I've seen numerous listings on Ebay that are confusing and don't explain that you might only be purchasing one rear element. I made this purchase about a month ago- thinking I was getting all 3 focal lengths but I only recieved the front element and the rear element for the 500mm. I decided to keep it as I certainly didn't have a 500mm lens previously and the price was still decent.
Back again to the perception of shaper, more contrast is better, more image circle is better then forgetting the design and production trade offs are far more complex than that.
IMO, just about every Nikkor LF lenses tried has high contrast with the perception on enhanced sharpness. From Nikkor W, SW, M, Tele, they appear to share a similar image goal of high contrast with perceived shaper image result. This is the prime reason for passing on the 600/800/1200mm Tele Nikkor.
As for the 360mm Tele Xenar, the one here is a later version circa late 80's in a Copal shutter. While it's contrast appears lower the contrast gradations is excellent, sharpness is more than good enough. The look is simply different than the Nikkor, not better or worst. This Tele Nikkor is usen on 6x9cm(really good) or 5x7 once in a rare while.
Bernice
Nikon specs are conservative, true, but from 210mm (at f/22) circle to the 312.5mm diagonal required to say it covers 8x10" there is a large discrepance that does not fit in the coservative margin, by far.Originally Posted by Willie
Then one thing is the image circle an another one the illumination circle. If your corners are anyway out of focus then you can consider the illumination circle as covering your format, true, this is not new, XIX century petzvals were also doing that.
Anyway it's a fake news that the T ED 720mm is a 8x10 lens. If one shots 810 a T ED 360/500/720 would be a sound mistake, for 810 the right system is the 600/800/1200, suposing one does not want translational movements with distant subjects, because even the big 600/800/1200 has a narrow circle for what's a 810 glass.
What it is true that any 5x7 lens (any !!!) will cover 8x10 if we focus near enough, and/or if we tolerate soft enough corners, in this sense Bryan was pretty right. This is also not new, even great artists like Sally Mann used extensively that way.
... so if you want a long lens to shot 810 then purchase a T 720, and you'll see
Really it's hilarious speaking about that while having the nikon catalog:
Well, at the very least, I'm genuinely amused by this debate.
I'm sure some 35mm photographers would be equally surprised to find out that a 1.4x teleconverter not only increases the focal length by 1.4x, but also increases the image circle, too.
Indeed. And in the cinema world, you can buy very, very expensive optical & mechanical converters to let you do exactly that - eg use B4 mount lenses on PL mount cameras.
If the lens doesn't have a mechanical vignette (& it doesn't seem to) then there's no reason for it not to have considerably more coverage than Nikon stated - the 450/9 is fairly notorious for having vastly larger coverage at deep stops (sharp enough for ULF contact prints) than what the catalogue claimed. I'm sure that somewhere in the literature Nikon's definition of the optical specs that define 'acceptable' coverage can be found & I suspect they're probably rather more stringent than what's necessary for a decent 2-3x off 8x10 - and on 8x10, camera shake & film flatness may be bigger destroyers of sharpness anyway. For all we know there may have been marketing reasons for specifying the baseline coverage of the telephoto sets as 210mm or 310mm - quite possibly to prevent people getting in a fankle by buying the wrong lens set for their format & then complaining about it.
I owned the 360/500/720 set and had a 360 Schneider Tele Arton for many years. Actually had two different Tele Arton 360's. The Nkkor 460 is very sharp but I found the 500 and 720 to be a little softer. I used them on my Sinar Norma and found vbration an issue with the longer combos so I used a second tripod to support the front of the rail. Still I was never knocked out by the 500 and 720 but the 360 was great.
Both my 360 f5.5 Tele Artobs were in copal 3 shutters. One I bought special order from Linhof in the mid 70's and the other a later black Linhof in a Copal 3. These are very large lenses and heavy. I believe the filter size was 95mm or there about. They easily covered 5x7 and I shot a lot with them on 5x7. Sharpness was very good but chromatic aberrations could crop up under some circumstances although CA's never killed a shot. Color was superb with these.
If buying today I'd get the Nikkor due to see and low CA's.
As usual we have talkers and then doers. Fake news indeed, Pere. Comparing the large image circle I have illustrated to a Mann-esque Petzval is plain ridiculous and as I've already stated and should be obvious to anyone who actually make photos, a 720mm lens focused at infinity and then 200 feet away will have significant differences in the plane of focus even at f/22 and beyond. It seems fairly straight-forward to me that Nikon's specs are for the 360mm and then as the elements change the actual IC in use increases. Whether or not the corner quality on 8x10 is 50 lp/mm at 50% contrast at f/22 or however Nikon might have marketed it for usage in the pro market decades ago is a different story, and obviously they did have the significantly larger, heavier, etc. lens to sell for those wanting a dedicated 8x10 lens with 3 focal lengths.
The simple fact is that the 720mmm covers 8x10 at a more than adequate quality level, just like my 305mm G-Claron covers 8x20 and the Nikkor-M 450mm covers that and more as seen from actual users of the lens, despite what the specs say. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
Heh, got this from them today.
I guess they also forgot to set the price at a reasonable level for just the two lensesThank you for your message and for your purchase. We apologize about the mistake with this, we had an error in the title it was supposed to note that the 720 head was missing as it's not shown in the listing images. If you no longer want the items, we can send a prepaid return label to have you send it back to us for a refund
Anyways, I decided to go ahead and pick up the tele xenar 360, thanks to everyone who brought it up. It might be a little cumbersome, but the flange focal distance is better. Plus I'm planning to start doing some tintype soon and I'm gonna need every stop I can get lighting portraits
Haven't used the 360/500/720 but have the 600/800 pair. I nearly only shoot 810 with them, and I do appreciate the reach. Quality is really quite excellent, right up there with the rest of the Nikon LF line. Heavy, yes, but not unreasonable since I rarely take the 810 far from the car these days. One thing to note is that I have made several errors of exposure due to having the 800 on and not the 600 and mis-adjusting the aperture. I've added a few color coded stickers to the rear elements and their caps and that has helped. Just out with it today before the rains came pouring down. Beautiful light this morning.
Do you think that the T 360/500/720 are good for 810 ?
I ask this because we have some controversy, with people recommending the T 720 for 810, and IMHO this can misslead people... Why you got the 600/800 and not the 500/720 ?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks