Jump to content

Nikon lenses for Bronica EC


jim_meisenbach2

Recommended Posts

I have had a Bronica EC for many years. It is equipped with the PC 75mm Nikkor, which performs ok. Only this year I learned that there was a different Nikkor 75 with the prefix HC. Searched the internet but was not able to turn up anything on this lens, other than it is "highly desireable" on ebay. Can anyone fill me in on the differences between these lenses, and is the HC worth the pursuit?

Thankyou for any info.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The HC version was an update with 6 elements in 4 groups (as opposed to the original PC with 5 elements and 4 groups).

 

There was also a Zenzanon 80mm f/2.8 and an f/2.4, both highly desirable.

 

Nothing wrong with the original PC though.

"Manfred, there is a design problem with that camera...every time you drop it that pin breaks"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the 75mm and 80mm standard lenses for the S2/EC Bronicas were very good, but if you're the type of photographer who notices fine distinctions there are some differences in how they perform.

 

The 75mm Nikkor-P and -PC are standard issue Nikkor lenses of the period. Perfectly good and perfectly boring: nothing particularly distinguishes them.

 

The 75mm Nikkor-HC was more interesting: allegedly, this is the same lens formula Nikon supplied for the legendary Plaubel Makina 6x7 folding camera. It is highly coveted in Japan for its unique Zeiss-like rendering (that elusive "3D-pop" some photographers pursue). The HC is not very common outside Japan: if you do find it, expect it to be either very inexpensive from a clueless seller or (more likely) very expensive from a seller who knows what it is.

 

Nikon eventually became disenchanted by its partnership with Bronica and ceased supplying lenses for the system. This put Bronica in a bind, and they quickly turned to other brands to supply stopgap lenses while they prepared their own. In a surprise move, they sourced the 80mm f/2.8 Zenzanon from Carl Zeiss Jena. Given the fetish many photographers have for all things Zeiss, this lens is in high demand by S2/EC enthusiasts and usually commands a premium price. If given the choice, I would probably opt for the Nikkor HC over the Zeiss Zenzanon, but either would be superb.

 

The final standard lens Bronica offered for the S2/EC before switching to the leaf-shutter ETR and SQ system was their own 80mm f/2.4 Zenzanon. This is a lovely piece of glass, prized for its speed and bokeh performance at f/2.4. Once very common, availability seems to have dried up and one rarely sees them for sale anymore. Worth seeking out if you think you would exploit the f/2.4 advantages.

 

All that said, bear in mind that 9 out of 10 photographers probably could not identify photos made by any of these alternatives vs the far more common 75mm Nikkor-P. The experience of different lens designs having different imaging characteristics is legit, but not every photographer or every subject can reveal those differences to any significant degree. Before spending any serious money to replace your (really very nice) Nikkor-PC, consider buying an additional wide-angle or tele lens instead: they would offer more immediate, more obvious benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, consider buying an additional wide-angle or tele lens instead: they would offer more immediate, more obvious benefits.

 

To add to your excellent post, I would just say that the only lens in the entire range I would avoid is the 13,5cm Nikkor. I had two examples and found both to be horribly soft, and from what I've seen/read that's not an uncommon complaint.

 

I had a handful of other Nikkor and Zenzanon lenses from 50mm out to I think 200 or 250mm, and found them all to be excellent aside from the 13,5cm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Bronica users do seem to agree the 13.5cm or 135mm Nikkor was a bit of a dog in an otherwise nice lineup of lenses.

 

I've always found it kind of amusing and "pot-meet-kettle" that Nikon was freaking out during their entire Bronica partnership (afraid the baffling, badly-engineered S-S2-S2A focus screen assembly would taint the reputation of Nikkor lenses). Meanwhile, they had the gall to shaft Bronica with a hastily thrown together 13.5cm tele lens made out of a recycled Nikon 35mm-format rangefinder lens! Given 135mm to 150mm was the de facto 6x6 portrait lens, nearly every Bronica S pro bought one and experienced its (ahem) "dreamy" quality. The drift-prone Bronica focus screen was and remains a potential sharpness killer, but that cheap-jack actually-bad 13.5cm lens did more to tarnish Nikon's rep than the body focus screen issue ever did. Past being prologue, to this day Nikon STILL cops this sort of attitude re their own corporate screwups: nothing is ever their fault. Great company, with great engineers and mostly great products, but severely tone-deaf management.

 

BTW after Nikon bailed, Bronica finally replaced the infamous 135mm Nikkor with their own 150mm f/3.5 Zenzanon, which was excellent. There were two versions: standard and "compact". I once owned both and felt they were equally good overall, but would give a slight edge to the compact "Zenzanon MC" multicoated update. The shorter barrel made for perfect handling on the brick-like S2A and EC/TL, and its imaging character was similar to the 80mm f/2.8 "Zeiss Zenzanon".

Edited by orsetto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Bronica users do seem to agree the 13.5cm or 135mm Nikkor was a bit of a dog in an otherwise nice lineup of lenses.

I've read many similar statements on the 13.5mm Nikkor-Q for Bronica, but I've never seen a test - and the same lens was praised on 135 film (both the f/4 and 1st f/3.5 versions). I've always wondered if there was simple source where someone did not like it, and that's been repeated (wouldn't be the 1st time).

 

I have among my handful of early Bronica lenses this exact lens, with a sticky iris (which seems to be a common issue). I shot a test portrait with it, along with the other lenses (all wide open) and it was fine. It was about the same as the Zenzanon 150mm f/3,5 (long version), except with higher contrast, and appeared sharper than the 200mm Nikkor-P. Not a technical test (not meant to be, just a verification that the lenses were working correctly), and there's probably some sample variation, as one has no idea what these old lenses have been through.

 

Back to the original post, I would only chase the "desirable normals" if the focal length, or "look" makes a difference to you, or you have a strong desire to own and use the rarer optics (nothing wrong with that). Because the common normal (Nikkor-P) is pretty darn good. I like using the Zenzanon 100mm f/2.8 as the "normal" mostly for the slightly longer focal length.

"Manfred, there is a design problem with that camera...every time you drop it that pin breaks"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With any lens that has developed a poor (or fantastic) reputation comes up, we always need to factor sample variation into the discussion. Even Zeiss and Leitz occasionally drop staggeringly sloppy batches of lenses onto the market.

 

The most significant issue with the Nikkor 13.5cm for Bronica is it was not optimized to cover the 6x6 frame evenly. It was designed to cover 24mm x 36mm, and just coincidentally happens to have an image circle large enough to cover 6x6. So Nikon took the quick and cheap way out, and foisted this not-optimal design on Bronica. It does cover the 6x6 frame, and for most portrait use people only care about the center anyway, so Bronica/Nikon kinda-sorta got away with it. But a vocal minority of Bronica photographers were not at all pleased, probably the ones who needed a more general-purpose short tele along the lines of the Hasselblad 150mm Sonnar. Compounding this, normal production variation means a percentage of 13.5cm lenses were inarguably bad (if "good" ones barely made spec for 6x6, lesser batches would be fairly poor). Add in the death blow of x-number of early Bronicas suffering focus screen drift, and the rep of the 13.5cm/135mm Nikkor was toast. My own 135mm was OK at best: not really bad, but not really good either.

 

In all probability, at least half of them out there were/are pretty decent lenses overall, later ones marked 135mm perhaps more so, but once a bad rep is established (justified or no) it is hard to refute and becomes part of brand lore. Perfect example is the Zeiss 50mm Distagon wide angle C lens for Hasselblad (the old one with flared barrel): this is regularly cited as one of the few (if not only) "dogs" in the Hasselblad lens system. In my personal experience with several copies of this lens over the many years it was made, it is a very fine optic: I think it renders beautifully, is plenty sharp, and I've never noticed any particular problem with "horrific field curvature" or "glaringly bad resolution between center and edges". Maybe I was lucky each time I bought one, maybe my pics don't lend themselves to showing the flaws, or maybe the lens design is actually pretty good but enough bad ones got made that its rep is "adequate" at best. I eventually succumbed to the hype and acquired its much-admired successor, the CF floating element version. Result? I've never made a photo I liked with the "better" lens, can never seem to focus it properly, so it sits in a cabinet unused while my pariah ancient Distagons remain as good as always. Ditto my old 35mm f/2 Nikkor-O lenses: always disparaged as inadequate compared to the f/1.4, they remain my favorite lenses of all time.

 

Inherent flaws or advantages may or may not matter to the individual photographer: reputation can help guide us, but the only certainty is to shoot with a specific sample of the lens. If you like it, keep it, if not, move on to something else.

Edited by orsetto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never used a Bronica, but I do have two 13.5 cm f/3.5 Nikkors in Contax mount that perform quite well on 35 mm film. One is the older chrome over brass mount that makes a Zeiss Opton 135 f/4 feel positively lightweight by comparison. I'm not surprised that this lens design would come up short on 6x6 film, especially at the corners.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All, thanks for insights. I really have no problem with my normal lens, although my Planar on my 2.8f may be just a bit sharper. I have owned , in the past, (until they were stolen) a 2,8 50 that was tack-sharp, and a 200 that was just so-so. The 2.8 50 seemed a bit sharper than the 3.5 50 I bought to replace it. I am now down to one lens and a Vivitar doubler that I use occasionally for close-up stuff. I do really like the 18 inch minimum focusing distance with the 75. Again, thanks for the info.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Planar f/2.8 on the Rolleiflex is a tough act to follow, it is widely considered the single most perfected implementation of the "fast" 80mm Planar (edging out even the Hasselblad version). But the Bronica 75mm Nikkors were very, very good in their own right.

