Mike,
As you know I am pretty new to ULF, about 14 sheets of 7x17 shot and developed. I have used a Fuji 600mm C rarely on my 8x10 the two years I have owned it. I have been pleased with my results, but would hardly call it a test. Following is commentary on your question that I found valuable. Hope it is the same for you. I am certainly concerned about what Bill Glickman says. I have no experience with him and would like to know more about how he came to those conclusions. Maybe he will respond or we can contact him. Hope this is useful. Ive included URLs at the end of each section so you can read the whole thread if you wish. Good luck. I am interested to know what you decided. You are certainly welcome to try my 600mm Fuji C when we get together. On the other hand Dick Arnetz has the least costly solution.
John Powers
Sandy King , jan 20, 2003; 02:45 p.m.
There was a symmetrical Apo-Nikkor lens but this was the f/11 design, similar to the G-Claron wide-angle. The f/9 Apo-Nikkor, which is by far the most common lens that we see with this name, is not of the same design as the Artar and G-Claron. It is a modified tessar design, with five elements in three groups, unlike the common tessar which consists of four elements in three groups, and is decidedly non-symmetrical. The Artar and Apo-Ronar, on the other hand, consist of four elements in four groups and are almost, if not perfectly, symmetrical.
I have three large format Nikkors, a 420mm Apo-Nikkor, a 600mm Apo-Nikkor, and a 450mm Nikkor-M. The performance of these lenses in terms of coverage is so different that I strongly believe they are not of similar design. All three have a very large circle of illumination but the Nikkor-M is the only one of the three that improves substantially all the way to the edge of the field when stopped down to f/45 or f/64. The other two improve some but performance at the edges is not good enough even when the goal is contact printing. For example, I regularly use the 450mm Nikkor-M as a wide angle for the 20X24 format, stopped down to f/45 or more, while the 600mm Apo-Nikkor does not come close to providing acceptable coverage this format, even when stopped down.
To the best of my knowledge the Nikkor-M is a true tessar design, in contrast to the Apo-Nikkor. I am not familiar with the 450mm Apo-Nikkor and it is possible that it is similar in design to the newer Nikkor-M. You could perhaps figure out the design by looking at the lens and counting the number of elements.
Sandy King
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004O81
Paul Schilliger
is the Fujinon 600mm C f11,5 sharp and good?
Something interesting that I learned recently about Fuji lenses is that Fuji use s only separate elements in their lens design, no glue is used. This results in more vibrant and sharp images. I h ad made some lens testing between Fujinon C and Apo-Ronar sometimes ago and I saw that Fujinons are virtually free from any chromatic aberration (as well as other aberrations). This does however not concern the Fujinon T series.
Bill Glickman
is the Fujinon 600mm C f11,5 sharp and good?
I have been using this lens for the past 2 years. The lens is excellent provided you follow a few basic premises... You must stabilize the camera, as camera shake is quite often confused with soft lenses. Secondly, you can not use this lens wider than f22, but f32 is preferred and f45 is still equal or better than f22. It is only optimized at these apt. f16 produces terrible results in my experience, so its a very very slow lens. It's quite compact considering its fl.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=4988
kthalmann 11-07-2005, 01:00 PM
I'm considering moving up to 7x17 and have a question about lenses longer than 600mm/24" on this format. This is not the typical question about what lenses are available (I am familiar with the options) and how much they cover. It is a question about actual usage. Specifically, for all you 7x17 shooters, do you use a lens longer than 600mm/24" on this format. And if so, how often?
The reason I ask, is maximum bellows draw is one of the main considerations when purchasing a 7x17 camera. For me personally, camera weight is also an issue. I realize no 7x17 is going to be ultralight, but I'm not eager to carry more weight than necessary unless I really need it. I already own a 600mm Fujinon C, which is longer than normal on 7x17. If that ends up as my longest lens for 7x17, I can get by with a lightweight camera with a fairly short bellows. For anything longer, I start to get into heavier, bulkier, more expensive cameras and bigger and bulkier lenses that need a sturdy front standard to support them at full extension.
Sanking 11-07-2005, 02:55 PM
Kerry,
I have a 30" Red Dot Artar but don't use it very much in this part (southeast USA) of the world. When I travel in the west, with large vistas, I tend to use it a lot more, both with 7X17 and 12X20. I also owned a 42" Red Dot Artar in a Compound #5 but it was really too heavy for my cameras (7X17 and 12X20 Canhams) and I rarely took it out of the case it so I sold it to a friend who hopefully will make better use of it.
By and large most ULF users tend to prefer the aesthetics of wide angles. This has many practical advantages advantages as well since depth of field is such a difficult issue with longer lenses. The longest lens that Dick Arentz uses on his 12X20 F&S is a 450mm Nikkor.
Sandy
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
