Nikon 300mm F9 M

[HughC]

Thinking about purchasing the Nikon 300 F9 M for my 4x5. Was wondering how it is to focus at f9 and will I have to compensate for bellows draw when calculating exposure.

[Kiwi7475]

It’s quite bright and easy to focus at f9 because it’s a fairly long lens. Never had issues focusing even at sunrise/sunset.

Bellows factor…. That depends on how much you draw. For infinity focus no correction is needed, regardless of focal length. Check this out for details:

https://kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/bellows.php

[Eric Woodbury]

I find mine easy to focus. It is long enough lens that there is not much loss at the ground glass.

As for compensation, same as any other lens when thought of in focal lengths to subject distance. (Not in absolute distance, but how far from lens to subject as a ratio against f = 300 mm in this case.)

[HughC]

Thanks guys for the feedback!

[Mark Sampson]

They are great lenses. I fearlessly predict that you'll be happy with yours (as I have been with mine for many years).

[Vaughan]

That lens needs ~300mm of bellows draw at infinity, plus significantly more for closer focus. Does your 4x5 camera have the extension? Most have around 290mm to 320mm, the Linhof Technika IV and later being notable exceptions with >400mm.

[HughC]

It has 350mm bellows draw so no worries.

[nolindan]

It has 350mm bellows draw so no worries.

That is going to limit how close you can get.

Magnification Ratio = Extension Length / Focal Length = 50/300 = 1/6.

So at closest focus your subject frame would be (4x5") * 6 = 24 x 30", or a generous head and shoulders shot.

You can fix this by making an extender out of a couple tin cans, some electrical tape, and hot glue; for the ultimate in, DIY make the lensboards by gluing up sheets of legal-pad cardboard.

[HughC]

Going to be using it for landscapes especially for mountains scenes.
Lots of mountains where I live.

[Larry Gebhardt]

It has 350mm bellows draw so no worries.

At full extension you should add a 1/2 stop (really .44) extra time.

[Kiwi7475]

At full extension you should add a 1/2 stop (really .44) extra time.

I thinks it is .44 more stops (log2(350/300)^2) but only (350/300)^2 = 1.36 or 36% more time.

[Alan Klein]

I have that same 300mm lens with a Chamonix 45H-1 with 350mm bellows draw. Am I correct in calculating the closest distance at 2100mm or 6.9 feet?
Is that right?

I'm having trouble with the additional stops required. Could someone give me the guidelines?

[Drew Wiley]

I just packed my 200 and 300 M's for an upcoming trip. I use them for both full 4x5 as well as 6x9 roll film backs. The 300 will also cover 8x10 if movements are minimal. No need to worry about focusing at f/9.

For closeup work, I just use an little plastic Calumet bellows calculator. You place its little target temporarily at the subject plane, focus, then measure the width of that target on the ground glass using the other piece, which tells you both the degree of magnification and how much extra exposure you need. Super simple, and works with all view camera lenses. I think someone else makes something equivalent these days. But several used Calumet ones are on EBay right now. Search "bellows calculator".

[woodlandSerenade]

Could someone give me the guidelines?

The following equation works for compensation in f-stops: Compensation=(bellows extension/focal length)*Log2

I use an emulator for an HP programmable calculator on my cellphone, so it was pretty easy to program it with the only inputs needed being the bellows extension and focal length of the lens. This equation works no matter the units you use, as long as they match (mm/mm, in/in, twip/twip).

[Drew Wiley]

It's not just the hypothetical extension, since view cameras allow for movement too, which might offset the nodal point. Then throw in tele design lenses, and yet another possible complication. There are all kinds of workarounds. Punching more batter-dependent buttons sounds the least favoriet to me.

[Kiwi7475]

I have that same 300mm lens with a Chamonix 45H-1 with 350mm bellows draw. Am I correct in calculating the closest distance at 2100mm or 6.9 feet?
Is that right?

I'm having trouble with the additional stops required. Could someone give me the guidelines?

This has it all

https://kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/bellows.php

[drew.saunders]

It has 350mm bellows draw so no worries.

Sadly, Ebony Camera's website went offline when they shut down, but here's an archive of their "Lens Compatibility Table" https://web.archive.org/web/20170615230032/http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/lenses.html

The Nikkor 300 M requires 290mm of bellows at infinity. That effectively adds 10mm to your bellows, and that adds up!

So, the math is 1/300 - 1/360 (instead of 1/350) and that gets you a close focus of 1800mm.

Movements may decrease this, plus your bellows may not really go to exactly 350mm, etc., but "about 2m" of close focus is not too bad.

[Drew Wiley]

A basic Ebony RW45 will easily handle a 360mm lens (like my Fuji 360A) if base tilts are employed, or 300 mm plus without resorting to supplemental base tilts fore and aft, simply via the extension. The more expensive triple extension Ebonys will handle even longer.

[PatrickMarq]

I have that same 300mm lens with a Chamonix 45H-1 with 350mm bellows draw. Am I correct in calculating the closest distance at 2100mm or 6.9 feet?
Is that right?

I'm having trouble with the additional stops required. Could someone give me the guidelines?

Alan,

I have this lens also with a chamonix 45F-2, never had to use additional bellow stop.

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

I have this lens also with a chamonix 45F-2, never had to use additional bellow stop.

Patrick, Regardless of how close you focused?

[PatrickMarq]

Patrick, Regardless of how close you focused?

Alan,

I don’t use this lens a lot for closeup images, so I did some measurements.
My bellows are 300mm and the closed I can focus is a distance of +/- 3meter, so for me no extra stops needed.

gr

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

I don’t use this lens a lot for closeup images, so I did some measurements.
My bellows are 300mm and the closed I can focus is a distance of +/- 3meter, so for me no extra stops needed.

gr

Thanks.

[Robert Opheim]

As said by PartrickMarq above, the Nikor M lenses are a bit soft close up. I have a 300mm and a 450mm and they are both wonderful for buildings and landscape / urban images. The 300mm does not have a great deal of coverage on 8x10 format but if you are not using a lot of movements it is great - sharp etc. The 300mm lens is small and light weight and in a modern shutter.

[tgtaylor]

If your camera isn't already equipped with it, a Fresnel will aid focusing immensely.

I'm planning on doing some wide field astrophotography with it mounted on a Toyo 45CF w/Fresnel.. The total weight of the camera with the 300-M is less than 4.5lbs – well within the 11lb weight limit of the tracker. For focusing I'm thinking of centering a bright star on the GG and fine focusing with a loupe/magnifier. Too bad that Acros II is not available in 4x5.

[Alan Klein]

My Chamonix 45H-1 4x5 camera also has an eye level reflex viewfinder that I use sometimes. It's easier to see through the Nikkor 300mm f/9 with it than through wide angle lenses.
https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/viewfinders

[xkaes]

It has 350mm bellows draw so no worries.

I use a Fujinon 300mm f8.5 on a Toko 4x5 with 360mm of extension. It's plenty bright enough, and gets me plenty close enough -- so you're all set. When I want to get any closer than that I just use a shorter lens -- which something tells me you have.

[Drew Wiley]

I hate fresnels; never use em. And on 4x5, 300mm has such a narrow angle of incidence that there is no risk of a hot spot on the GG.

How do you plan to keep your film flat during such long exposures, Tom? Vacuum holder?

[Alan Klein]

I hate fresnels; never use em. And on 4x5, 300mm has such a narrow angle of incidence that there is no risk of a hot spot on the GG.

How do you plan to keep your film flat during such long exposures, Tom? Vacuum holder?

4x5 film moves around in the holder, even new ones?

[tgtaylor]

How do you plan to keep your film flat during such long exposures, Tom? Vacuum holder?

Not right off, Drew. All of my 4x5 holders are Toyo's and I am initially going to try without modifying one to see what I get. In the meantime, I'm starting with MF wide-field astro imaging using a P645NII with autoguider. The autoguider and guide scope attaches to the camera's convenient 2d tripod socket for vertical compositions with the actual guiding done with a laptop. I'm planning on trying the 645's 150mm f3.5 and 400mm f/5.6 edif lenses as well as the 200mm f/4 67 lens to see what works best from the darkest skies I can find around here. The 67II w/200mm is well within the trackers payload limits and balances well but it lacks the 2d tripod socket or hot shoe of the 645, so I will need to figure a way of mounting the autoguider to it without having to incur the extra expense of getting the wooden grip. I have a magnifier for the 67 and just ordered a magnifier for the 645 to aid focusing on a bright star. I'm waiting for enerything to come in but will go out starting this weekend, weather permitting, to see how the tracker performs without the autoguider.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, hope it turns out fruitful. Sounds fun. If it were me I'd chicken out and do what so many other widefield photographers have done before - use my P67 300EDIF lens on a smaller camera less vibration prone. But, prior to digital capture taking over much of that, they used P67's with vacuum backs adapted to 220 film, without any intervening paper backing, which is itself next to impossible to get today. I think someone in the club was privately respooling TMX100 from 120 rolls. There are entire web forums dedicated to amateur astrophotography. Interesting stuff; but not my calling. Their idea of a "tripod" might cost $40,000 by itself. Sometimes I've run into them up on the ridgeline of the White Mtn in the Bristlecones up around 10,000 ft, with even huge amateur reflector scopes towed in their dedicated trailers.

The 200 P67 lens in nowhere near as well corrected for these (or other) applications as the 300 and 400 EDIF's, which purposely don't even have a hard stop at ordinary infinity. I'm just about to give my 300 a good workout along the mountains. Sometimes with a deep red filter, it's important to use the eyepiece magnifier with red, and not trust the infinity mark. Hopefully, I won't encounter all the haze and residual forest fire smoke like last time, so can work with just a 22 deep orange instead (daylight work). Hoping to take advantage of some clouds and cooler weather before any potential Fed Govt shutdown interferes, just in case I want to spend an afternoon up around Tioga Pass before heading further south on 395.

I'll have along a 4x5 too, plus a set of Nikkor M lenses. The 300M is optically superior to even the superb Pentax 300 EDIF, and has the same angle of view on a roll film back, with the advantage of movements when those are called for. But for quick infinity work, especially in wind or rain, the P67 tele system is the ticket.

The rotating lens collar mount to the 300EDIF really helps stabilize it if directly attached to a solid platform, and the bit of extra mass of a wooden handle also helps, though I use that handle more like insurance to reduce the risk of dropping a heavier lens setup like that. I have no experience with the even bigger 400EDIF, which wouldn't pack well in my own carry system.

I also have a high quality Nikon F mount adapter for my P67 300, but so far have only used it for a bit of fun wildlife shooting.

[Doremus Scudder]

4x5 film moves around in the holder, even new ones?

Alan,

If you take some time next time when loading your holder, you can see that you can move the film around a bit along the short axix with your fingertip; the fit can't be too tight or you wouldn't be able to load the holder. After closing the flap, the same is true along the long axis. Take a loaded holder and shake it around next to your ear. You'll be able to hear the film moving around.

So, it's always a good idea to tap the bottom of your holder (whichever side that is, long or short) against the palm of your hand just before inserting it in the camera to "seat" the film so it doesn't shift during exposure.

If you don't, and use longer exposure times, the film can slip down during exposure resulting is an overlapping double image. (Don't ask me how I know...)

And, if you point the camera down significantly (think photographing a floor), the film can bow out present a curved surface to the lens.

Astrophotographers, who use really, really long exposures often ensure against film movement by using adhesives or a vacuum holder. As the film format gets larger, these problems become worse, but don't think 4x5 film is immune.

However, if you tap your holders and take reasonable care, then you shouldn't have problems.

Best,

Doremus

[Mark J]

I'm just confused about how you're going to do astrophotography, on film, with a lens that starts at f/9 and isn't properly sharp till at least f/16 ? ....

[tgtaylor]

See https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/436086-large-format-astrophotography/ for example.

I also have a 300mm f5.6 Nikkor-W which weighs in at 1250gms. The combined weight would still be within payload limit of the tracker so I'll definitely try that lens also. Both lenses have wide 8x10 image circles so on 4x5 film you are recording the centermost portion of that circle and doesn't need to be stopped down, just focused correctly. At least that is what I am thinking at the moment.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah; but will your field camera front standard hold that load stable without vibration? Besides, I think you'd find a Nikkor M or especially some process lens to be much better corrected. The best "tele" photographer I ever knew in a technical sense used a 360/9 Apo Nikkor graphics lens on a heavy Toyo 8X10 camera, with either a P67 or some kind of Nikon 35mm camera at the film plane. I have one of those lenses, and no general-purpose plasmat comes close. In fact, you'd achieve optimization with the process variety as wide as f/11, while you'd need to be even further down with a draft horse size 360 f/5.6 plasmat.

It's fun to tinker. But since the 300 EDIF P67 comes into its own critically even as wide as f/4, you're looking at a tremendous difference in exposure times.

[Mark J]

I never tried larger-format Astro myself, but back in the day when I was mad keen about astronomy and just getting into optical design ( mid-80's ) , the standard approach for that was to get a Kodak Aero-Ektar and use it at about f/4. Then there was hydrogen-soaking Tech Pan to increase its sensitivity...... !

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

If you take some time next time when loading your holder, you can see that you can move the film around a bit along the short axix with your fingertip; the fit can't be too tight or you wouldn't be able to load the holder. After closing the flap, the same is true along the long axis. Take a loaded holder and shake it around next to your ear. You'll be able to hear the film moving around.

So, it's always a good idea to tap the bottom of your holder (whichever side that is, long or short) against the palm of your hand just before inserting it in the camera to "seat" the film so it doesn't shift during exposure.

If you don't, and use longer exposure times, the film can slip down during exposure resulting is an overlapping double image. (Don't ask me how I know...)

And, if you point the camera down significantly (think photographing a floor), the film can bow out present a curved surface to the lens.

Astrophotographers, who use really, really long exposures often ensure against film movement by using adhesives or a vacuum holder. As the film format gets larger, these problems become worse, but don't think 4x5 film is immune.

However, if you tap your holders and take reasonable care, then you shouldn't have problems.

Best,

Doremus

I have Chamonix 4x5 wooden ones. (I think they've replaced the 4x5s with plastic type). In any case, I shook and did not feel anything moving around. It was solid. Of course, the dark slides were still in as I have film in all my holders. Could it be that the end piece that folds down when closing up after loading film presses the end of the film to the plate preventing movement? I'll check with the manufacturer.
https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/filmholders

[xkaes]

I've used my Toko 4x5" camera with a home-made STAR TRACKER -- from Jim Ballard's book by the same name. Works pretty good for any format camera. I think the longest exposure I did was about 30 minutes. I've never used a long lens, however -- only wide-angles, in part to get some landscape in the scene. With a 300mm, the longest exposure without any star-streaks would be a LOT shorter.

https://www.diyphotography.net/how-to-make-a-30-diy-star-tracker-for-astrophotography/

[Drew Wiley]

With astro photography, fluctuations in sheet film plane are inevitable over such long exposures unless a vac system is used. In former decades, the earlier version of TMax 100 was still available in glass plates for such purposes.

Precise amateur widefield photography is still important for things like like comet and planetoid hunting, to help the big boys know where to aim their big toys. And I'd imagine its an awfully fun hobby in its own right.

[Alan Klein]

I have Chamonix 4x5 wooden ones. (I think they've replaced the 4x5s with plastic type). In any case, I shook and did not feel anything moving around. It was solid. Of course, the dark slides were still in as I have film in all my holders. Could it be that the end piece that folds down when closing up after loading film presses the end of the film to the plate preventing movement? I'll check with the manufacturer.
https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/filmholders

Here's their answer:
Not necessary unless you find your film moving inside. I use Chamonix wooden 45 film holders all the time and never have the issue of film moving inside the holders.

[tgtaylor]

I've used my Toko 4x5" camera with a home-made STAR TRACKER -- from Jim Ballard's book by the same name. Works pretty good for any format camera. I think the longest exposure I did was about 30 minutes. I've never used a long lens, however -- only wide-angles, in part to get some landscape in the scene. With a 300mm, the longest exposure without any star-streaks would be a LOT shorter.

https://www.diyphotography.net/how-to-make-a-30-diy-star-tracker-for-astrophotography/

I'm using an iOptron tracker equipped with a zwo autoguider and phd2 so very long exposures of several hours are possible. The tracker allows for slow motion adjustments in right ascension so you can reposition the guide star when the eventual tracking error starts to creep in. Everything is mounted on a very stable Gitzo G1500 series-5 tripod which I can shield from wind with a golf umbrella when necessary. I'm thinking about getting a small tent/shelter to house the set-up in during long exposures and I need dew heaters that fit the camera lenses. Film is Fuji Acros II and Kodak Ektar for prints and Kodak Ektachrome E100 for slides to project. The 35mm and 6x7 projector lenses are threaded for filters but the 150 Rollie Heidosmat lens is not so I need to figure out a way to install a ccc filter on that lens to project color-corrected slides.