Nikkor-T 360mm / 500mm / 720m: 500mm at full aperture with 4x5 film, how good?

[Marco Annaratone]

Hi,

I would like to use the 500mm combination at full aperture (f/11) on a 4x5 camera. Can someone with practical experience with this lens tell me something about vignetting, resolution at the corners, out-of-focus behavior, range of movements, etc? I'd rather hear about actual field experience, but MTF curves may be helpful too (at f/11, of course).

Thanks!

Marco

[Willie]

500 & 720 cells in use for us. Covers 5x7 with no problem so you won't be seeing vignetting. The 720 element gives coverage to 8x10 with light falloff in the corners. Easily overcome when printing.
Have not shot them wide open so don't know about that. With the tele design I stick with rear movement, not front.

[Corran]

I always shoot these at f/22, in whatever configuration. And generally at infinity and without significant out of focus areas. I think the general consensus is that's the sweet-spot, which is only one stop down from full aperture with the 720mm. Do you need the extra 1-2 stops of light or are you specifically looking for shorter DOF?

See here for official "tests" that also confirm the above:
https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html#300mm_and_longer

A bit more info about your use-case would help. IMO better results would probably be found with a 6x7 camera, and 300mm lens set to f/6.8 or so (the equivalent in terms of focal length and DOF).

[Marco Annaratone]

A bit more info about your use-case would help. IMO better results would probably be found with a 6x7 camera, and 300mm lens set to f/6.8 or so (the equivalent in terms of focal length and DOF).

The project deals with urban environment exploration of details, B&W, very narrow DOF, 4x5, 3x enlarged to produce digital negatives to be contact printed. Use of (moderate) tilts to make OOF areas parts of the creative visual signature. Very little infinity focus is expected, subject will be 3-10 meters away. Camera has a 540mm bellows.

I am also considering the Apo-Tele-Xenar 400/5.6, because of its extremely shallow DOF.

[Bernice Loui]

Consider a Schneider 500mm f5.5 Tele Xenar, good optical performance at f5.5, by f8 near optimal optical performance, smaller than f22 optical performance begins to degrade. As for OOF rendition, vintage lenses are likely going to have more agreeable OOF due to optical design and number of aperture blades making an essentially round aperture. Modern view camera lenses are typically designed to be used a f22 with as much of the image area in focus as possible. Typical modern view camera lens will be in a Copal shutter which does not have a round aperture and might produce a less than agreeable OOF. Only way to know, you'll need to obtain GOOD examples of these lenses and test them to know if they meet your image goals.

BIG lens... needs a proper camera to support it's needs. 540mm of bellows on camera could be a limiting factor, if this is a field folder camera, consider a GOOD monorail camera (Sinar) as the good ones have NO bellows or similar limitations.

This lens could be a better choice for your image goals.

211265


Bernice


Bernice

[Corran]

I would consider a typical 240mm or 300mm f/5.6 and take another step forward. Maybe a Tele-Arton 270mm f/5.5 - I had one and it was really good wide-open - and you won't have the bellows extension to worry about.

Or perhaps a Fuji GX680 and 300mm lens (this 120 camera has tilt). Since you are doing digital negs anyway. I think trying to shoot this close with a very long lens on 4x5, even a telephoto, will be a chore.

[Drew Wiley]

Bernice - those old chrome Tele Xenars weren't fully color corrected, so not the best idea if someone has color film shooting in mind as well as b&w. My brother used em.

[EdSawyer]

I've used the Nikkor-T 360/500/720 wide open. They work well at that aperture, quite sharp. I like the 360 for half-length portraits and head shots too. They are sharper than all the 360 tele artons and tele xenars (I had all those at the same time and compared).

[Jim Andrada]

I have the 3 FL set and the lenses are surprisingly sharp at every aperture I've used. Don't specifically remember if I shot wide open, but It's an excellent set. I use them all on 5 x 7 and the 360 and 500 on 4 x 5 (Technika). Only caveat - I find it a bit challenging to focus at f/16.

Did I say they were all quite sharp?

[Marco Annaratone]

Thank you all!

It’s good to know that the Nikons work fine at full aperture. I am not looking for razor sharp lenses as I will enlarge 3x max. Having said that, sharpness does not hurt either. In fact, I may have to crop and then 3x may become 5x, who knows.

The 500mm Tele-Xenar has always been an intriguing lens for me. Huge, with its huger :-) lens-shade and a beefy Compound 5 .... maybe it is too much to carry around. But, yes, the OOF deserves somethinking. The idea was to have a small setup (I normally shoot 8x10 and 14x17). Speaking of which, where are the Fujinon-T 400mm users? I am surprised nobody mentioned it. Is it such a dog at full aperture? It certainly is light.

[Drew Wiley]

It's no dog. But it certainly wasn't engineered for full aperture usage. Nor were any of these. I'm not a tele user myself, but do know people who have had exceptional outdoor photography careers reliant on the Fuji 400T. I've seen a lot of those shots enlarged to 40X60 inches; and it was the tele of choice for some superbly published expedition work such as that of Shirahata in the Himalayas and Karakoram. Atmospheric conditions are more of a factor in tele work sharpness rather than nitipickiness over modern multicoated optics. Going non-tele with apo process lenses would be better than all the above, but of course would involve very long bellows extensions more suited to monorail work. But you seem to have certain other priorities in mind rather than sharpness per se, or even than serious weight reduction. You didn't even mention what specific camera this is for.

[aphcl84]

I can't speak for the performance of the Nikkor lenses, but I have tested a copy each of the Komura 500mm f/7 and the Fujinon T 600mm f/12. Both had similar performance, very decent wide open and both were sharper in the center when stopped down, about the same as a average plasmat. The Komura was oddly slightly softer on the corners stopped down than wide open and the Fujinon showed no visible change in the corners stopping down.

Both lenses have plenty of resolution for large prints, and I wouldn't hesitate to use either wide open.

[Jim Andrada]

I've been pretty favorably impressed by Fujinon lenses of all stripes. I use a 250mm for LF and I have a Fuji GX680 with six lenses. Just for fun I ran a series of tests comparing the Zeiss lenses on my Hasselblad with the Fujinons on the 680 - Fujinons were every bit as sharp and in some cases slightly better than the corresponding Zeiss lenses - which are excellent. I also have a Fujinon lens on one of my video cams and it's been a stellar performer.

Having said all that, the older I get the more I tend to prefer older lenses like Heliars and Dagor and late 1800's lenses. Sharpness is nice but it isn't the whole story IMHO.

[Marco Annaratone]

I've been pretty favorably impressed by Fujinon lenses of all stripes. I use a 250mm for LF and I have a Fuji GX680 with six lenses. Just for fun I ran a series of tests comparing the Zeiss lenses on my Hasselblad with the Fujinons on the 680 - Fujinons were every bit as sharp and in some cases slightly better than the corresponding Zeiss lenses - which are excellent. I also have a Fujinon lens on one of my video cams and it's been a stellar performer.

Having said all that, the older I get the more I tend to prefer older lenses like Heliars and Dagor and late 1800's lenses. Sharpness is nice but it isn't the whole story IMHO.

I could not agree more re: Fujinon lenses. I did not use many of them, one on MF and one on LF, but they were both superb lenses. That's why I have some hopes re: the Fujinon-T 400mm. Yes, absolutely, sharpness isn't the whole story.

Drew, the camera is the new Stenopeika carbon fiber 4x5 camera. Delivery end of January, review on my Youtube channel in the March time frame. It will be primarily used with a tele in the 350-500mm range. I expect most pictures to be in the 5-20m range (urban details, studio shots), so a 400mm focal length may be a safer choice (max bellows extension of the camera: 520mm).

[Bernice Loui]

Justification or telephoto view camera lenses is to reduce the front to rear standards distance (aka bellows draw) for a given focal length, trading off other optical design aspects. There is no 'free lunch".. Telephoto design LF lenses were intended for field folders were bellows draw is limited combined with a need for lightweight lenses that are desirable for ease of portability. This is why most do not have larger apertures of f8 or larger. Know most of these Tele LF lenses are designed to be best at f22 or so with full aperture being trades off for optical performance like image circle and/or other optical performance factors.

One other aspect of LF lenses, individual lens samples can vary. Web based rant-raves of a specific lens might not hold true for a given sample as it could be damaged or ? due to a long list of factors. The ideal action before commitment to ownership is to test the specific lens being considered for ownership LOTs..

One other factoid regarding LF lenses, majority of them were designed, marketed and intended for serious photographic image making. Back in the day before LF gear was widely available at low cost today. There are few if any "inferior" LF lenses made and sold back in the day due to this market reality. Fact is LF lenses from any of the big four, Nikkor, Schneider, Fujinon, Rodenstock are essentially equal in more ways than different.


Bernice





It will be primarily used with a tele in the 350-500mm range. I expect most pictures to be in the 5-20m range (urban details, studio shots), so a 400mm focal length may be a safer choice (max bellows extension of the camera: 520mm).

[Jim Andrada]

Amen

[Dan Fromm]

Telephoto design LF lenses were intended for field folders were bellows draw is limited combined with a need for lightweight lenses that are desirable for ease of portability. This is why most do not have larger apertures of f8 or larger.

Bernice, my 12"/4 TTH telephoto, ex-AGI F.139, doesn't quite agree with you. I've never tried it on 4x5, which the VM says it just covers. It seems to be the longest lens that works comfortably on a 2x3 Speed Graphic, makes infinity with the rear of the barrel inside the box. There are other aerial camera teles with more coverage and similar maximum apertures. Some are quite large and heavy.

[Bernice Loui]

What you're saying Dan is this 12"/4 TTH telephoto focuses to infinity at a short distance (less than 12") from the film plane area?
That would be 12" focal length f4 ?

In a similar way to schneider 500mm f5.5 Tele Xenar makes focus at infinity at 312mm to the film plane, 360mm f5.5 Tele Xenar makes focus at infinity at 214mm ?

Please clarify.


Bernice



Bernice, my 12"/4 TTH telephoto, ex-AGI F.139, doesn't quite agree with you. I've never tried it on 4x5, which the VM says it just covers. It seems to be the longest lens that works comfortably on a 2x3 Speed Graphic, makes infinity with the rear of the barrel inside the box. There are other aerial camera teles with more coverage and similar maximum apertures. Some are quite large and heavy.

[Dan Fromm]

What you're saying Dan is this 12"/4 TTH telephoto focuses to infinity at a short distance (less than 12") from the film plane area?
That would be 12" focal length f4 ?

Yes and yes. The lens' back focus is ~ 85 mm. I mean, it is a telephoto lens.

[Bernice Loui]

Which makes that 12" f4 TTH a tele photo lens. More extreme examples of this can be found in smaller film format lenses.

Like this Canon 1200mm f5.6 telephoto lens with a back focal distance of 44mm at infinity.
https://petapixel.com/2015/05/22/a-photographic-journey-with-the-legendary-canon-ef-1200mm-lens/


Point being ... again. Telephoto design LF lenses have a goal of reducing their back focal distance to work better with field folders and similar cameras with limited distance separation between front to rear standards of the camera (aka bellows draw) trading off other aspects of optical performance.

In the larger view of longer than normal focal length lenses, the better choice is a non telephoto design LF lens as these do not have the optical design trade off that telephoto design lenses do. APO process lenses work surprisingly well as longer than normal focal length lenses for sheet film. Which brings up the reason why the 500mm f5.5 and 360mm f5.5 tele xenar is in the lens set, they have a full aperture of f5.5. While their optical performance at f5.5 is not premium, it is absolutely good enough to produce effective images. That aspect of these f5.5 lenses justify their being here. Otherwise, the APO Ronar, APO Artar or similar stopped down to f16 - f32 is optical performance wise better than the tele xenars and likely similar LF tele design lenses. Having been and done the BIG 600mm f9/ 800mm f12 /1200mm f18 tele Nikkor in years past, the APO process lenses proved to be a better overall choice for longer than normal focal length LF lens.

If large aperture is needed, 480mm f4.5 Xenar. There were a number of HUGE lenses like this made for LF in the past. Large aperture long focal length lenses were also used for aero-recon from years gone by.


Bernice


Yes and yes. The lens' back focus is ~ 85 mm. I mean, it is a telephoto lens.