NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: RonVol on March 16, 2016, 07:18:00
-
Don't ask me why, but there's something about this lens that got me interested in its history & development.
So interested that I started collecting them and all the different variations.
These images show the different reflections given off by the various elements within different versions of the lens.
While not a technically brilliant way of documenting the changes; you can definitely see a change when multi coatings started being used.
-
Neat! I'd be interesting in seeing some comparison scenery images to demonstrate how they different coatings impacted performance.
-
http://richardhaw.com/2016/02/06/repair-new-nikkor-55mm-f1-2/
That is my favourite! it is my "magic lens" ::)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1665/25715140421_83e2331000.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FbmPm2)HAW_9088 (https://flic.kr/p/FbmPm2) by mrBabaero (https://www.flickr.com/photos/31768064@N03/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1598/25689263242_9539cb219c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/F95bXL)HAW_9035 (https://flic.kr/p/F95bXL) by mrBabaero (https://www.flickr.com/photos/31768064@N03/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1621/25715150231_1c9eaf6431.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FbmSga)HAW_9042 (https://flic.kr/p/FbmSga) by mrBabaero (https://www.flickr.com/photos/31768064@N03/), on Flickr
like what i said in my repair blog, when shot wide open, all the flaws of this lens comes together and blends harmoniously to give you an image with an endearing quality. yin and yang are one :o :o :o
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1704/25810228885_ca99463339.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FjLaQi)HAW_9117 (https://flic.kr/p/FjLaQi) by mrBabaero (https://www.flickr.com/photos/31768064@N03/), on Flickr
at f/2, this lens is just amazing ::)
by the way, the more colors you see, the more coatings were used (multi-coatead). NIC and SIC
-
That is interesting- this lens went through some changes.
I've read that the optical formula was changed "ever so slightly" going from the 55/1.2 Nikkor-SC to the 55/1.2 Ai to accommodate the closer focus of the latter. I can "imagine" Nikon slightly repositioning the groups to change optimization. Have you noted that in your collection?
The 1976 Pop Photo test of the multicoated version of this lens rated it as a true F1.2 and a T1.25. As per the test, over the center 2/3rds of the image it was slightly better than the 50/1.4.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5736/21772966651_ca3c561556_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/zb19qK)nikona (https://flic.kr/p/zb19qK) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
-
Ron, the stuff you have posted is really interesting and a great reference. Not sure if others do but Mongo has for a very long time often judged/guessed the age of a lens by its coating (apart form other more standard features). Mongo has one of these lenses but must confess he does not use it much at all. He finds it too soft wide open and has to stop down to nearly f4 to get results he wants, so he finds there is little point having an f1.2 aperture if you use it at f2.8 and above. This is just Mongo's experience and notes that others have not had this issue or do not mind it.
-
Agree with Mongo. Very interesting, Ron. The multicoating around 1972-1973 is also claimed to have a positive effect on the light performance, I read somewhere, a 1.8 actually being an 1.5 or 1.6? Is that perhaps the reason why Nikon did split the 85/1.8 into an 85/2 and a 85/1.4 ?
-
The original marking on the coated Zeiss lenses was "T" for transparent. Uncoated lenses reflect ~4% of light for every air/glass interface; single-coated ~1%, Multicoated- ~0.3% (Varies). Zoom lenses and retro-focus wide-angle lenses benefit most from multicoated optics. Zeiss still uses Transparent for their lenses, "T*".
-
,,,, I read somewhere, a 1.8 actually being an 1.5 or 1.6? Is that perhaps the reason why Nikon did split the 85/1.8 into an 85/2 and a 85/1.4 ?
Any serious reference for this?
50mm f/1.8 just has less vignetting than a f/1.4 and then again less than a f/1.2,,,
There was 8cm f/1.5 alongside 8.5cm f/2,,, for rangefinder,,,
http://www.nikkor.com/story/
-
Any serious reference for this?
50mm f/1.8 just has less vignetting than a f/1.4 and then again less than a f/1.2,,,
There was 8cm f/1.5 alongside 8.5cm f/2,,, for rangefinder,,,
http://www.nikkor.com/story/
Not sure for what it's worth, this is with regard to the 85mm f/1.8 : " I had all but the HC ....the K (and presumably the HC) has more coating than the H...resulting in 1/3 F-stop more light transmission in my comparisons...".
And "Just a note re: the difference between the f/1.8 H vs the H.C + K: The H has the old "mono" coating and the yellowish-green tint. The H.C, and subsequently the K, have the NIC multi-coating which greatly reduces the yellowish-green tinge. For that reason, I always strongly advise others---and anyone reading this who intends to shoot color--- to get one of the multi-coated versions." Source (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1079840)
In the Nikkor.com story about the 35/1.4 "The lens went on sale successfully in 1971 with the features of Close-Range Correction (CRC) System introduced first in the 24mm f/2.8 and the Nikkor's first multi-layer-coating treatment. It utilized all available technical know-how that the then Nippon Kogaku could offer, suitable for the world's first 35mm f/1.4 lens for SLR cameras." http://www.nikkor.com/story/0027/ (http://www.nikkor.com/story/0027/)
-
That is interesting- this lens went through some changes.
