Clear Thinking on Nikon 450 F9?

[LabRat]

More simply, use it or loose it...

Just ask yourself if there was any chance you might require a longer FL/a little narrower FOV in the future...

You can keep it, or sell it and buy another later (if required)...

The ??? to ask yourself is "Do I need it???"...

Steve K

[Pawlowski6132]

Based on your shooting parameters, I would think that using a 450mm (18") lens would be difficult and, perhaps, cumbersome. Think of it this way, to get a 1:1 relationship on film with this lens would require 36" of bellows draw! 3 feet!! That's a lot of bellows and maintaining stability at that extension would be difficult. How much bellows extension does your bellows allow? Will it go to, at least, 27"? That might provide a workable image on the film that you could crop into, as needed.

I have about 34" and yes, my math and practice force me to the same conclusion regarding cumbersome not to mention the BE factor and reciprocity calculations...

[Pawlowski6132]

More simply, use it or loose it...

Just ask yourself if there was any chance you might require a longer FL/a little narrower FOV in the future...

You can keep it, or sell it and buy another later (if required)...

The ??? to ask yourself is "Do I need it???"...

Steve K

Yup. I have other equipment that I use periodically that I keep around. However, I really think this is a great and valuable lens that I should not leave to sit on the shelf. But, before I sold and re-bought later, I just thought I bounced it off other like-minded folks.

That's what this forum is for right? Having these conversations??

thanx to those who took the time to give their $.02.

But not Randy.

;^)

[Mark Sampson]

The Nikon 210 AM-ED is meant for macro work... wouldn't be my choice for portraits. The FL is good for 3/4 poses. If you want to do head-and-shoulders shots on 4x5 with any 210, the perspective may be unflattering- by needing to get too close to the subject.
A Nikkor-M 300/9 will give pleasing perspective for h&s framing. The portrait photographers will suggest that a 'portrait' lens will be even better, as the Nikkors may be too sharp. But those decisions are up to you. Sell the 450/9 to a ULF shooter.

[AuditorOne]

If it doesn't work for your photography then sell it and get something that does.

[Neal Chaves]

I have a 450/9 Nikkor and until recently when I also acquired a Nikkor 600/9 tele, I used it for portraits with a 67mm B+W .5 diopter close-up lens. Greatly reduces bellows extension with no loss in quality at portrait stops.

[EdSawyer]

I have the Nikkor-AM ED 210mm, it's a fantastic lens in general, agreed that it's optimized for 1:3 to 3:1 but it works fine on portraits too, as good as any 210 plasmat I have tried or other 8" lenses. Plenty sharp, nice bokeh wide open, well corrected.

Another worthwhile lens to consider is the Nikkor-T 360/500/720 tele. As sharp as the 450/9 (or better), faster aperture , faster shutter speeds, and smaller/lighter plus less bellows draw, and interchangeable focal lengths.

[ic-racer]

As you focus close with that lens, you angle of view gets dramatically smaller. Maybe to small for you. Either way, you already figured it out that you don't like it.

Also, for infrequent use or portriats, consider replacement with a convertible lens that gives something in the range of your 450 (368 or 476). Then you could come back to the "Long Focal Length Idea" later if you re-consider, but you are not tied to it permanently.

[Pere Casals]

am I coming to a reasonable conclusion?

Well, not much, IMHO.

The M series are simpler designs (than plasmats) with less elements and lower optical performance: smaller circle, less aperture, and worse (8x10) corners if not well stopped, but ideal for hiking lightweight with gear in the back, and a superb lens anyway in landscape conditions.

I say "not much" because available plasmats in the 450-480 focal length are not as fast as in the 300 and 360mm version, circle of the M 450 may be enough, and corners are mostly irrelevant (or completely) for portraits.

For 8x10 (to me) a M 300 cannot compete with a plasmat (Sironar-N, Symmar-S) for portrait, at all, because circle, lens speed, and optical performance, but available gear in the 450mm-480mm and 8x10 circle requirements makes the M450 a possible choice for studio.

Karsh favourite focal was 360 or 14"... in that focal you have a lot of better choices and no M, but if you want 450mm then M is a choice.


IMHO it is false that the M 300 has better contrast or less flare than a Nikon W 300. Simply a W 300 has a larger circle illuminating bellows, and this delivers more flare if not using a front hud. Light reflected in the bellows is the single flare source in Multicoated plasmats.

[chassis]

If it feels like it doesn't fit your style, then it doesn't fit your style.

450 to me is a bit short for head and shoulders. Your choice of 150 on 8x10 and 5x7 seem to indicate you enjoy a wider perspective, is that right? If you enjoy a wider perspective, a 450 on 8x10 could give loose head and shoulders framing. Studio size plays into this as well. I recently did some portraits in a completely empty living room and it was joy to have all of that space.