Apo-Nikkor 180mm f9 - information?

[Lachlan 717]

I recently became the owner of a near mint Apo-Nikkor 189mm f9. Beautiful little thing.

I'm considering mounting it in a spare Copal 3S that I have, however, before I travel down that road, I was hoping to get some information on it. Google hasn't given me much...

Is anyone using one? What is the coverage like?

I already have a Fujinon 180mm WS that is usable on 8x10", so hope that the Apo-Nikkor might outperform it.

Thanks in advance.

[Dan Fromm]

http://1drv.ms/1w0vbMD

[Lachlan 717]

Thanks, Dan; however, as I wrote, there is very little out there on this lens.

[Ken Lee]

Dan can correct me :rolleyes:

In general, the APO Nikkors are small, light, have modest coverage and are quite sharp and contrasty. They have 10-bladed apertures.

Because they are usually barrel-mounted, they are an affordable alternative if you don't need wide coverage and you have a shutter mechanism of some sort. At close distance, the APO Nikkors have increased coverage - as do all lenses at close distance.

When I compared my 240 APO Nikkor with my 240 Fujinon A, I was unable to discern any practical difference at close and infinity distance - except for the difference in coverage and the Nikkor's rounder aperture and how it rendered blurry highlights.

I sold my Nikkor in the end because I had the Fujinon which has greater coverage and is mounted in a shutter.

If you need a small light shutter-mounted lens in that length, a 180 Fujinon A (also f/9) will be hard to beat, for the same reasons.

[Oren Grad]

The 180 Apo-Nikkor is specified to cover 300mm at 1:1.

[ic-racer]

I already have a Fujinon 180mm WS that is usable on 8x10", so hope that the Apo-Nikkor might outperform it.


I use the Fujinon 180mm on 8x10 also. Let us know what you find.

[Lachlan 717]

I use the Fujinon 180mm on 8x10 also. Let us know what you find.

Will do.

With these somewhat quirky lenses (and some with contentious ones), I'm tempted to mount it on the 7x17" and get a true f32 infinity result!

[Lachlan 717]

The 180 Apo-Nikkor is specified to cover 300mm at 1:1.

Thanks, Oren.

As most of us know, with process/copy lenses, the listed IC is usually very conservative (eg. G Clarons).

I'll bung it in the lens iris and have a look at the GG.

[Drew Wiley]

The shortest Apo Nikkor I own is 240mm, so can't directly comment on the 180. But if you extrapolate that to the same perspective for 8x10 film, not only will the
360 Apo Nikkor distinctly out-perform any of my official 360 taking lenses, which include the legendary 360 Fuji A and Kern Dagor, but even the 305 Apo Nikkor does. We're speaking about resolution here, even at infinity. But I don't care much for the out-of-focus blur of Apo-Nikkors. They give that overtly clinical double
lined bokeh effect rather than soft blending, if that is what you might have in mind sometime. I use them in the lab for enlargement and repro purposes, where
they also excel. My regular lenses are PLENTY sharp, more portable, and have shutters already. That includes things like the 180A and 200M lenses for 4x5 use.

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks, Oren.

As most of us know, with process/copy lenses, the listed IC is usually very conservative (eg. G Clarons).

I'll bung it in the lens iris and have a look at the GG.

Lachlan, covering 300 mm @ 1:1 means covering 150 mm @ infinity. Covering >= 300 mm at infinity, as would be needed if you want to replace y'r 180 Fuji, is a considerable stretch for a 180 Apo Nikkor.

[Drew Wiley]

Published specs on process lenses are always confusing if one doesn't realize their original market application. For one thing, they might give the 1:1 image circle @ f/22 rather than any infinity image circle. Second, they define that image circle in relation to very critical apo dot reproduction right out to the corners of the circle; in other words, a much more critical standard than is used for ordinary taking lenses. So the usable image circle in our own terms tends to be much bigger,
especially if stopped down even further. And in this case, I question just how good the resolution of a 180 Fuji W would be at 1:1. Depends on the amount of enlargement in the print of course. The 180 Fuji A is much better at close range, though I would never personally use it on film as big as 8x10, even at 1:1.