Do I really need a 300mm lens?

[Ted Harris]

I'm cracking up! Thanks David and Ken. There is some glitch in my system here that absolutely willnot get my html posts through to this forum .... I have just not had time to pick it apart.

Thanks

[Bill Brady]

Hey Ted,

I got to your pics on the first try. Nice, my kind of photos.

I talked to Jeff at Badger and told him my situation. He, too, is backordered for the Nikkor M. He talked me into the Fujinon 300/8.5 (after I brought up the subject. Hopefully it'll be here tomorrow.

The logic: better coverage (not a factor), 30 grams lighter, Uses FLAs that I already have many of (49mm). and has better coatings. I guess the weight and coatings tipped the scale.

BTW, I am shopping for some other Nikon items and finding many items that are on back order. Perhaps it's the time of year.

[Michael Kadillak]

There is no way I would purchase a 300mm lens with only 14" of bellows. Frustration will set in on shots that you think would be infinity and are not.

The easiest thing to do is to simply step five steps forward with your 210. Perspective is identical - only the image size changes. And I am saying this as the owner of 12 Nikon lenses. They are tremendous with the correct supporting cast (bag bellows and at the right long bellows).

You need a camera with at least 24" of bellows IMHO.

Cheers!

[Tony Karnezis]

Mr. Kadillak beat me to the point (Hi Mike!). I haven't used a Tachihara, but using my Nikkor 300/9 on my Shen Hao is an exercise in frustration since many subjects are closer than infinity, and I don't have enough extension. Consequently, I use my 210 Symmar-S for almost all my shooting. Because it's a relatively heavy lens and I like longer focal lengths, I just got a 240/9 Fujinon like Steve Clark suggested. I'll be selling the 210 and maybe the 300 too since the 240 is close enough to the 300 (and for 8x10, the Fujinon excels at true 1:1 macro work vs the Nikkor from what I've read; haven't done the direct comparison yet).

[Michael Kadillak]

Hey Tony!

Sounds like you have been very busy with photography since the recent seminar.

As you stated, there is nothing quite as frustrating as attempting to use what is perceived on paper as a workable set of parameters only to find out that it was a complete waste of time. I was out of town and was rather surprised that this situation and its deficiencies was not brought to the attention of Bill earlier. It is not about the lens as either the Nikon or the Fuji are smoking good lenses, but what takes the lens to the dance.

Rarely do I really shoot many of my 12" and longer lenses at infinity. Even if you did, think of all of the images you are missing beause the damn camera will not focus them. You only have 2"" to play with for goodness sakes!

I predict that you will either acquire a new camera of the 300 will be owned by someone else within two months time.

Cheers!

[Melchi M. Michel]

Bill,

I have to disagree with Bill and Michael. I myself use a Shen Hao with a 300M and a 35mm extension board to do portraits (head shots) focusing as close as 4 feet without running into any stability problems. I don't know whether your Tachihara is as solid as the Shen Hao, but if it is, I think you'll be fine with the Tachi and either of the light 300mm lenses--that is, unless you're planning to do macro.

[Rich Long]

My combination of Tachihara 4x5 and Nikon 300M on a flat board will focus to 16 feet. I suppose it might get closer in cases where tilt is used. For landscape photography, that's good enough for me. For studio or macro, it won't be close enough.

[Bill Brady]

Well, it's academic now as the Fujinon lens will be here today.

Here is an example of when I think a 300mm would help: I was set up on a dock on the side of a small inlet or bay. The longest lens I had at the time was a 180. Near the other shore <sigh> came a beautiful 4 masted sailing ship. There was a light mist and the wind was down so I had a lot of time to set up the shot. I made the photo, but the ship was just too far away to make a good image. I'm not good at judging distance, especially over water, but I am sure it was close to infinity. I'll likely never get another opportunity to make that shot again.

I do have a 1000mm mirror lens on a 35mm, sometimes I use that for long aquascapes but the quality (contrast) is not as good as I want.

BTW, I have spent some time digging into the specs on both the Nikkor and the Fujinon. The differences are small, but there is a number of characteristics in which I lean in the direction of the Fuji. It's a bit lighter, has better coverage (unimportant in this case), has slightly shorter focal distance, and it appears to have truly better coatings. Unfortunately niether Nikon or Fuji publish the detailed specs as do the German makers.

Also, I have been looking for a Nikkor M 300mm since 2001. So this is no rush decision.

[Bill Brady]

Hey Melchi,

I have been having good success using my 150mm Apo Symmar for macro work. I sometimes add a Nikon achromatic (2 lens) close up lens, although when I operate in the vicinity of 1:1 I usually revert to MF, again with the aforementioned Nikon achromat.

[Michael Kadillak]

For the purposes of closing this post, let us know how it works with the new lens after you have had a chance to make photographs with it.

Cheers!