Urgent lens understandings needed

[swmcl]

Hi all,

I have a lens that has been cleaned of fungus and is sitting in pieces at S K Grimes (I wasn't sure if the lens would clean up). My intention was to get it remounted into a Copal #3 shutter which is also 'on the bench' at S K Grimes. I went looking for advice about the lens and got a bunch of negative opinions on it. I have to make a decision whether to go ahead with the re-mounting or have it re-assembled as clean and maybe use it without shutter.

The lens is the APO Nikkor Process lens of 480mm variety.

I was hoping the lens would be a sharp lens for landscapes and architecturally attractive sections of houses in particular. I use 4x5 and 5x7.

Should I proceed to re-mount the lens ? Advice gained from actual experience would be most appreciated as the costs are significant.

[Louis Pacilla]

Only IF your planning on owning the lens for a lifetime because if your lucky you may be able to sell it at 1/4 of the cost of Adam or the others at SK Grimes do this work. I only would consider having them mount "truly rare" optic but not any APO Nikkor under 600mm.

It would cost no more to buy a Nikkor 450M f9 in a factory mounted Copal 3 shutter and you'll likely be able to get at the least what you paid for it back in your wallet when your ready or wanting to move on with the lens.

[swmcl]

So Louis what you're saying is the lens will deliver the same performance as the 450M f9 but may not have the same re-sale value...

I did see one for sale at $1600 US at one point ... (I don't know whether it sold)

[Pere Casals]

APO nikkors are pretty sharp lenses also for distant subjects.

This is a 7.44 x 5.58mm crop of the image circle of an appo nikkor:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5555/15167285246_2fbe24ee72_b.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Q-S1)

So it shows in a monitor like if it was a crop of a 12m print from a 8x10" negative (12m !!!!), You can calculate for your monitor, but it can be x50 (or more) from the 5.56mm crop height.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?145478-760mm-Apo-Nikkor-f-11-vs-Nikkor-T-ED-800mm-f-12&p=1440564&viewfull=1#post1440564

Coating a Bokeh of the APO nikkor may like you or not, regarding resolving power, no problem.

[Greg]

Have had maybe a half dozen lenses barrel lenses mounted in shutters (usually an Ilex No. 5). After having them mount one classic brass lens into a shutter, discovered afterwards that the optic was a dog. Based on that costly experience, from then on always shot some test negatives (usually at full aperture, stopped down half way, and fully stopped down) before sending them a lens to be mounted in a shutter. In a couple of instances, shooting 3 11x14" negatives seemed like a costly thing to do, but it only reflected a mere fraction of the final total cost in the end. Agree with Louis Pacilla that going the route of buying a Nikkor 450mm f/9 in a factory mounted Copal 3 shutter is a better way to go. The only reason I went the route of having my lenses mounted in shutters was that none of them were ever originally available mounted in shutters. One lens I was after for years was a 12" Wollensak Velostigmat. Many times saw it offered in a barrel mount for very reasonable prices. Finally found one mounted in a (factory) Betax No. 5 for a little more than I wanted to pay, but if I had gone the route of getting a barrel Wollensak Velostigmat, a No. 5 shutter, and had them mated, my total cost in the end would have been probably double what I paid for the one already mounted in a Betax.

[djdister]

Have you ever used a lens of that focal length for landscapes or architecture shots on a 4x5? I'm not saying anything negative about the lens per se, but I think the focal length will be of limited use for your stated purpose, so you may want to consider how much you are willing to spend to make it usable.

[pepeguitarra]

This is how the Nikkor-M 450/9 looks on my Chamonix 4x5:

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4856/46237925264_2e6446d2c2_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2drTsh1)CHAMONIX 45f2 + Nikkor-M 450/9 (https://flic.kr/p/2drTsh1) by Palenquero Photography (https://www.flickr.com/photos/palenquero/), on Flickr

[Louis Pacilla]

So Louis what you're saying is the lens will deliver the same performance as the 450M f9 but may not have the same re-sale value...

I did see one for sale at $1600 US at one point ... (I don't know whether it sold)

At 1600 USD for a Nikkor 450M is on the high side and is probably accounting for the large image circle & if your not shooting this on a 16x20 it's bit over priced IMHO.

So apples to apples I would look for factory mounted 19" RD Artars or 19" APO Ronars as they will have PLENTY of IC for 10x8 maybe 14x11. More about my reasoning below.




APO nikkors are pretty sharp lenses also for distant subjects.

This is a 7.44 x 5.58mm crop of the image circle of an appo nikkor:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5555/15167285246_2fbe24ee72_b.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Q-S1)

So it shows in a monitor like if it was a crop of a 12m print from a 8x10" negative (12m !!!!), You can calculate for your monitor, but it can be x50 (or more) from the 5.56mm crop height.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?145478-760mm-Apo-Nikkor-f-11-vs-Nikkor-T-ED-800mm-f-12&p=1440564&viewfull=1#post1440564

Coating a Bokeh of the APO nikkor may like you or not, regarding resolving power, no problem.

Don't get me wrong,,,, I'm not saying that the APO Nikkor Process lenses are not terrific, they are. However a 19" process like a 450/480 RD Artar or APO Ronar factory mounted in Copal shutters can be found for around or under 500-600 USD. So is all of this costing around 500-600USD?

AGAIN if it was TRULY unique and TRULY uncommon optics then I would green light the project but the RD Artars & APO Ronars are equal to the task of the APO Nikkor. So IMO a needless expense & your better off buying film/chemistry or other gear you need or simply save the cash.

Like I said "I" would NOT make the investment of paying to have SK Grimes mount ANY APO Nikkor process lens at or UNDER the focal length of 600mm 24" because there are plenty of factory mounted process lenses out there to be had & for at the least 1/2 of what I imagine the cost of custom mounting cost. This is just me and I have no troubles with those who do not agree.

[Pfsor]

I don't understand the OP's obsession with sharpness for landscape photography. In what a Nikkor 450 M lens is inferior in landscape photography to a super sharp lens?
And +1 to n. 6 comment.

[Pere Casals]

Like I said "I" would NOT make the investment of paying to have SK Grimes mount ANY APO Nikkor process lens at or UNDER the focal length of 600mm 24" because there are plenty of factory mounted process lenses out there to be had & for at the least 1/2 of what I imagine the cost of custom mounting cost. This is just me and I have no troubles with those who do not agree.

Let me point that I only say that APO Nikkors are very sharp for distant subjects. If it's worth or not mounting a shutter... I'm not saying an opinion, IMHO this is 'à chacun son goût'.

Me, I use a LOMO O-2 600mm with Jim Galli's shutter. Beyond it is $50 (Jim says), it never requires a CLA !!!


Have you ever used a lens of that focal length for landscapes or architecture shots on a 4x5? I'm not saying anything negative about the lens per se, but I think the focal length will be of limited use for your stated purpose, so you may want to consider how much you are willing to spend to make it usable.

Why ?

Ansel Adams shot "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" with 580 mm focal in 8x10". If OP uses 480mm for 5x7 this is not that far...

Of course one has to be aware that it is a long focal for the format, and wanting that, but I see no "limitation". There are entire books made with LF and long focals, I've one by Reinhart Wolf.

[Pfsor]

Of course one has to be aware that it is a long focal for the format, and wanting that, but I see no "limitation". There are entire books made with LF and long focals, I've one by Reinhart Wolff.

Pere, well, somehow the limitation of a 450mm lens used for architecture photography... well, perhaps it is its focal length that is the limitation, ehm... But of course, for the top of a pyramid, it could be the ideal lens...:)

[Pere Casals]

Pere, well, somehow the limitation of a 450mm lens used for architecture photography... well, perhaps it is its focal length that is the limitation, ehm... But of course, for the top of a pyramid, it could be the ideal lens...:)

Pfsor, this is Reinhart

187697

Some books:

Castillos
New York

187698

187699

It is a urban legend that architecture is only for short focals. A work about architecture may contain 1/3 of the shots from long focals, of course this depends on the author and on the subject. For example Wolf works on castles have a good deal of long focal shots. Often a castle is on a mountain and has to be shot from the top of another mountain, so in that case, better having a kit of heavy ronars.

[Pfsor]

Sure, as I said - the tops of pyramids, the usual architecture photography. But I remain sceptic, somehow... Anyway, a humble Nikkor 450M would serve as well as the sharpest lens in the category, IMO. After all, at that distance, the atmospheric conditions can easilly eliminate any sharpness difference between those 2 lenses.

[Louis Pacilla]

Sure, as I said - the tops of pyramids, the usual architecture photography. But I remain sceptic, somehow... Anyway, a humble Nikkor 450M would serve as well as the sharpest lens in the category, IMO.

Agree. +1

[Pere Casals]

the atmospheric conditions can easilly eliminate any sharpness difference between those 2 lenses.

This is a limiting factor for distant shots, of course, there are special days for that.

But 480mm for 5x7 is only like a 115mm focal in 35mm roll film. Not that crazy long...

If you want to shot buildings with a DSLR you may find that many shots are 115mm of longer.

[David Lobato]

... I went looking for advice about the lens and got a bunch of negative opinions on it. ...

And you're still wondering if it's wise to mount it on a shutter? Look at the T Series Nikkors, there is a 500mm and an 800mm that I know of.

[Pfsor]

This is a limiting factor for distant shots, of course, there are special days for that.

But 480mm for 5x7 is only like a 115mm focal in 35mm roll film. Not that crazy long...

If you want to shot buildings with a DSLR you may find that many shots are 115mm of longer.

Oh no! In this case you cannot compare a 480mm lens as having the same atmospheric difficulties as a 115 lens in a smaller format. In this case the atmospheric problems are linked to the real FL, they don't diminish with the format of the film. If you take a small section of the film with a 480mm taking lens the format will not clean the space for itself because it is smaller. It is still the fruit of a 480 mm lens beast!

[swmcl]

All,

I purchased the Nikkor 480mm for $100 US as I recall. It had fungus and would've been painful to setup. The local camera repairers (Nikon rep in Brisbane) hadn't heard of such a thing and possibly had zero experience with large format lenses period ! I purchased a 300mm Nikkor 300mm f5.6 from a member here just a little while ago for $350. The cost at Grimes was to be $550. So for around $100US I get two lenses sharing the same shutter.

It is more expensive than just a 450mm for sure but it isn't all together a totally mad thing but I could stop the process now if it wasn't worth doing optically.

Yes I know the focal length is long. My longest lens is a 20" (just over 500mm). I think the camera can do about 600mm.

This is Australia. There is a lot of space here. Things of interest are a long way apart !!

[swmcl]

On the bay right now I see Apo Ronars in Copal shutter asking well over $1000 US. One is in an older silver Copal #3 - a 480mm f9 asking $1450. There is a black Copal #3 with 420 mm Ronar asking $1250.

If the optical performance is equivalent to an Apo Ronar then I am not being silly with money.

[Pere Casals]

This is Australia. There is a lot of space here. Things of interest are a long way apart !!

You are not joking, it isn't an small place !

I've been in Emerald (Queensland 4720). A foreigner in Quensland is soon or late asked "How big is your country?". You say how big it is and then somebody says "We have farms of this size..." :)

I had 7 flights to home: Emerald-Brisbane-Auckland-Santiago-BuenosAires-Paris-Madrid-Barcelona, because I had a 3 days job to be done in Chile.

It was very nice to be there, in AU I only saw Emerald, the Brisbane (regional and international) airports and the landscape from the plane, enough to realize what ample space is. I found very nice people there.

________________

The APO Nikkor 480 delivers a 410mm image circle at infinite focus.

A Nikon T 500 delivers 210mm (just covering 5x7), and T 600 delivers 310mm.

An advatage of the T is that it is multi-coated, with the APO prehaps you may want a front shade in some situations.

Beyond that, no doubt that the APO is optically sound as a taking lens !

[Pere Casals]

480mm lens as having the same atmospheric difficulties as a 115 lens in a smaller format.

First is that in Queensland it's easy to find very clean/dry air, so it's about avoiding turbulent hours. Then also all depends on subjects distance, you don't have to be much far from subject to use a 480mm in 5x7. A 21º angle of view is not that weird.

