fjablo wrote: SiMuMe wrote: Nikon 1001 Nights latest article covers the NIKKOR-H 85mm f/1.8 which I have and which Colin just compared to modern lenses a page back.
More relevant to this community is a bonus technical section at the end of the article that mentions consideration for MFNG in the thickness of the low pass filter during design of Nikon Z cameras.
I usually like those articles a lot, but it's bit of a shame that this one doesn't mention the Zeiss Biotar 75mm f1.5 at all.
The optical design of this Nikkor is an almost 1:1 copy of the Biotar. They do mention that it's a double-gauss but I think it would be fair to mention the original lens that introduced this formula for a short telephoto.
And sure, they made some slight tweaks to change the focal length and aperture a bit (85/1.8 is not too different from 75/1.5 in terms of physical aperture size) and used special glass to tame some of the characteristics. But the design is so heavily based on the Biotar even calling it an "inspiration" would be an understatement.
The Biotar was designed in 1927 and available for 35mm since 1938/1939.
Most Soviet and early Japanese lenses were actually just copies or minor evolutions of Zeiss designs, after WW II.. Probably goes against Japanese culture to admit that, but I would appreciate if they would.
I use to collect Exakta (Exa) cameras and lens. Out of all the lenses - the 50mm f2 17 aperture blade Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar was my favorite. Edge and corners weren't great, but the center was sharp, and the oof and bokeh were amazing.
Edit
That busy bokeh from your link is exactly the same as the 24mm f2.0 ais. Problem is - the Nikkor copy I had wasn't sharp wide open in any part of the frame.
Dec 31, 2025 at 03:20 PM
Previous versions of James Markus's message #16958404 « Manual Focus Nikon Glass »
