Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

[scerto]

Hello everybody

I have the chance to get a Nikkor 450mm M f9 in mint conditions for my 8x10 work

Just like to hear your impressions about the lens

Will use for landscape mostly

Thanks

[karl french]

It's a great lens. Excellent optically and quite compact for a lens in a Copal 3 shutter. A very good focal length for 8x10 landscape work.

[scerto]

It's a great lens. Excellent optically and quite compact for a lens in a Copal 3 shutter. A very good focal length for 8x10 landscape work.

Thanks Karl!

I love working with the 240mm on a 4x5” and quite sure this would be a great choice for 8x10

I reckon it has got the same quality as other Nikkor lenses

Thanks again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Kasaian]

What karl french says. Lots of coverage, too.

[Pali K]

I use and love mine on 11x14. You will enjoy it.

Pali

[David Karp]

I had one that I used for 4x5. I sold it and purchased a 450mm Fujinon C. It had nothing to do with the quality of the photos. I just did not want to carry a big Copal No. 3 shutter around.

I made some very nice photos with it. They have a very nice quality to them. If I was using it on an 8x10 I would likely still have it.

[Pere Casals]

Best of M 450 is weight, 650grs for 450mm focal and 440mm circle.

It is a highly regarded lens for 8x10 Pros, it is multicoated and the simple design with less groups makes it flare resistant.

Drawback is that it only has 4 elements in 3 groups, tessar design, so it is a simple design that is less refined than a regular plasmat type lens, for example, a plasmat would probably deliver a larger circle, but for 450mm a plasmat would be huge. This is seen in then 300mm focal, for example, comparing Nikkor M 300 vs W 300, just to realize the M meaning.

The 450 focal needs only 52º to cover that 440mm circle, so with only 4 elements necessary performance can be reached, and manufacturing was also cheaper.

So it is a perfectly good lens for 8x10 landscape, if wanting more circle for architecture there is Fujinon CM-W 450 f/8 with 520mm circle, but weight is 1140grs.

The M 450 it is a lens that I was to acquire, I had a good opportunity, finally I judged that having a 360mm I can always crop the 8x10 negative and still having lots of image quality, and first I should deserve a lens like this.

[David Karp]

I think that is they key with this lens. It is smaller than a plasmat 450mm, which makes it more likely to be used. That is especially true for landscape photographers. It's why we 4x5 users love the 300 M so much. The "drawback" you mention is actually in some ways the strength of this lens. The Tessar-type design allows it to be smaller. For me, the design is probably what creates that special quality that I like so much. The Tessar-type lenses deliver images that have a very nice quality or character to them. They are sharp, but have . . . something else. I don't know how to describe it. I find this true whether using a Nikkor M, a Xenar, or a Fujinon L.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Awesome lens. I also use it on my 14x17 camera.

[Bernice Loui]

Poor judgement to judge a lens by the number of elements in it's design. What matters is the results of images produced.
Most every design has trade offs, learning to used a given design's good and bad promotes a symbiotic relationship between lens and expressive image making.


Bernice





Drawback is that it only has 4 elements in 3 groups, tessar design, so it is a simple design that is less refined than a regular plasmat type lens, for example, a plasmat would probably deliver a larger circle, but for 450mm a plasmat would be huge. This is seen in then 300mm focal, for example, comparing Nikkor M 300 vs W 300, just to realize the M meaning.

[Pere Casals]

Poor judgement to judge a lens by the number of elements in it's design. What matters is the results of images produced.

Bernice

Bernice, what matters in the images produced it's not the lenses, but the photographer and how inspired he is. A true artist (I'm not one) makes wonders by using the plain bottom of a coke bottle.

Regarding the number of elements of a LF lens, are you sure that 4/3 tessar will perform as good than a 6/4 plasmat if wanting 70º coverage ? don't think that the 6 elements would allow more refined corrections than 4 and that this is important when going beyond 50º ?

[Sal Santamaura]

...plasmat would probably deliver a larger circle, but for 450mm a plasmat would be huge. This is seen in then 300mm focal, for example, comparing Nikkor M 300 vs W 300...Not a very insightful analogy/comparison.

At 300mm, the Nikkor M barely covers 8x10 without movements (325mm image circle), accepts 52mm filters and weighs 290g. The 300mm Nikkor W has a 420mm image circle, takes 95mm filters and weighs 1250g. To get that 95mm greater coverage, one is faced with a 3,310% weight difference and filters that are 82% larger.

In the 450mm focal length, image circle of a Nikkor M is specified as 440mm, while weight is 640g. A 450mm CM Fujinon W (which I own) has a 540mm image circle and weighs 1140g. The M filter thread is 67mm; CM-W accepts 86mm filters. For a 78% weight difference and a 28% larger filter, one gets an image circle 100mm larger. One, I might add, that's uniform right out to its edge, unlike the Nikkor's. Yes, many use the Nikkor for much larger formats, but they're inevitably contact printing and not critical about resolution in the corners.

Not all focal lengths are created equal. At 450mm, while not small, I wouldn't call the CM Fujinon W "huge." It is somewhat larger and heavier than the Nikkor M, but provides advantages that make dealing with its size/weight worthwhile in many applications.

[Pere Casals]

Not a very insightful analogy/comparison.

At 300mm, the Nikkor M barely covers 8x10 without movements (325mm image circle), accepts 52mm filters and weighs 290g. The 300mm Nikkor W has a 420mm image circle, takes 95mm filters and weighs 1250g. To get that 95mm greater coverage, one is faced with a 3,310% weight difference and filters that are 82% larger.

In the 450mm focal length, image circle of a Nikkor M is specified as 440mm, while weight is 640g. A 450mm CM Fujinon W (which I own) has a 540mm image circle and weighs 1140g. The M filter thread is 67mm; CM-W accepts 86mm filters. For a 78% weight difference and a 28% larger filter, one gets an image circle 100mm larger. One, I might add, that's uniform right out to its edge, unlike the Nikkor's. Yes, many use the Nikkor for much larger formats, but they're inevitably contact printing and not critical about resolution in the corners.

Not all focal lengths are created equal. At 450mm, while not small, I wouldn't call the CM Fujinon W "huge." It is somewhat larger and heavier than the Nikkor M, but provides advantages that make dealing with its size/weight worthwhile in many applications.

Sal, I mentioned near all that in post #7 http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?143753-Impressions-on-Nikkor-M-450mm-f9&p=1425358&viewfull=1#post1425358

The comparison M vs W in the 300mm was to show Tessar vs Plasmat difference, as for 450 Nikon don't has the W.

Just pointing the M has narrower (50º-52º) coverage angle, but still covering well beyond 810 because the long focal...


Yes, many use the Nikkor for much larger formats, but they're inevitably contact printing and not critical about resolution in the corners.


Anecdotically, C Perez tested two 300M, a DIY test, but there is a significative sample to sample variation for f/11:

f/11 67 67 47
f/16 48 42 42
f/22 42 42 42

vs

f/11 48 48 48
f/16 48 48 48
f/22 54 54 54

Still, if Pérez could read those 42-54 in the corners, this is a lot from a 8x10 negative, it could be enlarged to 8x without a flaw, if using a Rodagon-N for the mural.

Anyway there is something about the C Pérez tests that I don't understant, I don't know if the corner performance is in the 4x5 corner with no rise-shift, or if corner performance was measured in the circle boundary.

Because the resolution target he used I think he speaks about 4x5 corner... so those 42-54 may be lower for the 810 corner...

[Bernice Loui]

That depends much on what the image creator intends to express with the image to be created, no?

About two decades ago, all the modern plasmas are gone from the lens collection. Regardless of brand, the images they produce are not for me. As for coverage, Dagor has more and has a LOT more personality than a Plasmat specially when the Dagor has a round iris. The go-to lens is Kodak Ektar or Xenar or Dagor depending on aperture needed. The split is at f16. larger required aperture results in the Kodak Ektar-Xenar, smaller than f16 results in using a Dagor. If a longer than normal focal length is needed, Goerz APO artar at f11 or smaller. Wide angles are Grandagon, Super Angulon or Symmar XL. Working aperture is typically limited to f32.

The modern plasma is a trade off lens, does most things well at apertures smaller than f16 but lacks personality of other designs. IMO, these should be THE lens for those who begin a venture into LF due to reliable, accurate modern shutter, few bad traits and good sized image circle.

Lack of technical credentials should NOT be the judgement of a given lens, what matters is the images they produce on film, then in the finished print.



Bernice




Bernice, what matters in the images produced it's not the lenses, but the photographer and how inspired he is. A true artist (I'm not one) makes wonders by using the plain bottom of a coke bottle.

Regarding the number of elements of a LF lens, are you sure that 4/3 tessar will perform as good than a 6/4 plasmat if wanting 70º coverage ? don't think that the 6 elements would allow more refined corrections than 4 and that this is important when going beyond 50º ?

[Pere Casals]

e Kodak Ektar-Xenar, smaller than f16 results in using a Dagor...

Lack of technical credentials should NOT be the judgement of a given lens, what matters is the images they produce on film, then in the finished print.

Bernice

Of course... I feel the same...

Personally, (being inspiration, subject and light more important than glass) while I'd like the technical perfection of a Sironar-N,S for some landscape in Velvia 8x10, also I love the glow of uncoated glass and the imperfections of a converted lens, for example. For sure that little or big imperfections in a glass are an impressive aesthetical resource if handled by the right artist. I lack proficient artistic capability, anyway as an amateur I feel that Sally Mann work is what inspires me, enough to understand that a glass may have a lot beyond technical perfection.

[Drew Wiley]

Unfortunately, this is the only M lens I don't own, since I prefer the much lighter Fuji 450C for backpacking. But I have the 300, 200, and even rare 100 M. It is misleading to compare these to traditional tessars. The are a more evolved rendition of that design, with thinner MC elements, more compact, very sharp (better in this respect than most modern plasmats - with higher contrast and etter color saturation too, due to less elements). Don't expect dreamy out-of-focus blur like some old tessars. Yes, if you push the image circle to extremes, the sides and corners degrade. For this reason, I don't use the 300 for 8X10, though it should be fine with limited movements at small apertures. These are not compromise lenses, but among the very best you can get. And for now I must assume that applies to the 450 too.

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, I mentioned near all that in post #7...


...At 450mm, while not small, I wouldn't call the CM Fujinon W "huge."...


...there is something about the C Pérez tests that I don't understant, I don't know if the corner performance is in the 4x5 corner with no rise-shift, or if corner performance was measured in the circle boundary...All those results are for the corner of a 4x5 with no movements, i.e. 76.5mm from the center. Being a tessar, the 300M performs much worse at the limit of its specified image circle, i.e. 162.5mm from the optical center.

[Eric Leppanen]

I once owned both a Nikon 450M and 480 APO Symmar L plasmat for field use on 8x10. The APO Symmar L had a bit more contrast and a very nice rendering, but the Nikon was superior in all other respects. The Nikon's rated image circle is very conservative, I regularly encountered situations with extreme movements where the Nikon would cover with more than acceptable edge sharpness, whereas the APO Symmar L would vignette. These results were from landscape applications where both lenses were stopped down to f/45 or thereabouts.

Sandy King has reported that when heavily stopped down, the 450M can cover 20x24 for contact printing, see post #118:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?121286-ULF-Why-do-it&p=1233270&viewfull=1#post1233270

[Sal Santamaura]

...modern plasmas...Regardless of brand, the images they produce are not for me...The modern plasma is a trade off lens, does most things well at apertures smaller than f16 but lacks personality of other designs...This aspect of the topic is entirely a reflection of personal aesthetic preferences. In lenses (as with microphones) I want the most reduction of abberations/distortions technically achievable. I'd take a well-corrected plasmat over earlier designs any day. Others' mileage definitely does vary. :)

[Drew Wiley]

Here's how I use mine: 100mm strictly for 6X9 roll film holders, never for 4X5. 200 & 300 for 4x5; never for 8X10. The 300 would be great for 5x7 too, I imagine. Given these restriction, these lenses outperform plasmats. But they're "clinically sharp", great for capturing extreme detail and texture, and as advertised,subtle hue distinction. If you want more "character" like a drunken sailor, find an earlier tessar.

[Pere Casals]

For this reason, I don't use the 300 for 8X10, though it should be fine with limited movements at small apertures. These are not compromise lenses, but among the very best you can get. And for now I must assume that applies to the 450 too.


All those results are for the corner of a 4x5 with no movements, i.e. 76.5mm from the center. Being a tessar, the 300M performs much worse at the limit of its specified image circle, i.e. 162.5mm from the optical center.

So the M 450 can perform well for 8x10 landscape, but better avoid great movements if not well stopped...

There is this old thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?4631-Nikkor-M-450-f9-vs-Fuginon-C-450-f12-5

(fuginon :))

[Sal Santamaura]

...I regularly encountered situations with extreme movements where the Nikon would cover with more than acceptable edge sharpness, whereas the APO Symmar L would vignette...The Nikon's edge sharpness was acceptable to you. The L's cutoff point was established by what was acceptable to Schneider. :)

[Sal Santamaura]

...There is this old thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?4631-Nikkor-M-450-f9-vs-Fuginon-C-450-f12-5...I compared the 450M to a 450mm CM Fujinon W. That thread discusses the 450mm Fujinon C. Those are two very different Fujinons.

[Drew Wiley]

The 450M has a great reputation for 8X10 usage, that's all I can personally say. I'd love to own one, but don't really need it. As far as performance specs by Perez etc, I'd take this with a grain of salt. Without having anything remotely close to a serious statistical sample, he seems to come up with lens to lens variations which probably reflect habitual inconsistencies in his own methodology rather than anything real. For a long time, companies like Nikon and Fuji have possessed the means to monitor quality control on pro lenses far more accurately than do-it-yourselfers. Those of us who routinely use certain lenses know better.

[Dan Fromm]

Here's how I use mine: 100mm strictly for 6X9 roll film holders, never for 4X5. 200 & 300 for 4x5; never for 8X10. The 300 would be great for 5x7 too, I imagine. Given these restriction, these lenses outperform plasmats. But they're "clinically sharp", great for capturing extreme detail and texture, and as advertised,subtle hue distinction. If you want more "character" like a drunken sailor, find an earlier tessar.

Interesting. I have no experience with tessar type Apo-Nikkors or with echt Apo Tessars, do have a couple of f/9 tessar type TTH process lenses that are very very good -- but remember I'm an MF person, use them on 2x3. I wonder how f/9 tessar type process lenses compare with Nikkor-Ms.

I can't compare my TTH process lenses with plasmat types, don't have any comparable ones. I retired the 10.16" in favor of a 250/6.8 Beryl (dagor type), am not sure that was a good decision if only because the Beryl is much much heavier and I don't need its coverage.

[Sal Santamaura]

...As far as performance specs by Perez etc, I'd take this with a grain of salt...I don't. First, they're not "specs" but rather test results. Those results reveal real-world performance applicable to the way many readers of this site use their equipment. And they do so much more effectively than similar results you've presented. Which is to say none. :)


...Without having anything remotely close to a serious statistical sample, he seems to come up with lens to lens variations which probably reflect habitual inconsistencies in his own methodology rather than anything real...Evidence please. Particularly, your own multi-sample test results that show greater or lesser variation. And please document the 'consistent methodology' you used to obtain those results. :)


...For a long time, companies like Nikon and Fuji have possessed the means to monitor quality control on pro lenses far more accurately than do-it-yourselfers...Monitoring is one thing. Establishing 'pass criteria' for production variability is another.


...Those of us who routinely use certain lenses know better.You mean those of us who use our own lens samples (not others') and know everything about everything? :)

[MAubrey]

Evidence please. Particularly, your own multi-sample test results that show greater or lesser variation. And please document the 'consistent methodology' you used to obtain those results. :)
Evidence that in order to be remotely confident about test results you need a statistically significant sample?

Going chronologically...

https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/
https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/03/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts/
https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation/
https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation/
https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-perfect-lens/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/measuring-lens-variance/

[Sal Santamaura]

...Without having anything remotely close to a serious statistical sample, he seems to come up with lens to lens variations which probably reflect habitual inconsistencies in his own methodology rather than anything real...


...Evidence please. Particularly, your own multi-sample test results that show greater or lesser variation. And please document the 'consistent methodology' you used to obtain those results. :)...


Evidence that in order to be remotely confident about test results you need a statistically significant sample?...

No, evidence that the methodology Kerry and Christopher used was habitually inconsistent and didn't reveal actual performance of the samples they tested under the conditions most readers here use their large format equipment. Please read that sequence of statements again. I'm very familiar with Roger Cicala's writings. Doesn't change a thing in this discussion.

[Greg]

For a long time, companies like Nikon and Fuji have possessed the means to monitor quality control on pro lenses far more accurately than do-it-yourselfers. Those of us who routinely use certain lenses know better.

In the 1990s I came across a used but in mint condition 24-120mm AF Nikkor at a price I couldn't pass up on. Reviews of the lens were pretty much all rating the lens as only a mediocre lens, not one of Nikon's better optics. Used the lens professionally and found the lens to be an amazingly sharp lens. Over the years, about a half dozen used ones were available at my local camera store, some even being the next generation of the lens. Each time I got a call that "another one was available", I'd drive over to the store, borrow the lens up for sale, and then step out of the store. I'd then shoot the same scene down the street at 24mm, 50mm, and 120mm wide open and at f/11. None of those lenses I tested came close to the 24-120mm AF Nikkor I owned. This always made me wonder how the companies like Nikon and Fuji monitored the quality control on their pro lenses, or could some samples just be downright superior optics... Only twice did I have the chance to test two new samples side by side of the same LF optic, again at my local camera store which closed its doors probably 8 years ago :-(. In both cases one lens was measurably sharper than the other, and that one was the one I purchased.

[MAubrey]

No, evidence that the methodology Kerry and Christopher used was habitually inconsistent and didn't reveal actual performance of the samples they tested under the conditions most readers here use their large format equipment. Please read that sequence of statements again. I'm very familiar with Roger Cicala's writings. Doesn't change a thing in this discussion.
We can agree to disagree.

[Sal Santamaura]

We can agree to disagree.No agreement is necessary. We disagree. Period.

[MAubrey]

No agreement is necessary. We disagree. Period.

We disagree to disagree? Uh, okay. I agree.

[Pere Casals]

As far as performance specs by Perez etc, I'd take this with a grain of salt.

Drew, I'd like to point something important about Mr Pérez tets...

It is posssible that a DIY test underrates some performance value of a lens, but it is very difficult that the measuremet is overrated.

USAF 1951 test is a bit subjective, sometimes you can pick an element or the next, and this usually may bring on an uncertainty of some +/-6% in the Lp/mm value.

Beyond that 6% uncertainty, a Mr Pérez measurement could have a flaw, because alignment, film flatness, etc... but when he says that he saw 72 Lp/mm at least there were those 72 Lp/mm with that 6% uncertainty, because any flaw would degradate the reading rather than overrating the measurement.

Some f/11 readings perhaps may be flawed, but f/22 readings are very consistent because plenty of on film DOF allows for a wider margin. For example a 210mm test would have the target at 4.2m for the 1:20 magnitication of the tests, and at f/22 dof would be 1.5m DOF on the targuet, so way more than enough on film, if checking it. The 1:20 magnifications allows for an easy testing anyway.

He says in the "Please Note" section: "This is at best a relative (not absolute) comparison between these lenses. Kerry and I are simply looking for the Pick of the Litter.".

An important issue is that a reflective resolution target may deliver perhaps 1:50 contrast, but not 1:1000 or 1:1.6. At TOC 1:1.6 TMX delivers some 60 lp/mm, while at 1:1000 it delivers from 160 to 200lp/mm.

A grain of salt... yes, but also it is important to realize the actual value of that information.

[Michael Kadillak]

Who cares about resolution tests and optical lab results. The Nikkor 450m proved itself to me years ago on 8x10 particularly and it produces amazing sharp and contrasty results consistently and without fail. The three Nikkor 450M lenses I use are all consistent performers between them as well. Indistinguishable between the lenses is the operative word that comes to mind. The other thing I love it is about the longest focal length that I can reach the f stop ring to stop down with while watching the GG. I also have and use the Fuji 450C which is my light weight alternative on 4x5 5x7 and 8x10.

[Pere Casals]

You have three?

[Michael Kadillak]

You have three?

Yup. I really enjoy the lens and the price was right.

I have multiples of other lenses as well that i have come to appreciate and enjoy. Call it a natural hedge to discontinuance of the Copal Shutter as well as the lens manufacturers decision to exit stage left.

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - the is just so much about that particular lens test reference that doesn't ring quite right that I personally find it useless to consult. For Schneider and Rodenstock lenses, the performance data have actually been published including a much wider selection of parameters on actual charts or graphs than any one-shoe-fits-all approach on the web. There can be no doubt that Fuji and Nikon have done their homework just as well. And if Perez did take measurements from film exposed in an ordinary holder, it would void anything accurate. It has to done either with an aerial image or special film precisely flat in a vacuum holder, on a precision optical bench. But a lot of this gets downright silly. Lenses do differ in cost, weight, and minor personality differences; but nearly all modern ones are PLENTY sharp for sheet film use, even at substantial enlargement.

[John Kasaian]

Here's how I use mine: 100mm strictly for 6X9 roll film holders, never for 4X5. 200 & 300 for 4x5; never for 8X10. The 300 would be great for 5x7 too, I imagine. Given these restriction, these lenses outperform plasmats. But they're "clinically sharp", great for capturing extreme detail and texture, and as advertised,subtle hue distinction. If you want more "character" like a drunken sailor, find an earlier tessar.

Drew, I never before thought of my 14" Commercial Ektar as the drunken sailor of Tessars, but since you bring it up, it sounds about right---especially since one night on McGilvery Creek in the Sierra I had to use vodka for lens cleaning solution LOL!

[Corran]

The amount of quibbling over meaningless test numbers never ceases to amaze me.

The 450M is a great lens on 8x10 and just as good at much larger formats. Despite the earlier accusation of ULF only being "contact printed," I've also scanned some 8x20 negatives from the 450M and see no appreciable corner degradation at that size even with high magnification.

The OP will certainly have a top lens for 8x10 and at a better price than some of the other, rarer options.

[Drew Wiley]

John - vodka might also to change the way a print looks. You wouldn't need a separate soft-focus lens.

[John Kasaian]

I only have two Ms, a 300 and a 450. FWIW the only multi-coated LF lenses I have.
The 300M rides aboard a Gowland 8x10 aerial camera where movements aren't possible, while the 450M does the job on an elderly, little used 12x20 Folmer & Schwing.
As to the OP's concern I'd have to say the 450M, in good condition, would certainly be an excellent choice as would be the Fuji or an Artar
--- although with an Artar you'll likely have an older Ilex shutter, which I'm personally quite happy with.

As a poor bottom feeding hobbyist, I tend to jump at what's available in good condition at prices I can afford.
That 450M sounds to be a worthy addition if it is as described by the seller.

Let us know what you eventually choose and how it's working out.

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, those Lines Per Millimeter lens test does not reveal any where near what the total personality of a lens might be.... and there can be variations due to production and a host of other factors. The only way to really know what a particular lens is really like is to do testing with film under actual image making conditions and live with the results of these images made for an extended amount of time..

