305mm f6.3 Caltar lens vs 12" f6.3 Commercial Ektar

[campy51]

I also have this lens and wonder if it will fit on a Crown Graphic. I bought it for my 5x7 Kodak 2D but haven't used it yet.

 

[Ian Grant]

The 300mm Nikkor M will fit on a Crown Graphic but is not very feasible as it sits right on the end at full extension with no room for focusing much closer than Infinity.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

The 300mm Nikkor M will fit on a Crown Graphic but is not very feasible as it sits right on the end at full extension with no room for focusing much closer than Infinity.

Ian

Ian,
From everything I have read the 300mm f9 M Nikon works just fine on a 4X5 Chamonix and that's what I would use it on. Of course I'd also give it a try on my 8X10 to see what it can do.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Sorry I'm late to the party on this. With a friend of mine, the late great Wil Whitaker, we did a head-to-head comparison between the 14" Commercial Ektar, the 14" Calumet, and a 355mm Kern Gold Dot Dagor using Ektachrome transparencies. The results? Contrast and resolution between the Ektar and Caltar were virtually indistinguishable. The Kern was notably contrastier than the other two, to a harsh degree. The Ektar had slightly more pleasing bokeh - the out of focus areas were smoother and the transition between out of focus and in-focus was more pleasant than the Caltar, but not necessarily enough to justify the 2x price differential between them (at the time of the testing, in 2005-6-ish time frame). The Kern Dagor had much harsher out of focus areas and was the clear loser in the shootout, given it cost 5x what the Ektar did.

If the price differential is the same now between the Caltar and Ektar as it was then, it's a toss-up. The Ektar will always have better resale value. And you can still buy a bunch of sheet film for the price differential. But not nearly as much as you could back then. Your choice - they're both going to come in the same Ilex #4 shutter, and the glass is extremely similar. I went with Kodak lenses myself so that I could have a matched set in terms of color rendering and bokeh, since I already had the 14". I now have 190mm and 250mm Wide Field Ektars, and 12" and 14" Commercial Ektars.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've had several Kern Dagors, both single-coated and multi-coated. The latest MC version is unquestionably the highest contrast most hue-correct lens I've ever used in any format. That's understandable due to its only 4 air/glass interfaces. The contrast of the MC one proved just too high for most color transparency purposes. It's also a fairly heavy lens in a no. 3 shutter, though not as heavy and bulky as Commerical Ektars in even bigger shutters. I wouldn't use any of them on a lightweight 4x5 wooden folder due to their weight, with its risk of front standard vibration. Solid 8x10's are a different story.

The Nikon M's are ranked number two, in my opinion, when it comes to contrast, microtonal rendition, and hue purity - really good. And up to the 300 mm focal length at least, you have petite lightweight lenses usable on most lightweight wooden 4X5 folders.

But if you use the same 300M for 8X10 film, you have only a little wiggle room for view camera movements. Once you extend things towards the corners, the sharpness begins falling off. Head-on, or with just a little movement, the result is extremely sharp.

And indeed, the out of focus rendering of either of these lens designs - the Kern Dagor and Nikkor M - is rather harsh and clinical. Nevertheless, in the studio at least, using a blurry background fabric, the MC 14" Kern was my favorite 8X10 portrait lens with black and white film. These attained a cult status, so are tend to be very expensive now, whether they deserve that reputation or not. The
450 Nikkor M tends to be more affordable; and Fuji 420 L's are a real bargain, but again, relatively heavy.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian,
From everything I have read the 300mm f9 M Nikon works just fine on a 4X5 Chamonix and that's what I would use it on. Of course I'd also give it a try on my 8X10 to see what it can do.

I was really replying to Post #27 and my experience with my Wista 45DX and the 300 M Nikkor. It also depends on which Chamonix.

The major issue with any 300mm lens on a 5x4 camera is stability at full extension, with that amount of extension and the position of the tripod mount the slightest trace of wind is an issue. I prefer to use my 360mm Tele Xenar which requires about the same extension as my 210mm Symmar S for landscapes.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

I was really replying to Post #27 and my experience with my Wista 45DX and the 300 M Nikkor. It also depends on which Chamonix.

The major issue with any 300mm lens on a 5x4 camera is stability at full extension, with that amount of extension and the position of the tripod mount the slightest trace of wind is an issue. I prefer to use my 360mm Tele Xenar which requires about the same extension as my 210mm Symmar S for landscapes.

Ian

Yes, I understand what you are saying Ian. I'd like to know if one could focus the 300 M Nikkor close enough on a Chamonix 45N2 to do a head and shoulder portrait?

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes, I understand what you are saying Ian. I'd like to know if one could focus the 300 M Nikkor close enough on a Chamonix 45N2 to do a head and shoulder portrait?

The Chamonix 45N-2 has 395mm bellows extension, 500mm with an extension board, so I'd guess you could do head and shoulders quite easily. The Wista 45DX only has 300mm extension.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

The Chamonix 45N-2 has 395mm bellows extension, 500mm with an extension board, so I'd guess you could do head and shoulders quite easily. The Wista 45DX only has 300mm extension.

Ian

Ian, I'm pretty sure I won't have a problem with the Chamonix. I pretty much have the same problem with my old Toyo grey metal field 4X5 as the Wista 45DX has. Just not enough bellows draw.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Being plagued by wind vibration with a focal length of only 300mm is a symptom of either one or all of the following : a flimsy camera itself, especially the front standard; a substandard tripod head (I don't use them at all for view cameras); or too flimsy and lightweight a tripod. Also, needing a tophat board will increase front end vibration.

My gosh, 300 mm is only a foot of extension, plus a little more if the subject is closer than infinity. And the 300 Nikon M is a very lightweight lens in a small shutter, which adds little torque to the front standard. No, don't do stupid things like I've done, and turn your camera into a kite in a high altitude wind storm. But with any sanity at all, you should have no problems with most field 4x5's.
There are some models with insufficient bellows draw; avoid those.