300mm f/9 nikkor-m vs 300mm f/9 nikkor-q

[karl french]

They sold either the 300 or the 450 in barrel. You could use either with that shutter/aperture scale. It's not a convertible.

[scheinfluger_77]

Darn, I had such high hopes. What is your opinion of the price?

[Dan Fromm]

I took a look at the listing. 281889351388

Counting reflections in the listing's images is just possible. The first and second images don't clearly show the four strong reflections a tessar type's front cell would have. The third shot, though, seems to show the two strong, one weak reflections a tessar type's rear cell would have.

Until proven otherwise the lens is a tessar type (so a tessar type Apo Nikkor = Nikkor-M) that has been reshuttered. Tessar types aren't convertible.

As for the price, I dunno. How much have 300/9 Nikkors sold for recently?

[karl french]

It has NOT been re-shuttered. This is the original way this lens was presented. I've owned both the 300 and 450mm versions of this lens in these great older Copal 3 shutters. It's exactly the same lens as as a Nikkor-M 300mm f9, though perhaps with different coatings.

[scheinfluger_77]

As for the price, I dunno. How much have 300/9 Nikkors sold for recently?

From what I've seen recently a 300mm anything is pricing at 450-500 start, but nothing seems to sell at that price.

Update: Just located 3 300 M's that sold on eBay since October; $320, $400 and $450. I'm thinking $350 for the Q might be a touch steep.

[Dan Fromm]

It has NOT been re-shuttered. This is the original way this lens was presented. I've owned both the 300 and 450mm versions of this lens in these great older Copal 3 shutters. It's exactly the same lens as as a Nikkor-M 300mm f9, though perhaps with different coatings.

Interesting. But why the second scale if the lens is a tessar type?

[karl french]

As I said above. Nikon sold both the 300 & 450 Q lenses in barrel. You could by one in a shutter, then later add the other in barrel and proceed to use it in the shutter you already had. Also, if it was a convertible the max aperture of the converted lens would clearly not be the same as the whole lens.

[Dan Fromm]

As I said above. Nikon sold both the 300 & 450 Q lenses in barrel. You could by one in a shutter, then later add the other in barrel and proceed to use it in the shutter you already had. Also, if it was a convertible the max aperture of the converted lens would clearly not be the same as the whole lens.

Thanks for the explanation. So then both (300, 450) go in a #3 and Nikon offered either in a shutter with the aperture scaled for both?

They're not convertible, I should have been clearer.

[karl french]

It was short lived I think, because you also see a fair number of Nikkor-Q 300/9 lens in the old style Copal 1. I can see why people wondered what the point of having such a small lens in a big shutter was, when really only the 450 needed the Copal 3. When I got back into shooting 8x10 in 2010 I picked up one of these 300/9 lenses like this. It was a real pleasure to use. I love the old style Copal 3 shutters and the lens barrel/quality of engraving/general feel of the old Nikon large format lenses is great. Sort of regret getting rid of it, but the Fujinon C 300/8.5 does more in the same size package as the modern Nikkor M 300/9.

[scheinfluger_77]

Thanks for the information Karl. When you say "the Fujinon C 300/8.5 does more" I presume you mean more than the Nikkor-q under discussion. Do you mean the 300 C has a larger image circle, or something else? Thanks again.