brbo
Well-known
From the OP... "They are all in extremely good condition; an an early 50s Nikkor 50/1.4, a 1963 Jupiter-3 50/1.5, and an early 50s Canon 50/1.5."
haempe
Well-known
oops, overread this. thanks.
goamules
Well-known
These are all great comments and questions. On film, which these were designed for, I've shot the Canon and J-3 a lot, and like them both. The J-3 is naturally warm in colors (all of the 3 I've had are) and smooth in out of focus areas. Mine shoots fine on LTM Canon and Leica cameras, I've never shimmed anything. It is the lens I use the most mostly because it's fairly cheap to replace if stolen or damaged in use. The build quality is not close to German or Japanese lenses, but the aluminum is light weight which is nice. The lack of click stops on the iris is a pain.
The Canon has cooler colors. Also, wide open it's Bokeh is harsher than the J-3 or Nikkor. But it's such a sharp lens, with less field curvature and coma that I love it's quality. If you'd like to see more of the Canon at F2.8 and F5.6, here is where I compared it to the other Canon RFs: http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrettsphotos/sets/72157628955481717/detail/
The Nikkor 1.4 is too new for me to say much about. For sure it's soft wide open. But coming from the LF world, a lot of fast portrait lenses are. The spherical aberration (glow) does go away right before you are at F2. So to me, this will give me the option of shooting a soft, dreamy portrait at F1.4, or a sharp one at F2. I also see that it swirls, and I know that can be controlled and eliminated by choosing your background. So again, the Nikkor give you options for different artistic choices.
The Canon has cooler colors. Also, wide open it's Bokeh is harsher than the J-3 or Nikkor. But it's such a sharp lens, with less field curvature and coma that I love it's quality. If you'd like to see more of the Canon at F2.8 and F5.6, here is where I compared it to the other Canon RFs: http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrettsphotos/sets/72157628955481717/detail/
The Nikkor 1.4 is too new for me to say much about. For sure it's soft wide open. But coming from the LF world, a lot of fast portrait lenses are. The spherical aberration (glow) does go away right before you are at F2. So to me, this will give me the option of shooting a soft, dreamy portrait at F1.4, or a sharp one at F2. I also see that it swirls, and I know that can be controlled and eliminated by choosing your background. So again, the Nikkor give you options for different artistic choices.
furcafe
Mentor
It's not a clone like the 5cm/1.5 or 5cm/2, but the original 5cm/1.4 Nikkor (for Nikon RF & LTM) is a modified Sonnar (I'm sure someone can find or post a link to a diagram to show the similarities). I believe they pushed or stretched the design to get to f/1.4.
In my experience, for some reason, the LTM version is a bit sharper wide open than the Nikon RF version (I've had 2 of the 1st & 3 of the 2nd).
In my experience, for some reason, the LTM version is a bit sharper wide open than the Nikon RF version (I've had 2 of the 1st & 3 of the 2nd).
goamules
Well-known
The Nikkor 1.4 is a Sonnar formula, as are quite a few others in LTM:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69170
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69170
ferider
Mentor
All LTM Nikkor 50/1.4 copies are Sonnars.
Nikkor 50/1.5:
Nikkor 50/1.4:
The Olympic RF Nikkor 50/1.4 (all black, S mount only) was a double Gauss (as is the modern S-mount re-incarnation).
Nikon stretched the Sonnar design in 1950 to open it up to 1.4 and claim the fastest RF 50 record ....
Which I believe is where the flare comes from Garrett. If you close the Nikkor down less than half a stop, the veiling flare disappears (vignetting at infinity on full frame, too), and contrast and resolution pick up dramatically.
When you zoom in, say, f1.7 and up, you should see that the Nikkor has noticeably higher center resolution than the other two lenses.
Also, regarding a previous question, the Canon is typically optimized for middle apertures (f5.6 or so), while the Nikkor is optimized for f1.4. Of course, on an M body, you can control this via the use of a different LTM adapter. Then again the contrast changes so much when opening up further than f2, that focus shift is hardly noticeable for any of those lenses.
Cheers,
Roland.
Nikkor 50/1.5:
Nikkor 50/1.4:
The Olympic RF Nikkor 50/1.4 (all black, S mount only) was a double Gauss (as is the modern S-mount re-incarnation).
Nikon stretched the Sonnar design in 1950 to open it up to 1.4 and claim the fastest RF 50 record ....
Which I believe is where the flare comes from Garrett. If you close the Nikkor down less than half a stop, the veiling flare disappears (vignetting at infinity on full frame, too), and contrast and resolution pick up dramatically.
When you zoom in, say, f1.7 and up, you should see that the Nikkor has noticeably higher center resolution than the other two lenses.
Also, regarding a previous question, the Canon is typically optimized for middle apertures (f5.6 or so), while the Nikkor is optimized for f1.4. Of course, on an M body, you can control this via the use of a different LTM adapter. Then again the contrast changes so much when opening up further than f2, that focus shift is hardly noticeable for any of those lenses.
Cheers,
Roland.
furcafe
Mentor
Thanks, Garrett & Roland. I knew someone would come through w/the diagrams!
Roger Hicks
Mentor
'Type' and 'clone' are not quite the same thing.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
goamules
Well-known
I think it would be accurate to call these Sonnar type or "Sonnar Formula." I.E. they all have seven elements with the same number of groups. The elements have the same types of curves, positive or negative, and the strong/weak refractive indices of the glass are in the same positions.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
It's a Sonnar!
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Garret,
Oh, sure, I'm not arguing -- though of course, a Sonnar is a triplet with (usually) two of the single lenses split into two or three cemented elements: a 50/2 Sonnar is not very like a 50/1.5 Sonnar, and the current C-Sonnar is different again. All I mean is that quite modest differences in actual curve radius, and glass refractive index, to say nothing of coating, can have quite significant effects. As you show.
The Sonnar was originally designed to favour contrast over resolution: Leica's fast lenses had better resolution, but lower contrast. When coating came in, the latter disadvantage diminished greatly -- and indeed, the current C-Sonnar splits one of the groups, which (to some purists) stops it being a Sonnar. It was only the term 'clone', implying 'identical', to which I was objecting.
The fascinating thing, again as implicit in your test, is that despite the inherently lower resolution and greater focus shift inherent in a fast Sonnar-type, it retains enough fans (including myself) to remain in production.
Cheers,
R.
Oh, sure, I'm not arguing -- though of course, a Sonnar is a triplet with (usually) two of the single lenses split into two or three cemented elements: a 50/2 Sonnar is not very like a 50/1.5 Sonnar, and the current C-Sonnar is different again. All I mean is that quite modest differences in actual curve radius, and glass refractive index, to say nothing of coating, can have quite significant effects. As you show.
The Sonnar was originally designed to favour contrast over resolution: Leica's fast lenses had better resolution, but lower contrast. When coating came in, the latter disadvantage diminished greatly -- and indeed, the current C-Sonnar splits one of the groups, which (to some purists) stops it being a Sonnar. It was only the term 'clone', implying 'identical', to which I was objecting.
The fascinating thing, again as implicit in your test, is that despite the inherently lower resolution and greater focus shift inherent in a fast Sonnar-type, it retains enough fans (including myself) to remain in production.
Cheers,
R.
goamules
Well-known
Good points, and I also like any of them!
valdas
Mentor
In this test i prefer J3, would not expect it to be quite so sharp vs Canon an Nikkor... Should I buy one???
ferider
Mentor
To add to what Roger said, the original Sonnar was also designed for flare resistance.
And keep in mind that the Canon and Nikkor 50/1.5 were built after the respective Zeiss patents were made public.
Also interesting that the modern C-Sonnar has only 6 elements, where Canon 1.5, J3 and Nikkor 50/1.4 have 7.
Roland.
And keep in mind that the Canon and Nikkor 50/1.5 were built after the respective Zeiss patents were made public.
Also interesting that the modern C-Sonnar has only 6 elements, where Canon 1.5, J3 and Nikkor 50/1.4 have 7.
Roland.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Roland,
You are of course right. I was conflating flare and contrast. Not entirely unreasonably, but as you say, the two concepts should normally be separated.
Cheers,
R.
Filzkoeter
stray animal
I knew the second one was the J3... but I was unsure about those other two. The J3 is such a great lens (when properly adjusted), I love mine. Compared to the other Sonnars it's still a bargain.
Go for it. They are still quite cheap. But be prepared to do some adjustment jobs (which really isn't difficult to do, it's a very easy lens to work on).
As far as I understood the air space between the two elements (the front-triplet in other 1.5 Sonnars) is used as an element ("Luftlinse" in German, "air lens" or "air element").
brbo
Well-known
Sorry for OT, do all 1,5/50 Sonnars (J-3, Zeiss) in Contax mount come with stepless aperture ring?
ferider
Mentor
Weiss schon, Miko. Das Nahsummicron hat zum Beispiel solche Luftlinsen.
Im "Ur-Sonnar" fehlen sie aber.Just find it interesting that in the 50s, glass was used in the middle of the front triplet, to avoid air/glass surfaces (and achieve the above mentioned flare resistance), while with today's coating technology, the C-Sonnar doesn't need this.
Roland.
furcafe
Mentor
goamules
Well-known
When the light goes down today I'm going to try to shoot my next phase; open aperture focused at infinity. I always hear this or that lens is "optimized for [close up, infinity]" and I need to see it.
Do people mean, simply, that the lens is calibrated to be most accurately in focus on a rangefinders mechanism either near, or far? I just don't get it.
Do people mean, simply, that the lens is calibrated to be most accurately in focus on a rangefinders mechanism either near, or far? I just don't get it.