PDA

View Full Version : Nikkor M 450 F9 - Question



Rscaboy
29-Aug-2019, 05:24
Hello,

First some presentation, I'm Dominique from Belgium and photography is my second job.

I worked with a mix of analog and digital camera and use them depending the project.

My main focus is "Portraiture and Urban Landscape"

I already work in the past with 4x5 camera (Chamonix, Shen Hao, Toyo) and now decide that it was time to move for another journey so I've ordered an Intrepid Camera 8x10 MII and will use it mainly for "Portrait" work and a bit of urban landscape too.

And I will do "Contact Print" only.

So here is my question :

I have the opportunity to buy an Nikkor M 450mm F9 but would like to know if :

1. Does this lens will work with the Intrepid 8x10 ?
2. Does this lens will be ok for my "Portraiture" project ?

I've read that the Intrepid can support lens from 150mm to 600mm so I suppose that this should be ok for this lens ?

Many thanks in advance for the advise.

Dom./

Corran
29-Aug-2019, 06:46
The Nikkor-M 450mm is a somewhat big / heavy lens in a Copal #3 shutter - not that there are too many options for that focal length in smaller sizes. You'll have to decided whether or not the 8x10 Intrepid is up to the task of that large lens with that much extension. I don't own one, but you can find lots of comments about the Intrepid here on the forum in the "Cameras & Camera Accessories" subforum. I believe some would say that lens is a bit much for the Intrepid. It will certainly work in terms of extension.

As for your "Portraiture" project, the question is what kind of portrait? Full-body environmental portraits? Head and shoulders portraits? Myself, when I do take portraits, tend towards environmental and full-body or 3/4 portraits, which lends itself to a shorter (300 or 360) lens. Also, what kind of depth-of-field do you want? In other words, do you need a faster aperture, or do you plan on stopping down? This will affect lens choice. What are you using on your 4x5 now?

Don't forget bellows compensation.

Perhaps try a 240mm on your 4x5 and see if that's really the focal length you're interested in.

Alan9940
29-Aug-2019, 07:27
The Intrepid 8x10 is questionable even with my much smaller and lighter Fuji 450C lens. I'm willing to bet that the Nikkor 450M would be much too heavy for this camera; but, then, again, I'm basing this comment on a MK I version of this camera. Maybe the MK II is stronger in this regard. Since the max bellows extension is 560mm (which IMO is pushing that spec), you can't focus a 600mm, unless it's of telephoto design. But, then you're running into that weight issue, again. Bottom line with the Intrepid and lenses is that they should all be relatively light glass.

neil poulsen
29-Aug-2019, 08:04
I've owned a Nikon 450mm M, and it's a terrific lens. Very sharp, it's multi-coated, and it has a large image circle.

Compared to similar focal lengths, it is not a heavy lens. If I thought that this lens was a little heavy for a given 8x10 camera, I would keep the lens and swap out the camera.

Since my other 8x10 lenses were single-coated, I sold my 450mm M, bought a Nikon 450mm Q, and pocketed the difference in price. (The 450mm Q is the single-coated version of the 450mm M.)

Rscaboy
29-Aug-2019, 08:05
The Intrepid 8x10 is questionable even with my much smaller and lighter Fuji 450C lens. I'm willing to bet that the Nikkor 450M would be much too heavy for this camera; but, then, again, I'm basing this comment on a MK I version of this camera. Maybe the MK II is stronger in this regard. Since the max bellows extension is 560mm (which IMO is pushing that spec), you can't focus a 600mm, unless it's of telephoto design. But, then you're running into that weight issue, again. Bottom line with the Intrepid and lenses is that they should all be relatively light glass.

Hi,

I'm planning to do mostly "Head and Shoulders" portraits.

Intrepid Team told me that the biggest lens they have tried in term of Weight on the 8x10 MII was 1.4KG so they advise me to not use lens with more than 1.4KG.

Here is the specs that I found for the Nikkor M 450 F9

The Nikkor M 450 F9 is 640g
The Copal 3 is 340g (Found the info on internet)
The lens Board +- 80g

So in total this lens with the Copal 3 and the lens board is around 1.060Kg

So based on the Intrepid answer weight should not be a problem...

Am I wrong with this interpretation ?

Pere Casals
29-Aug-2019, 08:24
1. Does this lens will work with the Intrepid 8x10 ?


It will work, 640grs, this should not be a problem in a 8x10 device.

Flange Focal Distance is 435mm, so with the 560mm max extension of the Intrepid it will focus at 2070mm, and closer with the DOF you want to allow, and closer if you make a tilt. Calculation is 1/D = 1/450-1/(560+15). You have 15mm of free bellows entension because the FFD is 15mm shorter than the Focal Length.

You may use a custom lens board with tube extension to focus even closer.






2. Does this lens will be ok for my "Portraiture" project ?


YMMV.

It is a Tessar design, regarding bokeh, see examples in Flickr, etc to see if its Out Of Focus rendering suits your taste, you may also review 300mm shots that would have a similar nature in the bokeh. To me all depends on the bokeh you want.

See if the OOF disks are soft enough for you or if they build a distracting background for your taste.

It has a bit of field curvature that would not be a problem.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/antoniogb/36726210074/in/photolist-29KACWL-FZWLwE-fB5Bp9-fCuq3b-fJ3CAV-injtMP-8JcqNb-ZpgZHr-23NpnWh-29a6tvQ-ngQTVd-29ik238-22sKKTT-pnHpKH-dwpf2V-RH6fZ5-XXnqJw-NTXsNc-23N9LVG-N8oehR-VCeik9-yUsEE7-2bpHRwX-8JcSiu-Mk5B95-Xz9cMs-PRSRkV-zbSP23-23NYHyK-NTXqP2-RFyPSM-PQU9pQ-Q5SXDd-2effk7m-MvUUQm-Lmd4Jw-DuDN5T-Ptny7B-MYgA8p-Pve5Sm-qZik4g-PpvwyA-MopVUr-LoEWMf-Pfx7d1-LWCvKE-s2kLfx-M7gBES




The Nikkor M 450 F9 is 640g
The Copal 3 is 340g (Found the info on internet)
The lens Board +- 80g

So in total this lens with the Copal 3 and the lens board is around 1.060Kg



I guess that 640g is with shutter !!! so lighter than you expected.

neil poulsen
29-Aug-2019, 08:26
The best response would be from someone who owns the same camera. I can only speak to the lens.

Another consideration that's additional to weight is focal length. At a point in time, I owned both a solidly built, tight Deardorff (even by Deardorff standards), and a 600mm Fujinon C lens. With the Deardorff stretched out that far, I thought that the arrangement was subject to vibration. A 600mm Fujinon C is not that heavy a lens.

pepeguitarra
29-Aug-2019, 08:26
The Nikkor M 450 F9 works perfectly on my 8x10 Intrepid Mk II. It is an excellent lens, especially on the Intrepid. Here is a shot with the set:

https://live.staticflickr.com/7866/32627113497_1d2606c4bd_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RH9u8B)Glowing in the Forest (https://flic.kr/p/RH9u8B) by Palenquero Photography (https://www.flickr.com/photos/palenquero/), on Flickr

A similar shot with the G-Claron 305/9 and the 8x10 Intrepid for reference:

https://live.staticflickr.com/7905/32627112987_743f587afc_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RH9tYP)jpg-RileyModel1-Arista100Rodinal (https://flic.kr/p/RH9tYP) by Palenquero Photography (https://www.flickr.com/photos/palenquero/), on Flickr

Rscaboy
29-Aug-2019, 08:59
The Nikkor M 450 F9 works perfectly on my 8x10 Intrepid Mk II. It is an excellent lens, especially on the Intrepid. Here is a shot with the set:

https://live.staticflickr.com/7866/32627113497_1d2606c4bd_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RH9u8B)Glowing in the Forest (https://flic.kr/p/RH9u8B) by Palenquero Photography (https://www.flickr.com/photos/palenquero/), on Flickr

A similar shot with the G-Claron 305/9 and the 8x10 Intrepid for reference:

https://live.staticflickr.com/7905/32627112987_743f587afc_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RH9tYP)jpg-RileyModel1-Arista100Rodinal (https://flic.kr/p/RH9tYP) by Palenquero Photography (https://www.flickr.com/photos/palenquero/), on Flickr

Hello,

That is exactly the kind of info that I was looking for :-)

This is exactly the kind of portrait that I plan to take and now that I get the confirmation that this lens will fit the Intrepid 8x10 MII it's decide I will buy the lens.

Many thanks to all for the shared infos.

Dom

Louis Pacilla
29-Aug-2019, 09:12
I doubt that you'll have an easy time doing head/head & shoulders with this long a FL and this camera as you'll be at around full extension at those close focus range.

So you may want to look into a 300mm FL as well. Just a thought

Bear in mind Pepes shots are not that close (They are full standing figure landscape not tight head shots / head & shoulders) so way less extension needed.

Luis-F-S
29-Aug-2019, 09:29
I would suggest looking for one at a good price, and if you don't like it, then sell it. You might also consider the 12" Artar or the 305 G-Claron, both in Copal 1 shutters. See if you can borrow one to try near you. Good luck. L

cuypers1807
29-Aug-2019, 09:36
I use the Nikkor 450 for portraits on both 8x10 and 11x14. It is a great lens.

William Whitaker
29-Aug-2019, 10:01
I doubt that you'll have an easy time doing head/head & shoulders with this long a FL and this camera as you'll be at around full extension at those close focus range.

So you may want to look into a 300mm FL as well. Just a thought

Bear in mind Pepe's shots are not that close (They are full standing figure landscape not tight head shots / head & shoulders) so way less extension needed.

Everybody's mileage varies. But for me, 450 on 8x10 is a bit long for H+S portraits. My choice is for something in the 12" - 14" range. And there are a LOT of choices in that range.
And I'm speaking of 8x10 in general. NOT any specific camera.
There are contrasting opinions expressed here. No surprise. You'll need to ante-up your money and find out what works best for you.

Bernice Loui
29-Aug-2019, 10:15
8x10 is not the same a 4x5, significantly larger with a different set of problems-challenges.

With a 450mm lens and 560mm of available bellows, head and shoulder portraits could be a problem of not enough bellows and camera stability due to camera support challenges. While the typical head and shoulder portrait focal length for 8x10 is 420mm to say 500mm, the ability for the camera to deal with a lens of this focal length can be surprisingly difficult.

Example, on 5x7 with a 12" or 300mm lens, bellows required for head and shoulder is about 400mm, then there is how to balance and support the camera along with precise positioning the camera to where it is needed relative to the sitter. Then add the challenge of lighting which is IMO, as important and in some cases more important than camera & lens & film.

Things to consider.
Bernice

Bernice Loui
29-Aug-2019, 10:17
Really the only way... get stuff and try it.

Bernice



There are contrasting opinions expressed here. No surprise. You'll need to ante-up your money and find out what works best for you.

Rscaboy
29-Aug-2019, 13:30
Really the only way... get stuff and try it.

Bernice

Hi,

Lens is ordered...So now I will see in 2 months if it suit my need or not....

Thanks to all of you for the discussions.

Dom

pepeguitarra
29-Aug-2019, 13:35
Here is the set at head and shoulder set up distance:


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33814253998_48abb285d5_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Tw3TDh)Intrepid 8x10 + Nikkor-M 450/9 (https://flic.kr/p/Tw3TDh) by Palenquero Photography (https://www.flickr.com/photos/palenquero/), on Flickr

Pere Casals
29-Aug-2019, 13:40
Woman in red !

Alan9940
29-Aug-2019, 14:27
Am I wrong with this interpretation ?

All I can tell you is that I wouldn't use a Nikkor 450M on my Mk I. Perhaps the Mk II is more solid. Based on other replies here, you should be okay. Get a good copy of the lens, try it, and if it doesn't work out for you sell it, and find another alternative.

Bob Salomon
29-Aug-2019, 14:32
Support means that it has enough bellows and extension to use a 600mm. It does not mean that it is strong enough to support this lens. Find the weight of the lens and ask the camera manufacturer if it can support it at portrait distances.

Rscaboy
29-Aug-2019, 14:49
Hi,

I think that the picture pasted by pepeguitarra concerning the lens and the Intrepid 8x10 MII are selfspeaking...At least for me :-)

To start my 8x10 journey stand-up portrait are also fine for me.....(And if I really need very closer one I can always use my D850 and my Nikkor 105 1.4E)

Drew Wiley
29-Aug-2019, 14:50
I personally wouldn't want any lens in a no.3 or heavier shutter on a very lightweight front standard like that at long extension, although I wouldn't hesitate to put a 450M on my own 8x10. The tiny tripod head amplifies any wicked voodoo vibrations. It all looks way way too flimsy for my idea of reliable 8x10 work.

