nikkor performance ???

[david_clark4]

Can some one tell me about the performance of the LTM Nikkor 5cm f2

ridgid lens? Thanks

[john_woo3]

50/2 Nikkor: earlier chrome versions, the later chrome with black f/stop ring, and the early collapsible version. Again, one of the best lenses for LTM.

 

Quoted from CameraQuest, Stephen Gandy

[john_woo3]

I have used the 50mm f1.4 with my Nikon SP. High contrast but not that color rich as compared to 50mm Summilux or Summicron. But it is VERY sharp.

[tom s.]

Take a look at <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/nikoleic.html#502">Dante

Stella's Write-up on the 50/2</a>. I have the 50/1.4 and think it is an amazing lens,

even by today's standards.

[tom s.]

<div></div>

[johnmarkpainter]

Just to add...

 

I have a chrome 85 f2 and it is great (a bit heavy, but great)

 

jmp

[victorm.]

I've had a 50/2 Nikkor since 1969. It's still one of my favorite lenses. It's sharp, not too contrasty (but mine has lots of scratches from previous users). There's less flare than you'd expect from an older lens. I rarely use a shade with mine. Size and weight are better matched to M's (and later Canons) than screw mounts. The focus throw is short, so it focusses fast. It has two filter threads: 40.5mm outer and 34mm inner. Leica caps, A42, fit and so do similar Canon items.

[al_kaplan1]

I always regretted selling my LTM 50/1.4 and 85/2 Nikkors back inthe late 60's. I got another 85/2 about 25 years ago. I guess I'd get another 50/1.4 if the price was right but I almost never use either my 50 'cron or Elmar lenses. It was those LTM Nikkors that sold American photographers covering the Korean Conflict on the quality of Japanese glass.

[Troll]

The f:2.0/50mm Nikkor is on par with the Summicron DR in sharpness and

contrast, although they have different "looks."

[Troll]

One other feature is that the lens focuses down to 3 feet with rangefinder

coupling, but it continues to focus down to 1.5 feet which works beautifully

with a tape measure.

[feli]

>The f:2.0/50mm Nikkor is on par with the Summicron DR in sharpness and contrast,

>although they have different "looks."

 

I don't know if I would go that far. It's a very good lens, but I think the DR is better below

f5.6. To me the DR looks a little less 'muddy'...

 

For years the 2/50 Nikkor in F mount was the best normal 50 Nikon made.

 

 

feli

[roger_michel]

it is one of my favorite all time leica mount lenses. by chance, one currently resides on my MP. i like it much better than the DR which, to me, always produced a rather bland grayscale.

 

it is very sharp without a wiry etched look. really nice contrast and very good resolution of fine structures. creamy skin tones.

 

simply superb. i put it right up there with the superangulon 47/5.6. the 110 XL, the blad 100 planar, and the lux 35mm as an all-time favorite.

[nee_sung]

In August 1972 I bought a brand new Nikon F together with a brand new 50/1.4. I was quite happy with it but many photos I took did not turn out the way I saw the scene. I put it to my own incompetence.

 

In 1981 I bought my first Leica, a used M4 and a used 50/2. And immediately the photos turned out far closer as I saw them, and I was still using the Nikkor 50/1.4. Sometimes the Leica pistures turned out exactly as I saw the scene. The Nikkor never did. Leica cured my inferiority complex and let me know that I can be a good photographer. I sold the F + 50/1.4 and a 28/2.8, which I bought in the intervening years.

 

So I am truly amazed when people now say that the Nikkor from that era is almost as good as the Leica. I was there! I lived through it. I have first-hand, personal experience. I can only guess that the advancement made in film in the last 24 years has, perhaps, brought out the real performance of the Nikkor. But if that is true, the Leica must still be better because both lenses were paired to the same films of the day.

[rgh]

The Nikkor f1.4 for the F SLR in 1972 is not the same lens we are talking about from the SP/LTM vintage of the mid/late 50s. The Nikkor-SC 1:1.4 5cm I have on my M4 is still an excellent lens after almost 50 years, surprisingly even though single blue coated very flare free, sharp, I really like the look with a color film, nice contrast, short throw focus, very compact, robust-smooth well made. Maybe the most beautiful little fast 50mm lens ever made for the Leica.

[nee_sung]

I have a pre-war 90mm Elmar and it is un-coated. And yet it has got incredibly accurate colour rendition and the image is sharp and yet smooth. It's my cheapest Leica lens and it is the one that goes on my M3/6/7 the most. So I would not be surprised if a single coated lens is excellent.

[jtk]

In the early 70s I reviewed a bunch of lenses thru Adolph Gasser's collimator (in San Francisco...AG is credited with contributions to the Norden bombsight, the FTN meter design, and he did custom work for Ansel A).

 

Summicron 50 and Nikkor 50 1.4 were almost identical, though they obviously produced different "looks." The Nikon's color resolution was different but not better in collimation. Interestingly, Hassleblad 80 Planars were as sharp as those two, perhaps more like the Leitz than the Nikon.

 

I don't think it's legit to compare 50 1.4 SLR Nikkors to LTM Nikkors.

My own 35mm 3.5 (I think) Nikkor LTM was FAR better than my father's Korean war trophy Canon...wish I still had it, but I'm certain it's not nearly as good as the lowest price Canon FD 35mm 2.8 (SLR) that I still very occasionally use.

[joel_matherson]

"So I am truly amazed when people now say that the Nikkor from that era is almost as good as the Leica. I was there! I lived through it. I have first-hand, personal experience"

 

So you bought a Nikon F lens in 1972, when we are talking about Nikon rangefinder lenses of the 50's compared with Leica's of the 50's and you lived through it with personal experience? Sorry Im the one thats amazed!

[nee_sung]

>>So you bought a Nikon F lens in 1972, when we are talking about Nikon rangefinder lenses of the 50's compared with Leica's of the 50's and...<<

 

I thought that a 1972 Nikkor lens should at least be equal in quality to a 1950's Nikkor (of same focal length). In all probability it should be better. Especially when in those days (circa 1972) Nikon did not make two grades of lenses for its SLRs.

 

That's why I posted my remarks.