[Leica] Nikon S3 War

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

Stephen,
The truth of this is all over the historical record, in magazine and
newspaper articles and photographers' formal and informal memoirs. It is
NOT an exaggeration to say that Nikkor lenses caused a "sensation" among
U.S. photographers in the very early '50s. Furthermore, I believe that
the "sensational" nature of their acceptance resulted, to no small
degree, in the reputation that Leica lenses enjoy to this day: because I
think it caused Leitz to redouble its own efforts in the area of
optics...in response to the challenge and in conjunction with the
introduction of the M3.

Leitz wasn't known for producing the highest-quality lenses during most
of the screwmount era: Zeiss was. The best Leica lens of the screwmount
era as a whole was a copy of a Zeiss design. The Leica Xenon and the
Summar were certainly not universally admired, as is betrayed by that
1946 quote from Beaumont Newhall's journal that I posted a few days ago.
The Leica 90mms of f/4 and slower were certainly not the foundation of
any great optical reputation.

The 7-element Summicron (early foundation of Leica's current reputation
for optical excellence in the modern era--a reputation it gained in part
from magazine reviews and tests, such as _Modern Photography's_
pronouncement that it was "the best lens they ever tested" or words to
that effect) was introduced in 1954, and the lanthanum-glass f/2.8
Tessar-type Elmar in 1958 (right?). Is it an accident that so many great
Leitz lenses were introduced between 1954 and 1960? I don't think so. It
was in part reactive, and what it was a reaction TO was--again, n.b.,
I'm saying "in part"--the enthusiastic reception professionals gave the
Nikon lenses.

I think that, as late as 1960, but certainly in the early '50s, in
response to the question, "who makes the very best quality lenses?", 4
out of 5 photographers would still have said "Zeiss." The status of
Leica lenses as the undisputed _ne plus ultra_ of 35mm optical quality
is a somewhat later phenomenon. I don't believe it pre-dated the
introduction of the 7-element 50mm Summicron in 1954 to any significant
degree.

- --Mike



>>>>
Well Marc,

Considering that the NY Times which broke the Nikon Lens story in
December of
1950, Modern Photography and Popular Photography which repeated the
story,  and
every photo reference book I have read on the subject disagrees with
your
version,  what is the source or sources of your claim  ??

According to a June 1951 Modern Photography article written by John
Wolbarst,
the camera editor of the New York Times, Jacob Deschin, broke the Nikon
story in
December 1950 saying

"The first post-war Japanese camera to attract serious attention in
America has
created a sensation among magazine and press photographers following the
report
by Life photographers in Korea that a Japanese 35mm camera and its
lenses had
proved superior to the German cameras  they had been using.  The camera
is the
Nikon...The lenses...are the Nikkor."

According to Wolbarst in the Modern Photo article, the first photog to
discover
Nikon lenses was Horace Bristol, who in turn introduced Nikon lenses to
David
Duncan, Carl Mydans, and Hank Walker, Life war photogs.   Wolbarst says
that
"virtually all" of DDD Life pics of the War were with Nikon lenses.  He
also
says that "Mydans, Walker, and later John Dominis, also of Life, used
the Nikkor
lenses almost exclusively for their Korean war coverage.    Life the had
the
camera and lenses tested by optical experts to see if they really were
as good
as their men said.  Their experts said that the were."

It is worth mentioning that DDD used screw mount Nikkors on his Leica.
In
practical terms it would seem he was saying that the Nikkors were better
than
Leica lenses at the time.   Most notable were the 50/1.4 and 85/2
Nikkors --
focal lengths and speeds that Leica did not match well in sharpness.
Leica's
two comparable lenses were the 50/1.5 Summarit and 85/1.5 Summarex --
neither of
which is generally considered sharp  at wider apertures.     While Zeiss
made a
limited number of wartime Leica mount lenses,  photogs could not go into
the
camera store and order new Zeiss lenses in Leica mount.  I've been told
DDD
particularly liked the 85/2 Nikkor.  It was a different optical design
than the
Zeiss 85/2 Sonnar, which Wolbarst notes in his article.


So Marc, beyond your source(s), what proof do you have that your source
was
telling you the truth,  and not just taking in a gullible mark ?

Also, where did you get your claimed $10 cost of Nikon lenses  ??
The  Nikkor
prices  as reported by Wolbarst are $89.50 for the 35/3.5, $54.50 for
the
50/3.5, $107 for the 50/2, $198 for the 50/1.4, $175.50 for the 85/2,
and
$154.50 for the 135/3.5.

Stephen Gandy