Wrong infos about Apo-Nikkor 305mm in shutter

[cyberjunkie]

On this forum there are reports that a Nikon Apo-Nikkor 305mm is a straight fit in standard shutter (No.1 IIRC).
That's not true, or at least it's not true for my example, which is the common one, and probably the only one ever produced.
There should be a 300mm one, of older design, but no other 305mm, AFAIK.
To give a more usable information, i am attaching a picture of my lens.

I must admit that i purchased the lens with the plan to fit it in one of my "orphaned" shutters, but i stopped before dismantling the whole lens, once i found that the front glasses are not enclosed in a cell. If you open the front of the lens you end up with a bunch of loose parts, practically impossible to be fitted in a shutter, without incurring in unreasonable expenses (you can find a nice, recent Apo-Ronar for less!).
I didn't remove the set screw at the back of the lens, cause there was no need to investigate any further...

If you found the same infos, and thought to buy an example to fit it in shutter, please make no mistake.
I decided to come forward to spare others the same mistake i made :(

have fun

CJ

[Old-N-Feeble]

Where did you read that on this forum??

[cyberjunkie]

I may be wrong, but i think it was Dan Fromm, reporting what Adam of SK Grimes told him.
Two possibilities:
1) there are TWO versions of the same lens
2) there was some misunderstanding

have fun

CJ

[Old-N-Feeble]

I seriously doubt that. Dan is usually right on the money. Got a link? A misunderstanding on someone's part I do agree with.

[Leigh]

Google has about a quarter million hits for the Apo Nikkor 305mm. You might want to consult one or more of those.

Here's Dan's original comment:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?32636-Apo-Nikkor-305mm-f9-Will-this-work

This appears to be for a process camera. Not designed to be mounted in a shutter, which is why you it's not arranged in two cells.

If you did mount it, the shutter diaphragm would need to be where the existing diaphragm is located within the lens.
That's probably impossible. Using a shutter with the original diaphragm would require manual stop-down for each exposure.
You could probably mount it in front of an ausiliary shutter like the Sinar or Packard, and use the existing diaphragm.


- Leigh

[Old-N-Feeble]

No, Leigh, it's not an enlarging lens... though it can be used as such. It's an old analog process symmetrical 4-element dialyte.

[cyberjunkie]

Here's Dan's original comment:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?32636-Apo-Nikkor-305mm-f9-Will-this-work
- Leigh

Thanks, that was the original comment.
I didn't check before posting but i was almost sure about it.
I was right.
To be honest, Dan wrote that he didn't check, and that the information should be verified.
I did it, and thought that i had to correct that information, for all those who will do a search in the future with keywords "Apo-Nikkor 305mm" and "shutter".
BTW, all the recent (dialyte) Apo-Nikkors are really good, and a perfect fit for Sinar/Copal or other behind-the-lens or front-mounted shutters.
Of course any lens that can be fitted in a standard shutter can be easily used on any camera, even those with Technika lensboards.

have fun

CJ

[John Koehrer]

No, Leigh, it's not an enlarging lens... though it can be used as such. It's an old analog process symmetrical 4-element dialyte.

Haven't seen the word "enlarging" until your post.

[Dan Fromm]

CJ, thanks for trying and reporting. Now we know for sure, I think.

I say "I think" because skgrimes' site (see http://www.skgrimes.com/lens-mounting/table-of-lenses-fitted-to-shutters) shows one in a #1. What had to be done to mount it isn't clear.

Sorry for the late reply, I was on the road when you posted.

Leigh, I have a number of process lenses whose elements are mounted in normal cells that screw into the fronts and rears of their barrels. G-Clarons, Apo-Ronars, Apotals, Apo-Saphirs. As I reported, I've never found a safe way to open any of my Apo-Nikkors. I also have a few Apo-Skopars that don't look like their elements are in normal cells. I don't think it is safe to generalize as you did.

Cheers, and thanks again to CJ,

Dan

[Leigh]

Leigh, I have a number of process lenses whose elements are mounted in normal cells that screw into the fronts and rears of their barrels. G-Clarons, Apo-Ronars, Apotals, Apo-Saphirs. As I reported, I've never found a safe way to open any of my Apo-Nikkors. I also have a few Apo-Skopars that don't look like their elements are in normal cells. I don't think it is safe to generalize as you did.
Dan,

My statement was:
"This appears to be for a process camera. Not designed to be mounted in a shutter, which is why you it's not arranged in two cells. If you did mount it, the shutter diaphragm would need to be where the existing diaphragm is located within the lens.
That's probably impossible."

It pertained specifically to the lens that's the subject of this thread, and I believe it's correct. It's not a generalization.

If a lens is not designed to work with an interposed shutter, it would be very difficult to make it do so.
If a lens IS designed to work with an interposed shutter, as is true of a barrel lens with cells, then likely it will.

- Leigh

[c.d.ewen]

As I reported, I've never found a safe way to open any of my Apo-Nikkors.

Dan:

Somebody did. Looks like it just unscrewed out of a barrel (which I don't have).

Not my handiwork - it was like this when I found it :rolleyes:

Charley


7390773908

[Leigh]

Somebody did. Looks like it just unscrewed out of a barrel (which I don't have).
It's not the same lens. Your photos show a 480mm, but the lens under discussion is a 305mm.

It appears that your lens has custom-made shutter adapters, given that they're not fully anodized.

- Leigh

[c.d.ewen]

It's not the same lens. Your photos show a 480mm, but the lens under discussion is a 305mm.

Leigh:

Yes, but I was responding to Dan's comment, "any of my Apo-Nikkors" (my emphasis added). Of course, maybe Dan doesn't own a 480mm Apo-Nikkor, and maybe that particular FL was built differently from others.



It appears that your lens has custom-made shutter adapters, given that they're not fully anodized.

Correct.

Charley

[Dan Fromm]

Charley, I have 305, 420, 480, and 610 Apo-Nikkors, all f/9 dialyte types, have had and sold another 305. I haven't taken any of them apart, would very much like to know how to get into my 610, which is a bit dusty, for cleaning.

I really don't want to get into another pointless wrangle with Leigh, but I have the very strong impression that most lenses in barrels with diaphragms have the elements mounted in cells that screw into the barrels. Lenses in straight barrels don't have to be like that; I have one oddity that isn't. I also have a 90/6.8 Beryl from a Chevet-Wild endoscopic camera whose cells were screwed into a straight barrel (plain tube, with no diaphragm) that exactly matches a #00 shutter's tube.

I wonder a little whether cyberjunkie simply unscrewed his 305 Apo-Nikkor's outer retaining ring(s).

[c.d.ewen]

Charley, I have 305, 420, 480, and 610 Apo-Nikkors

Gee, Dan, why am I not surprised? :)



would very much like to know how to get into my 610

This is the only other Apo-Nikkor I've owned, and I don't recall ever getting it open. Sold it without taking the 24" Ridgid to it. :eek:


I have the very strong impression that most lenses in barrels with diaphragms have the elements mounted in cells that screw into the barrels.

My memory is that some of the old Commie lenses have diapharms but the elements are mounted in the barrel, as you suspect cyberjunkie's are. Commies never played by the rules. I'd have to check, but I suspect that's the reason I never put any of those I-11's into a shutter, but got the Apo-Nikkor instead.

Charley

[Dan Fromm]

Charlie, when I was actively shopping for lenses -- these days I look, don't buy -- I was much too opportunistic for my own good. After I learned more about what I was doing, I stopped buying functional equivalents. Still have, e.g., more 210s than I can carry, though.

I've never had an I-11M, have had an I-51, a 210/4.5 tessar clone, in barrel. It came apart for cleaning the usual way. But you're right, we can't count on anyone playing by the rules, if indeed there are any.

[Sal Santamaura]

Charley, I have 305, 420, 480, and 610 Apo-Nikkors, all f/9 dialyte types, have had and sold another 305. I haven't taken any of them apart, would very much like to know how to get into my 610, which is a bit dusty, for cleaning...I have a 305 with some dust inside. When Steve Grimes was still alive, I asked what he would charge to disassemble and clean it. Steve declined to bid, indicating that Apo-Nikkors' stellar performance was as much a result of assembly precision as design. He didn't have equipment necessary to put the elements back together exactly as the factory originally did.

[Dan Fromm]

I have a 305 with some dust inside. When Steve Grimes was still alive, I asked what he would charge to disassemble and clean it. Steve declined to bid, indicating that Apo-Nikkors' stellar performance was as much a result of assembly precision as design. He didn't have equipment necessary to put the elements back together exactly as the factory originally did.

Funny you should say that, Sal. When I asked Steve to open up my 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII he told me that it wasn't funky enough to need cleaning. No mention of difficulty of reassembly. I think there are some jobs he just didn't like doing. I solved the dirty (I thought) lens problem by buying a cleaner one and selling the dirty (I thought) one.

About unpleasant jobs, when Steve was alive I bought a 12"/4 Taylor Hobson Telephoto (G. H. Cook design, ex-Agi F139) in its lens cone. I couldn't unscrew it -- it went "this far" and no more -- from the cone, so sent it as was to Steve with a request to extract it and put it on 2x3 Graphic board. The problem was that the lens was locked into the cone by tiny radial setscrews, and these had damaged the mounting threads. I asked Steve to cut the cone off but he gave the monster to Adam with directions to pour lapping compound on the threads (through the holes the setscrews went into) and work it back and forth until it came out. Adam tells me he spent the better part of a day on it and that skgrimes will never ever touch one of those lenses again. I later got another for a spare. Thanks to Murphy's law it came out of its cone very easily. I don't think Steve approved of Dremel tools.

[c.d.ewen]

Still have, e.g., more 210s than I can carry, though.

I've never had an I-11M, have had an I-51, a 210/4.5 tessar clone, in barrel. It came apart for cleaning the usual way. But you're right, we can't count on anyone playing by the rules, if indeed there are any.

Dan:

I know what you mean; must have had a dozen 300mm/12" lenses - Industar, Dogmar, Aldis, etc. Mostly gone now, thank goodness. Wasn't it fun when we all had money to buy interesting stuff?

I've got two I-11M's on the shelf, one in a box with the process stops, if you feel like borrowing one. I was mistaken about their construction - they come apart in the usual way. I can't recall what lens caused me to think the elements mounted in the barrel, but I know I've seen that construction somewhere.

Sal:

Just before he passed away, Steve Grimes bought a collimator. I stopped by a year or two later, and Adam had put it up on a shelf, as no one knew how to use it. You might call again, as maybe by now someone has taken it down from the shelf.

Somewhere on the SKGrimes site there's a quote from Steve about how the Apo-Nikkor lenses were apparently "centered by God".

Charley

[Leigh]

...I have the very strong impression that most lenses in barrels with diaphragms have the elements mounted in cells that screw into the barrels.
Hi Dan,

I believe that's correct. My experience with barrel lenses is minimal.

My comment was specifically focused on the lens under discussion in this thread, as shown in the photo.
It does not appear to be a separable design as best I can tell.

Is it possible there are two versions of the 305mm, one "unibody" and one separable?

- Leigh

[Dan Fromm]

Is it possible there are two versions of the 305mm, one "unibody" and one separable?

- Leigh

Leigh, I doubt it but it is certainly possible. Go over to skgrimes site, take a look at the much-too-small image they've posted of one in a #1, and tell me what you think. http://www.skgrimes.com/lens-mounting/table-of-lenses-fitted-to-shutters , towards the bottom of the second screen down.

I just compared mine with that image and the visible bits in the image look like it. Mine has a groove in front of a ~ 20 mm tube with slot for Waterhouse stops in front of the part of the barrel with the diaphragm. I think that groove is joint between front cell and tube. It matches what looks like a front cell in grimes' image. At the rear, mine has a threaded section with a slight lip that abuts the rear of the barrel just behind the diaphragm control ring. This matches what's visible as a rear cell in grimes' image.

Cheers,

Dan

Charley, thanks for the kind offer. I also have too many 300s. Apotal, Apo-Nikkor, Apo-Saphir, TTH Telephoto, ... I don't know about you, but although I don't have as much coming in as I did before I retired I can still afford the odd interesting and inexpensive lens. It seems to me that the supply of interesting inexpensive lenses has more or less dried up. And I say this even though I recently couldn't make myself pull the trigger on a couple of very inexpensive Zeiss Anastigmats and am ignoring some ancient and pretty Perigraphes. I have good enough lenses of those focal lengths, can't see the point of adding more.

The money is better spent on cookbooks, although, again, I just can't make myself pull the trigger on a $1,100 set that I'd somewhat like to have. I have all of the second edition, would like to compare with the first ($1,100 for 27 of 33 volumes) but not that badly. I've told my favorite library about the set on offer, hope they have enough acquisition budget and will to buy it.

[Leigh]

Leigh, I doubt it but it is certainly possible. Go over to skgrimes site, take a look at the much-too-small image they've posted of one in a #1, and tell me what you think.
One apparent difference is the lens at SKGrimes has a pair of holes in the front trim ring for a spanner wrench.
Those do not appear to be present in the OP's lens, but it might just be the lighting for the photo.

The SKGrimes lens in a Copal #1 have custom-made adapters fore and aft of the shutter.
The actual lens cells appear to be quite shallow at the mating diameter, perhaps 1/4".
The lens sub-assemblies may not be "cells" in the modern meaning of that term.

I'm unfamiliar with the design of the Apo-Nikkor. If it's just a symmetrical pair of cemented doublets,
as is/was common for apo lenses, you really only have two elements to deal with, one front and one rear,
so there's no need for "cells" in the sense that we see them in multi-element lenses. Just speculation.

If that's the case, then lens performance is critically dependent on proper "centering", which is just the
rotation of one element set relative to the other, to align the optical axes.


I just compared mine with that image and the visible bits in the image look like it. Mine has a groove in front of a ~ 20 mm tube with slot for Waterhouse stops in front of the part of the barrel with the diaphragm. I think that groove is joint between front cell and tube. It matches what looks like a front cell in grimes' image. At the rear, mine has a threaded section with a slight lip that abuts the rear of the barrel just behind the diaphragm control ring. This matches what's visible as a rear cell in grimes' image.
Now I'm seriously confused. Why would a lens have both Waterhouse stops and a variable diaphragm?

- Leigh

[Dan Fromm]

Leigh, process lenses use Waterhouse stops with non-round apertures to make half-tone dots that aren't round.

[Leigh]

OK. The original implementation of "bokeh". :D

I've only seen that done using halftone masks. It didn't occur to me that you could do it with a stop.

Thanks.

- Leigh

[Michael Jones]

The lens sub-assemblies may not be "cells" in the modern meaning of that term.

I'm unfamiliar with the design of the Apo-Nikkor. If it's just a symmetrical pair of cemented doublets,
as is/was common for apo lenses, you really only have two elements to deal with, one front and one rear,
so there's no need for "cells" in the sense that we see them in multi-element lenses. Just speculation.


- Leigh

Years ago I had Steve mount several RD Artars into shutters. When I got them back, the entire original barrels were in the box & the lens elements seemed to “look different.” I called him and he said these were so simple to mount he just made barrels en masse and just screwed the elements customers sent him into his barrels and then into the shutters.
I don’t ever recall hearing that about Apo Nikors from anyone.


Mike

[Sal Santamaura]

...Just before he passed away, Steve Grimes bought a collimator. I stopped by a year or two later, and Adam had put it up on a shelf, as no one knew how to use it. You might call again, as maybe by now someone has taken it down from the shelf...Thanks for that tip. In the intervening decade, I've come to realize that a small spec of dust in my 305 is of no consequence, so I'll let it stay as is.


...Somewhere on the SKGrimes site there's a quote from Steve about how the Apo-Nikkor lenses were apparently "centered by God"...I just performed an advanced search on the site and couldn't find that, so Adam probably took it down, but the quote is consistent with what Steve told me.

[cyberjunkie]

After a quick browsing of the thread i started, i think i might add a few consideration about my lens and what i believe about the subject.

1) i don't think there were two revisions of the 305mm. Simply there were two different "families" of Apo-Nikkors, one of the Apo-Tessar type (older) and one dialyte (newer). Time ago Dan kindly posted a nice list of both types, as far as i remember there were very few overlapping focals, if any. Going by memory, one was 300mm and the other 305mm.
A research on this forum would bring up that list (which i religiously saved on my HD).
The other Apo-Nikkor i own is a 480mm, coming from a reprocamera, complete with A very large round flange and a giant Copal electrically actuated shutter (which would be perfect for giant brass lenses, if only i could win my lazyness and assemble some sort of trigger). The 480mm is also a dialyte, and looks to be made the same way.

2) How are they made, and how can you disassemble the optics?
I can't remember very well, cause i have worked with other lenses afterwards, but i will tell you something:
there is a small set screw, then you remove a ring, then there is a very wide "beauty ring", but after you start to unscrew it, you feel that the glass element sitting behind it is starting to rattle! Normally there would be another thin ring which keeps the glass centered and with the right spacing.
At that point i stopped, as it was already sure that there were no "cells" that would go in a shutter, and also because i understood that after i had taken out all the bits, the alignment could well be screwed for good...
Of course i didn't remove the set screw at the back, i had already enough of it. :)

3) When it comes to adapting lenses with no conventional cells to shutters, i think that most works were done cutting the original barrel in the middle. I have seen Zeiss Jena (DDR) and a B&L 20" tele adapted the same way.
It would be quite complicate and risky (albeit possible) to do it with the optics in place. Though i find it hard to believe, with a lens the size of the 305mm Nikkor.
It would be very difficult to protect the glasses from damage and dirt, so i guess that in the shown example the glasses were removed during machine work.
Considering the way the barrel is made, i believe that they had a special tool at the factory, to ensure correct centering; probably you could near that perfection if you are careful and fortunate enough during reassembly, but it's a hit/miss affair.
The vast majority of LF lenses can be disassebled, cleaned, and then reassembled, with a few tools and good care, with no adverse consequences. Others, like the Apo-Ronar CL, are better left alone: the elements are centered and glued in place with a technology available only at the factory (or maybe a few authorized center... but really, i don't think so).

A quick side (sad?) note:
it's a true pity that any skilled mechanical work has got so expensive in the recent years. It's no marvel that the best adaptations were made some time ago. Now it's even difficult to find an experienced photo-mechanic. The old masters retire and nobody take their place.
As an admirer of precision mechanic and vintage LF optics, i find it quite depressing.

have fun

CJ

[Dan Fromm]

CJ,

Thanks for the kind word. The current version of my Apo- and Proces-Nikkor list is here: http://www.galerie-photo.com/apo-process-nikkors-en.html (in English) and here: http://www.galerie-photo.com/apo-process-nikkors-fr.html (in French).

Re your point (2), it sounds as though you started to open the lens from the front. This isn't the same as unscrewing the front cell from its barrel.

Re your point (3), I have a 38/4.5 Biogon in Copal #0. Steve Grimes extracted it from its native shutter, for an AGI/Williamson F135 aerial camera, and remounted it in the #0. When he started the job he wasn't sure whether the elements were in conventional cells so he cut the AGI shutter off with a hacksaw. My lens has a shallow cut in its front cell; Steve did it. Turns out that F135 Biogons' elements are in conventional cells. I sold several of those lenses and a few of them were remounted by Steve's successors. They, having the benefit of Steve's experience with my lens, just unscrewed the cells.

Steve's successors, Adam and Joel Dau, still look quite young. If we want them to stick around, we should keep them busy.

Centering lens elements has been mentioned in this discussion. In my limited understanding of lens making, centering has to do with trimming the elements, after their surfaces have been ground to the desired shape so that when they are glued together or simply put in the barrel their apices will be collinear.

[Leigh]

In my limited understanding of lens making, centering has to do with trimming the elements...
Lens elements are already fully figured with the perimeter ground to size before the centering step.

It may also be done following repair procedures that disturb the centering.
This is why I always laugh when people say they took a lens apart to clean it and put it back together.

Centering involves aligning the optical axes of the various elements to eliminate any tilt,
and shifting individual elements to make the axes colinear with the axis of the assembly.

Googling "lens centering" gets hundreds of hits, including instructions for performing the operation.

- Leigh

[Dan Fromm]

Leigh, thanks for the suggestion. You're right, Google returned many hits. Some of them refer to techniques for positioning what seem to be defective elements in a lens barrel to eliminate tilt and make the element's optical axis coincide with the barrel's axis.

I also looked in S. F. Ray's Applied Photographic Optics, 3d ed. See p. 173, where he says:


A vital final stage is that of centering, where the optical and mechanical axes are brought into alignment. The element is aligned on a centring [sic] device and the edge-ground to a specified diameter. Alignment aids for later assembly, such as bevels or flats on the rim, can also be added.

[Leigh]

Hi Dan,

What Ray is talking about is one of the final steps in manufacturing of individual lens elements.

The centering I'm talking about is a step in assembling the final multi-element lens or cell.
This process requires that the individual cells have undergone profiling as Ray described.

Edge profiling to align the optical and mechanical axes applies to single elements (and does not correct tilt).
Centering of multiple elements to make the axes collinear makes no sense in the context of a single element.
This latter type of centering can also correct tilt, which again makes no sense in the context of a single element.

Apples and oranges. :D

Edge profiling is not something that could or should be done during re-assembly of a lens that was repaired.
Repair shops do not have the requisite equipment or skills.

Most optical texts that I've found concentrate on simple lenses, frequently nothing more than thin-lens equations.
The discussion of complex lenses is usually limited to flint/crown pairs like cemented or air-spaced doublets.

I think this is because the math becomes so horrendous for multi-element designs that it's considered too
difficult for students. In fact it was too difficult for design departments before the advent of computers. :D

- Leigh