300mm [12 inch] focal length optics for whole plate [6 1/2 x 8 1/2 inch] format

[RJ-]

A while back, a few of us started building up a database of lenses for whole plate photography on an open source basis.

I took some time to start collating information on a few specific lenses of the 300mm focal length for whole plate format:

Nikkor 300mm M f9.0

Nikkor 300mm W f5.6

Wollensak 12" f4.5 Soft Focus/Variable Diffusion

Taylor Hobson Series III [6 1/2 x 8 1/2 inch] est. 270mm f7.7

Having found the modern lenses rather disappointing (rationale in the reviews), and accidentally discovering this lens:Boyer Apo-Saphir 300mm f10.0 , it's a pleasure to see a historical survey of the lesser known company of Boyer Optique, Paris, France reviewed by Dan Fromm.

Interested in hearing about experiences with other lenses, particularly from 8x10" format users, who perhaps have more experience in the field of the 300mm focal length than whole plate photographers. I wonder which optical features motivate a photographer to decide on a type of lens: optical definition; image circle/covering power; colour consistency; compactness; reputation; cost, availability etc....? Do modern optics make any impact on the contact print, over and above the classic or more obscure lenses from the past 50 years?

Kind regards,

RJ

[Warren Clark]

Hi RJ,

My favorite 300 is the Fuji 300 A. Excellent near and far and very usable
on 8x10 and all smaller formats.. Can be hard to locate but a little
searching and you can find one. Check with Jim Andracki at Midwest
Photo in Columbus, Ohio.

Warren Clark

[Dan Fromm]

RJ, thanks for the plug, but please note that I wrote the article with Eric Beltrando, to whom all credit is due. Errors and omissions in the article are entirely mine, what's good in it is his. I regard Eric's contribution as more important than mine.

I don't shoot whole plate but do have several 300 mm +/- lenses that will cover it. You've mentioned one, the 300/9 Apo Saphir. It won't cover 8x10. My other 300 or so lenses that will cover whole plate but not 8x10 are a 30 cm/9 TTH Cooke Apotal (tessar type, radioactive) and a 305/9 Apo-Nikkor (dialyte type). The Apo Saphir and Apotal are roughly equal, the Apo-Nikkor is a little better than either at apertures larger than f/16. From f/16 down they're equal. One would be happy with any of the three.

I've never tried to dismantle my 305/9 Apo Nikkor to see whether he's right, but Adam Dau of SKGrimes has told me several times that that lens' cells are direct fits in a #1 shutter. According to CEDIS-Boyer's fiches techniques, the 300/10 Apo Saphirs they made will go into #1 too. Eric tells me that older (pre-1970) lenses won't. My Apotal's cells won't fit any shutter I have; sorry, but I haven't measured to see if a #2 or #3 will accept them.

Why did I buy 'em? I bought the Apotal because it was very inexpensive. I bought the Apo Saphir for the same reason and because I'm fixated on Boyer lenses. The Apo Nikkor came as part of a package and, again, the price was right. All three have good reputations. A good lens that I can afford is better than a better lens I can't, and for my purposes there are probably no 300 mm lenses better than the three I have.

I used to use, still have and sometimes use anyway, a 300/4 TTH Telephoto that's good but not quite as good as the process lenses and that loses the ends of the frame to vignetting by the bellows. On the right camera it will just cover 4x5, won't cover whole plate.

IMO, for practical purposes nothing beats any of these lenses by enough to justify getting it. I carry and use the Apo-Nikkor because it is the lightest of the three.

Cheers,

Dan

[Ole Tjugen]

On a slight tangent, the sharpest lens I have ever tried on 8x10" (or 18x24cm to be very exact) is a pre-WWII Hugo Meyer Aristoplanat 240mm f:8. Yes, it's an Aplanat. Yes, it covers the format. No, it doesn't fit in any standard or non-standard shutter size.

The "modern" 300mm lenses I have used on that kind of film size are a 300mm f:5.6 Symmar Convertible, and a 300mm f:4.5 Xenar. Both are good, the Symmar has more coverage compensated by significantly higher weight. Neither "shines" like the Aristoplanat, or even the 300mm f:6.8 Rodenstock Hemi-Anastigmat.

I just received a Prototype Steinheil Periskop 300mm lens - I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do!

[Emil Schildt]

Actually I have a Boyer Saphir 300mm F 4.5, fitted in a compur shutter.

I got it together with my first Gandolfi, around 1990, and it is an awesome lens..

I havn't tried it too much out un the nature, but for studio work, it is great..

a bad image of it here: http://www.emilschildt.com/EGO-%20ob...0-%20boyer.htm

[Diane Maher]

I have used my 300 mm Fujinon-C f/8.5 on whole plate a few times, but mostly used it on my 8x10 & 5x12. 270 seems to be my preferred focal length for the whole plate format. I also have a 12 inch Dagor f/6.8 in barrel, but haven't used it since I can't afford to put it into a shutter at this time.

[RJ-]

Many thanks for your replies - there are some obscure lenses out there which I've not come across yet.

