Thinking of Getting an 8x10 View Camera

For me, the problem is shooting the Pinkham & Smith at F4.5!



As for lens sharpness. I was selling some lenses for a friend who lives in HK. In the first batch was a Fujinon 5.6 W with inside lettering! So I tested it with the 8x10 and it covers just fine, I am all set to buy it from him and then he included the Rodenstock APO Sironar S 210 in his second batch of things he wants me to sell for him. That lens is insane. I mean, it's a Vaughn-sized lens ;-) So of course I did a couple comparison shots with the Fujinon with the same film and same tripod position etc.



I may do more testing, but I will probably put the Fujinon back on sales soon...

Hey, Fujinon lenses are good, and all their 300mm lenses will cover 8x10 with enough room for movements.

138S said:

Min 4:35, Burkett is fielding a monster for his refined shootings, the nose of the monster is an APO Tele Xenar 800... but no doubt that a monster is not lightweight.

Anyway, "modern" photographers have weird problems that ancient shooters had solved quite easy

View attachment 254907

View attachment 254908

Click to expand...

Well, you could always emulate Vittorio Sella

Personally, I would require some doping

I seriously doubt Burkett used that particular lens very often. It would have been counterproductive. The depth of field is extremely shallow except for very distant subjects, and in that case, intervening atmospheric haze, heat waves etc is an even greater problem than the logistics of bulk, weight, and equipment stability. But Vittoria Sella was a significant climber and expedition member most of his life, accustomed to actually hauling heavy loads in steep remote terrain. Yet it was not until recently that someone ran across a particularly famous neg of climbers roped together on the Baltoro Glacier in the Karakoram Range that they discovered those climbers weren't even in the original shot, but had been double-negative dubbed in from a completely different shot taken in the Swiss Alps.

DREW WILEY said:

I seriously doubt Burkett used that particular lens very often.

Click to expand...

Of course, at all I cannot say what lenses he uses, but the two glasses he shows in the promotional video is the APO Tele Xenar 800 in the C1, and the APO EL 480 in the enlarger. Hmmm... some of his shots are commanding a focal in that range... if having such an impressive glass I would use it !

Neither lens makes a bit of difference in a final Cibachrome from 8x10, even in a big 30x40 inch print, which is only a 4x linear magnification. A 305/9 Apo Nikkor would be just as even, detailed, and contrasty for enlarging purposes, yet 1/30th the asking price as that long rare Apo El. I can detect a miniscule difference in the corners under a grain magnifier between my 360/9 Apo Nikkor and my more ordinary but brighter to focus 360/5.6 El Nikkor, but I doubt the public would ever notice the distinction in a displayed print. Same goes for using these as taking lenses - My 760 Apo Nikkor would outperform that 800 tele at a fraction of the bulk, weight, and typical present cost (they were quite expensive new), but would demand a longer bellows extension. For practicality, I simply use a Fuji 600C, which indeed is "Compact". It's not corrected to the extreme degree as an Apo Nikkor graphics lens, but who cares? - It's still plenty sharp for 8x10 work, even in big enlargements. Beginners tend to get way over-obsessed with this whole sharpness topic, not duly appreciating that in large format applications they're dealing with generous amounts of film real estate to begin with. As per Burkett, he used medium format gear a lot too, and many of his prints were offered in medium sizes only, where MF originals would have been adequate. Don't confuse a promotional video with routine practice.

DREW WILEY said:

Neither lens makes a bit of difference in a final Cibachrome from 8x10, even in a big 30x40 inch print

Click to expand...

Burkett also makes ciba museum prints of 40×50″ and 25×64″ sizes, in that situation the APO TX + APO EL glass combination may make some difference. Anyway both the TX and the EL are well beyond what I'll ever own, so I can only figure that, but it's well known that Burkett is a perfectionist using the very best.

I agree that the APO nikkor has to be very good, but it has three drawbacks. First originally this is a barrel with no shutter, then it would require quite more bellows, and coatings may be quite inferior to the ATX.

Soon I'll receive an APO Nikkor 455mm, an offer was accepted



I'll check lp/mm...

The best telephotographer I've ever known used Apo Nikkor barrel lenses on a heavy Toyo 8x10 camera, but with MF or Nikon cameras at the film plane. The fact he does not consider dedicated Nikon SLR lenses equal tells you something, and he was once a Nikon and telescope specialty dealer. There is nothing inferior about the coatings whatsoever. The finest repro lenses in existence are Apo El Nikkors, with Apo Nikkors differing by having about a stop less max aperture. Don't confuse these with Nikon's less expensive tessar line of process lenses. I have my own 450 Apo Nikkor mounted on a Sinar board, which my biggest enlarger also accepts, but never use this lens in the field. The 450 Fuji C is way more convenient.

DREW WILEY said:

The best telephotographer I've ever known used Apo Nikkor barrel lenses on a heavy Toyo 8x10 camera, but with MF or Nikon cameras at the film plane. The fact he does not consider dedicated Nikon SLR lenses equal tells you something, and he was once a Nikon and telescope specialty dealer. There is nothing inferior about the coatings whatsoever. The finest repro lenses in existence are Apo El Nikkors, with Apo Nikkors differing by having about a stop less max aperture. Don't confuse these with Nikon's less expensive tessar line of process lenses. I have my own 450 Apo Nikkor mounted on a Sinar board, which my biggest enlarger also accepts, but never use this lens in the field. The 450 Fuji C is way more convenient.

Click to expand...

You talking about a dealer outside of Denver?

DREW WILEY said:

Neither lens makes a bit of difference in a final Cibachrome from 8x10, even in a big 30x40 inch print, which is only a 4x linear magnification. A 305/9 Apo Nikkor would be just as even, detailed, and contrasty for enlarging purposes, yet 1/30th the asking price as that long rare Apo El. I can detect a miniscule difference in the corners under a grain magnifier between my 360/9 Apo Nikkor and my more ordinary but brighter to focus 360/5.6 El Nikkor, but I doubt the public would ever notice the distinction in a displayed print.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest the reason for the Apo-EL is purely pragmatic: it's probably about getting (perceived, if not real-world) near wide-open peak optical performance to avoid the confluence of a dense mask & Ciba/ Ilfochrome's speed/ reciprocity. I suspect that people may be attributing a higher level of optical knowledge to the user than may exist in reality - and his hinterland in pre-press suggests that an Apo-EL may have simply been easier to acquire at the shift to CTF/CTP than we might think - especially as for the job in question (as you point out), most high quality enlarging lenses likely cluster closely enough in performance as to make hunting for actual practical differences a worthless occupation - and time that could be better spent on making worthwhile work, rather than the cloyingly narcoleptic output of the aforesaid Apo-EL owner.

[QUOTE="DREW WILEY, post: 2322609, member: 51437" The finest repro lenses in existence are Apo El Nikkors, with Apo Nikkors differing by having about a stop less max aperture. [/QUOTE]

The APO EL is a 8 elements in 4 groups design, quasi-symetric, exceptionally well corrected in an exceptional magnification range, it works well from 1:1 to big enlargements, which is atonishing. CA is always very low. Those 2 extra elements are well employed for performance, this is the 105, the 480 may be similar:




It's always nice to see a proficient man at work


Here, min 4:25, the quality of the result may be somewhat perceived. I've seen a single print made by Burkett, owned by a collector, it was atonishing,

Bob S. - No, here, not Denver, and a very specialized dealer rather than photo shop.
Lachlan, there are several reasons I never bought an Apo El Nikkor, even though at one time I had an opportunity to buy at least one of them at a reasonable price. They're quite heavy, and in most applications still need to be stopped down to at least f/11 for ideal crispness, just like the less expensive Apo Nikkor, so aren't significantly faster in printing speed unless used for smaller format than the given focal length would seem to suggest. For example, the 105 is rated for 35mm film with respect to OPTIMAL performance (even though it very competently handles up to 6x9 too).
And third, their MTF is just so high that it tends to reveal even the tiniest flaw or scratch or discrepancy in not only the film/mask sandwich, but even the carrier glass itself. In fact, given the high-contrast nature of Ciba, I sometimes had to deliberately avoid apo lenses altogether, and revert back to my parallel set of regular Rodagons and El Nikkors etc. Some images looked better dialed back a bit.
Any day of the week I could make a print every bit as sharp and detailed and saturated as Burkett ever did. Where we mainly differed is in specific masking protocol and personal philosophies of equipment. I enjoyed designing and building much of my own gear, whereas Burkett went and spent a huge amount of money up front with a high-priced dealer, and that amounted to complete overkill in terms of the final result in the print itself. There's nothing wrong with doing that, and I know labs that spent twenty times as much on equipment as he did. But there are far more affordable ways to efficiently get from Point A to Point B if one is innovative.
Neither one of us had reciprocity issues with Cibachrome, given we both used high-performance colorheads designed for that kind of application. The problem with that kind of high wattage is that it eventually fades out the original chrome itself, sometimes in a single session if you're not carful ! That's probably why Burkett simply can't reprint certain popular images. I gave up on my high-wattage Durst color mural head and designed my own far cooler system. At the same time, I began making very precise 8X10 duplicate chromes with all the masking adjustments built-in, making these far less dense overall, and thus not only much faster to print, but thereby preserving the original chrome from fading.

There was one of those shops just outside Denver as well. Sold very high end telescopes, binoculars, Leice, LInhof, etc..

It's an interesting topic, Bob. I gravitate to longer lenses in general, but just don't have the time or budget to get involved with the extreme end of it. The intense optics lab down the road that makes many of the world's big telescope and space scope components had the custom of offering use of some of their older machinery one night a week for free classes to amateur telescope enthusiasts grinding their own mirrors and even aspherics. Up to at least 18 inch amateur refractors have been made in those sessions, now on hold due to the virus. Of course, those kinds of "amateurs" might easily spend over a hundred thousand dollars of their personal money on such a project, not including the cost of a dedicated truck-trailer to get it to location, or a private little mini-observatory dome somewhere in high desert.

DREW WILEY said:

Lachlan, there are several reasons I never bought an Apo El Nikkor, even though at one time I had an opportunity to buy at least one of them at a reasonable price. They're quite heavy, and in most applications still need to be stopped down to at least f/11 for ideal crispness, just like the less expensive Apo Nikkor, so aren't significantly faster in printing speed unless used for smaller format than the given focal length would seem to suggest. For example, the 105 is rated for 35mm film with respect to OPTIMAL performance (even though it very competently handles up to 6x9 too).
And third, their MTF is just so high that it tends to reveal even the tiniest flaw or scratch or discrepancy in not only the film/mask sandwich, but even the carrier glass itself. In fact, given the high-contrast nature of Ciba, I sometimes had to deliberately avoid apo lenses altogether, and revert back to my parallel set of regular Rodagons and El Nikkors etc. Some images looked better dialed back a bit.
Any day of the week I could make a print every bit as sharp and detailed and saturated as Burkett ever did. Where we mainly differed is in specific masking protocol and personal philosophies of equipment. I enjoyed designing and building much of my own gear, whereas Burkett went and spent a huge amount of money up front with a high-priced dealer, and that amounted to complete overkill in terms of the final result in the print itself. There's nothing wrong with doing that, and I know labs that spent twenty times as much on equipment as he did. But there are far more affordable ways to efficiently get from Point A to Point B if one is innovative.
Neither one of us had reciprocity issues with Cibachrome, given we both used high-performance colorheads designed for that kind of application. The problem with that kind of high wattage is that it eventually fades out the original chrome itself, sometimes in a single session if you're not carful ! That's probably why Burkett simply can't reprint certain popular images. I gave up on my high-wattage Durst color mural head and designed my own far cooler system. At the same time, I began making very precise 8X10 duplicate chromes with all the masking adjustments built-in, making these far less dense overall, and thus not only much faster to print, but thereby preserving the original chrome from fading.

Click to expand...

It is striking that while Schneider and Rodenstock both had Apo-Nikkor equivalents in their ranges, neither seem to have gone into the Apo-EL-Nikkor territory - I think the answer is that the Apo-EL was optimised for highly apochromatic properties, lack of vignetting, distortion (all of which matter enormously if you're dealing with making directly enlarged halftone-screened separations), but they weren't as sharp - or not significantly sharper/ higher resolving - than their more conventional enlarging lens competition - especially if you are having to stop to f11 for optimal performance - the long optimisation range seems to have more to do with aberration correction than sharpness. I also suspect that a tiny amount more distortion & vignetting were prices most consumers were willing to accept for lenses at least as sharp & much smaller/ easier to use than the huge chunks of metal & glass intended for large repro cameras. I recall that several of the longer Rodagons/ Rodagon-G's are near enough Apo in performance - Nikon never seem to have published anything like the level of optical data that Schneider & Rodenstock produced for their enlarging & pre-press lenses.

I recollect that in one of the videos he is using a De Vere enlarger, the dichro heads on those are usually either 2.4kW or 4.8kW (lots of ELH's) - which is pretty decently powerful. The lens stage was likely designed to handle up to a 480mm Rodagon-G.

Ordinary 5.6 enlarging lenses generally have to be stopped down to f/11 for ideal performance. Apo EL's are still hypothetically made, but only in fixed aperture for dedicated industrial applications. Apo Nikkors were marketed primarily for the print shop trade. The apo requirements for both lens series had to be significantly more stringent than either taking lenses or enlarging lenses like El Nikkors. But their sharpness is indeed also higher, and over a wider range of magnification. Remember, the definition of "apo" itself is much more strict for graphics applications than it is for typical photographic use. That's why the published image circle or angle of view is far more conservative that what would apply to general photographic or view camera use.
Rodagon G's are designed for especially large factors of magnification - they aren't a general enlarging series, and they wouldn't be acceptable for graphics use. By contrast, Apo Nikkors are highly usable all the way from 1:1 clear out to infinity. As far as compactness is concerned, Apo Nikkors are also considerably smaller than ordinary enlarging lenses of the same focal length (being smaller max aperture); Apo El Nikkors are not, and require substantial support.
In more recent years, Apo El's were in demand for the high-end scanning backs used in reproducing paintings or art forensic applications. Most major lens manufacturers except Fuji had their respective lines of graphics lenses. Apo Nikkors were commonly used here on the West Coast for high-end print shop work. Most of mine were cannibalized from a 22 ft long process camera with a bellows big enough that you could walk through it, if it hypothetically supported your weight.
I get nitpicky about these distinctions when making very precise color dupes, color internegs, and color separation negatives.
For general enlarging or shooting applications, this kind of hair-splitting tends to become silly overkill, especially when a large format original is involved to begin with.

DREW WILEY said:

Apo EL's are still hypothetically made, but only in fixed aperture for dedicated industrial applications. Apo Nikkors were marketed primarily for the print shop trade. The apo requirements for both lens series had to be significantly more stringent than either taking lenses or enlarging lenses like El Nikkors.

Click to expand...

First, making a sharp enlarger or repro lens that is sharper than a LF taking lens is easy. See coverage... an APO Nikkor covers around 45º while photographers want 72º and up (even 110º) for the taking lens, so for taking shots you need more elements to end in less performance over the extended image circle. Correcting the rays in the center it's way easier if not having to also correct the angled rays that hit very off-center.


Then the "APO" stamp is quite flexible... Taking lenses were APO corrected since long ago before the APO stamp became a commercial trend, for example you won't notice a practical difference between the Sironar-N MC and the APO Sironar-N , but it is true that over time there had been incremental manufacturing enhacements tending to decrease the sample to sample variability.

The APO stamp makes more sense for repro lenses, simply because some non APO repro glass may be preferred. Many repro jobs did not require APO at all, even if it is a color job, if colors are separated in 3 negatives then we can expose all with a single color in the illumination (filtration), using the wavelength that is the best for the lens, anyway we remove any CA effect. In that case a non APO glass will perform better that the APO because design has less restrictions from the Chromatic correction and design has more freedom to correct well Spheric Aberration, field curvature, distortion... in a simple 4 elements lens you cannot correct well all in a wide range of magnifications, so for Repro non APO vs APO makes quite a difference, requiring apo when a full spectrum illumination was required, like when making color separations.

Instead taking lenses were required "APO behaviour" since pan chromatic film/plates were marketed... if we don't want to use a band-pass color filter.

Today the APO commercial stamp says "hey, this is a very well corrected lens", but there is no tight criterion to say what's APO and what not, amazingly even we don't see color fringes in the DSLR corners because they are corrected/matched by the camera processor, with a distortion map for each color channel, only longitudinal CA may remain...

The APO Lanthar times are quite far, when a better chromatic correction could make a difference.


The APO Nikkors, IMO, they are not a miracle, it is a very well made 4 elements simple lens, and the narrow coverage angle restriction is not an issue for shooting long focals. The APO EL is another beast, 8 elemens in 4 groups, this is highly corrected glass that is to shine in a wide range of situations, subtituting several specialized lenses, single problem is price and scarcity, find a 480... Arne Croell said by 2008 that Burkett was using it by then. (https://www.largeformatphotography....r-480mm-useful&p=400364&viewfull=1#post400364)

You failed to appreciate what I stated, 138S. Apo Nikkors and many similar graphics lenses have a limited angle of coverage specified in relation to much stricter application standards than general photographic usage. But when adapted to ordinary taking use, you'll discover that not only do many some of them have relatively generous image circles, but are more acute and better corrected than dedicated view camera lenses even with respect to that more liberal repurposing of them. In fact, a number of highly regarded view camera lens series began as graphics lenses, and then were also sold in shutter for general use, including Apo Ronars, Apo Artars, G-Claron etc.
I have a couple of 360 graphics lenses that will easily cover 8x10 with typical movements, one being an old Zeiss f/9 single-coated tessar, the other the 360/9 Apo Nikkor. No, the coverage is not as huge as 80-degree 360 Fuji A or 355 G-Claron improved plasmats, but is functionally a MUCH bigger useable image circle than strict published specifications would imply.
People who don't understand the convention being used in the literature get into arguments about this because they've never tested these lenses. Even a 240 Apo Nikkor will easily cover 8x10 film if movements are minimal. Apo meant something quite specific in those cases, and was not just a marketing term for an improved lens series.
I don't use my 360 Apo Nikkor in the field because it has an almost too contrasty, too sharp look, with that same kind of busy out of focus background rendition that characterizes certain Nikon 35mm lenses - in other words, not very pleasant "bokeh". My older 360/9 Zeiss tessar has beautiful bokeh, for when that kind of composition is something I actually want. But in that focal length I also have a 14in Kern Dagor and 360 Fuji A, the latter being one of my most used lenses for 8x10, but also used quite often for 4x5. The Apo Nikkors stay in the lab.
You keep referencing Burkett for some reason. There are plenty of people who could print Ciba every bit as sharp as him, and specialized in 8x10, and routinely made even bigger prints than him, who didn't need an Apo El Nikkor to do it, even though they could have afforded one. He might be an admirable photographer and printmaker, but makes a number of statements on his interviews that are promotional rather than strictly true, including some irrelevant gear-bragging designed to impress a general audience unfamiliar with specific techniques. No need to go into detail here. There is another well known big Ciba landscape photographer who posed with a 20x24 view camera for his promotional web page, even though he doesn't actually shoot anything bigger than 8x10. Posing beside an enormous enlarging lens has the same effect. Self-promotional advertising is one thing, standard practice another. And the world didn't end when Cibachrome was discontinued. Fuji Supergloss achieves the same effect more easily, though there is of course a new learning curve involved.

Drew, I apreciated it. Repro glasses are sound for the long focals (relative to the format) because you require less a large coverage angle, there is no doubt, Reinhard Wolf used those Ronars for his long shots...

The APO 240 Nikkor covers 46º, which delivers a 240 x sin(23) x 2 = 187.55mm image circle for infinite focus, for 8x10" you need a 312.5mm, it does not even cover 5x7". Of course illumination circle is larger but you may expect a quality degradation beyond the 187mm circle.

If you use the APO 240 for repro at 1:1 it covers 375mm, you may be confused because repro lenses may specify covered circle at 1:1 magnification, but for pictorial usage (infinite focus) circle is just the half than in 1:1 the situation, as you give bellows extension to focus close the circle grows...

I've often argued that high-end apo enlarging lenses do in fact produce higher detail and micro-contrast in a print, and in color, somewhat richer hues. But sharpness, mtf, saturation, etc, should be thought of as merely tools to be meaningfully applied, subjugated to overall esthetic and compositional decision making. Not every image benefits from over-the-top detail or saturation. Just this past hour I've selected several black and white negs for tomorrow's printing session. Some of these images will be printed using an expensive apo lens, but at least one will not. That fact won't make it an inferior print. Not every foot is comfortable in the same shoe size. And certainly portrait photographers won't make a living if they don't tame things down a bit. Not all of this can be quantified, thank goodness. We aren't robots quite yet.
Now in reply to Pere : You still don't get it. Apo Nikkors are rated at 46 degrees in relation to industry practice of f/22 and very precise apo dot shape for printing purposes far in excess of normal photographic needs. This means that for most of our own purposes, the effective angle of view and usable image circle is much larger than what's on that spec sheet. 8x10 photographers not only tend to use smaller stops, but don't need absolutely precise dot geometry way out in the corners of the image. This doesn't mean I recommend a 240 Apo Nikkor for general 8x10 usage. But once you get up to a 305 or especially 360, you'll discover just by studying the groundglass with a loupe that the resultant image is actually sharper than any official view camera lens I've at least ever used, and I own some classic ones. Does this means you automatically get a sharper image? No, because you'd need to mount it in a no.3 shutter which produces more vibration on a lightweight field camera than a no.1 shutter like a 360 Fuji A uses, which is itself exceptionally sharp all the way from near macro to infinity. Greater weight on the front standard doesn't help either.
I realize that you'll rig up some MTF test to check out your incoming 450 in relation to all this, but might not arrive at a correct conclusion because you might not duly factor magnification ratios and so forth. Makes little difference. It will still be an absurdly sharp and evenly illuminated enlarging lens for 8x10 film all the way from f/11 to f/45. No need to give me a lecture about diffraction kicking in a bit at f/45; even a 40X60 inch print is only a 6X linear magnification from 8x10 film. You could try it for fun with a view camera too; but it would be a too bulky to be practical, especially if mounted in a huge no. 5 shutter.

DREW WILEY said:

Ordinary 5.6 enlarging lenses generally have to be stopped down to f/11 for ideal performance. Apo EL's are still hypothetically made, but only in fixed aperture for dedicated industrial applications. Apo Nikkors were marketed primarily for the print shop trade. The apo requirements for both lens series had to be significantly more stringent than either taking lenses or enlarging lenses like El Nikkors. But their sharpness is indeed also higher, and over a wider range of magnification. Remember, the definition of "apo" itself is much more strict for graphics applications than it is for typical photographic use. That's why the published image circle or angle of view is far more conservative that what would apply to general photographic or view camera use.
Rodagon G's are designed for especially large factors of magnification - they aren't a general enlarging series, and they wouldn't be acceptable for graphics use. By contrast, Apo Nikkors are highly usable all the way from 1:1 clear out to infinity. As far as compactness is concerned, Apo Nikkors are also considerably smaller than ordinary enlarging lenses of the same focal length (being smaller max aperture); Apo El Nikkors are not, and require substantial support.
In more recent years, Apo El's were in demand for the high-end scanning backs used in reproducing paintings or art forensic applications. Most major lens manufacturers except Fuji had their respective lines of graphics lenses. Apo Nikkors were commonly used here on the West Coast for high-end print shop work. Most of mine were cannibalized from a 22 ft long process camera with a bellows big enough that you could walk through it, if it hypothetically supported your weight.
I get nitpicky about these distinctions when making very precise color dupes, color internegs, and color separation negatives.
For general enlarging or shooting applications, this kind of hair-splitting tends to become silly overkill, especially when a large format original is involved to begin with.

Click to expand...

I was trying (not very well) to point out that there's not a whole lot of difference between the Dialyte design Apo-Nikkor, Rodenstock's Apo Ronar, Schneider's Repro Claron and Goerz etc's Red Dot Artar (and antecedents) - all are likely in a well controlled test to land in about the same place performance-wise. What I was querying is the mystique applied to the Apo EL-Nikkor - which may be more to do with its highly apochromatic performance rather than it necessarily being as sharp/ high resolving as slightly faster/ newer enlarging lens designs - especially as it's clear that Nikon's competitors could have made equivalent lenses if they wished. That they didn't, is, to me at least, quite significant. A highly apochromatic performance, nil distortion and no vignetting all matter more when used in a scanning situation (especially when the scan bar is moving relative to the image circle of the lens) than the ultimate in absolute sharpness - which as we all know is very different from nominal resolution. It is interesting to note that Bob Pace seems to have been recommending (by the late 80's) either the then Apo Rodagons (50,90 - which Bob S has characterised as not being as good as the later Apo Rodagon N's) or the 105 Apo EL for fluid mount separations from 35mm transparencies - which suggests that in the real world there wasn't as much between them as everyone who seems to have spent hundreds of hours playing with test charts wants to believe...

As someone who owns and uses Rodagon G's, they do have significant sharpness advantages - quite dramatically so. They're great if you're making mural prints off 135/120, but not worthwhile for the sorts of enlargement scales most people are using sheet film for these days.

DREW WILEY said:

I've often argued that high-end apo enlarging lenses do in fact produce higher detail and micro-contrast in a print, and in color, somewhat richer hues. But sharpness, mtf, saturation, etc, should be thought of as merely tools to be meaningfully applied, subjugated to overall esthetic and compositional decision making. Not every image benefits from over-the-top detail or saturation. Just this past hour I've selected several black and white negs for tomorrow's printing session. Some of these images will be printed using an expensive apo lens, but at least one will not. That fact won't make it an inferior print. Not every foot is comfortable in the same shoe size. And certainly portrait photographers won't make a living if they don't tame things down a bit. Not all of this can be quantified, thank goodness. We aren't robots quite yet.
Now in reply to Pere : You still don't get it. Apo Nikkors are rated at 46 degrees in relation to industry practice of f/22 and very precise apo dot shape for printing purposes far in excess of normal photographic needs. This means that for most of our own purposes, the effective angle of view and usable image circle is much larger than what's on that spec sheet. 8x10 photographers not only tend to use smaller stops, but don't need absolutely precise dot geometry way out in the corners of the image. This doesn't mean I recommend a 240 Apo Nikkor for general 8x10 usage. But once you get up to a 305 or especially 360, you'll discover just by studying the groundglass with a loupe that the resultant image is actually sharper than any official view camera lens I've at least ever used, and I own some classic ones. Does this means you automatically get a sharper image? No, because you'd need to mount it in a no.3 shutter which produces more vibration on a lightweight field camera than a no.1 shutter like a 360 Fuji A uses, which is itself exceptionally sharp all the way from near macro to infinity. Greater weight on the front standard doesn't help either.
I realize that you'll rig up some MTF test to check out your incoming 450 in relation to all this, but might not arrive at a correct conclusion because you might not duly factor magnification ratios and so forth. Makes little difference. It will still be an absurdly sharp and evenly illuminated enlarging lens for 8x10 film all the way from f/11 to f/45. No need to give me a lecture about diffraction kicking in a bit at f/45; even a 40X60 inch print is only a 6X linear magnification from 8x10 film. You could try it for fun with a view camera too; but it would be a too bulky to be practical, especially if mounted in a huge no. 5 shutter.

Click to expand...

Many of these special Apo lenses were designed not as enlarging lenses or taking lenses. They were blowback lenses for designing and printing printed circuit boards.

DREW WILEY said:

Now in reply to Pere : You still don't get it. Apo Nikkors are rated at 46 degrees in relation to industry practice of f/22 and very precise apo dot shape for printing purposes far in excess of normal photographic needs. This means that for most of our own purposes, the effective angle of view and usable image circle is much larger than what's on that spec sheet.

Click to expand...

For the usable angle YMMV, but think that 8x10" for the 240mm focal is commanding a 66º angle, which insanely overruns the 46º spec.

Yesterday you were saying that the Fujinon 250 f/6.3 (with a 320mm circle) was not good for 8x10, and today... is the APO Nikkor 240 with a 187mm circle good?

IIRC someone was saying that the APO Nikkor 240 had 375mm circle and was good for 8x10, without realizing that the 375mm circle is for 1:1 and this is shrinked to 187mm when focusing at infinite, confusion should come from that.



Soon, when I have the APO Nikkor 455 I'll tell you what it does beyond it's specified circle. For the moment I've experimented only with russian dialytes, the RF-5 and the O-2 (450 and 600mm)

Never mind either the 1:1 or f/22 specs. One should test these according to their personal application. As I already indicated, a 240 Apo Nikkor will cover 8x10, but only point blank, with very limited movement. For typical 8x10 landscape use with distinct tilts and so forth, you'd want at least a 360. On an enlarger, things are different because you're always somewhat close, and movements aren't needed.