Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 115

Thread: Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Poor judgement to judge a lens by the number of elements in it's design. What matters is the results of images produced.

    Bernice
    Bernice, what matters in the images produced it's not the lenses, but the photographer and how inspired he is. A true artist (I'm not one) makes wonders by using the plain bottom of a coke bottle.

    Regarding the number of elements of a LF lens, are you sure that 4/3 tessar will perform as good than a 6/4 plasmat if wanting 70º coverage ? don't think that the 6 elements would allow more refined corrections than 4 and that this is important when going beyond 50º ?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,804

    Re: Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    ...plasmat would probably deliver a larger circle, but for 450mm a plasmat would be huge. This is seen in then 300mm focal, for example, comparing Nikkor M 300 vs W 300...
    Not a very insightful analogy/comparison.

    At 300mm, the Nikkor M barely covers 8x10 without movements (325mm image circle), accepts 52mm filters and weighs 290g. The 300mm Nikkor W has a 420mm image circle, takes 95mm filters and weighs 1250g. To get that 95mm greater coverage, one is faced with a 3,310% weight difference and filters that are 82% larger.

    In the 450mm focal length, image circle of a Nikkor M is specified as 440mm, while weight is 640g. A 450mm CM Fujinon W (which I own) has a 540mm image circle and weighs 1140g. The M filter thread is 67mm; CM-W accepts 86mm filters. For a 78% weight difference and a 28% larger filter, one gets an image circle 100mm larger. One, I might add, that's uniform right out to its edge, unlike the Nikkor's. Yes, many use the Nikkor for much larger formats, but they're inevitably contact printing and not critical about resolution in the corners.

    Not all focal lengths are created equal. At 450mm, while not small, I wouldn't call the CM Fujinon W "huge." It is somewhat larger and heavier than the Nikkor M, but provides advantages that make dealing with its size/weight worthwhile in many applications.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    Not a very insightful analogy/comparison.

    At 300mm, the Nikkor M barely covers 8x10 without movements (325mm image circle), accepts 52mm filters and weighs 290g. The 300mm Nikkor W has a 420mm image circle, takes 95mm filters and weighs 1250g. To get that 95mm greater coverage, one is faced with a 3,310% weight difference and filters that are 82% larger.

    In the 450mm focal length, image circle of a Nikkor M is specified as 440mm, while weight is 640g. A 450mm CM Fujinon W (which I own) has a 540mm image circle and weighs 1140g. The M filter thread is 67mm; CM-W accepts 86mm filters. For a 78% weight difference and a 28% larger filter, one gets an image circle 100mm larger. One, I might add, that's uniform right out to its edge, unlike the Nikkor's. Yes, many use the Nikkor for much larger formats, but they're inevitably contact printing and not critical about resolution in the corners.

    Not all focal lengths are created equal. At 450mm, while not small, I wouldn't call the CM Fujinon W "huge." It is somewhat larger and heavier than the Nikkor M, but provides advantages that make dealing with its size/weight worthwhile in many applications.
    Sal, I mentioned near all that in post #7 http://www.largeformatphotography.in...=1#post1425358

    The comparison M vs W in the 300mm was to show Tessar vs Plasmat difference, as for 450 Nikon don't has the W.

    Just pointing the M has narrower (50º-52º) coverage angle, but still covering well beyond 810 because the long focal...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    Yes, many use the Nikkor for much larger formats, but they're inevitably contact printing and not critical about resolution in the corners.
    Anecdotically, C Perez tested two 300M, a DIY test, but there is a significative sample to sample variation for f/11:

    f/11 67 67 47
    f/16 48 42 42
    f/22 42 42 42

    vs

    f/11 48 48 48
    f/16 48 48 48
    f/22 54 54 54

    Still, if Pérez could read those 42-54 in the corners, this is a lot from a 8x10 negative, it could be enlarged to 8x without a flaw, if using a Rodagon-N for the mural.

    Anyway there is something about the C Pérez tests that I don't understant, I don't know if the corner performance is in the 4x5 corner with no rise-shift, or if corner performance was measured in the circle boundary.

    Because the resolution target he used I think he speaks about 4x5 corner... so those 42-54 may be lower for the 810 corner...

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,901

    Re: Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

    That depends much on what the image creator intends to express with the image to be created, no?

    About two decades ago, all the modern plasmas are gone from the lens collection. Regardless of brand, the images they produce are not for me. As for coverage, Dagor has more and has a LOT more personality than a Plasmat specially when the Dagor has a round iris. The go-to lens is Kodak Ektar or Xenar or Dagor depending on aperture needed. The split is at f16. larger required aperture results in the Kodak Ektar-Xenar, smaller than f16 results in using a Dagor. If a longer than normal focal length is needed, Goerz APO artar at f11 or smaller. Wide angles are Grandagon, Super Angulon or Symmar XL. Working aperture is typically limited to f32.

