Coverage of a Nikkor 360mm f9 Barrel Lens

[Bruce E. Rathbun]

I have a chance to pick up an older Nikon barrel lens. The lens is a Nikkor 360mm f9 Barrel lens. I am wondering if anyone would know the coverage of this lens? It is advertised as a 600mm circle of coverage. I have also spoken Ron Wisner who tells me a much different story. The lens I need is for a 7"x17" format. I found a post a few months ago that had a chart listing many lenses with coverage including the barrel type. I have not been able to find that site again. Anyway I just need to know if there is information that can verify the coverage of this lens. Thanks for the help.

[Per Volquartz]

I do own a 305 Apo Nikkor f9 Barrel...It covers 8X10 with some movements (at infinity).

My guess is (and that is all it is) that the 360mm will cover 8X10 with plenty of movement and possibly - and just maybe 11X14 (again at infinity).

It will probably not cover 7X17 except at very close distances. For a 1 to 1 shot with this lens you would need 720mm of bellows = roughly 28"...)

Perhaps the person is referring to a 600mm circle of coverage when used as a repro lens (these lenses were repro lenses - are extremely sharp - a bit heavy - usually very reasonably priced (new they did cost in the thousands of $$$) - AND usually used at close distances; therefore the large circle perhaps???)

[Michael S. Briggs]

Nikon rated the 360 mm Apo-Nikkor as covering 600 mm diameter at 1:1. For very distant objects, the circle of coverage will be about half, i.e., 300 mm.

[Bruce E. Rathbun]

Now I feel better. I could not understand why the lens was rated to cover 600mm. That would be too goo to be true at the price of the lens. Again thanks for the help.

[Kelly Flanigan]

Bruce; what you have is a process lens..I own a Rodenstock Apo- Ronar 360mm F9..It is for our Acti Process camera. The cameras are used to enlarge and reduce engineering drawings; maps etc...Many of these cameras have been scrapped because large format scanners and printers do the work much faster; and do not require a darkroom...Our camera has a rail that is 17 feet long. Its standard lens are the 360mm ; 600mm and 900 mm lenses. The process lenses usually are designed for very little distortion..Kelly Acti process cameras (http://www.acticameras.com/S25.htm)

[mike rosenlof]

I own this lens, but use it only for 4x5. Like others have mentioned, it's a process lens, optimized for 1:1 and that's where the 600 mm coverage comes from. It would be half that at infinity. You're going to need more like 470mm of coverage for 7x17 (with no movements) as I'm sure you know.

I had Steve Grimes mount it into a no. 3 shutter, and I like it a lot.

[andrewglennmiller]

I own this lens, but use it only for 4x5. Like others have mentioned, it's a process lens, optimized for 1:1 and that's where the 600 mm coverage comes from. It would be half that at infinity. You're going to need more like 470mm of coverage for 7x17 (with no movements) as I'm sure you know.

I had Steve Grimes mount it into a no. 3 shutter, and I like it a lot.

I see one at a local shop for sale I might grab. How are you liking the lens for 4x5? Have any portraitures to share?

[Drew Wiley]

I dunno. I have mine mounted on a Sinar board, not for sake of photography but for darkroom use on an 8x10 enlarger matched to Sinar lensboards. But just out of curiosity, I have fiddled around and looked through it on my 8X10 Phillips camera. Covers 8x10 film no problem at typical working apertures and typically anticipated perspective movements. But how well it would do on a ULF style camera head-on, without movements, and at even smaller apertures, I just don't have the ability to say. The factory specs are not going to help a lot, because they're rated for very nitpicky standardized graphics color separation requirements, which are way more stringent than most photographic applications. But on 8x10 film at least, you can realistically expect a way higher degree of actual apo correction and extreme sharpness than any equivalent focal length ordinary camera lens I can think of.

I don't particularly care for the out-of-focus background rendering or bokeh, however; it's rather busy. When I want gentle out-of-focus rendering, I reach for an older 360/9 single-coated Zeiss process lens of tessar design, rather than the symmetrical 4/4 Apo Nikkor.

But when it comes to sharp-sharp applications, I know a fellow who fitted his 360/9 Apo Nikkor to the board of a big solid 8x10 Toyo monorail, and then either a film or digital Nikon 35mm at the other end, and it gave him more acute telephoto shots than any dedicated Nikon 35mm telephoto lens. The weak link in all of this is atmospheric haze anyway; so timing and weather was everything in his particular case. But I'm stating this just because what might comprise an excellent landscape lens might have its drawbacks in certain types of portraiture where one prefers a softer background look. But it's also a super performer at macro distances, it you happen to have a mile-long bellows.