Lens-type discussion ref. Nikkor-M 300

[Drew Wiley]

The Nikkor M's, and their single-coated predecessor Q series, are really a little different from classic thick element tessars, and represent the endpoint of that evolutionary lineup, at least as far as large format tessars are concerned. A 300 would be really nice for 4x5 portrature; but you'll get a little different look from a Nikkor 300M than a Fuji 300 L, which was a popular portrait tessar. The M will be sharper and more contrasty, perhaps too much so for some people's taste.

[Joseph Kashi]

Personally, I like a bit longer lens for portraits than usually recommended. Keep in mind, though, the depth of field will be proportionally less at the same aperture with a longer lens than a shorter one. However, I like the rendering of features better with longer lenses. So, try it and see if you like it. At closer distances, Tessars can get a little soft around the edges, but that may be an advantage. Many really like Tessars for portraits.

Doremus

Yes, indeed. Such as Karsh and his Kodak Commercial Ektars, a Tessar-pattern lens.

[Drew Wiley]

The 450 Nikkor M has caught on with portrait photographers; but in general, I find the M series just too clinically sharp to be ideal for that application, and with less than ideal bokeh.
The older thick-element single-coated tessars might achieve more graceful results in that respect. Where these Nikkor M's excel is in very fine distinctions of hue nuance, and in being quite contrasty, and extremely sharp as long as one is not stretching the limits of the image circle too much. Great for portability and landscape usefulness. But if you have a soft backdrop to a sitter without anything busy going on behind them, a 300M should do a fine job, especially in color film if you've lowered a lighting ratio a bit. Or if you want that hard-sharp Karsh look in black and white, it would make sense. The softer Hurrell look - no.

[Mark J]

One reason the Fuji-L and also Xenars have more 'character' is because they are f/5.6 , rather than f/9 in the case of the Nikkor. Tessars are limited in their correction, being simple, so there's a steep trade-off between aperture aberrations and field aberrations when you are designing a big one at f/5.6. Going to F/9 allows better correction all round but a more clinical look, especially when you add in the later coatings.

The lens thickness is an interesting one. Having designed a few triplets and Tessars recently for training material, it seems that the Tessar benefits more from a bit of extra glass thickness than the triplet, though it's still a pretty minor improvement. On the ghosting, I haven't looked into that.