[Pfsor]

First is that in Queensland it's easy to find very clean/dry air, so it's about avoiding turbulent hours. Then also all depends on subjects distance, you don't have to be much far from subject to use a 480mm in 5x7. A 21º angle of view is not that weird.

Not to be much far from a subject with 480mm lens in architecture photography IS weird unless you're interested in brickwork insect photography. YMMV.

[Pere Casals]

Not to be much far from a subject with 480mm lens in architecture photography IS weird unless you're interested in brickwork insect photography. YMMV.

A 480mm for 5x7" is weird only for "certain" kind of architecture photography, but IMHO architecture photography is a very wide field, there are many opportunities outdoors for long focal shots, beyond portraying details, perspective compression is also powerful resource to bring focus on composition, on textures or on shadings, as many masters have been showed.

We may need to adjust the relative sizes of different subjects, that are in the framing, so may have to move the camera to the right place, then we may need a particular focal (that can be long) for the framing.

Let me show an example (Taos), this is not a very long focal but it's longer than "usual" for architectural:

187715

If distance from foreground to backgound walls had been larger then a longer focal had to be used for same relative sizes.

Personally, I find that when we overlap two architectural subjects and we want to control the relative sizes then it can happen that we need a long focal for the format.

[John Layton]

OP...you should test your lens without a shutter - and see if it lives up to your needs/expectations. If it does...then either get it mounted in a shutter and enjoy it - or maybe if you think the (value/resale) math does not work somehow - borrow and test a 450M (or Ronar/Artar/Fuji-C) and then make a choice. If the Apo Nikkor flunks your test - then go for the 450M (or Ronar/Artar/Fuji-C) and don't look back.

[Bob Salomon]

C
OP...you should test your lens without a shutter - and see if it lives up to your needs/expectations. If it does...then either get it mounted in a shutter and enjoy it - or maybe if you think the (value/resale) math does not work somehow - borrow and test a 450M (or Ronar/Artar/Fuji-C) and then make a choice. If the Apo Nikkor flunks your test - then go for the 450M (or Ronar/Artar/Fuji-C) and don't look back.

The OP lives in Australia, his lens is in Rhode Island, in pieces.
Little late, and expensive, for him to test it now!

[Bernice Loui]

Lure of the initial low cost of a lens in barrel marked APO and Nikkor (famed brand). While this is a GOOD lens for both 1:1 and infinity trying to re-set these lens cells into a shutter is no simple task. Fungus added to the difficulty. The economically acceptable way to use lenses in barrel like this is to mount this lens to the front of a BIG shutter like an Ilex# 5, or with a behind the lens shutter like Packard, Sinar or even a front Galli shutter.

There was a time back in the 1990's when the idea and practice of mounting barrel lenses into shutter was just beginning for LF folks. Folks like Jim Galvin to BIG optical companies like Melles Griot would install lens cells from a lens in barrel into a shutter. During the 90's Melles Griot produced Ilex shutters and they would offer this service with the purchase of a new shutter. While expensive, Melles Griot did this work in a new shutter and proper testing of the lens post lens cell installation into their Ilex shutters. We had Melles Griot do a 30" APO artar, 35" APO Artar both turned out good. Cost was just over $1000 including the shutter in 1990's USD.

Since then I've given up the idea of trying to mount any barrel lens into shutter as the Sinar shutter simply flattens this problem very nicely. Then again, the Sinar system is not for all. Given this fact, it IS better to purchase lenses already in shutter with both shutter and lens cells in GOOD condition. There is also a divide caused by the problem of really excellent vintage lenses with beyond wore out shutters with fine lens cells. There are other good and curious vintage lenses that could benefit from the advantages of a modern shutter or there was a time when lenses in barrel were really low buck allowing the added expense of transferring these lens cells to a shutter was cost and technically viable. Majority of times, installing barrel lens cells into a modern shutter is not worth the resources and expense as there are other very viable ways to solve this technical problem.

For those who hike and travel with a lightweight field camera there are plenty of excellent moderns lenses already supplied in shutter that fit that need nicely. The only time installing a barrel lens in shutter is if there is a highly specialized lens where it's optical performance cannot be replicated in any other way. APO Nikkors less than 600mm are not it.



