SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Out of curiosity or maybe to start a conversation (as someone who perhaps, in some distant future, might consider the eventuality of buying one of these bodies), I'd like to ask Nikon SP photographers which of the six lens choices you favor. Do you use mostly a 50mm lens? Or do you prefer the 8.5 cms? Is it that the 10.5 cms strikes you as the most appropriate or do you like using the wide angles instead (either 28 or 35mm)?
FWIW, I would rather use a 35mm. It's my absolutely favorite focal length, but when it comes to Nikons... I will find myself using its 50mm f1.4. I really like how it works.
Thanks in advance!
FWIW, I would rather use a 35mm. It's my absolutely favorite focal length, but when it comes to Nikons... I will find myself using its 50mm f1.4. I really like how it works.
Thanks in advance!
hap
Well-known
Out of curiosity or maybe to start a conversation (as someone who perhaps, in some distant future, might consider the eventuality of buying one of these bodies), I'd like to ask Nikon SP photographers which of the six lens choices you favor. Do you use mostly a 50mm lens? Or do you prefer the 8.5 cms? Is it that the 10.5 cms strikes you as the most appropriate or do you like using the wide angles instead (either 28 or 35mm)?
FWIW, I would rather use a 35mm. It's my absolutely favorite focal length, but when it comes to Nikons... I will find myself using its 50mm f1.4. I really like how it works.
Thanks in advance!
I recently procured an SP but immediately shipped to DAG. will be receiving shortly. It originally came with Nikkor 50 and 35. However, Erik has been promoting the VC skopar 50 2.5.....and I found one for a very good price . It has a great feel. I will likely test it out even before the Nikkor. The Apo Lanthar 85 S could be a very nice lens. I've heard that the 105 is underrated. I'd like to hear from folks with some experience. the wides are starting to get pretty $$$, especially the Zeiss biogon.
I have owned the 28, 35/2.5, 35/1.8 (original and reissue), 50/1.4, 50/2, 50/1.4 Millenium, 85/2 (chrome and black), 105/2.5, and 135/3.5 (both chrome and black.)
If I could only have one it would be the reissue 35/1.8.
They are all fabulous. Currently have the 50/2 and 35/2.5, both in black and am very content.
If I could only have one it would be the reissue 35/1.8.
They are all fabulous. Currently have the 50/2 and 35/2.5, both in black and am very content.
Corran
Well-known
I really like the 50mm f/1.4 "2005" lens (double-gauss).
But I also shoot a lot with Voigtlander 15mm and 25mm lenses. Really depends on the type of images.
I'm not a "one-lens" kinda guy. Usually 15/25/35/50. Sometimes switch out to just 12/21/35 for wides only, or 35/50/85 for more normal views.
But I also shoot a lot with Voigtlander 15mm and 25mm lenses. Really depends on the type of images.
I'm not a "one-lens" kinda guy. Usually 15/25/35/50. Sometimes switch out to just 12/21/35 for wides only, or 35/50/85 for more normal views.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I think the 3.5cm f/1.8 is one of the best optics you could ever get, from any manufacturer, from any era. The f/2.5 version is not too far behind.
All of the 5cm lenses are great.
The 8.5 and 10.5cm lenses are legendary. I think for the SP I'd personally go with a 3.5 and 8.5 or 10.5. Then if needing a 5cm, I'd get an S2 with the lens attached and carry both bodies. Did that for a few years and I was always sad that I had to sell the kit.
Phil Forrest
All of the 5cm lenses are great.
The 8.5 and 10.5cm lenses are legendary. I think for the SP I'd personally go with a 3.5 and 8.5 or 10.5. Then if needing a 5cm, I'd get an S2 with the lens attached and carry both bodies. Did that for a few years and I was always sad that I had to sell the kit.
Phil Forrest
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I have the Zeiss ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar in S mount. It is a modern lens but still retains unique characteristics. I don’t have the M mount version for comparison. I got the Amedeo adapter to use on M bodies and don’t notice any focus shift at max aperture.
