NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: John Geerts on April 16, 2023, 17:03:13
-
Last month The Nikkor 600mm f/5.6 ED (Non-IF) came across my path. This rare lens, only 200 copies were made before it was replaced by the AI version, came with a separate focusing unit, that Nikon used for the 400mm f/4.5, the 600mm f/5.6, 800mm f/8 and 1000 f/11 lenses.
Also the first ED lenses had that focusing unit. This lens has the first model, the CU-1, which has the advantage of being 1 kilogramm less in weight than the later AU-1 focusing unit, but has the disadvantage of a focusring far away from the lensmount.
As with the earlier (Non IF) ED Versions of 300mm and the 400mm this lens is nearly Apochromatic and very very sharp.
More information in this FlickR group: https://www.flickr.com/groups/14828814@N20/ (https://www.flickr.com/groups/14828814@N20/)
-
Some examples with the lens
Earlier posted in March 2023
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10638.0;attach=57415;image)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10638.0;attach=57402;image)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10638.0;attach=57264;image)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10638.0;attach=57241;image)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10638.0;attach=57202;image)
In the Trees topic
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10439.0;attach=57407;image)
-
Congratulations of getting this elusive item! I'm not surprised as to its quality as the similar vintage 800/8 ED non-If is razor sharp. The 800 is even more elusive than the 600, by the way, with less than 100 units made. The non-ED 600/5.6 heads are more common and deliver sharp images as well, but the chromatic aberration is pretty obvious and can be bothersome to get rid of.
Two aspects worth keeping in mind: firstly, these lenses are *long focal*, not telephoto, designs. Thus their overall build length is very long. Secondly, due to the weight and weight distribution, they put a significant stress on the focusing helicoid of the CU unit. In fact, the CU is not really suited for the 800 (and 1200) lens heads as the focusing tends to bind. Thus the AU-1 is the preferred unit. With the 400/4.5 head, there is no problem and either focusing unit can be used. For the 600, the CU does the job, but the AU-1 is perhaps more suitable.
Here is the 800/8 ED + AU-1. A very sturdy tripod is mandatory and a large fluid head is excellent for support.
-
Thanks Birna. !!
The AU-1 focusing unit looks more practical indeed, but those are not easy to be acquired ;)
The CU-1 unit came without the large rubber focus-ring.
I cut an part of an old rubber sunhood for the 80-200/2.8 and use that now as focus ring.
The lens is used on a Sachtler Tripod with a heavy Arca Swiss Mono ball. A sturdy combination I guess.
The 800mm is a bit longer and heavier. Great shot of the combination.
The Photo's of the 600mm ED show the lens with the build-in sunhood in the original position.
-
The bulky scalloped rubber focusing ring on the CU tends to become discoloured and brittle over time. So many focusing units don't have it any more. The AU has a metal-based focusing ring and also the option to insert focusing handles (these are similar to those of the 360-1200 and the first version of the 1000 Reflex).
By the way, you should edit the text on the Flickr group description to note the 600 is NOT a telephoto design. It is long focal thus its length reflects its focal length. The successors to the 400/600/800/1200 lens heads were all telephoto designs and in particular the 1200/11 ED-IF is very short compared to its focal length (just 57%).
-
Sunwayfoto makes some nice-looking focusing handles. But I'm not sure if even the largest one can fit, or they can grip the focus ring tightly enough to rotate it.
https://www.sunwayfoto.com/e_goodsmulu.aspx?cid=58
-
By the way, you should edit the text on the Flickr group description to note the 600 is NOT a telephoto design. It is long focal thus its length reflects its focal length. The successors to the 400/600/800/1200 lens heads were all telephoto designs and in particular the 1200/11 ED-IF is very short compared to its focal length (just 57%).
Thanks. Adapted. It was the description that was used on the mir.com website for the lens. ( https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/600mmf56ed.htm (https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/600mmf56ed.htm))
-
Sunwayfoto makes some nice-looking focusing handles. But I'm not sure if even the largest one can fit, or they can grip the focus ring tightly enough to rotate it.
https://www.sunwayfoto.com/e_goodsmulu.aspx?cid=58
Thanks for the link Akira. I think the largest one is too small, 102mm is the diameter of the focusring of the CU-1 unit.
-
Thanks for the link Akira. I think the largest one is too small, 102mm is the diameter of the focusring of the CU-1 unit.
Oh, sorry about that. But there could be a fitting one that uses flexible band made of polymer that is designed for the large cine lenses.
-
The NIKKOR*ED 600/5.6 has a weak telephoto design, the distance from the front element to the image plane is 506 + 46.5 - 6.8 = 545.7mm, so the lens overall is about 50mm shorter than the focal length. The lens has a 5-element design which is typical of long focal length lenses at the time, with a three-element configuration at the front (convex, concave, convex) and a cemented doublet at the rear. The rear lenses probably correct aberrations such as field curvature and acts as a weak teleconverter, resulting in a shorter lens (enough to cross the line between "long focus" and "telephoto" ?)
(https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/600mmf56EDpreAIopt.gif)
The NIKKOR*ED 400/5.6 has a very similar design. In this lens the front element is 254.5 + 46.5 - 4.9 = 296.1mm from the image plane. In this case the rear doublet has a stronger telephoto effect, resulting in a lens which is overall about 100mm shorter than the focal length.
See: https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/late70nikkor/telephoto/400mmf56ed.pdf
The 400mm is a good lens but is not apochromatic, with purple and green fringing in the foreground and background in areas of high contrast.
-
The 600/5.6 is 56cm long to the focal plane, the 800/8 is 75cm. Thus any telephoto effect is hardly noticeable. I have only seen the 1200/11 lens head once or twice, but the appearance is almost ridiculously long like a stove pipe.
Nikon had a true telephoto series of Nikkors for the large format cameras, 4x5" or larger. They were denoted Nikkor-T*ED and came in various focal lengths from 270 to 1200mm.
To reach infinity, the 360mm f/8 T*ED required a minimum bellows draw of 16cm, the 600mm f/9 T*ED 26cm, and the 800mm f/12 T*ED 39cm. Thus they were much shorter in overall length than the corresponding Nikkor*ED lens heads, simple because the large format lenses were true telephoto designs. The reason for their more modest max. aperture is the limitations of the Copal shutters available.
I used the 270/6.3, 360/8, and 500/11 T*ED lenses in my view camera period. They had a unique rendition with a combination of high colour fidelity and medium contrast, to give the image a delicate appearance. The ED non-IF lens heads in fact carry that aspect further, but perhaps image contrast is slightly higher with these designs? Hard to tell without direct comparison.
-
As explained in this Thousand and One Night article, the design of the 400, 600, 800 and 1200 tele-lenses were very challenging not only for the optical quality but also because of the limitation of the use of the common focusing unit and "aperture behind-the-lens" design:
https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0050/
-
The 400/4.5 Q is a strange lens. It is very sharp, but at the same time chromatic fringing is troublesome and even with advanced post-processing, can be hard to get rid of. The usual remedy is to stop down to f/11, to reduce the annoying red fringing of the foreground details. I see that the 1001 Tales comes with the similar recommendation.
The official declaration that none of these lenses can be used with modern cameras is funny and of course, not true. What one won't get is automatic aperture coupling, but that is hardly a barrier to their use. I put CPU chips in the focusing units, and a switch to allow the 400 and 600 heads to be used with the same focusing unit. The longer 800 head really needs the AU-1 in order for smooth focusing to be manifested so has its own CPU.
-
Reposting;
For reference for more info on these lenses, CPU chipping and the like, enjoy this thread (https://nikongear.net/revival/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=5202.0 (https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=5202.0)
If you want to skip to chipping the AU-1 / CU-1
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=5202.msg82572#msg82572 (https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=5202.msg82572#msg82572)
-
The 'magical' switch .....
-
How does a long focal length lens render compared to a telefoto lens?
Does one of them have better "3D" effect than the other type?
-
If time permits, I might be able to run parallel tests with 400 and 600mm lenses.
-
I tried the 800mm f/8ED briefly today. The target is a farmstead situated approx. 1.6km away. As this was done in daytime, air turbulence by heat waves is a major factor in getting proper focus and also robbing the outcome of top sharpness.
With these caveats in mind, here are firstly the lens (using the tiny Z30 as a suitable yard stick), and thereafter, the result from Z fc. By the way, using the finderless Z30 for such long lenses in bright sunshine is not optimal -- quite the opposite -- thus I ended up using the Z fc instead.
-
Sharpness looks ok.
If size was not an issue are long focal length lenses superior compared to telelens designs?
If Nikon with current knowledge and glass options decided to make a 800mm long focal length lens?
It probably needs to be very good if people should decide to carry much more and also forced to use a large tripod.
-
Highly unlikely Nikon would deviate from the current trend of making lighter weight telephoto lenses. For example the new 800/6.3 which is optically excellent and weighs just 2.3 kg. In their advertising, they show a girl holding the 800 :)
-
I could "live" with a 800/6.3. A good fit for my Z50 :-)
These very compact and high performance teles are probably also used by special forces to document what happens in the field for various reasons.
I remember the old 1200-1700mm zoom where such a "thing". Only large etats etc. could afford one.
-
How does a long focal length lens render compared to a telefoto lens?
Does one of them have better "3D" effect than the other type?
Long focal length lenses have relatively symmetrical optics so don't suffer from distortion. Telephoto designs typically have some pincushion distortion although it is usually mild and easily corrected, and modern designs compensate for it quite well.
However, I'm not sure how distortion would affect the "3D" rendering of a lens. I expect that would be determined more by the optical design and use of special glasses to correct of spherical and colour aberrations. You could test this by shooting a long focal length lens and then adding a teleconverter (which effectively turns the lens in to a telephoto) and comparing the results.
-
I am missing the really long lenses. Nikkor-Q 200/4 is probably a long focal lens design.
It could be fun to have one of each design to compare. The 200/3.5 ED is just a bit shorter and is an IF design same with AI 200/4 micro.
-
It is called «the first true telephoto F-mount lens» by Nikon: https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0048/
I have the Nikkor-Q.C version. Impressing mechanical quality, maybe not equally impressed by the optics. Not all that bad though.
-
Ok, Telephoto because rear lens "group" acts as a teleconverter......
I will have a look at the AI 200/4 micro to see if this is a Telephoto or could be a true "long" focal length lens.......maybe I don't have any of those :-)
-
This article might help clarify the concepts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens
-
This is an interesting read from the 1001 nights; my apologies to those that have already seen it: https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0050/
I did not realise how large the image circle of these lenses are; the 1001 nights link above refers to the lenses also being used on Bronica focussing units at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics.
-
Concurrent use for the F and Bronica cameras was a major design goal for the Nikkor lens heads. The user only would purchase different focusing adapters.
-
Then I am quite confident that I have no long focal length lenses.
Even the Nikkor Q 200/4 is shorter then 200 mm. I was sure it was about 20 cm but it is a bit shorter and is also declared as a telephoto lens by Nikon.
-
The Nikkor-Q 200mm is less "telephoto" than the Nikkor*ED 600mm discussed here, and probably the best option which is easily available. That could be put up against the AI or AIS 200/4, which is definitely a telephoto design.
If you want to try other non-telephoto lens you might have to look at older Nikkor-Q 135mm lenses. Even with these lenses, efforts were made to make them shorter than a symmetrical gauss, tessar or cooke triplet design would have been, so they are already tending towards telephoto type with positive (convex) groups at the front and negative (concave) groups towards the middle or rear. Also, at 135mm, they are really "medium focus" rather than "long focus" :o :)
-
I have both Nikkor-Q 135/2.8 and 135/3.5. Then I have the 135/2.8 K-version I think it is called. It is a bit shorter than the Nikkor-Q 135/2.8.
When I tried a Nikkor-Q 200/4 on a digital body (DX) I got surprised how good it was.
In the film-days I was told not to get the lens as it was not able to produce a sharp image at all. It was probably bad technique (lack of focus, camera shake) that caused this.
It produces nice bokeh.