View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
cwood
Joined: 02 Nov 2012 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:08 am Post subject: Nikon Nikkor 50mm 1.8....which one should I keep |
|
|
cwood wrote:
I ended up buying two by not being able to control myself
Now I have two that are nearly identical. One is in slightly better shape (sn starting 206) but wondered if there is any discernible difference given the serial numbers if they are both clean and smooth.
Which one do I sell? Can anyone tell me if I have a decent lens on my hands?
I am using it on a Sony Nex 5n. Liking the lens.
[/img] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:16 am Post subject: Re: Nikon Nikkor 50mm 1.8....which one should I keep |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
cwood wrote: |
I ended up buying two by not being able to control myself
Now I have two that are nearly identical. One is in slightly better shape (sn starting 206) but wondered if there is any discernible difference given the serial numbers if they are both clean and smooth.
Which one do I sell? Can anyone tell me if I have a decent lens on my hands?
I am using it on a Sony Nex 5n. Liking the lens.
[/img] |
Is this something that you can't decide for yourself? The lenses appear to be the same model. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cwood
Joined: 02 Nov 2012 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
cwood wrote:
Yes of course I can. I will keep the one that is in slightly better shape. That said, I have read that SN can often help determine different ages and quality. Just wondered if there was any difference despite seeming to be the same model. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
cwood wrote: |
Yes of course I can. I will keep the one that is in slightly better shape. That said, I have read that SN can often help determine different ages and quality. Just wondered if there was any difference despite seeming to be the same model. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs. |
Well I would think you might want to write to the manufacturer, or test the lenses, if they are the same model. It's not likely that any one here would know better. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cwood
Joined: 02 Nov 2012 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
cwood wrote:
Ok, thought there might be a Nikon guru here that would know. Thanks for looking. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
cwood wrote: |
Ok, thought there might be a Nikon guru here that would know. Thanks for looking. |
They appear to be the same model, so any difference would be sample variation. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gmonkman1
Joined: 08 Jun 2011 Posts: 45 Location: se of Winnipeg Manitoba
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
gmonkman1 wrote:
here is what I did on the two that I have ;
shine a bright led light into the lens while wide open and
keep the one with less interior dust or haze.
close aperture all the way and flick the lever that controls
the opening and closing and keep the one that has the best
response on blade speed.
check rear elements , closest to the body mirror , and
choose the one with the least scratches.
crank and turn focus ring and choose the one with the
smoothest feel with no catches or hesitations.
and last but not least , wear that lens out by taking lots
and lots of pictures. It is a fine lens when working properly.
if I am going to blame the gear for my failures, then I must
credit the gear for my successes. I'll take the blame because
I don't want to share the success. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10960 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
gmonkman1 wrote: |
here is what I did on the two that I have ;
shine a bright led light into the lens while wide open and
keep the one with less interior dust or haze.
close aperture all the way and flick the lever that controls
the opening and closing and keep the one that has the best
response on blade speed.
check rear elements , closest to the body mirror , and
choose the one with the least scratches.
crank and turn focus ring and choose the one with the
smoothest feel with no catches or hesitations.
and last but not least , wear that lens out by taking lots
and lots of pictures. It is a fine lens when working properly.
if I am going to blame the gear for my failures, then I must
credit the gear for my successes. I'll take the blame because
I don't want to share the success. |
+1
According to Nikon Lens Serial Nos both lenses are the same model. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mo
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 Posts: 8979 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-07-30
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
mo wrote:
Oreste wrote: |
cwood wrote: |
Yes of course I can. I will keep the one that is in slightly better shape. That said, I have read that SN can often help determine different ages and quality. Just wondered if there was any difference despite seeming to be the same model. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs. |
Well I would think you might want to write to the manufacturer, or test the lenses, if they are the same model. It's not likely that any one here would know better. |
You made a tough call with that statement Oreste.It does not help the poster and does not reflect well on the members here. _________________ Moira, Moderator
Fuji XE-1,Pentax K-01,Panasonic G1,Panasonic G5,Pentax MX
Ricoh Singlex TLS,KR-5,KR-5Super,XR-10
Lenses
Auto Rikenon's 55/1.4, 1.8, 2.8... 50/1.7 Takumar 2/58 Preset Takumar 2.8/105 Auto Takumar 2.2/55, 3.5/35 Super Takumar 1.8/55...Macro Takumar F4/50... CZJ Biotar ALU M42 2/58 CZJ Tessar ALU M42 2.8/50
CZJ DDR Flektogon Zebra M42 2.8/35 CZJ Pancolar M42 2/50 CZJ Pancolar Exakta 2/50
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 1.8/55 ...Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2.8/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 200/3.5 Tamron SP500/8 Tamron SP350/5.6 Tamron SP90/2.5
Primoplan 1.9/58 Primagon 4.5/35 Telemegor 5.5/150 Angenieux 3.5/28 Angenieux 3,5/135 Y 2
Canon FL 58/1.2,Canon FL85/1.8,Canon FL 100/3.5,Canon SSC 2.8/100 ,Konica AR 100/2.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andrew G.
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 Posts: 159 Location: Pennsylvania, USA
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Andrew G. wrote:
cwood wrote: |
Yes of course I can. I will keep the one that is in slightly better shape. That said, I have read that SN can often help determine different ages and quality. Just wondered if there was any difference despite seeming to be the same model. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs. |
They are optically identical.
There are two different 50mm f/1.8 optical designs in manual-focus form. The first optic (which you possess) was introduced in 1978 and discontinued in 1985. The second optic was first introduced in 1979 as the cheaper 'Series E' alternative; this somewhat inferior (yet still decent) optic eventually replaced the earlier version (cost-saving measure) and then found its way into the AF derivatives (the latest, being the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D). _________________
DSLR: Nikon D40x
SLR: Nikon N2000, Nikomat FTn
Glass:
Nikon:28mm f/2.8 Ai, 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S, 2.8cm f/3.5 F, 28mm f/3.5 Ai-S, 50mm f/1.8 Ai, (2) 50mm f/1.8 Series E, 55mm f/3.5 Micro K, 55mm f/3.5 Micro Ai, 100mm f/2.8 Series E, 105mm f/2.5 F, 105mm f/2.5 Ai, 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S, 200mm f/4 Ai-S, Process-Nikkor 260mm f/10, TC-200
Third-Party: Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 preset, Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 TX, Tamron 28mm f/2.8 Adapt-A-Matic (v. 1), Vivitar 35mm f/1.9 (Canon FD), Vivitar 35mm f/2.8 T4, Tamron 135mm f/2.8 Adapt-A-Matic, Vivitar 135mm f/3.5 preset, Vivitar 200mm f/3.5, Soligor 200mm f/3.5 T4, Star-D 500mm f/8 Mirror, Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 AF, Tamron 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 Adaptall-2 (44A), Hanimex 35-70mm f/2.8-3.8, [x2] Tamron SP 35-80mm f/2.8-3.8 Adaptall-2 (01A), Tokina AT-X 50-250mm f/4-5.6, Soligor 55-135mm f/3.5 T4, Vivitar 70-150mm f/3.8 (one-touch), Vivitar 75-205mm f/3.8 (one-touch), Soligor C/D 78-210mm f/3.5, Soligor C/D 100-300mm f/5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
Andrew G. wrote: |
There are two different 50mm f/1.8 optical designs in manual-focus form. The first optic (which you possess) was introduced in 1978 and discontinued in 1985. The second optic was first introduced in 1979 as the cheaper 'Series E' alternative; this somewhat inferior (yet still decent) optic eventually replaced the earlier version (cost-saving measure) and then found its way into the AF derivatives (the latest, being the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D). |
A nice account of the differences between the two lenses is given by Marco Cavina who argues that, in some ways, the second lens might be slightly better than the first. _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cwood
Joined: 02 Nov 2012 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cwood wrote:
Wow! Now that's the kind of education I was looking for!
And is this lens considered a good performer amongst peers?
Thanks so much guys! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
cwood wrote: |
Wow! Now that's the kind of education I was looking for!
