Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > Nikon RF

Nikon RF This forum is dedicated to Nikon Rangefinders: the Nikon One, Nikon M, Nikon S, Nikon S2, Nikon SP, Nikon S3, Nikon S4, and Nikon S3M, Nikon S3 2000, Nikon SP 2005. Plus the ONLY production camera ever made in Nikon Rangefinder mount WITH TTL metering ... the Voigtlander Bessa R2S.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 - vintage vs. 2005 reissue
Old 01-13-2017   #1
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,727
W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 - vintage vs. 2005 reissue

Photos below taken with a vintage W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 and a 2005 reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8. Which is which, and why?

Lens 1 @ f/1.8


Lens 2 @ f/1.8


Lens 1 @ f/1.8


Lens 2 @ f/1.8


Lens 1 @ f/1.8


Lens 2 @ f/1.8
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #2
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
 
Moto-Uno's Avatar
 
Moto-Uno is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Wet Coast
Posts: 1,317
I'd guess that the second picture in each set was with the older lens . Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #3
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,130
Lens 1 has old glass (lanthanum)?
(I see the color tint on mine.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #4
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 976
No idea. Lens #1 is better, though.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #5
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,385
How can you tell the difference in the lenses? Do they look different?
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #6
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,479
lens one is the new one, seems to be a bit better in the corners but that might be just my imagination!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #7
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
How can you tell the difference in the lenses? Do they look different?
new one has black ring at front, but there is a rare early one with black ring!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #8
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,479
quite impressive they are so similar with so many years between them, to my eyes could almost be sample variation.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #9
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
How can you tell the difference in the lenses? Do they look different?
The serial number is the easiest way to tell. The reissue lenses are numbered from 0001 to 2500 (only 2,500 were made and they were all sold as part of a set with a matching serial number Nikon SP) and vintage lenses have a six digit serial number starting from 35.



__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #10
Peter Wijninga
Registered User
 
Peter Wijninga's Avatar
 
Peter Wijninga is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Posts: 3,022
I like the first lens better.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #11
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,385
Thanks. I will check out my lens when I get home today from work. My lens is most likely a re-issue.
My lens is in ltm.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #12
Gregm61
Registered User
 
Gregm61 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 223
Years and years ago, I purchased a Canon VT de Lux rangefinder that came with a 35mm f1.8 screw mount Nikkor. Like so many other setups, it was sold as I gathered money for the next "have to" have.....I really wish I had held onto that outfit.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #13
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
My lens is in ltm.
LTM serial numbers are six digits and start with 18xxxx.

The reissue was made in Nikon S-mount only. Only 2,500 were made and they were all sold as part of a set with a matching serial number Nikon SP.

https://www.cameraquest.com/nrfblsp2005.htm
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #14
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,381
I would guess that the first picture in each set is the newer lens .... it seems to have slightly more contrast.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #15
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmanjiro View Post
LTM serial numbers are six digits and start with 18xxxx.

The reissue was made in Nikon S-mount only. Only 2,500 were made and they were all sold as part of a set with a matching serial number Nikon SP.

https://www.cameraquest.com/nrfblsp2005.htm
So my lens then cannot be a re-issued lens. Thanks, Jon. I just love the images from my lens on the M9. The colors come out looking beautiful.



On my M9, my lens give sme "the Real look".

__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #16
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
I would guess that the first picture in each set is the newer lens .... it seems to have slightly more contrast.
That's what I see except the warmer colors suggest the older lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #17
benmacphoto
Registered User
 
benmacphoto's Avatar
 
benmacphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Age: 29
Posts: 941
I'd say #1 is the 2005 reissue and #2 is the original 35mm 1.8.
Looks like #1 has better control of coma over #2, and the modern coatings would help this.
__________________
Instagram

Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #18
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,536
I too think that the first lens in the sets is the better corrected lens. I guess it is the newer lens, but the contrast of both is the same. Surprising, usually newer lenses have more contrast due to better coatings.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #19
JMQ
Registered User
 
JMQ is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 784
Jon, very nice. I'm guessing No.1 is the 2005 version and No.2 is the original. Both are quite similar, but I see a little more contrast in No.1, and am therefore using the hypothesis that the multicoating gives the better contrast.

When are you going to reveal? Thanks, Jean-Marc
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #20
JMQ
Registered User
 
JMQ is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by benmacphoto View Post
I'd say #1 is the 2005 reissue and #2 is the original 35mm 1.8.
Looks like #1 has better control of coma over #2, and the modern coatings would help this.
Ben, looks like we are on the same wavelength.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #21
nikonhswebmaster
Moderator NHS Forum
 
nikonhswebmaster's Avatar
 
nikonhswebmaster is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 343
Funny -- members are guessing, but really, there is no difference other than the black paint wear on the older lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #22
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,385
It could be that Nikon deliberately kept the newer lens nearly identical to the original lens.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #23
JMQ
Registered User
 
JMQ is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
It could be that Nikon deliberately kept the newer lens nearly identical to the original lens.
Raid, it's a re-issue. Apart from the engraving and lens barrel color, I think the only "real" change is the multicoating.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #24
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMQ View Post
Raid, it's a re-issue. Apart from the engraving and lens barrel color, I think the only "real" change is the multicoating.
The multicoating is not showing [me] much improvement in the posted images.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #25
Vickko
Registered User
 
Vickko is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canada
Age: 57
Posts: 2,820
Ah fantastic. I'd like to see the same comparison between the "Olympic" 5cm and new 5cm that was bundled with the S3 re-release.
__________________
Vick

35mm (film and digital)
Film only for 6x6cm, 6x9cm & 4x5in
BW darkroom to 4x5in
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #26
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,479
The 35mm 1.8 is still my favourite lens on a Nikon RF, looks great and the ergonomics are perfect, and still much cheaper than a Summicron or Summilux!
  Reply With Quote

They look pretty close to me
Old 01-13-2017   #27
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 685
They look pretty close to me

In any case, I like the old one (ltm) better:


[email protected] by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


[email protected] by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr



W-Nikkor35mmf1.8ltm - SanAntonioWinery2 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr



WNikkor35mm-2R by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Lonely Tree by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Salvation Army by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Photographer by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #28
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 67
Posts: 513
Thanks for posting this, as I've often wondered how much better the re-issue would be, if at all, for me. I am thinking that #1 is the re-issue for reasons others have noticed: contrastier, better corrected for coma, and tamer bokeh. I actually prefer the shots from lens #2, so I guess I'll continue to be happy with mine and not wish for the "better" newer one.
For those not seeing much difference between the two, I'm thinking you might not be looking as closely as you could be, and that the difference would be more obvious in prints from the actual negatives. Look at how the light plays on the leaves on the trees along the left side of the first two photos. Looks pretty different to me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #29
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster View Post
Funny -- members are guessing, but really, there is no difference other than the black paint wear on the older lens.
The old one used lanthanum glass, which yellows over time. And I think they changed the formula to deal with the different glass used in the re-issue. My color shots have a warm tint to them similar to Jon's 1st lens seen above.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #30
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeL View Post
Lens 1 has old glass (lanthanum)?
(I see the color tint on mine.)
My guess is lense number two is the retro lens. My 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM has about a 1X yellow filter built in.

In lens number two I see the yellow tint. Pretty remarkable how the old lens is so close.

Also I see more glow in the leaves in the first photo in lens number two. The single coated glass has its signature here.

Anyways that's my best guess.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #31
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,238
Wow, I can see a difference?!?! Great test JMsan, thank you.

My money is that 2 is the old one. Blur looks blurrier, less controlled.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #32
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
My guess is lense number two is the retro lens. My 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM has about a 1X yellow filter built in.

Cal
My lens (picture here above) does not have any fog or haze at all. Could it be that that this lens (without the -C) was already double coated or coated?.
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #33
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepeguitarra View Post
My lens (picture here above) does not have any fog or haze at all. Could it be that that this lens (without the -C) was already double coated or coated?.
Pepe,

My lens does not have haze or fogging, but what it displays is a yellow tint because of nuclear hardening that has occured over the decades. The amount of yellow is about 1x or half a stop in exposure compensation. I actually measured the amount of exposure by comparing the meter reading against another 35mm lens.

Anyways in B&W I like the mild contrast boost.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #34
pyeh
Registered User
 
pyeh is online now
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Taylor Square
Age: 56
Posts: 290
I'm also going for 2 as the older one, but certainly the differences are very slight.
Nice test, Jon.
__________________
Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #35
nikonhswebmaster
Moderator NHS Forum
 
nikonhswebmaster's Avatar
 
nikonhswebmaster is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeL View Post
The old one used lanthanum glass, which yellows over time. And I think they changed the formula to deal with the different glass used in the re-issue. My color shots have a warm tint to them similar to Jon's 1st lens seen above.
I don't doubt it at all, but the difference is subtle, easily "corrected" in printing.

And minor manufacturing changes seem to have little effect on the subject matter, in that the basic design is identical (same number of elements, same number of blades). I am actually impressed -- the older lens really deserves its great reputation.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #36
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
 
NIKON KIU's Avatar
 
NIKON KIU is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington DC suburbs
Age: 55
Posts: 1,918
Lens #2 needs a bit of CLA

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #37
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,790
I think #2 is the older one... slightly less contrast. Thanks to Larry and others who pointed out other things I didn't notice.
__________________
Lynn
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #38
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,727
This time @ f/2.8

Lens 1 @ f/2.8 & infinity


Lens 2 @ f/2.8 & infinity


Lens 1 @ f/2.8 & 2.6m


Lens 2 @ f/2.8 & 2.6m


Lens 1 @ f/2.8 & 1.1m


Lens 2 @ f/2.8 & 1.1m
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #39
Peter Jennings
Registered User
 
Peter Jennings's Avatar
 
Peter Jennings is online now
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seoul
Posts: 234
Very close. The third image from lens 2 looks noticeably cooler - looking at the stone statue. Based on that, I'd guess lens 2 is the re-issue.
__________________
Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #40
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,727
And lastly, at f/5.6

Lens 1 @ f/5.6 & infinity


Lens 2 @ f/5.6 & infinity


Lens 1 @ f/5.6 & 2.6m


Lens 2 @ f/5.6 & 2.6m


Lens 1 @ f/5.6 & 1.1m


Lens 2 @ f/5.6 & 1.1m
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  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 00:03.


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.