I've read that the optical formula was changed "ever so slightly" going from the 55/1.2 Nikkor-SC to the 55/1.2 Ai to accommodate the closer focus of the latter. I can "imagine" Nikon slightly repositioning the groups to change optimization. Have you noted that in your collection?
About slightly different optical (not just coating) version of 55mm f/1.2, perhaps this article can be interesting.
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Nikkor_optical_variations/00_pag.htm
(See middle of the page)
-
Brian, Thank you for posting the Pop Photo test report excerpt. Norm Goldberg's test reports of cameras and lenses blow away most so-called "tests" that are available today. Not only did they assess the performance of the lens/camera, but he disassembled it and commented on the engineering choices made by the manufacturer.
My copy of the 55/1.2 K is a wild ride of aberrations at wide open, and then becomes an unusually "sharp" normal lens at f/4 and f/5.6.
-
,,,...resulting in 1/3 F-stop more light transmission in my comparisons...".
The keyword here is: Transmission
Transmission is T-stops, not aperture F-stops
In Cinematography and Video they use T-stops,,,,
Two different things ;)
-
Aaah, Thanks, for the clarification, Erik.
-
About slightly different optical (not just coating) version of 55mm f/1.2, perhaps this article can be interesting.
http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Nikkor_optical_variations/00_pag.htm
(See middle of the page)
Thankyou! That confirms and shows the change.
I did some tripod tests with the Nikkor-SC 55/1.2 and the Ai. I'm keeping both.
-
In the Nikkor.com story about the 35/1.4 "The lens went on sale successfully in 1971 with the features of Close-Range Correction (CRC) System introduced first in the 24mm f/2.8 and the Nikkor's first multi-layer-coating treatment. It utilized all available technical know-how that the then Nippon Kogaku could offer, suitable for the world's first 35mm f/1.4 lens for SLR cameras." http://www.nikkor.com/story/0027/ (http://www.nikkor.com/story/0027/)
Hmmm, that contradicts the information here:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2972.msg41101.html#msg41101 (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2972.msg41101.html#msg41101)
-
Agree with Mongo. Very interesting, Ron. The multicoating around 1972-1973 is also claimed to have a positive effect on the light performance, I read somewhere, a 1.8 actually being an 1.5 or 1.6? Is that perhaps the reason why Nikon did split the 85/1.8 into an 85/2 and a 85/1.4 ?
There is no way the 85/1.8 was actually 1.5 or 1.6 ... such a lens would require 53 - 57mm entrance pupil, no way to fit that inside a 52mm filter thread :)
I think the 85/1.8 was replaced my the AI 85/2 in 1977, following a trend towards more compact lenses. Many other lenses were also replaced with more compact models around the same time: 50/1.4, 135/2.8, 200/4 etc. I guess that also created a bit more "space" to create another 85mm model one stop faster...
-
" such a lens would require 53 - 57mm entrance pupil, no way to fit that inside a 52mm filter thread "
Technically speaking it is of course possible, as the pupil is a virtual quantity.
To name an example, the 85 mm f/1 Repro-Nikkor has 86 mm entrance/exit pupil and filter thread 52 mm. Looking into the lens is an uncanny feeling as you literally see a hole bigger than the lens itself.
-
Brian, Thank you for posting the Pop Photo test report excerpt. Norm Goldberg's test reports of cameras and lenses blow away most so-called "tests" that are available today.
Agreed, and also note the excellent design of the charts.
-
One can interpret the Nikon remark as the 35/1.4 being the first Nikkor lens with all surfaces being multi-coated. The 55/1.2 Nikkor-S had the rear groups multi-coated. I also remember this statement from working in a camera shop in the 1970s and discussing this with the Nikon rep. Olympus was one of the last companies to use multi-coated optics. I also remember that discussion with the Oly rep.
Manufacturers also did "test runs" and batches with little fanfare. I have Zeiss lenses from the same batch, one coated and one uncoated. The coated lens is not marked "T". Two years later, coated lenses were marked "T" and uncoated lenses were still in production. Perhaps a limit while the new equipment was being brought online? It happens. SN is not an absolute indication of revision level.
-
my sample looks amazing at f/1.4 by the way :o :o :o
f/1.2 is "art" lens ::)
-
I always wondered why Schneider used "Arton" and "Tele-Arton" for their lenses. So it was not some guy names "Art" that formulated it. I need to post a thread on using the 90/4 Tele-Arton on the Df.
-
I always wondered why Schneider used "Arton" and "Tele-Arton" for their lenses. So it was not some guy names "Art" that formulated it. I need to post a thread on using the 90/4 Tele-Arton on the Df.
it's an ART lens :o :o :o
-
To name an example, the 85 mm f/1 Repro-Nikkor has 86 mm entrance/exit pupil and filter thread 52 mm. Looking into the lens is an uncanny feeling as you literally see a hole bigger than the lens itself.
