PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on the Nikkor T 360/500/720 set?



bieber
11-May-2018, 17:49
I wanted to get my hands on something a little longer for my new 4x5 (I've just got a 150/5.6 for now), and while looking for just something in the 400-500mm range on eBay I realized I could get this entire set for a not completely unreasonable amount of money so I went for it. The box finally got here today, and the "4 piece set" I bought is missing the 720mm rear element. And the lens cap has a little sticker on it that says it's missing the 720mm element. And I looked back at the listing and realized there aren't actually any pictures of a 720mm rear element in there. So I'm pretty sure the store just screwed up listing it and I'm gonna have to send the daggum thing back.

Which means it's gonna be at least a few more weeks until I've got some long lenses to play with, but on the bright side now I get a chance to do a little more research and reconsider that purchase after actually having seen the size of the lenses. Anyone have some experience with them and want to comment on the quality? Or have a favorite lens/lens set in that range that you'd recommend in its place?

bieber
11-May-2018, 18:08
Also, how do I figure out how far ahead of the lens board the nodal point is for them? The Nikon brochure for these said that because they're telephotos you shouldn't need a bellows extension for them, but I'm starting to suspect that's only really true for very far-off subjects. I just tried focusing an image of a light fixture across the room (maybe 15 feet-ish?) onto a wall with the 500mm lens, and I had to get it significantly more than a foot away to get that in focus.

Dan Fromm
11-May-2018, 18:29
Focal length is the distance from the rear node to the film plane when the lens is focused at infinity. The 360's flange focal distance is 261 mm so at infinity the rear node is 99 mm in front of the board. 500: 350, 150. 720: 469, 251.

The usual relationship between the distance the front standard is moved forward from the infinity position and focused distance/magnification holds for telephoto lenses.

Corran
11-May-2018, 20:54
They are good lenses. The 720mm even covers 8x10. I don't use long lenses that much but I jumped on a full set many years ago when it was offered to me at a stellar price. Considering the interchangeability, the size isn't terrible, but they are still kinda big and heavy.

From the 360mm:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VTxW_MkE28k/T3FPeV17MLI/AAAAAAAAAtI/iFX_C_HatMQ/s600/0205ss.jpg

From the 720mm:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fHL2owsUkoc/U2FwBcpHcAI/AAAAAAAAFCM/eQWjM74Lqr8/s600/mountaintops.jpg

Mark Sampson
11-May-2018, 21:10
I rented a 500mm once, 20+ years ago (to shoot from the roof of a NYC skyscraper), and it was quite sharp. I've kinda wanted my own ever since...but without any real need I've never bought one. My long lens is 'only' a Nikkor-M 300/9.
You'll want to have a solid camera and a very sturdy tripod, though. Magnification and atmospheric effects come into play when you use these lenses. I found, then, that the 500 was right at the effective limit for the Zone VI w/ Bogen-Manfrotto 3040 that I'd mounted it on. But don't let me discourage you- go for it! And have fun!

bieber
11-May-2018, 23:38
Ooh, neat samples. How close were you to that flower, and how far did you have to extend the bellows out to get it in focus?

Also, is there such a thing as a fast-ish 300mm telephoto for 4x5? Now I'm kind of contemplating just getting like a 300/5.6 instead, but if it's just a regular long focus lens it'll eat up almost my entire rail length just to get to infinity focus

angusparker
12-May-2018, 05:34
Ooh, neat samples. How close were you to that flower, and how far did you have to extend the bellows out to get it in focus?

Also, is there such a thing as a fast-ish 300mm telephoto for 4x5? Now I'm kind of contemplating just getting like a 300/5.6 instead, but if it's just a regular long focus lens it'll eat up almost my entire rail length just to get to infinity focus

I think just the 360 T f8 is a perfect long lens. I very rarely use my Fujinon C 450 on 4x5 and the fast plasmats at 300 or 360 are huge in a Copal 3 and heavy. Better to go for a Nikkor M 300 or a Fujinon C 300 IMHO.

Corran
12-May-2018, 06:18
I don't remember the focus distance or extension. If you want the lens, it should hold it's value well, so even if you sell it soon after you won't be out much cash. Nothing beats trying it out with your own subjects and aesthetic.

