W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 - vintage vs. reissue comparison

[jonmanjiro]

Finally had a chance to shoot a few frames to compare the multicoated reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 lens (sold as part of the Nikon SP Limited Edition kit released in 2005) with a single coated vintage W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8.

Here's the lenses I used. The vintage lens is on the left and the reissue lens is on the right.


reassembled - W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 by jonmanjiro, on Flickr


Here's some of the shots, all taken on expired Kodak E100VS.

Vintage W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 @ f/1.8

bokeh - vintage Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 @ f1.8 by jonmanjiro, on Flickr

Reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 @ f/1.8

bokeh - reissue Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 @ f1.8 by jonmanjiro, on Flickr

Vintage W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5 @ f/2.5 (just threw this one in for another comparison reference)

bokeh - vintage Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 @ f2.5 by jonmanjiro, on Flickr

Vintage W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 @ f/1.8

colour1 - vintage Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 @ f1.8 by jonmanjiro, on Flickr

Reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 @ f/1.8

colour1 - reissue Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 @ f1.8 by jonmanjiro, on Flickr

Vintage W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 @ f/2

colour2 - vintage Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 @ f2 by jonmanjiro, on Flickr

Reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 @ f/2

colour2 - reissue Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 @ f2 by jonmanjiro, on Flickr

Vintage W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 @ f/1.8

flare - vintage Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 @ f1.8 by jonmanjiro, on Flickr

Reissue W-Nikkor 3.5cm f/1.8 @ f/1.8

flare - reissue Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 @ f1.8 by jonmanjiro, on Flickr

[jonmanjiro]

As can be seen in the last two photos, as expected, the reissue lens handles flare better. Bokeh is similar. The reissue lens has the edge when it comes to sharpness and contrast (no surprises there). The oddest thing was the huge difference in colour balance. The colours from the vintage lens are much warmer than either the reissue 3.5cm f/1.8 or the vintage 3.5cm f/2.5 (4th photo from the top). Makes me wonder if the elements in the vintage 3.5cm f/1.8 have yellowed somewhat with age?! Or maybe something to do with the lanthanum glass in the vintage 3.5cm f/1.8?

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks for sharing, Jon!

Personally I prefer the warmer (vintage) lens rendering... It makes images that are closer to real vision (mine), but this can be very personal...

Cheers,

Juan

[jonmanjiro]

I certainly don't mind the warmer colour rendering, Juan

But I am surprised that the colour of the vintage 3.5cm f/1.8 and vintage 3.5cm f/2.5 are so different! The vintage 3.5cm f/2.5 is suprisingly similar to the reissue 3.5cm f/1.8!

[elshaneo]

Thanks Jon for the photo comparisons. I also prefer the warmer tone of the vintage 35mm f/1.8 lens

[goliathus]

Very interesting! This is what I really want to know. I tested two lenses before. The result showed same with your test, Vintage one showed more warm color and it has almost same sharpness, similar bokeh. But as you pointed, common Nikon RF lenses's color is more resemble to reissue 3.5cm F1.8. Thanks for the sharing : )

[Juan Valdenebro]

Originally Posted by jonmanjiro

I certainly don't mind the warmer colour rendering, Juan

But I am surprised that the colour of the vintage 3.5cm f/1.8 and vintage 3.5cm f/2.5 are so different! The vintage 3.5cm f/2.5 is suprisingly similar to the reissue 3.5cm f/1.8!

Indeed surprising! The difference is not small... No (clear to me) reason for that difference between both vintage lenses...

Cheers,

Juan

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by goliathus

Very interesting! This is what I really want to know. I tested two lenses before. The result showed same with your test, Vintage one showed more warm color and it has almost same sharpness, similar bokeh. But as you pointed, common Nikon RF lenses's color is more resemble to reissue 3.5cm F1.8. Thanks for the sharing : )

It's reassuring to hear your got similar results, Park. I was beginning to wonder if it was just my lens. Good to know its not

[ferider]

Thanks, Jon !

Would be interesting to see if the color rendition of the vintage 1.8 lens gets more similar to the more modern look of the re-issued lens when closed down a bit.

In my experience it doesn't, the vintage 35/1.8 has very unique color rendering (which is why I love it). Maybe the glass they used ?

Roland.

[dexdog]

Nice comparison, Jon.

I have played around with both the reissue and vintage lenses, and got the same results as Jonmanjiro- warmer colors on the vintage lens. Also, I think that the colors are a bit more saturated on the reissue lens (due to better coatings, I guess).


Roland, most of the pics that I have made with these lenses are at middling apertures of 4, 5.6 or 8. I don't think that the colors change very much in the stopped down condition from what Jon has posted. Now, where did I archive those pictures?

[Neare]

Great test!

Would the colour cast have anything to do with how the single coating has aged perhaps?

Because they both should be the same design, and the fact that the other Nikkor's produce the same colours as the reissue...
Either way, the vintage is much nicer on the eyes =D

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by photomoof

I have to admit I can't really see that much difference, but I am sure you would notice it much more when looking at the chromes on a light table.

I wonder if the cement, rather than the coatings, is not the culprit?

Yes the colour difference is certainly more obvious on the light table, Fred. These shots all on the same roll of film and right beside each other on the roll in most cases.

Intriguing that the vintage 3.5cm f/1.8 is the only lens in the Nikon RF lineup with this warmer colour rendition.

[ferider]

Thanks, Marc, this is my experience too.

Jon: if you have a light table, could you please take both vintage and re-issued lens wide open and put them on. Does the glass have a different color ? My vintage lens looks slightly yellow. I'm convinced the tone difference has little to do with cement and/or coating. The Sonnars from the same era are heavily cemented and do not have this color effect.