I suppose, as the name suggests, the Repro-Nikkor is not designed for use at infinity. I suppose the effective aperture would be smaller than f/1 at far distance, since if you look into the lens from afar, you cannot possibly see a hole bigger than the lens. Or am I fooling myself for thinking that?
-
Yes, you are. The part is indeed larger than the whole which is the reason for this "uncanny feeling" I alluded to earlier. Remember the pupils are virtual entities. They can reside outside the lens as well.
The definition of nominal aperture is for infinity focus. As the entrance (and exit) pupil of the Repro-Nikkor is 86 mm, it is a true f/1 lens. At 1:1 magnification its effective aperture is f/2, which of course is only possible were it an f/1 lens. Compare this to most close-focusing lenses that may run to f/5.6 or smaller effective at the this magnification.
-
Yes, you are. The part is indeed larger than the whole which is the reason for this "uncanny feeling" I alluded to earlier. Remember the pupils are virtual entities.
The definition of nominal aperture is for infinity focus. As the entrance (and exit) pupil of the Repro-Nikkor is 86 mm, it is a true f/1 lens. At 1:1 magnification its effective aperture is f/2, which of course is only possible were it an f/1 lens. Compare this to most close-focusing lenses that may run to f/5.6 or smaller effective at the this magnification.
I guess I have to see it to believe it :)
I would have thought that you have to move your head around to see the entire hole from across the room. It's hard to imagine seeing a 86mm object through an opening of 52mm from afar.
-
One of course has to move something, either lens or head, relative to each other.
Plug the data into the usual equation for effective aperture and find out for yourself that the pupil must be larger than the lens width in this case.
Neff = N * (1+ M/p)
where N: aperture number, M= magnification, and p= pupil factor (exit/entrance). For the Repro, p=1 as the lens is perfectly symmetric. Neff is 2, which one can easily verify with a light meter.
-
Ok, that we have to move to see the hole (in other words, that the hole is not visible all at once from a certain distance) is reassuring. But if only part of the entrance pupil is visible, isn't the usable pupil effectively smaller? Or put differently, how can the light from one point cover the entire pupil when from the same point, part of the pupil is obscured by the lens casing?
Even in lenses where the entrance pupil is smaller than the front element, i.e. a 50/1.2, looking at the entrance pupil from well off-axis, part of the pupil is obscured by the lens casing (we see at cat-eye shape instead of a circle). This is -- so was my understanding -- part of the reason why we get strong vignetting on the periphery of the image circle with fast lenses. In a lens where the entrance pupil is bigger than the front element, I would think that the effective aperture drops in the far field because we have to be close to the front element to see the full pupil, even on-axis (I think you just confirmed this conjecture). Depending on where the entrance pupil is (how far back in the lens is the virtual image of the aperture, not the aperture itself, located), this may never be observed in practice when the lens is used as intended. But I still wonder whether the image would get darker when focused at a far distance, or if not, what would be the explanation.
At any rate, this lens is intriguing even if you don't have it :D
-
I guess this is what we see when looking through the rear element of a wide or standard lens: the pupil is much larger than the rear element when looking at it from a distance. If you get your eyeball close to the lens (as the sensor would be when mounted on a camera) you can see the entire pupil.
-
I guess this is what we see when looking through the rear element of a wide or standard lens: the pupil is much larger than the rear element when looking at it from a distance. If you get your eyeball close to the lens (as the sensor would be when mounted on a camera) you can see the entire pupil.
But from the front the situation is different. If I see only half the pupil, the sensor will only see half the light I emit. Ain't it so?
-
Pupils are hard to understand. In any connotation of the word.
As the entrance pupil is "collecting" light on behalf of the lens, it does the job even though you don't see all of it.
-
Pupils are hard to understand. In any connotation of the word.
As the entrance pupil is "collecting" light on behalf of the lens, it does the job even though you don't see all of it.
That's quite mysterious. I will give it a hard thought. :)
-
I did some reading regarding this puzzle of pupils.
In Warren J. Smith, Modern Optical Engineering, 3rd edition, 1990, Chapter 6, we can find the following definition:
In every optical system, there are apertures (or stops) which limit the passage of energy through the system. These apertures are the clear diameters of the lenses and diaphragms in the system. One of these apertures will determine the diameter of the cone of energy which the system will accept from an axial point on the object. This is termed the aperture stop, and its size determines the illumination (irradiance) at the image.
He then proceeds to examples where the aperture stop is given by one lens diameter for one point in object space and the diameter of a different lens for another point in object space. Meaning that indeed what is called aperture stop is whatever constrains your view through the lens when looking at it from a given point in object space. Interesting.
Thus, the aperture stop depends among other things on the object distance. Usually, the aperture stop in a photographic lens is the diaphragm for all object distances on-axis. Off-axis, it is given by the aperture stop or the image of certain edges of glass element (yielding the cat eye-shaped aperture mentioned earlier). In the repro-Nikkor 85/1 however, it might be that ion-axis the aperture changes from the front lens to the diaphragm. What do you think? I'd love to see this phenomenon in person.