I'm being challenged by our dear friend Dan Fromm on my claim that this lens covers 12X20. I know Jorge Gasteozorro used one exclusively on his Wisner 12X20, but I no longer have a 12X20 box to prove my claim.
Who here has used one of these on either 1220 or 1417, and were you satisfied with the coverage? Corners weak or darkened?
25.4*sqrt(544) = 644 544 = 400 + 144 = 20^2 + 12^2
A Tessar does well to cover > 1.1*its focal length. 1.1*450 = 495.
I believe Jim's lens is identical to the highly-esteemed 450/9 Nikkor-M. Nikon's brochure claims that the 450/9 -M covers 440 mm at f/22.
And that's why I questioned him in private.
It's well known that the circle of illumination of the 450 M is by far greater than the specs of Nikon. Checked on a 8x10, the iris is still fully round in the corners with 200 mm of rise at f32 and 240 mm of rise at f45. Respectively an 670 and 755 mm for the circle of illumination. But the resolution may be very very low in the corners. Jim is right (this isn't a big surprise) in asking real users' advice.
Hi Fellows
Jim,I'm not sure if the Nikkor M450 covers 12x20 but know there are a couple of reasons folks go with the Fujinon C at times.
That extra near 50mm of over the Nikkor @ f22(could make all the difference) .
The other reason is the Fujinon C 450 comes in a copal #1.
So the Fufinon C is lighter, smaller & has more IC.
Nikkor M 450 f9-IC @ f22 =440 Fujinon C 450 f12.5 -IC @ f22= 486
BTW - All that said. I own & use the Nikkor M 450 & it's FANTASTIC lens on both 8x10 & 11x14. I have not tried it on 12x20.
Louis, I've owned both and also agree the Fuji is a stellar little lens. Putting that focal length in a Copal 1 was brilliant. But my bets are still on the Nikkor for most coverage in spite of what the mfr.s advertise. Dialyt (Fuji) always covers 8 - 10 degrees less than a Tessar (Nikon).Originally Posted by Louis Pacilla
Dan, that is certainly true for most Tessars - 1.1. as a factor is about 58° coverage, but it is not always true. For their f/6.3 versions after WW II (135 and 210mm), Carl Zeiss Jena claimed 70° coverage (at f/22 I assume), which is a factor of about 1.4 of the focal length. That value is pushing the design, as it is not suited that well for WA applications, no question, but.. The f/6.3 helps in doing it but a small maximum opening is not the whole story(for the f/8 270mm Zeiss Jena list 53° as the official coverage).
I have a 450-M and a 14x17 (have also owned a 12x20 in the past). The 450-M covers quite well. In fact I consider the 450-M just about the best buy out there for a super-sharp, relatively compact lens for formats from 4x5 up to 14x17. I can't comment on the Q lens, though.
Arne, I know that f/6.3 Tessars are reported to cover as much as 70 degrees. One of mine is an 85/6.3 that I took from a 2x3 (100 mm circle) Primo #12. It does cover 2x3 so it is at least a 60 degree lens.
And there were f/8 Tessars for, respectively, Contax and VP Exakta, that covered 75 degrees or so.
But Jim claims 71 degrees for an f/9er whose maker claims only 52 degrees. Kerik, who is very respectable indeed, claims around 64 degrees. Both seem like a lot and so does Nikon's claim for the 450/9 -M in light of Nikon's claim that the Tessar type 450/9 Apo Nikkor covers 37 degrees.
I wonder what coverage criteria are used by Nikon and by participants in this discussion.
My criteria is that it covers the format without significant vignetting and is acceptably sharp in the corners. Is it as sharp in the corners as the middle? Probably not. Does that matter (to me) on a 14x17 or 12x20 contact print. Not at all. Great lens at a great price. I've seen them go for as little as $400 - $500. I think I paid about $750 for mine about 10 years ago.
I expect to try the larger formats soon, so a while ago, I checked out the 450M on the shifted GG of an 8x10-
No question that it lights it up-
Coverage, as defined by Nikon, would be determined by a minimum acceptable resolution. I don't know what criterion they use-
Coverage, as deemed acceptable for contact printing, would be an entirely different number, and it would seem silly to reject a lens because it doesn't resolve to Nikon's standards in the corners-
btw, I have a little 75mm Jena Tessar I took from an old folder, and it lights up 6x9-
I haven't tested it, but I'm looking forward to inspecting its signature on that format.
Some people are interested in the effects of lenses pushed beyond their design parameters (think Petzval, full throttle menisci, Holga, for example) and I think the Tessar is another candidate-
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks