760mm Apo Nikkor f/11 vs Nikkor-T ED 800mm f/12

[tgtaylor]

Considering both to be in the same condition and not considering their IC, which one would prove to be the optically superior?

Thomas

[tgtaylor]

I already got the 760 and it came in a black Ilex 5 Universal. Funny thing is that when I tried to install the 760 elements in the silver Ilex 5 Universal that the 610 is in, the silver shutter proved to be too small - i.e., it required a wider threading for the elements even though the caps and filter threading (95mm) are identical.

Thomas

[angusparker]

The T-ED is a newer design with special glass, so maybe it’s better optically but you would probably be using the edge of the image circle depending on your format, while you may be using the center for the APO which might reverse the relative sharpness. So let’s call that a wash. If the T-ED weighs 1.6kg it’s a little more than the 1.3kg I have in my records for the APO. So a small plus for the APO. Max aperture very small plus for APO too. The T-ED is in a Copal 3 and the APO in an Ilex 5 so a medium plus to the T-ED for a newer and faster shutter. APO is probably single coated glass while the T-ED must be multicoated, so small plus to T-ED especially when shooting in bright conditions in the field. The big difference is the bellows as mentioned above - that is why if I didn’t care about IC or the movement weirdness with a tele design, I’d go with the T-ED.

But I’d prefer an Apo-Ronar-CL 760mm f14 over both. It’s lighter, smaller, and takes a 67mm filter and works great in an Ilex 5. I’m not giving up mine!

[angusparker]

Some more ideas for long lenses here: http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2015/2/ulf-lens-recommendations-14x17


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[tgtaylor]

The 760 appears to weigh slightly less than the 610 and is a tad shorter in length - so with the shutter it probable weighs slightly more than the T-ED. You could use the standard bellows instead of the long bellows with the T-ED but you would need the long bellows and the front standard reversing feature of the MII for both the Apo-Ronar CL and the Apo Nikkor. While the filter size is 95mm that only means that I need 95mm adapter ring for the Cokin Z-pro and a 82 to 95 step-up ring since I use 100mm square glass/resin filters.

My main question concerns the optical difference between the 2 designs. Nikon say this about the T-ED:
Nikkor lenses in the T series
are telephoto-type lenses which do
not require long-length camera
bellows. To maximize correction
of chromatic aberration inherent
in long focal length lenses, Nikon's
performance-proven ED (Extralow
Dispersion) glass was used for
the first time for lenses for largeformat
cameras. Image distortion
and curvature are also extremely
minimized. Combined with Nikon
Super Integrated Coating, the
result is outstandingly sharp
images, free from flare and ghosts

Notwithstanding the weight, bellows draw, filter size, etc, which design would be optically superior?

Thomas

[tgtaylor]

Note that Nikon does not claim that the T-ED is "APO."

Thomas

[Jim Andrada]

I have the T*ED 360/500/720 and used to have the 600 T*ED. The 600 turned out to be a bit much on the Technika so I dropped back to the smaller lens set which I use on the Technika and a Kodak 5 x 7 2D. Amazingly sharp lenses . I was really quite surprised by how good they are.

[EdSawyer]

APO as referred to by the APO nikkor is not true APO either. You have to go to the Apo El Nikkor if you really want truly corrected apochromat performance. The Nikkor-T will be better corrected for "normal" photography, e.g. not graphic arts at close to 1:1 and with monochromatic light, which is what the Apo Nikkor is designed for. I would take the Nikkor-T over the apo-nikkor.

[tgtaylor]

I would guess that the apo-nikkor would be optically superior for reason that:

1. It's front element, which is coated, is larger resulting in a greater light capture per unit of time.
2. Tt focuses the light rays directly onto the film and does not bounce those rays around to make up for the shortened bellows.

Of course I could be wrong.

Thomas

[Bernice Loui]

Been there done this. Tried this test with the Tele Nikkor ED -vs- APO Artar.

Overall performance, APO Artar is better then the Nikkor based on 8x10 color transparency film test over two decades ago. Results were surprising in some ways but not in others.

What the Tele Nikkor offers is reduced bellows draw over the APO process lens. This makes using these very long focal lengths possible for many normal view cameras where an APO process lens is not useable on the vast majority of normal view cameras.

To use an APO process lens it will require more than 30" of bellows and a shutter. Both of these requirements can be met within the Sinar system. Adding to this difficulty is camera support, This much bellows draw forces extreme measures to keep the camera stable under real world conditions which turns out to be FAR from simple or easy. The way these test were done two decades ago was to set up the 8x10 Sinar indoors then point the lens out the window with two LARGE tripods with two Sinar Pan-Tilt heads (LOTs of rail screwed together) to support the entire lash-up. IMO, anything less will result in poor results due to camera stability and environmental conditions such as wind.

This is where the Tele Nikkor does much better, it does not have better optical performance, it does have significantly reduced bellows draw allowing this lens to be used on more typical view cameras and since it has a Copal# 3 shutter, the difficulty of using a barrel APO process lens goes away. In real world image making conditions the Tele Nikkor get's the image made even if it has lesser performance than the APO process lens.

Avoid the 1200mm rear lens cell on the Tele Nikkor, it is a problem child. The 600mm & 800mm lens cells are OK. This Tele NIkkor just covers 8x10, better for 5x7 in many ways. Disregard the ED glass marketing hype as glass types alone does not dictate optical superiority, overall results from any given optic is FAR more complex than just the "Glass Type" used.



Bernice

[Pere Casals]

APO as referred to by the APO nikkor is not true APO either. You have to go to the Apo El Nikkor if you really want truly corrected apochromat performance. The Nikkor-T will be better corrected for "normal" photography, e.g. not graphic arts at close to 1:1 and with monochromatic light, which is what the Apo Nikkor is designed for. I would take the Nikkor-T over the apo-nikkor.