Pere Casals
29-Aug-2019, 15:10
I personally wouldn't want any lens in a no.3 or heavier shutter on a very lightweight front standard like that at long extension, although I wouldn't hesitate to put a 450M on my own 8x10. The tiny tripod head amplifies any wicked voodoo vibrations. It all looks way way too flimsy for my idea of reliable 8x10 work.

Drew, if the 810 Intrepid is not able to take 640grs (with the copal 3 included) then better if they stop making 8x10 cameras, what 810 cannot take 640grs ?

Eric Leppanen
29-Aug-2019, 15:17
If needed there are various ways to brace the front standard of a lightweight camera to dampen shutter vibration. Connecting a large rubber band between the bottom of the front standard and the hook under the center column of your tripod (assuming it has one) can help. A sturdier option is to use a long lens support arm such as a Manfrotto 3252 or 359.

https://www.adorama.com/bg3591.html?br=1

I regularly used one of these to support 600mm and telephoto lenses on my 8x10 cameras. They appear periodically on the used market.

Pere Casals
29-Aug-2019, 15:42
to brace the front standard of a lightweight camera to dampen shutter vibration. Connecting a large rubber band between the bottom of the front standard and

Eric, that Manfrotto 359 is really nice ! I was not aware that it existed...


I used a bare monopod for that, instead making it rest directly on the ground, not as an elegant solution, but it also works, sparing a second tripod in some challenging situations.

Drew Wiley
29-Aug-2019, 16:29
As usual, Pere, you're all spin. I hear stuff like this all the time, and how this or that works perfectly well for someone. Then they try to prove it with some web image the size of a postage stamp. But some of us like to print a lot bigger than a postage stamp and expect precise results, not a ball of fuzz inspecting film under the loupe. Sure, some kind of supplementary bracing system could be used like Eric suggests. But there goes the whole idea of a cumulative lightweight simplified system. Kinda counterproductive. I shouldn't even need to comment on how ridiculous a center column is for 8x10 work. I wouldn't use one even for 4x5, even for MF. Get a real tripod instead of a toy.

Pere Casals
29-Aug-2019, 17:14
As usual, Pere, you're all spin. I hear stuff like this all the time, and how this or that works perfectly well for someone. Then they try to prove it with some web image the size of a postage stamp. But some of us like to print a lot bigger than a postage stamp and expect precise results, not a ball of fuzz inspecting film under the loupe. Sure, some kind of supplementary bracing system could be used like Eric suggests. But there goes the whole idea of a cumulative lightweight simplified system. Kinda counterproductive. I shouldn't even need to comment on how ridiculous a center column is for 8x10 work. I wouldn't use one even for 4x5, even for MF. Get a real tripod instead of a toy.

:) Drew, don't get angry. Let me explain you that I use a Bilora and a Manfrotto heavy duty tripods, the Bilora in particular is a tiger tank, but anyway a Monopod is very useful to stabilize some 8x10 setups, sometimes I stabilized this setup with the monopod in the front, with perfect results, sparing a second tripod:

https://live.staticflickr.com/7426/27823423611_c40d4d4e47.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/27823423611/

I drilled and TIG welded a nut at the end of the stainless steel square pipe to attach the monopod there.


Those tripods are quite heavy and I lack intermediate tripods, beyond those I only have light tripods, so when I carry the light tripod for 4x5 I stabilize it with the monopod, also with perfect results. I reiterate that this solution is not as elegant as the 3252/359, by far, but I can tell you that it works perfectly and adds little weight to haul around.

pepeguitarra
29-Aug-2019, 17:19
The Nikkor 450/2 is one of the smallest 450mm lenses. Here it is on the 4x5 Chamonix F2. I put a second tripod in case it was needed. It wasn't, but I left it any way. It would support the setup in case of a vibration happens.

https://live.staticflickr.com/7836/46882218972_e0bda1db5d_n.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2eqPCmd)Chamonix 45F-2 Nikkor-M 450mm f/9 (https://flic.kr/p/2eqPCmd) by Palenquero Photography (https://www.flickr.com/photos/palenquero/), on Flickr

Drew Wiley
29-Aug-2019, 17:27
Sorry. Yes, I'm a bit grumpy this afternoon, for no reason other than I'm a bit tired doing endless cleaning of equipment after a trip. In your case, you don't even need a fancy dedicated stabilizer. A basic rectangular wooden stick and a couple of spring clamps would do the same thing. Unfortunately, I can't post a picture of my way of doing it. But, based on a lot of testing with long lenses and big enlargements, it's based on bolting the camera base right to the top of a substantial tripod platform top with no intervening weak point. Basic torque vector physics. With long monorails or even long heavy MF telephoto lenses, I use a long hardwood bar attached at two points to the rail or lens, then bolt that directly to a platform top. In those instances when my big Ries wooden tripod might be
too heavy, I resort to a modified large carbon fiber tripod that functionally has a platform top too. Big shutters vary in vibration. The worst were no.3 Compurs. They had a palpable buzz to them. But many studios used camera stands and high-speed flash; and Compurs tended to be correct at their highest speeds, while Copals didn't. I never used flash in portraiture, but either natural light or classic hot lights like Arri fresnels.

Drew Wiley
29-Aug-2019, 17:34
Pepeguitarra - The Nikkor 450 is an elephant compared to the Fuji 450C, which is in a no.1 shutter. But I suspect the Nikkor M might have nicer rendering for portraiture per se. An alternative popular among portrait studios was the Fuji 420L, an older thick tessar, single-coated and rather heavy, which was less harsh-edged than either of the above. I often use the Fuji 450 C dialyte for landscape shots in both 8x10 and 4x5, but would like a 450M Nikkor too. It's the only focal length of Nikkor M I don't own yet.

Pere Casals
29-Aug-2019, 18:06
The Nikkor 450 is an elephant compared to the Fuji 450C

The Fuji 450 is very, very small, just 270grs, but it's f/12.5, one stop slower.


