300mm lens 4x5" landscape

[Ernest MacMillan]

I am sure that you have more knowledge and experience than I in almost all aspects of this issue. Nonetheless, I don't believe you are correct in talking about the loss of two f-stops unless you intended to shoot at 5.6 or 8. When you set the 150 lens at f/11, you are shooting at f/22 and the film plane will be illuminated the same within reason as any other single lens set f/22 to begin with. There is no additional problem to confound you. Some of the many here more competent than me (a very low standard indeed) on this forum please correct me if I misunderstand. I cannot remember anything I shot at less than f/22 by choice.

Perhaps it is not so for many, but I welcome a cheap way to find out if a lens focal length works for me before spending, say, 500-1000 on a premium lens at the very limit wrt focal length of lenses I would use. When all is said and done, the lp/mm at 50% contrast may not be the limiting factor in the perceived quality of a print. It certainly isn't in mine or many that I have viewed.

[Drew Wiley]

Different people have different quality expectations in a print. For example, contact printers place great emphasis on tonality reproduction, but can get away with felonies when it comes to image sharpness, which nobody is going to notice anyway because there's no enlargement factor. And I have no use for stereotypes about what constitutes a good image and what might not - that is, I want to make that decision myself and not default to the limitations of less than ideal optics, because I do indeed often make large prints which people really do put their noses or reading glasses right up to. I want them to discover intricacies of detail within the overall greater composition. And I tend to use a lot of strong tilts and so forth. So from my perspective, which is at least analogous to the needs of numerous other forum members, though not necessarily all, such distinctions are worth stating.

[Bernice Loui]

That would be a NO, 2x tele converters work by expanding the prime lens exiting light image ray cone. Once this light ray image cone is expanded, there WILL BE light loss.. This is how the effective 2X focal length is achieved using a 2X converter.

From the Horseman catalog. "new"..




unless some ~noun~ has and had the ability to alter the laws of Physics as is currently known to humanity.

The topic of 2X converter has become confrontational and non-productive. It needs and must stop now.
No further reply at this point as it will simply prompt and inflame increasing non-productive verbage.


Bernice

I am sure that you have more knowledge and experience than I in almost all aspects of this issue. Nonetheless, I don't believe you are correct in talking about the loss of two f-stops unless you intended to shoot at 5.6 or 8. When you set the 150 lens at f/11, you are shooting at f/22 and the film plane will be illuminated the same within reason as any other single lens set f/22 to begin with. There is no additional problem to confound you. Some of the many here more competent than me (a very low standard indeed) on this forum please correct me if I misunderstand. I cannot remember anything I shot at less than f/22 by choice.

Perhaps it is not so for many, but I welcome a cheap way to find out if a lens focal length works for me before spending, say, 500-1000 on a premium lens at the very limit wrt focal length of lenses I would use. When all is said and done, the lp/mm at 50% contrast may not be the limiting factor in the perceived quality of a print. It certainly isn't in mine or many that I have viewed.

[Delfi_r]

The 300 mm Tessars are your best choice, the best: Nikkor-M, but the Cooke Triplet of the Rodenstock Gerogon is nice and good on landscapes.

[Alan Klein]

I am sure that you have more knowledge and experience than I in almost all aspects of this issue. Nonetheless, I don't believe you are correct in talking about the loss of two f-stops unless you intended to shoot at 5.6 or 8. When you set the 150 lens at f/11, you are shooting at f/22 and the film plane will be illuminated the same within reason as any other single lens set f/22 to begin with. There is no additional problem to confound you. Some of the many here more competent than me (a very low standard indeed) on this forum please correct me if I misunderstand. I cannot remember anything I shot at less than f/22 by choice.

Perhaps it is not so for many, but I welcome a cheap way to find out if a lens focal length works for me before spending, say, 500-1000 on a premium lens at the very limit wrt focal length of lenses I would use. When all is said and done, the lp/mm at 50% contrast may not be the limiting factor in the perceived quality of a print. It certainly isn't in mine or many that I have viewed.

When using a tele converter, how do you figure DOF?

[angusparker]

The 300 Nikkor M would perfectly equate to your expectations. It's with superb color film too. Another time-tested favorite, harder to find these days, would be a 300 Apo Ronar, provided it's the infinity-corrected version in shutter. Then there's the 300 Fuji C - it has a somewhat bigger image circle in case you want something more practical for 8x10 format too. These are all especially compact optically superb lenses in lightweight no.1 shutter. And all of them are plenty bright for outdoor landscape use, even though they are f/9 maximum aperture. You don't want anything way bulkier in a big no.3 shutter with that little Chamonix!

The Fuji A 300 makes sense if you want something deluxe predominantly for 8x10 format down the line, but also light enough to be practical in a 4x5 field kit. Not as compact as the lenses I just mentioned above, harder to find, and apt to be seriously expensive.

Agree completely. I own both. The Fuji A 300 is harder to find, heavier, and has a weird filter ring size (55 or 58mm I can't remember). I would go with the Nikkor M 300mm f9. The Fujinon C 300 f8.5 is basically the same lens, harder to find and usually a bit more expensive.

[Fermat]

Another time-tested favorite, harder to find these days, would be a 300 Apo Ronar, provided it's the infinity-corrected version in shutter. .

How do you recognize that a Apo Ronar 300 is a infinity-corrected version?
Thanks

[Bernice Loui]

Unless images made using an APO ronar, APO nikkor, APO artar demands geometric distortion of far less than 0.5% over the entire image area, color separation films of near absolute identical image size, concern for the corrected to infinity or 1:1 (life size) version is of no appreciable significance for expressive photographic images.

That said, been using these APO "process" lenses for view camera images for decades, good examples exceed any possible image expectations imposed on them.
They have excellent color and contrast rendition, for longer than normal focal length more than enough image circle for camera movements, small physical size and often low weight for their focal length. For images made at film exposures of f16 and smaller apertures, there is little if any dis-advantages to these APO process lenses be they in barrel or shutter.


Bernice

How do you recognize that a Apo Ronar 300 is a infinity-corrected version?
Thanks

[Drew Wiley]

The disadvantage of apo barrel lenses per se is that they do not include a shutter; and behind- the-lens universal shutters like the Sinar are not compatible with folding "field cameras". Portability is what is at stake. It's easy to find very compact 300mm lenses in small no. 1 shutter; but with most apo barrel lenses of that focal length you'll need a bulkier no. 3, plus the extra expense of acquiring the shutter and getting it adapted to the lens. And there are times when significantly lighter weight is quite important - like when I had to suddenly yank my view camera and tripod out of the way of a moose and her calf because I ignorantly had my gear set up on their commute path! Obviously, wilderness use has some logistical distinctions from studio applications.

Some of the lenses within the same general family, like Apo Ronars, Artars, and G-Clarons were also available in shutter, and frankly look different from the process versions, and might or might not be infinity corrected. Those with actual experience with specific lenses can comment on that. The famous 4x5 color photographer of the Himalaya and Karakorum, Shirahito, used a 300 Apo Ronar in shutter for many of his infinity shots. I've often used a 300 Nikkor M for either a moderate long view with 4X5 format, or for an even narrower perspective on distant shots in conjunction with a 6X9 roll film back. In my opinion, it exceeds ordinary MF lenses in critical performance; but so would my Fuji A or G Claron.

Nikkor M's the culmination of tessar design, and of thinner elements than traditional tessars. But Fuji C's are of the airspaced 4-element "dialyte" design, and superb at infinity, but so-so at very close range. My Apo Nikkor process lenses are also 4-element airspaced, but superbly corrected all the way from 1:1 to infinity, truly versatile in that respect; I use them mostly for enlarging purposes, but do have Sinar boards adapted for them, just in case I want to shoot with them lenscap-exposure style. Maybe Bernice or someone will finally realize just how lousy Sinar universal shutters are, and in disgust send one to me instead of continuing to fool with it himself.

[Fermat]

At the end I found a copy of Nikon M 300mm f9 in a dealer here in Milan.
I will try in the next days,

Inviato dal mio M2101K6G utilizzando Tapatalk