Lens-type discussion ref. Nikkor-M 300

[Mark J]

Alan Klein wrote ( without the numbering ) :

"Now you have me really confused. 1. So my lens is a third variant not yet discussed. It's neither a telephoto nor a plasmat, but a Tessar.
2. What's a Tessar? (My lens is a Nikon Nikkor M 300mm F9 Copal 1 Shutter Large Format Lens on a 4x5 Chamonix 45H-1 field camera that has a max bellows draw of 350mm. ) The tables say it has a 325mm circle.
3. Isn't that that enough to prevent vignetting on a 4x5 field camera using minimum field tilting?

4. What do you mean that its slightly inferior to a apo-symmar. In what way?
5. What does 1:5 mean? "

1. There are 7 or 8 types of lenses commonly used in LF photography , and several others of specialised use, or historical.

2. This is the Tessar and its history :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar

3. For sure, 325mm is a lot bigger than 152mm ;o)

4. An Apo-Symmar is a more sophisticated design (Plasmat) with 6 elements. A 300mm version is already sharp across most of an 8x10" format by f/11 , whereas the Nikkor-M will only match it by f/16 or f/22. For close work, one rough principle in photo lenses is that the more symmetrical a lens is either side of the stop, the better it handles conjugate change, ie. focusing at different distances. The Tessar is not as symmetrical as the Apo-Symmar, so will not be quite as good at macro work, though it does depend a lot on how close you want to go.
The big problem with a Plasmat in a focal length of say 300mm, is that it's a big and heavy beast, with a Copal 3 shutter. The Nikkor-M is a more sensible choice if you're only using 4x5" format, and the camera is light. For focal lengths in the 135 to 180mm range, a Plasmat would be the obvious choice for the most coverage and versatility.

5. Close-up work is often described by the Macro ratio. Unfortunately the normal way of writing this is confusing. A set-up with 1:5 macro ratio is where the subject is 5 times bigger than the image on the film. Really the numbers would make more sesne if they were switched around, given that light travels from the subject to the image. Likewise 1:10 means the subject is 10 times bigger than the film image.
Most lenses get into some trouble when you get as close as 1:3 , which is where macro-specific designs are sharper, for critical work.


If you want a quick primer on some of the common lens types, here is a 1970's Fujinon brochure ( I couldn't find the later Nikon one ) :
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00886/00886.pdf

The 'SWD' and 'SW' lenses are 'Super-Angulon ' types
The 'W' and 'A' lenses are Plasmats
The 'L' lenses are Tessars
The 'SF' lenses are Triplets
The 'T' lenses are Telephotos

You will also find brochures from Schneider and Rodenstock on the same site, showing similar classes.
Hope this helps.

[MartyNL]

Here's another quite helpful link to aid in understanding the historical development of the photographic lens.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photographic_lens_design

[Alan Klein]

Alan Klein wrote ( without the numbering ) :

"Now you have me really confused. 1. So my lens is a third variant not yet discussed. It's neither a telephoto nor a plasmat, but a Tessar.
2. What's a Tessar? (My lens is a Nikon Nikkor M 300mm F9 Copal 1 Shutter Large Format Lens on a 4x5 Chamonix 45H-1 field camera that has a max bellows draw of 350mm. ) The tables say it has a 325mm circle.
3. Isn't that that enough to prevent vignetting on a 4x5 field camera using minimum field tilting?

4. What do you mean that its slightly inferior to a apo-symmar. In what way?
5. What does 1:5 mean? "

1. There are 7 or 8 types of lenses commonly used in LF photography , and several others of specialised use, or historical.

2. This is the Tessar and its history :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar

3. For sure, 325mm is a lot bigger than 152mm ;o)

4. An Apo-Symmar is a more sophisticated design (Plasmat) with 6 elements. A 300mm version is already sharp across most of an 8x10" format by f/11 , whereas the Nikkor-M will only match it by f/16 or f/22. For close work, one rough principle in photo lenses is that the more symmetrical a lens is either side of the stop, the better it handles conjugate change, ie. focusing at different distances. The Tessar is not as symmetrical as the Apo-Symmar, so will not be quite as good at macro work, though it does depend a lot on how close you want to go.
The big problem with a Plasmat in a focal length of say 300mm, is that it's a big and heavy beast, with a Copal 3 shutter. The Nikkor-M is a more sensible choice if you're only using 4x5" format, and the camera is light. For focal lengths in the 135 to 180mm range, a Plasmat would be the obvious choice for the most coverage and versatility.

5. Close-up work is often described by the Macro ratio. Unfortunately the normal way of writing this is confusing. A set-up with 1:5 macro ratio is where the subject is 5 times bigger than the image on the film. Really the numbers would make more sesne if they were switched around, given that light travels from the subject to the image. Likewise 1:10 means the subject is 10 times bigger than the film image.
Most lenses get into some trouble when you get as close as 1:3 , which is where macro-specific designs are sharper, for critical work.


If you want a quick primer on some of the common lens types, here is a 1970's Fujinon brochure ( I couldn't find the later Nikon one ) :
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00886/00886.pdf

The 'SWD' and 'SW' lenses are 'Super-Angulon ' types
The 'W' and 'A' lenses are Plasmats
The 'L' lenses are Tessars
The 'SF' lenses are Triplets
The 'T' lenses are Telephotos

You will also find brochures from Schneider and Rodenstock on the same site, showing similar classes.
Hope this helps.

Mark Thanks for taking the time to spell it all out. So I seem to have picked ok with my Nikkor 300m M Tessar. I'm using it for distance landscapes. I can't imagine I'll get closer than twenty feet so the 350mm bellows extension should be OK, I hope. I don't tilt a lot and probably would do it less with a telephoto anyways.

[Alan Klein]

Here's another quite helpful link to aid in understanding the historical development of the photographic lens.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photographic_lens_design

Thanks Marty.

[Mark J]

It's a good choice, Alan, and they are very popular with several people on the forum. It has slightly better performance than the Fuji 300 T, anyway. I myself have an Apo-Ronar 300 f/9 , they are another fairly light option that has four separated elements.

[Alan Klein]

Thanks. Curious if anyone is using a Nikkor M 300mm for portraits and how good it is for that? I know most people suggest 210 or 240. But I really don't want to get another lens to carry.

[Doremus Scudder]

Thanks. Curious if anyone is using a Nikkor M 300mm for portraits and how good it is for that? I know most people suggest 210 or 240. But I really don't want to get another lens to carry.

Personally, I like a bit longer lens for portraits than usually recommended. Keep in mind, though, the depth of field will be proportionally less at the same aperture with a longer lens than a shorter one. However, I like the rendering of features better with longer lenses. So, try it and see if you like it. At closer distances, Tessars can get a little soft around the edges, but that may be an advantage. Many really like Tessars for portraits.

Doremus

[PatrickMarq]

Thanks Marty.


Personally, I like a bit longer lens for portraits than usually recommended. Keep in mind, though, the depth of field will be proportionally less at the same aperture with a longer lens than a shorter one. However, I like the rendering of features better with longer lenses. So, try it and see if you like it. At closer distances, Tessars can get a little soft around the edges, but that may be an advantage. Many really like Tessars for portraits.

Doremus

If I see your portrets I understand why you like a 300mm. Never done that but yes.

[PatrickMarq]

Thanks. Curious if anyone is using a Nikkor M 300mm for portraits and how good it is for that? I know most people suggest 210 or 240. But I really don't want to get another lens to carry.

For years i’m using only 3 lenses: 90 - 150 - 300, and yes I don’t like to carry another lens with me.
But lately I see a gap between my 150 and 300 and the 90mm also is not wide enough for some architectural images.
So this means do more scouting with MF camera’s and go back with a minimal kit. Not always easy if you don’t have the time.

[Alan Klein]

For years i’m using only 3 lenses: 90 - 150 - 300, and yes I don’t like to carry another lens with me.
But lately I see a gap between my 150 and 300 and the 90mm also is not wide enough for some architectural images.
So this means do more scouting with MF camera’s and go back with a minimal kit. Not always easy if you don’t have the time.

Those three plus a 75mm. I like the 75mm and probably use it more than the 90.

[Drew Wiley]

The Nikkor M's, and their single-coated predecessor Q series, are really a little different from classic thick element tessars, and represent the endpoint of that evolutionary lineup, at least as far as large format tessars are concerned. A 300 would be really nice for 4x5 portrature; but you'll get a little different look from a Nikkor 300M than a Fuji 300 L, which was a popular portrait tessar. The M will be sharper and more contrasty, perhaps too much so for some people's taste.

[Joseph Kashi]

Personally, I like a bit longer lens for portraits than usually recommended. Keep in mind, though, the depth of field will be proportionally less at the same aperture with a longer lens than a shorter one. However, I like the rendering of features better with longer lenses. So, try it and see if you like it. At closer distances, Tessars can get a little soft around the edges, but that may be an advantage. Many really like Tessars for portraits.

Doremus


Yes, indeed. Such as Karsh and his Kodak Commercial Ektars, a Tessar-pattern lens.

[Drew Wiley]

The 450 Nikkor M has caught on with portrait photographers; but in general, I find the M series just too clinically sharp to be ideal for that application, and with less than ideal bokeh.
The older thick-element single-coated tessars might achieve more graceful results in that respect. Where these Nikkor M's excel is in very fine distinctions of hue nuance, and in being quite contrasty, and extremely sharp as long as one is not stretching the limits of the image circle too much. Great for portability and landscape usefulness. But if you have a soft backdrop to a sitter without anything busy going on behind them, a 300M should do a fine job, especially in color film if you've lowered a lighting ratio a bit. Or if you want that hard-sharp Karsh look in black and white, it would make sense. The softer Hurrell look - no.

[Mark J]

One reason the Fuji-L and also Xenars have more 'character' is because they are f/5.6 , rather than f/9 in the case of the Nikkor. Tessars are limited in their correction, being simple, so there's a steep trade-off between aperture aberrations and field aberrations when you are designing a big one at f/5.6. Going to F/9 allows better correction all round but a more clinical look, especially when you add in the later coatings.

The lens thickness is an interesting one. Having designed a few triplets and Tessars recently for training material, it seems that the Tessar benefits more from a bit of extra glass thickness than the triplet, though it's still a pretty minor improvement. On the ghosting, I haven't looked into that.