Re: Nikon SP

[Stephen Gandy <cameras@jetlink.net>]

Marc James Small wrote:
> 
> At 09:50 PM 8/17/96 -0700,Stephen Gandy wrote:
> 
> >The SP also boasted an amazing array of optics including a 21, a 25,  a
> >50/1.1,  a 50 mm macro, a 85/1.5, a stereo lens, and the longest lens
> >ever available for a RF, the fabled 1000/6.3 (only 50 of these were
> >made).
> 
> Well, not to quibble, but I routinely hook my Leica and Contax RF's to my
> 1300mm Questar and know of others who use even longer lenses with like
> cameras.  Perhaps it would be fair to say, "the longest lens ever produced
> for an RF".
> >

I was referring to lenses produced by the camera manufacturer for their
own camera.  

> >The SP has a very nice feel to it, every bit competitive to the M3.  The
> >SP's finish was great, but not as good as Contax or Leica.  Time has
> >proven the SP shutter superior to the Leica and Contax in terms of
> >reliability   9 out of 10 M's rescued out of the retirement closets
> >after 30 years need shutter work.  Inaccurate slow speeds and jammed
> >shutter are VERY common with these old closet cameras.  In contrast, a
> >SP stored under the identical conditions has much more accurate >shutter
> speeds.  I know this from experience,  and am sure of what I >speak.
> 
> Well, of a dozen or so closet queens, I've yet to see a functional Nikon RF;
> all but one of the thirty or so early Leica M's which I am aware of being
> stored in like conditions functioned flawlessly.  As Nikon used the Leica
> shutter design but made from inferior materials, the end result is a weaker
> system than Leicas.

I completely disagree.  My experience, and the experience of many people
I know and regularly deal with, is the complete opposite over the
purchase of several hundred Leicas.

Leica's screw mount shutter curtains on ALL screw mount models usually
self destruct after years of storage with many vertical cracks.  Their
lubrication usually dries up and makes the slow speeds inoperative.    

The Leica M shutter curtains are made of much better material, and
seldom need replacement Their lubrication, however, still dries up and
makes the slow speed inoperable or intolerably slow.   

The very early Nikons( Nikon I, M, S) used poor quality
curtains--especially the One's. By the time of the S2/SP/S3/S4 the
curtain material is better than Leica because it stand up much better
over time than even the M3's/M2.  The later M's are left out of my
comments since they have are not old enough to pass the 30 year closet
test.  We just don't know yet.  The last SP's had a much better curtains
than any M ever made, however, in that they used titanium curtains. 
Incredibly tough and reliable, it is too bad Leica has not copied Nikon
on this.  By the way, the SP curtains are actually interchangeable with
those of the later Nikon F and F2.

> 
> >Nikon optics of the era were superior to Leitz in terms of  a much
> >harder front surface coating and in terms of being clear as bell after
> >decades of storage.   As discussed before in this newsgroup, Leitz
> >lenses of the 50's and 60's are often very foggy after years of storage
> >due to the condensation of the lubricant they used.  About 90% of the
> >screw mount Summitars and Summicrons are scratched from lens >cleaning,
> while the same is almost never true of a Nikon RF lens.   While >some
> believe Leitz/Nikon/Contax lenses of the era are sharper than the
> >other,  I have found that in practical terms there is very little
> >difference.
> 
> Zeiss developed vacuum-coating in the 1930's and slapped a patent on it.
> This patent was enforceable in Germany but not in Japan following the end of
> World War II.   Thus, Nikon lenses, through theft, had the same hard
> coatings as did Zeiss lenses.  The "scratching" you speak of is much more
> commonly the result of dried coatings, the residue of the soft mush produced
> by the drip coating techniques Leica was forced to use until the Zeiss
> patents expired in 1956.

The "mush" you refer to is certainly possible, but is NOT what I am
referring to.  Scratches are scratches, and I have the lenses to prove
it.  They are made in circular motions as people tried to clean their
lenses with lens tissue, but the lenses could not take it.  All Leitz
coatings of the 50's/60's seem to noticeably softer than Zeiss/Canon/or
Nikon.   The most notorious, however, is the screw mount collapsible
50/2 Summicron.  I once sold a perfect screw mount 50 Summicron to a new
photographer, warning him to take care when cleaning the lens.   Several
months later he came back to me asking how those circular scratches
appeared on the front element!  Another giveaway is that the "mush" is
often found  on the interior elements while the scratches are on the
front and rear outside surfaces--where the lens tissue could be applied.
> 
> Stephen Gandy