Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: 450 mm Nikkor-M vs. Symmar-S 480 mm

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Madisonville, LA
    Posts
    2,412

    Re: 450 mm Nikkor-M vs. Symmar-S 480 mm

    I'd get a 16 1/2-19" Artar, readily available in shutter or mountable in a Copal 3 and be done with it! I've paid as little as $300 for the 19" in shutter. L

  2. #12
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,341

    Re: 450 mm Nikkor-M vs. Symmar-S 480 mm

    Gotta disagree with Bernice a little bit. Tabletop work often involves strong front tilts, and the combination of a big image circle and superb close-range correction in a Fuji A or G-Claron really facilitates that. In fact, shuttered GC's were primarily marketed by Schneider as their premier studio tabletop series, even though these are excellent at infinity outdoors too. I certainly wouldn't want to be dealing with the bellows extension of a 450 lens for that kind of work. I have plenty of barrel process lenses on hand, including the superb Apo Nikkor series, but prefer my 360 Fuji A for such things. Nikkor M's don't seem as well corrected for very close range work, though I love them for certain other applications. Portraiture is a somewhat different topic, lens-wise.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,901

    Re: 450 mm Nikkor-M vs. Symmar-S 480 mm

    Does the lens image circle change with the image reproduction ratio going from infinity to 1:1_life size.

    If yes, does the image circle increase or decrease and by how much?

    Fujinon A and G-Claron are the only LF view camera lenses optimized for non-infinity image reproduction ratios, yes-no?


    Bernice


    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    Gotta disagree with Bernice a little bit. Tabletop work often involves strong front tilts, and the combination of a big image circle and superb close-range correction in a Fuji A or G-Claron really facilitates that. In fact, shuttered GC's were primarily marketed by Schneider as their premier studio tabletop series, even though these are excellent at infinity outdoors too. I certainly wouldn't want to be dealing with the bellows extension of a 450 lens for that kind of work. I have plenty of barrel process lenses on hand, including the superb Apo Nikkor series, but prefer my 360 Fuji A for such things. Nikkor M's don't seem as well corrected for very close range work, though I love them for certain other applications. Portraiture is a somewhat different topic, lens-wise.

  4. #14
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,341

    Re: 450 mm Nikkor-M vs. Symmar-S 480 mm

    It's related to several factors. As magnification increases, the image circles of course increases, regardless of lens. But with the specialized plasmats, you're starting out with a bigger image circle to begin with, which makes composition and focus per se easier wide-open. Otherwise, as per your question, No; the Fuji A and GC are not the only lenses corrected for both close-up and infinity. Everyone should know by now that certain barrel process lenses like apo artars, apo ronars, and apo nikkors perform excellently all the way from 1:1 to infinity, though some seem to need a slight shimming re-space of the two components. But having compared functional ease and performance with both categories apples to apples, for example, Fujinon A 360 vs Apo Nikkor 360, I'd reach for the Fuji A every time for tabletop usage or nature closeups. Flat head-on copy work is a different category - the process lenses are distinctly better at that. This is my real-world experience. I'm not guessing; I've specifically tested for it.

    An outlier that some people love for tabletop work is the Componon S in shutter, normally associated with just enlarging; but I've never personally tried that option. And I'm deliberately excluding approx 1:1 only lenses, like Nikkor AM, because this thread assumes something more versatile, and not specialized diamond ring or insect photography.

    But to a certain extent, we're talking about nuances of method or performance, not significant advantages or limitations one way or the other. There are a lot of suitable lens choices out there. Nuances do factor if I'm making a 30X40 inch full gloss color print, but certainly not for publication purposes. You'd get your chrome however you preferred, and they'd make the color separations with a copy camera and suitable process lens like those just mentioned. Now they predominantly scan, don't need the lenses anymore, and we benefit by buying those wonderful process lenses cheaply! That's not the case with Fuji A's; a 360 of one of those will still suck your wallet dry if you can even find one. 355 GC's are more common.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,901

    Re: 450 mm Nikkor-M vs. Symmar-S 480 mm

    From:
    http://www.savazzi.net/download/manuals/Apo-Nikkor.pdf

    Spec image circle of an APO nikkor 360mm f9 APO nikkor at 1:1 or 1X is 710mm, image circle required to cover 8x10 is 312mm.. would an image circle of 710mm be large enough for 8x10 with any extreme of camera tilt with other combined camera movement?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	APO nikkor image circle 1X.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	95.5 KB 
ID:	215781

    If you're hanker'n for using the Fujinon A, do that. Point being, the Fujinon A is NOT the only option for this kind of work as there are a number of LF lenses that can and will equal and exceed the optical performance of the Fujinon A.

    Keep in mind, the great LF optical equalizer is f22 and smaller taking apertures. As for the flat field myth, majority of any decent LF lens is flat field.

    We should be done with this Drew, it's not that big a deal

    Bernice


    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    It's related to several factors. As magnification increases, the image circles of course increases, regardless of lens. But with the specialized plasmats, you're starting out with a bigger image circle to begin with, which makes composition and focus per se easier wide-open. Otherwise, as per your question, No; the Fuji A and GC are not the only lenses corrected for both close-up and infinity. Everyone should know by now that certain barrel process lenses like apo artars, apo ronars, and apo nikkors perform excellently all the way from 1:1 to infinity, though some seem to need a slight shimming re-space of the two components. But having compared functional ease and performance with both categories apples to apples, for example, Fujinon A 360 vs Apo Nikkor 360, I'd reach for the Fuji A every time for tabletop usage or nature closeups. Flat copy work is a different category - the process lenses are distinctly better at that. This is my real-world experience. I'm not guessing; I've specifically tested for it. An outlier that some people love for tabletop work is the Componon S in shutter, normally associated with just enlarging; but I've never personally tried that option.

