Which Nikon lenses are Planar design?

[thomas_k.]

<p>An article on wikipedia on Planar design lenses (symmetrical, six element air spaced) says: "A classic Planar design is the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor produced from 1971 to 2006." Are there any other nikkor lenses with Planar design glass?</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Planar perhaps is not Nikon original design.</p>

<p>I do not think there is a Nikon lens marked as Planar.<br />For the sake of simplicity or similarity, some designs were close or identical to other original lenses.</p>

<p><br />The best lenses like Planar, Sonnar, Tessar, etc. were suscessfully reverse engineered by others, sometimes even exceeding final product copy quality beyond the original lens.</p>

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

<p>Planar is a Zeiss trademarked lens name. Their are a few other Nikkors that could be close to the Zeiss Planar design, I think the older Nikkor H 50mm is pretty close. But, that above quote is incorrect, like kind of way off, the 105mm is a Xenotar type, 5 element with one cemented pair, so totally NOT a "symmetrical, six element air spaced" . Read more at http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/nikkor/n05_e.htm</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>google " mir and nikon ", the mir site has a huge amount of info on Nikon cameras and lenses. You might have to look at a lot of pages, but the diagrams of the optical construction will tell you.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Christiaan<br>

There are two types of 105 f/2.5's one is a Sonar and the other is a Gauss type. Thomas I am not sure where they got the Planar from</p>

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

<p>Yeah, me neither. Nikon's own optical historian claims it as a Xenotar type rather than a Gauss, so I went with that. Maybe its from the Rollei angle, those guys are known to 'discuss' back and forth about the merits of the Rollei TLR Planar vs Xenotar. Wish I still had a copy of Kingslake's book handy, shows early Planar vs Xenotar differences.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Planar is a Carl Zeiss trademark.<br /> <br /> Xenotar is a Schneider trademark.<br /> <br /> There are some Xenotar and Planars that are almost indentical in design;</p>

<p>ie both double Gauss types;<br /> <br /> with slightly different design tweaks; glass types; spacings; elements; since they are by competitors.</p>

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

<p>Yes, Kelly you are very right, but the OP mentioned that the 105 Nikkor is a Planar.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Both Mustangs and Camaros are American sports cars.<br>

Mustang is a Ford trademark;<br>

Camaro is a GM/Chevy trademark<br>

Planar versus Xenotar is like Mustang versus Camaro.<br>

Tessar is a Carl Zeiss trademark; Xenar is a Schneider trademark.</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p><em>"... I am not sure where they got the Planar from... "</em><br /> For sure Wikipedia is a very useful tool, but <em>plenty full</em> of inexactitudes. I`ve found many of them. Unless from a well known source of yours, as a general rule I`d always take internet with a grain of salt. Even Wikipedia.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>The Nikon 50 mm lenses are essentially Planar-types, i.e. double Gauss.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Christiaan; Planar is a trade name; Gauss is the design to us optical folks. To the laymans world; one calls a Ford Mustang a sports car; one does not call a Ford Mustang a Camaro. </p>

<p>Wikipedia is a mess of facts and gumbled stuff; sometimes inputs are from goobers; dolts; the lay public.</p>

<p>Here I quote an actual physical published reference; where the new 1971 105mm was called a modified Gauss. Maybe the Wikipeda auathor cannot read; or works for Ziess and thus wants to plug a Zeiss trademark; maybe the Wikipedi author too has an agenda; or is lay and stupid too.</p>

<p>The Review of the 105mm F2.5 Nikkor #418477 is in October 1971 Modern Photography. It reviews the newer optical design of the 105mm. In *THIS ARTICLE* it is where it says:</p>

<p>*"have adopted a modified Gauss formula".*</p>

<p> In the Nikon Schools in teh early 1970's they called the new 105mm a Gauss type lens. Typically vendors prefer to call their products by the design; and NOT anothers trademark of a competitor; ie Planar or Xenotar.</p>

<p>It is not in the DNA of many Wikipedia authors to quote actual references; in some cases Wikepedia is more like a slanted advertisement; and thus trademarks are mentioned.</p>

<p>In early Wikipedia articles they had the classical; lay, newbie dogma that all Kodak Ektars are a Tessar type design which is false; thus one has dolts writing encylopedias. There are 3, 4, 5 and 6 element Ektars. Wikipedia is free and has improved alot; often it has glaring mistakes; major holes; or a political slant from hell. Wikipedia requires actual folks to fix and remove the vast falsehoods to improve it. It is great but not always a real reference with references; more like a comic book; sales or BS one too.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>It's more complicated then I hoped for...<br>

Anyway, what then "Planar" means when stamped by Zeiss on their lenses? Apparently this article I read on wikipedia is all wrong even in giving definition: "six element, air spaced" - current ZF 85mm 1.4 Planar lens in nikon mount has 6 elements in 5 groups, 2 elements are cemented together. All this comes from questions I asked myself: Are Zeiss lenses unique in design or unique in craftsmaship? Are they (current ones available in nikon mount) so good because of their optical design or they are simply very well made?</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>"Planar" is a trade name at Zeiss; like "Camaro" is at General Motors.</p>

<p>An as analogy is that there are many types of Camaro models at GM ; and many types of Planar models at Carl Zeiss Optics.</p>

<p>Zeiss *OWNS* the Planar name; like GM owns the Camaro name.</p>

<p>Both the family of Planars at Zeiss and family of Camaros have a certain style; ie design.</p>

<p>The Zeiss Planar family goes back to 1896; the GM Camaro to 1966.</p>

<p>Lay folks might think that there is only one Zeiss Planar or only one GM Camaro model; but after some research learn there are many types.</p>

<p>Another analogy is a circular saw; some folks call them Skill saws; one brand name. If Milwaukee makes a circular saw they will call it a circular saw; NOT a Skill saw; because one is using a Competitors brand name.</p>

<p>There are many makes of Double Gauss type lens designs; ie Carl Zeiss *Planar* ; the Schneider *Xenotar*; a few Eastman Kodak *Ektars* ( The Ektar Kodak brand name just means a quality product IT DOES NOT MEAN A DESIGN TYPE AT ALL) . One can have 6 elements all air spaced or 6 with a couple cemented together and still have a double gauss lens type.</p>

<p>If folks here seek a simple answer; ask yourself what only shoe does a woman use; or engine a Camaro has.</p>

<p>One has 7 element Carl Zeiss Planars; 4 cylinder Iron duke Pontiacs engines in Camaros.</p>

<p>Lay folks might say the only engine in a Camaro is a V8; or a Zeiss Planar is only one exact design; and not fathom 100 + years of Planars; or 40 years worth of Camaros</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>It is more common to say a lens is a (Zeiss) Tessar type design than probably saying one is a (Zeiss) Planar type design.</p>

<p>When the GM Camaro came out sold folks called it GM's Pony car; implying copy or like the Ford Mustang.</p>

<p>If one said the 1967 GM Camaro was a copy of the 1964 Ford Mustang; it sort of was; but not really.<br>

Just implying hits the hornets nest.</p>

<p>There are many Carl Zeiss Planar variants over 100 + years; some calling it on exact formula is a bit simplistic</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>Kelly - your sport car analogies are not very clear to me - I drive a minivan...</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>How about minivan and SUV are NOT brand names;</p>

<p>but Honda has its *ODYSSEY*;</p>

<p>Toyota has its *SIENNA*;</p>

<p>Kia has a *SEDONA*;</p>

<p>Mazda has the *MAZDA5*</p>

<p>If lay folks started to substitute *ODYSSEY* every time they really meant SUV or minivan others might get confused too.</p>

<p>Again in since it still does not sink in; *PLANAR* is a Carl Zeiss Tradename; like *SIENNA* is a Toyota tradename</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Another analogy is to say a Nikon F is an SLR; not to say a Nikon F is an Exakta VX design</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The assumption here that lead you astray is your narrow " Planar design lenses (symmetrical, six element air spaced)"<br>

It is like assuming all minivans have V6's and are made by one vendor Acme</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>So, Zeiss calls ALL of their 50mm and 85mm lenses Planars regardless of their optical composition or characteristics?</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<blockquote>

<p>So, Zeiss calls ALL of their 50mm and 85mm lenses Planars regardless of their optical composition or characteristics?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, they have made Sonnars too in those focal lengths. Planar is a lens design, but the name "planar" is trademarked by Zeiss. So the same basic design is used by other companies, but it's not marketed as "planar".</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Thomas;</p>

<p>Zeiss made the 50mm F2.8 Zeiss Tessar; a different optical design. ( 4 ELEMENTS 3 GROUPS)</p>

<p>Zeiss made 85mm Tessars; the tele tessar</p>

<p>Zeiss made the Zeiss Sonnar 85mm F2</p>

<p>***Zeiss does not call all their 50mm or 85mm lenses Planar; nor does GM call all their cars a Camaro.</p>

<p> A CARL ZEISS pair of eyeglasses with a single element +11 3/4 diopter is a 85mm lens; it is NOT a Zeiss Planar but just a super strong pair of eyeglasses.</p>

<p>There is a good chance that a Zeiss lens in 2020 that is double Gauss type design will be called a *Zeiss Planar*</p>

<p>and a good chance a GM/Chevy sports car in 2020 will be called a *Camaro*.</p>

<p> Both Zeiss and GM own the trademarks Planar/Camaro; they probably not use them for dime store maginfying glasses or golf carts.</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>***Maybe the impass here is the word trademark is not understood.</p>

<p>Zeiss owns the trademark name Planar when used for lenses.</p>

<p> Some how this is not sinking in yet.</p>

<p>A Zeiss Planar is a brand name for a double Gauss type of lens design.</p>

<p> There is no rigid law that says a Zeiss planar HAS to be some exact rigid formula or that a Ford Mustang has to be some very specific design</p>

<p>The 80mm F2.8 Xenotar here is a double Gauss lens design made by Schneider.</p>

<p>They do NOT call it a Planar or a Ektar or Rokkor; or Acmegon because their competitor(s) own these names. Thus Schneider calls their double gauss design a Schneider Xenotar.</p>

<p>Schneider owns the Xenotar tradename. </p>

 

[thomas_k.]

<p>Kelly,<br>

There is no impass here just learning process, your explanations are apreciated. Thanks! Which nikkors have a double Gauss formula? Oscar mentioned 50mm - all of them? any other focal lengths?</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Thomas</p>

<p>the 45mm F2.8 Nikkor GN and new variant Nikkor -P are a 4 element 3 group; NON double Gauss design; ie a Tessar design.</p>

<p>Tessar too is a Carl Zeiss trademark; but it is used more often to say a lens is a Tessar type design than Planar type.</p>

<p>The "all or them" is a very dangerous assumption; since Nikon has made lenses since world war 1!</p>

<p>There are also 50mm lenses for 16mm cine/movies with 4 elements; and even 60 year old 5cm enlarging lenses that are 3 elements</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<blockquote>

<p>the 50mm F2.8 Nikkor GN and new variant Nikkor -P are a 4 element 3 group; NON double Gauss design; ie a Tessar design.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You probably mean the 45mm GN nikkor ;-)<br /> I'll rephrase it to mean "all of the 35mm camera F mount 50 mm Nikkors and the 50/1.8 Series E". With that statement, I should be pretty much covered.<br /> I have a Carl Zeiss Tessar on my cellphone, very short focal length.</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>I recommend you read a book about photographic lenses, such as "<strong>Photographic Lenses</strong>", by C.B. Neblette, New York: Morgan and Morgan, 1973, or similar. Check your public library.<br>

In 35mm, full-frame, Nikon interchangeable lens world, most all of the 50, 55, 85, and 105(except the old 104/4 Micro, and the historic 105/2.5) lenses have been double-Gauss designs. <br>

Double-gauss designs are good for normal or slightly narrow angles of view, fast aperture, plus fairly flat field. The vast majority of the 50mm through 100mm designs of all the manufacturers have been double-Gauss designs. Most 135mm and longer are not; most 35mm and shorter are not.<br>

Zeiss calls double-Gauss designs 'Planar'.<br>

Zeiss calls inverted-telephoto designs 'Distagon'. <br>

The original Zeiss name 'Tessar' from 1902 has passed into common use as a <em>generic term</em> for a 4 element lens of a certain modified triplet design. <br>

Zeiss names their lens models loosely according to the optical design; Leica names them according to their maximum aperture; Most of the other companies give[gave] all of their own products one name, eg: Zuiko=Olympus, Takumar=Pentax, etc. Hope this helps.</p>

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

<p>Kelly, I really appreciate your explainations. I do have a well rounded optical knowledge, so you're preaching to the choir, so to speak. I was merely pointing out that in the Nikon article written by a Nikon optical engineer and Nikon Corp. optical historian he states that the 2nd optical formula for the 105mm 2.5 is a Xenotar type, which I find odd since he more clearly could have said 'Double Gauss' and saved us all a bit of brain power. I do find your car analogy quite amusing.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>If a maker such as Nikon; Canon, Minolta, Apple; Motorola used the word Tessar on a lens; one is going to see Zeiss pull out the gloves to defend its old trademark. A Judge could halt sales. Tessar probably is used by many of us as sort of a generic term; but probably is not legal. Zeiss still uses the Tessar brand name.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I have the older 105 2.5 that is often said to be a sonnar and is often said to be the same design as the older LTM Nikkor but made for the F mount. Is that actually true or is it something else.</p>

[hal_a]

<p>Reminds me of how I refer to petroleum gelly as vaseline, even though the tube at my home is manufactured by Nivea, or how my American friends Xerox their notes, while I photocopy them, and how Starbucks promotes their own cup size names.</p>

<p>Do you refer to a personal tape cassette player as a Walkman? If a photographer uses GIMP to process his/her images, are they gimped or photoshopped? In almost all cases brand names are more catchy than their scientific alternatives. If the intent is sufficiently communicated, how much does it matter that we use popular trademarked names or their scientific labels in general conversati0n? If you have a cold do you ask for the pharmacy brand acetaminophen or Tylenol?</p>

<p>Giving him/her the benefit of doubt, the wikipedia contributor is guilty of ignorance or carelessness. The article should be flagged for inaccuracy. However I see no problems with lay folks talking about Planar or Tessar lenses, AS LONG AS they recognize that Zeiss owns these names, and the usage is not commercial or academic.</p>

<p>Who knows, maybe in 50 years, Planar and Tessar will be added to Meriam-Webster dictionary.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Kelly - your car analogies are a little misleading, as the Camaro and the Mustang are much more different than the Planar and Xenotar. Also the lenses are basically a platform for design, while the cars are specific models (with some variations of course, but all roughly the same skeletons). A better anology would be to describe the lenses as a Corolla and a Civic, as those cars have been copied many times, and the platforms have been used for many other models. I believe the Geo Prizm as actually an almost exact duplicate of the Corolla, minus some minor differences in powertrain and interior.</p>

<p>Also like the Planar and Xenotar, people will endlessly argue about which is better, even though the base model Corolla and Civic are pretty much the same. Y'know, pre-tuning.</p>

<p>As far as which Nikkors are of Planar design ... get a lens chart, and look at the specs. Remember though that Zeiss lenses are known for their craftsmanship. Just because a Nikon E series lens is Tessar or Planar design doesn't mean it's not a cheap lens - it just means that there are a X elements in Y order.</p>

[jnsengupta]

<p>I don't think any of Nikon's photography lens is 'planar'. But Zeiss makes a wide range of lenses for Nikon and the majority of these lenses are 'distagon' except 100mm makro, which is a planar lens. Please note that objective lenses (2X -40X) for Nikon fluorescent microscope are mostly planar lens. </p>

 

[john_robison3]

<p>All you guys are forgetting one major lens type. The 'Coke bottle'. At least that was what we called a really bad lens back in the seventies. Poor resolution and contrast at any aperture, soft focus, but not on purpose. Talk about stealing a trade name. So.....has anybody here ever owned a 'Coke bottle'?</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Christiaan;</p>

<p>RE :"Kelly, I really appreciate your explainations. I do have a well rounded optical knowledge, so you're preaching to the choir, so to speak. I was merely pointing out that in the Nikon article written by a Nikon optical engineer and Nikon Corp. optical historian he states that the 2nd optical formula for the 105mm 2.5 is a Xenotar type, which I find odd since he more clearly could have said 'Double Gauss' and saved us all a bit of brain power. I do find your car analogy quite amusing."</p>

<p>" Yeah, me neither. Nikon's own optical historian claims it as a Xenotar type rather than a Gauss, so I went with that. "</p>

<p>Many Zeiss Planars and Schneider Xenotars are very similar in design. If one wants to plug Zeiss one can call a Acme 80mm F2.8 a Planar design; if the plug kickback; or bias is towards Schneider; one can call the Acme 80mm F2.8 a Xenotar type design. One could call an AMC Pacer a Mustang type design; or a Camaro type design too.</p>

<p>Since the average photographer has an 8th grade educational level as far as science; referencing brand names like Xenotar or Planar makes sense. They do not own Oslo; or have done raytracing; or own 3 Kinglake books; Smith, Conrady; have Schott glass books like some of us. Most photographers have never heard of Gauss; or a Gauss design.</p>

<p>Neither Planar nor Gauss brand names have any exact ties to an a exact optical formula; or element cementing; thus lay folks are confused; they have this simpleton rigid model that fits one model lens; but it does not fit another. Thus one has 6 and 7 element Planar Zeiss lenses; 4, 6 and 8 cylinder Camaros.</p>

<p>There are Xenotars and Planars that look like they are exact clones; and ones that look alot different; ie glaring; ie one extra element. Thus dwelling on whether an Acme 80mm F2.8 is a Planar or Xenotar is absurd from an Engineering standpoint; since neither Planar nor Xenotar has an exact definition.It is as absurd as dwelling on whether an Acme car is closer to a Pontiac or Buick; but one does not know that Buick and Ponitacs were made for many decades.</p>

<p>Even if the Brand A and Brand B have the same optical diagram; the lay public still; does not know the optical glass types; lens curvatures; tolerances; lens mount tolerances; testing criteria.</p>

<p>It really is not too odd to reference brand names suchs as Xenotar or Planar; it confuses folks less that do not own optical books. Usage without mentioning the owners name is poor practice in a publication; and usually is deeply frowned apon when it is a competitors legal brand name. Thus GM probably is not going to say a Camaro is a Mustang copy; but th so called Nikon expert called the 1971 105mm a Xenotar (a Schneider brand name). </p>

<p>The old Modern Photography test articles called it a Guass design; and so did the Nikon School's too. The Nikon author may not have read the magizine or gone to a Nikon school in the 1970's.</p>

<p>In writing for technical publications flaws like acting like brand names are generic is a major one; the editor has one correct ones goofs. It is like having 10 spelling errors</p>