Thoughts on the Nikkor-T 360mm with a Wista VX

[KyledeC]

Hello all,

I'm looking for a telephoto to use on my Wista VX. I've been researching and have narrowed it down to the Nikkor-T 360mm f/8. Just curious to hear opinions and feedback on lens performance and how it handles on a field camera. Primarily will be using it with color transparency film. Im looking for a sharp high res lens. How would you guys say it compares optically to the Nikkor-M 300mm? Any info is greatly appreciated!

Cheers,
Kyle

[Corran]

They are both fine lenses. The Nikkor-T is much larger and heavier than the Nikkor-M. I don't think you will go wrong with either, and your consideration will be more based on which focal length you prefer, if you can spare the space/weight, and what your max bellows extension is.

[Mark Sampson]

I've used a Nikkor-M 300/9 on a 4x5 Tachihara, which has 13"of bellows. If your Wista has only 12" of extension (as do many lightweight 4x5s) that lens won't be useful, because you'll have the bellows fully extended at infinity. The Nikkor-T 360/8 uses less bellows draw (because it's a telephoto) and will work on a short-bellows camera. Both are superb optics. It's worth noting that most cameras are more comfortable when not extended fully. And that back in the '80s, the 300/9 was less than half the price of the 360/8, but that may no longer be the case.

[EdSawyer]

360/8-T is a great lens, there is no better tele lens for 4x5. Plus if you later want to, you can get the additional rear elements to make it a 500 or 720. Highly recommended, and sharper than the 300/9 I would expect.

[CreationBear]

360/8-T is a great lens

I'm curious, how fiddly is using tilt with the nodal point out in front of the lens? I'm facing the same dilemma as the OP, trying to find a "long" option for a Horseman technical camera. The 270/6.3 seems to tick a lot of boxes since it will allow me to focus relatively close, but I want to make sure I can take advantage of movements.

[Drew Wiley]

Would expect, Ed? Not likely at all. The 300M is extremely sharp and contrasty, with plenty of coverage on 4X5. Color rendering is exceptional - these M lenses are the last and best of the tessar lineage in this respect. One of the very best lenses one can get for 4X5 color work, which is no secret at all. It would be almost impossible to correct any telephoto lens to that degree. An even bigger problem is the weight and bulk of telephotos compared to a tiny lens like a 300M, which can affect sharpness if the rigidity of the front standard or entire camera balance is deficient in any way. Of course, if your camera simply doesn't have sufficient bellows extension, you're stuck with either a telephoto or a tophat lens board. I'd get another camera before opting for a telephoto versus M lenses. (I'll admit I'm an aging backpacker, and that I put a higher priority on small lenses than I once did; but tiny lenses like Nikkor M's and Fuji A's stand on their optical merit too.) I do use very high quality telephotos on med format and 35mm systems, but that's for circumstances where a view camera in general would be clumsy or slow. Let me give a specific example. I own a 300EDIF for a Pentax 6x7, generally regarded as the one of the finest, if not the best corrected MF telephoto ever. It's so good that it's coveted by wide-field astronomical photographers (comet and planet hunters etc) who spend tens of thousands of dollars just to obtain their concept of a "tripod"worthy of it. And it's a recent design unquestionably way better corrected than any large format telephoto. But my Nikkor M and a 120 film back on my view camera deliver even superior results to the 300EDIF, at least in my world of comparatively short daytime exposures. And on a view cameras, telephotos come with quite a penalty to the image circle. I'm certainly not badmouthing lenses like the 360 Nikkor T or Fuji 400T - they're plenty good for even 30X40 inch prints. Yet the 300M is even better.

[EdSawyer]

Drew: I would suggest you stand corrected. This site shows the Nikkor-T to be sharper into the corners, particularly at f/22 and above. http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html results there bear out the tests I've done on my own lenses as well. Interestingly the 300m shows slightly better results than the T @ f/11 in the center.

Re: tilt - I generally don't use it with the teles, so can't really comment there. I will say the 270/6.3 is a great lens also, esp. nice for portraits.

[Drew Wiley]

Ed - I don't give a @@@$$%%$% about some loosey-goosey half-baked web reference. Just like MANY others on this forum, I actually use a 300M and know darn well what it can ACTUALLY do. It can even cover 8X10 with extreme sharpness clear out to the very edges of the corners provided movements are conservative and a reasonable f-stop used (I recommend it for 4x5 or 5x7, and not 8x10 with strong front tilt or rise). I just printed a 300M 8x10 shot a couple weeks ago. Even under a 10X loupe the shot is immaculately sharp across the board. Who on earth shoots view lenses at f/11 unless it's a soft-focus type? - who probably wouldn't like the rendering of an M anyway, but rather the gentler background blur of older tessars. Gosh, I get tired of people quoting Aristotle instead of going to the horse's mouth to count the teeth. Buy one. You won't be sorry! Perez is to LF users like Ken Rockwell is to DLSR pixel peepers - to be taken with a grain of salt, or at least caution.

[mitrajoon]

As Mark said, to use the 300 effectively you will need to acquire a bellows extension or possibly a top hat lens board. Otherwise it will only focus at infinity on your Wista.

[KyledeC]

Thank you all for the helpful information! Sounds like a solid lens. Yea, i considered the M 300mm, but i would prefer something a bit longer and without the tophat/bellows extension issues. And im not really into the idea of cropping an image to increase magnification, kinda defeats the purpose of using 4x5 film. I might as well shoot a medium format roll back. I will keep an eye out for the T 360mm. I suppose I was mostly concered with how the VX's front standard would handle a lens of that overall size. I think its worth a try though. Thank you all again! Also, anyone who may happen to have some sample images made with the 360 would be greatly appreciated!

