Sharpest 300mm lens for 5x7

[Clayton Tume]

Dan

can you elaborate on you comment about the Nikkor 300 M being poor outside the central 5".

I was planning on buying one for 8x10 and now having second thoughts. Originally I was tossing up between the 300M and 305 G Claron but gave the edge to the Nikkor because of it's smaller size and also many posters here had recommended it as being extremely sharp to the edge on 8x10.

I'm now wondering if they were talking contact prints and not enlargements. I plan to enlarge so my use may differ to others.

Clayton

[Steve Clark]

You might want to consider an APO-Ronar. I sold my 300m Nikkor as the 300 APO-Ronar images were much more pleasing to me. The Nikkor was plenty sharp, but the Rodenstock has a much nicer "feel" to it. I use it on 5X7, with excellant results.

[Ken Lee]

I recall that the Nikon M lenses are based on a Tessar design, well known to be sharp in the center, but with degrading sharpness towards the edge. This improves with smaller f-stops, but only so much. More modern designs overcome that problem.

On the other hand, the Tessar design is quite compact. Many 1950's folding cameras have that kind of lens, allowing them to be small enough to fold right into the camera.

[Dan_4341]

Clayton - My experience with the Nikkor 300M f9 (actually, two samples), was that the sharpness was not as good outside the central approx 5" square of an 8x10 transparency than with other 300 & 305 mm lenses I used (I tested several on the same subject, and took multiple shots). Being not as sharp as seen in my higher powered magnifiers (above 4x) that is. At 4x I could see a slight difference, but depending on how picky the viewer is, it might not be important. So if someone is making contacts it wouldn't matter. However if someone were to stick their eyes close to something like a 20x24 print, then they might be very disappointed.

I am picky, so it mattered to me. I preferred the results of all other 300mm lenses over those particular Nikkor 300mm f9 s . I don't use 300 or 305 mm lenses anymore (went down to two lenses - 240mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S, 450mm Nikkor M f9 - which I preferred over the Fuji F12.5C, just the reverse of the 300mm situation). If I did, I'd want to get a 305mm G-claron that was of recent vintage, or for more money and considerable weight the 300mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S. If I couldn't get the 305, and didn't want to hack the weight of the f5.6 plasmats, then the Fuji 300 f8.5 would be my choice. I did try a Nikkor 300mm f5.6 W, and although better than the f9M, it wasn't as good as the Rodenstock or a Schneider Apo-Symmar (but didn't compare it directly to the Fuji 300mm f8.5c). Then there are other lenses, like the Fuji 300mm F5.6 CM-W (I think that's the current designation), which might be very good, but I didn't try.

On the other hand, some others have found the 300mm f9 Nikkor plenty good for their needs, and perhaps their particular samples were better than the two I tried.

[Gem Singer]

Daniel's inquiry is about the 5X7 and 6X17 format. The Nikkor 300M and the Fujinon 300C have more than ample coverage for those two formats. Had the question been about the 8X10 format, I would have recommended any of the larger 300 f5.6 plasmats.

[Ted Harris]

Another plug for the 300mm Fuji A. In addition to its pleasing color rendition and excellent resolution it has an image circle that is comeptitive with the llarger and heavier f5.6 lenses that are being discussed above. At 420 the image circle of the Fuji A is about the same as that of the Apo Symmar; I didn;t check the Rodenstock image circle but assume it is about the same. Differences being the Fuji is lighter and in a #1 shutter. I have neither used nor owned a 300mm Apo Symmar but I used to use a 240 mm Symmar-S MC in a Prontor Pro #3 shutter and I can tell you that the lens was absolutely the heaviest lens I owned, period.

[Michael Jones]

Daniel:

Two lenses I use have not popped up in this list are the 12" Kodak Commercial Ektar and 12" Red Dot Artar. The Ektar will cover 8x10 and after the shutter is overhauled, it’s as good as it gets, IMHO. Depending on your luck you may find it in an f4.5 or a f5.6 version. They use Acme #5 and #4 shutters respectively; make sure your camera can support it. The Artar will cover 5x7 nicely and is razor sharp. It can be found in almost any shutter (or not) and is significantly smaller and lighter. I find the local contrast and image quality of these lenses to any Japanese lens, but that is a matter of personal preference. I just did not want you to overlook them as they can be found reasonably priced, especialy when compared to some newer models.

Good luck.

Mike

[David K.]

Daniel, I have used a 300 Nikkor, owned a 305 G-Claron, and currently use a 300 Apo-Ronar.

My impression is that both the G-Claron and the Apo-Ronar are more versatile lenses, than the Nikkor, that is essentially optimised for infinity work. All will probably have sufficient coverage for what you need it for. The G-claron probably has more coverage than you can use, and is the largest and heaviest of the the 3 lenses.

My recommendation is what I currently use, the Apo-Ronar - compact, light weight, and very sharp at both infinity and close-up. The Apo-Ronar is also available both as a single coated and a multi-coated lens, dependant on what vintage you pick-up.