PDA

View Full Version : Nikkor W lenses any good?



gnuyork
12-Apr-2010, 09:17
I am looking to get some more used lenses, and I see the Nikkor W lenses are quite a bit less expensive used than the latest Rodenstock or Schneider lenses.

I can't find a lot of info on the web about these. I did find one poster compared the 150 W to the Schneider/Rodenstock and found the Nikkor to not be as good, in fact I think he (she?) labeled it a "dog."

How does the 180, 210,or the 240 stack up against the others for color landscape? Anybody using them?

I want to get the best lens I can within reason. I am not opposed to spending the extra if it warrants it. I plan to make at least 10x enlargements from 4x5.

I am also considering the Rodenstock Ronar 240 to because it's compact. How would the performance of the Nikkor W 240 compare to this?

Thanks

mcd
12-Apr-2010, 10:52
I have a Nikkor 300mm f5.6 W that I use on 8x10. It's very good, but it does not compare to the quality that I get from a Schneider 90mm f8 Super-Angulon on 4x5, which is spectacular. I'm splitting hairs here, I bet it would be pretty hard to tell most modern lenses apart without having the chromes or negatives side by side and studying them with a lupe.

gnuyork
12-Apr-2010, 11:25
Thanks for the info. I have the Rodenstock Grandagon 90, that I recently purchased and used, just haven't processed the film yet so see the results.

I decided I am just going to go for the Sironar S 210 as my next lens. I've read nothing but good things about the Sironar S series, so I can't go wrong there.

Kirk Gittings
12-Apr-2010, 11:47
My favorite lens for many years has been the Nikkor 120SW.

gnuyork
12-Apr-2010, 11:50
Thanks Kirk. I was referring the the W line specifically. I'm just looking at what's available at KEH. I don't see any SW Nikkors, except the 90, which I wanted a while back, but they didn't have in stock, so I got the Grandagon.

Donald Miller
12-Apr-2010, 12:20
I use the 180 W on 5X7. I like the results from the lens...yvmv.

gnuyork
12-Apr-2010, 12:41
Update. I just ordered the 210 Sironar S from KEH. My only concern is that it might be gigantic. We'll see.

I was on the fence with going 210 or 240. I thought 90, 150, and 210 would be a good 3 lens setup. I'll get a 150 later on... The again so could 90, 180, and 240. I really don't have enough experience with this format yet to tell.

I'm still interested in the Ronar 240. Anybody using this for 4x5 landscape?

Drew Wiley
12-Apr-2010, 12:51
240 Apo Ronar is usable but a bit tight on 4x5. If you want a small lens with plenty of
coverage opt for a 240 Fuji A or 250 G-Claron, which have enough coverage even for
8x10 and are optically very very crisp all the way from closeup to infinity.

gnuyork
12-Apr-2010, 12:58
I'll keep on the lookout for those. They didn't have the fugi or the Claron at KEH right now either. I was trying to go with what is available.

Thanks for the advice.

Armin Seeholzer
12-Apr-2010, 13:07
The Apo Ronar 240mm has a stated covering power of 212mm at f22 and I have a 300 mm APO Ronar which has a stated covering power of 264mm but it covers also my 8x10 easely!
So all germans are quite conservative at it!

Cheers Armin

shadowleaves
12-Apr-2010, 13:16
I have a Nikkor 300mm f5.6 W that I use on 8x10. It's very good, but it does not compare to the quality that I get from a Schneider 90mm f8 Super-Angulon on 4x5, which is spectacular. I'm splitting hairs here, I bet it would be pretty hard to tell most modern lenses apart without having the chromes or negatives side by side and studying them with a lupe.

Don't know about Nikkor-W 300/5.6, but Schneider SA 90/8 is nothing worthy of the word "spectacular". It is quite a mediocre lens in fact, and as a 5x7 lens its resolution near the edge of 5x7 image circle is simply awful. I had a comparison posted on this board, which shows Nikkor-SW 90/8 can easily put SA 90/8 to shame in terms of edge resoluton.

Struan Gray
12-Apr-2010, 13:18
I used an older 240 Apo-Ronar in barrel for several years on 4x5, and a more modern multicoated version in shutter. For 'normal' landscapes it worked extremely well. I only ran out of movements when trying to get tall trees vertical in closeup, a situation more like architectural photography than landscape.

