...and sometimes you get lucky

Deniz · Nov 17, 2004

Well not withe the ladies but with the camera gear..

Its a 480/9 Apo-Nikkor.. which i bought for $40usd on ebay!!
came mounted on a huge 12x12 metal board with an electric shutter that works with 120V and a big aperture scale.. whole thing weighed 16lbs!!

Cleaned it off.. removed the lens and mounted it on my 8x10 tachihara board with a 92mm hole!

It is not as heavy as it looks and it is purdy..

Can't wait to use it on the 8x10 and make some blinding sharp negatives..

matt miller · Nov 17, 2004

Sweet deal on a great lens. That sure doesn't come around too often.

rbarker · Nov 17, 2004

Congrats, Deniz. I have the 610mm, including the flip-down lens cap. (woo hoo) I either need to get better at using a "hat shutter" or find an Ilex #5 to mount it in (after getting the appropriate new barrel machined by SK Grimes).

Deniz · Nov 17, 2004

Ralph, i woul love a 610mm but dont have that much bellows extension on the Tachihara.
Maybe once i move up to 11x14 or 8x20 i will look into getting one.

rbarker · Nov 17, 2004

Don't forget to look for a #5 arm stretcher to go with it. Those front-standard adjustments are pretty far away.

http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/Photo-gear/APO-Nikkor610f9-128-08-600c.jpg

jimgalli · Nov 18, 2004

Oh my, that is pretty. Congrats!

Deniz · Nov 18, 2004

It is going to be hard to afford filters for the beast. 86mm filters..
i may get away with a step down ring and use my 77mm filters since not all of that 86mm is glass on the front element.

Here she is on the camera..

Mongo · Nov 18, 2004

Congrats Deniz. I have one of these on my Calumet C1, and it's quickly become my primary lens. I mounted mine in front of an old Packard shutter and had been having and absolute blast with it. Negs so sharp that it can hurt to look at 'em.

rbarker · Nov 18, 2004

86mm filters aren't too bad. The 105mm filters I have for another lens drop inside the filter threads on the 610mm Nikkor.

argon · Nov 20, 2004

...just tape the gel filters to the inside of the lensboard. I worked at a catalogue studio and that was out standard operating procedure...if we had had to have a complete set of cc filters for every lens in the house, we would have gon bankrupt.
I've also read of someone who used HO scale model "I" beams from the hobby shop to make a frame on the inside of the lensboard that he could slip the gel filters into.

argon

MurrayMinchin · May 27, 2006

Hi there Deniz...it's a small world!

I just got a phone call from my sister-in-law who just met you either in Vancouver or at Long Beach (not sure where she phoned from) and found out you're an APUG'er and a LF photographer of moss in trees just like me.

If I'm ever heading south I'll get in touch with you and all the other south coast APUG'ers for a meal

Murray

bob01721 · May 28, 2006

Deniz said:
"... Here she is on the camera..."

Suh-WEEEEET!

noseoil · May 28, 2006

Deniz, I got a similar lens (won't quote you what I paid, but it was more than the $40 you paid) and have it mounted in front of an old Packard shutter as well. What is really fun is this lens and a 4x5 reducing back for my 8x10 camera. I had thought about taking a ring off of a Nikon 35mm lens and mounting my FM body to the 8x10 at some point. Who knows, might do it some day, but the 35mm is easier to carry than the 8x10, so it hasn't happened yet.

Congratulations on a sweet deal. Check into a Packard shutter, they still work very well and are easy to mount and use. tim

Tom Hoskinson · May 28, 2006

Deniz said:
It is going to be hard to afford filters for the beast. 86mm filters..
i may get away with a step down ring and use my 77mm filters since not all of that 86mm is glass on the front element.

Here she is on the camera..

Looking good Deniz!

I have one of these 480mm Nikkors that I use on my 8x10 Wehman (with a Sock Shutter).
My lens has a filter (and Waterhouse stop) insertion slot in the lens barrel. I have a set of Nikon filter slips and I use gel filters in them - a simple solution to the filter problem.

Dan Fromm · May 28, 2006

Hi, Tom. If you'll take a look in the DIY cameras thread, you'll find a link to an image of my tandem Graphics (2x3 Pacemaker Speed behind a Century) with a 480/9 Apo Nikkor front-mounted on a #1. Its been a while since I did the calculations, but I'm pretty sure the lens will cover 4x5 with some movements and will cover 8x10 with none for sure, perhaps a little more than none, front mounted on a #1.

Yeah, I envy Deniz for the low price he paid for his 480. My adapter for front mounting cost more than my lens.

Cheers,

Dan

Jeremy · May 28, 2006

Maybe you guys congratulating Deniz on his cheap find should look at the date this thread was originally started... November 2004! Not to spoil the fun, though... I love hearing about the ways people mount these big lenses/shutters on their cameras.

