Nikkor M 450 F9 - Question

[Corran]

I think most of the LFF poster are highly educated or trained photographers, and those of us with lesser knowledge would benefit if they backup their comments with a photograph or two that they have taken. The illustration of those tips would greatly benefit the general audience. We all heard: One image is worth thousand words.

+1

[Pere Casals]

+1

-1

What I don't understand is how such an expensive lens could have such a low performance:



This is not a test made by an amateur like me...

enough for a field lens, but not shinning. Was it a defective sample ?

Still IMHO a good photographer should be able to take very good images, but not because its stellar sharpness.

[Corran]

Nikkor-M 450mm on 8x20:



Contact print looks fantastic.

450M is coveted for large image circle. I couldn't care less what meaningless contrived measurements say.

[Pere Casals]

Nikkor-M 450mm on 8x20:

Contact print looks fantastic.

Of course, it has to be a fantastic contact print, that sure is flawless even if inspected with an x4 loupe. But I guess that you understand that result would be pretty similar if you had used any regular LF lens covering those 20".

[Corran]

Not exactly numerous options for lenses in shutter to cover that, and be as lightweight or affordable. The point is that resolution numbers are mostly irrelevant for many purposes once we reach this kind of lens, and even very modest resolution would allow for massive enlargements. And that's putting aside the issue of contrived resolution measurements from a test target.

[Pere Casals]

Not exactly numerous options for lenses in shutter to cover that, and be as lightweight or affordable. The point is that resolution numbers are mostly irrelevant for many purposes once we reach this kind of lens, and even very modest resolution would allow for massive enlargements. And that's putting aside the issue of contrived resolution measurements from a test target.

I completely agree, these are clever words.

To me your M is a totally competent field lens, just excelling in the field, dot. I've no doubt. A plasmat is a (technically) clearly better lens but it would weight 1700grs and the performance improvement would be seen only in a 1.5m print, or perhaps larger.

Clearly the competition is the Fujinon C 450, that weights the 270grs instead 640gr of the M, but in a 8x10 (or 8x20) setup this is not important.

What I was saying is that the old Symmar 240mm converted to 420mm f/12, for 8x10 and stopped to f/32, it would be surprisingly good for the $70 price. For the same reasons you cite about resolution on flat targets.

Speaking seriously, in the particular 8x20 shot you showed nothing can be in perfect focus, you have near subjects in top and the bottom and distant subjects in the center, so what counts is balancing the focus distance and the aperture, not the lens performance.

[Corran]

Speaking seriously, in the particular 8x20 shot you showed nothing can be in perfect focus, you have near subjects in top and the bottom and distant subjects in the center, so what counts is balancing the focus distance and the aperture, not the lens performance.

Pere, we've obviously had our disagreements, but I find it interesting you say this, because it's basically what I and many, many others on this forum have been trying to tell you for years wrt resolution targets vs. "real-world" photographs.

I'm not going to argue about it, but I think you should sit back and consider what you've just said in relation to a lot of what you've posted and how it all fits together in actual photographic outcomes. Also, I note the OP mentioned contact prints as the intended goal.

PS: I think the Fujinon, which is about the only comparable lens out there but does have that slight advantage in weight, has slightly less covering power than the Nikkor. I don't have a way to truly test this, but many claim the Nikkor covers up to 16x20+, which is astounding for the size/weight/price. The Fujinon is also of course astronomical in price.

[Pere Casals]

I'm not going to argue about it, but I think you should sit back and consider what you've just said in relation to a lot of what you've posted and how it all fits together in actual photographic outcomes.

I you read my posts, if often cited that Sally Mann never had a problem if a lens had a crack in the middle, while she recently exhibited the most impressive prints many have seen on a wall, mostly departing from glass sheets and raw chem.

I'm perfectioning my DIY emulsions and coating procedures since 2 years ago.

In this post what I was defending is that an old converted symmar can perform amazingly, if you read well. What I was challenging is that M is what makes a difference, the difference is the photographer, today I was saying the same about film: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1515647

A lot of hype with tmy, but what counts is what Sally makes with the wet plates.