From Nikkor - The 1001 Nights:

The external appearance up to this point is similar to other Xenotar-type lenses, but the design utilized the totally new Lanthanum (La) -based glass convex lenses to improve spherical aberration and curvature of field, significantly enhancing both sharpness and image flatness.

Maybe some Thorium, too ?

Development of eight new types of optical glass made with rare-earth elements such as lanthanum (La) and thorium (Th) in Japan (Nippon) began in June 1951, a joint effort by the five Japanese companies : Chiyoda Optical (now Minolta Co., Ltd.), Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd., Konishiroku Photo Industries (now Konika Corporation) Ohara Optical Glass (now Ohara Inc.), and Nippon Kogaku K.K. (now Nikon Corporation).

In September 1951, Nippon Kogaku received a grant of 10.5 million Japanese Yen for industrial testing related to the manufacture of these new types of optical glass. By November 1953, tests by Nippon Kogaku were completed for LaK1 (lanthanum crown); LaK3 and KF8 (crown flint); LLF (ultra-light flint); F16 (flint); and FK6 (chlorine-silicon crown). Ohara Optical Glass had concluded tests on LaK2 (lanthanum crown), as had Fuji Photo Film on BaSF8 (barium flint).

Contributing engineers met a total of 29 times. After testing was finished, a variety of new photographic lenses using the newly developed glasses were introduced by these manufacturers, demonstrating the significance of this wide-ranging R&D effort.

Roland.

[ferider]

By "heavily cemented", I mean nr. of cemented surfaces in for example 50/1.4 and 85/2, that do not have the warming effect Jon observed.

I am suggesting that the vintage lens has yellow'ed over time, did not behave like this when new, can possibly be cured in UV light, or, conversely, be emulated with a warming filter and the re-issued lens, all possibly relevant also to a photographer

Roland.

[ferider]

My 1951 (?) 50/1.4 is cooler than my younger (1956?) 35/1.8, which has less cemented surfaces, Fred. This is why I am suggesting that the 35's glass (not the cement) is yellowing.

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by ferider

Jon: if you have a light table, could you please take both vintage and re-issued lens wide open and put them on. Does the glass have a different color ? My vintage lens looks slightly yellow. I'm convinced the tone difference has little to do with cement and/or coating. The Sonnars from the same era are heavily cemented and do not have this color effect.

From Nikkor - The 1001 Nights:

Maybe some Thorium, too ?

Roland.

Roland, I have a light table and will take a look at the lenses tonight when I get home.

On the topic of lanthanum, thorium, and other now prohibited substances used to create exotic glass, Nikon recently did a big cleanup of the soil where the glass furnace used to be located at the Ohi Plant. Here's a shot of the bubble house (well kind of a bubble house) used to prevent the spread of contamination during the clean up. The white building behind the bubble house is Building 101 where all Nikon cameras up to an including the F2 (and maybe even the early F3s) were assembled.

[Mister E]

Jon, was the E100VS as expected? I hope so, it looks good to me! I am very surprised by the difference, I do like the warmer look, but I am sure a 81A filter on the reissue will rectify the difference in color.

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by Mister E

Jon, was the E100VS as expected? I hope so, it looks good to me! I am very surprised by the difference, I do like the warmer look, but I am sure a 81A filter on the reissue will rectify the difference in color.

The E100VS is great (and as expected)!! Thanks again for all the film.

I think both colour renditions have their place. A good excuse to keep both lenses anyway

[Finder]

Originally Posted by jonmanjiro

Roland, I have a light table and will take a look at the lenses tonight when I get home.

On the topic of lanthanum, thorium, and other now prohibited substances used to create exotic glass, Nikon recently did a big cleanup of the soil where the glass furnace used to be located at the Ohi Plant. Here's a shot of the bubble house (well kind of a bubble house) used to prevent the spread of contamination during the clean up. The white building behind the bubble house is Building 101 where all Nikon cameras up to an including the F2 (and maybe even the early F3s) were assembled.

(Konica) Minolta did the same thing with their Sakai plant when they sold their camera division to Sony. There are some nasty stuff used in glass making beyond radioactive material--cadmium and arsenic come to mind. It is surprising the workforce stayed healthy. You start to wonder about the water table.

[BillBingham2]

It's too bad we could not go back in time to see the vintage when it was younger to see if it became warmer over the years.

Are there other lenses from Nikon (or others) that could be compared?

Is it the glass, is it the age, is it just the design?

Enquiring Minds want to know!

B2 (;->

[MikeL]

Something similar to the Pentax 50mm SMC? There's no doubt mine has yellowed, even after setting it in the sun.

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by Zen-shooter

Jon, apologies for highjacking, but I noticed in your photo that the type face used on the rings are different. Look at the letters 'a' & 'g'.

I checked mine out have the same thing going on. Wonder what gives.

Well spotted Akira. I hadn't noticed that before. I guess Nikon changed to a simpler font at some point. No idea why though ...

[digitalintrigue]

Nice comparison, Jon. How about I send you a 35/1.8 in LTM to add to the mix?

[jonmanjiro]

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

Nice comparison, Jon. How about I send you a 35/1.8 in LTM to add to the mix?

That would be very cool

For testing purposes only, right?

[P. Lynn Miller]

If the vintage 35/1.8 used glass similar to the first issue Nikkor 35/1.4, the glass will definitely 'yellow' with age, more of an amber than yellow actually. I have to set my Nikkor-N 35mm f1.4 in the sun for a few days every few years to clear it up. My 35/1.4 is actually in the sun on the veranda as I type this.