Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Nagging dissatisfaction...

dissatisfaction nikon leica catharsis

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,573 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

Have you learnt how to decipher the old markings? Before the rubberized grip era, Nikon told up front how many elements the lenses had. 

 

I have compiled a list from several different sources around the net.

The letters signify the number of lenses:

T –Tres (3)
Q –Quatour (4)
P –Pente (5)
H –Hex (6)
S –Septem (7)
O –Octo (8)
N – Novem (9)
UD –UnoDecem (11)
QD –QuatourDecem (14)
PD –PenteDecem (15)

Auto –Automatic diaphragm. Meaning that the aperture is wide open for focusing and the body springs it down to working aperture while raising the mirror.

·C –Coated, that is the lenses are coated with an anti-glare coating. It can be either a single coat or the multi coat still in use today on lenses introduced before nanocoating.

These pre- and suffixes were scrapped in 1974 when the K-series was introduced.

If you find one of these, make sure that it has been converted to AI with a new aperture ring before you try to mount it to a modern body with AI coupling, they can break the coupling prong easily otherwise. 



#22
Dogbytes

Dogbytes

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationCornwall

I've become familiar with most of them during my recent research. However I haven't come across UD, QD or PD, which lenses used these optical designs? Presumably they're quite scarce.

 

The link you sent me a few days ago, regarding the conversion of the pre AI lenses was superb and I'd be quite happy to tackle the job if the lens hadn't already been converted. I didn't get the one I mentioned, by the way, but there are others around… :)



#23
Marcus Rowland

Marcus Rowland

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationLondon

I should probably add to my rant by mentioning that I got into photography via my training as a technician (and in those days you had to learn how to use everything from quarter-plate cameras down to 16mm, along with digressions into things like using radioisotopes and sheet film to study the transport of nutrients in plants), so my main photographic interest has usually been scientific photography, photomicro and macro especially, also some astronomy etc., areas where SLRs tend to excel. Maybe if I'd got in by another route I would have found Leica and other rangefinders more appealing.



#24
Brian

Brian

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Country Flag


I've become familiar with most of them during my recent research. However I haven't come across UD, QD or PD, which lenses used these optical designs? Presumably they're quite scarce.

 

The link you sent me a few days ago, regarding the conversion of the pre AI lenses was superb and I'd be quite happy to tackle the job if the lens hadn't already been converted. I didn't get the one I mentioned, by the way, but there are others around… :)

The wide-angle lenses with "lots of elements", I have the Nikkor-UD 20/3.5 which uses the 72mm filters.

 

14242869650_5482c5acb3_o.jpgPilot-s Day 2014, Nikon Df by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr



#25
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,573 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

One of the 15 mm lenses used 14 lenses in 12 groups. I think it was the f/5.6.

The only 15-element Nikkors I can think of are the 8.5-25cm/4-4.5 and 80-200/4.5. I am not sure if the PD marking was ever used on a lens as the zooms were marked Zoom-NIKKOR.



#26
Dogbytes

Dogbytes

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationCornwall

I should probably add to my rant by mentioning that I got into photography via my training as a technician (and in those days you had to learn how to use everything from quarter-plate cameras down to 16mm, along with digressions into things like using radioisotopes and sheet film to study the transport of nutrients in plants), so my main photographic interest has usually been scientific photography, photomicro and macro especially, also some astronomy etc., areas where SLRs tend to excel. Maybe if I'd got in by another route I would have found Leica and other rangefinders more appealing.

Okay, so I just wrote an 800 word reply and then decided it was over the top! :D :D :D

Basically, you either like them or you don't.



#27
Brian

Brian

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Country Flag

They have there uses, even in the technical fields. Around 2002 I loaned a Canon 50/0.95 to a scientist to use with a $25,000 sensor that was missing the mark performance wise. Next day he comes back and asks if I had another one he could borrow. 3dB gain.

 

25803705560_31b8376994_b.jpgRIMG0737 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

The transmission at 1.5microns was really good, a modern multi-coated optic is awful in that region. The selenium meter on this one is accurate.



#28
Wayben

Wayben

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationIowa

Site Supporter

Basically, you either like them or you don't.

 

There's the bottom line, lol!!!







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: dissatisfaction, nikon, leica, catharsis