There is also another ultra-light choice that it's not often considered, the Symmar 240 convertible to 420mm f/12. It is an excellent portraiture lens !!! Single coated, but once it is converted it only has two groups, little flare. Very cheap...

70€, a bargain, IMHO this glass is superb for portraits:
194967

And of course we have the cooke triple, the rear cell alone is not heavy and it is 476mm, but not that cheap...

Oslolens
30-Aug-2019, 06:58
If you need shorter focal length, add a close-up filter on your 450mm. Without enlarging, any would do, costing just more than a coke bottle bottom. Add a +1 and resulting focal length will be ca 320mm and increasing the f stop to 7.
Regarding weight, I find the 450mm ok on my Wehman, but having trouble with the 20" / 508mm Ilex in #5 Ilex shutter at closest distance (1:2). A table would then be better than a tripod, adding the possibility to put extra weight on the bottom.

Big Wehman, Toyo 5x7" and a small Chamonix

Drew Wiley
30-Aug-2019, 11:34
Interesting. A cheapo diopter lens over a high end 450 lens. Why not just use a real Coke bottle for the entire lens?

Oslolens
2-Sep-2019, 01:20
Interesting. A cheapo diopter lens over a high end 450 lens. Why not just use a real Coke bottle for the entire lens?Yes, why not? Just had a look at an exhibition where some landscapes I liked where done with a single element glass while most of the portraits where done with a Darlot no 4. And the toned cyanotypes had colors as nice as the best lith prints in Rudmans book. Take a look, he is on Flickr as Calceman

Big Wehman, Toyo 5x7" and a small Chamonix

neil poulsen
2-Sep-2019, 03:04
I personally wouldn't want any lens in a no.3 or heavier shutter on a very lightweight front standard like that at long extension, although I wouldn't hesitate to put a 450M on my own 8x10. The tiny tripod head amplifies any wicked voodoo vibrations. It all looks way way too flimsy for my idea of reliable 8x10 work.

I'm with Drew on this. It may be good marketing to make 8x10 cameras lighter and lighter. But, I think some of those cameras have inherent limitations.

A 450 M worked just fine with the 8x10 Deardorff that I had. But, I sold that camera in order to use longer focal lengths.

Pere Casals
2-Sep-2019, 03:08
Interesting. A cheapo diopter lens over a high end 450 lens. Why not just use a real Coke bottle for the entire lens?

Drew, Nikon M 450 is not a high end lens,

it is very, very good field (and portrait, tessar) lens that it's not as good as regular plasmats, but it saved a lot of weight and manufacturing cost (another thing is price) compared with a heavy plasmat, (see symmar 480mm !!!).

C Pérez found for the M 300:

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

We know that this was not a lab test, it was a pick of the litter and all that, but you can rate your M if you want. The 3 values (center-mid-corner) are equal because with 4x5 he ony takes the center of the M-300 circle.


Belive me, an old Symmar convertible and converted is able to equal that, with only slightly softer corners when converted, which won't allow translational movements without a performance loss, but the full lens would be similarly sharp as the M in the corners, single difference is coating, the M is MC, and the convertible symmar not.

The converted lens with no rise-shift it is very able, with very acceptable corners if stopped at usual apertures, and with only two groups flare is really low for a single coated glass.

Of the symmar convertibles I've the 150, two 210 (for an stereo project) and the 360, which is Technika stamped. I also use Nikon W 210 and 360, the 360 comes from heaven because is one of those samples that are an angry cat and not a hot dog, so I compared.

I've some CMS 20 sheets shot with the old Symmar 150 I can show you, they are incredibly sharp, beyond any expectation.


Ken Rockwell said that the sharpest lens he owns is a Symmar convertible: https://www.kenrockwell.com/schneider/150.htm , and he also owns an M, which he qualifies as excellent.


I concede that it is single coated, and that the conversion (a triplet, in fact) requires stopping a lot for a rise-shift, but this is not bottle glass, many expensive dogs around perform well worse.


Would I prefer an M than a converted Symmar ? of course ! But I don't think that images would be much different !

Drew Wiley
2-Sep-2019, 10:35
Pere - I think a lot of people would strongly disagree with your assessment about M lenses; and I, among others, do not find Perez's results in general either realistic or reliable in many cases. And as for Ken Rockwell, now there's a good laugh. The Nikkors M's were the apogee of tessar design, at least in LF. Recall what I said about microtanality and hue purity, and what Nikon also claims. It's true. The practical effect depends. One is limited by what hues a color film, and then a given color output media, can itself reproduce, which can be frustrating at times.In b&w work, it might take a high-end Apo enlarging lens and premium paper to bring out the nuances of microtanality; but it's there. Yes, tessars tend to be cheaper to manufacture than plasmats due to less elements, but that does not mean they were intended as lesser bargain products. Except for image circle size, they can have real advantages. If you want a super sharp 450, get a 4-element Apo Nikkor graphics lens. No plasmat comes close; but it would be bulky if you added a shutter. Total overkill.

Pere Casals
2-Sep-2019, 11:43
And as for Ken Rockwell

I've a deep respect for Ken Rockwell.

Many of his writtings have a dose of irony and personal points of view, beyond that you may find a lot of wisdom in his reviews. I've learned a lot in his web site and I'm proud of it.




do not find Perez's results in general either realistic or reliable in many cases.

If you don't like the C Pérez ratings then you can review the rating made by Arne Croell for the Nikkor-M 300, page 22: https://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf

Similar result.



The M 450 f/9 is an excellent field lens, no doubt, also it is a very good general usage lens for 8x10, but you may guess that if an APO Symmar 480/8.4 weights 4 Lb this is for something.


In the other side, IMHO what a LF photographer can do with an old Convertible Symmar is only limited by his mind and by his technique.

pepeguitarra
2-Sep-2019, 11:49
I think most of the LFF poster are highly educated or trained photographers, and those of us with lesser knowledge would benefit if they backup their comments with a photograph or two that they have taken. The illustration of those tips would greatly benefit the general audience. We all heard: One image is worth thousand words.

Pere Casals
2-Sep-2019, 13:19
I think most of the LFF poster are highly educated or trained photographers, and those of us with lesser knowledge would benefit if they backup their comments with a photograph or two that they have taken.

I am one of those with lesser knowledge and experience, only a learner, I started printing one year ago.



The illustration of those tips would greatly benefit the general audience. We all heard: One image is worth thousand words.

:) You have a M 450 , from what you post I learned that the M 450 has a harsh bokeh for me, it could be worse, but it is in the wrong side for my taste, I feel marked rings around defocus circles, I find it a bit distracting, but if you like it then no problem, this is only my taste:

(Click to enlarge)
195111


Let me show you the kind of bokeh I love, this is a Goerz Hypar (Hypar !) :

https://live.staticflickr.com/1874/29433032687_9320b02772_h.jpg

Of course shot by a photographer that's way better than me, from whom I try to learn.


...and of course bokeh is YMMV.

Corran
2-Sep-2019, 13:40
I think most of the LFF poster are highly educated or trained photographers, and those of us with lesser knowledge would benefit if they backup their comments with a photograph or two that they have taken. The illustration of those tips would greatly benefit the general audience. We all heard: One image is worth thousand words.

+1

Pere Casals
2-Sep-2019, 13:56
+1

-1

What I don't understand is how such an expensive lens could have such a low performance:

195114

This is not a test made by an amateur like me...

enough for a field lens, but not shinning. Was it a defective sample ?

Still IMHO a good photographer should be able to take very good images, but not because its stellar sharpness.

Corran
2-Sep-2019, 14:02
Nikkor-M 450mm on 8x20:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/820-deadriver-savedss.jpg

Contact print looks fantastic.

450M is coveted for large image circle. I couldn't care less what meaningless contrived measurements say.

Pere Casals
2-Sep-2019, 14:10
Nikkor-M 450mm on 8x20:

Contact print looks fantastic.


Of course, it has to be a fantastic contact print, that sure is flawless even if inspected with an x4 loupe. But I guess that you understand that result would be pretty similar if you had used any regular LF lens covering those 20".

Corran
2-Sep-2019, 14:20
Not exactly numerous options for lenses in shutter to cover that, and be as lightweight or affordable. The point is that resolution numbers are mostly irrelevant for many purposes once we reach this kind of lens, and even very modest resolution would allow for massive enlargements. And that's putting aside the issue of contrived resolution measurements from a test target.

Pere Casals
2-Sep-2019, 14:51
Not exactly numerous options for lenses in shutter to cover that, and be as lightweight or affordable. The point is that resolution numbers are mostly irrelevant for many purposes once we reach this kind of lens, and even very modest resolution would allow for massive enlargements. And that's putting aside the issue of contrived resolution measurements from a test target.

I completely agree, these are clever words.

To me your M is a totally competent field lens, just excelling in the field, dot. I've no doubt. A plasmat is a (technically) clearly better lens but it would weight 1700grs and the performance improvement would be seen only in a 1.5m print, or perhaps larger.

Clearly the competition is the Fujinon C 450, that weights the 270grs instead 640gr of the M, but in a 8x10 (or 8x20) setup this is not important.

What I was saying is that the old Symmar 240mm converted to 420mm f/12, for 8x10 and stopped to f/32, it would be surprisingly good for the $70 price. For the same reasons you cite about resolution on flat targets.

Speaking seriously, in the particular 8x20 shot you showed nothing can be in perfect focus, you have near subjects in top and the bottom and distant subjects in the center, so what counts is balancing the focus distance and the aperture, not the lens performance.

Corran
2-Sep-2019, 15:00
Speaking seriously, in the particular 8x20 shot you showed nothing can be in perfect focus, you have near subjects in top and the bottom and distant subjects in the center, so what counts is balancing the focus distance and the aperture, not the lens performance.

Pere, we've obviously had our disagreements, but I find it interesting you say this, because it's basically what I and many, many others on this forum have been trying to tell you for years wrt resolution targets vs. "real-world" photographs.

I'm not going to argue about it, but I think you should sit back and consider what you've just said in relation to a lot of what you've posted and how it all fits together in actual photographic outcomes. Also, I note the OP mentioned contact prints as the intended goal.

PS: I think the Fujinon, which is about the only comparable lens out there but does have that slight advantage in weight, has slightly less covering power than the Nikkor. I don't have a way to truly test this, but many claim the Nikkor covers up to 16x20+, which is astounding for the size/weight/price. The Fujinon is also of course astronomical in price.

Pere Casals
2-Sep-2019, 15:23
I'm not going to argue about it, but I think you should sit back and consider what you've just said in relation to a lot of what you've posted and how it all fits together in actual photographic outcomes.

I you read my posts, if often cited that Sally Mann never had a problem if a lens had a crack in the middle, while she recently exhibited the most impressive prints many have seen on a wall, mostly departing from glass sheets and raw chem.

I'm perfectioning my DIY emulsions and coating procedures since 2 years ago.

In this post what I was defending is that an old converted symmar can perform amazingly, if you read well. What I was challenging is that M is what makes a difference, the difference is the photographer, today I was saying the same about film: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?154013-I-take-back-every-bad-word-I-have-said-about-Kodak&p=1515647&viewfull=1#post1515647

A lot of hype with tmy, but what counts is what Sally makes with the wet plates.

Also it is my position that an artist can take advantage from the optics flaws of an old glass may have or from the supreme refinement Sironar-S may sport to depict fine detail in a big print, personally what I don't like is hype.

My view is that a true artist makes a Pietà if he only has a hammer, but I'm not an artist, at least not a good one :).

Eric Leppanen
2-Sep-2019, 15:28
Of course, it has to be a fantastic contact print, that sure is flawless even if inspected with an x4 loupe. But I guess that you understand that result would be pretty similar if you had used any regular LF lens covering those 20".But how do you determine whether the lens covers 20"? Go off of manufacturer rated image circles? Then ULF shooters would be significantly limited in terms of cost effective lens options. Even for regular LF formats there is a meaningful subset of lenses that hold up quite well beyond rated image circles. At one point I owned both the previously mentioned Nikon 450M and APO Symmar L 480, and compared the two on 8x10. In terms of subjective rendering, I slightly preferred the 480. Brightness while focusing was a wash, f/8.4 vs. f/9 doesn't make much difference. But for all other parameters that were meaningful to me -- size/weight, resolution, usable coverage -- the 450M as a practical matter was far superior for field use. In particular the 450M had more usable coverage than the 480 (the 480 mechanically vignettes shortly beyond its rated image circle, whereas the 450 does not), despite the 480 having a significantly larger rated image circle (500 vs. 440mm). Yes, it is possible that the 450M may exhibit some chromatic aberration or other optical issues when pushed beyond its rated circle, but I've shot enough images in varied lighting to know that any visible effects are subtle, and nothing that can't be handled in post. In particular resolution and light falloff holds up quite well, and this is why the 450M has such a good reputation among ULF shooters, even though based on rated IC it would seem ill-suited for that purpose.

No lens manufacturer documents how quickly optical quality degrades once rated image circle is exceeded. In my experience most lenses fairly quickly start exhibiting heavy light falloff, turn to mush or mechanically vignette. But a meaningful number do not, and the only way to ferret them out is to go by reputation and empirical testing using the criteria most meaningful to your own shooting. You can't just go off of specs.

BTW I also comparison tested the 450M and Fuji 450C (which I still own) on 8x10. The 450M indeed has significantly more usable coverage. The Copal 1 450C though is a better lens for the smaller lightweight cameras I currently own.

Pere Casals
2-Sep-2019, 17:50
the 450M may exhibit some chromatic aberration or other optical issues when pushed beyond its rated circle

Eric, perhaps one of the M "defects" is some field curvature, this is not uncommon in tessar formulas. Joseph Holmes complained about that, still I guess this is not much noticed at usual apertures.

With only 4 elements the lens designer has to make his choices about what he corrects the more or the less, a six elements design has obviously more degrees of freedom in the equations to correct better more things.

Anyway such a long lens with only a 52º of coverage covers the 440mm circle, life it's easier when coverage angle is that narrow, and a simple 4 elements lens can perform acceptably. Also dropping quasi-simetry would be more painful if coverage was wider.





In my experience most lenses fairly quickly start exhibiting heavy light falloff, turn to mush or mechanically vignette.

This has two sides, IMHO. The illuminaton beyond the good image circle can cover the corners of a larger format if those are in the OOF.

The negative side is that the excess in the illumination circle generates flare because all that light bounces in the bellows, in special if the bellows are too extended or too compressed.

I found that effect with the Symmar 360mm converted to 620mm. In that case the illumination circle is insanely large compared with the good image circle, requiring a compendium shade.





Nikon 450M and APO Symmar L 480, and compared the two on 8x10.

Yes... It may make little sense to haul around a 4Lb APO Symmar L 480 when the M 450 covers 440mm yet. Sure that the L 480 is an impressive glass, but hiking with it can be a weight loss prescription :)

The L is a high end lens, the M is a field lens. Not the same performance but similar results in practice, I guess except for weight loss, in that concern the L is superior !

Drew Wiley
3-Sep-2019, 14:13
I doubt Joe Holmes took a hard look at the issue of modern M tessars. He's a technically nitpicky practitioner who does carefully test things, and lives up the hill behind me, who did all his work with a 4x5 Technika; so I don't see how a 450M applies to him. I think the longest lens he ever used was a Fuji 400 tele, which was plenty adequate for his purposes. I haven't spoken with him in quite awhile, but there was a time we had extended gear discussions. I haven't detected any field curvature in my own M lenses provided the image is reasonably within the rated image circle. They don't have the huge image circles generally needed for architectural shooting anyway. Don't confuse M's with problems attributed to old tessars, deservedly or not. They're extremely well corrected.

Pere Casals
3-Sep-2019, 14:56
I doubt Joe Holmes took a hard look at the issue of modern M tessars.

"On the other hand, when I got it in 1994 Joseph Holmes told me this was a toy-store lens and to avoid it due to its curvature of field, so chacun son gout. That's what I mean about trying things for yourself: the tiny bit of field curvature it may have is completely invisible to me for real photography."

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/300f9.htm






They're extremely well corrected.

Of course, at nikon they are not amateurs. They made an excellent job.

But a 4 elements field lens has obvious limitations, which can be irrelevant for field work, but the M is not a High End lens, the APO Tele Xenar 800mm used by C. Burkett it is a High End lens. Once you haul a Calument C1 8x10" adding an ATX is not a concern. If you are to print big ilfochromes... well... you may want best glass.

MAubrey
3-Sep-2019, 15:00
"On the other hand, when I got it in 1994 Joseph Holmes told me this was a toy-store lens and to avoid it due to its curvature of field, so chacun son gout. That's what I mean about trying things for yourself: the tiny bit of field curvature it may have is completely invisible to me for real photography."

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/300f9.htm
Never thought I'd see the day when someone cited Ken Rockwell in seriousness.

Pere Casals
3-Sep-2019, 15:42
Never thought I'd see the day when someone cited Ken Rockwell in seriousness.

I've a lot of respect for Ken Rockwell, I learned a lot in his web site, and I'm proud of it.

Obviously you are not aware about who is Ken Rockwell.

You may start reading this (see the irony in that text, combined with deep wisdom): https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

I'm obviously in "Bottom Level 1".

Just joking now: What's your level in that scale ?

___

Probably your opinion comes from reading attacks he received for destroying hype and for defending film in the digital era.

He has very sound reviews about Nikon and Leica glass, specially, pointing subtlelties not many are aware, but he is also an excellent LF photographer, you may find some basic but excellent guides for LF:

https://kenrockwell.com/tech/exposure-large-format.htm

Drew Wiley
3-Sep-2019, 15:47
I believe Joe Holmes in person, because that's how I always communicated with him. We often debated. But most of his personal experience was with relatively older lenses, while I upgraded mine to late Fuji's and Nikkors, and began shooting 8x10 too. Ken Rockwell I take with a grain of salt, and would do so even in an alleged quotation. I specialized in Cibachromes, often much bigger ones than Joe made, and liked mine very crisp. I can print as good as Chris Burkett any day of the week, if I happen to be doing color. Joe since went into big inkjet as a consultant to Epson; but that type of medium simply can't hold as much detail. But a lot of this lens talk gets ridiculous. Even my first LF lens, a basic 210 Symmar S, combined with ole 4x5 Ektachrome 64, grainy by today's standards, could produce 30x40 inch prints which the public found remarkably sharp right up close. I can detect a significant improvement using 8x10 film and more modern lenses, but it's all relative. There are other reasons besides sheer sharpness to choose one lens design over another. And Nikkor M's ARE top end lenses in terms of quality control, late computerized design,
and stringent pro applications. Many serious practitioners on this very forum routinely rely on them; and the 450 has its ULF devotees.

Pere Casals
3-Sep-2019, 16:04
Ken Rockwell I take with a grain of salt

Ken Rockwell always has a grain of salt :)

But he would not publish words from Joe Holmes that are not true, in fact he does not challenge the field curvature Holmes reports, simply it says that for his work this is not important. You should love Ken, he ay whay you like.

Nothing extrange that a Tessar design has some field curvature, many have, with only 4 elements if it got perfectly corrected then another more important feature could get less corrected, with a low element count designer has to balance what to correct or not, because not all can be corrected.




There are other reasons besides sheer sharpness to choose one lens design over another.

Of course, one is budget, then: circle, bokeh...


But an APO Tele Xenar 800mm is flawless and contrasty in all the format, probably one of the best high end 8x10" lenses in that focal range. First problem: expensive, second problem: heavy.

Drew Wiley
3-Sep-2019, 16:23
I know Joe personally. Ken Rockwell is a shoot from the hip type, fine for people shopping the latest DLSR features, but hardly a LF lens authority; he serves up quite a bit of BS, and this kind of statement simply doesn't sound like something Joe would say.

Pere Casals
3-Sep-2019, 17:06
Ken Rockwell is a shoot from the hip type, fine for people shopping the latest DLSR features

This is wrong, many new film photographers get informed there about antique SLR film cameras:

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/f2.htm

He also has reviews of the LF gear he owns: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/tachihara.htm




I know Joe personally.

Well, please ask him about the M-450, and say what he thinks.

John Kasaian
3-Sep-2019, 18:45
I've got a 300 & 450 Ms.
Splendid coated lenses in modern Copal shutters that accept screw on filters.
If I do my part,they'll do their part.
What's not to like about 'em?

Drew Wiley
3-Sep-2019, 19:10
Joe never shot with a 450M. His Technika wouldn't even accept one. Even a 400 had to be Tele design. He's probably in his late 70's now, and his opinion of certain Japanese lens series was based on older versions.

MAubrey
3-Sep-2019, 20:00
I've a lot of respect for Ken Rockwell, I learned a lot in his web site, and I'm proud of it.

Obviously you are not aware about who is Ken Rockwell.

You may start reading this (see the irony in that text, combined with deep wisdom): https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

I'm obviously in "Bottom Level 1".

Just joking now: What's your level in that scale ?

___

Probably your opinion comes from reading attacks he received for destroying hype and for defending film in the digital era.

He has very sound reviews about Nikon and Leica glass, specially, pointing subtlelties not many are aware, but he is also an excellent LF photographer, you may find some basic but excellent guides for LF:

https://kenrockwell.com/tech/exposure-large-format.htm

Oh, I know who he is.

Pere Casals
4-Sep-2019, 02:13
Oh, I know who he is.


Me, I've learned there, for example:

> I learned ED glass (also used in Sironar-S and Nikon T) is used to correct secondary color aberration: green-magenta fringes remaining after primary correction, the lower RI imposes larger (usually) front elements and heavier lens, but allows a larger circle.

> I learned that bokeh nature not only depends on iris shape, how spheric aberrations gets under/over corrected in the OOF is essential.

> I learned why Velvia 100F is different from Velvia 100 no F, and why Velvia 50 is different.

> I learned all features and differences from the excellent reviews of all nikon cameras since the 1970s, Pros and consumers. Those reviews are accurate and with a lot of practical sense, I selected my Nikon roll film cameras based on that.

> I learned all features and nuances of all SLR Nikon glass from Pre-Ai to late models, helping my decisions a lot.

> I learned to expose LF sheets, which now I always nail.

So me, I'm really grateful.


Then let's see if you are able to earn a single cent as a pro photo blogger, then you may speak.

Pere Casals
4-Sep-2019, 02:36
Joe never shot with a 450M. His Technika wouldn't even accept one. Even a 400 had to be Tele design. He's probably in his late 70's now, and his opinion of certain Japanese lens series was based on older versions.

With the right interpretation, Holmes saying that it was "toy-store" lens is nothing strange, just take a look again to the numbers Arne found:

195161

Those numbers say what they say.

_________________


In the other hand I belive that still it's an excellent field lens for most applications, if you (and many others) say that it served well to you I belive it, I've no doubt.

But don't add hype, the contrast transfer numbers, the design and the weigth says what it is: something excellent for the field.


And let me reiterate that IMHO with a Symmar 300 converted to 500 (with a compendium shade) I would get a close match, I doubt that you would find much difference in (say) a 1m print from 8x10.

If it was a real shot like that from Bryan, it's not the lens, it's the photographer.

Drew Wiley
4-Sep-2019, 09:41
Joe's favorite lens was a basic Fuji 180/5.6 W plasmat. He didn't shoot 8x10 at all, so there's no reason he'd even being fooling around with a 450M. Where do you come up with this nonsense, Pere? That 450 is prized by quite a few established LF and ULF. workers. The quality control of LF Nikon products is superb. I was mainly shooting Nikkor M lenses this past month. There are lots of users of them on this very forum who can attest how good they are. Maybe you should try one yourself instead of hunting around for irrelevant numbers to post. The 300M is an extremely sharp lens.

MAubrey
4-Sep-2019, 10:25
Me, I've learned there, for example:

> I learned ED glass (also used in Sironar-S and Nikon T) is used to correct secondary color aberration: green-magenta fringes remaining after primary correction, the lower RI imposes larger (usually) front elements and heavier lens, but allows a larger circle.

> I learned that bokeh nature not only depends on iris shape, how spheric aberrations gets under/over corrected in the OOF is essential.

> I learned why Velvia 100F is different from Velvia 100 no F, and why Velvia 50 is different.

> I learned all features and differences from the excellent reviews of all nikon cameras since the 1970s, Pros and consumers. Those reviews are accurate and with a lot of practical sense, I selected my Nikon roll film cameras based on that.

> I learned all features and nuances of all SLR Nikon glass from Pre-Ai to late models, helping my decisions a lot.

> I learned to expose LF sheets, which now I always nail.

So me, I'm really grateful.


Then let's see if you are able to earn a single cent as a pro photo blogger, then you may speak.

I don't know why you're so defensive.

Corran
4-Sep-2019, 10:45
Very old scan with an old Agfa scanner, I remembered this as it was when I had my old Gundlach 8x10 and found a cheap 450M so was trying it out. Shot on x-ray film. Nothing special. The lens is perfectly fine, I'm sure there are "better" ~450mm lenses but as already commented on by someone who has used it and other "higher-class" lenses, it hardly matters in actual use at typical 8x10 apertures. YMMV at wider apertures.

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/0068-crop.jpg

Equivalent to a 12 foot print height on a 96dpi monitor.

John Kasaian
4-Sep-2019, 11:50
One thing I learned from the guys who did those lens tests linked to the LF Homepage is that variations between samples from the same manufacturer can be substantial, even exceeding variances between the same design from different manufacturers.
Does this matter on 8x10?
Not in my neck of the woods, but that's for you to decide for yourself.
It wasn't uncommon for truly high end, money is no object, users to submit ten or so otherwise identical lenses to a lab for testing to determine the "pick of the litter"

Bob Salomon
4-Sep-2019, 12:07
One thing I learned from the guys who did those lens tests linked to the LF Homepage is that variations between samples from the same manufacturer can be substantial, even exceeding variances between the same design from different manufacturers.
Does this matter on 8x10?
Not in my neck of the woods, but that's for you to decide for yourself.
It wasn't uncommon for truly high end, money is no object, users to submit ten or so otherwise identical lenses to a lab for testing to determine the "pick of the litter"

Or, you learned that their technique was not consistent!

Lighting, atmospheric conditions, processing, eye strength, etc. also, were all the lenses new?

Drew Wiley
4-Sep-2019, 12:23
I'm EXTREMELY skeptical of any significant sample to sample variation among late lenses from any of the big four manufacturers. There were a handful of known design glitches per se, like with the incorrect cement used on a couple of new Schneider lenses. But consistent batch quality control seems to have been almost entirely ironed out by the mid-70's, if not even sooner. I have never personally gotten a suspect lens from any of these manufacturers. A contact printer might consider this a moot point; but I sometimes use the same lenses on multiple formats, from 8x10 clear down to 6x9 roll film backs. And it's those little negatives that need extreme sharpness because they're enlarged so much. Therefore what I'm skeptical of is not LF lens quality control, but, like Bob, the consistency of the methodology of web charts and reviews, which never seems to be explained up front anyway. Where in those charts is there the column for eye fatigue? Were they assessing aerial images or using conventional holders that never hold film flat anyway? Gosh knows what else could go wrong.

Bob Salomon
4-Sep-2019, 13:16
I'm EXTREMELY skeptical of any significant sample to sample variation among late lenses from any of the big four manufacturers. There were a handful of known design glitches per se, like with the incorrect cement used on a couple of new Schneider lenses. But consistent batch quality control seems to have been almost entirely ironed out by the mid-70's, if not even sooner. I have never personally gotten a suspect lens from any of these manufacturers. A contact printer might consider this a moot point; but I sometimes use the same lenses on multiple formats, from 8x10 clear down to 6x9 roll film backs. And it's those little negatives that need extreme sharpness because they're enlarged so much. Therefore what I'm skeptical of is not LF lens quality control, but, like Bob, the consistency of the methodology of web charts and reviews, which never seems to be explained up front anyway. Where in those charts is there the column for eye fatigue? Were they assessing aerial images or using conventional holders that never hold film flat anyway? Gosh knows what else could go wrong.

Plus most, if not all, of those tests were of a flat chart at reproduction ratios that many of the lenses were never designed for!

Drew Wiley
4-Sep-2019, 13:27
Bob, you probably remember when our main LF store around here was Adolph Gasser in downtown SF. They had a couple of experienced pro equipment salesmen back then who claimed that they had never gotten a complaint on any Fuji LF lens, and rarely on the other brands either. That was around the time Schneider was re-tooling to catch up with the more modernized mfg of Rodenstock and the Japanese.

Bob Salomon
4-Sep-2019, 13:31
Bob, you probably remember when our main LF store around here was Adolph Gasser in downtown SF. They had a couple of experienced pro equipment salesmen back then who claimed that they had never gotten a complaint on any Fuji LF lens, and rarely on the other brands either. That was around the time Schneider was re-tooling to catch up with the more modernized mfg of Rodenstock and the Japanese.

Gene Lee!

Schneider was coming out of bankruptcy.

Drew Wiley
4-Sep-2019, 13:49
I always appreciate your memory, Bob.

Michael Kadillak
4-Sep-2019, 14:07
Back to the original post. I have the Fuji 450C and several of the Nikon 450 M's and have shot both on my 8x10 Intrepid Mark II with no problem. The camera handles the Nikon lens quite easily.

On contact prints the Nikon 450 M is slightly better on contrast than the Fuji and it covers better. I use it on my V11 and my Canham 8x20 all the time with tremendous / predictable results. I feel that the Fuji is a touch sharper but on a contact print you are really splitting hairs.

Bob Salomon
4-Sep-2019, 14:11
I always appreciate your memory, Bob.

His birthday was a few days ago.

Bob Salomon
4-Sep-2019, 14:16
Bob, you probably remember when our main LF store around here was Adolph Gasser in downtown SF. They had a couple of experienced pro equipment salesmen back then who claimed that they had never gotten a complaint on any Fuji LF lens, and rarely on the other brands either. That was around the time Schneider was re-tooling to catch up with the more modernized mfg of Rodenstock and the Japanese.

Cameraswest in Concord and Rancho Mirage are also very knowledgeable on large format. They have the same owner as the Leica Store SF. Whenever I was in the Concord or Rancho Mirage stores they had large format cameras and lenses in stock.

John Kasaian
4-Sep-2019, 14:34
Or, you learned that their technique was not consistent!

Lighting, atmospheric conditions, processing, eye strength, etc. also, were all the lenses new?

Quite probably the case. When focused and carefully printed, I haven't been able to discern a noteworthy difference between any of the modern lenses.

Drew Wiley
4-Sep-2019, 15:08
The Fuji C's are outstanding for their portability (Compact series) and correction in general usage out to infinity. I have both a 450 and 600. Huge image circles. But they aren't very good for extreme closeups. I use Fuji A lenses or G-Clarons for that kind of work, which are excellent at infinity too. But the extremely rare Fuji A in 600 focal length is about as portable as a derailed box car, and there is no 450 equivalent.