NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: richardHaw on October 26, 2016, 17:36:13
-
No existing threads found in the search site so I am starting one. :o :o :o
I have 3 Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4's and if you guys remember, it's one of my first teardowns that I wrote upon request of a Swedish photographer.
https://richardhaw.com/2016/01/23/project-nikkor-s-50mm-f1-4/
I was just curious so I did a test.
A: the original early version with fluted aperture ring
B: mid production version with scalloped aperture ring
C: the last version - Nikkor-S.C with new coatings.
I was not surprised at all by the results that I got from C since it's supposed to suppress ghosting. I was surprised with A and B since theoretically Nikon hadn't changed anything but as you can see, the character of the ghosts look different, even the colours are off - suggesting that some sort of coating was introduced mid-production from early to mid variant types.
I was hoping that the C would be more resistant though...
https://richardhaw.com/2016/10/24/repair-zoom-nikkor-43-86mm-f3-5-23/
check out my 43-86 comparison between coated and original, the difference is much more obvious.
The C on the Nikkor-S family reduced the ugly blobs but flaring still remained high but evenly distributed somehow, don't have the right term for the flare falloff I am sorry.
-
There are four variations of the original Nikkor-S 50/1.4 optical design. They are all have the same basic design having 7 elements in 5 groups, but with refinements to the glass materials, curvature and spacing of some elements:
- Early Nikkor-S 50/1.4 from serial no 314101 - 454xxx. These lenses have 6 aperture blades.
- Optical design tweaked from serial no 465011 - 1256xxx. Lenses with 7 aperture blades.
- Nikkor-S.C with multicoating, no change to optical design, serial no from 1280001 - 1613735
- New Nikkor (K) 50/1.4 (early version) has further tweak to optics, probably to improve close range performance - this lens now focuses to 0.45m compared to 0.6m for previous models.
So I am not surprised that there are differences in the flare produced, since A and B are actually different lenses :)
After this series, an all-new version was introduced, having 7 elements in 6 groups and a more compact design. It first appeared with the New Nikkor 50/1.4 (late version), later upgraded to AI, AIS and AF models.
-
Interesting comparison, Rick!
Older one shows more ghosts but much less flare compared to the newest multi-coated one.
-
Interesting observation ... I wonder if the multi-coated lens has some dust or haze which might explain the flare?
-
Interesting observation ... I wonder if the multi-coated lens has some dust or haze which might explain the flare?
Or the flare was caused by the factors other than the coating, like the reflection from the edge of the lens or from somewhere on the lens barrel.
-
Possibly, but I think reflections from elsewhere would cause ghost images - rings, arcs, blobs of light, not generalised flare.
The diffuse halo around the bright light looks more like scattering from dust or haze, like looking through a dirty window...
-
The C version is pretty clean but has a few light scratches at the rear element (so i left a negative feedback) :o :o :o but it should not affect the image quality. ::) it does flare a bit more surprisingly but that is acceptable compared to the ugly globes.
you can even see the hosting and flare through the viewfinder
-
I see! didn't know that A & B had slightly different formulas :o :o :o
-
An experienced Leica repair person once told me that the flaws on the rear element affects more than those on the front one.
By the way, Rick, did you focus on the light for all these images? The image of "B" looks the sharpest.
-
I read long ago that both Nikon and Canon double coated and multi coated lenses before Pentax stared advertising multi coated lenses. I've seen a 45 GN that was multi coated but lacked a C to indicate multi coating. It's possible that a surfaces are not multi coated. Given the way Nikon produced there run of a lens then didn't return to that lens for many months they probably wanted to sell down their single coated inventory before advertising multi coated lenses.
I wonder how much is known about when specific lenses had unadvertised upgrades to their coatings?
Dave Hartman
-
I read long ago that both Nikon and Canon double coated and multi coated lenses before Pentax stared advertising multi coated lenses. I've seen a 45 GN that was multi coated but lacked a C to indicate multi coating. It's possible that a surfaces are not multi coated. Given the way Nikon produced there run of a lens then didn't return to that lens for many months they probably wanted to sell down their single coated inventory before advertising multi coated lenses.
I wonder how much is known about when specific lenses had unadvertised upgrades to their coatings?
