Sure!
Can I send you my shipping address?
Thanks, you made me feel better. I only have about 28 cameras.
Have you checked out the Ensign Autorange 820? That's one i'd love to have. BTW stay clear of the Ensign Selfix 820, i had one in mint shape and was almost impossible to align to produce a sharp negative at an aperture wider than f11-16. I suspect the Ross Xpres lens has a massive focus shift, or the negative is never flat.
Go ahead. Buy it. I give your permission. Have your spouse talk to me.
Can you talk to mine too?
It is the 'regular' version, not the 'pancake' version.
Camera and lens on its way. Thanks to everyone for the, uh, "help"
CongratsI just bought an FT3 because of this damn thread. It was cheap and I definitely have a use for it but I still blame you all!
(Thank you)
I have a Wirgin Auta and a Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera (they only had the one in 1927, so no additional model designation was needed), as well as a Brownie Bullseye, so 6x9 is pretty well covered (oh, almost forgot the Adapt-A-Roll Six-20 for 6x9 on a 4x5 camera). Got several 6x6 as well, but the Commando is very unusual due to moving film plane to focus -- the Konica Pearl and Mamiya 6 are the only others I know of with that.
Your experience with the Selfix 820 seems a little odd -- the Ross Xpres was apparently a patent bypass for the Tessar, replacing the cemented doublet rear group with a cemented triplet; it ought to have been close to Tessar quality, unless someone screwed up the calculations at Ross. OTOH, a 105mm lens focused closer than about 5 m and open f/8 or wider has very little DOF -- so with scale focus, it's very likely to wind up with lots of out of focus photos unless you have a built-in rangefinder or use an external one. And if it was f/3.5 or faster, it might also have had some other uncorrected aberrations like field curvature (which can act like focus shift).
The F2's optical design is the only Nikkor good enough to share its design with Leitz.
It is the 'regular' version, not the 'pancake' version.
I just bought an FT3 because of this damn thread. It was cheap and I definitely have a use for it but I still blame you all!
Given the recessed front element and the serial number of my lens, I believe it's the "long nose", although this page doesn't use that term anywhere:If "regular" means the "long nose" 50/1.8 AI that was produced for a few years, then IMO ti's a best lens than the 50/2 (any version)
Ah, but you don't have the Nikon EL2 yet? How can you enjoy a FT3 without having an EL2 too?
What do you mean? The 6/4 double gauss design isn't unique to Leitz or Nikkon, it's everywhere. There's nothing special in the design as it is.
If "regular" means the "long nose" 50/1.8 AI that was produced for a few years, then IMO ti's a best lens than the 50/2 (any version)
In any case in don't share too much the praise and gloryifing of the 50/2. Yes, it's one of the best nikkors, but compared to normal lenses of other brands, it isn't at the top. For example i'd consider the SMC Takumar 55/1.8 a superior lens. The 50/2 has wide open a sliight veiling flare that is absent on the 55/1.8, plus the Takumar has nicer bokeh.
Many of us disagree. I had 4 1.8's. 2 long nose, 1 short, and an af-d. I didn't like any of them as much as the two F2's I have now.
Bokeh is a different matter. I never shoot wide open, and could care less about it's performance there.
It's about how the F2 renders at its optimal f-stops that makes it special.
using my F-mount Zeiss lenses
Please elaborate more.
It is something that you need to experience for yourself. This particular Nikkor is dirt cheap.
Hi George,
I have had the Nikkor-H 50/2 (two) and the Nikkor-H-C 50/2 but I really can't remember something that would make them be more desirable than my AI long nose 50/1.8. I have more memorable images with the latter.
I sold all the 50/2 i had.
That's why I ask you, an inventor, photographer and outspoken forumer, to please elaborate fully on the commendable virtues of the Nikkor-H 50/2 introduced in 1964 to replace the Nikkor-S 50/2.
Every other lens added something "extra" (sharpness, contrast etcetera).
Well, while I can't personally speak for the single coated version, the HC and Ai produce what I believe to be the most accurate and transparent image of any of the 50mm's that I have seen or used, including a Contax F1.7.
Can you, just for having a context, list those 50mm lenses you've used? To see if there are some ones I can relate to as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?