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

Old 01-13-2017   #41
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeL View Post
Lens 1 has old glass (lanthanum)?
(I see the color tint on mine.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Jennings View Post
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.
Correct! Lens 2 is the reissue lens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
It could be that Nikon deliberately kept the newer lens nearly identical to the original lens.
I think Nikon tried to keep the reissue lens as close to the original as possible. But they had to reverse engineer an old lens and make the reissue from scratch, so there must be minor differences other than the coating. Nikon certainly couldn't use Lanthanum in the reissue lens.

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?.
Nikon did make incremental improvements to coatings on vintage lenses over time, but that is not related to the C/no C engraving. All vintage lenses are single coated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKON KIU View Post
Lens #2 needs a bit of CLA

Both lenses are very clean, Kiu! I opened them up and cleaned them myself just before shooting this series of shots.
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #42
benmacphoto
Registered User
 
benmacphoto's Avatar
 
benmacphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Age: 29
Posts: 937
With the second and third batch of images it does look like lens #2 is the reissue, slightly better contrast.
But I'm surprised by the performance of the first set of images.
I've never used the reissue 35mm, had a vintage 35mm f1.8 and loved how it rendered.
Looks like Nikon did an excellent job recreating the original 35mm f1.8.
__________________
Instagram

Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #43
Peter Jennings
Registered User
 
Peter Jennings's Avatar
 
Peter Jennings is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seoul
Posts: 211
What's our prize?
__________________
Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #44
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,348
All of this makes me happy to own the original ltm version of the Nikon 35/1.8. It is a great performer after all these years. Thanks for this thread.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

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

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

Old 01-13-2017   #45
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,754
Very nice job with the comparison photos Jon. Thanks for the challenge! Time to go back to my day job
__________________
Lynn
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #46
pyeh
Registered User
 
pyeh is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Taylor Square
Age: 56
Posts: 287
Excellent test Jon. Nice demonstration.
__________________
Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #47
Bob
Leica M User
 
Bob's Avatar
 
Bob is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 14
Thanks Jon for this lens comparison. Very nice.

I really enjoyed this visual exercise
__________________
Best Always
Bob
c'est la vie
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #48
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 4,915
Crazy how similar they are given they had to use a different glass type in the newer one. Certainly there's no real disadvantage to using the older on3. These little 35mm nikkors look like really really nice little lenses though. Jon it seems it be particularly suited to the way you shoot.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2017   #49
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 67
Posts: 505
Thanks again, Jon, I learned something. They do seem to be fairly identical from 2.8 on with the exception of the small difference in color cast, though I am still a little surprised by the differences wide open. The newer lens has an "older" look to me, almost as if it is less corrected--this probably says more about my preconceptions of older lenses than anything else.
Looking at the out of focus areas behind the statue in the first, wide open, series the newer lens seems to have more of a swirly bokeh than the original lens. At any rate, the character of the bokeh there is certainly different--same general idea but not the same. It was why I preferred what I thought was the older lens, (which I have) which turned out to be the newer lens (which I don't). I wish I knew enough about optics to know exactly what parameter made the difference there, just for the sake of understanding. Just curious. I can't see that being a coating issue, or a glass content issue, but I obviously don't know.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to do this.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2017   #50
briansilcox
Registered User
 
briansilcox's Avatar
 
briansilcox is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 81
Jon, wonderful idea... you have sparked everyone's imagination!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2017   #51
johannielscom
Leica II is The One
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 6,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
All of this makes me happy to own the original ltm version of the Nikon 35/1.8. It is a great performer after all these years. Thanks for this thread.
__________________
www.johanniels.com | flickr | instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2017   #52
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
I know! It used to be your beloved lens, Johan.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

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

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

Old 01-14-2017   #53
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,130
Thanks Jon for efforts, always fun.
When I get some time I'll put together a comparison of the 3.5 cm w-nikkor, pre-asph summilux, and hopefully Iron Riders 35 nokton and ultron for sh-ts and giggles.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-15-2017   #54
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,739
Thanks for looking and commenting everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by benmacphoto View Post
But I'm surprised by the performance of the first set of images.
Me too! No surprise at all that most people thought lens 2 was the vintage lens based on this set of images.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
Thanks again, Jon, I learned something. They do seem to be fairly identical from 2.8 on with the exception of the small difference in color cast, though I am still a little surprised by the differences wide open. The newer lens has an "older" look to me, almost as if it is less corrected--this probably says more about my preconceptions of older lenses than anything else.
Looking at the out of focus areas behind the statue in the first, wide open, series the newer lens seems to have more of a swirly bokeh than the original lens. At any rate, the character of the bokeh there is certainly different--same general idea but not the same. It was why I preferred what I thought was the older lens, (which I have) which turned out to be the newer lens (which I don't). I wish I knew enough about optics to know exactly what parameter made the difference there, just for the sake of understanding. Just curious. I can't see that being a coating issue, or a glass content issue, but I obviously don't know.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to do this.
I'd be interested to know what causes the difference too, Larry. Particularly the extra glow the reissue lens shows wide open. Both lenses are clean and free of haze so it must be something the optical engineers at Tochigi Nikon intentionally designed into the reissue lens. I can understand that the bokeh would be slightly different due to different glass and a (perhaps) slightly modified optical formula, but that extra glow is intriguing. Intentionally under corrected aberrations I suppose, but I don't know enough about lens design to know exactly what they did.
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-15-2017   #55
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Jennings View Post
What's our prize?
The honorary title of lensrendermeister?

