Thinking of Selling the W-Nikkor 35 1.8 From the 05 SP - Stupid?

NSA,

Know that Brian’s post has deep meaning.

When a lens achieves “cult-status” they tend to be collectible and can have investment value.

Also in the future difficult or impossible to replace.

It’s just a matter of time.

Cal
 
I still own a Canon 35mm 1.5 ltm, but not the 85mm 1.5 ltm anymore. The Pentax-L 43mm ltm is a special lens too. So is the Rollei 40mm 2.8 ltm. Any (adapted) Sonnar 5cm 1.5 ltm from the 1930's is special. There are many special lenses around.

Q: why did the Canon 35mm 1.5 and 85mm 1.5 reach cult status but not the Canon 50mm 1.5 ltm?


:)
 
The Canon 50/1.5- Sonnar formula lens, ~20,000 made? Many suffer damage to the element behind the aperture, so really clean ones- harder to find. Would be easy to adapt to another mount as the barrel is held in my a retaining ring and comes out easily.
I do not use mine enough. Smoother Bokeh than the Nikon 5cm F1.4 Sonnar formula lens.
 
raid said:
I still own a Canon 35mm 1.5 ltm, but not the 85mm 1.5 ltm anymore. The Pentax-L 43mm ltm is a special lens too. So is the Rollei 40mm 2.8 ltm. Any (adapted) Sonnar 5cm 1.5 ltm from the 1930's is special. There are many special lenses around.

Q: why did the Canon 35mm 1.5 and 85mm 1.5 reach cult status but not the Canon 50mm 1.5 ltm?


:)
Click to expand...

Raid,

I had the Pentax-L in silver boxed with VF’er.

Our friend Sam offered me a mucho clean original black paint Leica II with a period correct nickel Elmer as a flat trade.

It is an interesting lens because it fits precisely in between a 35mm and a 50mm. If I remember correctly it had a fast throw on the focus, a focus tab, and was a fast shooter. Not tiny or small though.

Cal
 
I had the Canon 35-50-85 trio with max aperture 1.5. for many years. I was given a good amount of money for the 85/1.5 even though later on the cost of such a lens more than doubled or tripled.
The Canon 35/1.5 was labeled as a "dog" for many years, but it did very well in my lens comparisons for 35mm-40mm lenses, and its reputation seems to have improved then. I did not feel that I needed to keep the 85/1.5 since I have been using a Summilux 75/1.4 and from a photographer's perspective I did not see a good reason for not selling the 85/1.5.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
The Canon 50/1.5- Sonnar formula lens, ~20,000 made? Many suffer damage to the element behind the aperture, so really clean ones- harder to find. Would be easy to adapt to another mount as the barrel is held in my a retaining ring and comes out easily.
I do not use mine enough. Smoother Bokeh than the Nikon 5cm F1.4 Sonnar formula lens.
Click to expand...

I think that my Canon 50/1.5 is a clean lens. If there were 20k lenses made, how many were made for the 35/1.5 and the 85/1.5?
Why were these two lenses handpicked for movies making but not the 50/1.5?
 
Canon lenses- "Around" 5000 35/1.5, 2000 85/1.5, and 15,000 50/1.5. lenses- but exact numbers not available.

The 85/1.5 is much better than the reputation would have you believe, and at under $1000 was worth getting. At insane prices- "Cult Status". The same optical formula as the Simlar 5cm F1.5, same rendering. An uncommon 7 element in four groups, 1-3-2-1 Planar formula layout. It is very heavy.
 
Thanks for the estimated production counts.

The 85/1.5 is a really good lens for portraits in the open shade. I could not have anticipated the cult status after many years of no-interest-status for this heavy lens.
Don't look back-I tell myself :)
 
"maybe buy a VC S-Skopar 35 2.5." Big mistake, the Skopars are not as great as people make them out to be. They are also very prone to internal hazing that can not be remedied.
 
the_hunter said:
"maybe buy a VC S-Skopar 35 2.5." Big mistake, the Skopars are not as great as people make them out to be. They are also very prone to internal hazing that can not be remedied.
Click to expand...

Well, they might not be "magical" but they are pretty damn good really. I've never seen the internal hazing.
 
jsrockit said:
Well, they might not be "magical" but they are pretty damn good really. I've never seen the internal hazing.
Click to expand...

Compared to what? I own both and the Nikon 35mm f1.8 is a lot better. But honestly, I don't think I follow OPs train of thought, selling the Nikon for a Skopar to no end just seems like a waste of time in a confused attempt to make a little money. Maybe it is more productive to question the thought process and end use than compare lenses.
 
I did a comparo a few years ago between the 35/1.8 Nikkor and an 8 element 35/2 Summicron, I think I posted here although it may have been on my previous login. And then later, a comparo between the 35/2.5 Nikkor and 35/2.8 Summaron.

Both comparisons showed these lenses to be neck-and-neck with each other, in fact I couldn't really tell which was the 2.5 and which was the Summaron.

If I had a 1.8 from an SP 2005, I'd keep it. I did buy a Millenium Nikkor separately once, but it had already been separated from its S3 body by a prior owner.

As far as LTM 35/1.8 Nikkors, I've had 4 or 5 of them over the years. There is a thread elsewhere on the forum that keeps track of serials and other variations.
 
It's difficult to compare the 1.8 Nikkor and the 2.5 VC. First, they are completely different designs. Second, the 1.8 has some noticable focus shift that the VC lacks. Third, the VC's muticoating is far better than the SC on the Nikkor, reducing all sorts of optical effects. The Nikkor is about 1.5 stops faster in useful aperture as the VC's vignetting at 2.5 is awful (really should have been a 2.8 lens). The VC can also focus more closely than the Nikkor - 0.7m to 0.9m. The Nikkor excels at its lack of distortion and speed, but it's far from the best 35mm RF lens ever made, considering the nearly 7 decades that have elapsed since its introduction
 
splitimageview said:
I did a comparo a few years ago between the 35/1.8 Nikkor and an 8 element 35/2 Summicron, I think I posted here although it may have been on my previous login. And then later, a comparo between the 35/2.5 Nikkor and 35/2.8 Summaron.

Both comparisons showed these lenses to be neck-and-neck with each other, in fact I couldn't really tell which was the 2.5 and which was the Summaron.

If I had a 1.8 from an SP 2005, I'd keep it. I did buy a Millenium Nikkor separately once, but it had already been separated from its S3 body by a prior owner.

As far as LTM 35/1.8 Nikkors, I've had 4 or 5 of them over the years. There is a thread elsewhere on the forum that keeps track of serials and other variations.
Click to expand...

I agree that VC and the 2.8 Summaron are pretty close in raw performance but the VC's muticoating gives it a noticable advantage.
 
In my experience, the moment you've sold it is the exact same moment you realize you need it.. Unless you need the money, just keep it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top