Bernice

[Leigh]

The lens is the APO Nikkor Process lens of 480mm variety.
APO Nikkor Process lenses are normally optimized for 1:1 (actual size) reproduction ratios.
That's certainly not what you want for landscape photography.

Of course, the lens will work for landscape, but a Nikkor M 450mm/f9 is my choice.
I have one of those and it works very well. Its 440mm image circle covers 8x10 at infinity.

And I would never use a lens that had fungus, even after cleaning, even if doing so would save me from an eternity in hell.

- Leigh

[Jac@stafford.net]

Oh no! In this case you cannot compare a 480mm lens as having the same atmospheric difficulties as a 115 lens in a smaller format. In this case the atmospheric problems are linked to the real FL, they don't diminish with the format of the film.

Atmospheric issues arise from the distance between lens and subject regardless of FL.

[Pfsor]

Atmospheric issues arise from the distance between lens and subject regardless of FL.

Ever used high magnification binoculars? Did you see the atmosphere with them in the same way as with your eyes?

[J. Patric Dahlen]

Pere Casals, when I scrolled down and saw the first inch of the Moon photo I thought "Man, that's a bad case of fungus".

[swmcl]

As I understand it Leigh, fungus adds character. It means the lens is a tasty one ... :-) Who said it had fungus anyway ?

On a more serious note, I believe the 450mm f9 lens is pretty much the same design but made to fit into the Copal #3 ??

Anyways, I'm here in my situation and I need to make a decision. S.K. Grimes has mounted these lenses into Copal #3 shutters in the past. So it isn't an R&D adventure.

I think I'll go ahead with the re-mount. At least it makes the lens more approachable for others even if I end up selling it at a loss. The amount it has already cost me to send it to Woonsocket for cleaning probably can't be recovered in a sale of a lens that has no shutter.

I'll send a pic of something far away to ya all ...

[Pere Casals]

Pere Casals, when I scrolled down and saw the first inch of the Moon photo I thought "Man, that's a bad case of fungus".

But it is an x50 enlargement !!!

To me it demonstrates than APO Nikkors allow flawless 4m prints from 8x10", and 2m from 4x5.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Ever used high magnification binoculars? Did you see the atmosphere with them in the same way as with your eyes?

Yes I have, and the atmospheric effect corresponded to distance between binocular lens and subject.

[Dan Fromm]

APO Nikkor Process lenses are normally optimized for 1:1 (actual size) reproduction ratios.
That's certainly not what you want for landscape photography.

Of course, the lens will work for landscape, but a Nikkor M 450mm/f9 is my choice.
I have one of those and it works very well. Its 440mm image circle covers 8x10 at infinity.

Funny, I've always understood that the 450/9 Nikkor M was the same lens as the 450/9 Apo-Nikkor (Asymmetrical Type, also called Apo-Tessar by Nikon).

[Pfsor]

Yes I have, and the atmospheric effect corresponded to distance between binocular lens and subject.

The higher magnification lens magnifies all the atmospheric issues it sees. It does not add to the atmospheric irregularities but it sees them more and better. What your eyes don't see as atmospheric issues the high magnification binoculars do.
Such is the fact of life. If you don't get it, it's not my fault.

[Dan Fromm]

As I understand it Leigh, fungus adds character. It means the lens is a tasty one ... :-) Who said it had fungus anyway ?

On a more serious note, I believe the 450mm f9 lens is pretty much the same design but made to fit into the Copal #3 ??

Anyways, I'm here in my situation and I need to make a decision. S.K. Grimes has mounted these lenses into Copal #3 shutters in the past. So it isn't an R&D adventure.

I think I'll go ahead with the re-mount. At least it makes the lens more approachable for others even if I end up selling it at a loss. The amount it has already cost me to send it to Woonsocket for cleaning probably can't be recovered in a sale of a lens that has no shutter.

I'll send a pic of something far away to ya all ...Nikon made two series of Apo-Nikkors. The first, "asymmetrical type," are apochromatic tessars. The 450/9 is one. The second, "symmetrical type," are apochromatic dialytes. Your 480/9, mine, too, are dialytes. The first asymmetrical type Apo-Nikkor came to market, I believe, in 1946. The dialytes came later and replaced the tessars, although both types were in production together for a while. The list has a link to an account of these and other process lenses from Nikon.

