Apo Nikkor 240mm process lens vs symmars

[andy_buck1]

<p>Do you think the Nikkor lens could approach, equal or surpass a symmar-s or apo symmar? I know I'd have a shutter issue to deal with. I make approx. 7-8x b&w enlargements from 612 negs.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>A process camera lens *PRIME* design goal was low distortion; one wanted sections of maps and drawing to align when done in sections.</p>

<p>They work best at 1:1 to say 1:5 ratios; not infinity.</p>

<p>A dumb enlarging lens is often sharper than a process lens; but has more distortion; not important with pictorial usage.</p>

<p>It is not clear what distance you are shooting; ie what ratio.</p>

<p>A process camera lens is not the sharpest tack in the toolbox; more like a ok one to good one. At infinity a symmar is far sharper; and at closeups maybe close to better.</p>

<p>a process lens is like a good worker; but not the brightest; but never lies; ie low distortion. A process lens never was in normal usage doing enlargements more than 4x; a huge amount of work was just simple 2x to 4x stuff; thus it really did not need a vast resolution at all; ie 25 line pairs per mm was fine.,</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Well, you won't be able to shoot the Apo-NIkkor at apertures larger than f/9, and there the Symmar-S and Apo-Symmar will beat it.</p>

<p>The 240/9 Apo-Nikkor is a dialyte type; there are also tessar type Apo-Nikkors. I have a couple of dialyte type Apo-Nikkors, all f/9: 305, 420, 480, 610. Have shot all but the 610 on 2x3, haven't got around to using the 610 yet. The three I've used are usable wide open, best at f/11 - f/16, image quality (on 2x3) deteriorates after that because of diffraction. All of mine, including the 610, mount in front of a #1 shutter.</p>

<p>The 240/9 that you're considering has 53x0.75 mounting threads, should work well on 4x5 hung in front of a #1. Its exit pupil is smaller than the shutter's maximum opening. Front mounting should be less expensive than having the cells extracted and put in shutter. If a shutter is needed, the one you want is the Polaroid MP-4 Copal #1 Press. If it isn't marked Polaroid MP-4 you don't want it.</p>

<p>Nikon says the 240 Apo Nikkor covers 205 mm at infinity. Enough for 4x5, not for 5x7. If you need more coverage, the Apo-Nikkor won't do for you.</p>

<p>But and however, you should discuss putting the cells in shutter with Adam Dau of SKGrimes. He's told me more than once that my 305's cells will go directly into a #1 with no machining required.</p>

<p>If I were deciding whether to use a 240/5.6 Symmar-S (or Apo Symmar) or a 240/9 Apo-Nikkor, I wouldn't worry about image quality since all three lenses are better than good enough. I'd worry about cost and would choose the least expensive one. <strong>If </strong>the Apo Nikkor has the coverage needed.</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Kelly, have you ever shot a dialyte type Apo-Nikkor at distance? There's little better from f/9 to f/16, even less better at apertures smaller than f/16. If you haven't tried 'em you shouldn't knock 'em.</p>

<p>I can't speak to tessar type Apo Nikkors, I've never had one. Do have three TTH tessar type process lenses and they match my Apo Nikkors at distance at f/16 and smaller. Since tessars aren't at all symmetrical this is a considerable surprise.</p>

<p>All are better at distance than the one Symmar I have, but it is a "convertible" Symmar, not the later Symmar-S. By all accounts the Symmar-S is a major improvement on the convertible.</p>

<p>The significant difference between most -- not all, I have a few clinkers, which shoot poorly at distance -- of the process lenses I've tried at distance and general purpose plasmat types is coverage. Most process lenses have much less coverage than the equivalent general purpose plasmat. Not a problem for me, all of the process lenses I use are long for the format I shoot.</p>

[kparratt]

<p>I guess the Nikkor 240mm performance will be similar to that of the G-Claron 240. (Which fits nicely on the Technika lens board thankyou) With controlled studio lighting, it can be used without shutter as seen here.</p><div></div>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The Apo-Nikkor won't have the coverage of a Symmar, or of a G-Claron for that matter, so movements will be a bit more restricted.</p>

<p>At the risk of upsetting Kelly, I have to disagree about the sharpness issue. Symmars are designed for wide coverage, at the expense of central resolution. Without using aspheric elements or very exotic glass, you can design a lens for sharpness or coverage, but not both together. I used to use process lenses similar to the Apo-Nikkor (mainly Apo Ronars) for doing reductions in the electronics industry, and believe me, no Symmar would come near them for pure detail reproduction. Not sure about use at infinity - it's a bit difficult to get a 20"x 24" Littlejohn process camera outside! It might be a closer run race, but my money would still be on the Apo Nikkor. </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The reason I mentioned process camera lenses "do not have" to be the sharpest tack in the tool box is because here with our process camera; they only work at 1:1 to about 1:4. They have to be good; but not ultra sharp since the working ratios are small.</p>

<p>The MTF curves for process lenses is often shown at a lowly 20 cycles; not 40 like a pictorial lens.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br>

Thus the pickle is a process *can* be ultra sharp; beyond what a process camera needs; but it does not have to be.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br>

The reason I brought this up; is one chap here on Photo.net likes to parachute into threads about process lenses and state they are ultra sharp beasts; and never mentions their PRIME design goal which is low distortion.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br>

A further confusion is that Andy never metnioned if he is shooting stuff at infinity; moderate or closeup or 1:1; thus we have no details.<br>

<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Rodeo; At the expense of upsetting you; Perez's test data on a close focal length Symmar type lenses and process lenses F9 in his 180 to 270mm table both look good:</p>

<p>http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html</p>

<p>Here I use a 1980's 135mm F5.6 Componon enlarging lens with my 4x5 scan back to shoot artwork; a 150mm F9 Apo Ronar works ok too; or a 1950's 150mm F5.6 Symmar too. The scan area is 7x10cm; thus at 1:10 the artwork's field is 70x100cm. At infinity; the Symmar is the sharpest. Here I tested one at 1:50 years ago and it was decent on axis; 60's line pairs per mm.</p>

<p>Schneider stuff varies; Rodeo you might have just had a bad Symmar too. Look at Chris's data; there is some rotten results with some Schneider lenses.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br>

A Schneider Componon is really sort of like a Schneider Symmar but tweaked for closer ratios; at a close up ratio a Componon is sharper; at infinity and moderate distances the Symmar is sharper. It is sort of the same lens; but tweaked and marketed for different ratios. Our old 1960's Durst 138S 5x7 copy camera had a 32x44" vacuum table; its lens was a 210mm F5.6 Schneider Componon in Compur shutter; for taking and enlarging. You shot 5x7 negatives and "blew them back"</p>

[andy_buck1]

<p>I will be shooting at infinity. As the lens only cost $30 (from a lab going under, of course) I bought it. If it doesn't measure up, no great loss.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses!</p>

[andy_buck1]

<p>I forgot to mention: I will be shooting 612, so the coverage needed - approx. 30 degrees - shouldn't be a problem.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Andy; just try it out and see if it works good enough.<br>

<br /> There are many surplus lenses on the market; and there is no rule they have to be used as intended.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here is an enlarging lens used at infinity; a 135mm F5.6 Schneider Componon set between F8 and F11:</p>

<p><strong>About all on this old location shot is not proper.</strong> I am using a Speed Graphic; an Enlarging lens at Infinity; shooting through a house tinted dirty windows; shooting through the Sears wavy 3/32 inch plexiglass snap in thermal panes; shooting through with IR filter that is just duct taped to the lens; and not even parallel to the lenses front. It is not even a digital lens on this 35 megapixel back either.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br>

A lens corrected for infinity would make a better sharper shot with the most zoomed in image. Your lens might be like this too; ie subtle less sharp; but may not matter for your application!<br>

<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>The last shot is with a better lens for infinity; but I cheated here too. it is longer in 178mm; plus it was with higher contrast lighting; not after sunset like the blue ones. It is without the IR filter; with a 5 dollar Kodak Aero Ektar 178mm F2.5 at F11; a war surplus lens that is really not a great looker if one looks at the front element. A Leica user would have a heart attack if they had such a poor looking lens.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/tripods-389.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/ThruWindow135mmF56atF81ISO800f.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/ThruWindow135mmF56atF81ISO800MEDIUMf.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/ThruWindow135mmF56atF81ISO800DETAIL.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/SpeedGraphicF11AEdetail.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[peter_mcdonough3]

<p>Hi,<br>

I use a 240 f/9 Apo-Nikkor on my 8x10. It more than covers the format. The contact prints are sharp up to f/128.<br>

Peter</p>

[greg_kriss]

<p>Symmars, whatever the generation, faster, easier to focus, and made to fit inside a shutter.<br>

G-Clarons and Apo Nikkors slower, less coverage and harder to focus accurately.<br>

Now let us consider an odd ball Process Nikkor 260mm F10, bit harder to focus accurately, but coverage is great and sharpness equal or better than current Symmar optics. Grimes can mount in a shutter but warns that it is costly... solution use a Sinar shutter and save $$$. <br>

Symmars seem sharper at infinity at f/22 cause they're easier to accurately focus, Apo lenses seem less sharper at infinity cause accurate focus is harder to achieve. Now use a Process Nikkor at f/22 and take the time to achieve accurate focus and it blows the other optics away. I am basing this on scanning 4x5s at equal high ppi not focusing them through an enlarging lens that only reduces resolution and contrast.<br>

Greg</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Peter, good enough for contact printing -- at f/128 the lens delivers a tiny bit more to the film than's required for making a contact that will pass scrutiny -- and good enough for enlarging are different. If you'll examine 8x10 negs shot at f/22 and shot at f/128 you'll see that the f/128 negs hold less fine detail. Enough for contacting, sure, enough for making a 16 x 20, no. But if all you want is contacts you're set as can be.</p>

<p>Greg, that's funny, my pristine 260/10 Nikkor-Q (same thing as the 260/10 Process Nikkor) failed acceptance testing at distance. I've always understood that these monsters and W.A. Apo-Nikkors were optimized for near distances, mediocre at far. Oh, my, perhaps the flunk was due to operator error.</p>

<p>But I examine the negs directly, don't scan them. IMO scanning before examining makes as little sense as printing before examining. I always ask the negs what the lens accomplished.</p>

[randy_boren1]

<p>My 240mm f/9 Apo-Nikkor is very sharp at f/9, 11, 16, but starts to fuzz-out past 16 and gets worse as I stop down. At 32 to 128 it is useless.</p>