Nikkor HC 50mm F2... Wow, I am impressed - Page 4

Mark C · 01-28-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by leicapixie

Wow! All, well almost all the shots show WHY people moved in droves to Nikon!
i love the soft rendition of my Collapsible Summicron, but as a pro, it was Nikon system.
The ease of the equipment, repair people unknown, unless i flung a camera over my shoulder,
"thinking" it was around my neck..
The camera' 'Photomic" head did need a service. The rest,incl. the lens unscathed.
Love this forum.

I like old Nikon gear, but can't really agree with that one. I think pros adopted Nikon's SLR for the versatile camera system. The lenses were fine, but I always have, and still do, prefer my Leica lenses to Nikkor SLR lenses. Every photographer I knew back then agreed.

Nikon made some nice RF lenses like this one. It is cheap and has a great look. Lots of fun, but I doubt it caused many people to abandon their Leicas.

Paulbe · 01-28-2013

sanmich--a good copy of the pre-AI 50/2 ran me $40 recently.
The coated version is a little more and the AI version is still less than $100--that's here in the Atlanta GA area..
Paul

leicapixie · 01-28-2013

I was meaning getting other lenses than Leitz Leica, for our Leica-M's.
The move to the SLR was that it simply was the better system.
You actually saw what you were getting, some of the lenses were based on the RF system which was very good. In terms of service my Nikon system has needed very little attention. My M3 is my most repaired camera. I know service people all over the world by first names..and their families.
I like using a Leica.

goamules · 01-29-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark C

I like old Nikon gear, but can't really agree with that one. I think pros adopted Nikon's SLR for the versatile camera system. The lenses were fine, but I always have, and still do, prefer my Leica lenses to Nikkor SLR lenses. Every photographer I knew back then agreed.

Nikon made some nice RF lenses like this one. It is cheap and has a great look. Lots of fun, but I doubt it caused many people to abandon their Leicas.

Actually, the Pros (American war correspondents in Korea) did leave Leica glass in droves, and started putting the then obscure Nikkor lenses on their Leica bodies. Their reviews of the Nikkors, and their shots in Life magazine and others, caused huge demand for Nikkor lenses. From that point on, the small company exploded in growth, leading to it's later F series and dominance.

Mark C · 01-29-2013

That is of course exactly true. DDD pretty much created the Japanese photo industry, or at least jump started, or maybe even enabled, the success of it with the publicity generated in his wake.

I apologize for dragging this off topic. I was actually responding to something that was said about Nikon systems.

Hopefully, getting back on track, it would be fun to compare some similar vintage lenses like raid did a while back. It may be that Nikon gave Leica a kick in the backside in the forties that caused them improve their offerings. What would be the contemporary offering from Leica, a Summar, or Summitar? The Summitar would certainly be more of a match.

My Leica lenses are all a little newer, with the exception of a Summarit. I guess that would have been the competition for the 1.5 Nikkor DDD adopted.

raid · 01-29-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulbe

sanmich--a good copy of the pre-AI 50/2 ran me $40 recently.
The coated version is a little more and the AI version is still less than $100--that's here in the Atlanta GA area..
Paul

I was referring to RF lens with .my cost estimate.

furcafe · 01-29-2013

Also, Zeiss also gave Leica a kick back in the 1930s. One of the main attractions of Zeiss Ikon's rival Contax system was the glass, which was generally considered to be superior to Leitz's offerings. Of course, it wasn't as much of business problem because Zeiss stuff was also more, sometimes significantly more, expensive than Leitz.

Post-WWII Japan was a bigger threat because they combined high-quality w/lower costs, first copying & later improving upon the best German designs. Note that the 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S & 5cm/2 Nikkor-H were both based on the respective Zeiss Sonnar designs from the 1930s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark C

That is of course exactly true. DDD pretty much created the Japanese photo industry, or at least jump started, or maybe even enabled, the success of it with the publicity generated in his wake.

I apologize for dragging this off topic. I was actually responding to something that was said about Nikon systems.

Hopefully, getting back on track, it would be fun to compare some similar vintage lenses like raid did a while back. It may be that Nikon gave Leica a kick in the backside in the forties that caused them improve their offerings. What would be the contemporary offering from Leica, a Summar, or Summitar? The Summitar would certainly be more of a match.

My Leica lenses are all a little newer, with the exception of a Summarit. I guess that would have been the competition for the 1.5 Nikkor DDD adopted.

goamules · 01-30-2013

If I were going to compare, I'd compare the Nikkor to other Sonnar types like a Zeiss, the Canon 1.5, Jupiter-3, and a few others. I'm not sure if Leica ever made a Sonnar type, or close, so if not it would be comparing apples to oranges. But that can still be fun! Here I compared 3 Canon lenses at 3 apertures. I also did the J-3 the same day...not shown.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrett...481717/detail/

Here's a good, short history of the Nikkors:
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/nikoleic.html

ferider · 01-30-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark C

What would be the contemporary offering from Leica, a Summar, or Summitar? The Summitar would certainly be more of a match.

My Leica lenses are all a little newer, with the exception of a Summarit. I guess that would have been the competition for the 1.5 Nikkor DDD adopted.

The Nikkor 50/1.5 was introduced 1950, followed quickly by the 50/1.4. The German competion was obviously the Sonnar (for example used by Franck and HCB), the Summarit, and the early collapsible Summicron. WRT optical performance, very comparable, IMO. For 50mm, Japanese lenses competed on price only.

I think the real technical Nikkor threat to German glass in the early 50s was the 3.5/2.5 (1952). There was nothing comparable from either Leitz or Zeiss until the late 50s. The 35/2.5 is not too popular around here, but is an outstanding performer, given its age. There was also nothing German that compared in performance to the 2.8/3.5 and 10.5/2.5 Nikkors (1952 and 1953).

The lens that caught DDD's attention was the Nikkor 8.5/2 (1950?): a better performer than the respective Sonnar, with no contemporary match from Leitz.

Mark C · 01-30-2013

It is an interesting point in photo history when Jun Miki snapped a picture of DDD with the 8.5cm Nikkor. Are those lenses really better than a Zeiss made Sonnar? Are the others? The 8.5cm shot is what caught Duncan's eye, but I don't think it is what he ended up buying. What was his long lens? Maybe a 13.5?

Duncan does mention in "This is War" that he and his colleagues found the Nikkors "far superior" to the German lenses with the exception of wide angle and long telephoto lenses (over 135mm). He said they felt the 50/1.5, 85, and 135 were the best Nikkors. They felt their German wide angles were better, and kept those.

I always kind of assumed that he was comparing the 50/1.5 to the Leica offering (Summarit), but it well may be correct that he was specifically comparing it to the Sonnar. Does anybody know for sure which f1.5 50 he was using then?

ferider · 01-30-2013

Not sure Mark.

A couple of more things to remember:

1) Post WWII, Zeiss was disassembled and moved. Access to new Occupied Japan or German lenses was easier than getting a Sonnar, at least for a German, Swiss, French or American photographer.
2) Leitz continued production and developed, for example, the Summicron. But between 45 and 50, most of the remaining German male population was not allowed to work (classified as "Mitlaeufer" by the Allies).
3) I am also assuming that - even though published by the Allies post WWII - Leitz kept honoring the existing Zeiss patents.
4) Today we love our Barnacks. But arguably, with difficult access to Contax bodies, Canon and Nikon RF cameras must have been attractive to professional photographers between 1945 and 52. Unless you shoot "f5.6 and be there" mostly (like HCB), using an integrated finder and focus patch must have been appealing.

Roland.

furcafe · 01-30-2013

Also, the relocated Zeiss Ikon didn't even get their "Zeiss-Opton" lens operation up & running until around 1951, for Contax RF lenses, anyway. That's why early Contax IIa/IIIa's were sold with lenses made in Jena, by their brethren under Communist rule on the other side of the Iron Curtain. The West German part of Zeiss basically had to reconstitute their entire optical works in Oberkochen, as the heart of their miniature camera (35mm, etc.) & lens production before the war had been in Jena & Dresden.

Plus, as the Zeiss afficionados know, after WWII, there was nothing official from Zeiss in LTM. Actual Zeiss lenses in LTM were made in very limited numbers during the war, & mainly for the military. After the war you basically had Soviet Jupiter copies of the Zeiss designs for the Kiev Contax copies or aftermarket conversions of Zeiss Contax mount lenses or optical parts. Either way, I think the main problem was quality control, as the Zeiss designs & coating formula were more than good enough. Nippon Kogaku, already a favored optical company before & during WWII, benefitted from the relatively more generous conditions of the U.S. Occupation & was able to concentrate on super premium quality (actually overbuilt) products.

As to the availability & attractiveness of Contax bodies, I agree w/Roland there, too. Because they were so expensive, even compared to the pricey Leica gear, only really well-financed or fortunate photojournalists could use them, the best-known example being Capa, but also many of the Time-Life shooters (IIRC, after the IIa/IIIa came out in 1950, they donated some of their old IIs & IIIs to Edmund Hillary's Everest expedition, though Hillary himself was a Retina man).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferider

Not sure Mark.

A couple of more things to remember:

1) Post WWII, Zeiss was disassembled and moved. Access to new Occupied Japan or German lenses must have been much easier than getting a Sonnar, at least for a German, Swiss, French or American photographer.
2) Leitz continued production and developed, for example, the Summicron. But between 45 and 50, most of the remaining German male population was not allowed to work (classified as "Mitlaeufer" by the Allies).
3) I am also assuming that - even though published by the Allies post WWII - Leitz kept honoring the existing Zeiss patents.
4) Today we love our Barnacks. But arguably, with difficult access to Contax bodies, Canon and Nikon RF cameras must have been attractive to professional photographers between 1945 and 52. Unless you shoot "f5.6 and be there" mostly (like HCB), using an integrated finder and focus patch must have been appealing.

Roland.

Roland.