Nikkor T 500 ED: Is it sharp?

[Paul Schilliger]

I know the reputation of this lens is high. But I came to share with a friend wh o ownes one (and from who I borrowed it) and we could not state that the lens wa s sharp. We both pulled out a variety of pictures taken with the same lens sampl e (an early make) and with different cameras in a variety of situations, with a range of f-stops. Even if they looked good under a 3x loupe, closer scrutiny on all the slides we had showed a certain lack of details, just as if the resolving power of the lens was relatively poor. However, on Chris Perez and Kerry Thalma nn's lens test page at hevanet.com, this lens came out relatively well, with 42 lpm at f32 versus 48 to 54 lpm for a long lens: the Fujinon 450/12.5. But place d side by side with an Apo-Ronar 360's shot, the T 500 slides are really noticea bly softer. For example, a slide taken with the A-R showed distinctly the blades of grass at a distance, when with the T 500, grass was just a green mass. We ar e now wondering if this particular lens is behaving correctly, or if other T 500 's are perhaps sharper than this one?

[Julio Fernandez]

Paul: I do not own the 500 Nikkor Tele but know that David Muench uses one. Look at his book "Plateau Light" where quite a few of the shots were taken with it to see the results he gets. Additionally, I think a problem with this lens could be variable quality. You may have to try more than one to find a better one. Besides, any comparisons with the Apo Ronar are of the apples and pears kind. No tele could possibly compare with the ARonars of similar focal length, which are some of the best long lenses still made. Based on MTFs, even the new Schneider 400 tele is miles away from the Apo Ronars, what would you expect from a lowly telephoto? If I really wanted sharp pictures and long lenses, I would go for a camera with longer bellows rather than telephotos. Apo Ronars are made to a 450mm F, and much longer though I do not know if the longer ones are shutter mounted. Best wishes for the New Year.

[Ellis Vener]

Are you sure the rear element is screwed in to its proper position?

[Paul Schilliger]

Thanks Julio, best wishes to you too. Ellis, yes I think it is correctly seated. The reason I say that is because it is regularly exchanged for a 360 or 720 element and a malfunction in the thread wou ld have been immediately noticed. Yes Julio, you are certainly right when you say performances of a tele should no t be compared to a long lens. Nevertheless, there is not much like the Nikkor combo with it's three focals in one and I wished I would be happy with it. Also very handy for short bellows cameras. The long Ronars are unfortun ately too large and need to be fitted in front of large shutters. The 480 is already Copal 3 (vs Fujinon 450 Copal 1) and too big for anything smaller than 8x10. There is a 1,5 Kg! 600mm T-Nikkor, beautiful but BIG! and a 1Kg ! 600mm Fu jinon T (don't know about it's performances). Best would be to test another 500 to see if it's better.

[Ross Martin]

I have used the Nikon 360T, 500T and 720T and found the sharpness to be good at 360 and merely adequate at 500/720. I have since taken a strong liking to the above-mentioned Rodenstock Apo-Ronar 480mm in a #3 shutter, which I regularly use on my Linhof Technikardan with stunning results. This 480mm produces transparencies with amazing detail and gorgeous color saturation.

[Paul Schilliger]

Thanks, Ross. So you have come to the same conclusion with the 500 Nikkor. I wou ld be inclined towards the Ronar too if I had the necessary bellows extension. On my Technika, at the end a macro extension tube, I'm not sure the 1Kg lens would feel comfortable. But sure, image quality is at the top with the Ronars.

[heidis]

Very interesting question, since I was planning to obtain a Nikkor 720mm tele later this month! Now I'm having doubts. Ross, what sort of apertures were you using when you found the image to be mediocre?

My intention was to use the 720 for long tele shots on 4x5, plus use it with a rollfilm back for super-tele MF shots. Hmm.....maybe not such a good idea??

Might there have been old/new batches of differing quality?

[Ross Martin]

Let me clarify that I have not put the 360/500/720 through any rigorous scientifically valid test, this is just my opinion on what I see with one particular sample, generally reinforced by comments and lens tests from other shooters. I will be the first to admit that there are many factors other than lens quality that can influence the final result when shooting with long glass, but in my own experience even the best telephoto designs don't deliver all the crispness I see with conventional designs of similar focal length. I have a nice shot of a single yellow tulip in a field of red on my website using the 500T wide open, and when I have shot with it at f/22-32 the results are good enough for marketing and printing but they are not as contrasty, sharp and saturated as my Rodie 480. I have also shot the Fujinon 600T at f/32 and close examination of the trasparency with a loupe revealed noticeable chromatic abberation in the corners. I have not shot the Fuji 450mm but based on the many wonderful user comments it would seem to be a very good option to the telephoto lenses and should be usable on the Technika if an extended lens board is used (Wista makes a great extension tube set that can add nearly 100mm of sturdy extension).

As usual, your results may differ so it could be well worth renting a 500/720T to test for yourself before deciding.

Best Regards,

[Paul Schilliger]

Talking of lenses is a scary thing. Giving it a second thought (and a good wipe to my loupe), I might have been too critical about the Nikkor. The 500 is really not that bad. In fact when I g ot my slides from the lab, I thought well ! they are sharp! And unless you use a strong loupe, you will not notice th e difference, in sharpness at least. I have some shots made with the Ronar that are not that sharp either.

As Ross suggests (nice website you have!), there are other factors (camera stabi lity). Thinking to your comments, I realize that there is something else in the Ronar that makes the pic tures "appear" sharper. Even when you look at the slides from a distance, you can see that the Ronar's slides are sharper (when in fact they are perhaps not!). It is the amazing contrast and color clarity this lens produc es. A bit like the impression you get when you switch to Velvia from a softer kind of film, but only in a shade.

In fact it's not difficult to understand. The Ronar has only four lenses and so the dispersion is minimized. It was built to give sharp edges to the print types and this is exactly what it does wh en it is used for photography: You get sharp details, crispness as Ross says. The Nikkor has six elements and i s tele design. The slides produced, (well I will seem stupid) are sharp, until you compare them with those produced by a Ronar (or similar lens). Then you get an impression of some sort of softness, diffusion or lower contrast (be aware we are speaking of almost imperceptible shades). I remember the Telyt, a long focal lens for small cameras, made by Zeiss. A very simple design, cumbersome and not very luminous, but as sharp a nd contrasty as you could wish at the time they were made, and with excellent separating power. You could distinguish the hair of whatever animal was photographed. Tele designs have since caught up thanks to th e low dispersion glasses, but I'm not sure they beat the Telyt.

Julio says that Muench uses a Nikkor and for sure, he gets nice results! And anyhow, for printing a book, even a good 6x7 has enough information to make a sharp image. And when it comes to scanning for LightJet prints, contrast and sharpness are secondary issu es and can be easily corrected electronically. There is often almost too much contrast in a Velvia an yway. So the Nikkor should not be misregarded and it has other advantages such as short on bellows and converti bility. If someone would give one to me at this point, well I'm not quite sure I would refuse!

[Paul Schilliger]

Error about Telyt: Maker is Leitz, not Zeiss.