Also it is my position that an artist can take advantage from the optics flaws of an old glass may have or from the supreme refinement Sironar-S may sport to depict fine detail in a big print, personally what I don't like is hype.

My view is that a true artist makes a Pietà if he only has a hammer, but I'm not an artist, at least not a good one .

[Eric Leppanen]

Of course, it has to be a fantastic contact print, that sure is flawless even if inspected with an x4 loupe. But I guess that you understand that result would be pretty similar if you had used any regular LF lens covering those 20".

But how do you determine whether the lens covers 20"? Go off of manufacturer rated image circles? Then ULF shooters would be significantly limited in terms of cost effective lens options. Even for regular LF formats there is a meaningful subset of lenses that hold up quite well beyond rated image circles. At one point I owned both the previously mentioned Nikon 450M and APO Symmar L 480, and compared the two on 8x10. In terms of subjective rendering, I slightly preferred the 480. Brightness while focusing was a wash, f/8.4 vs. f/9 doesn't make much difference. But for all other parameters that were meaningful to me -- size/weight, resolution, usable coverage -- the 450M as a practical matter was far superior for field use. In particular the 450M had more usable coverage than the 480 (the 480 mechanically vignettes shortly beyond its rated image circle, whereas the 450 does not), despite the 480 having a significantly larger rated image circle (500 vs. 440mm). Yes, it is possible that the 450M may exhibit some chromatic aberration or other optical issues when pushed beyond its rated circle, but I've shot enough images in varied lighting to know that any visible effects are subtle, and nothing that can't be handled in post. In particular resolution and light falloff holds up quite well, and this is why the 450M has such a good reputation among ULF shooters, even though based on rated IC it would seem ill-suited for that purpose.

No lens manufacturer documents how quickly optical quality degrades once rated image circle is exceeded. In my experience most lenses fairly quickly start exhibiting heavy light falloff, turn to mush or mechanically vignette. But a meaningful number do not, and the only way to ferret them out is to go by reputation and empirical testing using the criteria most meaningful to your own shooting. You can't just go off of specs.

BTW I also comparison tested the 450M and Fuji 450C (which I still own) on 8x10. The 450M indeed has significantly more usable coverage. The Copal 1 450C though is a better lens for the smaller lightweight cameras I currently own.

[Pere Casals]

the 450M may exhibit some chromatic aberration or other optical issues when pushed beyond its rated circle

Eric, perhaps one of the M "defects" is some field curvature, this is not uncommon in tessar formulas. Joseph Holmes complained about that, still I guess this is not much noticed at usual apertures.

With only 4 elements the lens designer has to make his choices about what he corrects the more or the less, a six elements design has obviously more degrees of freedom in the equations to correct better more things.

Anyway such a long lens with only a 52º of coverage covers the 440mm circle, life it's easier when coverage angle is that narrow, and a simple 4 elements lens can perform acceptably. Also dropping quasi-simetry would be more painful if coverage was wider.

In my experience most lenses fairly quickly start exhibiting heavy light falloff, turn to mush or mechanically vignette.

This has two sides, IMHO. The illuminaton beyond the good image circle can cover the corners of a larger format if those are in the OOF.

The negative side is that the excess in the illumination circle generates flare because all that light bounces in the bellows, in special if the bellows are too extended or too compressed.

I found that effect with the Symmar 360mm converted to 620mm. In that case the illumination circle is insanely large compared with the good image circle, requiring a compendium shade.

Nikon 450M and APO Symmar L 480, and compared the two on 8x10.

Yes... It may make little sense to haul around a 4Lb APO Symmar L 480 when the M 450 covers 440mm yet. Sure that the L 480 is an impressive glass, but hiking with it can be a weight loss prescription

The L is a high end lens, the M is a field lens. Not the same performance but similar results in practice, I guess except for weight loss, in that concern the L is superior !