Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,918   Posts: 1,584,773   Online: 924
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    523

    260mm Nikkor Q same as 260mm Process Nikkor?

    I posted this over on the large format forum, but haven't received any responses. Since I know there are a number of ULF shooters here, I thought I'd seek the collective wisdom of the APUG community.

    Gentlemen,

    Does anyone know if these are the same lenses with different names, but equal coverage?

    260mm f10 Nikkor Q
    260mm f10 Process Nikkor

    I have heard they are the same lens, but am looking for confirmation. Based on photos, the 260mm Nikkor Q appears to be older ("inside" lettering) than the 260mm Process Nikkor (lettering around the "outside" of the front barrel). Other than that, they look very similar in the photos. However, photos tell me nothing about lens design/construction or performance.

    I'm not so concerned about the age as I am the performance and coverage. I've read several times that the 260mm Process Nikkor will cover 7x17 and am hoping the 260mm Nikkor Q will as well.

    Thanks,
    Kerry

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by kthalmann View Post
    I posted this over on the large format forum, but haven't received any responses. Since I know there are a number of ULF shooters here, I thought I'd seek the collective wisdom of the APUG community.

    Gentlemen,

    Does anyone know if these are the same lenses with different names, but equal coverage?

    260mm f10 Nikkor Q
    260mm f10 Process Nikkor

    I have heard they are the same lens, but am looking for confirmation. Based on photos, the 260mm Nikkor Q appears to be older ("inside" lettering) than the 260mm Process Nikkor (lettering around the "outside" of the front barrel). Other than that, they look very similar in the photos. However, photos tell me nothing about lens design/construction or performance.

    I'm not so concerned about the age as I am the performance and coverage. I've read several times that the 260mm Process Nikkor will cover 7x17 and am hoping the 260mm Nikkor Q will as well.

    Thanks,
    Kerry
    I am almost positive they are the same design, and I think you are right in that the Process Nikkor is the newer specimen. I have held both in my hands, but only tested the Process Nikkor. It covered 7X17, but not by a lot.

    There is also a 270mm G-Claron wide-angle process lens that will cover 7X17, though not with lot of movement. The 240mm version will also, but just barely. The 210mm G-Claron wide angle will not cover 7X17.

    From the looks of these lenses I think they are all based closely on the old Topogon/Metrogon design, similar to Biogon. Good lenses but the angle of coverage is no more than about 90 degrees. You can figure coverage for any focal length from that.

    Because of their size and problems in mounting in modern shutters these are not the best choices for ULF work, IMHO.

    Sandy King
    Last edited by sanking; 03-16-2007 at 01:17 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    523
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    I am almost positive they are the same design, and I think you are right in that the Process Nikkor is the newer specimen. I have held both in my hands, but only tested the Process Nikkor. It covered 7X17, but not by a lot.

    There is also a 270mm G-Claron wide-angle process lens that will cover 7X17, though not with lot of movement. The 240mm version will also, but just barely. The 210mm G-Claron wide angle will not cover 7X17.

    From the looks of these lenses I think they are all based closely on the old Topogon/Metrogon design, similar to Biogon. Good lenses but the angle of coverage is no more than about 90 degrees. You can figure coverage for any focal length from that.

    Because of their size and problems in mounting in modern shutters these are not the best choices for ULF work, IMHO.

    Sandy King
    Sandy,

    Thanks for the response. I just picked up a like new, unused, in-the-box 260mm Nikkor Q (well, I just bought it, but I don't have it in my hands yet, probably late next week). I plan to give it a try on 7x17. If it covers 90 degress, that would be a 520mm image circle at infinity and I can live with that for what this lens is costing me. Even if it only covers 85 degrees it will hit the corners of 7x17, but won't leave much for movements.

    As far as the shutter goes, I plan on using a fair number of barrel mounted lenses on my ULF cameras. So, I rigged up a Sinar shutter for the front standard. It's a lot more economical that looking for lenses already in shutters and cost far less than the cost of having a single barrel lens mounted in a Copal No. 3 shutter. Unless the 260mm Nikkor Q has a huge rear element (which it might - I do believe it's rather bulbous - which is OK as long as it isn't too big around), I should be able to use it with the Sinar shutter set-up.

    Kerry

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by kthalmann View Post
    Sandy,

    Thanks for the response. I just picked up a like new, unused, in-the-box 260mm Nikkor Q (well, I just bought it, but I don't have it in my hands yet, probably late next week). I plan to give it a try on 7x17. If it covers 90 degress, that would be a 520mm image circle at infinity and I can live with that for what this lens is costing me. Even if it only covers 85 degrees it will hit the corners of 7x17, but won't leave much for movements.

    As far as the shutter goes, I plan on using a fair number of barrel mounted lenses on my ULF cameras. So, I rigged up a Sinar shutter for the front standard. It's a lot more economical that looking for lenses already in shutters and cost far less than the cost of having a single barrel lens mounted in a Copal No. 3 shutter. Unless the 260mm Nikkor Q has a huge rear element (which it might - I do believe it's rather bulbous - which is OK as long as it isn't too big around), I should be able to use it with the Sinar shutter set-up.

    Kerry

    Kerry,

    Both the front and rear elements of this lens are fairly large, and quite bulbous. Same with the G-Claron wide angle lenses. You really have to be careful with them because the lens on the back sticks out so far that if you place it down there is nothing to protect it since the glass extends well beyond the metal in which it rests. And scratches will be in the very worst place, i.e. right in the center of the lens.



    Sandy

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    523
    Sandy,

    The one I'm getting comes with both original caps and teh original wooden box. Hopefully that caps will be adaquate to protect the front and rear glass.

    I found some more info online at:

    260mm f 10 Procces Nikkor

    260mm f10 Nikkor-Q

    If you scroll about half way down this page, you will see a photo of a 260mm f10 Nikkor-Q that looks identical to the one I'll be getting

    Also from this page: "This lens is the first model of Process Nikkor series."

    So, I remain hopeful that the design/construction and coverage are identical to the 260mm f10 Process Nikkor. From reading multiple threads here on APUG, if it is the same design, it should cover 7x17, but not much more.

    Kerry

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    523
    Just a little side note on my interest in this lens. I shoot quite a bit of 4x10 and my two favorite focal lengths are 150mm and 210mm on that format. On 7x17, a 260mm focal length is the closest approximation to the 150mm I prefer on 4x10. Other than the 240mm and 270mm Computars, there aren't a lot of other choices in this focal length range capable of covering 7x17

    Getting a 7x17 equivalent of the 210mm on 4x10 is much easier. There are plenty of 355/360mm lenses suitable for the task.

    Kerry

  7. #7
    richard ide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Markham, Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,216
    I have one of the newer ones. The caps are aluminum and about 3/4" deep as both front and rear elements protrude about 8mm from the housing. I made a dedicated lens board for my Cambo which needs a 1/2" spacer behind the mounting flange so the lens is flush with the back of the board.
    Richard

    Why are there no speaker jacks on a stereo camera?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    523
    Richard,

    What formats do you shoot with yours? How do you like the performance?

    Thanks,
    Kerry

  9. #9
    richard ide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Markham, Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,216
    Hi Kerry,

    So far just 4 x 5 and 8 x 10. Very sharp but minimum aperature of f32. So far I have only played with it a little. I have a bad case of hardware aquisition syndrome and not enough time. I am building a packard shutter into the front of my Cambo which will allow me to mount a lens board on the front.
    Richard

    Why are there no speaker jacks on a stereo camera?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by richard ide View Post
    Hi Kerry,

    So far just 4 x 5 and 8 x 10. Very sharp but minimum aperature of f32. So far I have only played with it a little. I have a bad case of hardware aquisition syndrome and not enough time. I am building a packard shutter into the front of my Cambo which will allow me to mount a lens board on the front.
    The barrel has a slot so the minimum aperture could be reduced by using waterhouse stops. (e.g.: http://www.skgrimes.com/thisweek/9-14-05/index.htm & http://www.skgrimes.com/thisweek/2-27-04/index.htm) I assume the relatively large minimum aperture must represent a design consideration, (limiting diffraction?) which may be less critical when the lens is re-purposed.
    Celac

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin