I don't need another camera, I don't need another camera...

[Kino]

Can I send you my shipping address?

Sure!

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

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).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Go ahead. Buy it. I give your permission. Have your spouse talk to me.

Can you talk to mine too?

Sure. No problem.

 

[George Mann]

It is the 'regular' version, not the 'pancake' version.

The F2's optical design is the only Nikkor good enough to share its design with Leitz.

It's as true to a scene as a lens gets!

 

[logan2z]

Camera and lens on its way. Thanks to everyone for the, uh, "help"

 

[Sirius Glass]

Camera and lens on its way. Thanks to everyone for the, uh, "help"

If you ever need enabling support just contact me.

 

[trick]

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!

(Thank you)

 

[logan2z]

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!

(Thank you)

Congrats Mine is scheduled to arrive today.

 

[Kino]

 

[flavio81]

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).

I calibrated the thing so focus was accurate wide open, that's why i'm suspecting of severe focus shift. Perhaps that thing was calibrated on the factory for correct focus when stopped down.

In any case most of these folders (including the ensgn) don't have proper film rails (rails + pressure plate design as in a 35mm SLR or a good medium format camera), so I have my doubts about film really staying consistently at the same plane.

 

[flavio81]

The F2's optical design is the only Nikkor good enough to share its design with Leitz.

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.

 

[flavio81]

It is the 'regular' version, not the 'pancake' version.

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.

But of course Nikonians, just as Leica fanboys too, think that their lenses are the ultimate and nothing can top them.

 

[flavio81]

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!

Ah, but you don't have the Nikon EL2 yet? How can you enjoy a FT3 without having an EL2 too?

 

[logan2z]

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)

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:

https://www.destoutz.ch/lens_50mm_f1.8_1828564.html

 

[trick]

Ah, but you don't have the Nikon EL2 yet? How can you enjoy a FT3 without having an EL2 too?

No EL2, just an F3 that honestly I end up using sparingly because it's in amazing condition and I'm scared to use it.

Yes, this makes no sense. Yes, I'm slowly getting over it. The way I rationalized the FT3 purchase is it would get me using my F-mount Zeiss lenses more often due to my irrational F3 problem.

 

[George Mann]

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.

It's the results that matter.

 

[George Mann]

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)

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.

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.

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.

 

[flavio81]

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.

Please elaborate more.

 

[flavio81]

using my F-mount Zeiss lenses

F-MOUNT Zeiss LENSES?! WHAT?!

How can you dare insult the wisdom of Nippon Kogaku lens designers like Saburo Murakami or Zenji Wakimoto, by fitting a traditionless thing?

Sell those "Zeiss" lenses to DSRL users. You need to buy more true Nikkor glass. BUYBUYBUYBUYBUYBUYBUYBUY

 

[George Mann]

Please elaborate more.

It is something that you need to experience for yourself. This particular Nikkor is dirt cheap.

 

[flavio81]

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.

 

[George Mann]

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.

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.

Every other lens added something "extra" (sharpness, contrast etcetera).

 

[flavio81]

Every other lens added something "extra" (sharpness, contrast etcetera).

You really are an acolyte of the "high fidelity" church!

Thanks for this explanation.

 

[flavio81]

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.

 

[George Mann]

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.

Too many to count. But I can tell you that some of the best ones have been made by less known makers, as well as Minolta and Yashica.