Would you buy this lens?

[dslater]

I'm looking at this 300mm Nikkor-M f/9 on ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA:IT&ih=008

it has a couple of small scratches on the rear element. Would you pay $300.00 for this lens?

Dan

[Frank Petronio]

It's marginal in my opinion. You see mint ones going for $400 if you are patient. For a scratch to show up in a photo like it doesn, it probably is a "real" scratch and not just the usual scuff that many lenses have.

So I would do $300 and change, but not much more...

[Dave_B]

The Nikkor 300M is a fine lens like all the Nikkor M lenses and is highly recommended. My advice, get a clean copy because if you're like me, you will use it a lot. It will quickly become a favorite and those scratches will bug you forever. Clean used ones are not hard to find. A new one costs $680.
Cheers,
Dave B.

[Andrew O'Neill]

No. Not for $300.

[dslater]

Thanks for the info - I actually ended up getting a clean Fujinon C 300mm f/8.5

[Capocheny]

Wise move!

And you'll have a larger image circle for the Fujinon of 380 versus 325 for the M.

Cheers

[Eric James]

Andrew, your Avatar has never seemed more fitting; I sold a like-new Nikkor 300mm f8 here recently for ~425.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Wise move!

And you'll have a larger image circle for the Fujinon of 380 versus 325 for the M.

Cheers

Actually, the Nikkor M has a larger usable image circle then the Fujinon C. The same relationship is true for the 450s in each series. The published image circle specifications for Nikkor lenses are more conservative than for the Fujinon. Still, both are far more than adequate for 4X5.

[Capocheny]

Actually, the Nikkor M has a larger usable image circle then the Fujinon C. The same relationship is true for the 450s in each series. The published image circle specifications for Nikkor lenses are more conservative than for the Fujinon. Still, both are far more than adequate for 4X5.

Hi Brian,

Not meaning to be argumentative but I'd heard the opposite was the case... and that the Schneiders tended to be even more conservative wrt their claimed ICs.

For example, the 110XL (with an IC of 288) can cover 8x10 with movements and yet the 120 Nikkor SW (with an IC of 312) just covers 8x10 with a bit of movement.

Gads... it's so hard to tell what is what! It's too bad there isn't a "standard" by which to compare image coverage between all these lenses.

I'm not speaking from experience here, Brian... so, I'll defer to your expertise on this.

Cheers

[Don Hutton]

Actually, the Nikkor M has a larger usable image circle then the Fujinon C. The same relationship is true for the 450s in each series. The published image circle specifications for Nikkor lenses are more conservative than for the Fujinon. Still, both are far more than adequate for 4X5.

That is completely contrary to my experience with the 300mm M and C lenses - I now own a Fujinon 300-C and it appears to have an image circle very close to the stated specs. I previously owned a Nikkor 300-M and it had an image circle very close to the stated specs too (i.e. much smaller than the Fujinon). OTOH, the Nikkor 450-M does have a larger image circle than the Fujinon 450-C - completely contrary to the manufacturers stated specs there, but on the 300s, the Fujinon has significantly better coverage.