The G-clarons and Fuji-As are slightly cult-like lenses, at least in the USA, so you pay a premium for them. I have a Germinar-W which is a jewel, but is even worse in the cult stakes. All are f9, which isn't truly dim, but does require a good darkcloth to see the ground glass clearly. Fuji do a non-A 250 mm in a No. 1 shutter which is a nice compromise between size and brightness, but for a real bargain look for a 240 Symmar in the old Compur 2 shutter. That gives you f5.6 in a package that conveniently fits on a small lensboard, unlike modern lenses in Copal 3 shutters, which hang off the edge of small boards. (As it happens, there's one in the classifieds right now - I have no connection with the seller).

evan clarke
12-Apr-2010, 13:21
Update. I just ordered the 210 Sironar S from KEH. My only concern is that it might be gigantic. We'll see.

I was on the fence with going 210 or 240. I thought 90, 150, and 210 would be a good 3 lens setup. I'll get a 150 later on... The again so could 90, 180, and 240. I really don't have enough experience with this format yet to tell.

I'm still interested in the Ronar 240. Anybody using this for 4x5 landscape?

If it's the APO, it's only about 500g I have one and it's excellent...EC

dsphotog
12-Apr-2010, 13:26
The OP didn't mention for what 4x5 camera the lenses are intended.
Some lenses mentioned are rather large diameter/heavy.

gnuyork
12-Apr-2010, 13:32
yes, the one I was looking at was the APO. I am wondering if I should have got that instead of the 210 Sironar S and saved some dough and weight. I keep reading the Sironar S is top notch glass, but I fear it's going to be a very big lens. I plan to do some backpacking with this gear. I already have the big 90 6.8 grandagon. The weight is adding up, but I am also updating some non photographic gear to get my overall pack lighter.

gnuyork
12-Apr-2010, 13:35
The OP didn't mention for what 4x5 camera the lenses are intended.
Some lenses mentioned are rather large diameter/heavy.

Wista DX II/III. Is the Sironar S 210 too big for my camera?

BradS
12-Apr-2010, 13:50
Wista DX II/III. Is the Sironar S 210 too big for my camera?

Probably not too big for your camera but, it would be way far down on my list of gear to take "back packing". Backpacking, in my mind, is usually dominated by concerns for small, light weight and, not so expensive that I'd be upset if it got lost or broken...or fell into a river or off a cliff. I'd have to be a very strong and wealthy (or reckless) man to consider taking a Sironar-S backpacking.

I have a bunch of 210mm lenses, it is my favorite focal length for 4x5 people shots. When backpacking, I usually reach for the Geronar or a Xenar. Both are completely adequate to the task.

And as for the quality of Nikkor-W lenses, I don't think I've ever heard of anybody but Ken Rockwell say they were anything but on par with similar modern designs from Rodenstock, Schneider and Fuji. I don't believe anybody could tell the difference between prints from negs exposed with a Symmar-S, Sironar-N or Nikkor-W, or Fujinon-W for that matter. They're all the highest quality currently available.

Bob Salomon
12-Apr-2010, 13:54
Wista DX II/III. Is the Sironar S 210 too big for my camera?

No

Bob Salomon
12-Apr-2010, 13:56
yes, the one I was looking at was the APO. I am wondering if I should have got that instead of the 210 Sironar S and saved some dough and weight. I keep reading the Sironar S is top notch glass, but I fear it's going to be a very big lens. I plan to do some backpacking with this gear. I already have the big 90 6.8 grandagon. The weight is adding up, but I am also updating some non photographic gear to get my overall pack lighter.

The 210mm Apo Sironar S in Copal 1 shutter weighs 17.3oz and takes 72mm filters.

Ken Lee
12-Apr-2010, 13:57
Update. I just ordered the 210 Sironar S from KEH. My only concern is that it might be gigantic. We'll see.

According to the Rodenstock Brochure (http://www.linos.com/pages/mediabase/original/e_Rodenstock_Analog_Lenses_27-42__8226.pdf), the 210 takes a 72mm filter, sits in a Number 1 shutter, and weighs 490 grams.

It's not tiny, but when you consider the other efforts we make to get LF quality, these are all just... numbers.

I recently acquired a 210 Macro Sironar, and appreciate that its f/5.6 max aperture makes it almost as bright as a Tessar or Heliar, while its more modern design gives it more usable coverage.

When trekking, it's nice to have the smallest and lightest equipment. When not trekking, it's nice to have the nicest equipment. :)

Andrew O'Neill
12-Apr-2010, 14:00
I did find one poster compared the 150 W to the Schneider/Rodenstock and found the Nikkor to not be as good, in fact I think he (she?) labeled it a "dog."

Must have gotten a bad lens as I have had one for many years and quite happy with it. Most of my lenses are Nikkor. Great lenses.

gnuyork
12-Apr-2010, 14:01
Bob, how does image quality (sharpness, rendering of color) of the Ronar 240 compare to the sironar s?

eddie
12-Apr-2010, 14:19
maybe a bit late......

i got a 180 nikkor w the other day with a camera outfit i wanted. i had planned to sell it but after checking the prices i thought i may as well just keep it.

i used it in holland and then again this past weekend. i love it. a great lens. well worth the money.

here are two shots from holland. both are wet prints and looks great....my scanner hates me.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=577810&postcount=826

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=577812&postcount=827

eddie

gnuyork
12-Apr-2010, 14:23
thanks eddie. Both of your links are the same however.

Struan Gray
12-Apr-2010, 14:24
Your two lenses are excellent, and any weight savings over the backpacker-optimised weight-shaving nutjob's favourites will be of the order of a couple of hundred grams. Test the lenses you have to make sure they're not random dogs, and then get on with using them so you can develop your own preferences.

The larger weight savings happen at 240 mm. That's because a 240 mm needs a bigger shutter if it's to be f5.6. The intermediate size-2 shutter isn't made any more (and hasn't been for a few decades), so your lens maker ends up jumping from a size-1 shutter to a size-3, which doubles the weight of the shutter.

Sevo
12-Apr-2010, 14:39
I like my Nikkor-W's - but there is nothing spectacular about them, they were back then considered to be a tiny bit better than the equivalent 20-30 year old Schneider and Rodenstock Plasmat types, and were mainstream pro lenses for a while, but while the latter updated their lenses in the past two decades, Nikon did not do much, and eventually left the large format market.

eddie
12-Apr-2010, 14:47
ooopps.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=577812&postcount=827

Gem Singer
12-Apr-2010, 15:36
Sevo,

There was no need for Nikon to upgrade their Nikkor W lenses.

They got it right the first time. I have owned and used every lens in the W series.

Still own six of them. Can't be beat the quality for the price.

Nikon decided to abandon the dwindling large format photography world and concentrate on the more lucrative digital market.

So did Eastman Kodak and many others. Good business decision.

mcd
12-Apr-2010, 15:41
Don't know about Nikkor-W 300/5.6, but Schneider SA 90/8 is nothing worthy of the word "spectacular". It is quite a mediocre lens in fact, and as a 5x7 lens its resolution near the edge of 5x7 image circle is simply awful. I had a comparison posted on this board, which shows Nikkor-SW 90/8 can easily put SA 90/8 to shame in terms of edge resoluton.

Well, sorry that I insulted your choice of lenses. I bought the Nikkor new in 1985, and the Schneider new around 1998 or so. The 90 on 4x5 is spectacular, the 300 on 8x10 is less so. Maybe the sample SA that you used in your exciting tests was poor. Perhaps my Nikkor is poor. I have never seen the edge issues that you have, but I have never tried to use it on a format other than 4x5 either. As for it being an old design, so is the Zeiss Biogon, which is a pretty nice lens even today.

Lenny Eiger
12-Apr-2010, 15:47
I think the Nikkor W lenses are fantastic. I had a 300 W and a Rodenstock Apo Sironar S, same size. I tested them against each other, and they were both perfect, really impossible to tell apart. If I hadn't written something on a chalkboard to put in the image I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference...

Lenny

Bob Salomon
12-Apr-2010, 16:10
Bob, how does image quality (sharpness, rendering of color) of the Ronar 240 compare to the sironar s?

For copying flat art the Apo Ronar at its design aperture is the superior lens. For image ratios of 1:5 to infinity the Apo Ronar can't touch the Apo SironarS at any aperture.

Ken Lee
12-Apr-2010, 16:18
Bob, how does image quality (sharpness, rendering of color) of the Ronar 240 compare to the sironar s?

I know you asked Bob, but if you look through old threads, you'll see that one eternal question he answers patiently and politely, is that of process lenses versus normal lenses versus macro lenses.

Having just done of my own research, I can say with some confidence that what Bob has told us all along, has been right all along: lenses are best used for their intended design.

In other words, process lenses may do OK at all distances, and being f/9 may be smaller and lighter - and thus handy for trekking - but they would not be a first choice for either landscape or close work, whenever coverage becomes an issue.

That being said... I suspect that the Fujinon A series lenses are an exception to this general principle. Unless I am mistaken, they are f/9, (like the usual 4-element process lenses) but have 6 elements, and look more like... Sironars. (There's a surprise).

They give wider coverage than process lenses - but not as wide as plasmats like the Sironar. But they are small and light, and work nicely at all distances.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/sironarfujinon.jpg
Macro Sironar and Fujinon-A


So... If you have to settle on one lens in that length, which will be also be good for trekking, then you can't beat the 240 Fujinon-A, which good-ol' Kerry Thalmann identified long ago, as a future classic (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm).

But if you don't need to constrain weight and size... you can't get better than the Sironar-S. It has it all.

Mike Anderson
12-Apr-2010, 16:26
I am looking to get some more used lenses, and I see the Nikkor W lenses are quite a bit less expensive used than the latest Rodenstock or Schneider lenses.

I can't find a lot of info on the web about these. I did find one poster compared the 150 W to the Schneider/Rodenstock and found the Nikkor to not be as good, in fact I think he (she?) labeled it a "dog."
...

Bjørn gives the Nikkor-W 150 mm f/5.6 a "5":

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

But then he gives all the LF Nikkors he lists "5"s.

...Mike

sepiareverb
12-Apr-2010, 16:30
I used the 240W extensively on my last LF project. Loved it. Prints from 810 negs to 20x24" with no worries about quality.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff221/sepiareverb/separation2.jpg

Brian Ellis
12-Apr-2010, 16:36
The last time I saw him John Sexton was using Nikon W and SW lenses exclusively. He's made some pretty good pictures with them. IMHO the quality of the modern lenses from any of the four major manufacturers is the least of the problems any of us encounter.

mcd
12-Apr-2010, 16:58
Maybe it is my sample. I was just never thrilled by it's performance.

Larry Gebhardt
12-Apr-2010, 18:02
yes, the one I was looking at was the APO. I am wondering if I should have got that instead of the 210 Sironar S and saved some dough and weight. I keep reading the Sironar S is top notch glass, but I fear it's going to be a very big lens. I plan to do some backpacking with this gear. I already have the big 90 6.8 grandagon. The weight is adding up, but I am also updating some non photographic gear to get my overall pack lighter.

Look for a 200mm f/8 Nikon M if you want to save some weight. It is the little brother of the 300 f/9 Nikon M. Very small, very sharp and covers 4x5 with decent movement (more than i need in the woods). I haven't compared it directly to my 210mm Nikon W, but so far it has been a very good performer. I now leave the 210 at home if I am walking very far.

I love my 135mm Sironar S and have thought about getting a 210mm version. But so far I am very happy with the two Nikons. If you are second guessing your purchase I'll trade you the Nikon for the Rodenstock :)

Dennis
12-Apr-2010, 18:06
If my 210 Nikor W is bad, I don't want to be good.
Dennis
I have used it a lot on 8x10 as well.

Allen in Montreal
12-Apr-2010, 18:19
Hear Hear!


The last time I saw him John Sexton was using Nikon W and SW lenses exclusively. He's made some pretty good pictures with them. IMHO the quality of the modern lenses from any of the four major manufacturers is the least of the problems any of us encounter.

Chris Strobel
12-Apr-2010, 19:30
The last time I saw him John Sexton was using Nikon W and SW lenses exclusively. He's made some pretty good pictures with them. IMHO the quality of the modern lenses from any of the four major manufacturers is the least of the problems any of us encounter.

What was he using for his 90mm the the 4.5 or the 8?In his book 'Places of Power' he list his lenses for each photo, and mentions using Nikon glass, but not which exact Nikon glass.I'd be interested to know Brian if you you happen to know.

pkphotog
12-Apr-2010, 22:22
The last time I saw him John Sexton was using Nikon W and SW lenses exclusively. He's made some pretty good pictures with them. IMHO the quality of the modern lenses from any of the four major manufacturers is the least of the problems any of us encounter.

I have to agree with Brian. A friend of mine just back from the John Sexton workshop and he said Mr. Sexton used exclusively Nikons.

I received a 135mm Nikon W about two months ago and made roughly 50 exposures with it and every image was as sharp and smooth as the images made with an Apo Symmar. It is a fantastic little lens IMHO. I think we're too caught up in the latest and the most expensive when we should be more concerned with what we place in front of the camera.

gnuyork
13-Apr-2010, 04:39
nah, I'm not too concerned. I know it's easy to get caught up. I just figured I'd ask before purchasing. As you can see I made a purchase within a few posts. I realize that the most important thing is what's in front of the camera, and there are many other factors involved, but if we could apply all of those factors and use the best lens it might be better... and then again maybe not.

I just want to make sure I didn't short change myself if I decide to make 10x or bigger enlargements.

evan clarke
13-Apr-2010, 05:00
The last time I saw him John Sexton was using Nikon W and SW lenses exclusively. He's made some pretty good pictures with them. IMHO the quality of the modern lenses from any of the four major manufacturers is the least of the problems any of us encounter.

Yes, It seems the subject matter is particularly good with John Sexton's Nikon lenses:) ..Evan Clarke

gnuyork
14-Apr-2010, 12:48
My sironar S came in today. It appears to be a little smaller than the grandagon, so that's a relief. I thought that it would be bigger since it was in a copal 1.

Does anybody know what the ideal f stop is with this lens? And what is the diffraction limit?

Thanks,

Joe

shadowleaves
14-Apr-2010, 12:53
Well, sorry that I insulted your choice of lenses. I bought the Nikkor new in 1985, and the Schneider new around 1998 or so. The 90 on 4x5 is spectacular, the 300 on 8x10 is less so. Maybe the sample SA that you used in your exciting tests was poor. Perhaps my Nikkor is poor. I have never seen the edge issues that you have, but I have never tried to use it on a format other than 4x5 either. As for it being an old design, so is the Zeiss Biogon, which is a pretty nice lens even today.

Well my point is, with all due respect, comparing a 300mm lens with a 90mm lens doesn't really make much sense. That Nikkor 300W might be good or bad depending on one's criteria, but as a huge lens mainly for 8x10, its resolution doesn't have to as good as a 4x5/5x7 lens on the first place. And even if 300W is not so good in resolution, it doesn't necessarily indicate that 150W or 135W can't be excellent.

As for SA90/8, All the 3 samples I had were bad on their edges per my criteria, and it's apparently not a sampling issue. That you think they are good could be either less stringent criteria at your side, or that you use less shift, or both. 300W might be indeed worse than SA 90/8, but SA 90/8 by itself isn't a good lens anyway and to me it just doesn't quality the word "spectacular". Its 6-element design is pretty old and it has less correcting power than the 8-element SA 90/5.6, Grandagon 90/4.5 and Nikkor 90/8 by design.

It's all case-by-case. One lens model has nothing to do with another under the same brand.

shadowleaves
14-Apr-2010, 13:23
My sironar S came in today. It appears to be a little smaller than the grandagon, so that's a relief. I thought that it would be bigger since it was in a copal 1.

Does anybody know what the ideal f stop is with this lens? And what is the diffraction limit?

Thanks,

Joe

for many LF lense, resolution in the center is usually best at f/11, while f/22 will give better resolution on edges at the cost of some decrease in the center due to the diffraction limit.

Jack Dahlgren
14-Apr-2010, 14:15
Recommended working aperture for 210 is is 22-32 per Rodenstock.

gnuyork
14-Apr-2010, 17:37
Recommended working aperture for 210 is is 22-32 per Rodenstock.

OK thanks.

rdenney
15-Apr-2010, 04:57
Does anybody know what the ideal f stop is with this lens? And what is the diffraction limit?

If you have a good ground glass, a dark cloth with good coverage, a really brightly lit subject, and a 10x loupe, you can determine this for yourself. You'll have to see past the graininess of the ground glass, but that's good practice anyway. Find a subject with a very brightly lit edge.

Remember that looking at the ground glass with a 10x loupe is like looking at a 10x enlargement with an unaided eye, which means a 40x50" print.

Then, conduct some experiments. One thing I cannot escape: Reliable large-format work demands first-hand experience with the equipment in use. A given lens might not perform to theory, and the standards by which the manufacturer makes recommendations might not match your own.

Rick "suggesting that effects that you can't see in a 10x loupe might not be important" Denney

GPS
15-Apr-2010, 05:50
If you have a good ground glass, a dark cloth with good coverage, a really brightly lit subject, and a 10x loupe, you can determine this for yourself. You'll have to see past the graininess of the ground glass, but that's good practice anyway. Find a subject with a very brightly lit edge.

Remember that looking at the ground glass with a 10x loupe is like looking at a 10x enlargement with an unaided eye, which means a 40x50" print.

Then, conduct some experiments. One thing I cannot escape: Reliable large-format work demands first-hand experience with the equipment in use. A given lens might not perform to theory, and the standards by which the manufacturer makes recommendations might not match your own.

Rick "suggesting that effects that you can't see in a 10x loupe might not be important" Denney

Sorry Rick, but your final suggestion as well as the whole post is full of nonsense. While beauty can indeed dwell in the eyes of a beholder to think that the human eye is capable of correctly judging lens resolution and its difference on gg between adjoining apertures 11,16 etc. is just dreaming. The truth is that the eye-brain pair is not even capable of getting the best focus on the gg (many experiments have proved that). Do you really think that a resolution difference of let's say 10pmm in a lens is something you can judge with your eyes and 10x loupe? With that capacity you could make MTF graphs with you eyes and a loupe only! On the other hand if you can't see this difference in a way you suggest it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or doesn't matter. The concept of the ideal aperture would then be rendered useless...

rdenney
15-Apr-2010, 06:44
Sorry Rick, but your final suggestion as well as the whole post is full of nonsense.

Well, I've done it, and I can see the differences sufficient to know when diffraction starts to be a problem, and when I have sufficient depth of field (a bigger effect, to be sure). I can't see the differences of 10 lp/mm in any size print I've ever made, so the fact that I can't see them on the ground glass doesn't much matter to me.

My point was that it will only take two or three sheets of film, and maybe not even that, to know the aperture at which diffraction starts to be a problem. That was the question I was answering, not the difference between a Nikkor-W and a Schneider Symmar.

Rick "who has never been surprised by unsharpness in a print when it was sharp on the ground glass as viewed at 10x" Denney

GPS
15-Apr-2010, 07:12
While we can judge with our eyes when diffraction is a problem it is not the same as to see what is the ideal f stop for a lens - the OP's original concern and question.

rdenney
15-Apr-2010, 07:59
While we can judge with our eyes when diffraction is a problem it is not the same as to see what is the ideal f stop for a lens - the OP's original concern and question.

I'll admit that I did alter the question a bit, and without disclosure. It's a common question: "What is the ideal aperture", and the pro-forma answer is that which mutually minimizes the effects of aberrations and diffraction. And I agree with you that it would take careful testing to evaluate that answer, beyond what is possible visually on the ground glass.

But I think the answer is wrong for anyone wanting practical advice of what to do. For me, the ideal aperture is the one that 1.) provides the needed depth of field, or, conversely, the desired selective focus effect; 2.) keeps the exposure within an acceptable shutter speed range (camera or subject movement will overwhelm the effects of aberrations or diffraction), and 3.) least importantly, avoids diffraction that would preclude our intended display size. I submit that this "ideal" can indeed be evaluated on the ground glass. There may be no solution in any given case, of course, forcing a compromise. I doubt that any modern lens's aberrations are sufficient to be anywhere near as critical as insufficient depth of field, or anywhere near ruinous enough even wide open to ruin the plane of sharp focus when we using selective focus.

Rick "whose answer was subversive" Denney

GPS
15-Apr-2010, 09:37
Rick, we agree. ;-)

Craig Roberts
15-Apr-2010, 18:09
The Nikor "W" series are pieces of junk. I'll buy a 360mmm if you have one. Craig

gnuyork
15-Apr-2010, 20:25
ugh! I can't find my spanner wrench to mount this new 210. I just had it the other day. I spent he last half hour looking for it with no luck.

I need to get rid of a bunch of stuff. I have too much stuff I don't use and too many hobbies. I find that I have become very unorganized in the past few years and it doesn't help when my wife cleans and tries to organize my stuff and moves it, and then when I need something neither of us know where it is. I know she means well, and it's really my fault, but it sure is frustrating when you are trying to find a simple thing and have no luck.

erie patsellis
15-Apr-2010, 20:47
cheap scissors will work in a pinch in lieu of spanners.

gnuyork
15-Apr-2010, 20:52
good idea. I think I may give that a try tomorrow.