Stanley Kubrick did this extensively, he would order up a batch of lenses, test each one individually, keep the one he liked best and returned the remainder of the batch. This resulted in SK owning many of the lenses used in the films he produced.


Then we have trade offs based on image making needs. The Nikor M series is not for me, this does NOT mean the Nikor M is not acceptable, it only means it does not meet my image making needs, nothing more, nothing less. The Nikor M is ideal for many others, it is much an individual preference much like a host of other aspects of an image maker's-Artist's personality. At focal lengths beyond 12" or 300mm on 5x7, the preferred lenses rapidly become APO artar in barrel (most are those heavy brass barrel ones) used with a Sinar shutter. Image circle becomes much less of an issue with 5x7 format. Once the film format size goes up, choice of optics becomes limited and pricy. This as true decades ago and remains true to this day. Cost involved with larger film formats is not limited to very real optical limitations, film cost, bulk and all goes up by the square_ish.

Then we get into Internet mythology, were some thing gets published on the web and over time becomes an accepted orthodoxy with the followers never questioning the priesthood that created that orthodoxy. This same phenomena happened with books, magazines and other media that have the power and ability to influence the thinking of information-knolwedge seekers. While this appears to be the easy way to an individual's goal, this can alienate other possible ways and ideas to achieve these same goals or more. Difficulty becomes, how does one gain the experience, knowledge, ability to decide what meets their goals and what does not.


Bernice

[Michael Kadillak]

IMO, those Lines Per Millimeter lens test does not reveal any where near what the total personality of a lens might be.... and there can be variations due to production and a host of other factors. The only way to really know what a particular lens is really like is to do testing with film under actual image making conditions and live with the results of these images made for an extended amount of time..

Stanley Kubrick did this extensively, he would order up a batch of lenses, test each one individually, keep the one he liked best and returned the remainder of the batch. This resulted in SK owning many of the lenses used in the films he produced.


Then we have trade offs based on image making needs. The Nikor M series is not for me, this does NOT mean the Nikor M is not acceptable, it only means it does not meet my image making needs, nothing more, nothing less. The Nikor M is ideal for many others, it is much an individual preference much like a host of other aspects of an image maker's-Artist's personality. At focal lengths beyond 12" or 300mm on 5x7, the preferred lenses rapidly become APO artar in barrel (most are those heavy brass barrel ones) used with a Sinar shutter. Image circle becomes much less of an issue with 5x7 format. Once the film format size goes up, choice of optics becomes limited and pricy. This as true decades ago and remains true to this day. Cost involved with larger film formats is not limited to very real optical limitations, film cost, bulk and all goes up by the square_ish.

Then we get into Internet mythology, were some thing gets published on the web and over time becomes an accepted orthodoxy with the followers never questioning the priesthood that created that orthodoxy. This same phenomena happened with books, magazines and other media that have the power and ability to influence the thinking of information-knolwedge seekers. While this appears to be the easy way to an individual's goal, this can alienate other possible ways and ideas to achieve these same goals or more. Difficulty becomes, how does one gain the experience, knowledge, ability to decide what meets their goals and what does not.


Bernice

Relative to the Apo Artar of which I have photographed with many, the differentiating proposition for me comes down to two very beautiful words that work well together.

Multi Coating

That said, there are many ways to get to Grandmas House......

[Drew Wiley]

I just noted your post, Sal. My evidence is prints. When one of those web gurus can print to my level... Otherwise ...The mere fact people do lens tests using conventional holders means they struck out and never got to first base to begin with. But sheet film is one thing; try taking the same lens you use for 8X10 and expose tiny little roll film images with it. If it outperforms reputable dedicated MF lenses, what does that tell you? I do it all the time. So why do I need alleged tests that say next to nothing actually useful?

[John Kasaian]

If one has the luxury of picking and choosing from the latest lens technology or heirloom glass, more power to you.
I'm just grateful for what I have---including that drunken sailor of a Tessar.

[Bernice Loui]

"That said, there are many ways to get to Grandmas House"

Precisely.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

That said, a properly applied dark slide upon the lens can do wonders.

There are those who do not find modern multi coated lenses all that appealing. Back in the days of color transparency film, modern multi coated lenses often imposed a color cast signature. This was one of the reasons why some image makers would work to achieve a color matched lens set from all from the same brand. Mixing brands would often result in a color shift in some direction. While there is an increase in image contrast with multi coated lenses, there are other effects to multi coating to overall image contrast rendition that may or may not be positive. Again, there is no absolute, there is more of knowing what a given lens personality is like and using it to an advantage.



Bernice






Relative to the Apo Artar of which I have photographed with many, the differentiating proposition for me comes down to two very beautiful words that work well together.

Multi Coating

That said, there are many ways to get to Grandmas House......

[Bernice Loui]

Those "Drunken Sailor" Tessars can be a LOT of fun.. or one can spend time with a buttoned down suit Accountant.

-Apply "stereotype" as each reader would have in mind.

Bernice



If one has the luxury of picking and choosing from the latest lens technology or heirloom glass, more power to you.
I'm just grateful for what I have---including that drunken sailor of a Tessar.

[Drew Wiley]

My vintage tessar is a thick-element f9 Zeiss 360 process lens. It's very sharp and easily covers 8X10 stopped down, and it has wonderful background blur, but I have to do long lenscap exposures until I stumble on an affordable 3s shutter. It too might be a drunken lens - but drunken on champagne.

[Bernice Loui]

As for contrast, higher contrast can be perceived as higher resolution or "sharper".


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

The contrast of Nikkor M's is nearly as good as MC Kern Dagors. Less air/glass interfaces in both cases compared to plasmats.

[Michael Kadillak]

The contrast of Nikkor M's is nearly as good as MC Kern Dagors. Less air/glass interfaces in both cases compared to plasmats.

Absolutely agree. As someone that only shoots B&W, I also love the Fuji 600C , 450C and 300C for the same reason.

[Drew Wiley]

I keep the Nikkor M's in my longhaul backpack with an Ebony 4X5 folder. The Fuji A's and C's go in a different large pack for day use or road travel which accepts either my 8X10 folder or Sinar 4X5. I like to have separate kits ready to go on a whim.

[Drew Wiley]

...forgot to say, the reason for the A's and C's being in the 8X10 & Sinar kit is their larger image circle. The M's are particularly small, so are particularly good for backpacking and airline carry-on.

[scerto]

Best of M 450 is weight, 650grs for 450mm focal and 440mm circle.

It is a highly regarded lens for 8x10 Pros, it is multicoated and the simple design with less groups makes it flare resistant.

Drawback is that it only has 4 elements in 3 groups, tessar design, so it is a simple design that is less refined than a regular plasmat type lens, for example, a plasmat would probably deliver a larger circle, but for 450mm a plasmat would be huge. This is seen in then 300mm focal, for example, comparing Nikkor M 300 vs W 300, just to realize the M meaning.

The 450 focal needs only 52º to cover that 440mm circle, so with only 4 elements necessary performance can be reached, and manufacturing was also cheaper.

So it is a perfectly good lens for 8x10 landscape, if wanting more circle for architecture there is Fujinon CM-W 450 f/8 with 520mm circle, but weight is 1140grs.

The M 450 it is a lens that I was to acquire, I had a good opportunity, finally I judged that having a 360mm I can always crop the 8x10 negative and still having lots of image quality, and first I should deserve a lens like this.

Love the M design! I do use a lot the 300mm on my 4x5" and wanted something similar on 8x10". Still keeping the 300mm W for this format!

[scerto]

Awesome lens. I also use it on my 14x17 camera.

Didn't know it covered 14x17"!!!

[Pere Casals]

Absolutely agree. As someone that only shoots B&W, I also love the Fuji 600C , 450C and 300C for the same reason.


The contrast of Nikkor M's is nearly as good as MC Kern Dagors. Less air/glass interfaces in both cases compared to plasmats.

With modern, 30 years old, multicoatings flare generated by a 4th group is way irrelevant, as a maximum it can be (0.002 x 0.002 x 6) + (0.002 x 0.002 x 7) = near nothing, zero in práctical terms, just multiply.

But a tessar type Nikkor M 450 can generate awesome flare in a 4x5 camera, with a 440 circle only aprow 15% of the light goes to the negative an 85% of the light bounces in the bellows, mostly in the inner bends (specially if bellows longuer than necessary), reflecting a lot, this may generate a 3 to 10% flare !!!!

Because that the smart way is front shade that effectively limits the angle on coverage to the required.

About the modern perfection of coatings, we can see what does a low flare zoom, like the FX Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, it has 16 groups, this is 32 air-glass surfaces. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-ii.htm

... and some LF lenses have 6 or 7 groups without noticing problems...

Flare resistance is proportional the square of the coating efficiency, because the ray has to be reflected two times, once to the front and again to the back of the camera, and today we are under 0.2% reflection, so a lens with a single element lens would provocate 0.002 x 0.002, this is 4/1,000,000 flare. Just to realize how efficient coatings are.

[karl french]

What a mess. Down the rabbit hole.

[Pere Casals]

What a mess. Down the rabbit hole.

Not at all, the thing is quite simple, with modern multicoated LF lenses near all flare comes from excessive image circle, and it can be avoided with a shade in the front. Beyond that some lenses can show more goshting with sun.

[karl french]

You are missing the point. The OP asked about a lens that has been discussed many times here. I offered a simple answer to his question based on my experience with the lens as used on an 8x10 camera. The thread quickly went off the rails into a discussion of many other lenses and how tessar type lens with large coverage may produce more flare on 4x5 cameras.

But I do agree that a lens shade is a good idea.

[George Losse]

Didn't know it covered 14x17"!!!

The 450 M also covers 8x20 nicely also.

[scerto]

The 450 M also covers 8x20 nicely also.

Wow

Thanks for that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pere Casals]

You are missing the point.

Not missing the point, speaking about the M 450 some say that it has lower flare because 3 groups in a tessar, the point I say is that a modern tessar has same flare than a modern plasmat. IMHO it is an interesting point, still OP may not be interested in if the M 450 has more or less flare than other designs, but as speaking about landscape usage I figure this is not an off topic, the 4x5 example was to show how flare is actually generated, that it does not come from the group count (because MC), and how flare can actually be avoided in landscape. The calculations were to support what I say as there is a discrepance.

Goshts are another thing...

[Leigh]

Interesting that Nikon describes the M with:
"Chromatic aberration is virtually eliminated over the entire visible portion of the spectrum..."

But they do not describe it as an apochromat.

- Leigh

Quote is from Nikkor Lenses for Large Format Cameras, 2002-2004, page 13.
Full doc here: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf

[Michael Kadillak]

Way too much time and effort on taking things far further then the original post intended.

The objective here is to make images not banter about issues that are not issues at all.

If in the process of using a lens you experience a problem - deal with it and learn from it. I have never had a problem with flare on cameras from 4x5 through 12x20 with any long lens (up to 1,000mm) or short lens (down to 75mm) given proper consideration to the angle of the sun and the lens. A bit of appropriate delivered shade (dark slide, or anything for that matter) takes this issue and effectively sets it aside.

Onward!

[Leigh]

Way too much time and effort on taking things far further then the original post intended.
Forgive us for trying to further your education.

I certainly will not make that mistake in the future.

- Leigh

[Sal Santamaura]

...Without having anything remotely close to a serious statistical sample, he seems to come up with lens to lens variations which probably reflect habitual inconsistencies in his own methodology rather than anything real...


...Evidence please. Particularly, your own multi-sample test results that show greater or lesser variation. And please document the 'consistent methodology' you used to obtain those results. :)...


...My evidence is prints. When one of those web gurus can print to my level... Otherwise ...The mere fact people do lens tests using conventional holders means they struck out and never got to first base to begin with...

In other words, you have no evidence that the methodology Kerry and Christopher used was habitually inconsistent and didn't reveal actual performance of the samples they tested under the conditions most readers here use their large format equipment. Only you, who knows everything about everything, can be relied on to pass judgement on the results.


...sheet film is one thing; try taking the same lens you use for 8X10 and expose tiny little roll film images with it. If it outperforms reputable dedicated MF lenses, what does that tell you? I do it all the time. So why do I need alleged tests that say next to nothing actually useful?Once again, you have arm-waved your way to something other than the topic. Sheet film (unless someone's using wet plates or one of those 4x5-or-larger digital sensors that meet the criteria of this forum) in sheet film holders is what this forum is about. Whether or not you "need" the Perez-Thalmann results is irrelevant. If you don't find them useful, don't use them. What's relevant is that you've denigrated those results without basis. Repeating an allegation is not evidence. Knocking others' work doesn't serve to elevate one's reputation.

[Pere Casals]

But they do not describe it as an apochromat.
[/url]

Leigh, we have to consider that "APO" is not the same than "true apochromatic".

"true apochromatic" is having secondary chromatic aberration corrected, so no "purple fringing" at all, checked with a microscope.

"APO" is more a commercial term meaning a "better lens", perhaps with lower secondary. For example the Sironar-N MC was promoted to APO with no design change. At one point APO was a cool lettering to stamp.

I ignore what "APO" stamped glasses are more or less apochromatic, but if not having nice pinky rainbows in velvia corners then we are in the safe side :)

(Sorry for the off)

[Sal Santamaura]

...how does one gain the experience, knowledge, ability to decide what meets their goals and what does not...

One and only one way. By personally trying the various lenses and evaluating results against one's own goals. Since the world has changed, with brick-and-mortar camera stores selling large format lenses virtually extinct, it's become almost impossible for a photographer to be afforded an opportunity to test multiple samples of any given lens and pick the highest performing one. Thus, the only viable approach is to perform research, then try out whatever (almost always used) lens posters' opinions and the data steer one toward.

If one's goals aren't met, sell the lens off and try again. That's where we are today. That seems to be what the OP was doing. With luck he'll be wise enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[scerto]

One and only one way. By personally trying the various lenses and evaluating results against one's own goals. Since the world has changed, with brick-and-mortar camera stores selling large format lenses virtually extinct, it's become almost impossible for a photographer to be afforded an opportunity to test multiple samples of any given lens and pick the highest performing one. Thus, the only viable approach is to perform research, then try out whatever (almost always used) lens posters' opinions and the data steer one toward.

If one's goals aren't met, sell the lens off and try again. That's where we are today. That seems to be what the OP was doing. With luck he'll be wise enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.



Sal, as some of you has pointed out, the whole trade has gone a bit off the trail. My question was general, but also straightforward. Just wanted to know what experience you all have had with this lens. I do like similar lenses for my 4x5 work and wanted to have similar glasses for the bigger camera. I'm not really into to tests and other stuff. For sure I'm interested in lens rendering, contrast, structure, aberration, coverage and so forth.

At the moment I own a 300mm Nikkor W and a Rodenstock Sironar N 360mm and using them a lot for portrait. Wanted a longer lens for landscape, as I use the 210/240 a lot and the 450mm could have some relation with them, being almost the same focal length on 8x10

Kind of got lost with all those data based on tests. Was more oriented on the feeling of the lens.

bests

[Drew Wiley]

The proof is in the pudding. Shading your lens is important, and even the specific design of a bellows can affect how much surplus light bounces around. But so do air/glass interfaces, even with modern multicoated lenses. I could easily see the difference in my chromes, and even quit using a MC dagor for chromes because the contrast was so high. Nikkor M's are more similar to my single-coated Kern dagor. Truly nice microtonality in B&W, and very clean hue reproduction.

[Drew Wiley]

Don't worry about the "data tests". A point blank test chart might make sense if that is what you do - simply aim a lens at flat copy at a consistent set aperture. But outdoors, I am looking at details on an 8X10 groundglass through a 7X magnifier - as if nose to nose with a 6 ft wide prints, using all kinds of potential combinations of tilt, swing, and rise, at various apertures and magnification scales, close-up to infinity, year after year, then printing and evaluating the results. So what kind of testing is truly more informative? The guy crunching numbers at his desk might or might not be right. But the battlefield itself will make apparent if the design is good or not. Just take the word of those with real-life experience with these lenses.

[scerto]

Don't worry about the "data tests". A point blank test chart might make sense if that is what you do - simply aim a lens at flat copy at a consistent set aperture. But outdoors, I am looking at details on an 8X10 groundglass through a 7X magnifier - as if nose to nose with a 6 ft wide prints, using all kinds of potential combinations of tilt, swing, and rise, at various apertures and magnification scales, close-up to infinity, year after year, then printing and evaluating the results. So what kind of testing is truly more informative? The guy crunching numbers at his desk might or might not be right. But the battlefield itself will make apparent if the design is good or not. Just take the word of those with real-life experience with these lenses.

Hi Drew, this is what I meant. Interested in people using gear everyday or so, developing scanning, printing and actually experiencing on the field.

I0m that kind of person. Get bored in front of data

Thanks

[Pere Casals]

The proof is in the pudding. Shading your lens is important, and even the specific design of a bellows can affect how much surplus light bounces around. But so do air/glass interfaces, even with modern multicoated lenses. I could easily see the difference in my chromes, and even quit using a MC dagor for chromes because the contrast was so high. Nikkor M's are more similar to my single-coated Kern dagor. Truly nice microtonality in B&W, and very clean hue reproduction.

Drew, if there is something easier to measure than Lp/mm it is measuring flare, it needs a cheap luxmeter and some cardboard.

You won't find a flaw in the reasoning in that post: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?143753-Impressions-on-Nikkor-M-450mm-f9&p=1425514&viewfull=1#post1425514

Today DSLR Pro zooms can sport 16 groups inside, being low flare. Glass surface induced flare in LF lenses is completely irrelevant since the 1980s, even for high group count designs.

No boring data: flare is in the photographer's methods, not in a MC lens.

[Corran]

How about this - here's an actual photo from the 450M on 8x10:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/fallsbranch-8832ss.jpg

[Pere Casals]

How about this - here's an actual photo from the 450M on 8x10:


Bryan, it looks pretty nice, anyway to judge the lens nature you should post a 100% crop of a 4000 dpi scan of the corners, with detail in focus, and also it would be interesting a crop with a shift showing the circle boundary.

Nobody has a doubt that the M450 is a perfectly capable lens for 810 work, just saying that a 1000pix wide picture cannot show what a lens does in a 810 work.

[Corran]

just saying that a 1000pix wide picture cannot show what a lens does in a 810 work.

You're right, and neither does a horribly oversharpened scan on a consumer flatbed :).

[Pere Casals]

You're right, and neither does a horribly oversharpened scan on a consumer flatbed :).

Better that than a 1000 dpi in a pre press massive counterweight :)

Anyway you could take a 1 inch strip of the corner at 8000...

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, Pere. Yes, I have a lux meter, but also a special instrument about a thousand times more accurate. I'm familiar with these variables.

[Drew Wiley]

I almost stepped on a dpi barefoot one night - dead porcupine injectors.

[sanking]

And if you stop it down to f/64 or f/90 the 450 M will cover 20X24". I know this for a fact because I have actually used the lens on a 20X24" camera.

Yes, resolution is limited by diffraction at f/90 to around 15-17 lpm, and on the corners of 20X24 resolution is much less than that. But for contact printing it is more than enough.

For 12X20 and 14X17 you get huge coverage with the 450 M, enough to allow up to several inches of lateral or up/down movement.

Simple design maybe, but extremely effective use of glass.

Sandy

[Pere Casals]

Thanks, Pere. Yes, I have a lux meter, but also a special instrument about a thousand times more accurate. I'm familiar with these variables.

Drew, near a year ago I spent a Sunday afternoon measuring flare. I measured 9.3 stops difference for flare in a Sironar-N 300 MC (c.1980), this is 1 to 630, or 0.15% flare. And I think that most of the reading was not due lens flare, but from other stray light generated after lens.

I used a method based in Ctein's Post Exposure, page 60, but using a 0.1 lux luxmeter. Ctein measured 8.2 stops, but his reading included enlarger bellows generated flare and I guess that his lens was not MC.

From that test I concluded that flare generated by a modern MC lens is not a concern, but light from excessive circle of image was a concern. Later I measured flare with lens in a CAMBO 8x10 with the huge image circle of the Sironar 300 illuminating the bellows, in those conditions I measured x23 more flare.

Just a personal test in my learnig process.

[Drew Wiley]

In color photography seemingly minor differences in flare or contrast can affect hue saturation and purity. Otherwise, I wouldn't own the selection of lenses I do! It's often a nice way to fine-tune such things up front. I know some folks counter that they can post-correct such things in PS. But like I hinted, I don't like stepping on dead porcupine quills to create dots or clear inkjet nozzles. I like the more seamless route from film to print. Some people slither and dither all over the place trying to reproduce subtle hues that inks just don't respond to very well.

[John Kasaian]

And if you stop it down to f/64 or f/90 the 450 M will cover 20X24". I know this for a fact because I have actually used the lens on a 20X24" camera.

Yes, resolution is limited by diffraction at f/90 to around 15-17 lpm, and on the corners of 20X24 resolution is much less than that. But for contact printing it is more than enough.

For 12X20 and 14X17 you get huge coverage with the 450 M, enough to allow up to several inches of lateral or up/down movement.

Simple design maybe, but extremely effective use of glass.

Sandy

Sandy, it was on your recommendation I acquired a 450M for my F&S 12x20. It's a terrific lens, thank you!

[David Karp]

"Was more oriented on the feeling of the lens."

It is like your Nikkor M 300. Forget all of this other stuff. I'll bet you really like it. If you don't, you will be able to sell it for what you paid for it.

[scerto]

"Was more oriented on the feeling of the lens."

It is like your Nikkor M 300. Forget all of this other stuff. I'll bet you really like it. If you don't, you will be able to sell it for what you paid for it.

I'm pretty sure I will enjoy. Just purchased the one in mint conditions.

Thanks David

[Drew Wiley]

It's a terrible lens. Get rid of it fast and cheap. I'm waiting.

[scerto]

It's a terrible lens. Get rid of it fast and cheap. I'm waiting.

Ahahah

Will keep you posted Drew


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drew Wiley]

Went a bit inland today, and the ground fog never cleared up. Beautiful, but glad I did bring an M lens. The b&w sheets can simply be plus developed, but the color negs needed at the contrast they can get.

[Pere Casals]

Went a bit inland today, and the ground fog never cleared up. Beautiful, but glad I did bring an M lens. The b&w sheets can simply be plus developed, but the color negs needed at the contrast they can get.

Drew, do you think you would obtain a better image with Nikon M 300 than with Nikon W 300 ? guess that in both cases we use a front shade to avoid flare generated in the bellows... I ask about a focal in what we can compare, also guess 5x7 to force the M300 to its limits...

Of course the M series are low weight, (and cheaper to manufacture) and with some limitations that are not important in some situations compared to weight advantage.

[Drew Wiley]

The M is the only 300 I own. But I do have several 360's which all more compact than general-purpose plasmats and have ample coverage for 8X10. A wonderful 300 in no.1 shutter that will cover 8x10 is the Fuji A. I use the 300M for 4x5 and 6x9 roll film backs. I haven't tried the Fuji 300C, but it might cover 8X10 so-so. The 270 G-Claron will cover.

[Pere Casals]

several 360's which all more compact than general-purpose plasmats and have ample coverage for 8X10.

In my experience a great coverage it has a severe drawback: great flare if corrective shade is not used.

Drew, I realized that time ago from this post about SA 120, in post #2 , I saved that link as a (to me) significative one.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?51111-Super-Angulon-MC-120-8-vs&p=487825&viewfull=1#post487825

Don Dudenbostel said "Flare is more of an issue due to light scattering in the bellows than the optical properties of the lens in my opinion". IMHO he nails a right concept.

You were also posting there yet, it was 2009...

[Drew Wiley]

That is true. Excess light from a bright overcast, for example, taken into a large circle of illumination, is going to land somewhere - preferably on a well-placed shade rather than the film. But the number of lens elements, the type of glass and coatings can make a significant difference. Two weeks ago I shot my P67 300 EDIF at an interesting subject almost into the sun. It's probably the finest MF telephoto ever made, and has a good shade and relatively narrow angle if view. But the shots still had some veiling flare. So I went back with my Sinar and the 300M - no problem, even though it has a big image circle. I did shade it too, of course.

[Pere Casals]

That is true. Excess light from a bright overcast, for example, taken into a large circle of illumination, is going to land somewhere - preferably on a well-placed shade rather than the film. But the number of lens elements, the type of glass and coatings can make a significant difference. Two weeks ago I shot my P67 300 EDIF at an interesting subject almost into the sun. It's probably the finest MF telephoto ever made, and has a good shade and relatively narrow angle if view. But the shots still had some veiling flare. So I went back with my Sinar and the 300M - no problem, even though it has a big image circle. I did shade it too, of course.

Drew, my understanding of the underlying physics and my personal measurements convinced me that a modern MC plasmat or tessar does not generate any kind of flare that can be seen in a photograph.

Just realize that 1978' EBC coating from fuji had transmitance of 99.8% so the chance of a photon hitting an element is reflected back and forth again is 0.002 x 0.002 x number of surfaces to the beginning og the lens, this is 4/1,000,000 x 13 for the 4th element, or way less depending on the chance the photon ends in the barrel's wall.

If you measure the flare generated by any MC plasmat (not by the bellows) you will see that this is zero for practical considerations.

I may concede that you have a great experience with the M 300, but this is not because a W 300 could generate any kind flare. I also mesured flare of a W 360 and was absolutely negligible... this is without bellows...

If you have a large circle illumination bellows... of course you may notice flare from bellows, if shade not used !!!

The M 300 has a relatively small circle... so it's possible that people not being aware of flare from bellows can say it flares less than an W, but IMHO this is because not understanding what happens...

... speaking on zooms, see Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 , this is 16 groups !!!! and no flare !!!!

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe it's more apparent in hue saturation. But even Nikon touted M lenses for their superior contrast and hue differentiation versus their general-purpose plasmats, which were also MC. I could see it in the chromes.

[Drew Wiley]

No flare in zooms????? Compared to what - other zooms?

[Pere Casals]

No flare in zooms?????

This Pro one !!!! 21 elements in 16 groups:

(See section Flare and Ghosts, http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-ii.htm)

173906

[Pere Casals]

Maybe it's more apparent in hue saturation. But even Nikon touted M lenses for their superior contrast and hue differentiation versus their general-purpose plasmats, which were also MC. I could see it in the chromes.

Drew, for sure that an Nikon M and a R. Geronar will show "superior contrast and hue differentiation versus their general-purpose plasmats". For sure !!!

But this is because the simplified designs of the M and the Geronar deliver an smaller image circle, illuminating less the bellows.

If using a shade and trimming the AOC to the required then all MC LF glasses (the plasmats, the M and the Geronar) will deliver exactly the same "superior contrast and hue differentiation".

Has a Sironar-S a single flaw compared to a M? No !!!

173908


The plasmat is a dominant design since MC invented, still the market had room for simplified designs delivering less circle. Rodenstock developed the Geronar simplified design to cover the cheap segment, while Nikon made the M for lightweight Pro segment, IMHO it is a good example...

Geronar and M show shortcommings from the simplification, still both are excellent performers within those acceptable limitations, and both show (amazingly) less bellows generated flare if no hood... clearly !!!

[scerto]

Drew, for sure that an Nikon M and a R. Geronar will show "superior contrast and hue differentiation versus their general-purpose plasmats". For sure !!!

But this is because the simplified designs of the M and the Geronar deliver an smaller image circle, illuminating less the bellows.

If using a shade and trimming the AOC to the required then all MC LF glasses (the plasmats, the M and the Geronar) will deliver exactly the same "superior contrast and hue differentiation".

Has a Sironar-S a single flaw compared to a M? No !!!

173908


The plasmat is a dominant design since MC invented, still the market had room for simplified designs delivering less circle. Rodenstock developed the Geronar simplified design to cover the cheap segment, while Nikon made the M for lightweight Pro segment, IMHO it is a good example...

Geronar and M show shortcommings from the simplification, still both are excellent performers within those acceptable limitations, and both show (amazingly) less bellows generated flare if no hood... clearly !!!

This discussion is becoming interesting!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pere Casals]

This discussion is becoming interesting!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scerto, it is pleasing to know that the off topics I've with Drew can be of the interest of OP :)

But really, the important thing is the artistic drive of the photographer, way more than the glass, a true artist needs only the bottom of a coke's bottle to get a sound image. Nothing wrong in learning optics, that's good, but perhaps I'm the first in messing too much with glass and not thinking in searching the good illumination for an scene...

[Leigh]

But really, the important thing is the artistic drive of the photographer, way more than the glass, a true artist needs only the bottom of a coke's bottle to get a sound image.
There's a local legend about a press photographer who consistently won awards at photo shows.

His colleagues got fed up and stole his extensive and expensive kit, replacing it with a simple Kodak box camera. He continued to win awards using only the box camera.

True or not, I cannot say. But I believe it.

- Leigh

[Dan Fromm]

+1.

We tend to talk more about gear here than about technique, and more about technique than about vision. Gear is easy, and we have the language. Technique is harder to discuss because we often don't have the language. Vision? Nearly impossible.

[Drew Wiley]

You're perfectly welcome to use a Coke bottle lens or cardboard box pinhole camera or whatever. I happen to like sharp images. So if you can't stand the crisp look a Nikkor M gives, I'd be happy to trade you a Coke bottle for it any day.

[Drew Wiley]

Dan - this is a lens thread, not about aesthetics. But tools do need to match our individual sense of vision.

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - I'm well aware of certain advances Nikon has made in nano-coatings. And view camera lenses normally need a large image circle relative to format. But this needs to be an apples to apples discussion, and if those same coatings were applied to a modern M tessar with its limited number of elements, it would no doubt skunk even the latest zoom with respect to contrast. A few percent loss here and there all adds up visibly. But there are side effects to extreme contrast, esp with some color films, so I'm glad the M lenses were designed just the way they are.

[Drew Wiley]

... in other words, zoom lenses are an ideal application for nano coating because they're more prone to such problems, esp if they go wide.

[sanking]

Sandy, it was on your recommendation I acquired a 450M for my F&S 12x20. It's a terrific lens, thank you!

John,

I am glad the 450M has worked out well for you on the F&S 12X20. The lens was recommended to me for 12X20 by Dick Arentz, one of the masters of the F&S 12X20 (and pt/pd).

Sandy

[Dan Fromm]

Dan - this is a lens thread, not about aesthetics. But tools do need to match our individual sense of vision.

Yes, of course. But it has drifted a little. I responded to post #100 above, which is all about the relative importances of gear and vision.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't collect lenses, but tend to have functional spares or options per focal length category. Lenses are interesting in their own right. But for nearly twenty years I worked with only one view camera and one lens. The pictures never suffered from that kind of limitation, but it's nice to shift gears periodically, learn something new. And since I'm not getting any younger, I'm glad I did purchase some compact light wt lenses. Now that I'm retired I'm taking some rather long backpacking trips while I still can, and extra food competes for backpack space with photo gear.

[Pere Casals]

There's a local legend about a press photographer who consistently won awards at photo shows.

His colleagues got fed up and stole his extensive and expensive kit, replacing it with a simple Kodak box camera. He continued to win awards using only the box camera.

True or not, I cannot say. But I believe it.

- Leigh

Monolith, Face of Half Dome by AA was shot with an Adon, which basicly is a telescopic tube with some bottoms of coca-cola bottles inside :) (a bit exagerating... but not a lot :))

He always told he would have liked to use a better lens, but he was always proud of that photograph, and he discovered "visualization" concept that time.

173945

[Pere Casals]

Drew, let me say some points about that



Pere - I'm well aware of certain advances Nikon has made in nano-coatings.

In a NCC Nano crystal coated Nikon lens normally only one surface had that coating(Canon SWC, or Subwavelenth Structure Coating), normally it is the rear of the outer element or group, this is useful to prevent goshts and flare in extreme wides, still the "N" is more a commercial term in some lenses than other, a longuer than wide lenses does not benefit much of nanocrystals, as its benefits are with very extreme angled rays comming to the surface, a situation found in extreme wides.

I don't to what extent the Nikon's "N" lettering is more or less commercial branding.

Here Nikon explains : !and is particularly effective in reducing ghost and flare peculiar to ultra-wideangle lenses:

https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000006499&configured=1&lang=en_GB



And view camera lenses normally need a large image circle relative to format. But this needs to be an apples to apples discussion, and if those same coatings were applied to a modern M tessar with its limited number of elements, it would no doubt skunk even the latest zoom with respect to contrast. A few percent loss here and there all adds up visibly. But there are side effects to extreme contrast, esp with some color films, so I'm glad the M lenses were designed just the way they are.

Drew, IMHO modern LF lenses are the perfection, you see same contrast in the scenne than in the projected image, there is no practical margin for improvement in the same way that the excellent cheap Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AFD cannot improve more the contrast, because the projection has near the 100% of the contrast that the scene has.

I'd suggest you a test... use a M 450 in 4x5, you won't see that crisp, clean hue and saturation.

Use it in 8x10 and you will see it.

Go again to 4x5 with the M 450 but this time use an adjustable front hood to trim the 440mm circle to the 153.7mm that 4x5 requires. Oh !!! you recover that crisped look !!! , even greater than with 8x10 if AOC trim was good !!!

what happened ? easy, now you are not illuminating the bellows with the 80% of the light intake !!!

Adjust the front hood with a W 300 and you'll get the same crisp than with a M 300...

[Doremus Scudder]

Kind of off-topic, but I'd like to make just a small observation about overall flare caused by light scattering in-camera, e.g., from a lens with a large image circle and no lens hood.

This kind of flare tends to be overall fogging flare and will affect the low values, if the flare fog is great enough and the low values are low enough. In that situation, sure, some "crispness" (separation, contrast, however you like to describe it) will be lost in the very lowest values.

However, if the exposure is generous enough to get the low shadow values up "out of the fog," so to speak, the loss in contrast will be negligible, really negligible, in the final print, since the fb+f value, which prints jet black, now includes the flare fog.

In other words, to a great extent one can eliminate the effects of overall fog from stray light scattered by the bellows, etc. by simply overexposing a bit (something a lot of us have built into our exposure regimes already). Sure, using a lens hood is the best solution, but a bit of extra exposure in tricky or demanding situations can often save the day.

Furthermore, it's not always desirable to have the greatest separation possible in the toe area of the film. A lot of people use uncoated, flare-prone lenses just to get the slight overall fog and the softer shadows they produce. One could argue that using a lens with a little bit of flare allows more creative possibilities, since one can control to a great extent the effect of the fog on the lower values with exposure, just like one does with a film with a long curved toe (e.g., Tri-X 320).

Maybe all this worrying about 0.2% scattering is a bit superfluous...

Best

Doremus

[Pere Casals]

Kind of off-topic, but I'd like to make just a small observation about overall flare caused by light scattering in-camera, e.g., from a lens with a large image circle and no lens hood.

This kind of flare tends to be overall fogging flare and will affect the low values, if the flare fog is great enough and the low values are low enough. In that situation, sure, some "crispness" (separation, contrast, however you like to describe it) will be lost in the very lowest values.

However, if the exposure is generous enough to get the low shadow values up "out of the fog," so to speak, the loss in contrast will be negligible, really negligible, in the final print, since the fb+f value, which prints jet black, now includes the flare fog.

In other words, to a great extent one can eliminate the effects of overall fog from stray light scattered by the bellows, etc. by simply overexposing a bit (something a lot of us have built into our exposure regimes already). Sure, using a lens hood is the best solution, but a bit of extra exposure in tricky or demanding situations can often save the day.

Furthermore, it's not always desirable to have the greatest separation possible in the toe area of the film. A lot of people use uncoated, flare-prone lenses just to get the slight overall fog and the softer shadows they produce. One could argue that using a lens with a little bit of flare allows more creative possibilities, since one can control to a great extent the effect of the fog on the lower values with exposure, just like one does with a film with a long curved toe (e.g., Tri-X 320).

Maybe all this worrying about 0.2% scattering is a bit superfluous...

Best

Doremus


Doremus, just a thought...


PD: next contains a conceptual error, as seen in following posts

Flare originated density and Base+Developing_fog can be compensated with the "pre-flash" light amount a paper requires to start building density.

Flare effect will also increase with the exposure, it's amount will grow linear with image forming light...

For the darkroom perhaps, by overexposing film, the effect is that we separate the Base+Fog vs Image+Flare density, so we can use all the "pre-flash" margin to overcome flare as the Base+Fog density becomes way lower compared to the rest.

In photoshop the thing it's straight, we just remove the flare level in the curve... WYSIWYG

But with slides... we may want just a nice slide, we have a different kind of WYSIWYG, This is What you shot is what you get :)

So if wanting a nice slide we may need a lens with a not too large circle or a front hood... or still we may want flare for the aesthetics...

[Doremus Scudder]

Doremus, just a thought...


Flare originated density and Base+Developing_fog can be compensated with the "pre-flash" light amount a paper requires to start building density.

Flare effect will also increase with the exposure, it's amount will grow linear with image forming light...

For the darkroom perhaps, by overexposing film, the effect is that we separate the Base+Fog vs Image+Flare density, so we can use all the "pre-flash" margin to overcome flare as the Base+Fog density becomes way lower compared to the rest.

In photoshop the thing it's straight, we just remove the flare level in the curve... WYSIWYG

But with slides... we may want just a nice slide, we have a different kind of WYSIWYG, This is What you shot is what you get :)

So if wanting a nice slide we may need a lens with a not too large circle or a front hood... or still we may want flare for the aesthetics...

Pere,

You bring up a good point about slide film. I think in B&W negative terms; for slide film, of course, the less flare a lens has, the better (except when you may want to have a bit of flare or pre-flashing to bring up the shadows a bit. When I shot a lot of transparency film, I'd routinely boost shadow detail a bit in contrasty situations with a bit of pre-flash).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but lens or bellows flare causes exposures in the low-density areas of film. For negative film this is the shadow area. Pre-flashing paper affects the highlight areas. While the effect is similar, pre-flashing paper in no way compensates for in-camera or lens flare.

Back on topic a bit. I just took a look at prices on eBay for the Nikkor M 450mm. Average price now is a lot higher than when I got mine (I paid just over $400). I'm sure glad I got mine then.

Best,

Doremus

[Pere Casals]

Pre-flashing paper affects the highlight areas. While the effect is similar, pre-flashing paper in no way compensates for in-camera or lens flare.



You are right, it was a conceptual error I had, thanks for explaining it to me.

[pepeguitarra]

It's a great lens. Excellent optically and quite compact for a lens in a Copal 3 shutter. A very good focal length for 8x10 landscape work.

Thanks Karl. The whole 14 pages is a very interesting discussion. However, you got me from your first post. I just bought a Nikkor M 450/9. I am waiting for my 8x10 to arrive in five weeks.