Considering both to be in the same condition and not considering their IC, which one would prove to be the optically superior?
Thomas
Considering both to be in the same condition and not considering their IC, which one would prove to be the optically superior?
Thomas
I already got the 760 and it came in a black Ilex 5 Universal. Funny thing is that when I tried to install the 760 elements in the silver Ilex 5 Universal that the 610 is in, the silver shutter proved to be too small - i.e., it required a wider threading for the elements even though the caps and filter threading (95mm) are identical.
Thomas
The T-ED is a newer design with special glass, so maybe it’s better optically but you would probably be using the edge of the image circle depending on your format, while you may be using the center for the APO which might reverse the relative sharpness. So let’s call that a wash. If the T-ED weighs 1.6kg it’s a little more than the 1.3kg I have in my records for the APO. So a small plus for the APO. Max aperture very small plus for APO too. The T-ED is in a Copal 3 and the APO in an Ilex 5 so a medium plus to the T-ED for a newer and faster shutter. APO is probably single coated glass while the T-ED must be multicoated, so small plus to T-ED especially when shooting in bright conditions in the field. The big difference is the bellows as mentioned above - that is why if I didn’t care about IC or the movement weirdness with a tele design, I’d go with the T-ED.
But I’d prefer an Apo-Ronar-CL 760mm f14 over both. It’s lighter, smaller, and takes a 67mm filter and works great in an Ilex 5. I’m not giving up mine!
Some more ideas for long lenses here: http://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog...ndations-14x17
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
The 760 appears to weigh slightly less than the 610 and is a tad shorter in length - so with the shutter it probable weighs slightly more than the T-ED. You could use the standard bellows instead of the long bellows with the T-ED but you would need the long bellows and the front standard reversing feature of the MII for both the Apo-Ronar CL and the Apo Nikkor. While the filter size is 95mm that only means that I need 95mm adapter ring for the Cokin Z-pro and a 82 to 95 step-up ring since I use 100mm square glass/resin filters.
My main question concerns the optical difference between the 2 designs. Nikon say this about the T-ED:
Nikkor lenses in the T series
are telephoto-type lenses which do
not require long-length camera
bellows. To maximize correction
of chromatic aberration inherent
in long focal length lenses, Nikon's
performance-proven ED (Extralow
Dispersion) glass was used for
the first time for lenses for largeformat
cameras. Image distortion
and curvature are also extremely
minimized. Combined with Nikon
Super Integrated Coating, the
result is outstandingly sharp
images, free from flare and ghosts
Notwithstanding the weight, bellows draw, filter size, etc, which design would be optically superior?
Thomas
Note that Nikon does not claim that the T-ED is "APO."
Thomas
I have the T*ED 360/500/720 and used to have the 600 T*ED. The 600 turned out to be a bit much on the Technika so I dropped back to the smaller lens set which I use on the Technika and a Kodak 5 x 7 2D. Amazingly sharp lenses . I was really quite surprised by how good they are.
APO as referred to by the APO nikkor is not true APO either. You have to go to the Apo El Nikkor if you really want truly corrected apochromat performance. The Nikkor-T will be better corrected for "normal" photography, e.g. not graphic arts at close to 1:1 and with monochromatic light, which is what the Apo Nikkor is designed for. I would take the Nikkor-T over the apo-nikkor.
I would guess that the apo-nikkor would be optically superior for reason that:
1. It's front element, which is coated, is larger resulting in a greater light capture per unit of time.
2. Tt focuses the light rays directly onto the film and does not bounce those rays around to make up for the shortened bellows.
Of course I could be wrong.
Thomas
I agree, the "APO Nikkor" is more "APO" than the similar "Process Nikkor" and "Nikkor-Q", but I wouldn't say a T is less APO than APO-Nikkor.Originally Posted by EdSawyer
Well, perhaps I wouldn't say that an APO Nikkor is better than a T for distant subjects. A Process/Reproduction lens is optimized for close projections, 1:1 or 1:5 (x1, x5 scale, better said), not for infinite. While a taking lens may work best from 1:10 or 1:20 magnifiction. So a test would be required to compare...
APO Nikkor is said to also work well for distant subjects, but it would be interesting to know the lp/mm depending on aperture for distant focus.
Another factor is the nice coating in the T if we plan to shot into the sun, anyway in that situation the critical thing is a front hud, because if not 80% of the circle of image (if 4x5) will be illuminating the bellows inside, with rays dancing there and ending in flare.
Finally the T is very fieldable if we add (to what said) that we can haul 2 additional rears to have 3 long focals. And three long focals in the backpack are not a joke
Both the T and the APO Nikkor are simple designs that trade having small coverage angle for other things. In the APO Nikkor absolute priority is focus field flatness and negligible distortion for repro environment. I guess the T priority is fielding 3 long focals, and this includes saving bellows draw, and smaller filters, while still having excellent Pro performance.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks