300 f9 apo Nikon Barrel lens, what size hole on lensboard?

[harlequin]

Hello Team,

Friend is coming in Sept with barrel lens, I looked on internet but could not get definitive size hole on cambo sc,
If anyone can shed light on this would be appreciated.

I guess I shall get adept at lenscap shutter...

Many Thanks!

Harlequin

 

[abruzzi]

I’ve been looking at some of the same things, and I found this page which has specs for many of the app-nikkors:

https://galerie-photo.com/apo-process-nikkors-en.html

If it’s the 300, it’s a 53mm thread, if it’s the 305 it’s 72mm.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Note that there are different series of these. You need to indicate which kind is involved. Is this for 4x5 or 8x10 usage? The less common tessar design with the smaller barrel diameter might not have adequate coverage for 8x10.

 

[mshchem]

To add to Drew's point. These were used for Process work, flat field, no swings, tilts etc. You can get ahold of SK Grimes in Woonsocket RI. They can make a flange or give you the info. Not cheap.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Note that there are different series of these. You need to indicate which kind is involved. Is this for 4x5 or 8x10 usage? The less common tessar design with the smaller barrel diameter might not have adequate coverage for 8x10.

Neither the 300/9 (Apo-Tessar clone) nor the 305/9 (dialyte) will cover 8x10 at infinity.

 

[Ian C]

The 305 mm f/9 APO Nikkor has a 46° coverage angle. This results in an infinity-focus image circle of slightly less than 260 mm (259.9 mm) diameter.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ian & Dan - wrong. The poster has a view camera application in mind. The published image circle specs and coverage angle specs for these lenses are tied to very precise apo dot reproduction at f/22 - an application which significantly exceeds the requirements for general photography, hence the especially conservative specs. That is generally true of other series of lenses first engineered for sake of copy camera repro work, like G-Clarons. I have a whole set of these superior 4-element air-spaced Apo Nikkors. The 305/9 easily covers 8x10. In fact, I routinely use it for enlarging 8x10 negatives, where even at f/11 it exceeds the performance of any official enlarging lens. At infinity, no problem either. Granted, the 360/9 version would offer more generous tilts and rises etc. But stopped down to typical working apertures of f/45 or so, and relying on rear tilts more than the front, the 305/9 should be fine with 8x10 film, and better corrected both close-up and at infinity than any typical view camera lens. I have Sinar boards for them, so have tested them in this respect; and there are other people who routinely use them for 8x10 work. Even the 240/9 Apo Nikkor will cover 8x10 if movements are minimal and its is well stopped down. I don't routinely use these in the field simply because they're not in shutter and are already more bulky to pack than the equivalent focal length lenses I do use, which are plenty adequate themselves for regular photographic applications.

And let me correct Mshchem's assertion that, being flat field, they're not good at tangential angles of tilt or swing. That's also wrong. There can be a risk of mechanical vignetting at wider apertures due to their barrel-like shape. And on an unrelated point, I would add that these are not a series of lenses you'd want to use for dreamy out-of-focus areas or bokeh. The background blur is a bit too busy. I actually use an older 360/9 Zeiss tessar-style barrel process lens for that kind of thing, which has wonderful out of focus rendition, comfortably covers 8x10 too, though I wouldn't select it where a lot of rise is needed.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, chacun a son gout.

 

[DREW WILEY]

One day the shop crew was gutting out an allegedly vacant building during their moonlight income hours, and the next day they called me over to one of our own warehouses, where they had forklifted in an abandoned process camera 22 feet long with a bellows so big you could hypothetically walk through it if it had been capable of supporting your weight. I cannibalized the superbly machined 30X40 inch pin-registered vacuum easel and a set of Apo-Nikkor process lenses. The rest of the machine sadly went to landfill; but I had no place to put anything that big. Most of the lenses were still pristine, and only the 760 seems to have been routinely used. I got all kinds of goodies that way from time to time, salvaged from former industrial facilities - an industrial air cleaner system, fume hood, countertops, industrial doors, etc. Then I really hit the Mother Lode as the big photo labs starting shutting down. But I don't need just anything, so the majority of even those kinds of potential freebees sadly went to the scrapyard.

Apo Nikkors were used not only by the high-end printing houses around here, but were also preferred by the big photo labs for large format film enlarging, especially in mural sizes. And the most technically skilled tele-photographer I've ever known combined Apo-Nikkors, a big solid Toyo 8X10 metal view camera, and either a Pentax 6X7 camera or a 35mm camera at the film plane. He had formerly been a telescope dealer and really knew his stuff. In his opinion, those Apo Nikkor process lenses were optically superior at infinity to any official telephoto lens. He commonly used a 360/9 in combination with a 35mm Nikon. They were quite expensive lenses when new.

 

[Dan Fromm]

[QUOTE="DREW WILEY, post: 2446987, member: 51437"the most technically skilled tele-photographer I've ever known ... In his opinion, those Apo Nikkor process lenses were optically superior at infinity to any official telephoto lens. [/QUOTE]

Now that I need to cite it I can't find it, but I've seen old Rodenstock propaganda that made the same claim for Apo Ronars.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bob Salomon would no doubt champion that Rodenstock claim, since he distributed them. Here on the West Coast, Apo Nikkors seem to have been dominant in the printing industry. The Rodenstocks I ran into were the cheaper versions of process lenses present as standard equipment on small stat camera like T-shirt silkscreen shops used. Those same cheaper Rodenstocks lenses also turn up rebranded as various budget enlarging lenses. But there's another reason Nikon potentially held the top notch reputation; they could justly claim an even higher notch up with their Apo El Nikkor series. The commercial printing industry per se had little of those because they simply allowed optimization one stop faster; and at f/22 all things were largely equivalent. But all kinds of graphics barrel lenses have been adapted to high-performance LF camera usage, including the Goerz blue dot Trigors.

Apo Nikkors were once in demand in Hollywood, no doubt for some kind of technical repro reason rather than actual filming; but that certainly helped their overall reputation. And the truly expensive 105/5.6 Apo El Nikkors were the best 35mm film repro lenses ever made, although they are excellent for medium format too.

Where I find Apo Nikkors especially useful is in very nitpicky lab applications like enlarged color duplicates or internegatives. And they are better corrected than regular El-Nikkors for enlarging use, though that series itself is commendable. There are additonal reasons I routinely use them. A 305/9 or 360/9 Apo Nikkor will easily fit into my Durst 138 or 184 turrets, while my 360 f/5.6 El Nikkor is such a beast it needs its own dedicated lensboard fitted to a much larger custom enlarger. I find the brighter wide-open option of f/5.6 handy for composing and focussing the dimmer images of color negs with their heavy orange mask. But since both the f/5.6 and f/9 versions enter optimization right around the same place at f/11, the actual printing speed is the same. If I wanted to spend an extra 11,000 dollars or so to purchase and test an extremely rare Apo El Nikkor 360, maybe it would behave in the same manner. I dunno. All I do know is that it would be ridiculously heavy at the same time my wallet would be ridiculously lighter.

 

[Bob S]

Bob Salomon would no doubt champion that Rodenstock claim, since he distributed them. Here on the West Coast, Apo Nikkors seem to have been dominant in the printing industry. The Rodenstocks I ran into were the cheaper versions of process lenses present as standard equipment on small stat camera like T-shirt silkscreen shops used. Those same cheaper Rodenstocks lenses also turn up rebranded as various budget enlarging lenses. But there's another reason Nikon potentially held the top notch reputation; they could justly claim an even higher notch up with their Apo El Nikkor series. The commercial printing industry per se had little of those because they simply allowed optimization one stop faster; and at f/22 all things were largely equivalent. But all kinds of graphics barrel lenses have been adapted to high-performance LF camera usage, including the Goerz blue dot Trigors.

Apo Nikkors were once in demand in Hollywood, no doubt for some kind of technical repro reason rather than actual filming; but that certainly helped their overall reputation. And the truly expensive 105/5.6 Apo El Nikkors were the best 35mm film repro lenses ever made, although they are excellent for medium format too.

Where I find Apo Nikkors especially useful is in very nitpicky lab applications like enlarged color duplicates or internegatives. And they are better corrected than regular El-Nikkors for enlarging use, though that series itself is commendable. There are additonal reasons I routinely use them. A 305/9 or 360/9 Apo Nikkor will easily fit into my Durst 138 or 184 turrets, while my 360 f/5.6 El Nikkor is such a beast it needs its own dedicated lensboard fitted to a much larger custom enlarger. I find the brighter wide-open option of f/5.6 handy for composing and focussing the dimmer images of color negs with their heavy orange mask. But since both the f/5.6 and f/9 versions enter optimization right around the same place at f/11, the actual printing speed is the same. If I wanted to spend an extra 11,000 dollars or so to purchase and test an extremely rare Apo El Nikkor 360, maybe it would behave in the same manner. I dunno. All I do know is that it would be ridiculously heavy at the same time my wallet would be ridiculously lighter.

Those Apo El Nikkor lenses were designed as blow back lenses for printed circuit board use. Everyone made them but the best werr from Zeigler.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bob, I think if you go back into the history, you'll discover that their reputation was developed independently from the circuit board industry, and well within the context of regular film enlargement. Just look at who marketed them - mainly graphics suppliers. Fixed aperture, fixed-focus analogs were later tailored to industrial applications like machine optics and the chip industry, but it wouldn't have made much sense for multi-use variable-aperture lenses to be marketed in that manner. Nor would designing a range clear up to 360mm make sense in a circuit board context. Somewhere around here I have the official Nikon brochure listing all of the formally designated Apo El Nikkors, with specs, and the electronics industry isn't even on their radar. That kind of niche lens would appear to be a spinoff of an already developed lens technology. In more recent years Apo El's were in demand for very high scanning back camera used for art reproduction and forensic analysis due to their very high level of correction in various wavelengths.

But good to hear from you! Waving a Japanese flag always seems to draw your attention and elicit a war cry.

 

[GKC]

I have a Gowland 8x10 aerial with a 300mm M and it will cover 8x10 at infinity. Being an aerial camera I don't know what exactly the coverage is since movements aren't part of the design, but It's interesting that fully opened at f9 it does cover 8x10 and is very sharp across the format. Coverage should expand when stopped down with Tessars----or so I've heard.
I purchased this particular lens in the barrel and IIRC Peter Gowland mounted it in the shutter for me. I remember him telling me there are two versions of the Copal No.1 which I needed to be aware of when searching for a shutter, an "S" and a non-S----I forgot which version my 300M required but apparently there are versions of the 300M that fit one No.1 or the other depending on the diameter of the particular 300M.
I hope this helps!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nikkor M lenses are not related to their process lens series, although it appears some of their cheaper line of graphics lenses had a general tessar construction too. Functionally, the 300 M just covers 8X10 crisply corner to corner. When I use one on 8X10, I try to use mainly rear rather than front tilts due to the limited surplus of image circle on this size format. But the four element airspaced Apo Nikkors, when sufficiently stopped down have an even greater coverage angle in the equivalent focal length. Just keep in mind I'm stating this in relation to general photographic usage, even at infinity. Actual process standards as given in their official brochures are much more stringent.

A 305/9 Apo Nikkor will not fit into a Copal 1 shutter. You'll need a 3S adapted. In other words, the 300M is a lot more portable!