nikon 1001 Nikkor-S 50mm 1.4

[richardHaw]

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0077/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR0C7IQK0qQ-YsrJpnFw2I8WVrCPki5jB-AVBlUUsHyLgKDfFuIk2QpFJbo

what a long link

[Birna Rørslett]

A very long link suitable for a good performer

I have one of these and  the description in 1001 Nikon Nights is spot on.

It does, however, have a weak hot spot in IR if you stop down to f/8 or beyond. Just to inform the 50/1.4 is not "perfect".

[richardHaw]

https://richardhaw.com/2020/02/23/review-nikkor-s-50mm-f-1-4-millennium/

my owen review, of course

[richardHaw]

VI. Low-pass filters and optical performance

this section by the professor is very informative

[MEPER]

How would it compare to the SLR version?

"night and day"?   .....1000 nights and days?

[Jack Dahlgren]

VI. Low-pass filters and optical performance

this section by the professor is very informative

Yes, it is interesting and also promises an interesting future:

"Because of this, the optics that include the low-pass filter built into Z system cameras like the Z 6, Z 7, and Z 50 are designed with a minimalistic structure to be ultra slim so that they change aberration characteristics as little as possible when old NIKKOR lenses are used. That is another aspect of these cameras that makes them the best cameras to use with old lenses. The Nikon Z system plays a very active role in the writing of tales for NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights. I would like to test many more old lenses with these new cameras in the near future."

[MEPER]

This triggered my curiosity and I put a Nikkor-S 50/1.4 (SLR version) on my Z50 and even that it was quite dark I shot some hand held test images from my balcony.
F/1.4 at 1/40 sec.

The image quality much better than expected. From what I have read lens is quite bad at 1.4 and needs to be stopped down to 2.8 or so......but I don't think so. At least not on a cropped sensor. It also shares the same optical formular as the S-version?

Attached the test image and 3 100% crops. I like the way the lights are rendered at full aperture.....
First time I tried this lens on a camera......have 2-3 of them + the S-C version. Two of them are just sitting on F-bodies to look good.

[Erik Lund]

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0077/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR0C7IQK0qQ-YsrJpnFw2I8WVrCPki5jB-AVBlUUsHyLgKDfFuIk2QpFJbo

what a long link

Thank you, very interesting! reminds me of my findings shooting various Leica M, Nikkor and Voigtlander lenses on the Leica M8 and M9 with and without Leicas dedicated UV/IR filters.

[MEPER]

How much in common has the rangefinder lens with the SLR lens?

After a walk with the SLR lens I find it very good. Relative sharp wide open and very sharp stopped down a bit. Both lenses are 7-element Gauss?
A couple of example from the walk attached.

Last two images an example of 1.4 image and 100% crop that shows lens is quite sharp wide open.
Strange that some thinks it is "unusable" at 1.4?     .....or my copy is better that others? :-)
It might be that in the film-days that it was hard to focus......

[Roland Vink]

How much in common has the rangefinder lens with the SLR lens?

The article says: "This lens hints at the dawn of the F mount era."

As you say, both lenses are 7-element Gauss. The older Nikkor-S 5.8/1.4 also has 7 elements with two convex elements at the front. This lens would have been designed before the Nikkor-S 50/1.4 rangefinder lens:


The newer rangefinder and F-mount lenses have two convex elements at the rear and only one convex element which gives better correction of coma (see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0044/index.htm).

S-mount:

F-mount:

[MEPER]

The slight difference between the S and F is probably that the F had to clear the mirror.
It was made for really many years I can see but not used by many today.
It has a nice build quality so around 100 Euros used is cheap for such a fine lens.......

[Akira]

At that time, the S-mount 50mm lenses should be much more advantageous, because there were no restriction to clear the mirror.  I would bet that S-mount standards would perform much better than the F-mount siblings on film.

On digital bodies, there should be another story.  The angle of the light rays from a rangefinder lens hitting on the sensor is much more steep than those from the F-mount lens.  So, the peripherals would suffer more.

[MEPER]

Maybe modern sensors have developed so they better "like" rays from an angle other than "straight on"?   .....is the fine word "Perpendicular"?
Each pixel on sensor has a small lens now to better handle rays from an angle?

I think the DX sensor was the definite answer "back then" to how the digital Nikon format should be. One of the argument was that rays should be "Perpendicular".
Think I remember a Nikon article in maybe "Nikon Pro" magazine where the headline was like "Who needs fulframe".....but time has changed this.....
I have yet to get my first FX-body....

[Akira]

Maybe modern sensors have developed so they better "like" rays from an angle other than "straight on"?   .....is the fine word "Perpendicular"?
Each pixel on sensor has a small lens now to better handle rays from an angle?

I think the DX sensor was the definite answer "back then" to how the digital Nikon format should be. One of the argument was that rays should be "Perpendicular".
Think I remember a Nikon article in maybe "Nikon Pro" magazine where the headline was like "Who needs fulframe".....but time has changed this.....
I have yet to get my first FX-body....

Yes, the peripheral micro lenses on the sensor in Leica M models are shifted towards the center to capture the light rays of steeper angle of incident from the M-mount lenses.

[MEPER]

Who makes the sensors Leica use for their M-cameras?

There are not that many reviews about using Leica M glass on Z-cameras.....especially not the modern lenses. I guess it is the pricing....and not because of "poor quality".....