Nikon S2 and the Nikkor-Q 135mm f/3,5 & Jupiter 12 35mm f/2,8

Discussion in 'Classic Manual Cameras' started by jdm_von_weinberg, Jun 26, 2013.

  1. Nikkor-Q 13,5cm f/3,5

    Kadlubek Nr. NIK0660


    730+g (1 lb. 10 oz.)

    In the middle 1950s, the "typical" telephoto lens for most cameras was a 135mm lens, although for portrait and "street" work a somewhat shorter lens in the 75mm to 105mm focal length was often used.

    I saw one of these on eBay and when I had won the Nikon S2 with the 5cm f/1,4 lens, I made an offer on this 135mm with a hood, case, and caps.
    The camera, lenses, and everything all came on the same day. Talk about Christmas in June!


    Here is the lens

    00bmE4-541022984.jpg
     
  2. It is heavy and the range of the apertures is f/3,5 to f/16. Its design is familiar.

    00bmE7-541023084.jpg
     
  3. It's a handsome, all chrome version, and it is as smooth in operation as the Nikon S2 body. It just feels good.

    00bmE8-541023184.jpg
     
  4. And here is everything all together with a US-made Leica variable finder.

    00bmE9-541023284.jpg
     
  5. Not much in the way of pictures for this one - another of my telephoto test models - the street downhill from my house.

    The top image is the lens at f/3,5- wide open, and the bottom shot is a f/16, its minimum.
    00bmEB-541023384.jpg
     
  6. I'm very pleased with it, and as soon as I get the pinholes in the shutter fixed one way or another, I'll be out with some Ektar film to show things off a little more.
    AND


    Nikon S2 with a Contax-mount/register wide-angle lens

    Jupiter 12 35mm f/2,8

    Kadlubek Nr. RUS0770


    The register on the Nikon version of the Contax mount is just different enough to make it difficult, reportedly, to mount normal and telephoto lenses made by Zeiss and others for the Contax cameras, both prewar and postwar. However, it is also said that the depth of field inherent in the wider angle lenses allows the use of these standard Contax-mount lenses without a problem.

    I am by nature and nurture a skeptic, so I had to see for myself.

    So when I went out for a preliminary test roll on the S2, I dragged along my Kiev-mount (=Contax RF mount) Jupiter-12 35mm f/3,5 lens.

    Here is a view of the lens, illustrating, by the way, why ordinary wide-angles would not clear any mirror on a single lens reflex. The design first:

    A resemblance to the Biogon 3.5cm f/2.8?
    Retrofocus was a necessity for the mirror reflexes, and what's wrong with that?

    00bmEI-541023484.jpg
     
  7. Here is a view taken with the Jupiter-12 mounted on the Nikon S2:

    00bmEJ-541023584.jpg
     
  8. And here is the same position, taken with the Nikon/Contax mount Nikkor-S 5cm f/3,5 lens.
    00bmEL-541023684.jpg
     
  9. Looks to me like it works just fine. With the RF problem I mentioned in the earlier post ( http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00bm6p ), I just cranked both lenses over to infinity on the mount. Like the earlier post, this was shot on Fuji 400.

    So as Lili von Shtupp says:
    "Oh, it's twue. It's twue. It's twue, it's twue!"
    I'll be back soon to talk about a subject dear to the heart of close-up work with rangefinders -- the Nooky (no adolescent snickers, please).
     
  10. Fine results, JDM. The early wide angles for SLR's were especially bulky compared to rangefinder wide angles. IIRC, many designs used a sort of inverted telephoto design. Analogous to look through a telescope backwards. Even today a retrofocus 21 mm ultrawide would dwarf a similar lens made for a rangefinder. Thanks for an informative post.
     
  11. Thanks for another look at the S2. The 135mm Nikkor Q did some sterling service for Nikon and I have a version for my Bronica EC.
    The wide angle seems a fine performer too, but I just don't see a water tower anywhere :)
     
  12. but I just don't see a water tower anywhere​
    Aw, gawrsh - as Goofy says,
    here is the Polyspheroid Water Tower, just for you, Tony. :)
    I mean, St. Louis has the arch, Paris, the Eiffel.
    00bmFb-541024484.jpg
     
  13. Hmm, yes, that Nikkor-Q 13.5cm f/3.5's optical design does indeed look familiar... in fact it looks just like the formula of the later F-mount Nikkor-Q 13.5cm f/3.5 (which I own, though I usually prefer the slightly later Nikkor-Q 135mm f/2.8). Interesting how Nikon re-used a number of lens designs for the SLR mount. Sensible, of course; why design a whole new lens if the old one has the glass far enough out to clear an SLR's mirror box? And even the Nikon F's body was basically a modified Nikon S2 or SP, with the rangefinder removed and a mirror box and viewfinder mount added.
     
  14. From back in the day when hoods were HOODS!
    Now everybody walks around with those weird little plastic tulips for stinky slow kit zooms.
     
  15. I ended up thickening the shim by ~0.07mm on a KMZ J-12 and filing down the chrome collar around the mount to go on the Nikon S2. Some J-12's will mar the faceplate of a Nikon when mounting, it's the removable chrome (or black) ring that fits around the mount. Comes off with a couple of screws.

    The 13.5cm F3.5 optical formula remained virtually unchanged through the end of production of 135/3.5 Ais series. It follows the Sonnar layout, the front section has a focal length about 2.5x the overall FL, the rear section has a focal length about the same as the overall focal length.
     
  16. Thanks JDM, now I'm complete.
     
  17. from Photographic Optics, 13th ed. 1966 by Arthur Cox
    00bmTE-541042184.jpg
     

Share This Page

1111