Turns out they got it right in 1959 (Nikon F)

[Excalibur2]

Actually, pre WWII. It's a recalculation of prewar Zeiss Sonnar designs. And yes, it's one of the all time great lenses.

erm Why was it discontinued?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

erm Why was it discontinued?

It was replaced with a Gauss type in the same focal length and barrel in the 70s, the Gauss (symmetrical) design has slightly sharper close-focus performance. Just what you want for a portrait lens....

 

[Excalibur2]

It was replaced with a Gauss type in the same focal length and barrel in the 70s, the Gauss (symmetrical) design has slightly sharper close-focus performance. Just what you want for a portrait lens....

Sounds logical I bet "not a lot of people know that"

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Sounds logical I bet "not a lot of people know that"

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/index.htm

There's some good info here about Nikons in general. The OCD part of me wants one of the Gauss versions, to compare with my original Sonnar clone.
I suppose I could buy one, check it out, then resell it. Not like they're expensive or anything.......

 

[kitanikon]

That's funny E.
I got the AIS Gauss version of the 105 as an "upgrade" from the Sonnar versions and never bothered to do a C/C
....and now I want to get a Sonnar version to do just that.

 

[PentaxBronica]

I'd have thought it makes good sense to have a sharp 105mm lens. Those wanting soft portraits can always add a filter to get the desired effect, and you'll be able to sell the lenses to people who want a sharp short telephoto as well.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'd have thought it makes good sense to have a sharp 105mm lens. Those wanting soft portraits can always add a filter to get the desired effect, and you'll be able to sell the lenses to people who want a sharp short telephoto as well.

I've used my Sonnar for portraits, and believe me when I say it is very sharp at portrait distances. I think the Gauss version focusses closer, I know the Gauss closes down to f:32 as opposed to the Sonnar's f:22.

The Sonnar is staggeringly sharp at distance, I have trouble seeing how much sharper a lens could be.

 

[PentaxBronica]

IIRC the Sonnar design was supposed to be at its sharpest at the largest aperture (it was originally designed for shooting sporting events at the 1936 Olympics)?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

IIRC the Sonnar design was supposed to be at its sharpest at the largest aperture (it was originally designed for shooting sporting events at the 1936 Olympics)?

I had a lens marked "Contessa-Nettel Sonnar 135mm f:4.5" mounted in a dial set Compur from the late 20s or early 30s, according to the number on the shutter. From disassembling the lens and comparing it to Sonnar diagrams, I am confident it was a Sonnar design. It was for a 9x12cm folding camera, and had soft corners on 4x5 no matter how far down it was stopped. So I'm pretty certain the Sonnar design predates the 1936 Olympics.

There was an "Olympic Sonnar" high speed, f:2.8/180mm lens made for the '36 games, but I do not know how it was optimised. It could very well have been at it's best wide-open, but this indicates absolutely nothing about other iterations of the Sonnar design.

 

[PentaxBronica]

Interesting - could be that the site I read that on had been confused by the special olympic design and thought it was the original (and that all Sonnars were designed that way).

 

[desertrat]

Kingslake discusses the development of the Sonnar series of lenses in 'A History of the Photographic Lens'. These lenses were designed by Ludwig Bertele who worked for Ernemann before becoming a Zeiss employee when Ernemann was absorbed into the Zeiss Ikon conglomerate in 1926. His first Sonnar type lenses were the Ernostars mounted on Ermanox cameras in the mid 1920s. He started designing Sonnars for Zeiss beginning in 1930. His f2.0 Sonnar lens was released in 1931.

Kingslake also mentions the first Sonnar type lenses to go on the market were designed by Charles Minor of Chicago in 1916. His designs were marketed by Gundlach as the Ultrastigmat as a fast motion picture taking lens. Scroll up a bit at the following link to see the paragraph on the Ultrastigmats.

http://books.google.com/books?id=OJ...a=X&ei=eclhULCpEoKL2AXHyYG4Cw&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Interesting - could be that the site I read that on had been confused by the special olympic design and thought it was the original (and that all Sonnars were designed that way).

Probably just typical internet vagueness and assumption. Folks have forgotten how to research things, it seems.
There's also a great deal of nonsense about the Olympic/Olympia Sonnars.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Kingslake discusses the development of the Sonnar series of lenses in 'A History of the Photographic Lens'. These lenses were designed by Ludwig Bertele who worked for Ernemann before becoming a Zeiss employee when Ernemann was absorbed into the Zeiss Ikon conglomerate in 1926. His first Sonnar type lenses were the Ernostars mounted on Ermanox cameras in the mid 1920s. He started designing Sonnars for Zeiss beginning in 1930. His f2.0 Sonnar lens was released in 1931.

Kingslake also mentions the first Sonnar type lenses to go on the market were designed by Charles Minor of Chicago in 1916. His designs were marketed by Gundlach as the Ultrastigmat as a fast motion picture taking lens. Scroll up a bit at the following link to see the paragraph on the Ultrastigmats.

http://books.google.com/books?id=OJ...a=X&ei=eclhULCpEoKL2AXHyYG4Cw&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ

Thanks for digging that out. I think Contessa-Nettel was part of Zeiss-Ikon after '26? I've always wondered why they used that design for the lens I had, it didn't behave much if any differently than an equivalent Tessar I had at the same time.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

It was replaced with a Gauss type in the same focal length and barrel in the 70s, the Gauss (symmetrical) design has slightly sharper close-focus performance. Just what you want for a portrait lens....

I have read on the internet (so it must be true) that Nikon was a little surprised that the Sonnar 105 was becoming popular as a portrait lens and not just a short tele. Perhaps they expected the 85 f/2 to keep that crown. So they improved the 105's near range performance with the Gauss design. The fact that they extracted still more resolution in general use is just the icing on the cake. I've shot both side by side using Tech Pan and the Gauss is a tiny bit sharper (although this might have been just visual due to an increase in contrast) but it took a 32x enlargement to see it and then only barely, in the wings of a distant bird over Long's Peak. I'll print up the neg and post a couple images.

s-a

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have read on the internet (so it must be true) that Nikon was a little surprised that the Sonnar 105 was becoming popular as a portrait lens and not just a short tele. Perhaps they expected the 85 f/2 to keep that crown. So they improved the 105's near range performance with the Gauss design. The fact that they extracted still more resolution in general use is just the icing on the cake. I've shot both side by side using Tech Pan and the Gauss is a tiny bit sharper (although this might have been just visual due to an increase in contrast) but it took a 32x enlargement to see it and then only barely, in the wings of a distant bird over Long's Peak. I'll print up the neg and post a couple images.

s-a

That's pretty much the same reason I read of.
I'll be interested in the images!
...maybe I'll get a Gauss version too.......

 

[semi-ambivalent]

That's pretty much the same reason I read of.
I'll be interested in the images!
...maybe I'll get a Gauss version too.......

I found those negatives, the 36th roll I shot in 1991, but they're not holding up very well; lots of scratches and dark specks, maybe mold or silver from unflushed silver halides. Alas. I'd never find that hawk in this so I just printed a 5x7 at around 32x and scanned it. It's de-lammed in places from the microwave quick-dry.

At 1.4MB I think it will download quick enough. Specs, as I recall:
Location: Chasm Lake at the foot of Longs Peak's east face. Maybe 10,000 feet. Longs is 14k, the ridge is maybe 13+. 6 AM
Nikon F, mirror locked up, tripod weighted.
105mm f/2.5 silver-nose Sonnar, f/8.
Red 25 filter.
Kodak Tech Pan developed in something. I think it's by the guy who made "Perfection", some kind of POTA or Windisch-based formula.
Sprocket hole included for scale.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

So 32x is about 32" x 48". And that size print would properly be viewed at say 6 to 10 feet, at which distance it would look fabulous. God I miss TechPan.

I took a slide in 1998, on the Rhine river of the Marksburg castle at a distance of a bit more than a mile. Handheld at 1/500 and whatever f stop worked that day - say f:5.6 to f:8 - with 100 speed Agfachrome, the weathervane atop one of the towers is clearly reproduced (although the film is losing it) and you can read the wind's direction. This with a silver-nose Sonnar 105 made about 1968, with some light coating marks on the front. I miss Agfachrome too.

Thanks for printing that and posting it.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

So 32x is about 32" x 48". And that size print would properly be viewed at say 6 to 10 feet, at which distance it would look fabulous. God I miss TechPan.

I took a slide in 1998, on the Rhine river of the Marksburg castle at a distance of a bit more than a mile. Handheld at 1/500 and whatever f stop worked that day - say f:5.6 to f:8 - with 100 speed Agfachrome, the weathervane atop one of the towers is clearly reproduced (although the film is losing it) and you can read the wind's direction. This with a silver-nose Sonnar 105 made about 1968, with some light coating marks on the front. I miss Agfachrome too.

Thanks for printing that and posting it.

You're quite welcome. The print focus might still be a bit off; I can't use a grain magnifier on the floor and turn the focusing knob on a 23CII at full extension at the same time. Plus, I think 32x is outside of an EL-Nikkor's range of best performance. It is also interesting to see how the print looks so much better than the digital scan. Film is truly a remarkable invention; I'm grateful to have picked it up at its zenith, hoping for a very long autumn. No telling how good digital will be when it's 130 years old!

You might look into Spur developer and a film Rollie markets, it might be Tech pan-ish. Google "Erwin Puts" and Leica. He has a piece on it. Freestyle sells it. I think CMS-20 is gone now.

s-a

 

[E. von Hoegh]

This Rollei film? http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/rollei_atp.php

 

[semi-ambivalent]

This Rollei film? http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/rollei_atp.php

From Puts's blog:
...
Their newest addition to the range is Nano Edge, specifically designed to improve definition of the Orthopan UR emulsion.
A companion product is Nano Grain, that is an improvement on Adotech. This test focuses on the Nano Edge developer.
...

But because DT mentions Spur developer you probably found the right one. Back-check via Freestyle, I'm sure I saw it there. Probably going to buy some, actually. (Buying, after I just bought a crapload of Eastman 5222...)

Got the Tech Pan juices flowing, do you?

s-a

 

[philosomatographer]

So long after starting this thread, the Nikon F was not a gear-acquisition fad. This camera is an eternal masterpiece, and the first-generation optics are a joy to work with. I just developed these:

Pondering the light

(Nikkor-H.C 50mm at f/2.0)

Tuk-tuk driver

(Sonnar-type Nikkor-P 105mm at f/2.5)

Guarding the poshness

(Nikkor-H.C 50mm at f/5.6)​

It's funny - over on the rangefinder forum, somebody asked the question - if you could use only one camera, one lens, one film - what would it be? More people nominated the Nikon F than any other single camera. I'm a bit surprised - I would be torn between this any my Leica M3 + 50mm Heliar, but it's a close call nevertheless. The Nikon F represents an era in mechanical design that will never return.

 

[benjiboy]

I 've owned several Nikon F's and F2's in the past and they are excellent cameras, but I.M.O. although they came late to the pro sytem camera party Canon's F1's system got it even more right, the Canon New F1 was I.M.O.the ultimate manual focus pro system S.L.R.

 

[Les Sarile]

I 've owned several Nikon F's and F2's in the past and they are excellent cameras, but I.M.O. although they came late to the pro sytem camera party Canon's F1's system got it even more right, the Canon New F1 was I.M.O.the ultimate manual focus pro system S.L.R.

Actually, Canon released a pro system body for each of Nikon's releases.
Nikon F (1959) - Canon Flex (1959)
Nikon F2 (1971) - Canon F-1 (1971)
Nikon F3 (1980) - Canon New F-1 (1981)

 

[benjiboy]

Actually, Canon released a pro system body for each of Nikon's releases.
Nikon F (1959) - Canon Flex (1959)
Nikon F2 (1971) - Canon F-1 (1971)
Nikon F3 (1980) - Canon New F-1 (1981)

That's true Les, but the the F1 in 1971 was Canon's first truly professional grade SLR whereas the Nikon F came out in 1959 and I doubt if the Canonflex was ever considered a truly professional model at the time because there was no motor drive facility , I never liked the Nikon F3 the Canon New F1 is I.M.O. a much better camera.

 

[Halka]

Reading this thread has caused me to gently fondle my F3