Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 discussion and variants comparison.

[richardHaw]

No existing threads found in the search site so I am starting one.

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.

[Roland Vink]

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.

[Akira]

Interesting comparison, Rick!

Older one shows more ghosts but much less flare compared to the newest multi-coated one.

[Roland Vink]

Interesting observation ... I wonder if the multi-coated lens has some dust or haze which might explain the flare?

[Akira]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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...

[richardHaw]

The C version is pretty clean but has a few light scratches at the rear element (so i left a negative feedback) 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

[richardHaw]

I see! didn't know that A & B had slightly different formulas

[Akira]

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.

[David H. 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

[richardHaw]

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
multicoated surfaces as far as im concerned can be seen when you see different colored reflections on the glass

[richardHaw]

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
i think i am the right person for this since majority of my lenses came from the junk box with fungus,etc

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Erik Lund]

I can confirm; Even a hint of a fingerprint or a smear will affect image quality on wide angle Leica M lenses.

[richardHaw]

oh, yes. wides are very susceptible. even light mist shows actually...