Highway 61
Revisited
With my SP I would only use lenses which have no distortion.
das
Well-known
Has anyone done a comparison between the original 35mm 1.8 and the re-issue? The original 35mm 1.8 really excels at center sharpness and utter lack of distortion. However, the primitive lens coatings of the original are noticeable in the flaring at wider apertures (the flaring actually never completely goes away). The corners of the original are acceptable but not competitive with modern 35mm rangefinder lenses. I would be very interested in seeing the differences in performance between the 2005 and 1956 versions. Modern lens coatings would really improve the original's performance.
If on a budget, the 35/2.5 is an excellent lens that is completely useable today -- roughly equal in performance to the 35/2.8 Summaron. The Summaron has less visible distortion and less flare, though.
Regarding my "favorite" Nikon RF lens -- without a doubt, the 50mm 1.4 2000 re-issue. It is a fantastic lens.
If on a budget, the 35/2.5 is an excellent lens that is completely useable today -- roughly equal in performance to the 35/2.8 Summaron. The Summaron has less visible distortion and less flare, though.
Regarding my "favorite" Nikon RF lens -- without a doubt, the 50mm 1.4 2000 re-issue. It is a fantastic lens.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Here you go.
I agree with you that the 50/1.4 re-issue is a fantastic lens. I have been less impressed with the 3.5cm f/2.5. It's just okay. I'd really like to pick up one of the 3.5cm f/1.8's.
das
Well-known
das
Well-known
I think the main issue with vintage 1950s and 1960s rangefinder lenses is that they have all been surpassed by modern lenses. Just throw any of those older lenses on your mirrorless and a tripod and test them against any VC, Leica, or Zeiss M lens, and it is plain as day. The control of flare in modern lenses alone catapults them above old lenses. Maybe newer lenses do not beat the better older lenses in all metrics, but they are overall better. Better quality glass, better lens coatings, and a better understanding of optical science. And modern VC and Zeiss lenses are significantly cheaper in today's dollars than any Leica or Zeiss glass of the 1950s or 1960s.
I would trade modern lens distortion (easily correctible) for weaknesses in the corners which cannot be fixed. With mirrorless cameras already knowing what lens you are using, you may never even see vignetting or distortion because they are often automatically corrected.
The W-Nikkor 35/2.5 or the old 35/1.8 is never going to beat overall say a VC 35/2.5. But I feel like both older lenses are still perfectly capable of delivering outstanding images -- especially on film. And using older lenses is a big part of the fun of it all.
I would trade modern lens distortion (easily correctible) for weaknesses in the corners which cannot be fixed. With mirrorless cameras already knowing what lens you are using, you may never even see vignetting or distortion because they are often automatically corrected.
The W-Nikkor 35/2.5 or the old 35/1.8 is never going to beat overall say a VC 35/2.5. But I feel like both older lenses are still perfectly capable of delivering outstanding images -- especially on film. And using older lenses is a big part of the fun of it all.
The "Millenium Nikkor" 50/1.4 that came with the S3-2000 went to my SP.
nikki_portrait by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
I've seen some good prices on the S3-2000 with the lens, less than what the lens used to sell for alone.
The S-Mount lenses, especially telephoto are cheap. $200 gets the 8.5cm F2 or 10.5cm F2.5. $75 gets the 13.5cm F3.5. The wide-angles are a bit more, the 2.8cm F3.5 is very good. The 3.5cm F2.5: mine are very good. I have a set of these in S-Mount and Leica mount.
nikki_portrait by fiftyonepointsix, on FlickrI've seen some good prices on the S3-2000 with the lens, less than what the lens used to sell for alone.
The S-Mount lenses, especially telephoto are cheap. $200 gets the 8.5cm F2 or 10.5cm F2.5. $75 gets the 13.5cm F3.5. The wide-angles are a bit more, the 2.8cm F3.5 is very good. The 3.5cm F2.5: mine are very good. I have a set of these in S-Mount and Leica mount.
hap
Well-known
Although a lot slower that 85mm f2, wouldn't it be better to consider the VC 85mm apo lanthar in S mount?
Nikkor-PC 8.5cm F2, on the Nikon SP.
hayride3 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
redwagon by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
Probably at F4, a sweet spot.
I would like to add the APO Lanthar 85/3.5, or the 90/4 Lanthar in LTM. But the Nikkor 8.5cm F2: a must for anyone with an SP.
The Nikkor- from a quick Ebay check, is running ~$100 less than the Lanthar.
Thread here on the Nikkor-
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3001123#post3001123
I just uploaded a couple of shots to it.
hayride3 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickrredwagon by fiftyonepointsix, on FlickrProbably at F4, a sweet spot.
I would like to add the APO Lanthar 85/3.5, or the 90/4 Lanthar in LTM. But the Nikkor 8.5cm F2: a must for anyone with an SP.
The Nikkor- from a quick Ebay check, is running ~$100 less than the Lanthar.
Thread here on the Nikkor-
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3001123#post3001123
I just uploaded a couple of shots to it.
froyd
Mentor
The "Millenium Nikkor" 50/1.4 that came with the S3-2000 went to my SP.
I've seen some good prices on the S3-2000 with the lens, less than what the lens used to sell for alone.
The S-Mount lenses, especially telephoto are cheap. $200 gets the 8.5cm F2 or 10.5cm F2.5. $75 gets the 13.5cm F3.5. The wide-angles are a bit more, the 2.8cm F3.5 is very good. The 3.5cm F2.5: mine are very good. I have a set of these in S-Mount and Leica mount.
HOLY MOLY, Brian. I did not realize you were back! Great to see you around these parts!
hap
Well-known
Nikkor-PC 8.5cm F2, on the Nikon SP.
Probably at F4, a sweet spot.
I would like to add the APO Lanthar 85/3.5, or the 90/4 Lanthar in LTM. But the Nikkor 8.5cm F2: a must for anyone with an SP.
The Nikkor- from a quick Ebay check, is running ~$100 less than the Lanthar.
Thread here on the Nikkor-
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3001123#post3001123
I just uploaded a couple of shots to it.
very nice images. there is a significant price difference as you say on the Nikkor
https://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-10-5...944833?hash=item2d151ff781:g:8x4AAOSwVvZeYr9Z
Popflash has an S-Mount 10.5cm F2.5 for under $200, includes shipping. I'm a Repeat customer, and they are a Sponsor here.
Uses easy to find 52mm filters.
Smoother Bokeh than the 8.5cm F2, was intentionally under-corrected for spherical aberration - in 1952.
I have a pair in LTM, two S-mount, one Contax mount, Two F-Mount.
Okay- the 10.5cm F2.5 is my favorite.
Popflash has an S-Mount 10.5cm F2.5 for under $200, includes shipping. I'm a Repeat customer, and they are a Sponsor here.
Uses easy to find 52mm filters.
Smoother Bokeh than the 8.5cm F2, was intentionally under-corrected for spherical aberration - in 1952.
I have a pair in LTM, two S-mount, one Contax mount, Two F-Mount.
Okay- the 10.5cm F2.5 is my favorite.
hap
Well-known
You are a great salesman. I just looked and not there. 105mm for 269.00 no lens hood.
lukx
Well-known
I have recently acquired a very clean 10.5cm f2.5 in F mount, a rare early version with 9 aperture blades (no tick marks). I like it so far, but have to shoot more photos with it. It was rather expensive so I have to be sure I love it, or sell it.
I will look out for that smooth(er) bokeh, though I always liked the bokeh of my LTM 8.5cm f2.
That went fast- Bet someone called Popflash directly.
Within the past year: I picked up a near mint LTM 10.5cm F2.5, no hood, for $200. Put a "watch" on the Ebay item and the seller offered it to me for less than the listing. Too good to pass up, so I have a deep yellow filter on one for the M Monochrom and L39 on the other for the M9.
Telephoto lenses are somehow "not popular" on Rangefinders. I like them, they often focus 3~4ft, so let you get closer in.