Dave Hartman
Roland Vink's site should be the authority on it. He is doing us a big service and he deserves a beer hahaha :o :o :o
multicoated surfaces as far as im concerned can be seen when you see different colored reflections on the glass
-
I read long ago that both Nikon and Canon double coated and multi coated lenses before Pentax stared advertising multi coated lenses. I've seen a 45 GN that was multi coated but lacked a C to indicate multi coating. It's possible that a surfaces are not multi coated. Given the way Nikon produced there run of a lens then didn't return to that lens for many months they probably wanted to sell down their single coated inventory before advertising multi coated lenses.
I wonder how much is known about when specific lenses had unadvertised upgrades to their coatings?
Dave Hartman
yes, it shows in bokeh balls. i am going to make a blog post on how to show these ゴミ or trash :o :o :o
i think i am the right person for this since majority of my lenses came from the junk box with fungus,etc
-
An experienced Leica repair person once told me that the flaws on the rear element affects more than those on the front one.
...
Depends on focal length and location of exit pupil. A long lens such as a 300/2.8 could literally have front or rear elements cracked yet still deliver acceptable results. A retrofocus wide-angle with finger print on its rear element might work, whilst a non-retrofocus lens of the same specifications would be awful with a scratched rear glass. The 21/4 Nikkor (non-retro) is an example of the latter case and say the 20/3.5 UD of the first.
As most Leica lenses probably had quite short focal lengths and few were retrofocus, the repair tech's statement is understandable.
-
I can confirm; Even a hint of a fingerprint or a smear will affect image quality on wide angle Leica M lenses.
-
oh, yes. wides are very susceptible. even light mist shows actually... :o :o :o
-
And any scratch or even dust speck on the rear element will also show itself in the out of focus highlights, also for longer focal length lenses,,,
-
very sharp wide open :o :o :o (Nikkor-S.C)
-
As most Leica lenses probably had quite short focal lengths and few were retrofocus, the repair tech's statement is understandable.
I can confirm; Even a hint of a fingerprint or a smear will affect image quality on wide angle Leica M lenses.
Indeed the repair person was talking about Summar 50/2.0 (of double Gaussian design) with fairly well scratched front element but otherwise very clean optics. I bought it for 18,000 JPY (!) and confirmed that the image was not affected. The lens had awful background bokeh but fantastically dreamy foreground bokeh.
-
Rick, the S.C. image looks really sharp!
-
I have a 50/1.4 Nikkor-S Auto NK Japan No. 7350xx. It's very clean with a factory AI upgrade. I remember when first testing it on subjects in the neighborhood I was surprised at the image quality then said to my self, "I knew that." There is no hint of multi-coatings as it's probably a vintage 1969 lens. The primary thing to notice is flare and ghost when turned towards the sun. The lens brings back old memories.
Dave
-
Rick, the S.C. image looks really sharp!
and the bokeh is typical of that lens too. One likes it or not - it delivers a "special effect" and should be used a such.
-
and the bokeh is typical of that lens too. One likes it or not - it delivers a "special effect" and should be used a such.
Yes, that is the interesting point of using older lenses.
-
Yes, very nice circular bokeh. I have the B-version from 1967. Close-up it is very sharp wide open, with a nice touch of vignetting. At a distant it's a bit hazy, like the 50/1.2 wide open. Stopping down to f/2 gives already overall very sharp images. It's easier to focus than the later 1.4's.
-
I read long ago that both Nikon and Canon double coated and multi coated lenses before Pentax stared advertising multi coated lenses. I've seen a 45 GN that was multi coated but lacked a C to indicate multi coating. It's possible that a surfaces are not multi coated. Given the way Nikon produced there run of a lens then didn't return to that lens for many months they probably wanted to sell down their single coated inventory before advertising multi coated lenses.
I wonder how much is known about when specific lenses had unadvertised upgrades to their coatings?
It is possible the serial number ring (with the "C" designation) has been swapped between single and multi-coated lenses during repair. The single coated 45GN has amber and purple coatings, while the multi-coated version has darker green-blue-purple coatings.
I know of three Nikkors which are multi-coated and lack the "C" to indicate multi coating:
- Nikkor-S 55/1.2 multicoated on one (?) of the rear elements, shows as a green reflection at certain angles - unlike the amber, blue and pink of single coated lenses. Some claim this was the first to be multi-coated. I have no information about when this was introduced, it was probably a silent upgrade. It is at least found on later lenses marked "Nippon Kogaku Japan" dating from the very late 1960s or 1970.
- Nikkor-N 35/1.4 - first Nikkor to be multi-coated on all lens surfaces, from 1970. The first series are marked the old style "Nikkor-N Nippon Kogaku Japan", then "Nikkor-N Nikon", and finally "Nikkor-N.C Nikon" which acknowledges the multi-coating.
- Nikkor-N 28/2 - Second Nikkor to be multi-coated on all lens surfaces, released a few months after the 35/1.4, but with similar history.
All other fully multi-coated lenses were already introduced with the "C" designation.
It seems at first Nikon considered multi-coating like Nano Crystal Coating of today, to be applied only to specific surfaces to control flare and that otherwise single-coated lenses were sufficient. Perhaps they later realised that multi-coating was cheap enough and robust enough to be applied to all surfaces. And even later the marketing department realised it might be good to advertise the new coating by putting a "C" on the lens!
I also wonder if some of the older lenses were more than just single-coated. Some of the later so-called single-coated lenses have coatings with darker reflections and more colours than earlier lenses. For example the gauss Nikkor-P 105/2.5 and newer Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 (7 aperture blades) have coatings which are a deeper blue than the older Nikkor-Q 135/3.5 (6 aperture blades), which suggests an improvement in coating.
Also the Nikkor-UD 20/3.5 has purple-amber coatings which seem surprisingly transparent for a single coated lens, and strangely there is no multi-coated Nikkor-UD.C version. Was it was already multicoated (or at least double coated)? The following 20/4 belongs to an era when all lenses were multi-coated, yet the coatings look very similar to the older 20 UD ... ???
-
I have a 50/1.4 Nikkor-S Auto NK Japan No. 7350xx. It's very clean with a factory AI upgrade. I remember when first testing it on subjects in the neighborhood I was surprised at the image quality then said to my self, "I knew that." There is no hint of multi-coatings as it's probably a vintage 1969 lens. The primary thing to notice is flare and ghost when turned towards the sun. The lens brings back old memories.
Dave
Hello, David. Yes. anything near the frame :o :o :o
-
this is the weakness of the lens. :o :o :o
the glass's frame looks to be in focus but it's not sharp due to artefacts and that ugly flare that fills the frame at times. this looks like a characteristic of the Nikkor-S 50 series...
but it does make the image more "painterly" and organic, things that we do not usually see in modern optics these days.
-
The background bokeh of the older version looks smoother.
-
The background bokeh of the older version looks smoother.
Sorry! forgot to mention that it is from the C :o :o :o
-
No worries, Rick. Such a lens of character shows fairly big difference of bokeh according to the focusing distance and the distance between the focused subject and the background. :o :o :o
-
not so much while I was testing it. the difference in focus is within a ft and the image on the VF didn't change much as far as the look of the flares,etc :o :o :o
-
this is the weakness of the lens. :o :o :o
the glass's frame looks to be in focus but it's not sharp due to artefacts and that ugly flare that fills the frame at times. this looks like a characteristic of the Nikkor-S 50 series...
but it does make the image more "painterly" and organic, things that we do not usually see in modern optics these days.
On another forum some years back a guy offered a 50/1.4 Nikkor-S and a 135/3.5 Nikkor-Q No. 8955xx. The latter has blue and violet colored coatings viewed from the front. I waited about a week and when no one asked for these lenses I did. I waited as I had 30 + manual focus Nikkors at the time and didn't want to be greedy.
Dave
-
I have the last "non-Ai" version with the reddish hue coating. (I notched the aperture ring/Ai'd it myself)
The biggest problem with this & others are the modern Dslr focusing screens. (Yes it's close and I use the focus assist feature.) I wish, I wish to have my old bright spot or rangefinder focusing screen on a newish, digital camera.
(Personally, I pretty much dislike AF on anything resembling a 35mm camera.)
"No. I am not grumpy. Laughter is the best medicine, cure all......whatsoever."
-
On another forum some years back a guy offered a 50/1.4 Nikkor-S and a 135/3.5 Nikkor-Q No. 8955xx. The latter has blue and violet colored coatings viewed from the front. I waited about a week and when no one asked for these lenses I did. I waited as I had 30 + manual focus Nikkors at the time and didn't want to be greedy.
Dave
David, I am now closing to 100 :o :o :o i am now a filthy collector ::)
-
The biggest problem with this & others are the modern Dslr focusing screens.
https://richardhaw.com/2016/09/11/mod-nikon-df-split-prism/
Me and a couple of people have converted our screens :o :o :o
-
You devil Richard, LOL! Keep up the good work! ;D ;D ;D
David, I am now closing to 100 :o :o :o i am now a filthy collector ::)
-
You devil Richard, LOL! Keep up the good work! ;D ;D ;D
hard to slow down with all the nice junks around :o :o :o
-
Roland, maybe you could add the 'color' of the coating in your lens serial nr page, next to the coating information or on the top of the page, you seem to have the data at hand,,,
20mm UD is reportedly good for IR,,,
Thanks!
-
Roland, maybe you could add the 'color' of the coating in your lens serial nr page, next to the coating information or on the top of the page, you seem to have the data at hand,,,
20mm UD is reportedly good for IR,,,
Thanks!
This would be interesting, but in order to be accurate, the serial number would have to linked to the observed sample, and the light source would have to be specified. Also, color perception varies between people.
-
I do keep some notes on lens coatings, some of which are included on my serial number page. For example, there is a note where the rear coating of the Nikkor-P 10.5cm changes to purple - although I neglected to add that previously it is amber - I probably should add it. I also note where SIC coating appears on some lenses, although that is not comprehensive - mostly on some AIS lenses where the change is obvious. So far I haven't bothered to find the same change in AF lenses, and in some cases the difference between older NIC and newer SIC coatings is not obvious so it is hard to tell.
Regarding lens coatings generally, as pluton said, coatings can appear quite different depending on the light source, colour perception, and also the viewing angle - multicoated lenses in particular can have very different colours when viewed from different angles. Much of my information comes from pictures on ebay where the quality of pictures varies greatly, so not easy to accurately compare lens coatings. Hopefully the pictures on my site give some indication of the colours, the pre-AI links to Richard de Stoutz's collection are particularly good, although the quality of my other pictures is mixed ...
-
I have the last "non-Ai" version with the reddish hue coating. (I notched the aperture ring/Ai'd it myself)
I wonder if this lens is one with double coatings?
Dave
-
Last non-AI is the K (New Nikkor) version, which will be fully multicoated. Coatings from this era are typically deep red, purple, blue and green.
-
My mistake: I was thinking of the last version before the K types.
Dave
-
That would be the C type (Nikkor-S.C), which is the first series with multicoating. As far as I know, the C and K types have the same coatings.
Before that is the Nikkor-S, with amber coloured coating on the front lens. This is typical of single-coated lenses (along with pale pink on the Nikkor-H 28/3.5 and Nikkor-Q 200/4, and light blue on the Nikkor-Q 135/3.5)
-
I have a couple of what Roland Vink shows as the third variant of the S, 1968-72. One I bought new in 1970, and it's gotten pretty shabby with age, starting to seem a little soft. The F2.0 AI, of which I have a couple, is so good I just sort of retired it, deciding not to bother to AI it, and kept it as a big lens cap for extra F's, but not long ago I got a somewhat nicer one for the huge sum of $5.oo, and just tried this one out with tripod, and it's surprisingly sharp. I might have to start using it again since the D3200 doesn't care whether a lens is AI or not. It seems a little easier to focus on my chintzy DX finder, and it sharpens right up at F4 and above.
-
Coating information would be helpful. I just bought a new 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S with the new coating using the information on Roland's site. :o :o :o
guessing coating information can be tough as well because some people swap the elements without even indicating it when they sell it ::)
-
That would be the C type (Nikkor-S.C), which is the first series with multicoating. As far as I know, the C and K types have the same coatings.
Before that is the Nikkor-S, with amber coloured coating on the front lens. This is typical of single-coated lenses (along with pale pink on the Nikkor-H 28/3.5 and Nikkor-Q 200/4, and light blue on the Nikkor-Q 135/3.5)
Hello, Roland.
looks like amber is pretty common for earlier Nikkors :o :o :o the colour is also affected by how thick the lens element is I assume due to optical illusions caused by refraction. ::)
Check your mail (I found something funny inside the lens) :D
-
guessing coating information can be tough as well because some people swap the elements without even indicating it when they sell it ::)
Is swapping elements some kind of practical joke or is it like a Chinese Air Raid Drill?
Dave Hartman
I saw a Chinese Air Raid Drill once in Glendale, CA. All the kids in the car jumped out, ran around the car and jumped back in. The Glendale P.D. swooped in with red and blue lights flashing, **Meanies. I don't recall if all or even some of the participants were Chinese. I think in California all are welcomed to practice. I went back to making a fool of myself trying to play tennis.
**Blue
-
Hi, David.
Some people swap elements because the original lens might have a bad coating so they salvage the parts needed to fix their own lens and then they sell the host lens without indicating that it was used for such. everybody has very different standards of morality when it comes to this, for me it is a no-no :o :o :o
-
This would be interesting, but in order to be accurate, the serial number would have to linked to the observed sample, and the light source would have to be specified. Also, color perception varies between people.
No need for singe serial # identification, just general notes also just a general colour appearance is fine, keep it simple, no need to take this to the extreme!
It would make it easy to spot the odd modified sample here and there also a rough guide to performance in difference aspects.
-
Is swapping elements some kind of practical joke or is it like a Chinese Air Raid Drill?
Happens more than you think. Especially with easy screw off elements in the back of the 35/2 and 50/2 for instance. I swapped one in my 50/2 H which was beyond repair, with a clean one of the 50/2 AI (were the front element was severely damaged) Should I ever sell the 50/2 H, it seems logical to mention the swap.
-
I have the S version with 7 aperture blades (and without C), here is a shot @f/2
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7743/27734745520_994eeab459_b.jpg)
Lily of the Nile 3 (https://flic.kr/p/JfPPzA) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr
-
I would guess that there is a higher chance in winning the lottery than picking up a lens with a donated lens element,,, :o
-
I wonder if this lens is one with double coatings?
Dave
My 50/1.4 has a rubber focus ring & serial # 2817671. My assumption that it is the version Mr. R reviewed on his previous site.
(Boy, it's a bugger to focus wide open & get it right.)
As far as installing a split prism.... The span of my most modern camera bodies are a D700 & D7100. (I'm also a big fan of the Kodak SLR/n.)
I often think of upgrading, however it's murky, at best which 24-36mp FF body to employ. Cost & reliability are a major concern. I often consider the D7100 as an over-pixeled, "turd."
-
Df is the answer, maybe.
-
I would guess that there is a higher chance in winning the lottery than picking up a lens with a donated lens element,,, :o
i got it 2x :o :o :o
135mm f/3.5
5.8cm f/1.4
it must be because i usually get these from the junkyard
-
OK, this is an early K-type but I wasn't aware of this type until yesterday :o :o :o
it's basically the same as the last version of the Nikkor-S (S.C) so I am including it here.
engineering is the same you can even use the old Nikkor-S teardown that I made almost a year ago for it ::)
https://richardhaw.com/2016/01/23/project-nikkor-s-50mm-f1-4/
I am thinking that Nikon just needs something to sell under the New-Nikkor (K) branding until a new one came along.
-
here it is beside the 2nd K version :o :o :o which is the same as the Ai version basically ::)
-
Very intersting read again, Richard.
I have the 50/1.4 S auto from '67 and it won't focus at the moment, because these tiny screws broke down (to connect to the focus ring), so I need new ones. From your text: "Be sure that you have marked where these screws were originally because these same screws are in charge of where your infinity mark is placed." Do you know perhaps were you can obtain these small screws. ?
-
Very intersting read again, Richard.
I have the 50/1.4 S auto from '67 and it won't focus at the moment, because these tiny screws broke down (to connect to the focus ring), so I need new ones. From your text: "Be sure that you have marked where these screws were originally because these same screws are in charge of where your infinity mark is placed." Do you know perhaps were you can obtain these small screws. ?
Hello, John!
Did they snap or they won't screw properly in place anymore? If the threads are bad maybe it needs to be re-tapped. If the screws are indeed bad, you just need to find a flat head M1.4 screw of the right pitch and you should be OK. I have a pack here of replacement screws but they are (+) but it should not matter anyway. You can buy a set from ebay :o :o :o let me check the pitch first and I shall get back to you.
-
They snapped Richard. I presume one of the previous owners had already a repair on it. When I opened up the front ring and unscrewed the remaining two an extra screwhole appeared next to the screw. I managed to get the screws out, the head of the screws was broken off. So all three screws are unusable. The screws are pretty small. I have no idea about the size. ;)
-
Here is where it can get confusing. As you can see, there are 2 holes in each 120 degree point. one is for tightening the limiter adjustment ring (screws still there) and one is for securing the focusing ring (screws gone). :o :o :o
-
Thanks for the picture, Richard. That is exactly the situation at the moment.
-
It is supposed to look like that, there never was any screw heads.
-
Perhaps my technical expression is not so good ;)
I was looking for the tiny small screws to connect the focus ring to the helicoid (those screws broke and focussing is impossible now)