Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

[Pere Casals]

several 360's which all more compact than general-purpose plasmats and have ample coverage for 8X10.

In my experience a great coverage it has a severe drawback: great flare if corrective shade is not used.

Drew, I realized that time ago from this post about SA 120, in post #2 , I saved that link as a (to me) significative one.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...l=1#post487825

Don Dudenbostel said "Flare is more of an issue due to light scattering in the bellows than the optical properties of the lens in my opinion". IMHO he nails a right concept.

You were also posting there yet, it was 2009...

[Drew Wiley]

That is true. Excess light from a bright overcast, for example, taken into a large circle of illumination, is going to land somewhere - preferably on a well-placed shade rather than the film. But the number of lens elements, the type of glass and coatings can make a significant difference. Two weeks ago I shot my P67 300 EDIF at an interesting subject almost into the sun. It's probably the finest MF telephoto ever made, and has a good shade and relatively narrow angle if view. But the shots still had some veiling flare. So I went back with my Sinar and the 300M - no problem, even though it has a big image circle. I did shade it too, of course.

[Pere Casals]

That is true. Excess light from a bright overcast, for example, taken into a large circle of illumination, is going to land somewhere - preferably on a well-placed shade rather than the film. But the number of lens elements, the type of glass and coatings can make a significant difference. Two weeks ago I shot my P67 300 EDIF at an interesting subject almost into the sun. It's probably the finest MF telephoto ever made, and has a good shade and relatively narrow angle if view. But the shots still had some veiling flare. So I went back with my Sinar and the 300M - no problem, even though it has a big image circle. I did shade it too, of course.

Drew, my understanding of the underlying physics and my personal measurements convinced me that a modern MC plasmat or tessar does not generate any kind of flare that can be seen in a photograph.

Just realize that 1978' EBC coating from fuji had transmitance of 99.8% so the chance of a photon hitting an element is reflected back and forth again is 0.002 x 0.002 x number of surfaces to the beginning og the lens, this is 4/1,000,000 x 13 for the 4th element, or way less depending on the chance the photon ends in the barrel's wall.

If you measure the flare generated by any MC plasmat (not by the bellows) you will see that this is zero for practical considerations.

I may concede that you have a great experience with the M 300, but this is not because a W 300 could generate any kind flare. I also mesured flare of a W 360 and was absolutely negligible... this is without bellows...

If you have a large circle illumination bellows... of course you may notice flare from bellows, if shade not used !!!

The M 300 has a relatively small circle... so it's possible that people not being aware of flare from bellows can say it flares less than an W, but IMHO this is because not understanding what happens...

... speaking on zooms, see Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 , this is 16 groups !!!! and no flare !!!!

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe it's more apparent in hue saturation. But even Nikon touted M lenses for their superior contrast and hue differentiation versus their general-purpose plasmats, which were also MC. I could see it in the chromes.

[Drew Wiley]

No flare in zooms????? Compared to what - other zooms?

[Pere Casals]

No flare in zooms?????

This Pro one !!!! 21 elements in 16 groups:

(See section Flare and Ghosts, http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-ii.htm)

[Pere Casals]

Maybe it's more apparent in hue saturation. But even Nikon touted M lenses for their superior contrast and hue differentiation versus their general-purpose plasmats, which were also MC. I could see it in the chromes.

Drew, for sure that an Nikon M and a R. Geronar will show "superior contrast and hue differentiation versus their general-purpose plasmats". For sure !!!

But this is because the simplified designs of the M and the Geronar deliver an smaller image circle, illuminating less the bellows.

If using a shade and trimming the AOC to the required then all MC LF glasses (the plasmats, the M and the Geronar) will deliver exactly the same "superior contrast and hue differentiation".

Has a Sironar-S a single flaw compared to a M? No !!!




The plasmat is a dominant design since MC invented, still the market had room for simplified designs delivering less circle. Rodenstock developed the Geronar simplified design to cover the cheap segment, while Nikon made the M for lightweight Pro segment, IMHO it is a good example...

Geronar and M show shortcommings from the simplification, still both are excellent performers within those acceptable limitations, and both show (amazingly) less bellows generated flare if no hood... clearly !!!

[scerto]

Drew, for sure that an Nikon M and a R. Geronar will show "superior contrast and hue differentiation versus their general-purpose plasmats". For sure !!!

But this is because the simplified designs of the M and the Geronar deliver an smaller image circle, illuminating less the bellows.

If using a shade and trimming the AOC to the required then all MC LF glasses (the plasmats, the M and the Geronar) will deliver exactly the same "superior contrast and hue differentiation".

Has a Sironar-S a single flaw compared to a M? No !!!




The plasmat is a dominant design since MC invented, still the market had room for simplified designs delivering less circle. Rodenstock developed the Geronar simplified design to cover the cheap segment, while Nikon made the M for lightweight Pro segment, IMHO it is a good example...

Geronar and M show shortcommings from the simplification, still both are excellent performers within those acceptable limitations, and both show (amazingly) less bellows generated flare if no hood... clearly !!!

This discussion is becoming interesting!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pere Casals]

This discussion is becoming interesting!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scerto, it is pleasing to know that the off topics I've with Drew can be of the interest of OP

But really, the important thing is the artistic drive of the photographer, way more than the glass, a true artist needs only the bottom of a coke's bottle to get a sound image. Nothing wrong in learning optics, that's good, but perhaps I'm the first in messing too much with glass and not thinking in searching the good illumination for an scene...

[Leigh]

But really, the important thing is the artistic drive of the photographer, way more than the glass, a true artist needs only the bottom of a coke's bottle to get a sound image.

There's a local legend about a press photographer who consistently won awards at photo shows.

His colleagues got fed up and stole his extensive and expensive kit, replacing it with a simple Kodak box camera. He continued to win awards using only the box camera.

True or not, I cannot say. But I believe it.

- Leigh