Warren - is this the Fujinon lens with the 336mm image circle? I didn't enjoy the clinically hard imaging of the Nikkor 300mm M series and wonder if the Fujinon optics offers anything different.

Dan - apologies! I assumed you had translated the article on Boyer Optique back into English.

I wonder if it's possible that cell fittings for the Apo-Saphir 300mm f10.0 lens might account for variations in the reported image coverage? The version which I've been using, covers whole plate format at full aperture. By f22.0, movements including 30mm shift and a few degrees of tilt are possible, compared with the Nikkor 300mm M f9.0 whose image circle of 325mm seems much less in practice. Nonetheless, I've found the sharpness of the Apo-Saphir less abrasive than that of the Nikkor M with no advantage to the the Nikkor M at the contact print level.

The number 1 shutter, is a Compur 1, I presume?

Ole - thank you for the fascinating recommendations. Those are some obscure lenses with quite a history too. Would love to see your follow-up on the prototypes too.

Kind regards,

RJ

[Dan Fromm]

RJ, Eric and I wrote the article in a mixture of French, extracted from his e-mails to me, and English. For the English version, I translated his (and others') French into English. For the French version, Emmanuel Bigler translated my English into French.

Mounting shouldn't affect Apo Saphirs' coverage. Boyer claimed 48 degrees for the 300 Apo Saphir, recommend it for 13x18 at infinity.

Boyer's coverage claims are, Eric insists and his calculations confirm, exagerated. If you'll visit his site and look at his calculated curves for the 1938 (or was it '39?) Apo Saphir, you'll see that it is nearly aberration-free over 30 degrees; that Eric didn't publish curves for a wider field is a strong hint that he found it much less well-corrected farther off-axis. Also see Henri Gaud's comments on his 600 Apo Saphir compared to his 600/12.5 Fujinon-C and be aware that he works to a very high standard.

But for working photographers such as us, coverage is in the eye of the beholder. Eric's standards are very high, yours may be somewhat lower.

As far as thickness, flange-to-flange; diameter and threading of the holes that accept lenses cells; mounting threads; and diaphragm position go, Compur #1 = cock-and-shoot Copal #1. Copal #1 Press and Prontor #1 Press shutters differ from each other and from the cock-and-shoots on diaphragm positions, otherwise conform to the standard. I know about the Press shutters' diaphragm positions because I have a set of 80/2.8 Planar cells.

Cheers,

Dan

[Warren Clark]

RJ,

The Fuji 300/9 A is theoretically corrected for shorter distances and seems
very sharp at close range, similar to the Fuji 240 A. I don't notice a 'clinical'
sharpness at longer distances, just a nice rendition for B+W (8x10) and
color 4x5). The image circle is listed as 420 mm and seems accurate.
Copal 1 shutter so relatively small and light compared to a plasmat but
a little larger than the Fuji 300 C.

Good shooting,

Warren Clark

[RJ-]

Emil - that looks like a great lens. Is it convertible?

Hi Diane,

Wondering if your Double Anastigmat can possibly share the same shutter as the Goerz Series III no.2, of the same aperture?

You're quite right - I think most whole plate photographers would prefer to use 270mm as a starting focal length, were it not for the abundance of the 300mm or 12" focal length lens in both classic and modern options.

Thanks Dan. The coverage issue of the Nikkor M is vastly disappointing; peripheral field sharpness is significantly poorer than the Apo-Saphir, so perhaps I find it a little confounding, that such a popular and well-liked compact lens, fails to cover even whole plate format. Far from being a solitary anecdotal report, I've since come across a number of others, including use for whole plate, which identifies the Nikkor 300mm M f9.0 lens as inadequate for whole plate format and 8x10" format in terms of both coverage and peripheral field sharpness. There are plenty of reports indicating otherwise, however my experience of this lens is in the minority who have found it too difficult to work with or own.

Boyer, like Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon and Fujinon, may only have published data for 5x7" or the European equivalent in centimetres, or 8x10" formats. The whole plate data seems absent for at least 50 years in all of the major lens manufacturers - perhaps more indicative of the general wane of the whole plate format in the last century, than an absence of coverage of the whole plate format itself.

It's a blessing to have Mr Gaud's terse yet notable comment on the quality of the Apo-Saphir lens. One of the fascinating empirical discoveries about working with whole plate, is chancing across a lens like the Apo-Saphir with few expectations, and noticing something distinct about its rendered light drawing on the whole plate contact print, compared to a modern lens like a Nikkor Tessar or Plasmat type. I think you're correct on this score once again; I have much less requirement than Mr Gaud's technical criteria and rely mostly on the visual Gestalt of the image to guide me. The lateral (uncorrected) coma of the Heliar designed Apo-Saphir troubles me little, yet the corrected-not corrected, possibly corrected at the upper limits, coma of the Tessar design, coupled with a lack of sufficient image sharpness in the peripheral field is a little perturbing.

Thanks again Warren - I'll update Whole Plate Column in the future with the Fujinon findings. From what you've indicated, there are plenty of reasons why it is such a hard to find lens.

Kind regards,

RJ