Nikkor W 150/5.6 and Nikkor W 240/5.6

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by miha, Mar 1, 2014.

  1. Hi,
    what is your oppinion about the aforementioned lenses. They would be used on an 5x7 camera, technical data show it is possible (even more coverage with the 240mm lens).
    Comments, please.
    Regards, Miha.
     
  2. They are terrific lenses. I like them because the color images I shot with them were every bit as crisp as the Schneider
    and Rodenstocks but had a little more "warmth" to them.
     
  3. The 150 W is a very small and nice lens, with a 52mm filter thread. Sadly, it will not cover the 5x7" format, the shortest one in the W series should be the 180, unless you stop the 150 way down. For wider viewing angles on 5x7" you have to go for the SW series, they are 80ยบ lenses, so no problems with 5x7" in 120 or 150mm. For this reason I prefer the 180, on 5x7" format for a "standard" view, and on 4x5" to have a bit longer perspective.
    The 240 is a huge lens, it is mounted on #3 shutters, so you should consider if you really want/need the 240 or maybe the most common, half sized and cheaper 210 (Copal 1). Obviously the coverage of the 240 is larger... only you know how much extra coverage you really need, and if it is worth to you the size&weight difference.
    I also like LF Nikkors, I use a couple of them quite often (amongst others). Search on the web for the technical data, some sites used to have the listings available on line.
     
  4. I've owned a couple of Nikon lenses, one was the 300mm M. Nikons are very well made and the lens coatings give a very crisp look. I use a 4x5, and agree a Copal 3 shutter is a pretty big puppy! On a 5x7 it should balance out OK though. You need to figure out if you need the speed and coverage of the 240mm, or the compactness and faster shutter speed of the 210mm. If you are shooting landscapes, I'd go for a faster shutter speed (i.e. Copal 1.) If shooting architecture, obviously having more coverage is an advantage.
    Kent in SD
     
  5. I've owned a 150mm f/5.6 Nikkor-W for around 30 years for use on 5x4. I agree that it's a good performer with even resolution across the field, and has reasonably high contrast and flare resistance. However it's not quite as crisp, IMHO, as my 180mm Rodenstock Sironar. I'd also agree that the 150mm lens will struggle to cover 5x7; certainly it won't allow much, if any, shift or rise movement. The 240mm focal length would be a better option.
    This old catalogue has an image circle "map" on the last couple of pages and shows that the 150mm Nikkor-W will only just cover 5x7 at f/22. At wider apertures there'll be some vignetting and image quality falloff.
     
  6. You've got answers here, all right.
    In future queries, this one might better go under Large Format, since many people here will mostly know about 35mm and other small format lenses.
     
  7. The 150mm is a great lens. I can confirm it does not cover my 5x7 camera. The 240 is slightly better performance than the 150mm. A little sharper. I love the Nikkors for color, especially natural color, but no so much for sharpness. For sharpness, I use mostly Schneiders, but I've used colleagues Rodenstocks and they are nicely balanced lenses (between color and sharpness). Sometimes the Schneiders can look too sharp.
    The 300mm is one of my favorite Nikkors, and I've used this lens on a friend's 8x10 camera, that I borrow. I used to own a 135mm Nikkor, and I always like to underscore what a terrible lens it was for sharpness. At least my sample.
     

Share This Page

1111