PDA

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



Nick_3536
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.

Nick_3536
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.

Cheers,

Dan

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

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

Nick_3536
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.

Nick_3536
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
Nick,

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?

Cheers!

Nick_3536
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.