Nikkor 120mm f5.6 AM ED Macro: Optimal Range, vs. Optimal Magnification

[neil poulsen]

I've been reading about the Nikkor 120mm f5.6 MA ED Macro lens, and I know that its optimal magnification is 1:1. However, what is its optimal range.

By way of example, I have a Rodenstock 240mm Apo-Rodagon, which is actually an enhanced version of an Apo Ronar. Rodenstock literature indicates that its optimal magnification is 1:1, and that there is no detectable difference in the range 3:1 and 1:3.

I was wondering if there's a similar range specification for the Nikon lens? Searching online, I was unable to find one.

[xkaes]

I suspect it's probably in some Nikon literature somewhere, but most of the lenses I've seen that are designed for !:! are considered to be optimal in the 1:5 to 5:1 range. Either way, it's quite a wide range.

[Mark J]

These are a bit longer in optical construction than eg. a G-Claron,so I'd suggest 3:1 to 1:3 for critical use, this would be more at wider apertures, and when stopped down probably more, 1:5 to 5:1 as xkaes says.
I have the patent somewhere, if I can find it I'll see if there's anything more said. The Nikon LF brochure doesn't give a range.

[Mark Sampson]

I do recall reading that the 120AM-ED does not cover 4x5 at infinity. But the page of Nikon LF info is not all that informative.

[xkaes]

I can't speak to the 120mm coverage at infinity, but there are lots of macro/process lenses designed for large format cameras that don't cover 4x5 at infinity -- because that's not what they were designed to do -- but at their intended magnification range, they do!

[Andre Noble]

It supposedly makes an APO quality 2x enlarging lens for 4x5 negatives. I haven't tried it that way yet.

[Mark J]

Yes, these lenses ( also the Apo Macro Symmar HM and the Apo Macro Sironar ) are the same element count and very similar overall design to the rare Apo El-Nikkor lenses, albeit optimised for a lower mag.

[MAubrey]

The angle of view listed for the lens is 55°. If that's right, then its image circle coverage at infinity would be ~124.8mm

[Sal Santamaura]

It supposedly makes an APO quality 2x enlarging lens for 4x5 negatives. I haven't tried it that way yet.

I have. It doesn't. Even at a "whole plate" print size, one can see softening at the extreme corners. I've since settled on a 150mm f/8 Apo-Germinar W to enlarge 4x5 negatives.

[Mark J]

Interesting, that suggests it's inferior to the Schneider Makro-Symmar 120.

[JMO]

I have a pdf of the Nikon LF lens brochure from 2004 that says the Nikkor-AM ED 120mm f/5.6 lens has an image circle of 210mm at f 5.6, and 250mm at f22.

[Steve Goldstein]

I have a pdf of the Nikon LF lens brochure from 2004 that says the Nikkor-AM ED 120mm f/5.6 lens has an image circle of 210mm at f 5.6, and 250mm at f22.

I have the same brochure in PDF. It doesn't explicitly say so, but the image circle numbers are based on 1:1 magnification. The spec table gives a 55 degree f/22 angle of coverage; plugging this into the formula for image circle at infinity gives a 125mm image circle. Nikon says 250mm, which can only be correct at 1:1 as the image circle at 1:1 is twice that at infinity.

Of course, this doesn't address the OP's original question about the range of "optimum performance".

Regarding MarkJ's comment in post 7, Rodenstock's literature says the 120mm and 180mm Apo-Macro-Sironar have 6 elements in 4 groups, so the design differs from the Nikkor-AM (he is correct that Schneider's Makro-Symmar is an 8-element design). The Apo-Macro-Sironar's 1:1 coverage is 336mm, significantly more than the Nikkor-AM's 250mm.

I have no info on the Apo-El-Nikkor so can't say whether the Nikkor AM is or isn't similar.

[Mark J]

I must look into the Macro Sironar data, I had not realised that it might only be 6 elements. The Schneider's are.
The Apo El-Nikkor is 8 elements and the central doublets have a fluor-crown for special levels of colour correction.

The image circles are usually quoted for the most flattering mag, which is 1:1

[Oren Grad]

From Rodenstock literature that I have:

Macro-Sironar(-N) (210mm, 300mm) is 6 elements/4 groups, performance specified for range 1:3 - 3:1 with cell interchange.

Apo-Macro-Sironar (120mm, 180mm) cross-section not provided, but performance specified for range 1:5 - 2:1 with no cell interchange needed.

[Mark J]

What's the part about cell interchange ?
Have you got a link to the brochure ?

[Oren Grad]

What's the part about cell interchange ?

From the brochure re the 210 and 300:

"The front and rear components of the six-element Macro-Sironar-N are removable and interchangeable. In its normal configuration the lens yields excellent definition at reproduction scales between about 1:3 and 1:1. With the elements interchanged, the optical system yields the same optimum definition in the range from 1:1 and 3:1. Memory aid symbols on each side of the mount indicate the scale range for each configuration."

Here's a current eBay listing that clearly shows the "memory aid symbols":

https://www.ebay.com/itm/296339796028

Here's a link I just found to the dedicated brochure for the later 120/180 Apo-Macro-Sironar - evidently those are asymmetrical 6/4 designs as well:

https://nielspn.dk/files/apo-macro-sironar.pdf

[xkaes]

It's the same as reversing the lens, which lots of macro lenses recommend doing once you pass 1:1. If the lens has a symmetrical design, reversal is irrelevant.

[Oren Grad]

It's the same as reversing the lens...

It is indeed reversing the lens, just with the convenience of being able to leave the lensboard-mounted shutter as is.

[neil poulsen]

It supposedly makes an APO quality 2x enlarging lens for 4x5 negatives. I haven't tried it that way yet.

I was wondering about that, because the 120mm AM ED has some similar design and glass elements as the Apo El Nikkor enlarging lenses.

[neil poulsen]

I have a pdf of the Nikon LF lens brochure from 2004 that says the Nikkor-AM ED 120mm f/5.6 lens has an image circle of 210mm at f 5.6, and 250mm at f22.

Thank you for this information.

[neil poulsen]

I have the same brochure in PDF. It doesn't explicitly say so, but the image circle numbers are based on 1:1 magnification. The spec table gives a 55 degree f/22 angle of coverage; plugging this into the formula for image circle at infinity gives a 125mm image circle. Nikon says 250mm, which can only be correct at 1:1 as the image circle at 1:1 is twice that at infinity.

Of course, this doesn't address the OP's original question about the range of "optimum performance".

Regarding MarkJ's comment in post 7, Rodenstock's literature says the 120mm and 180mm Apo-Macro-Sironar have 6 elements in 4 groups, so the design differs from the Nikkor-AM (he is correct that Schneider's Makro-Symmar is an 8-element design). The Apo-Macro-Sironar's 1:1 coverage is 336mm, significantly more than the Nikkor-AM's 250mm.

I have no info on the Apo-El-Nikkor so can't say whether the Nikkor AM is or isn't similar.

Thanks Steve; this is indeed informative.

I need to review lens formulas. Asking rhetorically, one thing that interests me: how large an area in the subject can I cover and still have optimal performance? For example, at f22, it should be about 20"x25". (At least I can still multiply. :) )

[neil poulsen]

One project I anticipate for this lens is photographing all 72 fishing flies that my uncle tied as part of his business. He co-owned Poulsen Brothers Fly and Fishing Tackle, Inc. that evolved into Poulsen-Cascade in the Pacific NW. He tied a complete set of all his flies for each of his nephews, and I want to document these flies using my P45+ digital back. This 120mm AM ED lens should be ideal for that purpose.

[xkaes]

I'm no fly fishing expert, but I assume photographing flies on 4x5" would generally be in the realm of 5X. Am I in the ball park or way off base?

[Tin Can]

Good idea!


One project I anticipate for this lens is photographing all 72 fishing flies that my uncle tied as part of his business. He co-owned Poulsen Brothers Fly and Fishing Tackle, Inc. that evolved into Poulsen-Cascade in the Pacific NW. He tied a complete set of all his flies for each of his nephews, and I want to document these flies using my P45+ digital back. This 120mm AM ED lens should be ideal for that purpose.

[MAubrey]

I'm no fly fishing expert, but I assume photographing flies on 4x5" would generally be in the realm of 5X. Am I in the ball park or way off base?

A Phase One P45+ digital back is a ~49x37mm CCD sensor, so 1:1 or 2:1 is probably more likely.

[xkaes]

So a P45+ isn't anything close to 4x5, right? Maybe they should have named it the P45-.

[Drew Wiley]

P645 minus. Smaller than the smallest 120 format. We're speaking of centimeters here, not inches. But at only 1:1 or 1:2, there are a number of other close-range corrected lenses which should do well, like a 135 Componon in shutter, or 150 G-Claron, or 180 Fujinon A. But if one can afford the specialized 120 AM ED, why not?

[Rod Klukas]

Phase P45 is 37x49. I believe