genji
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: C-sonnar! | |
Warning: long post. Short version: Although I have an implacable hatred of the Jupiter 3+ 50/1.5, clickless aperture rings, and the Contax/Nikon/Pentax focusing direction, I have a high regard and a warm affection for the Sonnar-type lenses that Nikon made in LTM mount.
uhoh7 wrote:
OK points taken  Love the Mao reference, but I have no plans to have you interned for dissent now you have expressed an outlying view, as happened back then 
Very impressed that you caught the subtext of the Mao reference. I originally had a brief explanation of the consequences for dissidents who fell for Mao\'s sly manoeuvre and a statement about how I was now waiting for the 3am knock on the door by the FSU Lens Police. But I decided this was unnecessarily provocative (and hyperbolic, even by my standards).
Two ZM lenses here; 35/2 and 18/4, both are fine, no wobble, I love them. But some who did have to deal with that screamed: ZM is crap don\'t buy them etc, almost as poetically as you
Touché!
No castigation intended, and for sure you need to call it as you see it regardless. You have those little nikkors 5cm, etc, so you know the era. Are they LTM or Nikon/Contax? Just curious.
LTM. The Contax focusing direction is an automatic disqualifier. My first film SLR was a Nikkormat FTn, which was followed by Nikon F and F2 bodies. But then I bought a Leica M2 and quickly became annoyed by the opposite focusing directions of the Leica and Nikon lenses. I solved that problem by replacing the Nikon gear with a Canon F1 system.
After a long hiatus from doing \"serious\" photography, I bought a Nikon D300 and then a D700 because I preferred the build quality of the Nikon bodies to that of Canon. But, believe it or not, the only modern Nikon lens I really loved was the AF Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D. Once I stumbled upon FredMiranda.com and discovered the Alt religion, I converted without hesitation. At that time Nikon\'s register distance made it a poor choice for using anything other than Nikon legacy lenses. Why stay with Nikon when all those Canon FD(n), Konica AR, Leica R, Minolta MD, and Olympus OM lenses were beckoning? All of which focus in the same direction. As JohnJ wrote a few weeks ago in another thread: \"Damn Nikon, a pox on them and their focusing direction.\"
Perhaps what you see is what DDD and others saw with the superior Nikkor builds in 1950, which caused them to leave Zeiss.
According to Tale 36 in the One Thousand and One Nights of Nikkor, it was the sharpness and contrast of the 8.5cm f/2 Nikkor which had so impressed Duncan that he arranged to visit the Nippon Kogaku factory. But once there he purchased the 5cm f/1.5 and 13.5cm f/3.5 lenses. I recall reading somewhere else that he thought the Nikkor lenses would stand up better to the rigours of combat photography.
My first Japanese 50mm lens in LTM mount was the Canon 50/1.4, an amazingly good lens given how little it costs. But then came the Fujinon L 50/2, which I bought after seeing some images posted on RFF. I was stunned by its performance, handling, and build quality. So that was really the gateway drug that led to my buying the other LTM 50\'s I mentioned earlier. Once I\'d learned from Dante Stella and other sources about the lenses that Nikon had made in LTM mount I picked up a Nikkor H.C. 50/2, primarily because of its gentler bokeh. And, because I liked it so much, another as a spare. It\'s such a sweet lens and the LTM version, unlike the Contax, focuses down to 18 inches.
I was baffled as to how this could be focused accurately on a Leica but Tale 34 explains that \"Though not interlocked with the rangefinder, it is possible to measure short distance of approx. 50cm with a measure or to move the entire camera in regards to parallax handling.\"
So besides the aperture ring, what were the worst aspects?
Apart from the clickless aperture, I don\'t think its price is justified by the build quality. But, to be honest, on reflection I accept that I\'m the idiot who has only himself to blame. Why did I expect anything different from Lomography, who represent the gold -- or at least the chrome-plated solid brass -- standard in purveying style at the expense of substance?
I guess what I\'m really wondering to myself is are you upset with what are basically design elements of the original? Back in the day, there were obviously some Nikkor designers in 1948 who felt the same way as you about the aperture.
I\'m upset with the clickless aperture which, because I don\'t shoot video, is a bug for me, not a feature. Most of all though, I\'m grateful that those Nikkor designers manufactured these marvellous lenses in LTM as well as Contax mounts. Currently, I can\'t decide whether to start looking for a copy the 8.5cm f/2 or the 10.5cm f/2.5. I already have the Canon 100/2 but the Nikkor 8.5cm lens seems hard to find and the 10.5cm lens has that very appealing tripod foot.
The russians simply took the factory, and made the lens as best they could as a nearly exact copy. Not so the guys at Nikkor.
As Vladimir Horowitz is reputed to have said when he gave two students in a piano competition 10 out of 10 and the rest zero: \"Some people can play the piano and other people can\'t.\"
Note aperture ring on CZJ vs Nikkor. The Nikkor is very precise with clicks. The CZJ is clickless and very easy to move with little tabs. Build on the CZJ is not as good. Which do I prefer using? The CZJ by far because the ring moves so easy. You can change it without losing focus. This is impossible on the Nikkor or the Sonnetar. Common all three is that the \"throw\" of the aperture ring varies incredibly. Tiny space between F/8 and F/16, huge space between WO and f/2.
Changing the aperture without losing focus isn\'t an issue with the TAP but the ease with which one can change a clickless aperture accidentally is. Out of my LTM 50\'s, only the Nikkor H.C. 50/2 and the Hexanon 50/1.9 have the variable throw aperture rings. All the rest have evenly spaced aperture values.
The nikkor became the fastest lens in the world for 135 film for a brief time. Dante Stella has a nice write up:
HERE
As I mentioned it was Dante Stella\'s article, which provides useful capsule reviews of the 50-135 LTM Nikkors, that convinced me to try the H.C. 5cm f/2.
What he fails to get across is this lens can, at times, make the wildest bokeh WO I have ever seen--no swirl though.
Frequent online references to the wild bokeh of the 50/1.4 pushed me towards the 50/2. But... the bokeh in the final picture in your post (sharp flowers in the lower right, OOF trees in the upper left and center), which you describe as \"very ugly\" to your eye, doesn\'t offend me at all. Time to start looking for an S.C. 5cm f/1.4, I guess.
Sharpness sort of across the frame I have only seen happen when the focus is close, as Dante notes.
That\'s been my experience with the (Sonnar-type) Nikkor H.C. 5cm f/2 also:
|
