Test shots with the 400 mm f/4.5 Nikkor-Q lens head

[nfoto]

An introduction to this 400 Nikkor might be in order, as it is a quite obscure optic these days and very likely to fly under modern radars as it were.

 

The 400 mm f/4.5 Nikkor-Q was the shortest focal length available for the Nikon focusing adapter (CU, AU-1) way back into the dark ages of film (the golden '60s). This is a long focal design using 4 elements and it is, as its longer siblings in that lens line, not a "telephoto" at all. The selected lens head (400/4.5, 600/5.6, 800/8, or 1200/11 Nikkors) is attached to the focusing adapter simply by screwing it into the adapter. As they are not telephoto designs, the overall package lens head + focusing adapter becomes as long as its focal length. The entire setup hence is pretty awkward and cumbersome to use, and a robust tripod solution is mandatory.

 

Contrary to widely held opinions, I'm not a lens collector per se, so my interest for the 400 is simply a tangential effect of having acquired the various focusing adapters for the highly elusive 800 mm f/8 Nikkor ED lens head (of which only approx 75 units produced). That 800 ED, in an unopened box, came across my path by sheer luck and didn't cost me much. In the hunt for the proper focusing adapter(s) I accumulated other lens heads of that line, as the adapters typically were sold as a combination with the lens head. Last purchase was the 400 Q, which also triggered my curiosity because of its very simple optical construction (4 separate elements, single-coating on my early sample). The 400 enjoyed production total of approx. 2000 units, so is not hugely rare even today. I paid around $400,- with the CU adapter and shipping from the US, which is a most acceptable price. I now have the 400, 600, and 800 heads (alas not the überlong 1200/11, but to compensate I do own the 1200/11 ED-IF Nikkor of "only" 57 cm length since it is a true telephoto design).

 

Here is the 400 lens head combined with the AU-1 focusing adapter atop a sturdy Sachtler tripod. The camera, a Nikon D600 (broad-spectrum) is dwarfed by the lens. A Zacuto loupe for focusing is also present. (the setup was makeshift as the coupling plate for the tripod was a bit shallow for that lens, I'll have to add a thin metal sheet to it. A job for a rainy day).

 

 

 

(the photo is hand-held UV with my Nikon D3200 and the UV-Nikkor 105 by the way. Not bad on a dark winter day :D)

 

I'll add some photos take nwith the lens later today.

[nfoto]

The first example from the 400 Q, taken with the Nikon D3200 (built-in Baader U 2nd gen filter). My standard target for longer lenses is shooting the hillside opposite my house. The distance to the depicted objects is approx. 1.2 km.

 

Exposure f/8 and 2.5 secs at ISO 100, which was surprisingly speedy considered this was a dull, heavily overcast winter day. The scene contrast isn't further helped by the inclement weather and haze in the air over that distance of course. Yet the image turned out much sharper than I had anticipated.

 

[Cadmium]

Bjorn, Looks good!

[nfoto]

Here is the B+W 093* (IR) attempt. This time using the modified Nikon D600.

 

As this is FX so the angle of coverage is accordingly greater compared to the UV capture (DX).

 

 

Exposure now is f/16, 1/60 sec., ISO 100 and the outcome for such a dull and dark winter day can only be described as blindingly sharp.

 

* thanks Steve (cadmium) for the corrected filter number. I wrote this away from home and relied on specifications from memory

[Cadmium]

Excellent, very sharp!

 

B+W O-93 = I think you mean 0 not O, B+W 093 (no dash) = made from Schott RG830.

[Andy Perrin]

It looks amazing. What will you shoot with it? Would UV bird photos be possible in bright sunshine?

[nfoto]

B+W 093 it is. Updated the post. Thanks.

 

As to potential field applications, nothing is fixed yet. In fact, due to being literally submersed in a big ongoing photographic project of aquatic macrophytes, I have had little or no time for either UV or IR this season. Hope this works out better next year, though.

[ulf]

About other long lenses for UV.

 

When checking the transmission of some of my potential UV-lens candidates with the pinhole method I tested the two lens-heads I have for my Novoflex Schnellschuss (Quick Shot) D-version.

(This is a lens that in this time should be used very carefully in some places as it looks like a big weapon.) :-)

https://www.picclick...ter-Zustand.jpg

 

I have the Novoflexar 400mm/5.6 and the Leitz telyt 560/6.8 lens heads.

The optical design of these is very simple with few lenses and might have been good for UV.

 

The Novoflexar had some UV potential while the Leitz lens head was not that promising.

In the future I will get a transmission curve for each of them with my spectrometer.

 

I have not found ny good way of mounting any of my 52mm-based UV-pass filters internally to test the Novoflex with my camera.

[Andy Perrin]

When checking the transmission of some of my potential UV-lens candidates with the pinhole method I tested the two lens-heads I have for my Novoflex Schnellschuss (Quick Shot) D-version.

(This is a lens that in this time should be used very carefully in some places as it looks like a big weapon.) :-)

https://www.picclick...ter-Zustand.jpg

Oh my! Oh dear. That is not a lens I would care to use in the US.

[nfoto]

I have in fact used the Novoflex Noflexar 400 in my earlier film days. The design does not interface well with tripod usage and it was considered a 'birding' lens in its heyday(s). Again, not a telephoto so it is physically long, and two-thirds a stop slower then the Nikkor.

 

The optics comprised a cemented doublet if memory serves and I wonder how well this would work for UV.

 

Edit: Ulf already answered the question on its UV suitability. My bad I didn't catch that before answering here.

[Andrea B.]

I'm astounded at the clarity and detail in your photos made with the 400 mm f/4.5 Nikkor-Q.

And that's quite an impressive rig when all set up.

 

Note to self: go order that Zacuto loupe which I really need.