Vaughn - isn't the whole point of a dark dank forest so that you can sneak up on your prey? Do you actually need the extra publicity of being the first Bigfoot photographed since the National Enquirer documented one aboard the same UFO as Elvis? Otherwise, I don't miss f/5.6 lenses a bit. F/9 is plenty bright for me, even in the woods. But I do carry an electronic laser-equipped Sasquatch detector, just in case.
My Horseman catalog, circa 1991, listed the following lenses, besides the 150 Topcor, that work with the teleconverter:
Fujinon W 150/5.6,
Nikkor W 150/5.6,
Symmar-S MC 150/5.6,
New Xenar 150/5.6,
Sironar-n 150/5.6,
Apo-Ronar 150/5.6.
This may have more to do with suitable mechanics for attaching the converter, which screws over the rear elements of the lens, rather than optical performance. It is not common, but it is not expensive when located.
There's no way any teleconverter with all its extra air/glass/dust interfaces is going to yield result anywhere near the league of a late plasmat or some of the other superstar lenses being discussed. Besides, who needs more bulk and fuss? Some of the 300's under discussion are themselves far more compact than that thing.
I'm using a Nikkor M 300mm f/9 on my Chamonix 45H-1. This long lens works best of all my lenses with my eye-level viewfinder attachment. You can see the whole ground glass brighter and clearer, unlike my wider 90mm f/4.5 and 75mm f/5.6 lenses.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
That's typical of longer lenses, Alan. They don't produce a "hot spot" just toward the middle of the glass like wide-angle lenses.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
I have a small and lightweight Nikkor 300mm, F9 I think, easy to get in Japan, but mark extra costs for import and inquire in advance with the seller. I used it with pleasure thus far. It’s just that the stability of the tripod becomes perceivable more crucial than with 150mm, so I wouldn’t pull out too much legs.
Bookmarks