300mm f/9 nikkor-m vs 300mm f/9 nikkor-q

[Adam Kavalunas]

I will be purchasing a 300mm lens soon and was planning on getting either the fuji 300mm f/8.5 C, or the 300mm f/9 nikkor-M. But while perusing KEH, i saw a listing for a 300mm f/9 nikkor-Q. Can anyone tell what the difference is between the M and Q lenses? I've read in a few posts that the Q was the predecessor to the M, but not much was said about their differences. Is the Q multicoated? Is the M a significant improvement over the Q? Thanks for all your help.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Very different lenses. The "Q" is a dialyte/artar type lens (much like the Fujinon I think) while the "M" is a tessar. Both should be good lenses, but all things equal but I would go for the M if for no other reason then it is Multi-coated (the Q is not) and designed as a taking lens (the Q is a repro-lens). Both lenses should cover 4x5 and 5x7 fine, but for 8x10 the Q will be right on the edge while the M will cover a bit more.

[Michael S. Briggs]

JG, what is the basis for your statement that the f9 Nikkor-Q lenses are dialyte designs? The common belief has been that they are tessar types, just like the Nikkor-M. All that the "Q" for Quad designation tells us is that the lens has 4 glass elements -- it doesn't indicate how many groups the lens has. Photos I have seen of the f9 Nikkor-Q lenses on eBay have looked very much like the Nikkor-M -- I think a dialyte would be somewhat longer. The photos have all shown lenses in shutters, so I think they were sold that way, and are probably not repro lenses.

Kerry Thalmann in his article on LF Nikkors in the March/April 2003 issue of View Camera states that the f9 Nikkor-Qs are single-coated tessars.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Well now that you mention it...

I may well be spreading misinformation; however I had a 300mm Nikkor-Q which was definitely a dialyte type repro lens in barrel. However, I wonder now if it was a f/10 not an f/9. Memory already fading and I haven't even hit 40...

jason

[Michael S. Briggs]

There was a f10 Nikkor in barrel for the repro trades. The full name was the Process-Nikkor. I think early versions were also labeled Nikkor-Q. The lens used four air-spaced elements, but it wasn't a dialyte/artar design. The coverage is higher. These lenses can be recognized by the extreme curvature of the outer elements. AFAIK, the longest focal length was 260 mm, so between the aperture, shutter, and focal length, a different lens from the 300 mm Nikkor-Q that Adam is asking about.

[Ted Harris]

Just ti stire the pot a bit why are you limiting yourself to those two lenses? Assuming you want to stay relatively light and small you also have the absolutely superb 300mm Fujinon A ( a used copy is available now from Jum at Midwest for ~ 700) and the 305 G Claron ... both in #1 shutters.

[Dan Fromm]

Michael, I have a 260/10 Nikkor-Q that seems to be identical to the Process-Nikkor you mentioned. It is a 4/4 double Gauss type.

Cheers,

[Stephen Lorber]

The 300mm f 9 Nikkor-M and the 300mm f 9 Nikkor-Q are the same lens with the M having updated cosmetics, that is a newer version of the Copal shutter. They have exactly the same specs and are both multi coated Tessar type lenses. Neither the M or the Q have anything to do with Nikon process lenses. How do I know this? I called Nikon and asked a technical advisor to look them up for me. He also informed me that Nikon never made any large format lenses that were not multi coated and they would not be distributing large format or enlarging lenses in the US any longer. They have dropped all their 35mm SLR cameras except for the F-6 as well. Since the 300mm M is bringing well over $500 on eBay I bought a 300mm Q from KEH for $399. At least I can send it back if it's a dog.

[john borrelli]

Hi Steven, Kerry Thalmann wrote an excellent review of Nikon lenses for View Camera magazine (March/April 2003). He alludes to a Nikkor Q series which he dates to the late 1960s or early 1970s. He also states these lenses were single coated and came in the earlier chrome ring copal shutter. There are other specifics mentioned as well but this seems to be the lens you are describing. I am a beginner myself so take my opinion with a grain of salt but I think the main differrence between your lens and the latest 300mm Nikon will be the lens coatings. I have used 35 mm lenses of this vintage and although the lenses were not technically "single coated" (as the lens rep you talked with seemed to suggest) the coatings are much simpler coatings than on modern multi-coated lenses, and so people generally refer to these lenses as single coated. My experiences, atleast with older 35 mm lenses from this time period (even those of simple four element construction), were that contrast seemed a little lower particularly noticeable with color films. However, I was also interested in this KEH lens and was tracking it as well as a used 300mm Rodenstock Geronar lens offerred by Badger at the time. I would be very interested in hearing about your experiences with the lens and I am sure other members of the forum would be as well. All the best, John

[scheinfluger_77]

I realize this is an ancient thread, but one of these has popped up on ebay. And it looks like a convertible. It has two scales on the aperture for 300 & 450. The full name on the lens is; "Nikkor-Q 1:9 f=300mm Nipon Kogaku Japan no. 903273". Copal #3 w/silver ring, $350 and looks clean. I'd include a link but someone might get grumpy.

[karl french]

They sold either the 300 or the 450 in barrel. You could use either with that shutter/aperture scale. It's not a convertible.

[scheinfluger_77]

Darn, I had such high hopes. What is your opinion of the price?

[Dan Fromm]

I took a look at the listing. 281889351388

Counting reflections in the listing's images is just possible. The first and second images don't clearly show the four strong reflections a tessar type's front cell would have. The third shot, though, seems to show the two strong, one weak reflections a tessar type's rear cell would have.