And is this lens considered a good performer amongst peers?
Thanks so much guys! |
Normal lenses are not that big of a challenge, really. You may note in the page that Nikon designed the lens to use as few types of glass as possible, to cut costs. Some manufacturers do not have to do that. Tee hee hee. This lens was meant to be as economical as possible, from what I can see.
The machine translation (below) is not that good, but that's what I get out of it.
The Nikkor 50mm f / 1.8 Matsui uses a classic Gauss asymmetric 6 lenses in 5 groups, it is a paramount goal of strategic (It was supplied as standard with optical camera bodies) should combine excellent performance with reasonable economy of scale, and one of the main specifications of the project stood right cost containment through substantial reduction in the variety of glass used: it was the only way to break down the expenditure, since this type of schemes requires in However the adoption of expensive glasses with high refractive ... To confirm the connection, two pairs of lenses mirror the schema (respectively L1 + L3 + L4 and L6) have been realized using a single type of glass: a Flint to lanthanum into case of the two outer lens and a less valuable Short-Flint high dispersion in the case of the internal ones; the diagram is completed by a lens in LAF2 (L5) and by an in LAF21 (L2), thus leading to four types of glass employed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
Oreste wrote: |
cwood wrote: |
Wow! Now that's the kind of education I was looking for!
And is this lens considered a good performer amongst peers?
Thanks so much guys! |
Normal lenses are not that big of a challenge, really. |
But you've still got to make them at a price performance ratio that satisfies your customers - and at one which makes you, as a manufacturer, a profit.
Quote: |
You may note in the page that Nikon designed the lens to use as few types of glass as possible, to cut costs. |
That's Cavina's interpretation. But they ended up using four types of glass when the maximum they might have used is six. Of course in the later, second, design for the 50/1.8 they reduced the number of glass types to two - the same number used in one of Rudolph's 1896 prescriptions. Nikon described this second version as an improvement on the first. This would appear to be supported by Cavina's MTF curves for the two designs.
Quote: |
Some manufacturers do not have to do that. |
Well all manufacturers have to consider costs - the cost of production and the price at which they can sell their products. The late Geoffrey Crawley reviewed the Leica Summarits shortly after their introduction. He recalled sitting in a meeting with Leica executives/designers. One of the designers was aghast at the idea of producing "a lens of a lower quality than one which we are able to design" - the quote is from memory - the review was published in Amateur Photographer. But Summarits are f/2.5 lenses. That means less glass, less (and easier) polishing, less metal.... - and a cheaper product.
Quote: |
The machine translation (below) is not that good, but that's what I get out of it.
The Nikkor 50mm f / 1.8 Matsui uses a classic Gauss asymmetric 6 lenses in 5 groups, it is a paramount goal of strategic (It was supplied as standard with optical camera bodies) should combine excellent performance with reasonable economy of scale, and one of the main specifications of the project stood right cost containment through substantial reduction in the variety of glass used: it was the only way to break down the expenditure, since this type of schemes requires in However the adoption of expensive glasses with high refractive ... To confirm the connection, two pairs of lenses mirror the schema (respectively L1 + L3 + L4 and L6) have been realized using a single type of glass: a Flint to lanthanum into case of the two outer lens and a less valuable Short-Flint high dispersion in the case of the internal ones; the diagram is completed by a lens in LAF2 (L5) and by an in LAF21 (L2), thus leading to four types of glass employed. |
Did you read any further ? _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
sichko wrote: |
Oreste wrote: |
cwood wrote: |
Wow! Now that's the kind of education I was looking for!
And is this lens considered a good performer amongst peers?
Thanks so much guys! |
Normal lenses are not that big of a challenge, really. |
But you've still got to make them at a price performance ratio that satisfies your customers - and at one which makes you, as a manufacturer, a profit.
Quote: |
You may note in the page that Nikon designed the lens to use as few types of glass as possible, to cut costs. |
That's Cavina's interpretation. But they ended up using four types of glass when the maximum they might have used is six. Of course in the later, second, design for the 50/1.8 they reduced the number of glass types to two - the same number used in one of Rudolph's 1896 prescriptions. Nikon described this second version as an improvement on the first. This would appear to be supported by Cavina's MTF curves for the two designs.
Quote: |
Some manufacturers do not have to do that. |
Well all manufacturers have to consider costs - the cost of production and the price at which they can sell their products. The late Geoffrey Crawley reviewed the Leica Summarits shortly after their introduction. He recalled sitting in a meeting with Leica executives/designers. One of the designers was aghast at the idea of producing "a lens of a lower quality than one which we are able to design" - the quote is from memory - the review was published in Amateur Photographer. But Summarits are f/2.5 lenses. That means less glass, less (and easier) polishing, less metal.... - and a cheaper product.
Quote: |
The machine translation (below) is not that good, but that's what I get out of it.
The Nikkor 50mm f / 1.8 Matsui uses a classic Gauss asymmetric 6 lenses in 5 groups, it is a paramount goal of strategic (It was supplied as standard with optical camera bodies) should combine excellent performance with reasonable economy of scale, and one of the main specifications of the project stood right cost containment through substantial reduction in the variety of glass used: it was the only way to break down the expenditure, since this type of schemes requires in However the adoption of expensive glasses with high refractive ... To confirm the connection, two pairs of lenses mirror the schema (respectively L1 + L3 + L4 and L6) have been realized using a single type of glass: a Flint to lanthanum into case of the two outer lens and a less valuable Short-Flint high dispersion in the case of the internal ones; the diagram is completed by a lens in LAF2 (L5) and by an in LAF21 (L2), thus leading to four types of glass employed. |
Did you read any further ? |
Nikon isn't stupid; those lenses are good, but they don't "knock themselves out" making them; Leica has more 'room' for quality in their price structure, but even they have to moderate costs as much as possible: normal lenses are almost always the cheapest in any line. It is interesting then that they came out with the 50mm APO-ASPH Summicron-M this year, at about $7000. For a normal lens, that is a lot! The point I am making is that it's not worth troubling oneself about any potential differences between these lenses. They are the same cost-limited design. Very well executed for the price, but nothing to get excited about. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cwood
Joined: 02 Nov 2012 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
cwood wrote:
I shot these with the one I am keeping
I quite like the lens. This is low light with a bounced kit flash on Sony Nex 5n
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mo
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 Posts: 8979 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-07-30
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
mo wrote:
They are beautiful...lovely caramel colored Puppy.The lens looks like a keeper to me. _________________ Moira, Moderator
Fuji XE-1,Pentax K-01,Panasonic G1,Panasonic G5,Pentax MX
Ricoh Singlex TLS,KR-5,KR-5Super,XR-10
Lenses
Auto Rikenon's 55/1.4, 1.8, 2.8... 50/1.7 Takumar 2/58 Preset Takumar 2.8/105 Auto Takumar 2.2/55, 3.5/35 Super Takumar 1.8/55...Macro Takumar F4/50... CZJ Biotar ALU M42 2/58 CZJ Tessar ALU M42 2.8/50
CZJ DDR Flektogon Zebra M42 2.8/35 CZJ Pancolar M42 2/50 CZJ Pancolar Exakta 2/50
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 1.8/55 ...Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2.8/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 200/3.5 Tamron SP500/8 Tamron SP350/5.6 Tamron SP90/2.5
Primoplan 1.9/58 Primagon 4.5/35 Telemegor 5.5/150 Angenieux 3.5/28 Angenieux 3,5/135 Y 2
Canon FL 58/1.2,Canon FL85/1.8,Canon FL 100/3.5,Canon SSC 2.8/100 ,Konica AR 100/2.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Minolfan
Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3438 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Minolfan wrote:
Mo wrote: |
They are beautiful...lovely caramel colored Puppy.The lens looks like a keeper to me. |
At least the cute puppy is a keeper!
Nice pictures. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cwood
Joined: 02 Nov 2012 Posts: 11
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cwood wrote:
That's Murray. He is an apricot mini poodle of about 3 years. He's pretty funny. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|