305 apo-nikkor question

[Joseph O'Neil]

Has anybody here acutally used a 305mm, f9 apo-nikkor on 8x10? If so, what was it like - coverage and such?

I spent a morning on google and on here searching, found a million comments, and comparisons to other process lenses, but perhaps just my luck, nobody who has actually said they used this lens on 8x10.

I found one interesting web page:
http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/apo/apo240.html

the lens you see there is the exact same style as mine, except it is the 240mm. The stats there say a pretty hefty image circle, but that is also for 1:1 work, not infinity, if I read it correctly.

thanks
joe

[Dan Fromm]

Joe, I have some old Nikon data sheets on Apo Nikkors. Naturally they don't mention your lens. But they do say, a propos of "Symmetrical Type Apo Nikkors" (that's yours): "The lenses will give a wide effective picture angle (about 46 degrees) for their long focal length." That's wide relative to "asymmetrical type Apo Nikkors," doesn't mean that dialyte type Apo Nikkors are wide angle lenses. Nikon made two types of Apo Nikkors, tessar types (asymmetrical) and dialyte types (symmetrical, and this means symmetrical, not sort of symmetrical).

f=305, angle covered = 46 degrees ==> circle covered at infinity = 260 mm. Y'r lens is not a strong candidate to be a taking lens on 8x10 unless you don't care a lot about image quality in the corners.

Akiyan gives an image circle of 410 mm for the 240/9 Apo Nikkor, also a dialyte type. As you guessed, this is at 1:1. The image circle at 1:1 is twice the image circle at infinity, so that lens covers 205 mm at infinity. (305/240)*205 = 260. And now you know another way to reason from the known coverage of a lens to the coverage of another made to the same design.

Cheers,

Dan

[Turner Reich]

I have a 305mm and a 360mm Apo Nikkor, haven't use them or even mounted them on a board yet. I would guess that the only way to tell is to use them. They are in barrels of course.

[Dan Fromm]

TR, when I sold my spare 305/9 to Joe, I think I told him that Adam Dau of SKGrimes has told me that the 305's cells were a direct fit in a #1. And I think that I suggested he check this with Adam. I never dared try to extract either of my 305s' cells.

I gather that he hasn't asked. Why don't you ask and report back?

Cheers,

Dan

[Turner Reich]

I believe I did and they would need work to put them in. The Copal #1 is a good choice for the 305 and the Copal #3 is a good choice for the 360.

For 8x10 coverage the 360 will at infinty the 305 probably not.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Hi guys;
While I have a couple of spare shutters lying around, I also have a small collection of process lenses, in barrel only, I've collected over the past few years, everything from apo-ronars to RD artars to some "no-name" lenses from companies like Wray and Brown Mfg. Technically my two g-clarons are process lenses too, but I bought them already mounted in shutters.

Instead of having them all mounted, one by one, and breaking the piggy bank, my great "master plan" (aside from world domination :) ), is an idea I saw on this board first, where you mount a packard shutter and them make adapter plates with the lenses on them that you can just attach to the front of the packard.

For example, on a smaller scale, I front mounted a 8.25" RD artar on a #3 shutter from an old Wollensak 75mm ossiscope (spelling?) lens, and it works great.

I will get around to eventually trying most of the lenses I think might cover 8x10, but looking at the cost of a sheet a film, just wanted to know if it was a complete waste of time or not before spending the $$$. I'm cheap that way. :D

If the 305mm stopped down proves it can cover 8x10 - even just barely, with no movements, I'll be happy. From the few process lenses I have experimented with, aside from the g-clarons, most of them seem to have only a 45 to 50 degree coverage or image circle. For example, my 8.25" inch RD artar - which is about 209mm, just barely covers 4x5.

But looking long term at some of the neat alternate processes out there, I am thinking, a tiny bit of light cutoff might look kinda cool on a contact printed 8x10. At least, form looking at some other work I have seen.
thanks


joe

[Dan Fromm]

Joe, Nikon's coverage claims are very conservative and what working LF photographers mean by "covers" is very elastic. Try the thing out, it may meet your standards. I suspect it will illuminate the corners of 8x10. The question that only you can answer is whether the image it puts in the corners is sharp enough for your purposes.

I very much like your idea of front-mounting process lenses. None of the mine is in shutter, they all fit adapters that fit a #1 or stay in the drawer.

But since I shoot 2x3 I need much less coverage than you do. If I were you, though, I'd try hanging lenses in front of the largest Ilex or Betax I could find instead of using a Packard. Not because there's much wrong with using a Packard, but because an Ilex or Betax in good order will give somewhat better timed relatively short exposures, for situations where you want to use f/16 or f/22.

And one of them mounted close to the lens might be big enough. An Ilex #5's iris opens to 2.525", so that shutter probably wouldn't vignette badly, if at all, hung right behind an f/10 lens no longer than around 25". Worth trying, I think.

Cheers,

Dan

[Drew Wiley]

SK Grimes has a track record of mounting the 305 Apo-Nikkor in shutter, so they're
obviously used from time to time in camera. I use one on a cold-light enlarger for 8X10
and would imagine the coverage to be ample for camera use. The more relevant question would be infinity performance, since these lenses were manufactured for
specific magnifications.

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, I shoot a 305/9 Apo Nikkor at distance on a 2x3 Speed Graphic. It is a great lens at least centrally at infinity from f/9 down. Same goes for my 420/9 and 480/9 Apo Nikkors, both dialyte types too.

That said, the Nikon data sheet says that "The highest sharpness will be attained when the aperture us stopped down by 2-3 stops from the maximum." And "When the aperture is reduced by two stops, a uniformly bright image area will be obtained without vignetting at the corners of the image field." And "Note: When a particularly high resolution is requiared,it is not recomended to use the lens with the diaphragm stopped down too far, otherwise the increased diffraction will result in lowering of the resolution."

The data sheet says of the symmetrical type Apo-Nikkors "The lenses are also suitable for work, where no distortion is permissible at a reproduction ratio close to full size. On the other hand, since the lenses give an excellent image, for a wide picture angle at infinite distance as well as in enlarging work, they can also be utilized for a large size camera or an enlarger."

Cheers,

Dan

[John Jarosz]

Hi Dan,

Not to hijack this thread, but does your sheets have Image Circles for the 305, 420 and 480 Apo-Nikkors?

Thanks John

[Turner Reich]

While I have a couple of spare shutters lying around, I also have a small collection of process lenses, in barrel only, I've collected over the past few years, everything from apo-ronars to RD Artars to some "no-name" lenses from companies like Wray and Brown Mfg. Technically my two g-clarons are process lenses too, but I bought them already mounted in shutters.

Instead of having them all mounted, one by one, and breaking the piggy bank, my great "master plan" (aside from world domination ), is an idea I saw on this board first, where you mount a Packard shutter and them make adapter plates with the lenses on them that you can just attach to the front of the Packard

I think your idea is fine, it's just too costly to have them put in shutters. By the time you buy the shutter, have it mounted, a scale made, and shipping it would have to be a very rare lens to have Grimes do the job. They do fantastic work but to put a one to two hundred dollar lens in a thousand dollar mount just isn't logical for an average person.

[Drew Wiley]

Since I have a whole set of Apo-Nikkors mounted on Sinar boards (which my biggest
enlarger accepts) I should probably just take a peek through the camera sometime.
The 720 especially intrigues me as a possible portrait lens for 8X10, with its multibladed
aperture and shallow field. Might make a nice complement to my 14" Kern Dagor, which
I like for full-body shots. On the enlarger itself the 305 is very very sharp right out to
the corners. And I use a 240 for making 8X10 internegs and interpositives from 4x5
film, along with a vaccum holder. Great except when the speed of a larger aperture is the priority, like when printing Cibas.

[Dan Fromm]

Hi Dan,

Not to hijack this thread, but does your sheets have Image Circles for the 305, 420 and 480 Apo-Nikkors?

Thanks JohnJohn, hijack away.

As I told Joe, the data sheets I have say nothing about the 305, do say that all of the dialyte type Apo Nikkors cover 46 degrees. I calculated that for a 305 mm lens, 46 degrees means 260 mm at infinity. This is very consistent with Nikon's claims for the dialyte types mentioned in my data sheets.

The data sheets do mention the 420 and 480, say they cover 700 and 800 mm respectively at 1:1. That means 350 and 400 at infinity. But remember that Nikon's coverage concept is for a very demanding application and that few of us face those demands. Many posts here have said something to the effect of "the lens covers a x b and the corners are a little soft."

To get back on topic, sort of, I think Joe's idea of using a Packard, although conventional and socially acceptable and all that, may not get him the best solution. I use a simple similar triangles model to try to decide whether a lens can be used hung in front of a convenient shutter. The answers I get sometimes surprise considerably. That said, I'm convinced the model isn't quite right; lens/shutter combinations that it says will be marginal have better edge illumination than it would suggest. So the simple model is a conservative guide to what can be accomplished.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, give it a try. If I could find an application that needed that much focal length, I'd be chasing a 610/9 Apo Nikkor. Not only do I think it is a good lens, it is relatively light as 24" process lenses go. But since I don't use the 480 very much, ...

Cheers,

Dan

[Joseph O'Neil]

To get back on topic, sort of, I think Joe's idea of using a Packard, although conventional and socially acceptable and all that, may not get him the best solution.

-snip-

Well if that's proven to be true (at least in my case), there's always the old fallback of slow film, F22 or greater, a lens cap, and "one steamboat, two steamboat, three steamboat...."

:)