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

Minolta MD Rokkor 45mm/F2
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2024 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
By the way, I'm surprised how much better the MD-III is compared to the older versions.


There's an US patent for the MD-III 2/50mm ... indicating some progress, I guess Wink

S


PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2024 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
sergun wrote:
Good test. Truth Nikkor the old version of H (64 year). It would be interesting to see the latest versions.


As far as i know the Nikkor 2/50mm was always the same 1964 "Nikkor-H 2/50mm" computation (the earlier Nikkor-S 2/50mm did have seven lenses, however). The Nikkor(-H) 2/50mm from 1964 is extremely similar to the Zeiss Oberkochen (Contarex) Planar 2/50mm from 1958.



According to the "Nikon Pocket Book" by Peter Braczko, the Nikkor 2/50 (1959-1963) first had a 7/5 construction and then switched to the 6/4 construction (Nikkor H-Auto, 1964) which was shared by all the later versions (Nikkor HC-Auto, 1972), Nikkor (1974) and Nikkor AI (1978), the only improvements being the multi-coating. So one shouldn't see any big differences apart from sample variation.My own sample from 1972 is very good and basically as sharp as the Summicron-R 50 mm f/2.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2024 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
sergun wrote:
Good test. Truth Nikkor the old version of H (64 year). It would be interesting to see the latest versions.


As far as i know the Nikkor 2/50mm was always the same 1964 "Nikkor-H 2/50mm" computation (the earlier Nikkor-S 2/50mm did have seven lenses, however). The Nikkor(-H) 2/50mm from 1964 is extremely similar to the Zeiss Oberkochen (Contarex) Planar 2/50mm from 1958.



According to the "Nikon Pocket Book" by Peter Braczko, the Nikkor 2/50 (1959-1963) first had a 7/5 construction and then switched to the 6/4 construction (Nikkor H-Auto, 1964) which was shared by all the later versions (Nikkor HC-Auto, 1972), Nikkor (1974) and Nikkor AI (1978), the only improvements being the multi-coating. So one shouldn't see any big differences apart from sample variation.My own sample from 1972 is very good and basically as sharp as the Summicron-R 50 mm f/2.


The "H" and the later "K" based 50mm f2's perform quite differently. I'm not entirely convinced they are the same computation at all. The A/I focuses a heck of a lot slower than the "H" does, and has a much longer focus rotation. The optics appear to be different to me as well, especially along the edges/corners. The last point of course~ is the coatings with the contrast nod going to the newer variant.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2024 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
Alsatian2017 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
sergun wrote:
Good test. Truth Nikkor the old version of H (64 year). It would be interesting to see the latest versions.


As far as i know the Nikkor 2/50mm was always the same 1964 "Nikkor-H 2/50mm" computation (the earlier Nikkor-S 2/50mm did have seven lenses, however). The Nikkor(-H) 2/50mm from 1964 is extremely similar to the Zeiss Oberkochen (Contarex) Planar 2/50mm from 1958.



According to the "Nikon Pocket Book" by Peter Braczko, the Nikkor 2/50 (1959-1963) first had a 7/5 construction and then switched to the 6/4 construction (Nikkor H-Auto, 1964) which was shared by all the later versions (Nikkor HC-Auto, 1972), Nikkor (1974) and Nikkor AI (1978), the only improvements being the multi-coating. So one shouldn't see any big differences apart from sample variation.My own sample from 1972 is very good and basically as sharp as the Summicron-R 50 mm f/2.


The "H" and the later "K" based 50mm f2's perform quite differently. I'm not entirely convinced they are the same computation at all. The A/I focuses a heck of a lot slower than the "H" does, and has a much longer focus rotation. The optics appear to be different to me as well, especially along the edges/corners. The last point of course~ is the coatings with the contrast nod going to the newer variant.

-D.S.


According to http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#50slow the 1959-1963 version has 7/4 optics...


PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2024 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:

The "H" and the later "K" based 50mm f2's perform quite differently. I'm not entirely convinced they are the same computation at all. The A/I focuses a heck of a lot slower than the "H" does, and has a much longer focus rotation. The optics appear to be different to me as well, especially along the edges/corners. The last point of course~ is the coatings with the contrast nod going to the newer variant.

-D.S.


100% corner crops from 24 MP FF JPGs out of Sony A7II. Strong backlight as the lightbulb illuminating the scene is on the frame and directly beams (radiates? shines? ... not sure about the correct word, i'm sorry) into the lens. No major difference between the 1965 Nikkor-H Auto and the 1978 Nikkor Ai 2/50mm, I would say.

S



PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2024 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


100% corner crops from 24 MP FF JPGs out of Sony A7II. Strong backlight as the lightbulb illuminating the scene is on the frame and directly beams (radiates? shines? ... not sure about the correct word, i'm sorry) into the lens. No major difference between the 1965 Nikkor-H Auto and the 1978 Nikkor Ai 2/50mm, I would say.

S


They are common in that they are 6/4 as far as glass goes.
I see a bit of an edge for sharpness and much improved contrast in the newer lens. I still doubt they are the same computation- not with the differing helicoid lengths and handling characteristics.

Not seeing too much of hot spots in your images, so the light is not as bad as you make it sound.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2024 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
I still doubt they are the same computation- not with the differing helicoid lengths and handling characteristics.


So you know it better than Kouichi Ohshita, a well known lens designer from who has researched and written extensively about the lens design of Nikkro lenses? Kouichi Ohshita writes (https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0002/):
Quote:

"NIKKOR-H Auto 50mm f/2 (on sale January 1964):
This lens went on the market five(5) years after the Nikkor-S, with a new optical configuration - a four(4)-group six(6)-element orthodox Gaussian type.

NIKKOR-HC Auto 50mm f/2 (on sale December 1972):
The optical system of this lens is unchanged from the NIKKOR-H, but has multi-layer coating.

AI Nikkor 50mm f/2 (on sale March 1977):
At the same time as the Nikon F2 Photomic A, Nikon EL2, and Nikomat FT3 bodies appeared with the AI coupled exposure meter system (automatic correction from fully-open f-stop), the AI version of this lens was released, with the optical system unchanged.


Accordingly, also "Nikon Lens Data Base" says that all 2/50mm from Jan 1964 to Jan 1979 had the same optical design:
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html

If you claim otherwise, you should have really good sources!


Doc Sharptail wrote:
Not seeing too much of hot spots in your images, so the light is not as bad as you make it sound.


This is the uppermost part of the image, with the light bulb as only light source. Using the A900 spot metering, the light bulb is >20'000 times brighter than the area of the 100% crops from the right corner shown above. I assume that it qualifies as hot spot.



S


PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2024 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess it depends on definitions of "computation" and "optical design". As previously stated both are 6/4 optical layouts, and there the similarity ends. That the A/I has improved glass is indisputable.



Excuse the hurried snap shots. It's late at night here and I'm the only one awake.

Side by side comparison. Lenses aren't even the same physical size.



Front/name ring comparison. Very similar here.



Rear comparison. The rear element of the older lens is actually slightly smaller than the newer one.

Do they render the same? Definitely not.

Edit~ The NZ site confirms what I have found with focus throw and MFD.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2024 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
I guess it depends on definitions of "computation" and "optical design". As previously stated both are 6/4 optical layouts, and there the similarity ends. That the A/I has improved glass is indisputable.

pics

Do they render the same? Definitely not.

Edit~ The NZ site confirms what I have found with focus throw and MFD.

-D.S.


Absolutely!!! For example the 6/5 of the 55mm M42 Takumars was recomputed twice (3 different computations)


PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2024 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doc Sharptail wrote:
I guess it depends on definitions of "computation" and "optical design". As previously stated both are 6/4 optical layouts, and there the similarity ends. That the A/I has improved glass is indisputable.

OK ... your Ai 2/50mm sample may be better than your Nikkor-Auto 2/50mm sample.
The Nikon engineers are saying all [6/4] 2/50mm lenses (1964-1979) did have the same optical computation indeed (https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0002/)

Doc Sharptail wrote:
Rear comparison. The rear element of the older lens is actually slightly smaller than the newer one.

The rear lens mount has a different diameter. The lenses themselves, however, have exactly the same diameter. I just have dismantled a 1964 Nikkor-H Auto and a 1978 Ai Nikkor 2/50 mm ... you can even screw the rear part of the Auto-H into a Nikkor AI!




Doc Sharptail wrote:
Do they render the same? Definitely not.

Can you show us a side-by-side comparison of your Nikkor-H vs Nikkor Ai 2/450mm showing the differences?
In my comparisons I haven's seen any differerences (see above), but your lenses may be different. If you make claims, you must present some evidence Wink

Doc Sharptail wrote:
Edit~ The NZ site confirms what I have found with focus throw and MFD.

Sure - nobody is denying that Wink

visualopsins wrote:

Absolutely!!! For example the 6/5 of the 55mm M42 Takumars was recomputed twice (3 different computations)

We know that e. g. the early 1.4/58mm had lot of slightly different computations due to "pot melting" of different glass batches (https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0044/). Also the early Auto Rokkor 1.4/58mm and the later MC-II Rokkor 1.4/58mm have (slightly) different computations, and so do the Minolta MD-I 2/50mm vs MD-III 2/50mm. The latter is especially well documented since the MD-III 2/50mm has its own US patent (apart from being much better than the earlier MC-X/MD-I 2/50mm)

S


PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2024 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

Can you show us a side-by-side comparison of your Nikkor-H vs Nikkor Ai 2/450mm showing the differences?
In my comparisons I haven's seen any differerences (see above), but your lenses may be different. If you make claims, you must present some evidence Wink S


I'll probably have to re-shoot. I had done this before with 3 of the K based lenses and 2 of the H lenses- one an H.C. that I no longer have. Incidentally, those 3 K based lenses performed very close to one another, and the H's were very close to each other as well, except (again) for contrast.
I dug around a bit and haven't been able to find them- all scenics with telephone poles along a rural road.
It is highly probable that those shots were deleted long ago for the space they were taking up. I'll probably start small, with something simple like gridded lines indoors for now.

That "optical computation" bit is becoming a awfully loose term around here~ see above re definitions. Wink

https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0002/

Here's the unabbreviated link for those who care to look. Mr. Green

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2024 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quick tripod test under household L.E.D. lighting.



A/I at f2.



A/I at 5.6



"H" at f2



"H" at f5.6
Both lenses at MFD. These are about 60% crops of center.
At first glance, these images appear to be almost indistinguishable- but they are not.
The "H" displays a bit more barrel distortion, especially at image center at f2.
It clears up a bit by f5.6.

They are close, but there is another item that differentiates them- they expose differently with the "H" requiring longer exposure times at all aperture settings.

While the lenses are very close to one another, they cannot be the exact same "Optical Prescription"- not with performance differences like this. These differences are even more pronounced shot at infinity, which I am not going to do just yet. That can wait until spring.

Edit:

Both these lenses are quite dear to my heart, and I am not parting with them yet. The A/I is still one of the better lenses in my bag, and it's accurate contrast rendition is a strong point with me.

The "H" is vey handy for rapidly changing subject situations, especially where people are moving around- it's speed of use is hard to beat.

-D.S.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3