[Drew Wiley]

If you want something even a bit longer, don't forget the Fuji 400T. Its flange focal length is only 252mm and it's also a proven performer, and probably a bit more common than the Nikon tele.

[CreationBear]

Re: tilt - I generally don't use it with the teles, so can't really comment there. I will say the 270/6.3 is a great lens also, esp. nice for portraits.

Thanks, Ed--I think that's pretty much the consensus.:) I'll have to figure out whether it will be more--or less--versatile than a Fuji 240A with the short bellows draw I'm working with, but I'm sure I'd be happy with either lens.

[Bernice Loui]

Ding, Ding, Ding...

Prefers Kodak EKtar, Xenar and similar at f4.5-f6.3 on 5x7 sheet film often enough. Resistance to stopping down to not more than f22. 5x7 or smaller sheet film will produce excellent image quality due to film being flatter in the holder than larger sheet film sized. The more curved-distorted sheet film sits in it film holder, the greater the problem of using large lens apertures.

Couple this with the precision and accuracy of GOOD monorail view camera and precise camera movements that allows enough image focus control to use larger lens apertures with excellent results. If the majority of the image area is focused to infinity or near infinity, using large lens apertures can often be a plus.

The Dogma and Orthodoxy of Group f64 and, "everything in the image must be SHARP." Has been broken after a good stint using soft focus lenses and GOOD Tessar lenses that produce nice selective focus images at larger apertures with eye pleasing out of focus image areas.

This applies to High contrast, perceived sharpness lenses to.


Matter of preference really and not much more..

Bernice





Who on earth shoots view lenses at f/11 unless it's a soft-focus type? - who probably wouldn't like the rendering of an M anyway, but rather the gentler background blur of older tessars.

[Bernice Loui]

Beyond the Nikkor 360mm_T, There is the Fujinon 400mm_T (already mentioned) and Schneider 360mm Tele Xenar.. which some do not like do to it's lower image contrast.

Keep in mind tele view lenses do reduce bellows length requirements, do behave non-standard if camera movements are applied.

Previously discussed, de-volved into a image circle _ _ _ _ !
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?146020-Thoughts-on-the-Nikkor-T-360-500-720-set&highlight=fujinon+400T



Bernice

[Jim Andrada]

I have the 360 Nikkor with all the rear elements (360, 500, 720mm) and use the 360 and 500 on my Technika and all of them on my 5 x 7. The Technika is fine with the weight. (I used a Nikkor T 600 on it once - only problem was wiggling the rear element through the little hole)

I have absolutely no complaint about the T 360. It's quite sharp. In fact surprisingly sharp. Great lens. I have a 360 Xenar and it's not even close.

[Bernice Loui]

Higher contrast of the Nikkor which can easily appear to be "sharper" or lower contrast of the Tele Xenar (granted this was a water version of Tele Xenar, still) which can easily appear as not sharp.

Been there done this with the 600T Nikkor, kept the Tele Xenar. Different image goals.


Bernice



I have the 360 Nikkor with all the rear elements (360, 500, 720mm) and use the 360 and 500 on my Technika and all of them on my 5 x 7. The Technika is fine with the weight. (I used a Nikkor T 600 on it once - only problem was wiggling the rear element through the little hole)

I have absolutely no complaint about the T 360. It's quite sharp. In fact surprisingly sharp. Great lens. I have a 360 Xenar and it's not even close.

[Jim Andrada]

I'd agree that the Nikkor is probably contrastier. For some things I like that. For others I still have the Xenar...

[Bernice Loui]

Having used both, the Nikkor has higher contrast than the Tele Xenar. IMO, neither is superior, they have a different image result.

Which one could be preferred, really depends on the needs of the artist-image maker.

Difficulty is, there is no real way to know until a specific lens is used within the environment of the artist-image maker.

All I'm really saying is not to rule out any lens (production lens to lens variations can and does happen along with what might have happened to any given lens over its lifetime) until it has been used-tried out for a while to see if the personalities involved fit.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

My brother used a 360 Tele-Xenar on his Techika, but never for color work. It was considered "uncorrected" for color. And he sold Linhof and Schneider at the time to very demanding pros. Something to keep in mind. Indeed, certain lenses can be ruled out up front - in this case, if color shots are intended. And I don't know why Fuji isn't kept alive in the list of contenders; there's nothing second-rate about their own teles.

[Jim Andrada]

All this talk about tele lenses is getting to the point where it's tempting me to put the 360 Xenar and 360 Nikkor on the Technika and make some photos. I hate to admit it but the last couple of months I've been doing mostly MF - sort of practicing for our upcoming "grand tour" of Europe - well at least PARTS of Europe (Palermo, Venice, St Malo/Mt St Michel. Paris, NW Spain, and an overnight on the Orient Express.)

[Drew Wiley]

I inherited my brothers old negs and trannies, and even have some 16x20 prints he made of shots taken with the 360 Xenar and Technika. Good commercial quality for that era. But it was good ole Super XX film - very grainy enlarged from 4x5, and a very basic darkroom setup. A far cry from what I use today. Even my Med format 16X20's are way way sharper.

[Huub]

I own both a fairly modern, mid eighties 360mm tele-xenar and a T* Nikkor 360mm. Both are capable of very sharp images. I haven't done side by side comparisons, shooting the same image with both lenses, but I doubt you would see much differences up to moderate enlargements. The micro contrast on the tele-xenar i think is a bit better / softer compared to the nikon lens, which is more contrasty. No surprise there.

Advantage of the Schneider lens is that is flange focal distance is quite a bit shorter, so it can be focussed closer. At the other hand: the Nikon can be changed into a 500mm and a 720 mm without much hassle.

[Drew Wiley]

There was also a 360/5.5 Tele-Arton. Flange focal length 209mm and alas, a huge front filter, 95mm.