Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

[scerto]

Hello everybody

I have the chance to get a Nikkor 450mm M f9 in mint conditions for my 8x10 work

Just like to hear your impressions about the lens

Will use for landscape mostly

Thanks

[karl french]

It's a great lens. Excellent optically and quite compact for a lens in a Copal 3 shutter. A very good focal length for 8x10 landscape work.

[scerto]

It's a great lens. Excellent optically and quite compact for a lens in a Copal 3 shutter. A very good focal length for 8x10 landscape work.

Thanks Karl!

I love working with the 240mm on a 4x5” and quite sure this would be a great choice for 8x10

I reckon it has got the same quality as other Nikkor lenses

Thanks again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Kasaian]

What karl french says. Lots of coverage, too.

[Pali K]

I use and love mine on 11x14. You will enjoy it.

Pali

[David Karp]

I had one that I used for 4x5. I sold it and purchased a 450mm Fujinon C. It had nothing to do with the quality of the photos. I just did not want to carry a big Copal No. 3 shutter around.

I made some very nice photos with it. They have a very nice quality to them. If I was using it on an 8x10 I would likely still have it.

[Pere Casals]

Best of M 450 is weight, 650grs for 450mm focal and 440mm circle.

It is a highly regarded lens for 8x10 Pros, it is multicoated and the simple design with less groups makes it flare resistant.

Drawback is that it only has 4 elements in 3 groups, tessar design, so it is a simple design that is less refined than a regular plasmat type lens, for example, a plasmat would probably deliver a larger circle, but for 450mm a plasmat would be huge. This is seen in then 300mm focal, for example, comparing Nikkor M 300 vs W 300, just to realize the M meaning.

The 450 focal needs only 52º to cover that 440mm circle, so with only 4 elements necessary performance can be reached, and manufacturing was also cheaper.

So it is a perfectly good lens for 8x10 landscape, if wanting more circle for architecture there is Fujinon CM-W 450 f/8 with 520mm circle, but weight is 1140grs.

The M 450 it is a lens that I was to acquire, I had a good opportunity, finally I judged that having a 360mm I can always crop the 8x10 negative and still having lots of image quality, and first I should deserve a lens like this.

[David Karp]

I think that is they key with this lens. It is smaller than a plasmat 450mm, which makes it more likely to be used. That is especially true for landscape photographers. It's why we 4x5 users love the 300 M so much. The "drawback" you mention is actually in some ways the strength of this lens. The Tessar-type design allows it to be smaller. For me, the design is probably what creates that special quality that I like so much. The Tessar-type lenses deliver images that have a very nice quality or character to them. They are sharp, but have . . . something else. I don't know how to describe it. I find this true whether using a Nikkor M, a Xenar, or a Fujinon L.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Awesome lens. I also use it on my 14x17 camera.

[Bernice Loui]

Poor judgement to judge a lens by the number of elements in it's design. What matters is the results of images produced.
Most every design has trade offs, learning to used a given design's good and bad promotes a symbiotic relationship between lens and expressive image making.


Bernice

Drawback is that it only has 4 elements in 3 groups, tessar design, so it is a simple design that is less refined than a regular plasmat type lens, for example, a plasmat would probably deliver a larger circle, but for 450mm a plasmat would be huge. This is seen in then 300mm focal, for example, comparing Nikkor M 300 vs W 300, just to realize the M meaning.