Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

A value of 50
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:

But designing even a standard 50mm lens for a 46.5mm register distance was not so easy in the 1950s. Even to produce a "simple" 2/50, Nikon had to come up with this:

And while generally a lens with such modest specifications performs excellently from just about any manufacturer, the Nikkor-S was not particularly good (or at least it does not stand out from its competitors). When Nikon tried again and came up with its replacement, the Nikkor-H they produced something really nice.


As I said before, 50mm lenses for SLR were practically nonexistent in 1959 when the Nikon F was introduced. This Nikon lens is basically a classic 6-4 double Gauss with a weak negative element in front. Without this additional element, the lens could not focus to infinity. Making an analogy with human vision, it is as if the lens suffered from myopia. The additional element acts as a spectacles to correct nearsightedness, allowing the lens to focus to infinity perfectly. Another way to understand the Nikon 50mm F2 lens is thinking it is of retrofocus type, which is exactly how Nikon describes it here:

http://www.nikkor.com/story/0002/

It is interesting to note that the current Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 and Sigma Art 50mm F1.4 also use negative elements in front.

One might ask why Nikon decided to make a 50mm lens for the Nikon F lens when a 55mm or 58mm would be easier to design. After all, the CZJ Biotar for Exakta was a 58mm lens. I believe one reason for the Nikon decision was that the Leica M used a 50mm normal lens. In 1959 the Leica M camera was a camera much used by photojournalists, who were a very important market for Nikon. Another reason was that the depth of field and angular coverage of a 55mm or 58mm lens are significantly smaller than those corresponding to a 50mm lens. Greater depth of field and angular coverage can be important to photojournalism. In this type of application, a fast 35mm lens would be even better, but it should be remembered that the technology of retrofocus wide angle lenses lenses was incipient in 1959.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
And while generally a lens with such modest specifications performs excellently from just about any manufacturer, the Nikkor-S was not particularly good (or at least it does not stand out from its competitors). When Nikon tried again and came up with its replacement, the Nikkor-H they produced something really nice.


I don't know if this lens was outperformed by the competition, after all 50mm lenses for SLR were far and between in 1959. What I know is that the Nikon F was a huge success.

Why Nikon succeeded in the professional 35mm market? Basically because for professional photographers, especially photojournalists, the Nikon F was a solution, whereas the systems from the competition were a problem. While the Nikon F was a very versatile and extremely reliable camera, the Contarex was unreliable and extremely difficult to mantain. The Leica M was reliable and had excellent lenses, but it was a rangefinder and so not as versatile as an SLR.

In 1959 and early '60s, it is possible that some Leica and Zeiss lenses were optically better than the corresponding Nikon, but the Nikon lenses were good enough and, especially, were very robust and reliable, which are key features for photojournalism.


Mos6502 wrote:
I only point this out because I tire of hearing the legend about how legendary Nikon's lenses were. Some of them, even very basic ones, were not legendary let alone great.


Most Nikon lenses, especially those from the 60's, are excellent, and many are truly exceptional. Nikon has pushed the frontiers of photographic optics with so many fisheye, ultra wide angle, super telephoto and zoom lenses, as no optical manufacturer had done before. Only Canon has such a rich history in the last 50 years.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think someone here will not agrees that 'Schneider had a negligible role in the development of lenses for SLR cameras 35mm technology after WWII'. The postwar Curtagons, Tele-Xenasr and Xenons are the very best ones in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Besides, they made some very best angles at for Rollei QBM and Leica R. After 1970s, although Schneider are concentrated on large format lenses, they are still making very best TS lenses for SLR http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/en/photo-imaging/product-field/photo-lenses/products/dslr-lenses/tiltshift-lenses/ .


PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
sichko wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:
Even to produce a "simple" 2/50, Nikon had to come up with this:



I guess that the glass that they had at the time didn't allow them to produce a 50 mm Double-Gauss without a converter in front. What were other manufacturers doing for their 50 mm "normal" (as opposed to 55 or 58 mm) ?


I said exactly that in a previous post.


Sorry!


PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
Gerald wrote:
sichko wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:
Even to produce a "simple" 2/50, Nikon had to come up with this:



I guess that the glass that they had at the time didn't allow them to produce a 50 mm Double-Gauss without a converter in front. What were other manufacturers doing for their 50 mm "normal" (as opposed to 55 or 58 mm) ?


I said exactly that in a previous post.


Sorry!


Do not worry about it, John. Smile
It's good to know that there are other people trying to seriously discuss the history of the photographic lens.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What's the point of trying to have a serious discussion when one party is preaching at everyone else and isn't making much sense?

As for 'normal' lenses of the 1950s/60s, the best one I have tried is the Topcon RE Auto Topcor 1.8/58, I directly compared it to both the CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 and CZJ Biotar 2/58 and it was markedly superior in sharpness, microcontrast and colours.

As for the Germans in that period, there was the Contarex Planars from Zeiss, which are too expensive today for most to havetried, the Voigtlander Ultron and Septon, which have stellar reputations but are also expensive and the Schneider Xenon 1.9/50, which I have and it is very sharp, probably slightly sharper than the contemporary Pancolar. There are offerings from Agfa, Enna, Schacht and Steinheil too.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:
Gerald wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:
To be completely honest, I think the first generation of the Nikon SLR lenses were mostly inferior to what many, if not most other companies were making at the time.


What companies?


Pretty much any of them! Asahi, Schneider, Steinheil, Kowa, Tomioka.


Pentax didn't have a 50mm lens when the Nikon F was introduced in April 1959. I think there were not many other Japanese 50mm lenses for SLR cameras in 1959, except Nikon...


Didn't who were eventually to be called Pentax, have an SLR out in the early 50's? like the Asahiflex was 52? Who's lens where they using on that?

Oh wait it was probably a 58mm or something right?

#EDIT: Google says so; http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Pentax_Asahiflex.html

#MORE EDIT Was Nikon really the first in 1959 with a SLR styled 50mm design? That feels, really late?


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wait a second Early Pentax wins with a 50mm f3.5 in M37 screw mount for their Asahiflex SLR at 1952. (With a register distance of 45.46 is surprisingly modern Razz )

http://kajiwara.weebly.com/takumar-5035.html

Take that Nikon, even if it was a Tessar clone... Razz


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:
And while generally a lens with such modest specifications performs excellently from just about any manufacturer, the Nikkor-S was not particularly good (or at least it does not stand out from its competitors). When Nikon tried again and came up with its replacement, the Nikkor-H they produced something really nice.


I don't know if this lens was outperformed by the competition, after all 50mm lenses for SLR were far and between in 1959. What I know is that the Nikon F was a huge success.


50mm lenses were already basically standard by 1959. Kowa was making a 1.9/50 for Miranda. Schneider had the 1.9/50 for Exakta and M42 (and had already had a 2/50 since before the war). ISCO had the Westagon (though admittedly not a great lens). Enna had the Ennalyt. Angenieux had a 1.5/50. CZJ had just released the Flexon (renamed Pancolar quickly). And this is to say nothing of the slower Westanars, Tessars, Xenars, Travenars, Meritars, and all the other 50mm triplets and tessar types that were already old and aging by 1959. So 50 was pretty well established as the standard by then.

The Biotar, Primoplan, et al. were outdated by 1959, and the 55mm focal length chosen by Asahi et al. was used for the purpose of creating 1:1 viewing without having to resort to a higher magnification VF system as used by Exakta and Miranda.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tromboads wrote:
Gerald wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:
Gerald wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:
To be completely honest, I think the first generation of the Nikon SLR lenses were mostly inferior to what many, if not most other companies were making at the time.


What companies?


Pretty much any of them! Asahi, Schneider, Steinheil, Kowa, Tomioka.


Pentax didn't have a 50mm lens when the Nikon F was introduced in April 1959. I think there were not many other Japanese 50mm lenses for SLR cameras in 1959, except Nikon...


Didn't who were eventually to be called Pentax, have an SLR out in the early 50's? like the Asahiflex was 52? Who's lens where they using on that?

Oh wait it was probably a 58mm or something right?


the first 50mm SLR lens by Pentax was a 3.5/50 for the M37 Asahiflex, a Tessar type introduced in 1952, there also was a 2.8/58 in 1954.
Looks as if Pentax was the leader in SLR development then, it's first SLR in M42, the 'Pentax AP' or 'Original Pentax' defined the looks of all coming SLRs. It also looks as if Pentax then was experimenting which optical design would work best for a SLR normal lens: By 1957 for the 'AP' a total of 4 optically distinct normal lenses were offered! None a 50mm though but either 55mm or 58mm, one had 'Heliar' optical scheme, another was a 'Sonnar'. The later is said to be the only Sonnar normal lens for SLR ever made.
By 1959 Pentax already had issued 5 new 55mm Auto Takumars, now all of them are of the same Ultron design. Great, top performing lenses btw!! For all subsequent normal lenses Pentax used the Ultron / Planar design, pretty much every manufacturer did, it became the industry standard.

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Pentax_Takumar_e.html

*EDIT oops, now I must edit too: had forgotten to refresh the page, had missed that most of what I wrote already had been covered by edits and new posts. Anyway, looks as if by 1959 already a big number of normal lenses for SLRs existed, though only 1 being a 50mm, already 11 from Pentax alone

Last edited by kuuan on Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:45 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pentax was a fantastic company that had potential to be what Nikon ended up being effectively: the biggest name in professional SLR cameras of the twentieth century (to be fair, Nikon lost the primacy for Canon in the end, when Canon released the EOS system).

As said by someone, Pentax adopted the SLR principle long before Nikon. Pentax invented the instant return mirror, for example. Until then, the viewfinder image disappeared after exposure because the mirror only returned after the shutter was cocked again!

Sadly, Pentax made some fatal errors. The main one was perhaps the delay in replacing the "universal thread" mount, which is called M42 today, by a bayonet mount. The K mount came too late, when Nikon and Canon had already dominated the 35mm professional market.

It seems that some people still believe that Nikon was just an optical company like many others in Japan. It is not true. Nikon was the "Japanese Zeiss" since it was founded in 1917. During WWII, Nikon had 19 factories and 23000 employees to supply the entire Japanese army. The greatest talents in optical technology were with Nikon. This abundance of scientists and optical engineers of high value explains why after WWII Nikon become the biggest name in microscopy and optical equipment for production of integrated circuits, not to mention photographic optics.

A final question. Why Nikon adopted the SLR principle only in 1959, long after Pentax? The answer is that Nikon was only interested in the professional market, which was based on rangefinder cameras in the 50s. As it is known, that market was then led mainly by Leica. Nikon realized before Leica the change in the wind direction and in 1959 launched the Nikon F. The rest is history.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
50mm lenses were already basically standard by 1959. Kowa was making a 1.9/50 for Miranda. Schneider had the 1.9/50 for Exakta and M42


I had that Kowa, superb lens, fantastically well made, really good IQ. I have the Schneider Xenon 1.9/50 in DKL, it is superb.

Both these lenses illustrate the fallacy of claiming Nikon had superior build quality as both are fantastically well build of solid brass and chrome, the moving dof indicators of the Schneider are extremely useful too.

BTW Gerald, do you work for Nikon? Are you being paid to propagandise for them?

Konica were the oldest Japanese optical and camera company, they supplied the aerial lenses for the Japanese armed forces as well as manufacturing most of the cameras, so they have a claim to being the 'Japanese Zeiss' too.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some people confuse antiquity with historical importance.
Zeiss is important not because it is an ancient company, but because it had a prominent role in the development of lenses and optical equipment.
Nikon is important not because it is an ancient company, but because it had a prominent role in the development of lenses and optical equipment.

Konica on the other hand, was just an ancient Japanese company that manufactured half-baked SLR cameras. Konica was far behind Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus and Minolta. Konica was an ancient company that had no prominence on the development of photographic technology after WWII, with the possible exception of having been the company that launched the first autofocus point-and-shoot camera of the world.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nonsense.

Konica lenses were chosen as the standard by which all other Japanese lenses were tested.

There's nothing 'half baked' about a Konica Autoreflex T, in fact, it's a nicer, better built camera than a contemporary Nikkormat.

Most Konica Hexanons outperform their Nikkor equivalents. Two examples being the Hexanon 2.8/24 which is markedly better than the excellent Nikkor 2.8/24, I have them both. Another is the Konica 3.2/135, it is far ahead of the contemporary Nikkor 3.5/135, again, I own them both.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
First of all, I want to say that I do not have a Nikon camera, and I do not love Nikon. Shocked
Nonetheless, I love historical truth.

The picture below is a reproduction of a Nikon advertisement from 1986, i.e. more or less the time mentioned by Gardener in his original post.

Nikon bragged in the ads that Nikon cameras were used by more professional photographers than all other 35mm SLR cameras combined. Was it true?

Think about that no photographic company would make such a categorical statement if it were not true. A false statement of such kind would destroy Nikon's credibility. No, the statement was not false. Nikon was not lying. Everyone knew it, including the Nikon competitors.

When Gardener found that many Nikon lenses were more expensive than Contax-Yashica lenses, it was because the whole world knew that Nikon lenses were as good or better than Zeiss. Even the engineers at Zeiss and Yashica knew that.




PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If Gerald and Ian stopped sparring with each other and set aside their partisan sentiments, many readers of this thread (myself included) might be better informed about the very interesting world of Japanese camera evolution in the 1950s.

"Historical truth" is rarely found through press adverts and the statement that one maker's lenses "were chosen as the standard by which all other Japanese lenses were tested" lacks credibility without a clear link to its source. Any first year history undergraduate handing in stuff like this would, quite rightly, be told that it's both inadequate and unacceptable to a critical reader.

C'mon guys, I want to learn more, but I want to know where the assertions and 'evidence' actually come from. So it's a "D-minus" for you both, so far Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To be fair, i don't have any partisan sentiments, I couldn't care less who made the kit i use as long as it does the job. I just object to Gerald's misleading rhetoric.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
If Gerald and Ian stopped sparring with each other and set aside their partisan sentiments, many readers of this thread (myself included) might be better informed about the very interesting world of Japanese camera evolution in the 1950s.

Sorry to say, but your entire post is only a criticism of others, with no technical contribution to the original topic of the thread.
Your interest in the evolution of Japanese lenses in the 50s is legitimate, but I remember you that the topic is about the status of photographic lenses in the mid 80s.


scsambrook wrote:
"Historical truth" is rarely found through press adverts and ...


Generic comments like yours has no purpose other than to disqualify the debate. The Nikon advertisement was published in Modern Photography November 1986, the time of the discussion raised by the OP.

MP was a magazine of global circulation, and highly respected in the photographic world. Its editor, Herbert Keppler was a connoisseur of photographic equipment that accompanied the technological developments in the area since the early 50s. Modern Photography was the last place for Nikon publishing a lie that would ultimately destroy its credibility.

If you have something interesting to enrich the debate, we will all be anxious to hear what you have to say. If you have nothing interesting to say, just listen. Thank you.

Regards


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:

Generic comments like yours has no purpose other than to disqualify the debate. The Nikon advertisement was published in Modern Photography November 1986, the time of the discussion raised by the OP.


It is still an advertisement, which was made to encourage people to buy a product. If you want facts it'd be better to dig up an actual article or lens test.

Ads can say all sorts of things!


In any event does anybody have a valid comparison of Nikon and Zeiss SLR lenses?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
Gerald wrote:

Generic comments like yours has no purpose other than to disqualify the debate. The Nikon advertisement was published in Modern Photography November 1986, the time of the discussion raised by the OP.


It is still an advertisement, which was made to encourage people to buy a product. If you want facts it'd be better to dig up an actual article or lens test.

Ads can say all sorts of things!


In any event does anybody have a valid comparison of Nikon and Zeiss SLR lenses?


Why didn't you post a bigger picture so we could know what the advertisement was about?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The advertisement was for the Yugo car, made in Communist Yugoslavia, it was a truly awful car.

Advertising is a large part of why Canon and Nikon 'won' and became the two biggest camera companies, it's not because they had the best products, other companies produced equally good, in some cases, superior products.

Until the late 90s, the Volkswagen Beetle was the world's best selling car, more had been made than any other model. Of course, this is not because it was the best car, in many ways, it was a piece of crap. However, it had the best advertising campaign ever seen and it is the ad campaign used as a case study in colleges and universities.



PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:


Ads can say all sorts of things!




Lol, love this... the Yugo is top of its class, but keep in mind it is in a class of its own.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
But as soon as we find a solution this funny thread will cease to exist Laughing

Lets not bother with that but continue to construct arguments with imagination Razz


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Why didn't you post a bigger picture so we could know what the advertisement was about?


You haven't seen "Drowning Mona"? Shocked Shocked Shocked


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is off-topic but I have to ask. I cannot help laughing out loud when I read the Volkswagen ads to the part about the hat. I am wondering if the ads came out before or after the widespread of a particularly bad joke regarding The VIP with a magnificent head gear?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 4 of 7