Ai and K Nikkors 400mm f5.6 ED "non-IF"

[Akira]

Here is the elusive (and imposing) Nikkor ED 800mm f/8, combined with the focusing "adapter" AU-1, on my beefy Sachtler ENG 2 CF HD tripod. The total makes for a less than compact package ordinarily I would mount the lens directly to the fluid head using a Sachtler video plate, however the outline of the 800 makes the fit very tight so difficult to remove the lens without splitting the assembly. Thus an all-metal sandwich to give Arca mount is provided.

This 800 ED Nikkor is among the sharpest long lenses I have ever used.

That is indeed a spectacular lens!  I wonder how it performs on today's digital cameras.

[Birna Rørslett]

That is indeed a spectacular lens!  I wonder how it performs on today's digital cameras.

In fact, it does exemplary. Did use the 800 for false-colour Infrared Ektachrome emulation today and results were very crisp indeed. The 800ED joins the legendary 200-400mm f/4 Nikkor ED as representing the very best of the old-timers. A true pity both are so hard to find due to the low production volume.

[Akira]

In fact, it does exemplary. Did use the 800 for false-colour Infrared Ektachrome emulation today and results were very crisp indeed. The 800ED joins the legendary 200-400mm f/4 Nikkor ED as representing the very best of the old-timers. A true pity both are so hard to find due to the low production volume.

Oh, yes, IR!  I'm going to try some IR90 images, after I get Fujifilm 4x4" IR90 filter.

[Roland Vink]

Thank you for the link.   The design of Nikkor 400/5.6 seems to be of a popular basic one.

Most early non-IF telephoto Nikkors follow a similar optical design consisting of a front front section with three elements: convex-concave-convex, and a rear group with two elements: concave-convex. The rear group acts as a weak teleconverter but its primary purpose is to reduce field curvature and coma. Most have 5 elements arranged in 3 groups, a few have extra air space between elements giving 4 or 5 groups. The Nikkor-H 300/2.8 ED and 300/4.5 ED have slightly more involved designs with an extra element still show a strong family resemblance to the other models:

180/2.8 ED (5E 5G - see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0010/index.htm)
300/2.8 ED (6E 5G - see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0011/index.htm)
300/4.5 ED (6E 4G)
400/5.6 ED (5E 3G)
600/5.6 (5E 4G)
600/5.6 ED (5E 4G)
800/8 (5E 3G)
800/8 ED (5E 3G)
1200/11 (5E 3G)
1200/11 ED (5E 3G)

[Birna Rørslett]

Despite the "family" similarities, these Nikkor differ significantly in their imaging properties.

[Roland Vink]

Not least, the early models don't use ED glass and are not multi-coated...

[dibyendumajumdar]

Most early non-IF telephoto Nikkors follow a similar optical design consisting of a front front section with three elements: convex-concave-convex, and a rear group with two elements: concave-convex. The rear group acts as a weak teleconverter but its primary purpose is to reduce field curvature and coma. Most have 5 elements arranged in 3 groups, a few have extra air space between elements giving 4 or 5 groups. The Nikkor-H 300/2.8 ED and 300/4.5 ED have slightly more involved designs with an extra element still show a strong family resemblance to the other models:

180/2.8 ED (5E 5G - see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0010/index.htm)
300/2.8 ED (6E 5G - see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0011/index.htm)
300/4.5 ED (6E 4G)
400/5.6 ED (5E 3G)
600/5.6 (5E 4G)
600/5.6 ED (5E 4G)
800/8 (5E 3G)
800/8 ED (5E 3G)
1200/11 (5E 3G)
1200/11 ED (5E 3G)

Patents related to the early ED nikkors.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US3774991A/en

Believe this covers 300mm f4.5, 600mm f5.6, 800mm f8, 1200mm f11.

[Akira]

Focused almost at the closest distance of 5m at f11.

[Birna Rørslett]

Grey alder Alnus incana. Catkins fluttering in strong wind. Nikkor 800mm f/8 ED @f/11, distance approx. 35 m. ISO 800 on my PrimaLuce Z5. The amount of detail is impeccable, one can see the individual anthers of the male flowers and there is not a trace of CA.  This is 100% crop and the filtering is for false-colour infrared ektachrome emulation..

[Akira]

Grey alder Alnus incana. Catkins fluttering in strong wind. Nikkor 800mm f/8 ED @f/11, distance approx. 35 m. ISO 800 on my PrimaLuce Z5. The amount of detail is impeccable, one can see the individual anthers of the male flowers and there is not a trace of CA.  This is 100% crop and the filtering is for false-colour infrared ektachrome emulation..

Indeed, amazing details!

[Akira]

The super-teles from this period performs nicely when shot at distant scenes.

[Gerhard2006]

Has anybody tried this 400 mm F 5.6 lens with a TC 1.4B tele-converter? I’m just wondering how it handles teleconverters? It seem to be pretty sharp compared to the 200-500 AFS zoom lens.Regards Gerry

[David H. Hartman]

Has anybody tried this 400 mm F 5.6 lens with a TC 1.4B tele-converter? I’m just wondering how it handles teleconverters? It seem to be pretty sharp compared to the 200-500 AFS zoom lens.Regards Gerry

I'll try to find my TC-14B. Maybe I can pick it up tomorrow.

Dave

[Akira]

Has anybody tried this 400 mm F 5.6 lens with a TC 1.4B tele-converter? I’m just wondering how it handles teleconverters? It seem to be pretty sharp compared to the 200-500 AFS zoom lens.Regards Gerry

Gerry, hope you would allow me to piggyback my question on yours.

I found a second-hand TC-20E II offered at a reasonable price.  I wonder if "could" perform better than the TCs designed during the same period as the non-IF 400/5.6 ED, or if an APS-C or even m4/3 body would be a better choice for the purpose?

FWIW, I have the experience of Ai200/4.0 and Panasonic GH5 combo performing noticeably better than D610 and 400/5.6 ED IF combo.

[Matthew Currie]

When I first got the 400 in question, I also got a TC-14 (no letter suffix) teleconverter, which is, I think, the AI verion of what became the TC-14B for AIS.  I found it worked pretty nicely with the 400 on film, and the quality seemed quite good.  I haven't done a lot of comparison recently, but back when I first started shooting digital with a D3200, I tried it just to compare teleconverter use with cropping.  It seemed about a dead heat,  and not too long after that I got the 200-500 anyway, so the TC-14 hasn't seen much use.

I'll have to try it again in daylight, with the D7100, and see if I can do a better test.