760mm Apo Nikkor f/11 vs Nikkor-T ED 800mm f/12

[tgtaylor]

Considering both to be in the same condition and not considering their IC, which one would prove to be the optically superior?

Thomas

[tgtaylor]

I already got the 760 and it came in a black Ilex 5 Universal. Funny thing is that when I tried to install the 760 elements in the silver Ilex 5 Universal that the 610 is in, the silver shutter proved to be too small - i.e., it required a wider threading for the elements even though the caps and filter threading (95mm) are identical.

Thomas

[angusparker]

The T-ED is a newer design with special glass, so maybe it’s better optically but you would probably be using the edge of the image circle depending on your format, while you may be using the center for the APO which might reverse the relative sharpness. So let’s call that a wash. If the T-ED weighs 1.6kg it’s a little more than the 1.3kg I have in my records for the APO. So a small plus for the APO. Max aperture very small plus for APO too. The T-ED is in a Copal 3 and the APO in an Ilex 5 so a medium plus to the T-ED for a newer and faster shutter. APO is probably single coated glass while the T-ED must be multicoated, so small plus to T-ED especially when shooting in bright conditions in the field. The big difference is the bellows as mentioned above - that is why if I didn’t care about IC or the movement weirdness with a tele design, I’d go with the T-ED.

But I’d prefer an Apo-Ronar-CL 760mm f14 over both. It’s lighter, smaller, and takes a 67mm filter and works great in an Ilex 5. I’m not giving up mine!

[angusparker]

Some more ideas for long lenses here: http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog...ndations-14x17


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[tgtaylor]

The 760 appears to weigh slightly less than the 610 and is a tad shorter in length - so with the shutter it probable weighs slightly more than the T-ED. You could use the standard bellows instead of the long bellows with the T-ED but you would need the long bellows and the front standard reversing feature of the MII for both the Apo-Ronar CL and the Apo Nikkor. While the filter size is 95mm that only means that I need 95mm adapter ring for the Cokin Z-pro and a 82 to 95 step-up ring since I use 100mm square glass/resin filters.

My main question concerns the optical difference between the 2 designs. Nikon say this about the T-ED:
Nikkor lenses in the T series
are telephoto-type lenses which do
not require long-length camera
bellows. To maximize correction
of chromatic aberration inherent
in long focal length lenses, Nikon's
performance-proven ED (Extralow
Dispersion) glass was used for
the first time for lenses for largeformat
cameras. Image distortion
and curvature are also extremely
minimized. Combined with Nikon
Super Integrated Coating, the
result is outstandingly sharp
images, free from flare and ghosts

Notwithstanding the weight, bellows draw, filter size, etc, which design would be optically superior?

Thomas

[tgtaylor]

Note that Nikon does not claim that the T-ED is "APO."

Thomas

[Jim Andrada]

I have the T*ED 360/500/720 and used to have the 600 T*ED. The 600 turned out to be a bit much on the Technika so I dropped back to the smaller lens set which I use on the Technika and a Kodak 5 x 7 2D. Amazingly sharp lenses . I was really quite surprised by how good they are.

[EdSawyer]

APO as referred to by the APO nikkor is not true APO either. You have to go to the Apo El Nikkor if you really want truly corrected apochromat performance. The Nikkor-T will be better corrected for "normal" photography, e.g. not graphic arts at close to 1:1 and with monochromatic light, which is what the Apo Nikkor is designed for. I would take the Nikkor-T over the apo-nikkor.

[tgtaylor]

I would guess that the apo-nikkor would be optically superior for reason that:

1. It's front element, which is coated, is larger resulting in a greater light capture per unit of time.
2. Tt focuses the light rays directly onto the film and does not bounce those rays around to make up for the shortened bellows.

Of course I could be wrong.

Thomas

[Bernice Loui]

Been there done this. Tried this test with the Tele Nikkor ED -vs- APO Artar.

Overall performance, APO Artar is better then the Nikkor based on 8x10 color transparency film test over two decades ago. Results were surprising in some ways but not in others.

What the Tele Nikkor offers is reduced bellows draw over the APO process lens. This makes using these very long focal lengths possible for many normal view cameras where an APO process lens is not useable on the vast majority of normal view cameras.

To use an APO process lens it will require more than 30" of bellows and a shutter. Both of these requirements can be met within the Sinar system. Adding to this difficulty is camera support, This much bellows draw forces extreme measures to keep the camera stable under real world conditions which turns out to be FAR from simple or easy. The way these test were done two decades ago was to set up the 8x10 Sinar indoors then point the lens out the window with two LARGE tripods with two Sinar Pan-Tilt heads (LOTs of rail screwed together) to support the entire lash-up. IMO, anything less will result in poor results due to camera stability and environmental conditions such as wind.

This is where the Tele Nikkor does much better, it does not have better optical performance, it does have significantly reduced bellows draw allowing this lens to be used on more typical view cameras and since it has a Copal# 3 shutter, the difficulty of using a barrel APO process lens goes away. In real world image making conditions the Tele Nikkor get's the image made even if it has lesser performance than the APO process lens.

Avoid the 1200mm rear lens cell on the Tele Nikkor, it is a problem child. The 600mm & 800mm lens cells are OK. This Tele NIkkor just covers 8x10, better for 5x7 in many ways. Disregard the ED glass marketing hype as glass types alone does not dictate optical superiority, overall results from any given optic is FAR more complex than just the "Glass Type" used.



Bernice