NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: richardHaw on February 20, 2016, 13:24:26
-
It's my favourite family of lenses :o :o :o
I use them often for street and macros. They are cheap and compact and are easily collectible (except for the first one)
(The Ai is not in the picture, poor guy doesn't have enough space)
-
Now I am curious to hear which is best with accompanying photos.
-
Now I am curious to hear which is best with accompanying photos.
i am currently doing that :o :o :o
i started doing tests some months ago and it's not easy ::)
all of these lenses perform very well at 1:1 except for my 5.5cm f/3.5 because of the field curvature. the only differences is how they perform in mid range to infinity and coatings. The Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Ai performed really well mid range to infinity.
-
What a nice collection! Wow :D that first one is special,,, let's see more of that! Infinity focus,,, ? ;)
-
What a nice collection! Wow :D that first one is special,,, let's see more of that! Infinity focus,,, ? ;)
thanks! i modified it so that it can be focused all the way to infinity while on a camera. unfortunately, the internals do not have much room for me to modify and i am already at the edge of the lens' adjuster for infinity focus :o :o :o to make the story short, i am 1.5mm short to achieve infinity focus ::) i will attempt it again this summer 8) maybe i can get some new ideas...
many people regard the 2nd one to be the best at 1:1 but to be honest, it's pretty hard to tell which one is best because the results look very much alike.
-
The first one should focus to infinity without modification ... it has an infinity symbol on the focus ring.
Very nice set by the way :)
-
The first one should focus to infinity without modification ... it has an infinity symbol on the focus ring.
Very nice set by the way :)
Thanks, Ronald! Your site was very helpful in determining which version i should get.
This one, along with the tickmarks will not focus to infinity because the F mount on the camera has grown wifer by 1mm so it will only focus to infinity on the F. I need to add a 3mm spacer so that the focus ring can turn all the way to infinity. But since the flange distance was extended by 3mm, i need to pull the optics inside back by 3mm. I tried my best without modification but i was short by 1-2mm. This means i need to add new material inside for that to happen. :o :o :o
-
some pictures of the 55mm family found here
http://www.destoutz.ch/lenses_close-up_55mm.html
Edit to show link
-
some pictures of the 55mm family found here
(http://www.destoutz.ch/lenses_close-up_55mm.html)
yes, my namesake has quite the collection :o :o :o
he is a fellow poster over at the facebook group Nikkor Lenses
-
This one, along with the tickmarks will not focus to infinity because the F mount on the camera has grown wider by 1mm so it will only focus to infinity on the F. I need to add a 3mm spacer so that the focus ring can turn all the way to infinity. But since the flange distance was extended by 3mm, i need to pull the optics inside back by 3mm. I tried my best without modification but i was short by 1-2mm. This means i need to add new material inside for that to happen. :o :o :o
The 5.5 cm Micro-Nikkor will *not* focus to infinity on most recent Nikons due to the very tall flange of the focusing collar around the bayonet mount. This will prevent the lens going to infinity simply by acting as a mechanical stop.
The simple remedy is of course to use your Dremel and remove enough of the flange to prevent it blocking focus travel.
-
The 5.5 cm Micro-Nikkor will *not* focus to infinity on most recent Nikons due to the very tall flange of the focusing collar around the bayonet mount. This will prevent the lens going to infinity simply by acting as a mechanical stop.
The simple remedy is of course to use your Dremel and remove enough of the flange to prevent it blocking focus travel.
i circumvented that solution by adding a spacer. I was contemplating on shaving a bit off the focusing ring but this lens is too rare for me to do that :o :o :o
the only challenge is to move the objective closer to the film plane unfortunately i am at the limit of lens' allowance for adjustment. it can be fixed but will require a little bit of planning. I am going to see if i can get away with a 2mm spacer (I am using 3mm now).
-
by the way, is there an adapter for S-F mount? thinking of mounting the 5.0cm f/3.5 on a Nikon camera :o :o :o
-
The register distance is much shorter on the S mount. Thus you can have F>S but not the opposite direction.
The 5 cm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor "S" is a much sought after and scarce commodity that commands a high price.
-
The register distance is much shorter on the S mount. Thus you can have F>S but not the opposite direction.