Mongo · May 29, 2006

Dan...I'm not sure what you mean by "front-mounted on a #1"...but I get plenty of movements using my 480/9 on 8x10 with a Packard shutter. (I'm not sure of the shutter size as I got it used, but the opening is a bit larger than the rear element of the Nikkor.)

The circle of illumination on the lens is significantly larger than the circle of good definition, but I have to tie my C1 up into a real pretzel to get beyond the usable image.

<-- I just realized that my avatar is a picture of me using the 480/9 on the C1.

Be well.
Dave

(I reserve the right to respond in 2006, since I have a post in the thread from 2004. )

Dan Fromm · May 30, 2006

Mongo said:
Dan...I'm not sure what you mean by "front-mounted on a #1"...but I get plenty of movements using my 480/9 on 8x10 with a Packard shutter. (I'm not sure of the shutter size as I got it used, but the opening is a bit larger than the rear element of the Nikkor.)

The circle of illumination on the lens is significantly larger than the circle of good definition, but I have to tie my C1 up into a real pretzel to get beyond the usable image.

<-- I just realized that my avatar is a picture of me using the 480/9 on the C1.

Be well.
Dave

(I reserve the right to respond in 2006, since I have a post in the thread from 2004. )

Um, Dave, my 480 screws into a cup-shaped adapter that screws into a #1 shutter. The #1's maximum aperture is 30 mm so in principle it should vignette the cone of rays the lens projects. Or, at any rate, cut off the outer part of the cone. Covers 2x3 very well as mounted, though, and I've calculated that it will cover somewhat larger formats too.

Mongo · May 30, 2006

Thanks for the information Dan. Even though I spent time looking over your double-Graphic setup when you first posted the pictures (out of sheer admiration...I still love that setup!) I somehow missed that you were using a #1 shutter. The number 1 should cut off a good bit of the image circle.

I can't find the stats for the 480mm right now, but the 455mm (same construction) covers 385mm at infinity. I would guess that the 480mm gets you around 400mm (based on extrapolating the coverage for a number of the APO-Nikkor f/9 process lenses).

Be well.
Dave

Dan Fromm · May 31, 2006

Mongo said:
Thanks for the information Dan. Even though I spent time looking over your double-Graphic setup when you first posted the pictures (out of sheer admiration...I still love that setup!) I somehow missed that you were using a #1 shutter. The number 1 should cut off a good bit of the image circle.

I can't find the stats for the 480mm right now, but the 455mm (same construction) covers 385mm at infinity. I would guess that the 480mm gets you around 400mm (based on extrapolating the coverage for a number of the APO-Nikkor f/9 process lenses).

Be well.
Dave

Dave, I get no vignetting on 2x3 with the 480. For me, the big vignetting surprise is that my tiny little 150/9 Apo Ronar doesn't when mounted on an adapter to some enlarger or other that fits the cup-shaped adapter for my 210/9 GRII. You'd think that with the lens so far in front of the shutter it would vignette at infinity on 2x3, but it doesn't.

In practice, the apparently reasonable model I use to decide whether vignetting is a risk is quite conservative, i.e., I get more coverage than it predicts. The model is basically similar triangles; circle covered is (lens' exit pupil to film distance)*((diameter of limiting obstruction)/(lens' exit pupil to limiting obstruction distance)). My tandem rig has two possible limiting obstructions, the #1 shutter's diaphragm (30 mm diameter) and the rear camera's front standard (48 mm diameter). For 2x3 its the rear camera's front standard that bites.

I think I've got the 480 Apo Nikkor's specs at home. IIRC, you're right, it covers 400 mm at infinity. Much more than I can use ...

And now you know most of my barrel lenses that can be front-mounted are front-mounted.

Cheers,

Dan

Capocheny · Jun 1, 2006

Jeremy Moore said:
Maybe you guys congratulating Deniz on his cheap find should look at the date this thread was originally started... November 2004.

Jeremy,

LOL This is tooooo funny!

Cheers

Deniz · Jun 6, 2006

ITs amazing how this thread got ressurected.
I still have the lens and use it happily..

it provides tons of movement at f64 on my 8x10.. more than the camera can handle, thats for sure

Murray, sent you a PM.

...and sometimes you get lucky

Deniz

Attachments

matt miller

rbarker

Deniz

rbarker

jimgalli

Deniz

Attachments

Mongo

rbarker

argon

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

bob01721

noseoil

Tom Hoskinson

Dan Fromm

Jeremy

Mongo

Dan Fromm

Mongo

Dan Fromm

Capocheny

Deniz

...and sometimes you get lucky

Attachments

Attachments

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency