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

Nikon Nikkor 50mm 1.8....which one should I keep
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:08 am    Post subject: Nikon Nikkor 50mm 1.8....which one should I keep Reply with quote
I ended up buying two by not being able to control myself Smile

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]


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:16 am    Post subject: Re: Nikon Nikkor 50mm 1.8....which one should I keep Reply with quote
cwood wrote:
I ended up buying two by not being able to control myself Smile

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.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ok, thought there might be a Nikon guru here that would know. Thanks for looking.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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).


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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!


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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:
Tee hee hee.

Rolling Eyes

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 ?


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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:
Tee hee hee.

Rolling Eyes

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.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I shot these with the one I am keeping Smile

I quite like the lens. This is low light with a bounced kit flash on Sony Nex 5n






PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
They are beautiful...lovely caramel colored Puppy.The lens looks like a keeper to me.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's Murray. He is an apricot mini poodle of about 3 years. He's pretty funny.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1