which El-Nikkor 50mm f2.8?

[Tim M]

Many here have recommended the El-Nikkor 50mm f2.8 as a good (perhaps very good) lens for the 2x ~ 5x range. But in reviewing available lens on fleabay, there appears to be at least 2, possibly 3 different versions, at least externally. Are they all equally good? I thought I read somewhere about "single coating" on the older ones.

The older ones seem to have the f-stop numbers visible continuously around the lens, while the newer appearing versions seem to have only the selected stop visible in a "cut-out" of a (selector?) ring. Some of the older ones appear to have a scalloped outer front edge, while others (with all the stop numbers visible) do not. The Fleabay images will quickly go unavailable, but for now here are the (3?) versions I think I see:

oldest?

middle age?

newest?

Sorry if this has already been covered elsewhere, but initially I couldn't find any images of the recommeded lens, and I wanted to ask before actually expending any funds.

Thanks,
Tim

PS: I still have my old Canon 35mm SLR FD 50mm f3.5 macro lens. I assume the El-Nikkor 50mm f2.8 would be better for the 2x-4x range (on APS-C)?

[ChrisR]

About the best reference appears to be here! Took a while to find.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=3510
..and yes you have it about right, and it doesn't appear to make a significant difference.

I came across an article where a guy was testing a large number of the better enlarger lenses - for enlarging. The comment I remember was that what you really have to watch out for is a bad lens,, he found a relatively high number in his collection. He was printing though; we only use the middle of the lens' field, and flatness of field and other matters like vignetting aren't of great importance .

I've got my socks on so I can't tell you how many 50-ish mm lenses I have. Using them a couple of stops from maximum aperture, so far I haven't seen much between the better (6 element) ones. Perhaps finer pixel sensors than mine (8 micron) would pick up more.

You should be able to get a 50mm EL-Nikkor very cheap, and it would be interesting to see how it goes against your Canon. I'm guessing you'd have a hard time showing much between them on a picture of something other than a test chartt, given a little post prcessing.
I have tried the El-Nik against 55mm Micro Nikkor - an old f/3.5 and a newer f/2.8. Tiny differences only, which mostly evaporate with PP.

[rjlittlefield]

I don't have as many lenses as ChrisR, but his assessment seems sound to me.

If that FD-mount 50 mm f/3.5 macro has a manual aperture (or can be hacked to have), then the first thing I'd try is just reversing it on tubes or bellows.

--Rik

[ChrisR]

I don't have as many lenses as ChrisR

They elope away for months on end; when I scour the place I find they've been breeding. I haven't managed to track down my 105mm or 70-180mm Micro Niks since last year. I hope they're fertile too...

[ChrisLilley]

Many here have recommended the El-Nikkor 50mm f2.8 as a good (perhaps very good) lens for the 2x ~ 5x range. But in reviewing available lens on fleabay, there appears to be at least 2, possibly 3 different versions, at least externally. Are they all equally good? I thought I read somewhere about "single coating" on the older ones.

Yes, the older (metal bodied, scalloped ring) type is single coated. The 'new' type is multicoated with, I believe, Nikon NIC coating and has a plastic body. For use in visible light, its the later, multicoated version you want for higher contrast and better flare control.

As to your 'intermediate' type - I don't recall seeing one before and it is older than the other two, because the company name is given as 'Nippon Kogaku Japan' not 'Nikon'. It will therefore also be single coated.

I had thought that all types were optically the same, but the image found by Charles Krebs shows this not to be the case:


Image credit: Nikon Corporation.

Both are six element in four group designs. Avoid the 4-element El-Nikkor 50mm f/4 which is optically inferior.

[ChrisLilley]

The older ones seem to have the f-stop numbers visible continuously around the lens, while the newer appearing versions seem to have only the selected stop visible in a "cut-out" of a (selector?) ring.

Yes, it is an aperture ring and the selected aperture is visible in the cut-out, which is illuminated when the lens is used on an enlarger.

For use reversed on bellows, the window on the mount where the light enters to illuminate the aperture scale should be blocked. You can use black tape, or you can undo three screws and re-position the plate so that the window no longer aligns with the cut-out.

[ray_parkhurst]

The newer ones have the nice feature of a 30-deg click-stop rotation after seating to allow lining up the aperture window for best viewing.

The older ones were designed and built before computers were used (much) in optical design. They were redesigned later when computer calculation was much easier and a slightly better overall optical formula was found. I have not compared the 50mm old vs new, but same goes for the 105mm. However, I prefer the older 105mm lenses to the newer ones. I see a slightly better resolution and field flatness with the older ones. Could be sample variation. The older ones were likely more thoroughly OQA tested.

I've read many times about blocking out the light from illuminated f-stop window, but is this really necessary? Has anyone tested contrast both ways and concluded that it helps? In normal (enlarging) use the light hitting the illuminator is very bright, and only a little gets through to the window. It is also filtered deep red I believe. I suppose if your lighting setup places a bright bulb within inches of the lens, pointing directly at the window, you might see a bit of extra red light at film plane, but otherwise does it really need to be blocked? I like to think of this as a photographic urban legend...

[ChrisLilley]

I've read many times about blocking out the light from illuminated f-stop window, but is this really necessary? Has anyone tested contrast both ways and concluded that it helps? In normal (enlarging) use the light hitting the illuminator is very bright, and only a little gets through to the window. It is also filtered deep red I believe. I suppose if your lighting setup places a bright bulb within inches of the lens, pointing directly at the window, you might see a bit of extra red light at film plane, but otherwise does it really need to be blocked? I like to think of this as a photographic urban legend...

You are right. I have not tested it. I heard about it, and blocked the window with tape as soon as the lens arrived. Doing so is surely not going to make the picture worse. But I have not taken the time to test whether there is any visible improvement.

[ChrisR]

Do you really need to block the light path on a reversed lens?
Normal orientation, maybe,,,

[SONYNUT]

I keep this in my regular camera kit in case I find something tiny I want a shot of

[Tim M]

First, thanks everybody! This Forum is amazing!

For the FD lens,

If that FD-mount 50 mm f/3.5 macro has a manual aperture (or can be hacked to have), then the first thing I'd try is just reversing it on tubes or bellows.

how far should I stop it down? Even at 3x wouldn't it begin to challenge the diffraction limits? If I'm limited to about f16 effective appature (Canon T2i APS-C), doesn't f4 x (3x mag + 1) get there pretty quick? (I'm probably not understanding the situation right here.)

Thanks again,
Tim

[rjlittlefield]

You have the calculation right. The uncertainty is in knowing how well each lens will actually hold up to being used wide.

The EL Nikkors are f/2.8 wide open, but they weren't actually intended to be used wide open. That was for convenience in focusing, to get a nice bright image on the enlarger base. In practice, using them as enlarging lenses, you'd more commonly stop them down to something like f/8 so as to get nice sharp grain corner to corner on a 36mm x 24mm frame, even with a bit of film curvature or misalignment between the lens, film carrier, and baseboard.

It turns out that the EL Nikkors do hold up pretty well to being used wide, but I don't recall reading a single report that they're best full open. Best between f/4 and f/5.6 is a common report.

I don't recall reading any reports about the Canon f/3.5 either, so that's an open question. But f/3.5 is a reasonably narrow aperture to start, so I wouldn't be surprised to see its top performance around f/4 and f/5.6, very similar to the EL Nikkor. Or it might be best wide open, or it might not get best until even narrower, maybe around f/8. No way to tell except to try it.

After all this, the short answer to your question "how far...?" is something like "every 1/3 or 1/2 stop from wide open until you've clearly passed the best aperture". If best happens before f/5.6, then what you have is probably very similar to an EL Nikkor and you haven't spent any more money. If best is down at f/8 or lower, then what you have is not very good and you should move up.

The best lenses I personally own in the 3X to 5X range are an Olympus 38 mm f/2.8 bellows macro and a Canon MP-E 65. Both of those are comfortably better than the EL Nikkor 50mm f/2.8, but at typical prices they also cost about 20X more dollars.

At some point, you have to ask yourself, "How much do I really care about getting highest resolution at 3-5X, when it's cheap and easy to get way more resolution over a smaller field by moving to a 10X microscope objective pushed down to 7X or so."

See for example the comparison block HERE for assorted lenses at matching 10X on sensor, or perhaps even more telling, HERE, third panel, for a comparison of detail resolved on subject by various lenses that are allowed to run at different magnifications on sensor.

--Rik

[ChrisR]

Tim I don't know your camera but try a loupe on the live view screen, expanded as far as it'll go. It's fairly easy to tell which way the resolution is going as you click the aperture, without even saving the images. If from maximum it's "getting better at f/4" then "getting worse at f/8", - that'll be f/5.6 then
Then if you can put the same lens straight onto more extension, you'll see how things change, and get some idea how the lens likes to work at different magnifications, and how much diffraction is messing things up. "Idea" because of course the blurs combine.

As an aside, something like a standard 50mm f/1.8 is interesting to try on the same subject. They seem to be particularly hopeless around 1:1. I assume that's because on the outside end they're designed for light rays coming nearly parallel, not from 100mm away, and 50mm vs 100 on the inside.
I borrowed a modern $3500 Summilux 50mm f/1.4 from a friend. I left him my wife for distraction.
It's a very good lens in normal use wider than f/2. Reversed on long bellows it was pretty impressive at M=several, though the field was curved. The owner wouldn't let me hang on to it long enough to do stacks - he wasn't happy with the deal and wanted his lens back.

[Oskar O]

I've read many times about blocking out the light from illuminated f-stop window, but is this really necessary? Has anyone tested contrast both ways and concluded that it helps? In normal (enlarging) use the light hitting the illuminator is very bright, and only a little gets through to the window. It is also filtered deep red I believe. I suppose if your lighting setup places a bright bulb within inches of the lens, pointing directly at the window, you might see a bit of extra red light at film plane, but otherwise does it really need to be blocked? I like to think of this as a photographic urban legend...

I just got in from doing some UV shots outdoors with the El Nikkor right way round and not blocking the window made for some nasty flare. These conditions are unusual, but shows it can happen when the subject is relatively dark and light comes from above (don't we all want to keep contrast high?)

When the lens is reversed however, taping obviously makes no difference.

One thing with the older lenses is the 34.5 mm filter threads, which are practically impossible to find any adapter for nowadays. If anyones knows where to get one that is not custom made, I'd be interested.

[ray_parkhurst]

Of course Nikon made such an adapter, going from 39mm x 1/26" male to 34.5mm male. I have one but must say it cost me more than such an animal would cost to have custom-made! ...Ray