http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/index1.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f2.htm
On 11/29/2011 6:21 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> I really, really like the Olympus OM system. I'm a full-blown
> Zuikoholic fanatic - before I knew it, I had 3 bodies (including a
> 3Ti) and about 12 very cool lenses, including four cool Macro lenses,
> and f/2.0 from 21mm to 250mm. As far as 35mm photography is concerned,
> the OM system has allowed me to realise my vision. A happy camper, you
> could say.
>
> Then I went and did it. Just to experience the difference, I picked up
> an absolutely pristine Nikon F "Apollo" with plain, unmetered prism.
Backwards from my history. Although I had been using SLRs borrowed from my dad
for some years, I bought my own Nikon FTn
around '68. I let it go for an OM-1 soon after they became available, maybe
early '74? I never moved from OM for film,
although I left Oly for digital.
My feeling at the time was that I had moved up in the camera. The OM did
everything the F did just as well, in my
experience at the time, while managing to be ever so much smaller and lighter.
The F was likely more rugged if abused,
but otherwise no more precise or reliable than the OM-1. Om-1 engineering is
wonderful in almost all aspects, as was
noted by reviewers who opened them up at the time.
I didn't run into the aperture mechanism induced vibration problem for many
years, as I shot mostly hand held and didn't
have the lenses where it is a particular problem until much later. Still, it
was an improvement in a way over the F in
that mirror lock-up didn't require wasting a frame of film.
My dad later switched to an F2a, at least in part for the improved Photomic
prism and the mirror/aperture lock that
didn't waste film. I inherited his camera gear, kept the F2a, FG and some
lenses, passing the FE (?) and E lenses to a
daughter-in-law. The F2a is a beautiful piece of engineering and manufacturing,
but I'm not convinced it's a better
picture taker than my OMs.
> It came with two first-generation (knurled metal focusing ring)
> lenses, a Nikkor-H.C 50/2.0, and a Nikkor-P 105/2.5.
That was where my original OM-1 purchase fell down. The 50/1.4 was to expensive
for me at the time, and the early 50/1.8
was no match for the Nikkor 50/2. It wasn't long before i bought the 35-70/3.6,
an excellent lens. Funny how the Nikkor
prime was better, but the Zuiko zoom was much better than the Nikkor 43-86/3.5
my dad got at about the same time.
My 50/2 was pre "C", meaning single coated. It was an excellent lens. I still
have record of it, taken with Rolleicord
IVb. The scan isn't very good, made in two passes on a flatbed that only would
accommodate 35mm film. Next time I run
across those 6x6 transparencies, I'll scan them on the 9950F.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous/Images&image=NikonFtncroof.jpg>
> I really did not expect this camera to be so nice. It's bloody marvellous,
I forget how young you are. :-) Everybody back then knew how wonderful the F
was.
> in fact. I'm on my second roll of film now - going to develop both pretty
> soon.
>
> What do I really like?
>
> - The build quality is unmatched, period. It's a solid block of hand-
> made Japanese pride, from a bygone era.
Here again, I differ somewhat. Solid block, is right, but is it necessary? If I
had been a pro, subjecting it to heavy
use and hard knocks, maybe. But for me, the OM-1 was better built, as opposed
to overbuilt.
> ...
> - The lenses are more solid, and focus more smoothly, than my Olympus
> lenses (except the 250/2.0 which is impressively well-built I must
> admit).
Here, I agree, but with much the same caveat. I have a pre Photomic 200/4.
Built like a tank, solid, with smooth focus -
but WAY bigger and heavier than the Zuiko 200/4. I find focus on the Zuiko to
be smooth - feels good.
Of course, you haven't seen any images from the Nikon stuff as yet, so this is
all tire kicking so far. Unless it is
damaged, I know you will be happy with the 50/2's sharpness. Maybe a touch
contrasty, depending on taste.
I've done one direct comparison:
"... my interest in seeing how some old Nikkor lenses performed.
Today, I did some simple testing of three 200 mm lenses on the 5D. First round,
the results from my Zuiko 200/4
convinced me I must have mis-focused it. Another round . . .
Looking at center and edges, f4, 5.6, 8, 11, the ancient "NIKKOR-Q Auto 1:4
f=20cm" soundly whipped my Zuiko 200/4. The
Zuiko 200/5 rather closely matched the Z. f4 at f5/5.6, f8 and f11. Yes, the
Nikkor is bigger and heavier, but it's sure
sharper. I don't know if I have a poor copy of the Zuiko. It's in excellent
cosmetic shape, has clear glass and no signs
of trauma of any kind."
I should have mentioned that test shots were conducted using 5D, mounted on a
sturdy tripod with 5 lb. sand bag draped
over camera and lens.
> Seriously - these lenses are 50 years old, but they are in
> better operating condition - with no dust or dirt inside - than almost
> any of my Zuikos, all of which seem to gather some dust or flecks
> inside eventually (not that it matters to the image, but still...).
It's so hard to know what the history of these rather old lenses has been.
Comparisons of physical details like that may
not mean much, depending on how they have been used and stored. My comparison
of 200mm lenses above isn't definitive for
that reason. I know the history of the Nikkor. dad was very careful with his
gear and didn't use the 200 that much. Then
it sat in its beautiful leather case for over 20 years in a warm, dry place.
The Zuiko looks beautiful, and I bought it from a former list member, Bob
Gries, who said it worked well for him. Still,
how is one to really know?
>
> The knurled metal focus rings are just so... right. I've had to fix up
> loose rubber focusing rings on *three* of my Zuikos. I can't focus a
> single one of my Zuikos.
> - I expected gunshot-like noise and vibration, but it's maybe 10%
> worse than my OM-3Ti.
LOL! You don't feel or hear as much because the sheer weight damps it. :-)
> ...
> - Amazingly bright as the 3Ti focus screen is, I find the F more
> accurate for focusing (I have three F screens to play with, trying out
> the different ones...). Werid, eh? It's much dimmer, but shows the
> real depth of field. Using DOF preview, you can actually *see* a
> difference between f/2.0 and f/2.8.
Not a fair test! Compare to an OM-1(n) or 2(n). Oly knocked down the viewfinder
magnification from .92x to .86x on the
later single digit bodies and the 3Ti came with a '2' series focusing screen,
which trades off precision for brightness.
Us a 1 or 2 with series '1' screen for comparison.
> The 3Ti screen is equally bright and crestal clear down to f/4, but perhaps
> induces focusing errors more easily? I don't know, further testing required...
Yup, '2' series screen.
> ...
>
> What don't I like?
>
> - The ergonomics (setting aperture and shutter speed) is no match for
> an OM camera. Like, not even close.
> - The darn lenses focus and [un]mount the wrong way round! Argh!
Nikon came first. ;-) Do you think Maitani went opposite as a statement of
some kind? Or was he used to screw thread
lenses?
> - I am sure when I print my first rolls, the that Zuikos will be "better"
> than the 1950s-technology Nikkors
See above. :-)
N. Resistant Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