Eric Woodbury
12-May-2018, 12:07
I used the 600/800mm Nikkor pair for many years with 5x7. Good quality lens. No complaints there. Before that I used the Fujinon 400T on 4x5. I didn't like that lens. Didn't seem very sharp.

I learned a couple of thing about these lenses and long focal lengths for me (YMMV). First, these lenses never got far from the car. They are big and heavy. I tended to use 450mm Fujinon C and crop, instead. Second, my vision is not with telephoto lenses. I prefer the wide to normal range.

Pere Casals
12-May-2018, 13:26
They are good lenses. The 720mm even covers 8x10. I don't use long lenses that much but I jumped on a full set many years ago when it was offered to me at a stellar price. Considering the interchangeability, the size isn't terrible, but they are still kinda big and heavy.



Bryan, if catalog isn't wrong, the T ED 720 covers only 5x7 with no movements.

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf

Pere Casals
12-May-2018, 13:56
Or have a favorite lens/lens set in that range that you'd recommend in its place?

At one point I also seriously considered the Nikon T system, I also wanted to experiment with something in the 600mm.

Tets by Mr Pérez (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html), even being a DIY self test and not a lab test, points an acceptable optical performance for the T 360 but a lower rating for the T 500 and 720.

I asked around and that test is consistent with other opinions I heard from T owners.

Math points that, if using a really sharp film like TMX, probably Image Quality of a T 500 shot its is equivalent to the same framing cropped from a T 360 shot, but I don't know in practice.

Finally I got a Symmar 360 convertible to 620mm, Technika selected. Drawbaks: 2 kgs and single coated (well, one may also prefer single coating...). Advantage: cheap(I had a tight budget), and it covers even 11x14. If wanting to hike with the 620 conversion alone it is way lighter, because only real cell (it is smaller than the front one) is carried. Anyway I found that the excessive image circle can generate flare because most of the circle iluminates bellows, for 4x5 a front hub can be necessary, even for 8x10.

The T is a great system, ideal for fielding 3 long focals with limited overall weight, also using a single shutter for the 3 focals this good for exposure consistence, but IMHO this is only worth if one uses long focals a lot. An alternative would be using a Nikon M 450, and cropping to obtain the 720 framing,

Stephen Willard
12-May-2018, 14:51
I have this lens and all three of its rear elements. It produces tack sharp images for all three elements. All of the elements will cover a 5x7, however the 500mm and 720mm elements also covers my 4x10 camera. The lens is light and compact, and I never head in the backcountry with my llamas without this convertible lens. It has been a great reliable work horse for me.

I also have the 600/800/1200 Nikkor T-ED convertible lens. It to is amazing, but it is big and heavy. I only use it in the spring and fall when I am shooting from the car. The only short coming of this lens is the 400mm jump from 800mm to 1200mm. I wish that Nikon made a 1000mm rear element for this system. My signature image below was take with the 1200mm element.

With the exception of the 360mm element, I attach a shock cord from the back standard down between the crotch of my tripod and back up to the front standard. This stabilizes the entire camera configuration and eliminate 90% of any vibrations. In fact, I was never able to produce a sharp image with the 720mm element until I used the shock cord.

I have also attach a pic of my homemade bellows extension I use when I shoot with 800mm or 1200mm lenses so that I can get the bells length I need with my Wisner 4x10 and 5x7.

Corran
12-May-2018, 16:17
Bryan, if catalog isn't wrong, the T ED 720 covers only 5x7 with no movements.

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf

I've used it on 8x10. It covers and is sharp.

neil poulsen
12-May-2018, 19:01
That's a disappointment, because you would have had a really nice set of long lenses.

Make sure the store pays shipping both ways.

EdSawyer
12-May-2018, 20:58
It's a great set, I have all of it, there's nothing sharper for 4x5 in that focal length for teles. Maybe the plasmats equal it, but i'd be surprised, plus they are huge and heavy in comparison and need more bellows. For long lenses for 4x5, it's most certainly the best option and best value, I think.

Jim Andrada
13-May-2018, 01:33
I have the whole set as well. It's more than sharp enough with every combination (IMHO!)

I use them on both my 4 x 5 Technika and my 5 x 7 Kodak 2D. The 720 is a bit too long on the 4 x 5 but perfect on the 5 x 7.

Pere Casals
13-May-2018, 07:04
I've used it on 8x10. It covers and is sharp.

Perhaps you used it for near objects, but for infinite focus nikon says 210mm circle at f/22, so if you have a landscape shot in 8x10 it would be interesting you post it, to see how corners are...

Corran
13-May-2018, 07:11
Pere, you haven't used the lens, so please stop posting about the specs. I have used the lens, and you have seen the images I've posted from it here. I did post a crop once because I wanted that composition. Anyway, there's still a huge difference between "infinity" and a subject hundreds of feet away, so the images I've made has focus at 200+ feet. Of course infinity is therefore out of focus with such a huge focal length, but the image circle is not appreciably different. It covers with room to spare and the in-focus subject near the periphery is sharp. My guess is however the focal length is changed, the image circle scales with it. Therefore it stands to reason the 720mm element has an image circle double the size of the 360mm, but Nikon spec'd out the lens at the lowest focal length.

Pfsor
13-May-2018, 07:20
Pere, you haven't used the lens, so please stop posting about the specs. I have used the lens, and you have seen the images I've posted from it here...

Carey Bird Photography source agrees with Pere's affirmation, indicating the image circle as 210mm at F/22 (5x7).Pere's supposition about your use of the lens is fully legit, no need to intimidate him. No manufacturer in its common sense would like to limit a lens characteristics to a smaller format than it can cover, hence the suspicion.

Corran
13-May-2018, 07:30
I'm not intimidating him, but as has been said on other threads, the official specs are only part of the story, and someone who has used the lens can generally say something about the coverage. You can second-guess Nikon's reasoning all you want, but the lens (720) covers 8x10 just fine.

I do not have a photograph that I focused at "infinity" with, but this tree was hundreds of feet away - infinity on any typical lens, but with a 720mm lens obviously the background goes out of focus. The image circle is massive and I have room for movements (I looked). I posted this cropped before, because that's what I wanted the composition to be, but here is the full sheet:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/amicalolaer810-9188ss.jpg

It clearly does not go crazy in the corners like some lenses pushed past their limit but it is out of focus at infinity here. Overall sharpness will be more of a function of vibration, wind, atmospheric conditions, etc., with such a FL.

Pfsor
13-May-2018, 07:37
Then go, take a pic focused at infinity (1km away) and see if you can proof your affirmation against manufacturere's specs.

Corran
13-May-2018, 07:39
I don't have the time, money, or inclination to waste film for you. If you want to disprove me, you do it. This isn't what the thread's about anyway.

Pfsor
13-May-2018, 07:53
If you don't have the time, money, or inclination to prove your affirmation, it's fine with me. I take it as you sell it - not proved.

Corran
13-May-2018, 07:58
That's nice.

bieber
13-May-2018, 09:50
Ooh, now y'all have got me really wanting this lens set. I might try to see if I can get the place to just give me a partial refund and keep the two lenses I've got, I doubt the 720 would see a ton of use anyways

ottluuk
13-May-2018, 12:50
...
Also, is there such a thing as a fast-ish 300mm telephoto for 4x5? Now I'm kind of contemplating just getting like a 300/5.6 instead, but if it's just a regular long focus lens it'll eat up almost my entire rail length just to get to infinity focus

Scheider's 360/5.5 Tele-Xenar comes to mind. It's a fairly old design and probably not as sharp as the Nikon convertible at 360 but faster and still much lighter than a big 360mm Plasmat. Usually found in a Compound shutter. You can see the specs here: https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/tele-xenar/data/5,5-360mm.htm

Eric Leppanen
13-May-2018, 18:12
Also, is there such a thing as a fast-ish 300mm telephoto for 4x5?Fast-ish 300mm for 4x5 is a problem. The Nikon T ED 270mm f/6.3 offers little additional reach versus something like a Fuji 250 6.3, and the Fuji 300T is an f/8 lens. You could try a 300mm 5.6 plasmat with a relatively short flange focal distance (such as a Sironar-N), but these are huge 8x10 lenses and challenging to stabilize on a highly extended 4x5 camera (particularly the Copal 3 shutter kick). The previously mentioned Schneider 360/5.5 might be your best bet if the optical performance is right.

EdSawyer
13-May-2018, 19:08
Both the 360 Schneider teles (xenar, arton) are not nearly as good as the Nikkor-T 360, even though they are a stop faster. Contrast is much lower, the Arton is huge and heavy, and neither one is as sharp as the Nikkor. I had all 3 at the same time, plus a Fuji 360 plasmat (latest version before the CM versions).

There are fast-ish 300mm 4x5 lenses but they are usually aerial lenses, and if in shutter, will be huge. I have a 300mm f/4 aerial lens that came in a giant Fairchild Night shutter, but I will probably remount it in barrel at some point (at which time it will be about as big/heavy as a 360 plasmat or the 360 tele arton).

Huub
14-May-2018, 00:54
I do have a f5.5 360mm Tele-Xenar which comes in an all black Compur-3 shutter and judging by the serial number, was build somewhere around 1984. Comparing it with the 360mm T-Nikkor it's contrast is a bit lower, but the lens shows excellent micro contrast and has always been plenty sharp enough for me. Next to being a full stop brighter the other main advantage over the Nikon lens is it's shorter film to lensboard distance, which makes it possible to focus at closer distances with the lens on camrea's with limited bellows draw. This also puts less strain on the front standard while focussing at inifinity.

The reason I bought a 360mm - 500mm Nikkor set is that I felt the need for a longer focal length. The shutter I have only gives the diafragma settings for the 360mm and the 500mm, so my guess is that the lens was originally sold that way. Recalculating it for 720 is easy though: just add another stop. An other thing i found out is that, when you want to use the 500mm on a camera with a maximum bellows draw of around 30cm, you will need a extended lenspanel. I use one of 5cm, but the whole thing puts quite some strain on the front standard of my Shenhao because of the dis-balance it creates. I wouldn't be comfortable using an even longer one which would needed for the 720mm element on this camera.

Then a last thing: using front tilt with these lenses will cause you head aches because the front nodal point is not close to the point of rotation. Using back tilt is the same as with every other lens and shift, both front and back shift isn't an issue either.

Willie
14-May-2018, 05:26
On reading specs and experience in the field.

Spec sheets are fine but if you are getting the full image on film, keep using it and enjoy.

A lot like finding out what the fuel guage really says in a new vehicle. You drive(with extra gas can in the trunk) to you are out of fuel to see where it actually runs out. E, above E or below at "I'm not fooling". Once you know the limits in actual use you know what works no matter what the spec sheets say.

The actual image shown somehow tells me that 8x10 with the 720 rear element works for the photographer.

Kleiny41
14-May-2018, 07:13
I've seen numerous listings on Ebay that are confusing and don't explain that you might only be purchasing one rear element. I made this purchase about a month ago- thinking I was getting all 3 focal lengths but I only recieved the front element and the rear element for the 500mm. I decided to keep it as I certainly didn't have a 500mm lens previously and the price was still decent.

Bernice Loui
14-May-2018, 07:46
Back again to the perception of shaper, more contrast is better, more image circle is better then forgetting the design and production trade offs are far more complex than that.

IMO, just about every Nikkor LF lenses tried has high contrast with the perception on enhanced sharpness. From Nikkor W, SW, M, Tele, they appear to share a similar image goal of high contrast with perceived shaper image result. This is the prime reason for passing on the 600/800/1200mm Tele Nikkor.

As for the 360mm Tele Xenar, the one here is a later version circa late 80's in a Copal shutter. While it's contrast appears lower the contrast gradations is excellent, sharpness is more than good enough. The look is simply different than the Nikkor, not better or worst. This Tele Nikkor is usen on 6x9cm(really good) or 5x7 once in a rare while.

Bernice

Pere Casals
14-May-2018, 13:37
The actual image shown somehow tells me that 8x10 with the 720 rear element works for the photographer.

Nikon specs are conservative, true, but from 210mm (at f/22) circle to the 312.5mm diagonal required to say it covers 8x10" there is a large discrepance that does not fit in the coservative margin, by far.

Then one thing is the image circle an another one the illumination circle. If your corners are anyway out of focus then you can consider the illumination circle as covering your format, true, this is not new, XIX century petzvals were also doing that.

Anyway it's a fake news that the T ED 720mm is a 8x10 lens. If one shots 810 a T ED 360/500/720 would be a sound mistake, for 810 the right system is the 600/800/1200, suposing one does not want translational movements with distant subjects, because even the big 600/800/1200 has a narrow circle for what's a 810 glass.

What it is true that any 5x7 lens (any !!!) will cover 8x10 if we focus near enough, and/or if we tolerate soft enough corners, in this sense Bryan was pretty right. This is also not new, even great artists like Sally Mann used extensively that way.

