Thoughts on the Nikkor-T 360mm with a Wista VX

[KyledeC]

Hello all,

I'm looking for a telephoto to use on my Wista VX. I've been researching and have narrowed it down to the Nikkor-T 360mm f/8. Just curious to hear opinions and feedback on lens performance and how it handles on a field camera. Primarily will be using it with color transparency film. Im looking for a sharp high res lens. How would you guys say it compares optically to the Nikkor-M 300mm? Any info is greatly appreciated!

Cheers,
Kyle

[Corran]

They are both fine lenses. The Nikkor-T is much larger and heavier than the Nikkor-M. I don't think you will go wrong with either, and your consideration will be more based on which focal length you prefer, if you can spare the space/weight, and what your max bellows extension is.

[Mark Sampson]

I've used a Nikkor-M 300/9 on a 4x5 Tachihara, which has 13"of bellows. If your Wista has only 12" of extension (as do many lightweight 4x5s) that lens won't be useful, because you'll have the bellows fully extended at infinity. The Nikkor-T 360/8 uses less bellows draw (because it's a telephoto) and will work on a short-bellows camera. Both are superb optics. It's worth noting that most cameras are more comfortable when not extended fully. And that back in the '80s, the 300/9 was less than half the price of the 360/8, but that may no longer be the case.

[EdSawyer]

360/8-T is a great lens, there is no better tele lens for 4x5. Plus if you later want to, you can get the additional rear elements to make it a 500 or 720. Highly recommended, and sharper than the 300/9 I would expect.

[CreationBear]

360/8-T is a great lens

I'm curious, how fiddly is using tilt with the nodal point out in front of the lens? I'm facing the same dilemma as the OP, trying to find a "long" option for a Horseman technical camera. The 270/6.3 seems to tick a lot of boxes since it will allow me to focus relatively close, but I want to make sure I can take advantage of movements.

[Drew Wiley]

Would expect, Ed? Not likely at all. The 300M is extremely sharp and contrasty, with plenty of coverage on 4X5. Color rendering is exceptional - these M lenses are the last and best of the tessar lineage in this respect. One of the very best lenses one can get for 4X5 color work, which is no secret at all. It would be almost impossible to correct any telephoto lens to that degree. An even bigger problem is the weight and bulk of telephotos compared to a tiny lens like a 300M, which can affect sharpness if the rigidity of the front standard or entire camera balance is deficient in any way. Of course, if your camera simply doesn't have sufficient bellows extension, you're stuck with either a telephoto or a tophat lens board. I'd get another camera before opting for a telephoto versus M lenses. (I'll admit I'm an aging backpacker, and that I put a higher priority on small lenses than I once did; but tiny lenses like Nikkor M's and Fuji A's stand on their optical merit too.) I do use very high quality telephotos on med format and 35mm systems, but that's for circumstances where a view camera in general would be clumsy or slow. Let me give a specific example. I own a 300EDIF for a Pentax 6x7, generally regarded as the one of the finest, if not the best corrected MF telephoto ever. It's so good that it's coveted by wide-field astronomical photographers (comet and planet hunters etc) who spend tens of thousands of dollars just to obtain their concept of a "tripod"worthy of it. And it's a recent design unquestionably way better corrected than any large format telephoto. But my Nikkor M and a 120 film back on my view camera deliver even superior results to the 300EDIF, at least in my world of comparatively short daytime exposures. And on a view cameras, telephotos come with quite a penalty to the image circle. I'm certainly not badmouthing lenses like the 360 Nikkor T or Fuji 400T - they're plenty good for even 30X40 inch prints. Yet the 300M is even better.

[EdSawyer]

Drew: I would suggest you stand corrected. This site shows the Nikkor-T to be sharper into the corners, particularly at f/22 and above. http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html results there bear out the tests I've done on my own lenses as well. Interestingly the 300m shows slightly better results than the T @ f/11 in the center.

Re: tilt - I generally don't use it with the teles, so can't really comment there. I will say the 270/6.3 is a great lens also, esp. nice for portraits.

[CreationBear]

Re: tilt - I generally don't use it with the teles, so can't really comment there. I will say the 270/6.3 is a great lens also, esp. nice for portraits.

Thanks, Ed--I think that's pretty much the consensus. I'll have to figure out whether it will be more--or less--versatile than a Fuji 240A with the short bellows draw I'm working with, but I'm sure I'd be happy with either lens.

[Drew Wiley]

Ed - I don't give a @@@$$%%$% about some loosey-goosey half-baked web reference. Just like MANY others on this forum, I actually use a 300M and know darn well what it can ACTUALLY do. It can even cover 8X10 with extreme sharpness clear out to the very edges of the corners provided movements are conservative and a reasonable f-stop used (I recommend it for 4x5 or 5x7, and not 8x10 with strong front tilt or rise). I just printed a 300M 8x10 shot a couple weeks ago. Even under a 10X loupe the shot is immaculately sharp across the board. Who on earth shoots view lenses at f/11 unless it's a soft-focus type? - who probably wouldn't like the rendering of an M anyway, but rather the gentler background blur of older tessars. Gosh, I get tired of people quoting Aristotle instead of going to the horse's mouth to count the teeth. Buy one. You won't be sorry! Perez is to LF users like Ken Rockwell is to DLSR pixel peepers - to be taken with a grain of salt, or at least caution.

[Bernice Loui]

Ding, Ding, Ding...

Prefers Kodak EKtar, Xenar and similar at f4.5-f6.3 on 5x7 sheet film often enough. Resistance to stopping down to not more than f22. 5x7 or smaller sheet film will produce excellent image quality due to film being flatter in the holder than larger sheet film sized. The more curved-distorted sheet film sits in it film holder, the greater the problem of using large lens apertures.

Couple this with the precision and accuracy of GOOD monorail view camera and precise camera movements that allows enough image focus control to use larger lens apertures with excellent results. If the majority of the image area is focused to infinity or near infinity, using large lens apertures can often be a plus.

The Dogma and Orthodoxy of Group f64 and, "everything in the image must be SHARP." Has been broken after a good stint using soft focus lenses and GOOD Tessar lenses that produce nice selective focus images at larger apertures with eye pleasing out of focus image areas.

This applies to High contrast, perceived sharpness lenses to.


Matter of preference really and not much more..

Bernice

Who on earth shoots view lenses at f/11 unless it's a soft-focus type? - who probably wouldn't like the rendering of an M anyway, but rather the gentler background blur of older tessars.