The 5 cm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor "S" is a much sought after and scarce commodity that commands a high price.
it can cost around $3,000 here but sometimes (if you pray hard enough to the lens gods) a beat up version appears on the junk shops for more than less :o :o :o
i am thinking. because it is a macro lens, having it further from the film plane is OK since it will just act like an extension tube.
-
congrats to your very nice collection!
I am always awed by the high level of correction the modest 5 lens 55mm f3.5 achieve over a wide range of magnification (more precisely reduction ratios).
-
congrats to your very nice collection!
I am always awed by the high level of correction the modest 5 lens 55mm f3.5 achieve over a wide range of magnification (more precisely reduction ratios).
Thanks, Bernard! they are indeed very good value for money lenses! :o :o :o
i do understand that the 60mm is the successor to the 55mm's but i do not really consider them to part of the same pedigree for some reasons...the 60mm's just do not have the appeal of the 55's
-
Very nice collection.
Between the 5.5cm f/3.5 and Micro-Nikkor-P, there is an excellent Micro-Nikkor compensating type, isn't it?
I recently acquired one such lens, and am very happy about its performance. Kind of contrary to what I heard, it's great at mid to far distance too.
-
Very nice collection.
Between the 5.5cm f/3.5 and Micro-Nikkor-P, there is an excellent Micro-Nikkor compensating type, isn't it?
I recently acquired one such lens, and am very happy about its performance. Kind of contrary to what I heard, it's great at mid to far distance too.
yes! i actually own 3-4 compensating types :o :o :o
the lens design itself has reached perfection and it is very hard to make it even better. according to some, it should be the BEST in 1:1 magnification and so-so on mid range. the difference is there but not so much to be honest. they all do perform very similarly regardless of generation (except for the 1st one)
-
The Micro-Nikkor 55 mm f/3.5 design is optimised for 1:10. However, its performance only declines slowly away from the optimum, so in most cases one will not notice much difference, at least in the near range.
I recall vaguely, from a time deep into the past, some Nikon statements to the effect that due to its popularity as an all-round normal lens, later versions of the 55/3.5 were tweaked to perform better for distant subjects.
-
I recall we have talked about this before...
Here is Nikons version, it's together with the story behind the 55mm f/2.8
http://www.nikkor.com/story/0025/
Then time passed and the age of Nikon F began. Mr. Wakimoto redesigned the very popular Micro NIKKOR for S-type cameras, with an extended back focus distance. As a result, Micro NIKKOR 55mm f/3.5 was born with a focal length increased by 5mm, helping Micro NIKKOR to firmly establish its reputation. In 1961, the manual-type lens was introduced allowing shooting at a magnification of up to life size with the single-unit lens barrel. In 1963, Micro NIKKOR Auto 55mm f/3.5 came out with an unchanged optical system, a lens unit maximum magnification limited to 1/2x, and automatic aperture control. This Micro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 had been well received without any change to the basic design of the optical system for about 19 years, until the Ai Micro Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 went on sale.
I recall having measure different sizes of the elements of these different versions of the 55mm f/3.5... so I don't understand the above...
Richard do you have time to look into measuring the rear element of these and the position to the F-mount surface to see if there are differences, Please ;)
-
Just checked and they have different back focal distance,,,
-
Very nice collection.
Between the 5.5cm f/3.5 and Micro-Nikkor-P, there is an excellent Micro-Nikkor compensating type, isn't it?
I recently acquired one such lens, and am very happy about its performance. Kind of contrary to what I heard, it's great at mid to far distance too.
I have the same experience with the 55 model from 1963.
-
Richard, somewhere above you mentioned that you were testing these lenses. You certainly have an excellent collection to figure out if the optimization has noticeably changed over the lens versions, especially from the compensation to the AI lens type.
I still hold that a clear (glossy) computer screen (showing "white") provides a suitable, and precisely reproducible target for extreme closeup testing. It should show clearly if the optimization has changed for close-ups. If the later versions had been tweaked to be optimal for greater reductions than the initial optimization for reducing Kanji characters for micro film purposes, it should show up in the extreme closeup range. I an earlier thread I gave an account of such testing, which showed no evidence of optical difference between my sample of compensating versus my sample of AIs.
The most prominent deficiency of the 55mm f/3.5 optics in the 1:2 to 1:1 range is the lateral chromatic aberration. Of course this is far away from its optimal working setup. Also most of the lateral chromatic is easily corrected in the digital age.
Longitudinal chromatic aberrations are easily 'seen' when adjusting focus manually. One can strive to optimally focus on the green screen patches to arrive at a consistent comparison of lens characteristics.
-
Just checked and they have different back focal distance,,,
Yes the early type (preset 1:1 and compensating) has 37.9mm back-focus.
The non-compensating Micro-Nikkor-P, K and AI versions have 38.3mm back focus.
The middle drawing is confusing however as it gives both dimensions for the same lens!
I have Nikon manuals for both versions, and both state the lens is optimized for 1:10, even though the later one is tweaked to perform better at far distances (not sure how optimum ration can remain the same?)
This change is reflected on my site http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#55Micro (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#55Micro) by a thin dark line between the earlier and later versions (thick line between versions indicates completely new optical design)
-
Thanks Roland, I never noticed the thin thick line difference like that ;)
The images are from the Mir site there is a long description of the lenses,,,
-
Richard, somewhere above you mentioned that you were testing these lenses. You certainly have an excellent collection to figure out if the optimization has noticeably changed over the lens versions, especially from the compensation to the AI lens type.
I still hold that a clear (glossy) computer screen (showing "white") provides a suitable, and precisely reproducible target for extreme closeup testing. It should show clearly if the optimization has changed for close-ups. If the later versions had been tweaked to be optimal for greater reductions than the initial optimization for reducing Kanji characters for micro film purposes, it should show up in the extreme closeup range. I an earlier thread I gave an account of such testing, which showed no evidence of optical difference between my sample of compensating versus my sample of AIs.
The most prominent deficiency of the 55mm f/3.5 optics in the 1:2 to 1:1 range is the lateral chromatic aberration. Of course this is far away from its optimal working setup. Also most of the lateral chromatic is easily corrected in the digital age.
Longitudinal chromatic aberrations are easily 'seen' when adjusting focus manually. One can strive to optimally focus on the green screen patches to arrive at a consistent comparison of lens characteristics.
Bernard, that is a handy way to test lenses :o :o :o
i will probably do that lens this weekend or the next weekend.
sometimes, the differences are in the sample variation. i have 4 compensating models and some are a bit sharper (despite being found in a junk box with dirt covering the lens). i will find the sharpest compensating model and use that to test against the P/C version (when the optics was changed).
And finally, the sharpest 3.5 will go against the 55mm f/2.8
the 55mm AF will be excluded since it is a misfit ::)
the 5.5cm is just "not there". my sample is not very good since it was found in a junk box and the rear element has a 2mm scratch. but Matthew Lin (from Nikkor Lenses) tested his and it was a stellar performer.
-
Yes the early type (preset 1:1 and compensating) has 37.9mm back-focus.
The non-compensating Micro-Nikkor-P, K and AI versions have 38.3mm back focus.
The middle drawing is confusing however as it gives both dimensions for the same lens!
I have Nikon manuals for both versions, and both state the lens is optimized for 1:10, even though the later one is tweaked to perform better at far distances (not sure how optimum ration can remain the same?)
This change is reflected on my site http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#55Micro (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#55Micro) by a thin dark line between the earlier and later versions (thick line between versions indicates completely new optical design)
Ronald, i have been gong to your site more than 10X a day! you deserve a pint! :o :o :o
as far as i know, the optical changes (milestones) were:
5.5cm f/3.5
55mm f/3.5 compensating (metal grip, for me this is where the series really started).
55mm f/3.5 P/PC to K & Ai (slight change in lens group)
55mm f/2.8 Ai-S (totally new optics, this is where the series truly ended)
55mm f/2.8 AF is the same as the lens it succeeded optically.
i got the documentation for these lenses and i am not sure if they indicate the optical changes explicitly but they do include drawings of the optics.
-
as far as i know, the optical changes (milestones) were:
5.5cm f/3.5
55mm f/3.5 compensating (metal grip, for me this is where the series really started).
