Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 for Leica screw mount

[aa]

In a recent thread, I asked what lenses would have been found on a

1951 Leica IIIf. In addition to the Leica lenses, someone posted:

 

"However it was acknowledged at the time by professionals that the

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 in Leica thread-mount was in fact superior to any

of the Leitz offerings of the day, and was their overwhelming

choice."

 

I'm now fairly well versed on where to find Summars, Elmars,

Summitars, Summa-etc, but I don't know much about Nikkor screw

mounts, and I haven't been able to find much on the web. Or at

least, I do not know the notation of the different Nikkors (I gather

that not all are for screw mounts).

 

Can someone in the know point me to resources for

sellers/notation/serial number sequences for Nikkors from early

1950's that will work on a Leica IIIf?

 

Here is the little I have found:

Nikkor 5cm f/1.4

also sometimes listed as 50mm

And there appear to be "SC" and "C" versions.

 

Sincerely,

Andrew Albright

[peter_evans4]

<p><a href="http://www.kevincameras.com/">Kevincameras</a> has one, <a href="http://kevincameras.com/gallery/albvq74">here</a>. (You get there via "<a href="http://kevincameras.com/gallery/non_leica_sm_len?page=1">Non Leica SM Len</a>".) He may have others too; I didn't check.</p>

[john_shriver]

Dante Stella's website (http://www.dantestella.com) lavishes praise on it.

 

The S is from the common Japanese custom of coding the number of elements in the lens by a letter based on the text prefix (Latin?) for the number of elements. S is for sept, which is 7. So any Nikkor-S lens has 7 elements, a Nikkor-H has six (hex).

 

There is a close-focusing variant of this lens, with a longer helical, by which you can scale focus closer than one meter. No optical difference.

 

These Sonnar formula lenses were hard to manufacture, and expensive when new. These days expect a price from $250 to $400.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>Or at least, I do not know the notation of the different Nikkors (I gather that not all are for screw mounts). </em></p><p>Right, but if it has a screw mount and a distance scale, it should be for a Nicca, I mean for a Leica or Canon or Nicca or Leotax or Tanack or Honor or Melcon or Chiyotax or (etc.).</p>

[terence_mahoney]

The Nikkor lenses in LTM were not produced in the same quantities as contemporary Leitz lenses or the Nikkors in Nikon RF mount. This combined with their original status as excellent performers and their tendency to resist the fogging, hazing and coating-breakdown of the Leitz lenses keeps them in short supply and high demand with resultingly high prices. They do surface fairly frequently though, so keep at it.

[roger_michel]

i have a CF nikkor 1.4 from an old nicca that is one of my two or thre favorite "leica" lenses. they are superb for portraiture.

[roger_michel]

soory -- brain malfunction. meant to say nikkor f2!

[robweatherburn]

Andrew - I know you asked about what lenses might have come with a a 1951 IIIf, but you might be interested in my experience. I bought a 1949/50 IIIc #485xxx on xbay - really battered - red dial - an excellent user that's seen a lot of work - and I've continued to hammer it. But it didn't come with Leitz glass; instead, with a Jupiter 3 f1.5. I wanted to use the camera, but switched the J3 for a coated Elmar for the first film through.

 

But when I did give the J3 a go - like the Nikkor, a Sonnar design - the results were truly excellent. I think there are some-and-some with the J lenses, and there is the usual beef aboutlack of f stop clicks. But if you find are good one, like mine, they're excellent. (I know, what's good for one might not be for another.)

 

I mostly shoot uncoated Leitz lenses, but this J3 needs to be considered for a coated 50mm - unless you don't want Russian glass.

 

I have an uncoated Sonnar for Contax, but never found an adaptor for it. I'd love to have compared the difference, the 'feel', the different way the two lenses 'see,' and they way they process and transfer the image to film.

 

I understand, too, the acid content of the Russian glass deters fungus and fogging; - but that's only hearsay in my case. Some of the guys on here really know what they're talking about with lenses. Not me...

 

Rob

[al_kaplan1]

The 85mm f/2 Nikkor is a real gem also. It's my favorite Leica mount "90".

[terence_mahoney]

The issue with the Russian lenses is having access to enough samples and the opportunity to test each one rigourously before finding one that actually performs on par with the original Zeiss or Leica lens from which it's design was "borrowed". The term Russian Roulette somehow comes to mind.....

[ericd]

"Keeps them in short supply and high demand with resultingly high prices." I don't agree, uou can get very nice Nikkor 50mm f/2.0 with a very nice Nicca body for less than a Summicron. That's what I did.

[aizan_sasayama]

dante stella's description of the nikkor 50/1.4's optical performance is almost totally

wrong. there is veiling glare at f1.4 and infinity, though i would just say it's flat wide open

wherever you focus. it isn't optimized for use wide open and close up. here, it isn't sharp

corner to corner, and though the center is fairly sharp, it improves all the way up to f16,

when diffraction finally kicks in. the game is not over at f8. and the bokeh is harsh, though

it improves when you stop down a bit.

[terence_mahoney]

"I don't agree, uou can get very nice Nikkor 50mm f/2.0 with a very nice Nicca body for less than a Summicron. That's what I did."

 

Dandy. But the thread concerned the f/1.4 Nikkor in LTM, which tends to sell for more than a collapsible LTM Summicron with no coating marks, which itself is somewhat of a rarity.

[jtk]

IMO Canon did better than Nikon in LTM, with the exception of Al's lens.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>IMO Canon did better than Nikon in LTM, with the exception of Al's lens.</em></p><p>I don't know. But certainly Canon LTM lenses tend to cost less.</p>

[ericd]

OK Terence, but you made a general statement about Nikkor lenses in LTM ;-)

[ericd]

Roger you should buy a Kiev body for your Sonnar.

[rjm photo]

I have several of them...they are very nice lenses... sharp wide open with nice out-of-focus. From what I find from my results, they fall in line with Dante Stella description....although I have never got mine to flare.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Re <I>The Nikkor lenses in LTM were not produced in the same quantities as contemporary Leitz lenses or the Nikkors in Nikon RF mount</I><BR><BR>There are alot of Nikkors made and availbale on the used market. When rangefinders took way out of style in the late 1960's, these older Nikkors were a glut on the used market. A 5cm F2 LTM was only 9 bucks used from say Olden Camera in the late 1960's, worth maybe 4 as cash; maybe 6 to 7 during a trade when buying a new camera. Here I own a 5cm F2, 8.5cm F2, 10.5cm F2.5, and a 13.5cm F3.5 Nikkor in LTM. NONE were really expensive when bought used. The 5cm F2 was about 55 bucks on ebay list as an enlarging lens; for a 10 day auction. I was the only bidder, and got the one that focuses to 18 inchs. LTM Nikkors were available new at Sears Roebuck and Hudsons stores when I lived in Detroit in the later 1950's and early 1960's. <BR><BR>Before WW2 Nikkors were the lens for Canons rangefinder cameras. <BR><BR>I have never really seen any valid production figures for LTM Nikkors. Having seen them been sold for peanuts long ago, and seeing dealers with a glut of "obsolete" stuff, I have a hard time believing LTM Nikkors wer not made in huge volumes. In the late 1960's the 5cm F2 Nikkor was as rare a Jupiter-8, Polaroid swinger.<BR><BR>