Until proven otherwise the lens is a tessar type (so a tessar type Apo Nikkor = Nikkor-M) that has been reshuttered. Tessar types aren't convertible.

As for the price, I dunno. How much have 300/9 Nikkors sold for recently?

[karl french]

It has NOT been re-shuttered. This is the original way this lens was presented. I've owned both the 300 and 450mm versions of this lens in these great older Copal 3 shutters. It's exactly the same lens as as a Nikkor-M 300mm f9, though perhaps with different coatings.

[scheinfluger_77]

As for the price, I dunno. How much have 300/9 Nikkors sold for recently?

From what I've seen recently a 300mm anything is pricing at 450-500 start, but nothing seems to sell at that price.

Update: Just located 3 300 M's that sold on eBay since October; $320, $400 and $450. I'm thinking $350 for the Q might be a touch steep.

[Dan Fromm]

It has NOT been re-shuttered. This is the original way this lens was presented. I've owned both the 300 and 450mm versions of this lens in these great older Copal 3 shutters. It's exactly the same lens as as a Nikkor-M 300mm f9, though perhaps with different coatings.

Interesting. But why the second scale if the lens is a tessar type?

[karl french]

As I said above. Nikon sold both the 300 & 450 Q lenses in barrel. You could by one in a shutter, then later add the other in barrel and proceed to use it in the shutter you already had. Also, if it was a convertible the max aperture of the converted lens would clearly not be the same as the whole lens.

[Dan Fromm]

As I said above. Nikon sold both the 300 & 450 Q lenses in barrel. You could by one in a shutter, then later add the other in barrel and proceed to use it in the shutter you already had. Also, if it was a convertible the max aperture of the converted lens would clearly not be the same as the whole lens.

Thanks for the explanation. So then both (300, 450) go in a #3 and Nikon offered either in a shutter with the aperture scaled for both?

They're not convertible, I should have been clearer.

[karl french]

It was short lived I think, because you also see a fair number of Nikkor-Q 300/9 lens in the old style Copal 1. I can see why people wondered what the point of having such a small lens in a big shutter was, when really only the 450 needed the Copal 3. When I got back into shooting 8x10 in 2010 I picked up one of these 300/9 lenses like this. It was a real pleasure to use. I love the old style Copal 3 shutters and the lens barrel/quality of engraving/general feel of the old Nikon large format lenses is great. Sort of regret getting rid of it, but the Fujinon C 300/8.5 does more in the same size package as the modern Nikkor M 300/9.

[scheinfluger_77]

Thanks for the information Karl. When you say "the Fujinon C 300/8.5 does more" I presume you mean more than the Nikkor-q under discussion. Do you mean the 300 C has a larger image circle, or something else? Thanks again.

[karl french]

Yes. They are the same size physically, but the Fuji throws a bigger, more useful image circle. They both have a very nice image quality to them, but I kept running into the edges of the Nikon's image circle, so I went back to my Fujinon C 300.

[Taylor Bright]

While trying to find some information about the Nikkor-Q 300mm f/9, I found an old Nikon sales manual (https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01041/01041.pdf) that finally gave me some answers (really I was just trying to find out if I could get a cheap(er) 300mm.) First, let me make clear we are talking about the version that sits in a Copal 1 and not the convertible which sits in a Copal 3. I don't know definitively if that is the same lens or not.

A poster said that Kerry Thalmann wrote that he thought the lens was introduced in late '60s or early '70s based on the "Q" designation. The "Q" represents "Quatour" originally (https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00765/00765.pdf) - the designation reserved for four-element lenses (in this case a Tessar.) While the convertible may have been earlier, I believe the Copal-1 version came about in 1977. A Nikon sales guide from that year says they are offering a "new" series of large-format lenses. Included in this is the Nikkor-Q in Copal 1. All of the large format lenses are pictured with a chrome-ring Copal shutter. And the 300mm was not the only one to keep the old alphabetic designations. The Super Wide Angles lenses kept the "O" designation - though not the wide, which were given a "W" designation.

It has also been surmised that the coating is either single or an older inferior coating to the M. But, the literature from 1977 says that all of their lenses were coated using the Nikon Integrated Coating (NIC). They wouldn't change the coating until they went to Super Integrated Coatings (SIC) in 2000. So, that means the coating of the pre-2000 M would be the same as the Q.

In that same sales manual (attached), the specs of the Nikkor-Q are the same as the Nikkor-M with the exception of the weight which is .3 oz. lighter than the M. Interestingly, the manual lists the Q as designed for 8x10 (which I know is a great debate here.) In 1982, Nikon revamped the lineup, adding the "new" M series (http://www.galerie-photo.com/manuels/nikkor-lenses-for-large-format%20cameras.pdf). Here we get the M in an all-black Copal 1 and the lettering moved to the outside of the barrel (similar to what Fuji had done.)

So, to answer this question from 13 years ago, I believe the Q and the M are the same lenses except for a more modern shutter and lettering. It is also possible that a post-2000 M would have the Super Integrated coatings rather than the Nikon Integrated Coatings that the Q and older M lenses have.

I've linked to where I've found, but if you don't want to download a 121-page PDF, I've attached the spec chart of the Q and the large-format page. I hope this helps any other consumer who may be looking for a bargain in a 300mm lens.

188771188773

[Drew Wiley]

Convertible or just not the original shutter? Did they ever make a convertible tessar? Sounds fishy.

[B.S.Kumar]

It's not a "convertible" lens us usually understood. They're just two sets of lens cells that can use the same shutter (with different aperture scales, obviously).

Kumar

[karl french]

Exactly. Both aperture scales are printed on the shutter.