Does anyone here beleive that Nikon/Canon could make lenses as good as Leica/Zeiss?

[CMoore]

Can somebody give me an example of a..... "70's Consumer Lens".?
Thank You

 

[Eric Rose]

Can somebody give me an example of a..... "70's Consumer Lens".?
Thank You

Nikkor E series

 

[MattKing]

The Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 "standard" lens that came with so many Olympus OM bodies during that time.

Can you say "Kodachrome slides"? I know I certainly did.

 

[chromacomaphoto]

I think if you cherry pick from the truly very best, creme de la creme of Nikon's older Ais manual lenses....you get something about as good as a lot of Leica glass, and for a whole lot less money. The old Nikons might be a cheaper buy in but they do seem to hold their respective value just as well over the years which is also nice. I say this having owned lots from both manufacturers. I mean, 28mm f2 ais, 50 1.2 ais, 85mm 1.4 ais, 105mm 2.5 ais and the 180mm 2.8 Sure, people will debate which Nikon lenses should be on the all time great list but these are what I have right now and honestly both the image and the build quality are just incredible for me, really just amazing results that never leave me wanting.Even if I did want anything 'better', I just shoot MF with my Rolleiflexes anyway and pass on the Leica glass nowadays. Once I came to this conclusion, I sold my Leica RF bodies and glass and I don't regret it. One of the penny drop moments was looking back through some of my old work and thinking that I regretted selling a Leica lens that I shot it with. Then I recalled it was actually a Nikon that I still own!

 

[fstop]

Any Rokkor X is about as good as you will get.

 

[removed account4]

Can somebody give me an example of a..... "70's Consumer Lens".?
Thank You

the ashai pentax f2.0 50mm lens
it came stock on every k1000 sold
and it is a fantastic lens.

 

[Leigh B]

What are those cameras she's holding?

Looks like a model 36C (stereo version).

- Leigh

 

[Dali]

Looks like a model 36C (stereo version).

- Leigh

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Nikkor E series

They were introduced in 79 in 50mm, 35mm and 100mm and they were called "Nikon Series E". They were never labelled "Nikkor". By December 79 the 28mm and 75-150mm had been introduced.
The other lenses were introduced later: 36-72mm, 70-210mm and the 135mm.

 

[Leigh B]

All of the pre-autofocus lenses appear to be more solid than the AF lenses.

One fundamental difference between manual focus and AF lenses...

The moving parts of an AF lens must have absolutely minimal mass.
The motor driving that assembly is very tiny, having almost no power.

This dictates the use of modern composite materials rather than aluminum.

- Leigh

 

[Chan Tran]

I don't think they did. Although some of the lenses may be optically as good or even better the build quality are not as good. However, I don't think that because they couldn't but rather they didn't. I believe if they make equal lenses to Leica they can't command the same price so they don't.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Image Quality?? A Leitz 1c or a souped-up Durst Micromat (35mm enlargers) have an image quality all their own that I doubt can be duplicated in larger formats.

Pardon my French but how the living bloody hell does an enlarger have image quality? Until you put a LENS on that enlarger, it's a box with a light bulb in one end and a hole in the other. I'd stack my Beasler 45V-XL with a Schneider Apo lens up against your Leitz wankomat any day for quality of reproduction.

 

[removed account4]

sure they can scott
its like anything ...
you have to be drinking
the right kool-aid ...
and sounds like you have drunk the shneider-apo koolaid
---
that said, i used to print portraits using a
"solar" (b+j? ) enlarger and probably some cheap 1930s-40s lens
the images it put out had a specific look to them, something i have never been
able to replicate with cold light heads i currently own.
sometimes it IS the enlarger not the lens ...

 

[Down Under]

For a troll, this has certainly filled up a goodly heap of air space.

The OP must be chuckling in his gin and red wine vinegar. I initially had him pegged as someone with too much disposable income to buy expensive brand lenses and yet too little critical judgment, but now I wonder. He did after all snare us all in his clever trap. And he seems to be the owner of some fine lenses. I have many of the same, so this compliment is meant sincerely.

I quite fancied the babe with the Pentacon Lenses T-shirt, many thanks for that, Flavio. She is by far the best advertisement I have seen for long telephoto lenses. Was I the only one to note her camera in hand looks suspiciously like an old Nikkormat? One of the very finest cameras ever made, with equally wonderful lenses in those old pre-AI and AIS Nikkors. Condemn me for heresy, tie me to a pillar and stone me with old film canisters if you will, yet I will hold my ground on this argument.

Finally, may I contribute my own question for your judgment, arguments and endless critical asides? Like the OP and many of you, I too own many fine cameras and lenses. Recently some guy at a camera shop told me I should buy a filter. What is a filter?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

sure they can scott
its like anything ...
you have to be drinking
the right kool-aid ...
and sounds like you have drunk the shneider-apo koolaid
---
that said, i used to print portraits using a
"solar" (b+j? ) enlarger and probably some cheap 1930s-40s lens
the images it put out had a specific look to them, something i have never been
able to replicate with cold light heads i currently own.
sometimes it IS the enlarger not the lens ...

John- actually, I've drunk the "EL-Nikkor lenses are more than good enough for any enlargement I'm going to make" Kool-Aid. I was making a rhetorical point.

Yes, you're correct, sometimes it is the enlarger. But it's a deviation from the norm, not a "standard setter" like the Focomats claim to be. Honestly, as long as the enlarger is capable of being aligned and can mount a non-broken, non-fungused, non-misaligned lens, brand names are of minor consequence. I'd love to own a vintage Matthew Brady "Imperial" print that was enlarged using a solar (as opposed to Solar) enlarger, no brand names involved, no modern glass, no anything. Brand name when it comes to enlargers only means something with regards to what accessories are available.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Ha ha... this thread is becoming very interesting indeed.

 

[flavio81]

I think if you cherry pick from the truly very best, creme de la creme of Nikon's older Ais manual lenses....you get something about as good as a lot of Leica glass, and for a whole lot less money.

In my view, Nikon pre-AI lenses are better built than Nikon AI lenses.
And Pentax Takumars (particularly Super-Takumars and Super-Multi-Coated Takumars) slightly better built than even the Nikon Pre-AI lenses.

 

[flavio81]

I quite fancied the babe with the Pentacon Lenses T-shirt, many thanks for that, Flavio. She is by far the best advertisement I have seen for long telephoto lenses. Was I the only one to note her camera in hand looks suspiciously like an old Nikkormat? One of the very finest cameras ever made, with equally wonderful lenses in those old pre-AI and AIS Nikkors. Condemn me for heresy, tie me to a pillar and stone me with old film canisters if you will, yet I will hold my ground on this argument.

Finally, may I contribute my own question for your judgment, arguments and endless critical asides? Like the OP and many of you, I too own many fine cameras and lenses. Recently some guy at a camera shop told me I should buy a filter. What is a filter?

You're welcome. We should open a thread about this great discovery. AgX says he has seen MORE PENTACON BABES but he "does not have the pictures." I think he does have pictures the but he's just telling me that in order to enjoy a bit of the old german "Schadenfreude" on me.

The camera in the hand looks exactly like a Praktica VLC. It is not a Nikkormat. And I agree, Nikkormats are fine cameras, particularly my Nikkormat EL which I like very much.

"Filter" is what they use on synthesizers to reduce in amplitude certain parts of the frequency spectrum. See for example "24db/oct four-pole butterworth filter"

 

[chip j]

Pardon my French but how the living bloody hell does an enlarger have image quality? Until you put a LENS on that enlarger, it's a box with a light bulb in one end and a hole in the other. I'd stack my Beasler 45V-XL with a Schneider Apo lens up against your Leitz wankomat any day for quality of reproduction.

It's all about the illumination system of the enlarger. The ic is semi-diffuse (having only one condenser) and gives a long tonal scale. I stuck a theatrical spotlight bulb into my Durst M35 Micromat and it gives muscularity a la Michaelangelo and reveals the slightest tones!

 

[removed account4]

John- actually, I've drunk the "EL-Nikkor lenses are more than good enough for any enlargement I'm going to make" Kool-Aid. I was making a rhetorical point.

Yes, you're correct, sometimes it is the enlarger. But it's a deviation from the norm, not a "standard setter" like the Focomats claim to be. Honestly, as long as the enlarger is capable of being aligned and can mount a non-broken, non-fungused, non-misaligned lens, brand names are of minor consequence. I'd love to own a vintage Matthew Brady "Imperial" print that was enlarged using a solar (as opposed to Solar) enlarger, no brand names involved, no modern glass, no anything. Brand name when it comes to enlargers only means something with regards to what accessories are available.

im in agreement
and kookaid is tasting kind of good

 

[removed account4]

michael the solar ( capital s ) enlarger i mentioned used frosted glass bulbs and
a dome above the enlarger that was coated with some sort of white diffusion material
which gave a unique look. i'll never forget when i apprenticed the lady who had that enlarger, she
had some sort of condensor enlarger next to it and suggested i use it to make contact prints / proof sheets
and soon after she said go back to the solar, the light makes the portraits look better ...
not sure if this is what chip j meant but if the internal illumination mechanism of the 3nlargers he mentions
are something like that, then ... maybe he is right, otherwise an enlarger is just a projection box ... and as long
as the lsn't a meniscus or verito or soft focus portrait lens enlarger lenses are kind of the same stopped down a couple of clicks ..

then again i could be wrong

 

[chip j]

If you want to be "fair" then a camera is just a box w/a
hole in it. How can there be any differences between them?

 

[RichardJack]

Sure they can and have. What focal length and attributes are you comparing? IMO it's kind of a dumb question. I've seen images from an old 50mm f2 HC nikkor that were better than a Summicron. There are so many factors here, distance, subject matter/ flatness of field, lighting, sensor/film resolution, vibration, etc.
You need to be very specific here.

 

[Ian Grant]

The whole thread is based on "as good as". The reality as I pointed out way back is they are different, in tests in the past Leica lenses would out resolved Nikon lenses but in practice because of quite different micro-contrast the Nikon lenses could appear sharoer in practice.

An anology is sometimes with 35mm images from faster films look sharper than those on slow films, they aren't (assuming sharp in the first place) it's just a visual simplification.

A few years ago I shot some images at a wedding my cousins and a few months later a friends, the photographer at my cousins wwedding screwed up no images so they had mine. They assumed I'd bought the latest what ever camera because of the image quality, my friend actually said you've bought a new camera, he was rather surpised to find it was an early Leica M3 and Summicron.

I found it more interesting that others saw a noticeable difference between the Summicron images and all the images from Japanese cameras they saw images from shot on the same day. I can see a difference between my Summicron and Jpanese lenses, it's subtle but definitely there.

Ian

 

[Dali]

I can see a difference between my Summicron and Jpanese lenses, it's subtle but definitely there.
Ian

A difference maybe but is it related to overall optical quality (assembly, lens polish, coating,...) or only from optical features from designer's requirements (resolution vs contrast, residual aberration, vignetting,...)? Said differently, is "different" meaning better or worse or just... different?