    The modern plasma is a trade off lens, does most things well at apertures smaller than f16 but lacks personality of other designs. IMO, these should be THE lens for those who begin a venture into LF due to reliable, accurate modern shutter, few bad traits and good sized image circle.

    Lack of technical credentials should NOT be the judgement of a given lens, what matters is the images they produce on film, then in the finished print.



    Bernice



    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    Bernice, what matters in the images produced it's not the lenses, but the photographer and how inspired he is. A true artist (I'm not one) makes wonders by using the plain bottom of a coke bottle.

    Regarding the number of elements of a LF lens, are you sure that 4/3 tessar will perform as good than a 6/4 plasmat if wanting 70º coverage ? don't think that the 6 elements would allow more refined corrections than 4 and that this is important when going beyond 50º ?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    e Kodak Ektar-Xenar, smaller than f16 results in using a Dagor...

    Lack of technical credentials should NOT be the judgement of a given lens, what matters is the images they produce on film, then in the finished print.

    Bernice
    Of course... I feel the same...

    Personally, (being inspiration, subject and light more important than glass) while I'd like the technical perfection of a Sironar-N,S for some landscape in Velvia 8x10, also I love the glow of uncoated glass and the imperfections of a converted lens, for example. For sure that little or big imperfections in a glass are an impressive aesthetical resource if handled by the right artist. I lack proficient artistic capability, anyway as an amateur I feel that Sally Mann work is what inspires me, enough to understand that a glass may have a lot beyond technical perfection.

  6. #16
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

    Unfortunately, this is the only M lens I don't own, since I prefer the much lighter Fuji 450C for backpacking. But I have the 300, 200, and even rare 100 M. It is misleading to compare these to traditional tessars. The are a more evolved rendition of that design, with thinner MC elements, more compact, very sharp (better in this respect than most modern plasmats - with higher contrast and etter color saturation too, due to less elements). Don't expect dreamy out-of-focus blur like some old tessars. Yes, if you push the image circle to extremes, the sides and corners degrade. For this reason, I don't use the 300 for 8X10, though it should be fine with limited movements at small apertures. These are not compromise lenses, but among the very best you can get. And for now I must assume that applies to the 450 too.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,804

    Re: Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    Sal, I mentioned near all that in post #7...
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    ...At 450mm, while not small, I wouldn't call the CM Fujinon W "huge."...
    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    ...there is something about the C Pérez tests that I don't understant, I don't know if the corner performance is in the 4x5 corner with no rise-shift, or if corner performance was measured in the circle boundary...
    All those results are for the corner of a 4x5 with no movements, i.e. 76.5mm from the center. Being a tessar, the 300M performs much worse at the limit of its specified image circle, i.e. 162.5mm from the optical center.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    973

    Re: Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

    I once owned both a Nikon 450M and 480 APO Symmar L plasmat for field use on 8x10. The APO Symmar L had a bit more contrast and a very nice rendering, but the Nikon was superior in all other respects. The Nikon's rated image circle is very conservative, I regularly encountered situations with extreme movements where the Nikon would cover with more than acceptable edge sharpness, whereas the APO Symmar L would vignette. These results were from landscape applications where both lenses were stopped down to f/45 or thereabouts.

    Sandy King has reported that when heavily stopped down, the 450M can cover 20x24 for contact printing, see post #118:

    http://www.largeformatphotography.in...=1#post1233270

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,804

    Re: Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    ...modern plasmas...Regardless of brand, the images they produce are not for me...The modern plasma is a trade off lens, does most things well at apertures smaller than f16 but lacks personality of other designs...
    This aspect of the topic is entirely a reflection of personal aesthetic preferences. In lenses (as with microphones) I want the most reduction of abberations/distortions technically achievable. I'd take a well-corrected plasmat over earlier designs any day. Others' mileage definitely does vary.

  10. #20
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

    Here's how I use mine: 100mm strictly for 6X9 roll film holders, never for 4X5. 200 & 300 for 4x5; never for 8X10. The 300 would be great for 5x7 too, I imagine. Given these restriction, these lenses outperform plasmats. But they're "clinically sharp", great for capturing extreme detail and texture, and as advertised,subtle hue distinction. If you want more "character" like a drunken sailor, find an earlier tessar.

Similar Threads

  1. Nikkor M over 450mm?
    By sanking in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 17-Aug-2010, 16:11

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •