View Full Version : Nikon 300mm F/9 Why the difference in coverage ?

8-Apr-2005, 14:04
For every reference I find claiming it'll handle 8x10 just fine I find one claiming it won't. Why the difference in opinons?

clay harmon
8-Apr-2005, 14:14
I'm guessing the difference is between those who have actually tried it and those who just place blind faith in some manufacturer's specs. There are a lot of lenses whose real, useful coverage exceeds the 'official' stated coverage.

8-Apr-2005, 14:23
That's what's confusing me. They all claim to have used it. The claims are all over the place.

Dan Fromm
8-Apr-2005, 15:09
There's a lot of disagreement among users about how much sharpness, especially in the corners, is enough. See recent threads on Dagors, lousiness of, and Konica Hexanon GRIIs, usability of.



Oren Grad
8-Apr-2005, 15:18
Discussed recently in...

largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/501431.html (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/501431.html)

8-Apr-2005, 16:12
I missed that thread. BTW I found one claim of 11x14 coverage.

Jeff Morfit
9-Apr-2005, 18:43
KEH's website catalog shows that the Nikkor-M 300mm F9 lens as being suitable for use on 8x10 cameras. It does not indicate if the coverage is for a monorail or field camera. Is there really a difference in lens coverage for a field camera and a monorail camera?

Jeff Morfit
9-Apr-2005, 19:07
I also checked out Badger Graphic's website for information about 300mm lenses. It lists the image circle for the Nikkor-M as 325, the Fujinon-C as 380, and the Fujinon-W as being 485. Their catalog also shows that the Nikkor-M is usable for 8x10 cameras. I do not know if the information about the Nikkor-M's coverage is based on actual testing or the manufacturer's specifications. Can anyone provide an answer? The more that I look for answers, the more questions that that pop up.

Oren Grad
9-Apr-2005, 19:31
Jeff, that 325mm figure for the 300 Nikkor-M is just the manufacturer's specification. If that's accurate, coverage would be barely adequate for 8x10 at infinity, with essentially no room for movement.

Coverage is a property of the lens - it makes no difference whether you mount it on a monorail or field camera. There are some rare exceptions involving certain ways of mounting a lens that introduce mechanical vignetting in the lens mount. In general, you won't need to worry about those.

Jeff Morfit
10-Apr-2005, 19:35
I also took a look at the lens chapter in Steve Simmon's book. He indicates that the minimum image circle for a lens to be used effectively with an 8x10 camera should be at least 325.

15-Apr-2005, 06:03
Some body else bought the 300m I wanted-( Ended up getting a big old Fuji 300 L. It's big but saved a little money in the end. I think both are tessar designs so the coverage will likely be similar and the Fuji will save me spending money on weights-)

John Kasaian
15-Apr-2005, 08:52

My 300 mm f/9 M will cover 8x10 beautifully straight on, brutally sharp from corner to corner. How much in the way a sharp wiggle room you'll get with movements is more the issue. I think tessars by design have a "sweet spot" and I don't think my 300 M allows for much in the way of movements before the image degrades or vignettes at the edges. Whether this is a problem or not is a matter of personal opinion. If you want to hedge your bets and can be happy with a single coated lens, why not the 305mm G-Claron?


15-Apr-2005, 09:12
I was keeping my eyes open for a Claron but now that I've got the Fuji on it's way I'll stick with that. One advantage of the Fuji is I think should I find a cheap Claron 355mm in a barrel I'll be able to use the same shutter for both lenses. IIRC Fuji claimed about 340mm of coverage for the 300mm L lens. That's not massive but hopefully enough.