 

The 50mm f/2.8 Nikkor is much rarer but distinctly better than the f/3.5, tho for "display and play" purposes the 50mm f/3.5 mounted on an S2 or EC body looks incredibly retro-cool. The huge front element is a flare magnet, while the more modern and fast f/2.8 is more practical. I never really liked the most common Nikkor portrait or tele lenses: my 135mm was mediocre, the 200mm not much better and had an inconveniently long minimum distance. My lens kit was Nikkor 50mm f/3.5, Nikkor75mm f/2.8 and Zenzanon MC 150mm f/3.5. In recent years I found myself using it much less after acquiring Mamiya TLR and Hasselblad kits, so I sold off my black S2A as a complete outfit not long ago. Hated to part with it, esp since I'd had the focus screen updated, but it deserved to go to someone who'd use it more:

 

3046371_BronicaS2ABlk50NikkorHood2.jpg.f633952959e49c67080cd2b40858f8e8.jpg

Edited by orsetto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

AFAIK, the erratic focus accuracy issue of the mechanical Bronicas (S, C, S2, S2A) did not carry over to the final electronic EC and EC/TL. Nikon was already heading for the exit in a huff by the time the EC debuted, so Bronica finally admitted the design was deeply flawed and upgraded it (unfortunately too late to satisfy Nikon). The EC and EC/TL have a simpler, user-changeable focus screen system similar to the later Bronica ETR, SQ, and GS leaf-shutter systems. The risks with the EC and EC/TL involve their electronics, which virtually no repair tech will touch anymore when they fail. Adventurous EC fans have posted instructions on how to DIY repair the most common circuit faults, but thats beyond the comfort zone of most photographers. The EC and EC/TL can also develop opto-mechanical problems with their peculiar two-piece split mirrors: this is no longer repairable at all.

 

The issue with the S-C-S2-S2A Bronicas is caused by their absurd, needlessly complicated focus screen mounting system (an inconsistent and unreliable collection of metal leaf springs, foam strips, shims, etc). This convoluted "floating" mount was barely accurate when it left the factory, and began to drift as soon as the cameras were bounced around in heavy pro use and the foams began to compress/decay. This leads to a significant infinity focus offset: the screen no longer syncs with the film plane. Back in the 1970s, when these cameras were used mostly for studio or wedding work at medium distance, the discrepancy was often masked by other elements or went unnoticed. But for landscape or serious tele work, the system earned a bad rep.

 

Repair is possible, but very difficult: many second-hand Bronica S2 bodies have stripped or missing screen retaining screws that were damaged by failed DIY repair attempts. The screen assembly is not intuitive, re-aligning it with new parts is tedious, and finding a suitable replacement screen that doesn't throw focus out of range is tricky. I eventually managed to re-tune my S2A and C bodies using durable moleskin strips to replace the undependable foam bits, installing a brighter SQ grid screen in the S2A and a Soviet Arsenal split image + microprism in my C. It was a LOT of work, I would never do it again today given the price/performance advantages no longer apply (vs the weight, noise, ergonomic and repair issues of the S2 or EC, almost any other 6x6 system would be a better "user" choice in 2019).

Edited by orsetto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just now noticed how my replies could be confusing: I mentioned the C and EC models in the same paragraph. To clarify: Bronica made both model C and model EC focal plane shutter bodies. At first glance one might think they were similar, but they aren't at all. The older C was a "budget" version of the original mechanical-shutter S-S2-S2A design, with a fixed (non-interchangeable) film back. The much later EC and EC/TL was a ground-up total re-design, with electronically controlled shutter, and new viewfinders + film backs that are not compatible with the earlier mechanical-shutter S-C-S2-S2A bodies (the only thing they share is the Bronica/Nikkor lens mount).

 

The older C has the poorly-engineered fixed focus screen implementation of the S series, but the newer EC and EC/TL do not: they have a more modern, user-changeable screen system. The EC and EC/TL screen is removed by simply pressing a release button, and lifting the screen out of its frame (there are no flimsy foams, leaf springs or shims that can drift). Perversely, the EC and EC/TL can still lose focus alignment from another cause: their peculiar split-action mirror (half of which flips down while the other half flips up during exposure). Over time, the two halves stop coming to rest in perfect alignment, which can lead to some odd focus difficulties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the focus screen issue with one of my S2s. It was quickly taken care of by Jimmy Koh. Luckily my camera didn't have the stripped screw issue. This whole thread has been very interesting and educating. Thanks guys for all the history and detail.

 

I couldn't resist commenting on the line related to Nikon management never admitting they were wrong. Just a few short years ago I retired after a 26 year stint with Canon USA as their Director of End Customer and Dealer service. I was on the copier/printer side of the business but you can't exist in a company like that without becoming highly aware of what the other side (Camera) was doing. It was quite comical to see how Canon management handled the evolution of SLRs being used for video. The low light video capability, light weight, and compact design of an SLR, and relatively inexpensive lenses were superior to the contemporary dedicated cinema video set ups being used at the time. Canon was oblivious to how many video artists had transitioned to 5D SLRs, the proliferation of web forums dedicated to video use of 5Ds, and the impact on marketshare of manufacturers selling "Hollywood hardware" in a stratospheric layer of the market. Canon's was "in the dark" about how their cameras were actually being used. It was comical to watch the worldwide management team reacting over a year and a half later, rallying around this usage of their products, thumping themselves on the back over their "vision" and ultimately the release of their Cinema line of products that followed. Can't make this stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perversely, the EC and EC/TL can still lose focus alignment from another cause: their peculiar split-action mirror (half of which flips down while the other half flips up during exposure). Over time, the two halves stop coming to rest in perfect alignment, which can lead to some odd focus difficulties.

 

I've never been brave enough to dig into any of the Bronica focal plane bodies, and no longer own any Bronica equipment.

 

With that said, the split mirror on the EC/EC-TL always struck me as a SOMWHAT better arrangement than the Rube-Goldberg down-flipping mirror of the S/S2/S2a/C. The thought of having something go wrong with that would send a shiver down my spine every time I looked at mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some legacy camera systems still remain vital and useful 60 years after they were introduced (Nikon F, Hasselblad, Mamiya TLR & RB, Rolleiflex, Leica M3), while others that were clever in their own time have not aged well at all, and are no longer viable as user systems today (for a variety of reasons).

 

All of the "classic" Bronica 6x6 SLRs with focal plane shutter were incredibly complicated marvels. But neither the mechanical nor electronic versions hold a significant advantage in reliability or repairability today: both are ticking time bombs of disaster just waiting to happen. These were ingenious cameras, intended to address a gap in the 1960s market not fulfilled by Hasselblad or Kowa (affordable lenses, faster shutter speed, consistency of exposure with all lenses). As current professional cameras, service was available directly from Bronica if necessary, so their occasional electro-mechanical glitches weren't especially troublesome. Today, Bronica is long gone, and the few techs fully trained in their one-off, byzantine internals are all retired. Bronica itself killed their focal plane system in the mid-1970s in favor of less complex, more competitive (and popular) Hasselblad knockoffs with electronic leaf-shutter lenses.

 

So the focal-plane Bronicas haven't been in serious use for some forty years: this lack of popularity coupled with incredibly complex design means most service techs won't touch them. Like the Zeiss Contarex SLRs, these old Bronicas eat up so much labor time that a service easily costs far more than the camera is worth (and spare parts are unobtanium). In more practical terms, the Nikkor and Bronica lenses, while good value in their day, are not so strikingly good that the system is worth spending significant money on in 2018. Photographers will spend a fortune repairing Hasselblad, Rolleiflex and Leica because they feel the glass is worth it: the optics made for the Bronica focal-plane system really don't justify such effort or expense.

 

The Bronica S and EC marketing niche was not "stunning" lens quality but overall price/performance. The lack of leaf shutters in each lens meant the whole system was half the price of Hasselblad, the 800-lb gorilla of medium format from 1959 thru 1979. Once Bronica realized there was more money and future competing directly with Hasselblad and Mamiya in the leaf-shutter market, the price advantage of their focal-plane system evaporated. The ETR and SQ were the giant killers Bronica had needed all along: so popular that there's no end of cheap used bodies and lenses to choose from today (with reliable accurate electronic leaf shutters). You can now pick up an entire Bronica SQ outfit (body, lens, back and prism) for less than the cost of servicing a balky S2 or EC. Something breaks? Discard it and just buy another, as you can with the various Mamiya systems. No need to go into hock to a service guru.

 

None of which takes away from the historical significance or achievements of the Bronica focal-plane system. It was brilliant in its day: the fast 1/1000th shutter, bottom-flipping mirror with blackout roller blind, and instant-return full-aperture viewing of the S/C/S2A was something Hasselblad, Mamiya and Kowa could not counter for at least a decade. Even today, the final EC/TL remains a pioneer of modern ingenuity and usability, with the most versatile, fluidly-intergrated auto-exposure system ever put in a medium-format camera (no coupling required: it used silicon blue cells to instantly measure exposure as any lens stopped down). Sadly, the split-mirror mechanics and primitive electronics of the EC/TL have not proved durable, but the clever AE system details spurred later improvements from Nikon, Minolta, Olympus and Rolleiflex).

Edited by orsetto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...