760mm Apo Nikkor f/11 vs Nikkor-T ED 800mm f/12

[Drew Wiley]

Airspaced 4-element basically-symmetrical Apo lenses designed primarily for graphics applications include not only Apo Nikkors, but Apo Artars from Schneider, Apo Ronars by Rodenstock, and about half a dozen other series I can think of. Apo Ronars were prized by 4x5 mountain photographers due to compactness and the fact that they are superb at infinity, despite being designed for close-up copy reproduction. This is also the case with Artars (Goerz and Schneider). There are also plasmat designs like G-Claron and Fujinon A that are specially close-range corrected yet excel at infinity. Yes, you CAN have your cake and eat it too! I've been doing it for decades.

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, to be fair to pfsor, I've been puzzled by some process lenses' performance at distance. I understand his argument that absolutely symmetrical, with identical front and rear cells, lenses are by definition optimized for 1:1 and should perform worse at distance.

But back when I was testing lenses actively some of my results didn't agree with theory. My f/9 process dialytes (Apo-Nikkors, Apo-Ronars) all did very well at all distances from wide open down. Same goes for my dagor type G-Clarons, except for the as yet untested 150/9. 6/6 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II also, in fact on 35 mm it beats a 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS from 1:2 to infinity from f/9 down.

I've had only one plasmat type G-Claron, a 150/9. It was worse at distance -- quite usable, but worse -- than both of my 150/9 Apo-Ronars so it went.

I've had one 4/4 Process Nikkor, a 260/10 engraved Nikkor-Q. Symmetrical, unusable at distance. Have you ever tried one of these or a WA G-Claron?

I have a number of Boyer Apo-Saphirs. These are all f/9 heliar types, symmetrical except for the diaphragm's position. I've tested them facing both ways, found no difference at distance. Worse than the equivalent Apo-Nikkor at apertures larger than f/16, equal from f/16 down. This raises the question of whether stopping down is the trick. At what apertures do you use your process dialytes? I typically shoot from f/11 - f/22.

Tessars are quite asymmetrical. I've never had any echt Zeiss Apo Tessars, have three TTH tessar type process lenses, all superb at distance. What's your experience with Apo-Tessars and the like?

[Drew Wiley]

All my Apo Nikkors are the expensive dialyte type, which are superb at infinity. Your Q is from their less expensive process lens series which has led to the misunderstanding about distance use. My own Nikon tessars are all M's and not process lenses; they're superb outdoors; but I've never tried close-ups with them. My Apo Nikkors are quite on key from f/11 to f/45, at which point a bit of diffraction begins to set in. The fact that published specs are based on f/22 and image circles related to precise apo dot reproduction, is another source of confusion with respect to general photography applications. Same goes for G-Clarons, where there is more than one version, and published specs are hyper-conservative based on technical applications.

[Bernice Loui]

For Goerz APO Artar, published optimal aperture is f16 for f9 versions ,f22 for f11 versions. At infinity image ratio there is little if any reasons to stop down much beyond these recommended apertures. It appears most APO process lenses are optimized at f22 or f16. Typical taking apertures f11 to f32, rarely f45.

When images to be made requires larger apertures, the Kodak f6.3 Commercial Ektar or f4.5 Ektar or Schneider f4.5 Xenar is applied. The Kodak Ektars can be used at full aperture with surprisingly good results.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

In outdoor photography (vs graphic flat copy) depth of field is always an issue, esp when shooting 8x10 or larger. Nobody is going to notice the difference
between f/22 and f/45 on a 30X40 inch print, which is only 4X linear magnification from 8X10 film. Film plane flatness is a far bigger issue, or in the case of
very long lenses, atmospheric issues like haze or heat waves. I worked at lot with Cibachrome, which was essentially just like film itself in its ability to hold
far more fine detail than any paper base. I've done big prints where you'd actually have to use a loupe on the print itself to appreciatate that fact - somewhere in the composition you'd stumble upon a flower way out in a meadow, with a mosquito in perfect focus on it, where you could count every leg,
or a tiny drop of water only a millimeter across in the print, yet with a sharp reflection of my camera and tripod in it under a loupe. Given an f/64 taking aperture I don't like printing larger than 20X24, but around f/32 to f/45 is pretty much optimal for typical outdoor use with 8X10 film. With 4X5 shots I never stop down more than
f/32. In the lab for precise repro purposes like enlarged dupes or internegs, my Apo Nikkors are sharpest between f/11 and f/16, but with no visible difference on a 20X24 silver print even down to f/45, which is less than a 3X linear enlargement from 8X10. For Ciba or Fuji Superfgloss polyester media
I more religiously restricted this to around f/11 to f/16 when enlarging.

[Bernice Loui]

By comparison for 5x7, f22 is typical smallest aperture often used. IMO, apply the camera movements as need to bring what needs to be in focus in focus then stop down only as much as needed and no more.

Use a 180mm APO Nikkor for 4x5, 240mm Goerz Red Dot Artar for 5x7 in the Durst 138. Projection aperture is f16. Both are excellent enlarging lenses.

The resolution capability of Ciba prints is often not appreciated by those who have not experienced the unique image results Ciba can produce. High contrast with a color rendition and look that was unique. There was a Fuji offering that was similar but not the same offered during that era.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

I don't have a 180 Apo Nikkor. It would be nice. With Ciba printing, the slightly lower contrast of the more ordinary 180 Rodagon was sometimes an advantage. Analogously, in the 360 range for 8x10 printing, I have both an ultra-crisp, contrasty Apo Nikkor and the bigger, faster 360 EL-Nikkor, which was valuable not only for the slow Ciba medium, but focusing on orange-masked negatives when RA4 printing. My fast snappy lens for 4x5 printing is an Apo Rodagon N - a tad of illumination falloff compared to a 180, but I just burn-in the edges and corners for that.

[Sal Santamaura]

I don't have a 180 Apo Nikkor. It would be nice...

Go for it Drew:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-APO-N...cAAOSwNSJa1mWK

Save me from temptation. I've been burned before buying (and having to return because of undisclosed defects -- different seller) one of those on eBay.

[Lachlan 717]

What are the 180mm APO Nikkors as a taking lens? Not much out there on this topic.

(Disclosure: I’ve got a mint one in the cupboard that I’ve never got around to mounting).

[Dan Fromm]

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...hp/t-6850.html