[Drew Wiley]

Apo Nikkors were typically used with Copal electronic shutters on big process cameras. It would take a stroke of luck to find one in an ordinary portable Copal. I have several Apo Nikkors including 480 and even much longer. They're extraordinarily sharp and well corrected, better than almost any regular view camera lenses. You could use them for long lenscap style exposures. But by the time you get one into a suitable shutter, you not only will have likely paid quite a bit overall, but you've got a lot of weight tugging at the front end of view camera, causing potential vibration issues, especially if it's a lightweight 4x5 or 5x7 field camera. That could be counterproductive. If you want something light and precise at infinity in shutter, go for a Fuji C 450. And note what Dan just posted. It's the symmetrical 4-element dialyte type Apo Nikkors which perform well both closeup and at infinity, just in case anyone does
run into the lesser designs.

[Jac@stafford.net]

The higher magnification lens magnifies all the atmospheric issues it sees. It does not add to the atmospheric irregularities but it sees them more and better. What your eyes don't see as atmospheric issues the high magnification binoculars do.
Such is the fact of life. If you don't get it, it's not my fault.

In your case it is likely you are looking at an object much farther than the situations posed here. Scanning the horizon with binoculars is an entirely special case. LF photography is different - it is about specific lens-to-object distance. IOW, practical limits relevant to our work.

[Pfsor]

You can invent your scenarios at will. The basic fact is that long focal length lenses see atmospheric distortion better than short focal length lenses, because they magnify it more. End of the story for me.

[Jac@stafford.net]

You can invent your scenarios at will. The basic fact is that long focal length lenses see atmospheric distortion better than short focal length lenses, because they magnify it more. End of the story for me.

Fine. How about we close our thread awaiting real-life experiences other than your irrelevant eyeball impressionistic non-lens and non-camera (objective) input? Binoculars - gimme a break.

Oh, here is a photo I made on near-IR film with the objective to penetrate a persistent haze which always obscures the distant bluffs. See the opposite shore? It is impossible with binoculars.

http://www.digoliardi.net/alma_good_1%20copy.jpg

[Bernice Loui]

If this specific example of APO Nikkor has not been severely tested using film and in real life image making situations, there is NO assurance of what the image results could be. This endeavor will be a R&D adventure, could be OK, could be awful.

IMO, for any lens to be re-mounted into a shutter the image produce by the specific lens must be worthy. If not, there would be little if any justification for spending $z,ysa of U$D to install the lens cells into a shutter. Roll of the dice and not much more given this specific example has Fungus, then taken apart, "cleaned" and ...

Might be better to stop the bleeding of $ now, and try for another with a lens already supplied in shutter.


Bernice







Anyways, I'm here in my situation and I need to make a decision. S.K. Grimes has mounted these lenses into Copal #3 shutters in the past. So it isn't an R&D adventure.

I think I'll go ahead with the re-mount. At least it makes the lens more approachable for others even if I end up selling it at a loss. The amount it has already cost me to send it to Woonsocket for cleaning probably can't be recovered in a sale of a lens that has no shutter.

I'll send a pic of something far away to ya all ...

[J. Patric Dahlen]

But it is an x50 enlargement !!!

To me it demonstrates than APO Nikkors allow flawless 4m prints from 8x10", and 2m from 4x5.

It certainly does. It was the shape of the ejecta from the craters that looked like the web like pattern that fungus produces. When I scrolled down further it became clear that it wasn't fungus, but the Moon.

[swmcl]

OK so the latest is ...

The process lens is a dialyte design according to S.K.Grimes. They also basically completely replace the lens housings for the Copal #3 shutter but can keep some of the original lens housing if mounting to Ilex #5. The new housings will come with standard filter threads front and rear I believe.

Cost of new lens housing to suit Copal #3 is $475.

Thanks for the replies and especially from Dan Fromm and Drew Wiley for their insights.

My camera is a 5x7 Shen Hao so it should handle the weight issues but it will be something I will need to watch carefully in the field.

Thanks again,
Steve