... so if you want a long lens to shot 810 then purchase a T 720, and you'll see :)

Really it's hilarious speaking about that while having the nikon catalog:

178285

MAubrey
14-May-2018, 13:55
Well, at the very least, I'm genuinely amused by this debate.

I'm sure some 35mm photographers would be equally surprised to find out that a 1.4x teleconverter not only increases the focal length by 1.4x, but also increases the image circle, too.

interneg
14-May-2018, 16:09
Well, at the very least, I'm genuinely amused by this debate.

I'm sure some 35mm photographers would be equally surprised to find out that a 1.4x teleconverter not only increases the focal length by 1.4x, but also increases the image circle, too.

Indeed. And in the cinema world, you can buy very, very expensive optical & mechanical converters to let you do exactly that - eg use B4 mount lenses on PL mount cameras.

If the lens doesn't have a mechanical vignette (& it doesn't seem to) then there's no reason for it not to have considerably more coverage than Nikon stated - the 450/9 is fairly notorious for having vastly larger coverage at deep stops (sharp enough for ULF contact prints) than what the catalogue claimed. I'm sure that somewhere in the literature Nikon's definition of the optical specs that define 'acceptable' coverage can be found & I suspect they're probably rather more stringent than what's necessary for a decent 2-3x off 8x10 - and on 8x10, camera shake & film flatness may be bigger destroyers of sharpness anyway. For all we know there may have been marketing reasons for specifying the baseline coverage of the telephoto sets as 210mm or 310mm - quite possibly to prevent people getting in a fankle by buying the wrong lens set for their format & then complaining about it.

Don Dudenbostel
14-May-2018, 17:33
Scheider's 360/5.5 Tele-Xenar comes to mind. It's a fairly old design and probably not as sharp as the Nikon convertible at 360 but faster and still much lighter than a big 360mm Plasmat. Usually found in a Compound shutter. You can see the specs here: https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/tele-xenar/data/5,5-360mm.htm

I owned the 360/500/720 set and had a 360 Schneider Tele Arton for many years. Actually had two different Tele Arton 360's. The Nkkor 460 is very sharp but I found the 500 and 720 to be a little softer. I used them on my Sinar Norma and found vbration an issue with the longer combos so I used a second tripod to support the front of the rail. Still I was never knocked out by the 500 and 720 but the 360 was great.

Both my 360 f5.5 Tele Artobs were in copal 3 shutters. One I bought special order from Linhof in the mid 70's and the other a later black Linhof in a Copal 3. These are very large lenses and heavy. I believe the filter size was 95mm or there about. They easily covered 5x7 and I shot a lot with them on 5x7. Sharpness was very good but chromatic aberrations could crop up under some circumstances although CA's never killed a shot. Color was superb with these.

If buying today I'd get the Nikkor due to see and low CA's.

Corran
14-May-2018, 18:06
As usual we have talkers and then doers. Fake news indeed, Pere. Comparing the large image circle I have illustrated to a Mann-esque Petzval is plain ridiculous and as I've already stated and should be obvious to anyone who actually make photos, a 720mm lens focused at infinity and then 200 feet away will have significant differences in the plane of focus even at f/22 and beyond. It seems fairly straight-forward to me that Nikon's specs are for the 360mm and then as the elements change the actual IC in use increases. Whether or not the corner quality on 8x10 is 50 lp/mm at 50% contrast at f/22 or however Nikon might have marketed it for usage in the pro market decades ago is a different story, and obviously they did have the significantly larger, heavier, etc. lens to sell for those wanting a dedicated 8x10 lens with 3 focal lengths.

The simple fact is that the 720mmm covers 8x10 at a more than adequate quality level, just like my 305mm G-Claron covers 8x20 and the Nikkor-M 450mm covers that and more as seen from actual users of the lens, despite what the specs say. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

bieber
15-May-2018, 14:28
Heh, got this from them today.


Thank you for your message and for your purchase. We apologize about the mistake with this, we had an error in the title it was supposed to note that the 720 head was missing as it's not shown in the listing images. If you no longer want the items, we can send a prepaid return label to have you send it back to us for a refund

I guess they also forgot to set the price at a reasonable level for just the two lenses :p

Anyways, I decided to go ahead and pick up the tele xenar 360, thanks to everyone who brought it up. It might be a little cumbersome, but the flange focal distance is better. Plus I'm planning to start doing some tintype soon and I'm gonna need every stop I can get lighting portraits

sepiareverb
15-May-2018, 14:50
Haven't used the 360/500/720 but have the 600/800 pair. I nearly only shoot 810 with them, and I do appreciate the reach. Quality is really quite excellent, right up there with the rest of the Nikon LF line. Heavy, yes, but not unreasonable since I rarely take the 810 far from the car these days. One thing to note is that I have made several errors of exposure due to having the 800 on and not the 600 and mis-adjusting the aperture. I've added a few color coded stickers to the rear elements and their caps and that has helped. Just out with it today before the rains came pouring down. Beautiful light this morning.

Pere Casals
16-May-2018, 10:55
Haven't used the 360/500/720 but have the 600/800 pair. I nearly only shoot 810 with them, and I do appreciate the reach. Quality is really quite excellent, right up there with the rest of the Nikon LF line. Heavy, yes, but not unreasonable since I rarely take the 810 far from the car these days. One thing to note is that I have made several errors of exposure due to having the 800 on and not the 600 and mis-adjusting the aperture. I've added a few color coded stickers to the rear elements and their caps and that has helped. Just out with it today before the rains came pouring down. Beautiful light this morning.

Do you think that the T 360/500/720 are good for 810 ?

I ask this because we have some controversy, with people recommending the T 720 for 810, and IMHO this can misslead people... Why you got the 600/800 and not the 500/720 ?

Corran
16-May-2018, 11:25
Do you think that the T 360/500/720 are good for 810 ?

I ask this because we have some controversy, with people recommending the T 720 for 810, and IMHO this can misslead people... Why you got the 600/800 and not the 500/720 ?

You seem intent on trying to prove me wrong, despite posting a photo showing clearly that it covers 8x10.

Obviously, the 360mm and 500mm elements do not cover 8x10 at infinity. Buying the 360/500/720 set exclusively for 8x10 work would of course be a bad idea, since 2/3 of the set do not cover. However, if someone is shooting 4x5 and buys it, and then later gets into 8x10, as I did, it is a useful fact to know that the 720mm covers 8x10. Therefore one does not have to buy a lens in that focal range unless there are other needs not met by the 720 - I do not doubt there are "better" lenses in that range for some users.

If you have a problem with my assessment, I suggest you actually buy the lens, use it, and post your findings.

Pere Casals
16-May-2018, 12:10
You seem intent on trying to prove me wrong, despite posting a photo showing clearly that it covers 8x10.

Obviously, the 360mm and 500mm elements do not cover 8x10 at infinity. Buying the 360/500/720 set exclusively for 8x10 work would of course be a bad idea, since 2/3 of the set do not cover. However, if someone is shooting 4x5 and buys it, and then later gets into 8x10, as I did, it is a useful fact to know that the 720mm covers 8x10. Therefore one does not have to buy a lens in that focal range unless there are other needs not met by the 720 - I do not doubt there are "better" lenses in that range for some users.

If you have a problem with my assessment, I suggest you actually buy the lens, use it, and post your findings.

Bryan, first learn what's illumination circle, and what's image circle. Then learn what a photographer wants in the image circle and how manufacturers specified that to them, then we can debate.

But please don't misslead people, somebody reading you may purchase a 720 thinking it is a 810 lens, and T ED 720 is not recommended at all for 810 work, it is an intended 45 lens also covering the superior 57 format, and perhaps also illuminating 810 with a way sub-standard performance in the corners.

The shot you posted have OOF corners, so not worth to be considered here. Go ahead, take a 810 distant shot with detail in the corners, and post a 6400 dpi crop of the corners. That would be worth to be considered.

Corran
16-May-2018, 12:19
I am well aware of the difference. The in-focus branches at the corner are plenty sharp, and your previous characterization of the lens as being like a petzval is ludicrous, especially given you do not own or use it. There are numerous reasons why Nikon might've decided not to specify that the 720mm configuration works on 8x10 - probably because the entire set doesn't cover and therefore they specified only what everything works on, and that they had a larger set for 8x10. The lens exhibits a perfectly usable image circle for 8x10, period, full-stop, regardless of what the specs say. I'll say it once more - if you want to debate its absolute performance with useless test shots of line charts, be my guest, and post about it.

Pere Casals
16-May-2018, 13:09
Bryan, a 6400 dpi crop of the (in focus, with detail, distant) corner a 810 shot with the 720, do you have it or not ?

Corran
16-May-2018, 13:15
6400 DPI is ridiculous overkill on 8x10. That equates to 250 pixels per mm, or 125 lp/mm. Of course I don't scan 8x10 at that rez, nor is any lens stopped down to typical 8x10 working apertures going to deliver that much resolution, nor are most films even going to record that resolution. Oh, and that's HP5+ IIRC, and if I used TMX instead for the most resolution the wind would've blown things around anyway.

I grow tired of your incessant chatter about lenses you don't own, don't use, and don't know anything about. Buy it and get back to us if you are so keen to know.

Pere Casals
16-May-2018, 13:29
a 2000 dpi one?
have you that at least?

faberryman
16-May-2018, 13:33
I vote for looking at actual images over catalog descriptions, and for listening to people with actual experience over armchair quarterbacks. One is a photographer and the other is a camera geek.

Pere Casals
16-May-2018, 13:38
I vote for looking at actual images over catalog descriptions.

I also vote for that, a well scanned crop of a distant shot, showing what's between the 210mm circle and the 810 corner, who has that sample?

Corran
16-May-2018, 13:38
Unless I am digitally printing very large I don't scan 8x10 more than 1500 DPI. Deal with it. You can believe what you want Pere. I am done with this discussion that has moved far afield from the topic.

faberryman
16-May-2018, 13:43
I also vote for that, a well scanned crop of a distant shot, showing what's between the 210 circle and the 810 corner, who have that sample?
Why do you need a scan? Look at the image. You are just going to go down a rabbit hole quibbling over lines per millimeter of resolution and contrast numbers.

Pere Casals
16-May-2018, 13:51
Why do you need a scan? Look at the image. You are just going to go down a rabbit hole quibbling over lines per millimeter of resolution and contrast numbers.
don't want to post a good scan sample?
hmmm...
well, send me the negative

Bernice Loui
16-May-2018, 14:55
The fixation on lines per mm and contrast numbers alone means much of NOTHING in real world expressive image making. What IS fact, focusing on numeric metrics alone to determine optics performance is simply myopic and inadequate.
This is also common for individuals who are more curious about techno-tinkering than expressive image making.

With about zero that will alter the mind-set of individuals like this.. Not amusing in any way, just mental masturbation for those who enjoy stuff like this.



Bernice



Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
I also vote for that, a well scanned crop of a distant shot, showing what's between the 210 circle and the 810 corner, who have that sample?



Why do you need a scan? Look at the image. You are just going to go down a rabbit hole quibbling over lines per millimeter of resolution and contrast numbers.

Pere Casals
18-May-2018, 00:58
The fixation on lines per mm and contrast numbers alone means much of NOTHING in real world expressive image making. What IS fact, focusing on numeric metrics alone to determine optics performance is simply myopic and inadequate.


Well, photography (as we may understand it...) has an artistic and a technical side. A true artist may never be concerned about what mtf is, while he may fall in love with a glass after viewing an image. Incredible shots are usually made by incredible artists, this is about creativity, expression and other things I don't completely understand...

I the other side photography has a technical side, optical measurements can be irrelevant for practical photography, but there is nothing wrong in using that information to understand how a lens works, and to compare. At the end it's a personal choice to explore the technical side or not, what's clear is that the technology a lens has it's amazing, and how optical concepts evolved in the time alongside with aesthetics it's also something very interesting.

One of the (IMHO) most important shots AA made (Monolith, Face of Half Dome, the Zone System genesis) was made with a really crappy bulk of glass (an Adon). A true artist will get a sound result even if using the bottom of a coke bottle as the lens. But IMHO discussing technical features of lenses is not wrong at all. That perhaps it's not about art, but at least it's about photography.

sepiareverb
19-May-2018, 04:17
Do you think that the T 360/500/720 are good for 810 ?

I ask this because we have some controversy, with people recommending the T 720 for 810, and IMHO this can misslead people... Why you got the 600/800 and not the 500/720 ?

I read the specs from Nikon and it appeared to me that the 360/500/720 doesn’t cover 810 to the degree I would need it to. Plus I already have a 360 and 450. No interest here in adding to any internet “facts” about a lens I don’t have any experience with, simply wanted to let the OP know that image quality of the convertible Nikkor lens I use was equal to the Nikkor “primes” and to beware of errors in exposure that using such lens can bring as the front element is the same no matter what length one has on the back.

Another reason to just never look at these forum sites. Extremely tiresome, and apologies for being involved.

Pere Casals
19-May-2018, 05:14
I read the specs from Nikon and it appeared to me that the 360/500/720 doesn’t cover 810 to the degree I would need it to. Plus I already have a 360 and 450. No interest here in adding to any internet “facts” about a lens I don’t have any experience with, simply wanted to let the OP know that image quality of the convertible Nikkor lens I use was equal to the Nikkor “primes” and to beware of errors in exposure that using such lens can bring as the front element is the same no matter what length one has on the back.

Another reason to just never look at these forum sites. Extremely tiresome, and apologies for being involved.

Thanks for answering the question.

IMHO this discussion may be boring, but also it can clarify what kind of 810 usage may allow (or not) the 360/500/720, when you purchased the 600/800 you had to make a guess: "it appeared to me that the 360/500/720 doesn’t cover 810 to the degree I would need it to". If then you would have had that information from a reliable source that would had been nice. Just pointing that these forum sites are also an amazing vault of knowledge. Personally I've learned a lot here, sometimes from making wrong statements and being corrected.

sepiareverb
19-May-2018, 09:47
http://members.iinet.net.au/~cbird/nikkor/LF_lenses_141A.pdf

This is a pdf of the brochure I have here. Page 9 & 10 give image circle as 210mm. I suppose I will be called a fool by some for trusting Nikon on this, but so be it.

Pere Casals
19-May-2018, 10:23
http://members.iinet.net.au/~cbird/nikkor/LF_lenses_141A.pdf

This is a pdf of the brochure I have here. Page 9 & 10 give image circle as 210mm. I suppose I will be called a fool by some for trusting Nikon on this, but so be it.

Well, if you read the previous posts there are people recomending T 720 for 810, aganist Nikon specs, because that I was asking it to you, as T set owner you could know it...

Some lenses have an illumination circle that's way larger than the "technically good" image circle, those lenses can be used in a larger than the intended format if the corners are to be OOF anyway, doesn´t it ?

The question was if the T 360/500/720 corners in 810 are "acceptable with limitations" or not, or if at least it can be used for near objects of for some shots with no detail in the corners, with sky there, for example.

sepiareverb
20-May-2018, 03:55
Of course it would cover for close up work, one can use a 135 Xenar if you get close enough. How you expect me to know anything first hand about a lens I have not used is beyond me. I’m talking about quality of the 600/800 compared to the prime lenses, and about handling concerns with a convertible lens which were new to me and completely unexpected, namely exposing with the belief that one cell was on when another actually was, or using the wrong aperture scale on the shutter accidentally. The OP was interested in opinions on the 360/500/720 T-ED set and I believed this information could be helpful to him, as the handling would be the same. Since the lenses share some design I thought the findings on quality might be relevant.

Fuzzy corners annoy me. I’ve sold lenses for this reason. I have not found fuzzy corners with the 600/800, which Nikon specs for 810. I have not ever seen a 360/500/720 in the flesh, I simply took Nikon at their word that it wouldn’t cover 810 when I went looking for some longer reach than the 450. I am pickier than many when it comes to lenses, so I am not one to believe what I hear random people say online about lenses. I prefer to use them myself to be sure they will work for me. With a lens of this price I made the decision to go for the one with published tech specs that seemed more likely to satisfy my needs.

Willie
20-May-2018, 06:01
Interesting to watch all the quoting of spec sheets while some are successfully using the 720 version for 8x10 images.

sepiareverb
20-May-2018, 06:33
And many successfully use long expired film. Not my cup of tea.

Pere Casals
20-May-2018, 10:18
while some are successfully using the 720 version for 8x10 images.

Who is succesfully shooting 8x10 with the 720?

At one point I was going to acquire a 720, but as I wanted it also for 810 I made an extensive web search about that. What I found is comments like this one: "the 720 will cover 8x10, although I haven't tested to see how sharp the corners are".

But I found no reliable source about that, and of course no well scanned crop of the 810 corners.

One thing is using the 720mm succesfully in 810, for example in a shot with OOF corners, and another thing is that the T 720mm is a 810 lens. Those are different things.