Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> LUGgites: > > I'm still doing my evaluation of whether/how much to upgrade my outfit > of IIIf and screw mount lenses. What the general opinion regarding the > 1950s Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 LTM is compared to the Leica lenses. I've got > one in very nice shape, perfect glass. I know it's a quite a bit better > than my old Summitar 50/2 was in the "f/4 and wider" category. > > Somebody in a camera store told me that actually the Nikkor is almost as > good as a Summilux 50/1.4 [...ducking any incoming projectiles], and > Erwin Puts says good things about the old 50 'Lux. > > Has anyone here compared the Nikkor 50/1.4 to any of the pre-aspheric 50 > lenses? Am I going to be happy with this lens if I end up getting a 35 > Summicron, or am I going to lust after a 50 Summicron, too? I have no > intention of getting rid of the Nikkor, as it ought to be good for > available light even if I have a Summicron. > > Facts? Opinions? Barking dogma? Inquiring minds wanna know... Being heavily based on Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5, Nikkor 50/1.4 was a fine performer for the era. It did indeed easily outperformed Summarit, but it would be a stretch to say that Nikkor was better than Summilux. Nikkor and Sonnar suffers from severe vignetting at their wide apertures, resulting in rugby ball bokeh pattern that swirls around the centre of the image. Noctilux vignettes more, but at least the bokeh is smoother and more pleasing. The optical formula of black S-mount 50/1.4 which were introduced in the sixties are a different formula, based on double-Gauss design.