レンズ・レンダー・マイスター!
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-15-2017   #56
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,348
I went out today with the Nikkor 38/1.8 ltm and the M8. The color rendering was beautiful. This lens is a great little lens that performs very well.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

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

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

Old 01-19-2017   #57
WJJ3
Registered User
 
WJJ3's Avatar
 
WJJ3 is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Kagoshima City
Posts: 459
Cool comparison you did here Jon, thanks for that. I am not a S shooter, but the idea of getting a S2 with a fifty has been growing on me

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmanjiro View Post
I think Nikon tried to keep the reissue lens as close to the original as possible.
Interesting about Nikon keeping the reissue of the 3.5cm close to the original. As I understand it, that is not the approach they took with the 5cm reissue?
__________________
Happy Shooting!
~Will

Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2017   #58
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,803
They are so close. I just see a tad more contrast in Lens #1 in some shots. I would have thought that was the new one, must be the chemical hazard LOL

What body did you use? Nikon needs to grow a pair and make us a digital RF But the 2000 was such a nice move, and they are way down in price now. I would love that 50/1.4

BTW lanthanum only yellows in storage. Put them back in sun they clear up. And shoot fantastic. I have that big FD 35/2 which is very distinctive, and thoriated.


FJ by unoh7, FD 35/2 A7.mod

I think this is my favorite FD lens. I do keep it in the closet. I should probably move it out of the house.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2017   #59
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJJ3 View Post
Cool comparison you did here Jon, thanks for that. I am not a S shooter, but the idea of getting a S2 with a fifty has been growing on me

Interesting about Nikon keeping the reissue of the 3.5cm close to the original. As I understand it, that is not the approach they took with the 5cm reissue?
Thanks Will. Nikon S cameras tend to do that, so I suspect one might just miraculously appear in your dry cabinet one day

The 50mm lens that Nikon included in the Nikon S3 Limited Edition kit is a reissue, just not the sonnar optical version first released in the early 1950s (and engraved in cm). Instead, Nikon reissued the Nikkor 50/1.4 lens (engraved in mm) affectionately nicknamed the "Olympic Nikkor". This lens was first released in 1962-3 just before the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, so came out at the tail end of the Nikon rangefinder era. Its a gauss optical formula so is bigger than the sonnar optical formula lens.
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2017   #60
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post

BTW lanthanum only yellows in storage. Put them back in sun they clear up. And shoot fantastic. I have that big FD 35/2 which is very distinctive, and thoriated.


FJ by unoh7, FD 35/2 A7.mod

I think this is my favorite FD lens. I do keep it in the closet. I should probably move it out of the house.
Nice shot and thanks for the helpful info. I happen to like the added contrast from my built in yellow filter. Perhaps that is why the concences is that the older lens has a bit more contrast.

Also know I somehow stumbled into a deal of a lifetime and bought another Nikon 35/1.8 in LTM. The pricing was right so I couldn't walk away. I pulled out the plastic card with the magic numbers. Realize only about 1700 were ever made in LTM and I currently own two.

There is a little oil on the blades, and there are mild scratches in the coating on the front element, but for the price I purchased my second 35/1.8 I can get the front element recoated by John at Focal Point and have a perfect lens at a still remarkable price. Meanwhile the scratches in the coating are so minor that I have no problem just using the lens as is. How is $999.00 for a price?

BTW the Nikkor 35/1.8 in LTM is a match made in heaven on my Monochrom. Also I love that the distance scale is only in feet for that simple and uncluttered look.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2017   #61
WJJ3
Registered User
 
WJJ3's Avatar
 
WJJ3 is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Kagoshima City
Posts: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmanjiro View Post
Thanks Will. Nikon S cameras tend to do that, so I suspect one might just miraculously appear in your dry cabinet one day

The 50mm lens that Nikon included in the Nikon S3 Limited Edition kit is a reissue, just not the sonnar optical version first released in the early 1950s (and engraved in cm). Instead, Nikon reissued the Nikkor 50/1.4 lens (engraved in mm) affectionately nicknamed the "Olympic Nikkor". This lens was first released in 1962-3 just before the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, so came out at the tail end of the Nikon rangefinder era. Its a gauss optical formula so is bigger than the sonnar optical formula lens.
なるほど! I didn't know about the Olympic Nikkor. I see the reissue S3 kits around and notice that the lens is bigger than the old S mount 5cm 1.4 lenses. I'll bet the Olympic Nikkor is far and few between...

haha, yeah an S2 might sneak into my camera cabinet one of these days, if it can find room in there
__________________
Happy Shooting!
~Will

Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2017   #62
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Nice shot and thanks for the helpful info. I happen to like the added contrast from my built in yellow filter. Perhaps that is why the concences is that the older lens has a bit more contrast.

Also know I somehow stumbled into a deal of a lifetime and bought another Nikon 35/1.8 in LTM. The pricing was right so I couldn't walk away. I pulled out the plastic card with the magic numbers. Realize only about 1700 were ever made in LTM and I currently own two.

There is a little oil on the blades, and there are mild scratches in the coating on the front element, but for the price I purchased my second 35/1.8 I can get the front element recoated by John at Focal Point and have a perfect lens at a still remarkable price. Meanwhile the scratches in the coating are so minor that I have no problem just using the lens as is. How is $999.00 for a price?

BTW the Nikkor 35/1.8 in LTM is a match made in heaven on my Monochrom. Also I love that the distance scale is only in feet for that simple and uncluttered look.

Cal
You deserve it, Vince.

This is a wonderful thread for me, because though I love the Nikkor RF history and have 5cm 1/4, 85/2 and two 105/2.5, 135/3.5 all in S or Contax, and use them, I was not really more than vaguely aware of this lens, which is pretty impressive. 7000 copies, so they will always be around. The Canon 85/1.5 and 85/1.8 both were under 2000 I think.

The Nikkor Article on the Lens is very nice

I see that Jonmanjiro has been using it a long while and I hope he does not mind if I post his image:


This shows how the 1.8 will hit the RF lever if used with amedeo, which is a shame. No easy work around?

Also I must ask which body for the tests, as M seems a problem?

My second body is kolari thin-filter A7 shown here with an external S adapter that I use with the +5cm lenses. It appears I could just plug this 35 right in, no? The is no helicoid in the adapter.


Entanglement by unoh7, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2017   #63
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,227
Unho7,

Enquiring minds want to know (ok, so I live in the middle of no-where camera store-wise these days. Tire kicking is very limited (read none available)).....

How do you find focusing classic glass on the A7? Not that prices on A7s have dropped I'm been debating about using a sony FF body rather than a Nikon, but I'm worried about focusing.

Thanks.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2017   #64
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
BTW lanthanum only yellows in storage. Put them back in sun they clear up.
A UV flashlight will clear them up too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
I see that Jonmanjiro has been using it a long while and I hope he does not mind if I post his image:

This shows how the 1.8 will hit the RF lever if used with amedeo, which is a shame. No easy work around?

Also I must ask which body for the tests, as M seems a problem?
* No problem.

* I don't see how it would be possible to modify an S-mount W-Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 to work on an Amedeo adapter/M-mount body. I know Shintaro of camera painting fame modified his S-mount Voigtlander lenses to fit (scale focus only), but they all have a large metal piece around the rear elements that can be machined down. That's not possible with the W-Nikkor.

Down size. by Shintaro Yaginuma, on Flickr

* This:

Nikon SP Limited Edition - 1 of 2,500 by Jon, on Flickr
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-20-2017   #65
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,739
Here's some photos of two reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 lenses - one standard S-mount lens, and one lens permanently modified to M-mount by Miyazaki-san at MS Optics. On the modified lens, you can see that Miyazaki-san removed the rear optical group from its original metal shroud and placed it in his own much thinner shroud. He also added a sloped focus cam on the modified lens (piece of plastic tubing around the optical cell). Miyazaki-san did a pretty haphazard job with that focus cam, and it was a major hassle modifying its slope to fix severe back focusing





__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #66
hiam
Jin
 
hiam is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmanjiro View Post
Here's some photos of two reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 lenses - one standard S-mount lens, and one lens permanently modified to M-mount by Miyazaki-san at MS Optics. On the modified lens, you can see that Miyazaki-san removed the rear optical group from its original metal shroud and placed it in his own much thinner shroud. He also added a sloped focus cam on the modified lens (piece of plastic tubing around the optical cell). Miyazaki-san did a pretty haphazard job with that focus cam, and it was a major hassle modifying its slope to fix severe back focusing





Hi, Jon..inspired by your posts, I was lucky to hack a S-mount 3.5cm/1.8 to be RF coupled on M-mount body. I reversed and filed the original S-mount coupling ring to be the new RF cam to M-mount. Took me weeks of trial and error to make the focus right...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #67
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiam View Post
Hi, Jon..inspired by your posts, I was lucky to hack a S-mount 3.5cm/1.8 to be RF coupled on M-mount body. I reversed and filed the original S-mount coupling ring to be the new RF cam to M-mount. Took me weeks of trial and error to make the focus right...
You're a brave man, Jin! Congrats! Can you show us some photos of the conversion? Would love to see how you managed it.
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #68
hiam
Jin
 
hiam is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmanjiro View Post
You're a brave man, Jin! Congrats! Can you show us some photos of the conversion? Would love to see how you managed it.
THANK YOU! I got this much-used lens at very good price...your info about MS-Optical's conversion convinced me to give a try...I followed the picture with similar methods: file the original rear element shroud thinner; remove the spring and reversed the S-mount coupling ring (the narrower end facing the lens) and shimm it so this component is enabled to act on the RF roller. Note a notch is made (see the 2nd pic) to “lock” the ring at the set screw on the rear lens tube. Then next was the fun part of correcting the cam for focus alignment…Of course an S to LM adapter is also required…I’m happy with the result thus far!











  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #69
music_healing
Registered User
 
music_healing is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 786
I ve been following this thread from beginning,

I wonder ... I ve read that Hexanon LTM 35 f2 (chrome esp, and UC hexanon with more modern coating)...
some source said, the design of this Hexanon resemble the Nikkor W 3.5 cm 1.8

from picture here, I feel like seeing the hexanon esp in BW,
Hexanon UC 35 and Hexanon Chrome LTM 35 is my daily walkabout lens

Could this two lens , comparable to Nikkor 3.5 cm 1.8 (in drawing and characteristic?)

its quite hard to find a good LTM Nikkor 3,5 cm 1.8 nowadays, so I use the Hexanon a lot

Thank you
William Jusuf
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2017   #70
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiam View Post
THANK YOU! I got this much-used lens at very good price...your info about MS-Optical's conversion convinced me to give a try...I followed the picture with similar methods: file the original rear element shroud thinner; remove the spring and reversed the S-mount coupling ring (the narrower end facing the lens) and shimm it so this component is enabled to act on the RF roller. Note a notch is made (see the 2nd pic) to “lock” the ring at the set screw on the rear lens tube. Then next was the fun part of correcting the cam for focus alignment…Of course an S to LM adapter is also required…I’m happy with the result thus far!
Very informative photos of the lens surgery and very nice photos taken with the lens too. Amazing work. Thanks for posting!

Quote:
Originally Posted by music_healing View Post
I ve been following this thread from beginning,

I wonder ... I ve read that Hexanon LTM 35 f2 (chrome esp, and UC hexanon with more modern coating)...
some source said, the design of this Hexanon resemble the Nikkor W 3.5 cm 1.8

from picture here, I feel like seeing the hexanon esp in BW,
Hexanon UC 35 and Hexanon Chrome LTM 35 is my daily walkabout lens

Could this two lens , comparable to Nikkor 3.5 cm 1.8 (in drawing and characteristic?)

its quite hard to find a good LTM Nikkor 3,5 cm 1.8 nowadays, so I use the Hexanon a lot

Thank you
William Jusuf
On paper, the optical formula diagrams of the W-Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 and UC Hexanon 35mm F2 certainly look very similar.

menos has compared both lenses here. i would add to this that the uc hexanon seems to have stronger field curvature and softer corners wide open than the w-nikkor, and also has some barrel distortion whereas the w-nikkor has practically none.
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-07-2017   #71
jmanivelle
Registered User
 
jmanivelle's Avatar
 
jmanivelle is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brazil
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmanjiro View Post
Here's some photos of two reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 lenses - one standard S-mount lens, and one lens permanently modified to M-mount by Miyazaki-san at MS Optics. On the modified lens, you can see that Miyazaki-san removed the rear optical group from its original metal shroud and placed it in his own much thinner shroud. He also added a sloped focus cam on the modified lens (piece of plastic tubing around the optical cell). Miyazaki-san did a pretty haphazard job with that focus cam, and it was a major hassle modifying its slope to fix severe back focusing






Hi,
I happen to have one the Miyazaki-San LTM modified reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm F1.8 lenses.

Here are some M shots that might be relevant to this Nikon RF thread :

On the M10:


Au Café
by JM__, on Flickr


Beaubourg
by JM__, on Flickr


Beaubourg
by JM__, on Flickr


dans Paris
by JM__, on Flickr

On a M6 with Ektar 100:


Sunday morning fishing
by JM__, on Flickr

best regards, Jean-Marc.
  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 22:16.


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.