Will Nikkor Q 300mm f 9 cover 8x10

[Ambrown31]

Maybe he meant 77mm.

 

[Gaston 012]

He was referring, I think, to the 300 Fuji W and WS they both take 77mm filters and have a 420 circle.
They both are heavy guys with a 5.6 opening and not the Tessars we have been discussing

 

[John Earley]

You will like it, I have the 300 Q Nikkor and have used it successfully with a Gibellini Bellatrix 810. The lens is indeed very light. The image comes out pretty bright on the 810 ground glass. I have used some rise (few cm maybe, but not sure exactly how much), and haven't critically evaluated edge sharpness.

I have the same combination of Nikkor Q 300mm and Gibellini Bellatrix 810 and have been very pleased.

 

[5x7shooter]

A subject sample of 1 or 2 is never very reliable nor conclusive, but here's my experience.

I have a Copal 3 set that includes both the 300 Q and the 450 Q, with one shutter and the cells interchangeable. I tested both the 300 and the 450 Q cells against other lenses I have in that focal length range, 305 G-Claron, 305 Repro-Claron, 355 and 270 Red Dot Artars, 360mm Kern, all f/9 like the Nikkors.

Without exception, I preferred the Clarons and the RD Artars. The Kern was also better than the Qs but not by as wide a margin. I've never used an M Nikkor, so cannot comment about that later model.

 

[Gaston 012]

This is quite interesting and I about to try a similar test, with the Nikons 300's f 9 Q&M and the Claron 210 and 305, we shall see.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 14" Kern is not as nitpicky sharp as a 300M, but has a much larger image circle, so is going to be more versatile for 8x10, once you pay off your hospital bill due to the heart attack its price caused. Critical sharpness falls off pretty fast toward the corners with much 8x10 movement with a 300M tessar. In terms of relatively compact choices, Fuji A's or G-Clarons of comparable focal length will outperform either except in sheer contrast rendition. But the distinctions in print between any of these will be almost impossible to detect. Even 4X enlargement from 8x10 yields a huge print. There are far more important factors to sharpness, like getting the film to stay truly flat in the holder and not sag.

 

[5x7shooter]

The 14" Kern is not as nitpicky sharp as a 300M, but has a much larger image circle, so is going to be more versatile for 8x10, once you pay off your hospital bill due to the heart attack its price caused. Critical sharpness falls off pretty fast toward the corners with much 8x10 movement with a 300M tessar. In terms of relatively compact choices, Fuji A's or G-Clarons of comparable focal length will outperform either except in sheer contrast rendition. But the distinctions in print between any of these will be almost impossible to detect. Even 4X enlargement from 8x10 yields a huge print. There are far more important factors to sharpness, like getting the film to stay truly flat in the holder and not sag.

The Kern I have is a Dialyte-pattern process lens originally in barrel from about 1982 until Adam at SKGrimes mounted it in a Copal 3 in 2019, so the cost was only a shutter that I managed to find at a reasonably low price and then mounting. The Kern's a good lens but I prefer my 14" Red Dot Artar, also in Copal 3, for reasons I cannot readily articulate. The RDA seems both somewhat sharper and also tonally smoother. Of course, I could be seeing things.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh, a process lens. I thought you were referring to the 14 in Dagor. My own 305 and 360 process lenses are dialyte Apo Nikkors, and will render sharper, more acutely apo images all the way from 1:1 clear out to infinity than any of my other LF or MF lenses. I have Sinar boards for them, but mainly use them in the darkroom for either enlarging or critical dupe, interneg, and masking purposes. I prefer more compact with shutter 8X10 lenses for field use.

I do have an older single-coated Zeiss 360/9 tessar process lens that is itself very sharp, but renders background blur more gently than my other 8X10 lenses, but use it infrequently via lenscap exposures; it would be nice to fit it to a Copal 3S someday. The Kern MC Dagor had the most contrast, micro-gradation, and hue saturation of any lens I have ever used in any format, having only four air/glass interfaces. But it was simply too contrasty for most of the color work I did, so I sold it and bought the previous Kern 14 in single-coated version instead.

But my most used 360 is the Fuji A with its huge image circle and superb close-range correction; but it's so sharp at infinity too that I often use it as a long range lens on 4X5, even with 6X9 roll film backs. I love 200 and 300 Nikkor M's for 4x5 usage, but only use the latter on 8x10 when movements are modest.

 

[Gaston 012]

I have now done some work on the "test"
I used the Q 300 and the Claron 305. I had a 300M for a couple of hours from a local friend, I did not use it but examined it.
Results:
1- The Q and the M both weigh the same, there was a 10 gram difference but it was due to the different shutters, the Q uses the old one with a metal disc. Unscrewing the elements and weighing them by themselves the weight was the same for both lenses. They are also indistinguishable in appearance.
2- The M, fully open, with a single light source from the ceiling shows 3 different light bulbs with 3 different colors. The Q the same 3 lights but all white. My take, and I am not sure I am right, is that this little test shows the Q to be single coated and the M multiple.
3- The Q and the Claron were shot with the same apertures and exposure but the Q had a second shot with 1 inch lateral disp of the rear and a little, maybe 5 degree tilt of the front. Comparison of contact prints of both lenses were the same to me, I could not see any difference and, because I always do contacts I am happy. I do not doubt the difference will appear at enlargements but that is irrelevant for me. Maybe I will cut a 4x5 section off center of both negatives and then enlarge, we shall see.
The 2 prints with the Q were identical and there was no loss in the corners. So, for sure, it covers 8x10 like some other members have said.
Therefore, it is, for my particular ways, crazy to spend three or four hundred more for a 300 when this one gives me excellent service and has the added advantage over the Caron and the other , larger lenses, to fit in my front pocket and light as a feather.
The filter size is also perfect.
I am happy to have acquired this little guy.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

. . . Therefore, it is, for my particular ways, crazy to spend three or four hundred more for a 300 when this one gives me excellent service and has the added advantage over the Caron and the other , larger lenses, to fit in my front pocket and light as a feather. . .

My reason for selling a 450M and purchasing my 450Q for $325.

Also my reason for selling a Fuji 600mm C for $3450 and purchasing my 610mm Repro-Claron for $325.

Besides, I decided I wanted all single-coated lenses for 8x10.

Recently, I purchased a 300mm Fuji f5.6 with inside lettering. This lens is single-coated, and like other Fujinon 300mm lenses, it has the smaller 77mm filter size.

 

[Gaston 012]

Thank you Neil:
Funny you came up with these words while I was pondering the same issue with the Fuji 600C !
I just do not know what to replace it with. Does the Repro Claron weigh more than the 600 C?
It is a tempting change>

 

[John Earley]

I have the 300Q and the 450Q and I've been very satisfied with both of them.

 

[outwest]

It is interesting as one might think that the "Q" follows the old Nikon number of elements letter codes where "Q" would be "Quadra" or "4".

 

[DREW WILEY]

Q's in this case are tessars preceding the M tessar series. Single versus multi-coated, perhaps some other minor tweaks too.