As far as I know, these two have the same optics. I repeat the quote from Eric, which was quoted from the Nikon site:
In 1961, the manual-type lens was introduced allowing shooting at a magnification of up to life size with the single-unit lens barrel. In 1963, Micro NIKKOR Auto 55mm f/3.5 came out with an unchanged optical system, a lens unit maximum magnification limited to 1/2x, and automatic aperture control.
-
As far as I know, these two have the same optics. I repeat the quote from Eric, which was quoted from the Nikon site:
In 1961, the manual-type lens was introduced allowing shooting at a magnification of up to life size with the single-unit lens barrel. In 1963, Micro NIKKOR Auto 55mm f/3.5 came out with an unchanged optical system, a lens unit maximum magnification limited to 1/2x, and automatic aperture control.
Thanks! myth busted :o :o :o
-
We tend to do it like that here on NikonGear ;)
On a side note to help out Roland, please check if you have lenses outside of his list of serial numbers and dates etc. to keep the site up to date! :D
-
no artistic value. just some test shots of a 55mm f/2.8 Ai-S that I cleaned. :o :o :o
this is probably the 4th time that I worked on one. i really love the utility of this lens line
-
My reaction towards the 55/2.8 Micro is divided. If it is not impacted by the leaking lubrication issue, it is a very good performer. However, once one has to clean it to get rid of the pesky sticking aperture, chances are high this will happen again in my experience. I once had one of these that got cleaned three times before I came to the only possible conclusion and thus it ended its life as a door stopper.
Many years later, I picked up a pristine sample of the 55/2.8 during one of my many visits to Erik and Copenhagen. It showed no sign of oily aperture blades and has worked perfectly over the years I owned it.
-
This summer I also added on to the collection, very late serial # also no oil issues.
Stunning performer for the price!
-
The 55 3.5 is darn sharp.
No tricks here just straight out of the body f11.
Garage Clutter no artistic value. ;D
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk237/ramseypete/Garage%20Clutter_zpsudrjzmbg.jpg)
-
It definitively is, here is one with my compensating 3.5/55 wide open.
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/7/6012/5989667325_85fbbedf50_o.jpg)
Afrikaanse Lelie - Lily of the Nile 1 (https://flic.kr/p/a8hBqi) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr
-
The 55 3.5 is darn sharp.
No tricks here just straight out of the body f11.
Garage Clutter no artistic value. ;D
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk237/ramseypete/Garage%20Clutter_zpsudrjzmbg.jpg)
Like it anyway ::)
-
I once had one of these that got cleaned three times before I came to the only possible conclusion and thus it ended its life as a door stopper.
the ones that I overhauled previously are still OK :o :o :o
I just grease these lens lightly. it still feels smooth but not as damp as if I applied it like any other lens. my logic is if the grease went bad, at least it's going to dry up instead of caking or turning into a gloop like what I mostly see and you will not end up with an oily iris. so far so good. there is one thing in common for the lenses that has oily iris that I opened, all of them used way too much grease, specially on the CRC helicoids inside. the CRC helicoids do not need that much, a thin film will go very far.
-
This summer I also added on to the collection, very late serial # also no oil issues.
congratulations! :o :o :o
I was told that the newer ones use stiffer grease. I never held a brand new one so I couldn't tell. the 55/2.8Ai-S and the 105/2.8Ai-S are both being sold new here.
-
It definitively is, here is one with my compensating 3.5/55 wide open.
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/7/6012/5989667325_85fbbedf50_o.jpg)
Afrikaanse Lelie - Lily of the Nile 1 (https://flic.kr/p/a8hBqi) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr
wow. very natural rendering :o :o :o
-
The 55 3.5 is darn sharp.
No tricks here just straight out of the body f11.
Garage Clutter no artistic value. ;D
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk237/ramseypete/Garage%20Clutter_zpsudrjzmbg.jpg)
the 55mm micro lenses are very versatile. I saw John Free use one on one of his youtube videos as a walk-around lens :o :o :o
-
I purchased one of the early 55/2.8's that made it to the stores in Los Angeles in 1980. It had a very light resistance in the focus action, and when fully extended to close focus and grabbed by the front end and mount end, the body of the lens could be flexed across the lens axis. I had never experienced a new Nikon Nikkor lens that felt that flimsy...and never have since. I sent it to the local Nikon service, and they switched it to a stiffer grease under warranty. It still felt flimsy, but less so.