I agree, the "APO Nikkor" is more "APO" than the similar "Process Nikkor" and "Nikkor-Q", but I wouldn't say a T is less APO than APO-Nikkor.



I would guess that the apo-nikkor would be optically superior for reason that:

1. It's front element, which is coated, is larger resulting in a greater light capture per unit of time.
2. Tt focuses the light rays directly onto the film and does not bounce those rays around to make up for the shortened bellows.

Of course I could be wrong.

Thomas

Well, perhaps I wouldn't say that an APO Nikkor is better than a T for distant subjects. A Process/Reproduction lens is optimized for close projections, 1:1 or 1:5 (x1, x5 scale, better said), not for infinite. While a taking lens may work best from 1:10 or 1:20 magnifiction. So a test would be required to compare...

APO Nikkor is said to also work well for distant subjects, but it would be interesting to know the lp/mm depending on aperture for distant focus.


Another factor is the nice coating in the T if we plan to shot into the sun, anyway in that situation the critical thing is a front hud, because if not 80% of the circle of image (if 4x5) will be illuminating the bellows inside, with rays dancing there and ending in flare.

Finally the T is very fieldable if we add (to what said) that we can haul 2 additional rears to have 3 long focals. And three long focals in the backpack are not a joke :)


Both the T and the APO Nikkor are simple designs that trade having small coverage angle for other things. In the APO Nikkor absolute priority is focus field flatness and negligible distortion for repro environment. I guess the T priority is fielding 3 long focals, and this includes saving bellows draw, and smaller filters, while still having excellent Pro performance.

[Drew Wiley]

Got one to look through? Apo Nikkors (4-element) are probably better at infinity than any ordinary view lens, esp a Tele.

[Drew Wiley]

Because they're damn bulky and relatively heavy, esp since the 760 requires a no.5 shutter. I use my Fuji 600C instead - a really fine lens and remarkably portable for something this focal length, and in no.3 shutter. But the Apo Nikkor is optically superior - overkill, really,if 8x10 film is in question. People get nitpicky about their lenses but don't even bother to think about the fact that an ordinary 8x10 holder doesn't keep the film flat! Lots of people on this forum
know about the superiority of graphics lenses, and some might remember when the cost of these was above that of view lenses, even without a shutter. They were typically used in process cameras equipped with an electronic shutter. I use 240,305, and 360 Apo Nikkors for darkroom applications, where they exceed enlarging lenses per se in every optical category except max aperture, which is sometimes important. There is also the question of image "look. Apo Nikkors are clinically
sharp-sharp, but have busy background out-of-focus characteristics, or "bad bokeh". Therefore I do sometimes use another
type of process barrel lens on the 8X10 via lenscap exposure - an older Zeiss tessar-design 360 which is plenty sharp, but
has lovely bokeh too. Not in the same league as the Nikkors, but plenty good for what I use it for.

[Drew Wiley]

You're welcome to your opinion; but you're guessing. I'm not. I own a whole set of these lenses and know what they can do. They're extremely well corrected over a very wide range of magnifications. I use them not only for general enlarging but for very low magnification dupe and interneg work. There is a fellow in this are who specializes in extreme telephotography and uses Apo Nikkors on a Toyo G 8x10 with a Nikon on the film plane, and he owned a telescope store! The fact is, the standards for graphics lenses are higher than for general-purpose taking lenses. They have to be unless it's just a cheap WA process lens meant for the stat camera in a T-shirt silkscreen shop. The big labs around here preferred Apo Nikkors for mural printing. They certainly aren't as big and clunky as large-aperture studio plasmats of comparable focal length, those these generally went only to 450 - after that, no choice but either a graphics lens or a Tele. There are plenty of past threads discussing these kinds of lenses by people who use them.

[Pere Casals]

APO Nikkor in particular should work well for distant subjetcs, here we have a 7.44 x 5.58mm crop (1/1.7 inch sensor type) of the image circle of an APO Nikkor 760mm

using a Pentax Q-S1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Q-S1)

So the posted image shows how it may look a x50 enlargement, this would be a real size crop (in a 27" monitor) of a 12m print from 8x10 negative, if I calculated well...


https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5555/15167285246_2fbe24ee72_b.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ydaisuke/15167285246/in/photolist-p7hiu3-oGsVVK-oYFCRM-rHFHf-dp4ZTr-hNzh7A-mxHn6y-fjh7qa-rvE1jH-7Rrsmg-7E6jB6-fjwbws-nSH9X3-5hRJA2-fjgWZR-bZx2Kj-nHMqGf-9cogrs-affkzX-an1GFT-pVstgL-oukZsT-G91d1D-ocGmdE-qnCgz2-akz3e6-eii83h-p1PBMX-dK2Wje-fjhkTi-gJDQVc-vnxYao-c7HPy7-UVk6o6-fjwafj-qtVP8J-euuW5W-fjhgBv-fY1TeE-eesj42-fjhjdp-fD6CR8-fjwrHL-fjwr69-7r2JQr-ofrFxu-qfjQFy-fjwcPh-fjwyhw-W7ZJWW/


Of course reproduction optimization may penalize a bit performance for long distance, because that some ULF photographers do unscreew a bit the front cell when possible with process lenses, to optimize a bit better for long subjects.

Also probably by stopping the lens the problem disapears, and we are not speaking about fast lenses.

[Pere Casals]

I'm not Dan, but let me say that...

The effect of focus distance lens optimization can be more or less noticeable, for example a Rogadon-G enlarger lens should work perfect for distant subjects as it is recommended for 20x enlargementes, but a Rodagon-R or Rodagon-D would be bad for distant subjects, and perfect for 1:1 macro work.

And between the G and the R/D we have the plain Rodagon with no letter and the N.

I'd say that if "Process lens" is recommended for x10 work then it's easy it can work well for distant subjects, as the angles on the rays at x10 are not much different than those comming from moon, probably stopping a bit will make the difference difficult to notice.

If the repro lens is for 1:1 work, like the Rodagon D, then rays arriving from a subject's point to the glass have very different angles so that lens has an specialized design for that.

I find jergon a bit confusing, Rodenstock changed the Rodagon-R (reproduction) to D (duplication) to clarify, as it works for 1:1.

Process vs Repro vs Duplication has some confusion, and also some "Process" are APO without that lettering.

What I say is that, IMHO, if a Repro lens is intended to work for large scales it should also work for distant subjects, with only an slight performance loss perhaps.

It would be interesting to see an lp/mm measurement of an APO Nikor for distant subjects.

[Pere Casals]

It would indeed, as nobody goes into the optimization business for no gain.

Anyway, IMHO, this test http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?145478-760mm-Apo-Nikkor-f-11-vs-Nikkor-T-ED-800mm-f-12&p=1440564&viewfull=1#post1440564 shows that an APO Nikkor with 8x10 will deliver an insane amount of resolving power, enough to not worry about that. Shutter, coating and bokeh can be a concern.

[Pere Casals]

I'm glad for you. The picture in the post is pretty fuzzy. I like my Nikkor 800mm much more. I was even taking pics of the Venus atmosphere with it while it was passing in front of the Sun.

Read well the post and you will see that this is a 50x enlargement form a 7.44 x 5.58mm region on the image circle of the APO Nikkor 780mm.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5555/15167285246_2fbe24ee72_b.jpg

Reduce the image by 5 and you will see a perfectly sharp x10 enlargement result, for a 2.5m print.

[Pere Casals]

he picture at that magnification


Is not that difficult to understand the quality of a LF negative seen with a high magnification of a 7.44 x 5.58mm crop.

If you don't realize that an APO Nikkor is a competent LF glass, don't use it, no problem.

[Pere Casals]

I know, but it starts to be more difficult at the 7.58mm x 6.02mm crop, doesn't it?

Don't mind the crop size, just judge from enlargement ratio, if the 7.58mm are displayed in the monitor with 340mm then you have x45 (340/7.58) enlargement.

If you are used to evaluate negatives with loupes you know how the image has to look at X20 and x40.

Also you can resize the image to 75mm and you will know how it will look in a x10 print. Anyway when resizing with Ps it's important to set "Bicubic, ideal for reductions", and consider that monitors are not sharp. Mine has 1920 pix in 600mm, this is 1.5 Lp/mm (1920/600/2 = 1.5). For this reason with monitors it's better to use enlarged images to compare, IMHO.

Anyway that 7.58mm crop from the Nikkor 760 is amazingly good... I was not suspecting it could be so good from an APO Nikkor. (I've a Lomo O-2 600mm... not the same...)

[Drew Wiley]

Airspaced 4-element basically-symmetrical Apo lenses designed primarily for graphics applications include not only Apo Nikkors, but Apo Artars from Schneider, Apo Ronars by Rodenstock, and about half a dozen other series I can think of. Apo Ronars were prized by 4x5 mountain photographers due to compactness and the fact that they are superb at infinity, despite being designed for close-up copy reproduction. This is also the case with Artars (Goerz and Schneider). There are also plasmat designs like G-Claron and Fujinon A that are specially close-range corrected yet excel at infinity. Yes, you CAN have your cake and eat it too! I've been doing it for decades.

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, to be fair to pfsor, I've been puzzled by some process lenses' performance at distance. I understand his argument that absolutely symmetrical, with identical front and rear cells, lenses are by definition optimized for 1:1 and should perform worse at distance.

But back when I was testing lenses actively some of my results didn't agree with theory. My f/9 process dialytes (Apo-Nikkors, Apo-Ronars) all did very well at all distances from wide open down. Same goes for my dagor type G-Clarons, except for the as yet untested 150/9. 6/6 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II also, in fact on 35 mm it beats a 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS from 1:2 to infinity from f/9 down.

I've had only one plasmat type G-Claron, a 150/9. It was worse at distance -- quite usable, but worse -- than both of my 150/9 Apo-Ronars so it went.

I've had one 4/4 Process Nikkor, a 260/10 engraved Nikkor-Q. Symmetrical, unusable at distance. Have you ever tried one of these or a WA G-Claron?

I have a number of Boyer Apo-Saphirs. These are all f/9 heliar types, symmetrical except for the diaphragm's position. I've tested them facing both ways, found no difference at distance. Worse than the equivalent Apo-Nikkor at apertures larger than f/16, equal from f/16 down. This raises the question of whether stopping down is the trick. At what apertures do you use your process dialytes? I typically shoot from f/11 - f/22.

Tessars are quite asymmetrical. I've never had any echt Zeiss Apo Tessars, have three TTH tessar type process lenses, all superb at distance. What's your experience with Apo-Tessars and the like?

[Drew Wiley]

All my Apo Nikkors are the expensive dialyte type, which are superb at infinity. Your Q is from their less expensive process lens series which has led to the misunderstanding about distance use. My own Nikon tessars are all M's and not process lenses; they're superb outdoors; but I've never tried close-ups with them. My Apo Nikkors are quite on key from f/11 to f/45, at which point a bit of diffraction begins to set in. The fact that published specs are based on f/22 and image circles related to precise apo dot reproduction, is another source of confusion with respect to general photography applications. Same goes for G-Clarons, where there is more than one version, and published specs are hyper-conservative based on technical applications.

[Bernice Loui]

For Goerz APO Artar, published optimal aperture is f16 for f9 versions ,f22 for f11 versions. At infinity image ratio there is little if any reasons to stop down much beyond these recommended apertures. It appears most APO process lenses are optimized at f22 or f16. Typical taking apertures f11 to f32, rarely f45.

When images to be made requires larger apertures, the Kodak f6.3 Commercial Ektar or f4.5 Ektar or Schneider f4.5 Xenar is applied. The Kodak Ektars can be used at full aperture with surprisingly good results.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

In outdoor photography (vs graphic flat copy) depth of field is always an issue, esp when shooting 8x10 or larger. Nobody is going to notice the difference
between f/22 and f/45 on a 30X40 inch print, which is only 4X linear magnification from 8X10 film. Film plane flatness is a far bigger issue, or in the case of
very long lenses, atmospheric issues like haze or heat waves. I worked at lot with Cibachrome, which was essentially just like film itself in its ability to hold
far more fine detail than any paper base. I've done big prints where you'd actually have to use a loupe on the print itself to appreciatate that fact - somewhere in the composition you'd stumble upon a flower way out in a meadow, with a mosquito in perfect focus on it, where you could count every leg,
or a tiny drop of water only a millimeter across in the print, yet with a sharp reflection of my camera and tripod in it under a loupe. Given an f/64 taking aperture I don't like printing larger than 20X24, but around f/32 to f/45 is pretty much optimal for typical outdoor use with 8X10 film. With 4X5 shots I never stop down more than
f/32. In the lab for precise repro purposes like enlarged dupes or internegs, my Apo Nikkors are sharpest between f/11 and f/16, but with no visible difference on a 20X24 silver print even down to f/45, which is less than a 3X linear enlargement from 8X10. For Ciba or Fuji Superfgloss polyester media
I more religiously restricted this to around f/11 to f/16 when enlarging.

[Bernice Loui]

By comparison for 5x7, f22 is typical smallest aperture often used. IMO, apply the camera movements as need to bring what needs to be in focus in focus then stop down only as much as needed and no more.

Use a 180mm APO Nikkor for 4x5, 240mm Goerz Red Dot Artar for 5x7 in the Durst 138. Projection aperture is f16. Both are excellent enlarging lenses.

The resolution capability of Ciba prints is often not appreciated by those who have not experienced the unique image results Ciba can produce. High contrast with a color rendition and look that was unique. There was a Fuji offering that was similar but not the same offered during that era.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

I don't have a 180 Apo Nikkor. It would be nice. With Ciba printing, the slightly lower contrast of the more ordinary 180 Rodagon was sometimes an advantage. Analogously, in the 360 range for 8x10 printing, I have both an ultra-crisp, contrasty Apo Nikkor and the bigger, faster 360 EL-Nikkor, which was valuable not only for the slow Ciba medium, but focusing on orange-masked negatives when RA4 printing. My fast snappy lens for 4x5 printing is an Apo Rodagon N - a tad of illumination falloff compared to a 180, but I just burn-in the edges and corners for that.

[Sal Santamaura]

I don't have a 180 Apo Nikkor. It would be nice...Go for it Drew:


https://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-APO-NIKKOR-180mm-F-9-Process-Lens-A-Great-Taking-printing-lens-for-4X5/163004534173?hash=item25f3d3cd9d:g:fhcAAOSwNSJa1mWK


Save me from temptation. I've been burned before buying (and having to return because of undisclosed defects -- different seller) one of those on eBay. :)

[Lachlan 717]

What are the 180mm APO Nikkors as a taking lens? Not much out there on this topic.

(Disclosure: I’ve got a mint one in the cupboard that I’ve never got around to mounting).

[Dan Fromm]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-6850.html

[Drew Wiley]

There are a couple of anomalies in the description of that 180. Lachlan- I've already Described the taking properties of the dialyte design. Extremely sharp clear to infinity. High-contrast and true apo. Reasonsable image circle. You'd need a shutter added.

[Lachlan 717]

Thanks, Gentlemen.

Might be one to try on the 4x5” with the Sinar shutter. I’ll start a new thread if I get a chance to do this.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't think the 760 will even fit on a Sinar board! The 480 barely does. 360 down will fit easy, and can also be put on a no.3 shutter.

[Joerg Krusche]

I don't think the 760 will even fit on a Sinar board! The 480 barely does. 360 down will fit easy, and can also be put on a no.3 shutter.

No problem with the 110mm flange on a Sinar board .. fits nicely .. great combo with Sinar/Copal shutter .. light weight and performance !!

best,

joerg

[Sal Santamaura]

...the 180mm APO Nikkors...I’ve got a mint one in the cupboard that I’ve never got around to mounting).


...Might be one to try on the 4x5” with the Sinar shutter...


I don't think the 760 will even fit on a Sinar board...

Perhaps not, but Lachlan's 180 probably will. :)

[Sal Santamaura]

Go for it Drew:


https://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-APO-NIKKOR-180mm-F-9-Process-Lens-A-Great-Taking-printing-lens-for-4X5/163004534173?hash=item25f3d3cd9d:g:fhcAAOSwNSJa1mWK
...


There are a couple of anomalies in the description of that 180...

Such as?

[Bernice Loui]

Lens flange is not always needed. Sinar boards can be bored then threaded to fit as needed. This allows a bit more than 120mm bore on the Sinar lens board.

Real limitation for optics used in the Sinar, Sinar shutter opening diameter. Lens barrel diameter is the lesser limitation.



Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Given the number of views on this thread, expect the demand for APO Nikkors to be on a run for a while..
There are other excellent process lenses Goerz APO Artar, Rodenstock APO Ronar, Boyer APO Saphir (it's a Heilar formula), Docter Optics, Carl Zeiss Jena and many others..

While APO process lenses can offer excellent image results, there are trade-offs, small image circle (but circle of illumination is larger giving the false sense of being usable film format sizes larger than specified), typical full aperture of f9 or smaller (also smaller lens size), majority are not in shutter. As with most things, it is all a set of trade offs. Know the trade offs then make choices based on actual image making needs.

And yes, the 180mm APO Nikkor makes an excellent taking lens too. Bit image circle limited on 4x5. Here is the Nikkor AD sheet for APO Nikkor.
http://www.savazzi.net/download/manuals/Apo-Nikkor.pdf


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Yes. I have a copy of the spec sheet too. But things like image circle are spelled out for precise corner to corner dot repro standards, which are more stringent than general photo applications. A 305 or esp 360 Apo Nikkor will easily handle 8x10 format, so I'd presume 180 would be fine for 4x5. I'll probably never try it because I have the superb tiny 180 Fuji A. But a 180 Apo Nikkor would be a nice amenity in my darkroom. The shortest one I own is a 240.

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, if you take a look at Apo-Ronar documentation you'll see that some of them -- I haven't calculated the fraction -- have MTF curves that fall below 10% at the edge of rated coverage. Others don't. The ones that give mush at the edge may produce negs good enough for contact prints but seem poor choices for negs that will be enlarged.

[Drew Wiley]

Dan - when I state a 360 Apo Nikkor, for example, comfortably covers 8x10 at typical working apertures for field applications, I'm implying it will be even crisper in the corners and edges of the image than any other view camera lens I own, which includes some "cult" lenses. Overkill, really. These were designed to retain precise dot shape clear across, even rectangular dots (yes, they also made adjustable square-aperture 360's). But they aren't as compact as most field lenses, esp if you mount em in shutter. I'd guess the real-world coverage at f/32 might be around 70 degrees - more than Apo Ronars, but certainly not as much as 80 degrees.

[Pere Casals]

Manufacturer says 46º, http://www.savazzi.net/download/manuals/Apo-Nikkor.pdf (last page).

70º is what delivers a plasmat like Symmar-S.

Probably the APO Nikkor illuminates 70º, but beyond specified coverage the image soon should be pure blur.

At least it's what happens with my Lomo O-2 600mm, also a dyalite.

[Drew Wiley]

Did you even read what I just stated, Pere? I'M NOT GUESSING like you are. And I already explained at least twice on this thread why factory specs for graphics applications are FAR more stringent than for general photography use. That includes the definition of the image circle. Beyond the stated brochure image coverage, the edges are not a blur on 8X10, but probably crisper and better apo corrected than any lens of similar focal length you've ever seen. Its better than my 14 inch Kern Dagor and Fujinon f/10 360, which has a huge image circle. These are both classic lenses. But comparing a Lomo to an Apo Nikkor is like comparing a skateboard to a Ferrari.

[Pere Casals]

Did you even read what I just stated, Pere? I

Drew, a F=360mm/70º is a 500mm circle at infinite, as 11x14" requires 450mm then a 70º APO Nikkor 360 would be suitable for 11x14 ULF landscape with even some movements, and it isn't.

http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2015/2/ulf-lens-recommendations-14x17

In fact the shortest APO Nikkor recommended for ULF is the 600 or 610 that has a 518mm circle at infinite.

The APO Nikkor 360 has a 600mm circle at 1:1, but the half for focus at infinite. Would you recommend the APO Nikkor 360 for 11x14 landscape?

Even the Wide Angle plasmat version of APO Nikkor delivers 54º only coverage for the 360mm, but here we are speaking about your 46º dyalite...

It would be interesting to measure LP/mm from 46º to 70º, and to see how it falls...
____________

Of course the LOMO O-2 is not the same quality than Nikkor, but I got it so cheap (44€) for experimeneting with dyalites, this delivers 41º coverage, from russian specs.

177340

Russian specs also speaks about Lp/mm , but test shots look better than the 25 lp/mm specified in the center, I've been told that those specs are with a different normative, perhaps not at extintion, so I've pending measuring the optical performance, just for fun.

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - Lomos were obviously designed either to mimic certain flaws in 19th Century lenses or market new kinds of optical flaws which current photographers might find creatively interesting. That's fine. But Apo Nikkors were marketed for high-end commercial reproduction purposes. You're trying to compare oranges and apples. Just looking at the number of lens elements doesn't begin to tell the whole story. I have three cats napping around me right now, and they're truly felines as lions or tigers, but with respect to having felines in a house, there's a big difference. And you're trying to make arguments based on assumption instead of going to the horse's mouth. I've got some of these Apo Nikkors mounted on Sinar boards. I know what they are capable of. You are trying to crunch numbers based on spec sheets you plainly don't understand. Several of my Apo Nikkors were cannibalized off a $200,000 process camera 22ft long, with a bellows so big you could have walked through it if it could have held your weight.

[Pere Casals]

Drew, I've no APO Nikkor for the moment, but I guess one day I'll get one, it would be interesting viewing how it perfoms beyond the 46º official coverage and until the 70º you say .

Have you image samples that would show how it works at say 65º ?

I ask something like this enlarged 7mm crop (bellow, seen 40x or 50x) taken from the center, but asking the same at 65º, for example...

(This would be a little crop of the negative that would be 330mm away from center, using the APO 360)


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?145478-760mm-Apo-Nikkor-f-11-vs-Nikkor-T-ED-800mm-f-12&p=1440564&viewfull=1#post1440564
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5555/15167285246_2fbe24ee72_b.jpg

_________________

LOMO O-2 600 isn't a taking lens one can find in a FK Russian camera for vintage aesthetics, it's a process lens, apo corrected, a dyalite for process work like the apo nikkor.

[Drew Wiley]

Hi again, Pere. Image circle is really related to application and how far one is willing to stop down the lens. For example, for reproduction purposes, Apo Nikkors were typically used at f/22. But for general phoitiography, I'd no doubt often stop it down to f/45 with no visible loss in a 20x24 b&w fiber print from
8X10 film. But a contact printer might successfully employ f/90. It also depends on how much movements are used, esp on the front standard. Guess I could
put an Apo-Nikkor in the pack tommorrow, but I don't like making lens cap exposures unless its a very long exposure. G-Claron lenses are analogous. They're close-range corrected plasmats also excellent at infinity. But because the series name was first attached by Schnieder to repro usage, the published specs for
image circles remain extremely conservative. Everybody knows by now that a 355 G-claron will easily cover 11X14, and even 12X16 or larger for contact purposes. The very similar Fuji A 360 is also effectively an 80 degree lens for typical landscape or architectural purposes. It has loads of wiggle room on 8X10 film, but barely covers 8x10 head-on with no spare room for movements at all. Why? It's because it's equipped with a no.1 shutter and at a certain point runs into mechanical vignetting, whereas the equivalent 355 G-Claron is mounted on a wider no.3 shutter; and contact printers aren't annoyed by minor
reductions in image quality toward the edges of the field like we enlarger types are. Sorry, but I have no means to scan and post my own images. You should have seen the stitched NASA images of the backside of the moon my nephew made using a monitor six feet wide up here at the the Lawrence Livermore Lab,
well before the public had access to that kind of software. I later saw a mounted print of just a quarter of the moon twenty feet across. But more down to
earth, at least if I was up in the mtns in clear air rather than on the foggy coast, I'm certain I could get a sharper image of the moon from my Pentax 6X7 300EDIF than what you posted. Lots of amateur astrophotographers use them. I'm trying to remember the name of a local telephotographer who uses Apo Nikkors; he had quite a website at one time, but must be getting way up there in age by now. If I remember I'll tell you. But in the meantime, Nikon still has an extremely high reputation for technical lenses - microscopes, machine optics, medical optics, very high-end repro work. I doubt anything Russian mfg has
equivalent quality.

[Drew Wiley]

OK. His name is Francis Sakamoto, and he's still connected with the Blackhawk Museum a half hour from here. But I can't find images of him using his gear.
His own website has been stripped down to comparison images which are too tiny to make out any detail, though I've seen his big Ciba prints in person.
Because he was once a telescope and Pentax dealer he's used a remarkable variety of tele options. There are some posted shots taken with a 450 Apo Nikkor
on a Toyo 8X10 with a P67 body at the film plane. But whatever happened to his more extensive informational site I have no idea. Guess I could just stop by
the museum. He lives not far from me too. But Blackhawk, other than the public museum, is the habitat of the "new rich" in northern California, and I got sick
of em as clients when working. Rich sports figures, drug kingpins, family members of despotic kingdoms, etc - a few nice people, but a lot of absolute jerks
with very tacky taste and a reputation for stiffing workers. Not many tech billionaires - they mostly live either across the Bay or on big ranches out of town.
Frank (Francis) is a nice guy. He just works out there running their own website and event calendar, which is up to date and interesting.

[Pere Casals]

I'd no doubt often stop it down to f/45 with no visible loss in a 20x24 b&w fiber print from
8X10 film. But a contact printer might successfully employ f/90.

I agree with those values, at f/90 diffraction limit is 17 Lp/mm, so a contact print is perfectly sharp, at f/45 limit is 35 Lp/mm so even a x3 enlargement still can show more than 10 Lp/mm.

Regarding soviet lenses, there are interesting models, for sure that QC and performance could not compete aganist western products, but they also had "islands of excellence"

It is interesting to note that they invented the tilted pupil, the sitall glass and the forerunners of biogons and super-angulons.

[Drew Wiley]

I know who makes many of the lenses for NASA, the DEA, NSA, etc., - lenses which were more sophisticated 30 yrs ago than anything the public can buy today, or probably even imagine. Well, maybe they would make one of us something super if we had a credit card without any limit. But the Soviets certainly knew how to turn ballpoint pens into recorders, cameras, and lethal injection guns; so who knows.

[Bob Salomon]

I know who makes many of the lenses for NASA, the DEA, NSA, etc., - lenses which were more sophisticated 30 yrs ago than anything the public can buy today, or probably even imagine. Well, maybe they would make one of us something super if we had a credit card without any limit. But the Soviets certainly knew how to turn ballpoint pens into recorders, cameras, and lethal injection guns; so who knows.
You talking about Perkin Elmar?

[Joerg Krusche]

You talking about Perkin Elmar?

Yes .. Perkin Elmer and others .. but often no iris, extreme weight .. a challenge to adapt .. and were they so much better ?

[Bob Salomon]

Yes .. Perkin Elmer and others .. but often no iris, extreme weight .. a challenge to adapt .. and were they so much better ?

In the mid 60s I managed the camera department in a Caldors on RT 7 in Norwalk a mile or so south of P.E. They would come down to us every few days and buy top of the line refracting and reflecting telescopes. Then, after a few days, they would bring back the scopes, less the lenses. To see if we could give them credit. Candor had a very lenient return policy so we did give them credit for the units.
After a while a couple of the engineers brought in a reflector lens about a 500mm focal length! But very small and very heavy, it was obviously hand made and had a Nikon mount on it. They wanted me to shoot a couple of rolls of film with it. So I did and quickly discovered that it wasn’t all that sharp! When I showed them the shots and commented on the performance they explained that the lens would be used by being shot through a rather thick quartz window on the Appollo Space Program, and the quartz window will sharpen things up. They had used the lenses out of our telescopes to prototype the lens they made that they called the Solid Cat.
A few years later P.E. Teamed up with Ponder and Best and sold the lens as the Vivitar Solid Cat through camera stores. It still was not very sharp!

[Joerg Krusche]

Interesting.. I was thinking more of lenses for aerial reconnaissance .. not the newer ones .. certainly optimized at infinity .. but at focal lengths over 300mm real beasts ..




In the mid 60s I managed the camera department in a Caldors on RT 7 in Norwalk a mile or so south of P.E. They would come down to us every few days and buy top of the line refracting and reflecting telescopes. Then, after a few days, they would bring back the scopes, less the lenses. To see if we could give them credit. Candor had a very lenient return policy so we did give them credit for the units.
After a while a couple of the engineers brought in a reflector lens about a 500mm focal length! But very small and very heavy, it was obviously hand made and had a Nikon mount on it. They wanted me to shoot a couple of rolls of film with it. So I did and quickly discovered that it wasn’t all that sharp! When I showed them the shots and commented on the performance they explained that the lens would be used by being shot through a rather thick quartz window on the Appollo Space Program, and the quartz window will sharpen things up. They had used the lenses out of our telescopes to prototype the lens they made that they called the Solid Cat.
A few years later P.E. Teamed up with Ponder and Best and sold the lens as the Vivitar Solid Cat through camera stores. It still was not very sharp!

[Bob Salomon]

Interesting.. I was thinking more of lenses for aerial reconnaissance .. not the newer ones .. certainly optimized at infinity .. but at focal lengths over 300mm real beasts ..

I sold NASA both Linhof Aerial Technika and Rollei 6008 systems for use in the Space Shuttle and all the lenses used on the Rollei were off the shelf lenses and all the lenses for the Linhof were Linhof selected common lenses selected by Linhof for the Aero Technika.
The Solid Cat was 500mm and designed for use specifically for aerial work through that quartz window.

[Joerg Krusche]

I sold NASA both Linhof Aerial Technika and Rollei 6008 systems for use in the Space Shuttle and all the lenses used on the Rollei were off the shelf lenses and all the lenses for the Linhof were Linhof selected common lenses selected by Linhof for the Aero Technika.
The Solid Cat was 500mm and designed for use specifically for aerial work through that quartz window.

Bob,

thx for info !!

[Pere Casals]

I did and quickly discovered that it wasn’t all that sharp!

The other lens Perkin Elmer made that was not sharp was Hubble telescope :) They had to send astronauts to LEO (STS-61 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-61) to fix it... since then it delivered amazing results

Another PE superb job was KH-9. U-2, SR-71 and Apollo were attached to that camera, saying that the camera was attached to the vehicles is less exact :)

[Bob Salomon]

The other lens Perkin Elmer made that was not sharp was Hubble telescope :) They had to send astronauts to LEO (STS-61 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-61) to fix it... since then it delivered amazing results

Another PE superb job was KH-9. U-2, SR-71 and Apollo were attached to that camera, saying that the camera was attached to the vehicles is less exact :)
But NASA signed off on the Hubble and told P.E. That a test, that would have discovered the fault, was not needed.
A friend of ours was a product manager for P.E. While Hubble was being made!

[Pere Casals]

But NASA signed off on the Hubble and told P.E. That a test, that would have discovered the fault, was not needed.
A friend of ours was a product manager for P.E. While Hubble was being made!


Well, sometimes a big project is launched while knowing it won't work, because not having the solution, or solving it would make slip the project in the time, and this is politically incorrect. Then a problem is found, and nobody is responsible of it, and then it's solved...

[Drew Wiley]

No, not Perkin Elmer, but the folks here that fixed the Hubbell after their screw-up. I dealt with them on a regular basis for facilities maintenance supplies, and even for the sealant for the Hubbell correction lenses. I have reason to believe some of their lenses apparently go into hybrid optical/magnetic surveillance devices analogous to what is sometimes used in the most expensive optical microscopes and some extremely expensive astronomical devices, where miniscule amounts of chromatic aberration, diffraction, and even light scattering effects of haze can be corrected by selectively splitting apart specific wavelengths of light and then precisely recombining them using magnetically controlled mirrors. It's way more precise than what digital can do. But a lot of it is still no doubt also secret too; and this particular optical supplier (which specializes in custom aspherics) probably doesn't know the full equation either. The persons I interacted with, including the owner, have all either passed away or retired, but I've seen astounding sample photos, true optical film. The company is still going, but at night they host workshops helping local amateur astronomers grind their own mirrors.

[Drew Wiley]

Looks like they were recently bought out by one of their main clients, the world's biggest technical or scientific laser company across the Bay in Palo Alto. Most people don't realize it, but the amount of R&D in Silicon Valley that goes to space and military applications is every bit as big as what's behind the consumer computer and electronics market.

[Bob Salomon]

Looks like they were recently bought out by one of their main clients, the world's biggest technical or scientific laser company across the Bay in Palo Alto. Most people don't realize it, but the amount of R&D in Silicon Valley that goes to space and military applications is every bit as big as what's behind the consumer computer and electronics market.

As most of you know my company was the USA distributor for Rodenstock Precision Optical, the division that manufactured photographic lenses as well as graphic arts lenses. A few years after we became the distributor the Rodenstock family spun off the Precision optical division from the rest of the company.
A couple of years later the Precision optical division was purchased by Linos, a photonics company, and the photographic division became part of Linos. When the Precision optical division was spun off the new company was granted the right to use the Rodenstock logo for 5 years, after which a royalty would be due for the use of the logo. At the end of that period the Linos name replaced the Rodenstock logo on lens boxes, lens wrenches, cleaning cloths, etc. and the Rodenstock name remained on the lenses.
Linos was then sold to Qioptiq, making for a very large international company that could be the company Drew is referencing.

This is what they are:

http://www.qioptiq.com/products.html

[Drew Wiley]

No, Bob. It's something local and capable of making really really big laser stuff. It's amazing what goes on behind closed doors in this area. A few things like private spacecraft reach the news; but military and surveillance projects are meant to be kept quiet. Thus Silicon Valley attracts a lot of spies, and they aren't snooping around for the Recipe to Kentucky Fried Chicken! I'm just glad the days of germ warfare labs sitting atop infamous earthquake faults in our big cities is over.

[Bernice Loui]

In Palo Alto:
http://www.diffractionoptics.com



Bernice



No, Bob. It's something local and capable of making really really big laser stuff. It's amazing what goes on behind closed doors in this area. A few things like private spacecraft reach the news; but military and surveillance projects are meant to be kept quiet. Thus Silicon Valley attracts a lot of spies, and they aren't snooping around for the Recipe to Kentucky Fried Chicken! I'm just glad the days of germ warfare labs sitting atop infamous earthquake faults in our big cities is over.

[David Lindquist]

And googling "Eastman Kodak Hubble Telescope" turns up lots of stuff including:
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/18/us/hubble-has-backup-mirror-unused.html
David

[Drew Wiley]

No, Berenice, not Diffraction Optics, though I think they bought it too. The new owner is Coherent. The aspheric plant was known as Tinsley Lab, and was in Berkeley, another giant hi-tech hub, when I dealt with them, but has since relocated to nearby Richmond.

[Bernice Loui]

Coherent the laser folks has been growing in the bay area due to the demand for laser technology. The other bay area laser company Spectra-Physics has also purchased related optical companies.

Many believe the best optics only come from Germany or Japan, not true. There are a host of other optical companies that produce highly specialized optics in America and else were.

Keep in mind Angénieux (France) were among the very first to work with NASA to design and produce lenses to meed the demands of space flight. This work resulted in speciality lens coatings, lubricants and more that are required for lenses to function in the very hostile environment of space. Canon made the first batch of corner reflectors sitting on the moon. Kinoptic (France) made rectilinear wide angle lenses for some of the very first weather satellites. This list goes on...


Bernice

[Mark Sampson]

The backup Hubble mirror made by Kodak (my division but not me) is on display at the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum in Washington. No doubt, an amazing optic; but it would be impractical for field use, as it is 8 feet in diameter.
There are a lot of optics out there of spectacular quality... made at great expense in tiny numbers for very specific purposes. Most of which are completely unusable for normal photography... even if you could find any for sale. And then there are prototypes...in the 'junk box' of my department at Kodak was a 12" f/4.5 lens in a barrel. Not a regular Ektar; we never used it. Just in there with old enlarging lenses, printer lenses, parts, caps, etc. One time the health & safety rep came by, checking out some of our working specialty optics for radiation (they were known to contain thorium glass). His Geiger counter passed the working lenses, no problem. The next time I saw him I asked about this prototype lens. He said "Is it heavy? send it to me." Indeed it was quite heavy for its size, and had that ice-tea color. I did send it over to him and after a while he called me back and said "yeah, that was a hot one". It went to radioactive disposal, never saw it again- or thought of it until reading this thread. Of course we'll never know what it was designed for or how it performed... just one of many such, I'm sure.

[Drew Wiley]

I was not referring to a backup mirror, but the corrective lenses still on the Hubble, which were made here. Who specified the optical correction needed I have no idea. But the local operation might have been the only place capable of making the new "reading glasses" for the Hubble. If I were younger, it might be fun to join their amateur astronomy workshop. All kinds of places like Edmund can sell you a basic concave mirror blank; but can you imagine having access to the equipment and coaching to grind and polish your own 16" or 18" aspheric mirror? Their industrial capability is much bigger than that; but
as it is, installing or hauling even a 16" scope is a quite a challenge for an amateur, esp given the expense of a matching
mount and clock drive.

[hiend61]

I have owned and used a Nikkor T ED 12/800, and an Apo Nikkor 11/760, and from my experience, using both with color transparecy film on my Sinar cameras, I prefer the Apo Nikkor 11/760 for the following reasons:

1,- The Nikkor T ED has just a bit of magenta chromatic aberration. The Apo Nikkor has none.
2,- The Apo Nikkor is a bit sharper than the Nikkor T ED. In both cases, assuming you can keep your camera firmly steady.
3,- The nikkor T ED has a bit of distortion. The Apo Nikkor has none.
4,- The Apo Nikkor in barrel has a 12 blades diapragm that provide an almost circular shape and nicer bokeh than the Nikkor T ED.
5,- In spite of I make few camera movements when I use long lenses, it´s easier to make them with lenses that have a non tele design. Tele lenses have a weird behavior when making camera movements.

The Nikkor T ED needs about 7 inch less bellows length, and is mounted with a Copal 3 shutter, so it´s easily usable in most cameras. My Apo Nikkor is mounted on a Sinar board and I use it with a Sinar shutter.

[tgtaylor]

Here's an image of Upper Yosemite Falls I shot with the 760mm AN a couple of weeks ago:


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51982391023_00da1afd08_o.jpg

It was taken on a mildly windy afternoon (~8-10mph) on a Toyo Robos at a distance of about 1600 feet from the base of the wall with a shutter speed of 1/25 sec and an aperture of ~f32. Plenty sharp to my eye - I wouldn't want to use this lens for portraiture.

Reminds me of the Carthaginian General Hannibal who also was one-eyed.

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

Bernice - I once did business with Spectra back when serious construction and survey lasers were coming into their own. It was a bouncy ride in that category, and they did better with high price-point laser like those used for leveling big irrigation circles, mounted atop big automated graders. Haven't kept up with it since then.

Per the 760 AN. I never got around to mounting mine on a board. It's awfully heavy and awkward compared to my 600C Fuji, especially if I ever found a shutter big enough for it.

[tgtaylor]

I got lucky and found one in pristine condition for $750 on ebay that was mounted in an Ilex 5 shutter that was also in good condition . It was priced at 1100 or $1200 but remained unsold for some time. I offered $750 which was accepted. I've watched the ebay listings since then but have not seen one in as good condition whether it was mounted or not. I later discovered out that the lens was actually offered for sale on this forum for several months before the ebay listing for $1200 but it never sold - probably never even got a bite. It came mounted on a wooden probably a Kodak D2 board which I remounted on a Toyo metal board. The lens is heavy - but not too heavy - and wrapped in a domke lens wrap takes up one of the three top pockets I set up for lenses in my 8x10 pack.

Thomas