Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

[scerto]

The 450 M also covers 8x20 nicely also.

Wow

Thanks for that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pere Casals]

You are missing the point.

Not missing the point, speaking about the M 450 some say that it has lower flare because 3 groups in a tessar, the point I say is that a modern tessar has same flare than a modern plasmat. IMHO it is an interesting point, still OP may not be interested in if the M 450 has more or less flare than other designs, but as speaking about landscape usage I figure this is not an off topic, the 4x5 example was to show how flare is actually generated, that it does not come from the group count (because MC), and how flare can actually be avoided in landscape. The calculations were to support what I say as there is a discrepance.

Goshts are another thing...

[Leigh]

Interesting that Nikon describes the M with:
"Chromatic aberration is virtually eliminated over the entire visible portion of the spectrum..."

But they do not describe it as an apochromat.

- Leigh

Quote is from Nikkor Lenses for Large Format Cameras, 2002-2004, page 13.
Full doc here: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf...rmatLenses.pdf

[Michael Kadillak]

Way too much time and effort on taking things far further then the original post intended.

The objective here is to make images not banter about issues that are not issues at all.

If in the process of using a lens you experience a problem - deal with it and learn from it. I have never had a problem with flare on cameras from 4x5 through 12x20 with any long lens (up to 1,000mm) or short lens (down to 75mm) given proper consideration to the angle of the sun and the lens. A bit of appropriate delivered shade (dark slide, or anything for that matter) takes this issue and effectively sets it aside.

Onward!

[Leigh]

Way too much time and effort on taking things far further then the original post intended.

Forgive us for trying to further your education.

I certainly will not make that mistake in the future.

- Leigh

[Sal Santamaura]

...Without having anything remotely close to a serious statistical sample, he seems to come up with lens to lens variations which probably reflect habitual inconsistencies in his own methodology rather than anything real...

...Evidence please. Particularly, your own multi-sample test results that show greater or lesser variation. And please document the 'consistent methodology' you used to obtain those results. ...

...My evidence is prints. When one of those web gurus can print to my level... Otherwise ...The mere fact people do lens tests using conventional holders means they struck out and never got to first base to begin with...

In other words, you have no evidence that the methodology Kerry and Christopher used was habitually inconsistent and didn't reveal actual performance of the samples they tested under the conditions most readers here use their large format equipment. Only you, who knows everything about everything, can be relied on to pass judgement on the results.

...sheet film is one thing; try taking the same lens you use for 8X10 and expose tiny little roll film images with it. If it outperforms reputable dedicated MF lenses, what does that tell you? I do it all the time. So why do I need alleged tests that say next to nothing actually useful?

Once again, you have arm-waved your way to something other than the topic. Sheet film (unless someone's using wet plates or one of those 4x5-or-larger digital sensors that meet the criteria of this forum) in sheet film holders is what this forum is about. Whether or not you "need" the Perez-Thalmann results is irrelevant. If you don't find them useful, don't use them. What's relevant is that you've denigrated those results without basis. Repeating an allegation is not evidence. Knocking others' work doesn't serve to elevate one's reputation.

[Pere Casals]

But they do not describe it as an apochromat.
[/url]

Leigh, we have to consider that "APO" is not the same than "true apochromatic".

"true apochromatic" is having secondary chromatic aberration corrected, so no "purple fringing" at all, checked with a microscope.

"APO" is more a commercial term meaning a "better lens", perhaps with lower secondary. For example the Sironar-N MC was promoted to APO with no design change. At one point APO was a cool lettering to stamp.

I ignore what "APO" stamped glasses are more or less apochromatic, but if not having nice pinky rainbows in velvia corners then we are in the safe side

(Sorry for the off)

[Sal Santamaura]

...how does one gain the experience, knowledge, ability to decide what meets their goals and what does not...

One and only one way. By personally trying the various lenses and evaluating results against one's own goals. Since the world has changed, with brick-and-mortar camera stores selling large format lenses virtually extinct, it's become almost impossible for a photographer to be afforded an opportunity to test multiple samples of any given lens and pick the highest performing one. Thus, the only viable approach is to perform research, then try out whatever (almost always used) lens posters' opinions and the data steer one toward.

If one's goals aren't met, sell the lens off and try again. That's where we are today. That seems to be what the OP was doing. With luck he'll be wise enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[scerto]

One and only one way. By personally trying the various lenses and evaluating results against one's own goals. Since the world has changed, with brick-and-mortar camera stores selling large format lenses virtually extinct, it's become almost impossible for a photographer to be afforded an opportunity to test multiple samples of any given lens and pick the highest performing one. Thus, the only viable approach is to perform research, then try out whatever (almost always used) lens posters' opinions and the data steer one toward.

If one's goals aren't met, sell the lens off and try again. That's where we are today. That seems to be what the OP was doing. With luck he'll be wise enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Sal, as some of you has pointed out, the whole trade has gone a bit off the trail. My question was general, but also straightforward. Just wanted to know what experience you all have had with this lens. I do like similar lenses for my 4x5 work and wanted to have similar glasses for the bigger camera. I'm not really into to tests and other stuff. For sure I'm interested in lens rendering, contrast, structure, aberration, coverage and so forth.

At the moment I own a 300mm Nikkor W and a Rodenstock Sironar N 360mm and using them a lot for portrait. Wanted a longer lens for landscape, as I use the 210/240 a lot and the 450mm could have some relation with them, being almost the same focal length on 8x10

Kind of got lost with all those data based on tests. Was more oriented on the feeling of the lens.

bests

[Drew Wiley]

The proof is in the pudding. Shading your lens is important, and even the specific design of a bellows can affect how much surplus light bounces around. But so do air/glass interfaces, even with modern multicoated lenses. I could easily see the difference in my chromes, and even quit using a MC dagor for chromes because the contrast was so high. Nikkor M's are more similar to my single-coated Kern dagor. Truly nice microtonality in B&W, and very clean hue reproduction.