I didn't have it long enough to see if the oil separated out of the grease. I feel confident that now there are types of grease now, 35 years later, that do not suffer from oil separation.
Optically, that lens seemed very good(remember we're talking shooting on Panatomic-X, Plus-X, Kodachrome 25, etc) but also the picture quality seemed different from my previous 55/3.5 "K" version.
-
I purchased one of the early 55/2.8's that made it to the stores in Los Angeles in 1980. It had a very light resistance in the focus action, and when fully extended to close focus and grabbed by the front end and mount end, the body of the lens could be flexed across the lens axis. I had never experienced a new Nikon Nikkor lens that felt that flimsy...and never have since. I sent it to the local Nikon service, and they switched it to a stiffer grease under warranty. It still felt flimsy, but less so.
I didn't have it long enough to see if the oil separated out of the grease. I feel confident that now there are types of grease now, 35 years later, that do not suffer from oil separation.
Optically, that lens seemed very good(remember we're talking shooting on Panatomic-X, Plus-X, Kodachrome 25, etc) but also the picture quality seemed different from my previous 55/3.5 "K" version.
some of the 55/3.5 or the 55/2.8 flex just tiny bit due to the long helicoid. :o :o :o but just barely.
the AF ones flex the most ::)
-
I have Nikon manuals for both versions, and both state the lens is optimized for 1:10, even though the later one is tweaked to perform better at far distances (not sure how optimum ration can remain the same?)
I found may errors I Nikon technical literature and instructions from the '70s and on even in the AF 70-180/4.5-5.6D ED Micro-Nikkor. Some were so bad as to be laughable. I wondered if Nikon understood the proof reader principle? I wondered if dogs would learn the doorknob principle first?
Dave Hartman
-
I found may errors I Nikon technical literature and instructions from the '70s and on even in the AF 70-180/4.5-5.6D ED Micro-Nikkor. Some were so bad as to be laughable. I wondered if Nikon understood the proof reader principle? I wondered if dogs would learn the doorknob principle first?
Dave Hartman
i suspect that marketing has a lot to say on this matter :o :o :o
$$$ money talks ￥￥￥
V
(0￥0)
kamen rider
-
I have/ have had many 55mm of the f/3.5 and also the AF version of the f/2.8 indeed it was very awkward to use and when at minimum focus distance it reminds me most of a Trumpet - and the front bit with the 52mm filter threads is very wobbly, the optics seems fairly stable though,,, Amazing image quality.
-
I have Nikon manuals for both versions, and both state the lens is optimized for 1:10, even though the later one is tweaked to perform better at far distances (not sure how optimum ration can remain the same?)
Over the years I've found many errors in Nikon instruction manuals and charts, some rather laughable. There are some in the AF 70-180/4.5-5.6D ED manual that made no sense. I emailed Bjørn about them and he explained some metering anomalies with my Nikon F4s. Anyway I rather doubt that the 1:10 optimization didn't change at least some.
Dave Hartman
-
Actually, Richard mis-labeled the second lens in his opening post (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2840.msg37935.html#msg37935).
That lens is not the "Nikkor-P f/3.5P" ... there is no such thing.
What Richard displayed as the second lens from the left is in fact the Micro-Nikkor Auto f3.5 (http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_55mm_f3.5_211242.html).
The Micro-Nikkor P Auto f/3.5 (slightly different from the P·C Auto) looks like this:
-
I just received this mint copy of the -P Auto, displayed above.
The P·C Auto is virtually-identical, except that it has an extra "coating"; hence the C in its nomenclature.
Even without the box, the former will have "Micro-NIKKOR-P Auto" in its front lens element, while the latter has "Micro-NIKKOR-P·C Auto" in its front element ...
Edit: John Geerts provided a correction.
-
The C always stands for Multicoating and this term was used around 1974 when the new coatings were introduced.
The serial number range for the Compensating runs from 188 XXX to 273 XXX (1963-1968)
-
Correction noted, John, thanks.
Either way, the lens second from the left in Richard's opening post ... is the Micro-Nikkor Auto f/3.5 (5th lens down on Roland's 55mm macro page (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#55Micro)) ... not the "Micro-Nikkor-P Auto f/3.5" ... which is the 8th/9th lenses down on Roland's page.
-
My reaction towards the 55/2.8 Micro is divided. If it is not impacted by the leaking lubrication issue, it is a very good performer. However, once one has to clean it to get rid of the pesky sticking aperture, chances are high this will happen again in my experience. I once had one of these that got cleaned three times before I came to the only possible conclusion and thus it ended its life as a door stopper.
Many years later, I picked up a pristine sample of the 55/2.8 during one of my many visits to Erik and Copenhagen. It showed no sign of oily aperture blades and has worked perfectly over the years I owned it.
It is established that the Micro-Nikkor 55mm 2.8 is prone to the oily aperture blades problem.
However, it seems probable that it would depend on the lubricant used. If common machine grease is used, it is going to separate and there will be oil leakage.
There are lubricants that have been developed with qualities suited to focusing helicoids and other mechanisms where it is imperative to eliminate the seeping out of oil from the lubricant over time. These lubricants have other qualities than the common machine grease used by unqualified repair shops where they use the same grease for gearbox cog wheels and everything else.
I assume the important factor here is to ensure that the correct type of lubricant is applied to the mechanism.
-
The C always stands for Multicoating and this term was used around 1974 when the new coatings were introduced.
The serial number range for the Compensating runs from 188 XXX to 273 XXX (1963-1968)
The C stands for all of elements are coated, but not for multicoating as we understand it now. Before C designation, only front and back, mostly, elements were coated, or even without any. MC were used much later. LZ
-
The C stands for all of elements are coated, but not for multicoating as we understand it now. Before C designation, only front and back, mostly, elements were coated, or even without any. MC were used much later. LZ
LZ, I think John (Geerts) is right. In Nikon terms, "C" stands for "multi"-coating. "MC" for multi-coating is the term used in other manufacturers like Olympus.
So long as I'm aware, all elements of Nikkor lenses are coated, multi- or single-, from the rangefinder era. The only uncoated surfaces of the elements are the surfaces to be glued with another element.
-
Interestingly, the rear element of my sample of the compensating aperture version had a few small bubbles inside. Apparently the glass was so special and difficult to produce that a certain degree of imperfection was tolerated.
-
LZ, I think John (Geerts) is right. In Nikon terms, "C" stands for "multi"-coating. "MC" for multi-coating is the term used in other manufacturers like Olympus.
So long as I'm aware, all elements of Nikkor lenses are coated, multi- or single-, from the rangefinder era. The only uncoated surfaces of the elements are the surfaces to be glued with another element.
No, he is not, as well as you. "C" is for single-coating of ALL elements, MC designation I used above for info only, Nikon has never used it, really. The very first Nikkors, RF or the rest, were not fully coated, front and rear elements only. "C" begun with ALL elements were coated, in single-coated incarnation only. LZ
-
No, he is not, as well as you. "C" is for single-coating of ALL elements, MC designation I used above for info only, Nikon has never used it, really. The very first Nikkors, RF or the rest, were not fully coated, front and rear elements only. "C" begun with ALL elements were coated, in single-coated incarnation only. LZ
In the early 1970's, when multiple layer coating become widely available and was being phased into the Nikkor lens line, Nikon added the 'dot C' to indicate that the lens had received multi coating.
Many rangefinder Nikkors from the 1950's also have a 'C' designation, which at that time obviously meant something other than 'multiple layer AR coating'. Perhaps this 'Rangefinder lens C marking' is the source of some confusion?
-
In the early 1970's, when multiple layer coating become widely available and was being phased into the Nikkor lens line, Nikon added the 'dot C' to indicate that the lens had received multi coating.
Many rangefinder Nikkors from the 1950's also have a 'C' designation, which at that time obviously meant something other than 'multiple layer AR coating'. Perhaps this 'Rangefinder lens C marking' is the source of some confusion?
Ah, I forgot about the "C" designation on the RF Nikkors which was nothing to do with the "multi"-coating.
However, I've seen many RF Nikkors in renowned retailers in Tokyo and, so far as I remember, all elements were single-coated in blue or amber, unlike the notion by LZ.
The only lenses I've seen in which no elements were coated were the pre-war lenses like Leica, Contax or larger format lenses.
-
A little squeak from one who is right out of his depth on a subject like this.
I have the Nikon book "Eyes of Nikon" published in March 1984, a "Comprehensive Guide to Nikkor and Nikon Series 'E' Lenses". It states that the first "Nikon Integrated Coating, (NIC)" lens was the "Nikkor Auto 35mm f/1.4, to improve contrast and color rendition in 1971".
The only reference I can find to a 'C' lens is the "Nikkor Auto 15mm f/5.6 C" Introduced in 1973, no mention of NIC in the description.
-
At the risk of repeating what has already been said about coatings (but hopefully putting it all together in one place so it makes sense ...)
The earliest Nikon lenses for Canon rangefinder cameras are uncoated: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/RF_50/50_35.html
A few versions later we have the first suggestion of coatings, indicated by a red dot in the name: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/RF_50/50_35_460xxx.html
In the next version the name ring is marked "NIKKOR-Q·C", where the red "C" indicates the lens surfaces are coated: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/RF_50/50_35_570xxx.html
The red "C" designation was used on all subsequent rangefinder lenses until the mid-late 1950s. By that time the coating was standard across the lineup so the designation was dropped.
It is possible that very early coated rangefinder lenses were only coated on the front and rear lenses as suggested earlier. I have never seen one in person to verify this and it is difficult to assess from web pictures. However, I own a few Nikon rangefinder lenses from the mid 1950s, and they are clearly coated on all lens surfaces - all reflections from the front, rear and internal surfaces are colored.
The same is true for early F-mount lenses from 1959 through to the early 1970s. Early coatings are mostly pale pinkish or blue, but soon purple, amber and orange coatings appear. By the late 1960s the coatings are quite varied and the colors are deeper than before, which makes me wonder if they were already more than single-layer coated.
The Nikkor-N 35/1.4 and Nikkor-N 28/2 are the first Nikkors with multi-layer coatings on all lens surfaces. These lenses have deep red, blue and green coatings. The marketing department did not think to advertise the fact until a year later when the ".C" designation reappeared. This time it is white (not red as before) and indicates the lens has multi-layer coatings.
When the K (New Nikkor) lenses were introduced in 1974, multi-layer coating was standard, so the ".C" designation was once again dropped.
Multi-layer coatings were later known as "Nikon Integrated Coatings" (NIC), with some refinements through the 1980s. Around 2000 "Super Integrated Coatings" (SIC) first appeared. These coatings are generally a greenish-yellow-orange color and are supposed to be more effective across a wider range of the spectrum.
The latest advance is Nano Crystal Coating which from memory first appeared on the AF-S 300/2.8 VR in 2004. This coating is fragile so can only be used on selected internal surfaces.
-
the red C is just mimicking the red T found on Zeiss lenses. :o :o :o a marketing thing ::)
i prefer Nikon's coatings, much tougher.
-
The Nikkor-N 35/1.4 and Nikkor-N 28/2 are the first Nikkors with multi-layer coatings on all lens surfaces. These lenses have deep red, blue and green coatings. The marketing department did not think to advertise the fact until a year later when the ".C" designation reappeared. This time it is white (not red as before) and indicates the lens has multi-layer coatings.
I believe Nikon and Canon were a coy about first double coating and then multi-coating lenses at a time when they had an inventory of single coated lenses to sell off. I've seen a few clearly multi-coated Nikkors with out the "C" designation. The one I remember for certain was a 45/2.8 GN Nikkor.
Dave Hartman
-
The latest advance is Nano Crystal Coating which from memory first appeared on the AF-S 300/2.8 VR in 2004. This coating is fragile so can only be used on selected internal surfaces.
Correct, This is emphasized in the commemorative book Eyes of Nikkor. N-coating is one of the features distinguishing the excellent IQ of the 300 f2.8G. Presumably, the first Micro-Nikkor to receive the N-coating was the 105mm f2.8G IF-ED VR in Feb 2006, followed by the 60 f2.8G released in January 2008.
One might suspect the N-coating specifications has been modified since introduction.
-
At the risk of repeating what has already been said about coatings (but hopefully putting it all together in one place so it makes sense ...)
Roland, thank you for chiming in and make the matter clear! I was expecting your input. :)