  6. #16
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,341

    Re: 450 mm Nikkor-M vs. Symmar-S 480 mm

    Argue if you want. I work with em both, have done test mockups with both. "Flat field" in this instance refers to apo repro screen standards themselves for precise dot shape, as you should very well recognize. Tangential performance at significant tilts is a different parameter set, as you should also well recognize by now, but have neglected in this case. F/22 performance standards are a myth. Yes, it's how repro lenses were used, so the specs matched that. But Apo Nikkors are at their peak between f/11 and f/16; and in 8x10 work, I never shoot anything at a wider stop than f/32, and rarely even that - more likely f/45. So that shoots down looking into Apo Sironar S lenses with their claim to fame being reaching their peak performance a little wider open than most other plastmats, because it wouldn't ever apply to me. Depth of field issues are more important in general 8x10 shooting, and sheer precision flat on the enlarger, which is where I most often use Apo Nikkors. Have fun! It's always enjoyable to banter with you - you have quite a lens background.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    22

    Re: 450 mm Nikkor-M vs. Symmar-S 480 mm

    This has been extremely enlightening and quite a bit to chew over! Thank you all for your very detailed responses. I guess my remaining question concerns using those process lenses for portraits: what are the differences in character between the process lenses and the other (regular?) lenses mentioned when shooting portraits at less than 1:1? Drew, you spoke rather elegantly about the differences between the Nikkor-M and the Symmar-S. Or, since I'm contact printing for the foreseeable future--no room yet for a 8x10 enlarger--are the differences negligible?

  8. #18
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,341

    Re: 450 mm Nikkor-M vs. Symmar-S 480 mm

    Just depends on your intended "look" in portraits. But for me, process lenses are simply too harsh or acutely sharp and contrasty for portrait versatility, at least for women. That's why I recommended looking into the 420 Fuji L. I don't own one, but some people like the Nikkor 450M for portraiture. The other problem with process lenses is that they're ordinarily in barrel only. So you'd have to factor in the extra cost and fuss of a big added shutter, perhaps even an old no. 5 for anything longer than 360. Most 4-element process lenses also tend to render background blur or "bokeh" in a busy, distracting fashion. This question of signature look is somewhat independent of sheer optical resolution.
    With 8X10 film, you'd really need to have a massive print to see much difference between any decent lens in that respect. And with any 450, you're going to have relatively shallow depth of field, so you have to think about "modeling" or moulding the in and out of focus areas of the face to the best effect esthetically.

    Don't get hung up on lens sharpness; that will relate better to tabletop product photography, but again, it is almost a null topic unless you're contemplating BIG critical enlargements of that kind of subject matter. I realize it's hard to make choices starting out, when there are so many flavors of ice cream to choose from. You can't go wrong with either of your initial choices starting out. Somewhere down the line, when you find your groove, so to speak, you might want to add a second lens. But tabletop work per se is going to be logistically annoying with anything as long as a 450 due to depth of field issues and just how long your bellows is likely to get. That kind of focal length is nice for face shots in 4X5 photography; but for head and body, I'd prefer a 360.

  9. #19

    Re: 450 mm Nikkor-M vs. Symmar-S 480 mm

    I've never seen in person a 480mm Symmar-S. They are uber expensive and weigh like a boat anchor. I paid $200 for my 480 Apo Ronar and they are plentiful and sometimes priced in this range. I do have a 360mm Sinar Norma chrome barrel Symmar with rabbit ears and it is great for 3/4 8x10 portraits. Today I am buying a second 360 barrel Symmar for my twin lens Norma. The 480mm Ronar I used for tight heat shots. I used a lower powered Broncolor Impact monolight in a Chimera medium softbox, placed about 4' and f/stop was F22 if I remember on HP5+ in Pyro+. Contacts were made on 8x10 Ektalure R paper, 4X mounted 16x20 silver prints prints were made for me by a local commercial lab. Detail when viewed closeups full face was very impactful, you see every hair, pore in the skin, every thread in the fabric. Large format fidelity. My subjects were always comfortable and I would tend to study the 8x10 glass for a really long time, making many small changes. Two or more sheets would then be exposed. Very contemplative.

    I have been buying Sinar Norma Shutters rather cheaply, I buy them not working, with all the interconnecting cables. Then send them out for repair and they are good for another sixty years. I now have four of them and really I could use another. With the Sinar Shutter you can put any barrel lens out there, as long as the rear cell dosen't strike the shutter blades, and will fit a Sinar board. If that is a problem you forward mount the lens and this can be done in all kinds of ways. It allows a world of lenses to explore that do not have shutters. If you decide you don't like the Apo Ronar sell it and try something else. I think you will like it I have never found the Apo Ronar to be excessively contrasty.

    If you get into barrel lenses the 360mm chrome Componon is one to investigate. I paid $150 for mine and it has the Durst Forward Mounting Cone

    8x10 to 5x7 Norma Special Bellows 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr

    8x10 Sinar Norma Long Apo Ronar 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

    520mm F9 Apo Ronar on 8x10 Norma in my studio. I own Apo Ronars forward mounted up to the 790mm F11. Some day I will buy the 1070mm F11
    Last edited by Daniel Unkefer; 15-May-2021 at 07:14.
    Flikr Photos Here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/

    “The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”
    ― Mark Twain

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    22

    Re: 450 mm Nikkor-M vs. Symmar-S 480 mm

    That is certainly an enviable set up! Thank you for the advice. Out of curiosity, where do you find inexpensive Sinar shutters? Every one I’ve seen listed has been fairly expensive—though I suppose worth it, since it’s so useful. I just haven’t pulled the trigger on one yet.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •