Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #41
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,597
Someone with those two lenses, please slap them on a digital camera and take some shots, and we can eliminate blaming the SLR camera or the particular copy of the OP's lenses.
__________________
Garrett

My Flickr Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #42
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,850
Thanks Garrett. Really wasn't trying to start any controversy, just found the results surprising.

And again, this is where I really miss Tom A., because I know he would have had an interesting explanation. I remember talking with him many years ago over the phone, about just this type of thing, comparing vintage rangefinder optics to vintage SLR optics, and the theories of why one was easier to design, or optically superior, to the other and vice versa.

Again, thanks for your comments.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #43
radi(c)al_cam
-
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by goamules View Post
But just smug internet writing about how you are wrong holds a lot less weight than looking at your results. To me.

Yawwwwn, you're beating a dead horse.

See my post @15:10 CET:

The approach that would help is: «The Pros And Cons Of Retro-Focus Construction»

Let me suggest: Read e.g. some of Roger Hicks's books, and you'll find answers.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #44
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
Hey Roger,

Being a photographer, not a research scientist, I've got a project coming up, and I have the equipment I have on hand. It's gonna be a low light situation, I want to shoot it on film, I want to shoot it with a 35mm, and I have a Nikon F with a 35mm and a Nikon S2 with a 35mm. So I took them out to compare how they would do on the wide open end. And was surprised that the rangefinder lens did better than the newer SLR lens. Now would another sample of the 35mm SLR lens beat another sample of the 35mm rangefinder lens, who knows. But I don't own those other samples, and have no access to those other samples, so I "shot with what I got".

And I posted here, (as I was surprised by the results) to ask if anyone had a theory of why these results might be as they are.

Not trying to make a "Rangefinders are always better than SLRs" thread. Just asking, "Why do you think this came out this way?"
Sorry to have misread you -- but I still think you're reading too much into your results. Sample variation with the same lens can be surprisingly large, and it is likely to get larger as the lens ages. I've had two Linhof-selected Zeiss 100/2.8 Planars. The first was stunning. Like a fool I sold it. Then I bought another, maybe five years later. It was nothing like as good. So I sold that one too, and didn't miss it.

Of course it is difficult for a retrofocus (reverse-telephoto) design to be as good as a "plain" (non-retrofocus) lens of the same focal length. When the retrofocus lens is faster (f/2 instead of f/2.5) it grows more difficult again. It can probably (just about) be done but it's going to be more expensive, and bigger and heavier.

So: the 35/2.5 Nikkor starts with two inherent advantages (slower and non-retrofocus) and one inherent disadvantage (older design). It was however a cutting edge design, and probably impossible to equal with a retrofocus for some years. Multicoating would be all but essential, for a start. Also, though I don't know, I suspect that the 35/2 was probably designed without a computer and using ray tracing rather than wavefront optimization.

Then there's focus. If both cameras are perfectly adjusted, the RF will often have the advantage with a 35mm lens, even an f/2, and in any case you'd need the right screen (Nikon recommended the A, D, F, G1, G2, H1 and H2) and to take some time and care.

It would have been extremely interesting to compare a brand new 35/2 SLR Nikkor with a 35/2.5RF Nikkor in pristine condition but as I say, with as few decades' age, all you can realistically say is that your RF lens performs better than your SLR lens. It may well be that this would be true of other samples of the same lenses in similar condition, but I don't think I'd draw any broader conclusions than this.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #45
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,850
Thank you Roger. That is the kind of information I was hoping to have a discussion about.

It seems like I ended up with a good copy of the 3.5cm W-Nikkor-C f2.5 for my S2, which I'm really happy about, as buying such old lenses from the auction site can be a pig-in-a-poke.

One other question, if you happen to know. My rangefinder lens has the red C on it, which I'm assuming means coated, and my SLR lens is a Nikkor-OC, which again, I assume the C means coated. The 35mm SLR OC lens was made somewhere around 1973 and the 3.5cm Rangefinder lens was made somewhere around the early 1950's. Are we talking totally different kind of coatings on these two lens designs?

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #46
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by radi(c)al_cam View Post
And, recently you drew the hypothesis that I'm a fellow citizen — I shall reveal: I am NOT a WASP, at least
I just find it interesting that you always act in exactly the same ways you say Americans act.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #47
radi(c)al_cam
-
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
I just find it interesting that you always act in exactly the same ways you say Americans act.
Proof of US American supremacy I guess?
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #48
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,326
The only thing this says is that your copy of one lens on one body is sharper with those photo's you took than one copy of another lens on another body. I'm far from convinced that this points out to some universal law.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #49
Scrambler
Registered User
 
Scrambler's Avatar
 
Scrambler is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 1,074
1) Lynn is a professional photographer with an interest in using older cameras - I would listen to his thoughts (and I know you have).
2) There are a variety of possible explanations, but essentially since what you wanted to know was "will setup A that I have work better or worse than setup B", you have answered your key question. WHY would require a whole lot more work, and may be issues with a range of elements in each camera, each lens and each combination.

And since no-one seems prepared to say it, many thanks for posting this interesting, if as yet unexplained, result.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #50
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by radi(c)al_cam View Post
Yawwwwn, you're beating a dead horse.

See my post @15:10 CET:

The approach that would help is: «The Pros And Cons Of Retro-Focus Construction»

Let me suggest: Read e.g. some of Roger Hicks's books, and you'll find answers.
I hope you're not talking to me yawny boy. I'll wake you up with a little knowledge if you're feeling sleepy.

Where is that ignore button, I'm thinking I don't want to hear any more of this guy's tripe.
__________________
Garrett

My Flickr Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #51
radi(c)al_cam
-
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by goamules View Post
I hope you're not talking to me yawny boy. I'll wake you up with a little knowledge if you're feeling sleepy.

Where is that ignore button, I'm thinking I don't want to hear any more of this guy's tripe.
Garrett, old chap: Why are you in front of a computer screen? Shouldn't you swing your gun and Make America Great AGAIN?
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #52
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by radi(c)al_cam View Post
Garrett, old chap: Why are you in front of a computer screen? Shouldn't you swing your gun and Make America Great AGAIN?

How about you just stop being an asshole to people? It's not cute.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #53
radi(c)al_cam
-
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
How about you just stop being an asshole to people? It's not cute.
Then cutely-cute as a button back to topic, O.K.?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
One other question, if you happen to know. My rangefinder lens has the red C on it, which I'm assuming means coated, and my SLR lens is a Nikkor-OC, which again, I assume the C means coated. The 35mm SLR OC lens was made somewhere around 1973 and the 3.5cm Rangefinder lens was made somewhere around the early 1950's.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_...t#Designations :

Quote:
C — Indicates a multicoated F-type lens. Appears with an interpunct after the number of optical elements (in the form "Nikkor-X·C"). This designation was introduced in 1971 and discontinued in 1974 with the introduction of "Modern" (K-type) Nikkors, when multicoating had become standard practice. [emph.mine]
And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_S-mount :

Quote:
Nikon made a small number of longer focal length lenses specifically designed to focus properly when mounted on a Contax. These were the 85mm, 105mm, and 135mm lenses. Each was marked with a "C" on the side of the lens barrel. This is not to be confused with a "C" mark used as a suffix to the serial number. Some early Nikkors used this mark to denote that the lenses were coated. [emph.mine]
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #54
goamules
Registered User
 
goamules is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,597
Thanks Tunalegs. All I see for radi(c)'s insightful posts now is:

"This message is hidden because radi(c)al_cam is on your ignore list."

I recommend EVERYONE that is tired of his tirades set him to ignore. If he can't be civil, he can be invisible.
__________________
Garrett

My Flickr Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #55
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,367
RF lenses are closer to the film plane, which often contributes to their sharpness, but of course it is not that simple and just depends. Not all lenses are created equal, and some excel at close up while others are better at mid range and infinity.

Unless you shot your test on a tripod and w/ the mirror locked up on your SLR you do not have any idea of how sharp the lens actually is.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #56
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
Unless you shot your test on a tripod and w/ the mirror locked up on your SLR you do not have any idea of how sharp the lens actually is.
Steve, while I agree with you in principle, remember, this was a "real world test" and one of the things I wanted to take into account is that maybe the mirror slap on the SLR would cause a slight blurring of the image. On the project I was testing for, I won't be able to use a tripod. Everything will be hand held. If the SLR is sharper when used on a tripod with the mirror locked up (which I would guess it might be), that's not going to help me in the field where mirror lock up and a tripod won't be available. I wanted to see which would be sharper, wide open, hand held, the way I will be using them on this project.

Make sense?

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #57
one90guy
Registered User
 
one90guy's Avatar
 
one90guy is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Age: 69
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
Hey Roger,

Being a photographer, not a research scientist, I've got a project coming up, and I have the equipment I have on hand. It's gonna be a low light situation, I want to shoot it on film, I want to shoot it with a 35mm, and I have a Nikon F with a 35mm and a Nikon S2 with a 35mm. So I took them out to compare how they would do on the wide open end. And was surprised that the rangefinder lens did better than the newer SLR lens. Now would another sample of the 35mm SLR lens beat another sample of the 35mm rangefinder lens, who knows. But I don't own those other samples, and have no access to those other samples, so I "shot with what I got".

And I posted here, (as I was surprised by the results) to ask if anyone had a theory of why these results might be as they are.

Not trying to make a "Rangefinders are always better than SLRs" thread. Just asking, "Why do you think this came out this way?"
Hmm also not a scientist or a really good photographer I understand where you are coming from. Your testing seemed logical to me, you have 2 cameras and need the best of the 2 to use.

David
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:13.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.