 1930s used Nikkor lenses in the f/3.5 and f/2 range. An apparent f/1.5 Nikkor was also drawn up for the Canon line and may have been made in very limited numbers during World War II.

Japanese optical conglomerates were broken up after World War II, and Canon and Nikon went their separate ways. Nikon introduced a camera with an f/2 lens in the late 1940s, probably derivative of the f/2 Sonnar lens. Nikon (actually Nippon Kogaku ... Japanese Optical) also produced accessory lenses in the late 1940s: a 35/3.5, an 85/2 and a 135/4. These were also sold in the LTM mount.

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.5 was, I believe introduced very early in the year 1950 and was only produced for six or eight months before the improved f/1.4 lens was introduced. It was definitely produced by Nippon Kogaku, not by Canon, which was by then a competitor. It had no click stops and had a minimum aperture of f/11 instead of f/16. Filter threads for 40.5mm instead of the later 43mm.

David Douglas Duncan, one of the Life photographers who adopted Nikon lenses, shot the first months of the Korean War with the 50/1.5. By November/December 1950, he had switched to the f/1.4 version, as soon as it was introduced. His most famous work, of GIs retreating through frozen landscapes, was done with the f/1.4 lens. However, the earlier f/1.5 apparently also had similar optical properties. When Duncan shipping his first rolls back to Life magazine for printing, the darkroom workers (then among the best photo printers in the business) were very enthusiastic about the quality of the new lens. Most of this work was shot in sunlight at f/11, so the sharpness, not out-of-focus characteristics, was what they found compelling.

Only a few hundred of the f/1.5 lenses were made. So it is extremely rare and collectible. Duncan's work is the only group of photos I've seen taken by the 1.5 (the first two part of "This is War!" were shot with the 1.5, the third part with the 1.4). The book shows very little if any quality difference, though my copy is not all that well printed.

venchka · 10-05-2006

Examples of color not content.

Middle f-stop, 5.6 or 8.0. Kodak HD 200.

It is a solid chunk of lens to be sure. 10-12 blades in the iris as I recall. Mine was built late in the run. It's growing on me. Think I'll have to keep it.

Thanks for sharing, everyone. That's enough words for now.

sbug · 10-05-2006

jja · 10-05-2006

Wayne or Vince, a quick serial number question: What is the range for this lens? Mine has a 7-digit serial number, and most of the ones I've seen have 6.

NIKON KIU · 10-05-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jja

Wayne or Vince, a quick serial number question: What is the range for this lens? Mine has a 7-digit serial number, and most of the ones I've seen have 6.

The main batch started from 316000 all the way to 41xxxx. Early ones in chrome and later ones in black/chrome
If you have one with 7 digit serial number then you must have the real early example, those started with 5005xxxx
most have 8 digit numbers and some have 7 digit numbers:
Here is an example:

what number is yours?
Kiu

venchka · 10-05-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jja

Wayne or Vince, a quick serial number question: What is the range for this lens? Mine has a 7-digit serial number, and most of the ones I've seen have 6.

I asked about mine in the Spring...

Quote:

Originally Posted by NIKON KIU

Nikkor-S.C 1 : 1.4 f = 5cm No. 3958xx
the Nikkor-S was produced in great numbers, probably around 80,000 to 90,000 lenses were produced including many in the screw-mount.
Last serial number recorded seems to be in the 417xxx range so makes yours pretty late production...The last ones didn't have the C after Nikkor-S
Kiu

When folks talk about the late "black & chrome" version: the only thing black is the narrow ring near the front with the aperture numbers on it. It isn't black and chrome like the Nikkor teles or the late Canon lenses.

sbug · 10-05-2006

12 blades. (I have mine in my camera bag here at work)

Mine has a 6 digit serial number.

I've found the bokeh varies greatly based on aperture, focus distance and lighting. Here are three color examples I have handy. The first image is wide open and close. The others are stopped down a bit.

chendayuan · 10-05-2006

Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM is soft wide open, has kind of veil flare problem for sure. f2.0 is usable.

VinceC · 10-05-2006

>>soft wide open ... veiling flare...<<

Depends a lot on the light, actually. Two more wide-open examples.

jja · 10-05-2006

Mine is 5005xxx, 7 digits. Is the optical quality the same throughout the range?

VinceC · 10-05-2006

Optical quality should be nearly identical throughout the range.

VinceC · 10-05-2006

and another, probably around f/5.6 or f/8.

And an example with bad bokeh in all its unashamed glory. Doubled lines and weird halos.
This reportedly is a side-effect of creating the world's then-sharpest lens in a pre-computer era
when calculations were still done by hand (actually, by dozens of young women using abacuses).

MikeL · 10-05-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceC

And an example with bad bokeh in all its unashamed glory. Doubled lines and weird halos.
This reportedly is a side-effect of creating the world's then-sharpest lens in a pre-computer era
when calculations were still done by hand (actually, by dozens of young women using abacuses).

Hey Vince, do you see the slight circular pattern to the background? This is the pattern I occasionally see with certain backgrounds on my 35mm at 1.8. I've also seen it in posted photos from a 50mm noctilux. Points of light and sometimes leaves are stretched slightly into ovals, and they seem to be oriented in a circular pattern around the center. If it's fuzzy enough, depending on distance or focal length like on the noctilux, it can look fine. Occasionally on my 35mm it looks a bit trippy.

furcafe · 10-05-2006

That's the "swirly" boke I mentioned in my last post. My guess is that it's caused by coma &/or astigmatism that couldn't be corrected for given the Sonnar design & optical technology that was available @ the time, per Vince's post. I presume the Noctilux, though much more modern (computers v. abaci), suffers from a similar problem on account of the limits imposed by its f/1 max. aperture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeL

Hey Vince, do you see the slight circular pattern to the background? This is the pattern I occasionally see with certain backgrounds on my 35mm at 1.8. I've also seen it in posted photos from a 50mm noctilux. Points of light and sometimes leaves are stretched slightly into ovals, and they seem to be oriented in a circular pattern around the center. If it's fuzzy enough, depending on distance or focal length like on the noctilux, it can look fine. Occasionally on my 35mm it looks a bit trippy.