Thinking of some lens changing / swapping

[Shootar401]

I have a Nikkor-M 300mm and was thinking of replacing it with a Nikkor-W 360mm. Recently I've round myself needing just a bit more reach than the 300 offered me and I also have a Nikkor-W 240mm and I end up using that over the 300mm.

I know there is the huge difference in both mass and filler size and that doesn't bother me much.

Has anyone owned or used both, how is the IQ on the 360?

[Bob Salomon]

If a 300 is not long enough then a 360 probably isn't long enough either. If possible go rent some lenses longer then 300 mm and see what works best for what you want. Or, if you can't rent shoot with 35mm or medium format and see what lens works best in a smaller format and then we can tell you what the equivalent would be for 45.

[Alan Gales]

The Nikkor M 450mm f/9 lenses are said to be really nice. I've never used one but I owned the Nikkor M 300mm like you have and it's a great lens.

[William Whitaker]

If a 300 is not long enough then a 360 probably isn't long enough either...

What Bob said.

[Shootar401]

The Nikkor M 450mm f/9 lenses are said to be really nice. I've never used one but I owned the Nikkor M 300mm like you have and it's a great lens.

The 450mm is close to the limit of my bellows extension (Master Tech) The only option might be the T 500mm, but thats too long I think

[William Whitaker]

Honestly, I'd just learn to love the 300 and save the money. But that's my opinion and others likely will disagree...

[arthur berger]

You could get the Nikkor T-360/500 set and have two choices in long then 300mm. There are some great bargains around on these sets and they aren't too heavy.

[Alan Gales]

The 450mm is close to the limit of my bellows extension (Master Tech) The only option might be the T 500mm, but thats too long I think

There is the Fujinon 400T. It's a telephoto design and only requires 250mm of bellows draw. It's a little longer than a 360mm.

[Corran]

The 450mm is close to the limit of my bellows extension (Master Tech) The only option might be the T 500mm, but thats too long I think

My recommendation is the 360/500 T set, with an extension top hat style board.

My 500mm focuses fine on a Master Technika with a board like that, found on eBay generically pretty inexpensively. Then you have a 360 for slightly less telephoto shots, and the 500mm for long. Get rid of the 300mm if you need, or keep it for a lighter lens option?

I have a 360/500 set I would sell, just as a side note.

[Bill_1856]

Crop.

[Shootar401]

Thanks for all the info. I found a place that has one for sale (360mm) locally so I'm going to go and check it out first hand before I make my decision. The 450mm is also my 2nd choice.

[Old-N-Feeble]

IMO, there is a substantial difference between 300mm and 360mm but not very much. If you only want three lenses then I suggest 210mm, 300mm and 450mm. That's a logical spread of focal lengths.

If you really want a 360mm in the mix then I suggest a mix of 240mm, 360mm and 540mm. But keep in mind this mix is uncommon in modern lenses... the 540mm anyway.

[Jeff Keller]

If you are using your Nikkor W 240 rather than your 300M I would guess you like the brighter aperture. I've never used them but you might consider a Xenar 360 or Xenar 400.

I like the small Fuji-A, Fuji-C and Nikkor-M lenses even though they don't open as wide.

jeff

[Shootar401]

UPDATE:

I checked out the 360mm that was for sale, it was the Nikkor-W 360/6.5, Compared to my Nikkor-M 300/9 the ground glass is brighter and the extra 60mm of focal length is surprisingly a nice step up from my 240. (I've always thought that the 300 was a bit too close to my 240 to be of any real use). It's a very heavy and well build lens. I've lugged a 80 plus pound pack in the mountains of Afghanistan when I was in the Army so weight is not an issue for me. I would need to buy new 95mm filters since the largest I have are 82mm, the only downside.

He also has a Nikkor-T 360mm convertible that I looked at. It was $200 more, half the weight and I don't need to spend $400 buy new filters, the downsides to me is the smaller aperture, I do shoot a lot in low light. But it would be nice to go to either 500mm or 720mm by swapping out a rear element. But then again I never said to myself "If I only had an extra 150mm to get that bird into frame/neighbors wife changing in the bedroom window/waterfall across the lake" If I really need the reach I break out my Nikon F3.

So yeah, even after fondling each one I'm no closer to making a decision.

[Lachlan 717]

355mm G Claron?

[Jmarmck]

UPDATE:

I've lugged a 80 pound pack in the mountains of Afghanistan when I was in the Army so weight is not an issue for me.

Ahh, youth!

[Shootar401]

Ahh, youth!

Haha, I was 36 when I did that

[Jmarmck]

UPDATE:

I've lugged a 80 pound pack in the mountains of Afghanistan when I was in the Army so weight is not an issue for me.

I still stand by my comment.

[Alan Gales]

I still stand by my comment.

;)

[Alan Gales]

Haha, I was 36 when I did that

When I was a Union Sheet Metal Worker they called you a kid until you were thirty.

Thirty six is just six years past kid! :)