Impressions on Nikkor M 450mm f9

[Pere Casals]

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.

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.

So the M 450 can perform well for 8x10 landscape, but better avoid great movements if not well stopped...

There is this old thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...on-C-450-f12-5

(fuginon )

[Sal Santamaura]

...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...

The Nikon's edge sharpness was acceptable to you. The L's cutoff point was established by what was acceptable to Schneider.

[Sal Santamaura]

...There is this old thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...on-C-450-f12-5...

I compared the 450M to a 450mm CM Fujinon W. That thread discusses the 450mm Fujinon C. Those are two very different Fujinons.

[Drew Wiley]

The 450M has a great reputation for 8X10 usage, that's all I can personally say. I'd love to own one, but don't really need it. As far as performance specs by Perez etc, I'd take this with a grain of salt. Without having anything remotely close to a serious statistical sample, he seems to come up with lens to lens variations which probably reflect habitual inconsistencies in his own methodology rather than anything real. For a long time, companies like Nikon and Fuji have possessed the means to monitor quality control on pro lenses far more accurately than do-it-yourselfers. Those of us who routinely use certain lenses know better.

[Dan Fromm]

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.

Interesting. I have no experience with tessar type Apo-Nikkors or with echt Apo Tessars, do have a couple of f/9 tessar type TTH process lenses that are very very good -- but remember I'm an MF person, use them on 2x3. I wonder how f/9 tessar type process lenses compare with Nikkor-Ms.

I can't compare my TTH process lenses with plasmat types, don't have any comparable ones. I retired the 10.16" in favor of a 250/6.8 Beryl (dagor type), am not sure that was a good decision if only because the Beryl is much much heavier and I don't need its coverage.

[Sal Santamaura]

...As far as performance specs by Perez etc, I'd take this with a grain of salt...

I don't. First, they're not "specs" but rather test results. Those results reveal real-world performance applicable to the way many readers of this site use their equipment. And they do so much more effectively than similar results you've presented. Which is to say none.

...Without having anything remotely close to a serious statistical sample, he seems to come up with lens to lens variations which probably reflect habitual inconsistencies in his own methodology rather than anything real...

Evidence please. Particularly, your own multi-sample test results that show greater or lesser variation. And please document the 'consistent methodology' you used to obtain those results.

...For a long time, companies like Nikon and Fuji have possessed the means to monitor quality control on pro lenses far more accurately than do-it-yourselfers...

Monitoring is one thing. Establishing 'pass criteria' for production variability is another.

...Those of us who routinely use certain lenses know better.

You mean those of us who use our own lens samples (not others') and know everything about everything?

[MAubrey]

Evidence please. Particularly, your own multi-sample test results that show greater or lesser variation. And please document the 'consistent methodology' you used to obtain those results.

Evidence that in order to be remotely confident about test results you need a statistically significant sample?

Going chronologically...

https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/bl...d-other-myths/
https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/bl...d-other-facts/
https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/bl...-of-variation/
https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/bl...era-variation/
https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/bl...-perfect-lens/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/201...lens-variance/

[Sal Santamaura]

...Without having anything remotely close to a serious statistical sample, he seems to come up with lens to lens variations which probably reflect habitual inconsistencies in his own methodology rather than anything real...

...Evidence please. Particularly, your own multi-sample test results that show greater or lesser variation. And please document the 'consistent methodology' you used to obtain those results. ...

Evidence that in order to be remotely confident about test results you need a statistically significant sample?...

No, evidence that the methodology Kerry and Christopher used was habitually inconsistent and didn't reveal actual performance of the samples they tested under the conditions most readers here use their large format equipment. Please read that sequence of statements again. I'm very familiar with Roger Cicala's writings. Doesn't change a thing in this discussion.

[Greg]

For a long time, companies like Nikon and Fuji have possessed the means to monitor quality control on pro lenses far more accurately than do-it-yourselfers. Those of us who routinely use certain lenses know better.

In the 1990s I came across a used but in mint condition 24-120mm AF Nikkor at a price I couldn't pass up on. Reviews of the lens were pretty much all rating the lens as only a mediocre lens, not one of Nikon's better optics. Used the lens professionally and found the lens to be an amazingly sharp lens. Over the years, about a half dozen used ones were available at my local camera store, some even being the next generation of the lens. Each time I got a call that "another one was available", I'd drive over to the store, borrow the lens up for sale, and then step out of the store. I'd then shoot the same scene down the street at 24mm, 50mm, and 120mm wide open and at f/11. None of those lenses I tested came close to the 24-120mm AF Nikkor I owned. This always made me wonder how the companies like Nikon and Fuji monitored the quality control on their pro lenses, or could some samples just be downright superior optics... Only twice did I have the chance to test two new samples side by side of the same LF optic, again at my local camera store which closed its doors probably 8 years ago :-(. In both cases one lens was measurably sharper than the other, and that one was the one I purchased.

[MAubrey]

No, evidence that the methodology Kerry and Christopher used was habitually inconsistent and didn't reveal actual performance of the samples they tested under the conditions most readers here use their large format equipment. Please read that sequence of statements again. I'm very familiar with Roger Cicala's writings. Doesn't change a thing in this discussion.

We can agree to disagree.