NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: richardHaw on August 14, 2018, 02:40:33
-
havent seen anybody talking about this masterpiece :o :o :o
I heard a few people saying that the Nikkor-N performs better than the Ai and Ai-S, can anybody confirm this?
looks like Nikon changed the design of the optics a bit after all...the one I have is yellow with atomic lens...while I dont see any yellowish thorium glass on later models ::)
-
I think I have old Nikon Sales manuals which show the Nikkor-N has slightly different optical dimensions from the K (New Nikkor) and AI versions. But they are very similar.
The Nikkor-N 35/1.4 also had a similar minor change in spacing, curvature and glass material when upgraded to the K version. As you know, the the Nikkor-N 35/1.4 has slightly radioactive glass which turns yellow over time. I haven't head that the Nikkor-N 28/2 has the same problem.
The AI-S 28/2 has a closer focus limit than the AI and other previous versions, so it is possible the optics were revised again although they remain very similar. The drawings I have are not detailed enough to confirm one way or the other. It's also possible Nikon kept the optics the same and simply extended the focus/CRC range a bit further. Some reviewers suggest the AI version may be slightly better, but it's hard to say if it's sample variation or if the optics really did change.
-
i am not sure whether a change in optics was necessary if a lens was to focus close. I do realize that the CRC will have to be re-calibrated. I did that once and my lens was tack-sharp at minimum focusing distance but was so-so at from 2m and further :o :o :o maybe I should recalibrate this when i have the time? ::)
my 28/2NC is yellowish. i was surprised to see that to be honest ::) it's on the 6th or 7th element and the 3rd I think
-
How far are the lens elements yellowed? So far as I'm aware, the initial 35/1.4 was the only F mount Nikkor to use thoriated elements.
I've heard that the high refractive index glasses in earlier days had yellowish tint. The Nikkor-N 24/2.8 C that I used years ago rendered the images noticeably yellower than the newer ones.
I had the last version (with SIC) of Ais 28/2.0 which didn't show any yellowish hue. I have tried Bjørn's Ai 28/2.0 K, but didn't detect any yellowish hue. I cannot speak about the sharpness as I haven't compared them in this regard.
-
looks a bit like "piss" or CC Lemon, sorry for the use of words but thats the only thing i can think of :o :o :o
the one closer to the center is the most yellowish ::)
i should have taken more pictures :(
-
i also read somewhere about a comparison on the 3 versions and the NC has a yellowish tint according to him ::)
it's not as obvious as my 35/1.8RF in case you are curious :o :o :o that thing is also an "atomic lens" as what some people will call it here in Japan
-
If the element is convex, the center should be yellower.
I've heard that a thoriated element will turn to rather brown like bancha-tea, but your lens looks yellower than the 24/2.8 N C that I had.
-
If the element is convex, the center should be yellower.
I've heard that a thoriated element will turn to rather brown like bancha-tea, but your lens looks yellower than the 24/2.8 N C that I had.
yes. not amber but a lighter tint of yellow :o :o :o
it looked uniformly yellow by the way
i really should have taken better pictures of it last weekend. I had a few hours to work on my lenses because it rained. the humidity is crazy here, even too much for somebody like me who came from SE Asia ::)
-
All 28/2 NC's that I have ever seen since the early 1980's have a yellowish tint that the Ai/AiS units do not have. Many older lens designs from all manufacturers are more yellowish than modern designs. So, a lens can certainly be yellow without being atomic.
I had an NC version before digital, as well as a couple different AiS's, and I always felt that the NC was 'sharper' on edges and small details.
-
All 28/2 NC's that I have ever seen since the early 1980's have a yellowish tint that the Ai/AiS units do not have. Many older lens designs from all manufacturers are more yellowish than modern designs. So, a lens can certainly be yellow without being atomic.
I had an NC version before digital, as well as a couple different AiS's, and I always felt that the NC was 'sharper' on edges and small details.
probably the coating? :o :o :o
-
My 28/2 NC also has pale yellow glass, easy to see if you take the caps off, open the aperture up and look through the rear onto a white sheet of paper. It looks fairly uniform from side to side, but difficult to judge due to the contrast between the black lens and bright light coming through the lens.
-
My 28/2 NC also has pale yellow glass, easy to see if you take the caps off, open the aperture up and look through the rear onto a white sheet of paper. It looks fairly uniform from side to side, but difficult to judge due to the contrast between the black lens and bright light coming through the lens.
do you think its thoriated? my atomic lens look a bit amber and "rich" for the lack of words :o :o :o
i initially thought it was the coating but my Nikkor-S doesnt make the tissue underneath look white. this is what got my attention when I was cleaning mine, i noticed that the white tissue looked yellowish under some of the elements ::)
-
Both my 28/2.0 NC (nbr. 315331) and 35/1.4 N (nbr. 360816) have a amber looking coating, but as you look through the lenses they have a yellow cast. The 35 has it stronger and is definitely a "thorium" lens.
-
Both my 28/2.0 NC (nbr. 315331) and 35/1.4 N (nbr. 360816) have a amber looking coating, but as you look through the lenses they have a yellow cast. The 35 has it stronger and is definitely a "thorium" lens.
Chris, if your 35/1.4 with that serial number, Roland would have to revise the section for the lens on his website. But it would be hard for me to believe that many thoriated 35/1.4 was made...
-
Both my 28/2.0 NC (nbr. 315331) and 35/1.4 N (nbr. 360816) have a amber looking coating, but as you look through the lenses they have a yellow cast. The 35 has it stronger and is definitely a "thorium" lens.
Probably also valid for the Nikkor-S 5.8cm/1.4 It also has an amber looking coating.
-
The amber coating is not the same as the yellow cast to the glass itself. Many Nikkors from the 1960s have amber coatings on the front element, including the Nikkor-S 35/2.8, Nikkor-S 50/1.4, Nikkor-P 105/2.5, 50-300/4.5 Auto and so on. But when you look through the lens, the glass is clear - no colour cast. In my experience, the Nikkor-S 5.8cm actually has a light pink coating...
As for the 35/1.4, all the early versions with metal focus ring have the same coatings and glass, including the Thorium glass which turns yellow. The change from Nikkor-N to Nikkor-N.C is purely cosmetic, reflecting the multicoating which was already present in the first version.
Note: my database lists Thorium against the prototype, that is intended to be read for all the following versions, I didn't write it for each following sub-version to reduce repetition and due to lack of space, but maybe I should for clarity?
-
Coating can definitely change the color transmission cast of a lens. I remember having 2 samples of the Nikkor 85mm/1.8 in hand: One pre, one post multi coating--(H to H.C), and the multicoated one was observably less yellowish when looking through the lens at a piece of white paper.
However, in the case of the transition from 28/2 N/NC to early K(New Nikkor), I also suspect that the optics were altered between models.
-
looks like my Nikkor-N has a tendency to do this. halation? spherical aberration? :o :o :o
-
Richard, That flare is unexpected, in other words, not normal. I suspect junk on one or more elements inside or outside.
-
Not normal. I suspect there is a thin layer of haze one one or more lenses, or a dirty filter. The weather looks too warm for it to be condensation...
-
In fact, very *non-normal* for the 28/2 of any generation. They all tend to handle flare-prone situations with ease.
-
As per Roland, what about the possibility of condensation in humid summertime Tokyo?
-
As per Roland, what about the possibility of condensation in humid summertime Tokyo?
Quite possible. I would suspect that Rick had just got out of a well air-conditioned place?
-
That seems likely ... Rick knows his lenses too well to use one with haze... :o
-
thanks for the replies.
I got sick again, 2nd time this month so i didnt reply earlier :o :o :o i hate this weather with intermitent raining and hot spells.
I think the haze comes from under the front element. I cannot clean it because the previous guy probably epoxied the damn thing. I will try again as soon as I get better.
it doesnt come up on digital. these were shot with an F3 by the way ::)
-
Is it perhaps a camera-issue?
-
To add one to the list, my 35 mm f/3.5 PC lens (NK J #104376) has always produced pictures with a slightly warm, yellowish cast. Looking through it I can convince myself of a pale yellow tint. It seems to become more distinct as I reduce the aperture, but I'm not sure whether that's a perceptual trick as I look at a smaller bright disk (hexagon, actually) against a larger dark background. The coating reflections are pink. I can't tell whether the cast is due to coloration of a lens element, or perhaps aging of the adhesive between a couple of the elements? Lovely lens, by the way.
Cheers, John
-
it doesnt come up on digital. these were shot with an F3 by the way ::)
Back reflection from the film?
-
Film is less reflective than digital sensors, that's why some third party lenses which transitioned into the digital era had to have improved coatings on the rear elements.
My best guess is that it is condensation on or in the lens, which just happened to occur when using your F3. If the lens was really like that you'd see it on digital too.
-
Film is less reflective than digital sensors, that's why some third party lenses which transitioned into the digital era had to have improved coatings on the rear elements.
I disagree, with a caveat:
I expect that digital sensors are more reflective only on a strict angle of incidence/angle of reflection basis, due to the glossy plano glass surface of the sensor assembly.
Film is more reflective on a diffuse basis. The last color film I saw was a medium beige-tan in color.
It seems apparent that one could get more diffuse bounce back from a medium tan, but non-glossy surface film surface than a dark blue-green digital sensor surface.
Imagine one had a choice of two 1 X 1 meter bounce cards: One made of digital sensor, and one made of Fujifilm color negative film. The film one would be a better reflector.
I agree that the probable cause of the haziness in Rick's shots is internal junk/condensation on the glass.
-
I mostly shot slide films and the emulsion side of film was always rather dark with a matte surface, not very reflective. I'm not sure what film is like before it's exposed and developed, an maybe colour films with the orange mask are different. Film records the full spectrum of colours across the entire surface - each colour is recorded on a different layer of emulsion - so you would expect it to have a black surface.
By comparison, digital sensors always seem a little brighter and the glass cover sheet is more reflective. Digital sensors have separate RGB sensors, each absorbs only a limited range of the spectrum, reflecting some of the un-absorbed light - so the overall appearance will never be black resulting in an overall lighter, more reflective surface.
But as you say, either way, this is not likely the cause of the flare in Ricks pictures.
-
hello! sorry for the late reply.
the weird glow may have been condensation or dirt as pointed out. I remeｍber seeing a thumbprint on the rear element of the 28/2 that day when I got home :o :o :o
i tested the 28/2 Ai at the shop last week and it seems that it exhibits the same characteristics as the 28/2N that i have. sharp from minimum focus distance to mid range wide open but not so impressive (but OK) at infinity, everything looks great by 2.8 tho...
i will try to shoot it again this weekend on my F2 and hope its just the thumbprint that caused it. its a lovely lens. ::)
as Birna pointed out. the flare resistance is great but there are some artifacts wide-open at far distances when shot on a bright day or a bright object. i was relieved that the 28/2 behaved the same way. this means my lens is OK.