Nikkor M 300mm coverage - What is the real story?

[Kevin Hicks]

I am moving from 4x5 to 8x10 and wish to start with a "normal" lens. The Nikkor M 300mm/9.0 sounds as though it is a great lens at a bargan price. I have read many posts praising the lens. However, I find differing opinions about the coverage for 8x10. Several say that the true image circle is much greater than the 325 listed by Nikon. Is this true? I don't expect to need extreme movements for my typical lanscape/people work. I don't wish to be constricted either.

Thanks for your help in advance.

[Gem Singer]

Hi Kevin,
The Nikkor 300M will cover the 8x10 format closed down, with minimal movement capability. Check out the Fujinon 300C. It is very similar to the Nikon 300M (f8.5, instead of f9.0), but it has a 380mm. image circle. I sold my 300M and now have a Fuji 300C that I use on my 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 cameras. I like it better than the Nikkor 300M.

[Michael Kadillak]

Another alternative is the 305 G Claron that is only slightly more expensive and a bit larger, but not much. I use it on 8x10 regularly and leave the 300 M Nikon for 5x7 because my experience with it is that it is not abundant in the coverage department on 8x10 although many clearly find it acceptable. While it covers, the image degrades (as does any basic Tessar design) as one nears the edge as Kerry Thalman states in his recent article in View Camera. The center cut of the image is stunning however. Starting out with 8x10 I personally would rather have much more coverage than I would need than taking a chance with it. All you need to remember with the G Clarons is to stop down to at least f22 and all is well.

Have fun!

[jonathan smith]

It's very sharp and I have never noticed any image fall-off, can't say I try to push extreme movements, but I often rise the front and don't have a problem. I HAVE had dark corners with a Nikkor W 240mm, which is supposed to have a very wide angle of coverage, and also with a 270mm G Claron.

There may be less sharpness at the corners, and I haven't seen it because it's usually sky or out-of-focus grass anyway. It doesn't seem to darken at the corners which would be more noticeable. It's the smallest lens you'll find, always a plus. But the best part is it's just sooo sharp.

[Diane Maher]

I also have a 300 mm Fujinon-C which was my first lens for 8x10. I believe it was recommended to me by Jim at Midwest Photo over the Nikkor-M.

[Jim Galli]

Tessar's are famous for being incredibly sharp and contrasty in the middle, the "sweet spot" if you will, and falling off as the image circle moves out rather rapidly. Nikon probably has a percentage of mtf fall-off that they feel is acceptable and that is what they publish. There's plenty of image beyond that in many tessar designs but it's up to the individual what amount of fuzziness they can live with.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Nikon probably has a percentage of mtf fall-off that they feel is acceptable and that is what they publish.

Jim,

Yes, Nikon is quite conservative in the specs on their M series Tessar derivatives. Nikon's published angle of coverage for these lenses is in the 52 - 57 degree range (depending on focal langth) at f22. Historically, manufacturers have claimed around 60 degree coverage the the faster f4.5 Tessar-types and around 64 degrees for the slower Tessar derivatives. Nikon's conservative numbers for the M Series probably equate to an MTF comparable to that of their plasmat W Series at around 72 degrees. As I don't shoot anything bigger than 4x10 with my 300mm Nikkor M (or 4x5 with my 200mm Nikkor M) I haven't really pushed the coverage significantly beyond the manufacturer's specifications, but as Jim mentiones, they are wonderfully sharp and contrasty within the narrow specified angle of coverage - certainly on par with the best modern plasmats (albeit with less coverage).

Kerry