nikkor macro 120 am - versus - fujinon CMW 125

[Matus Kalisky]

Hello,

the low price of the nikkor lens makes me thinking about it too. I am just wondering - the range I am interested in is somewhere around 1:1 - 1:4. The question is - how much (and what kind of) difference should I expect between the two lenses mentioned ?

I am using Tachihara 4x5 which has cca 330 mm bellows (probably not the best macro camera ). If possible I would rahter prefere the macro lens to cover full 4x5 at infinity (nikor 120 does not, it should cover from 1:5 on) so I would be probably better of with some 150 - 180mm lens out of which only G-clarons come into my mind (reasonable price), though f9 migh be hard to focus at close distance I guess.

In other words, I am interested in a lens that would allow me to go up to 1:1 - I am just only wondering how it compares with non-macro lens.

Matus

[Ralph Barker]

I think that's a decision only you can make. If the lens is going to be used mostly for conventional distances (at or near infinity focus), The Fuji or something similar is probably the better choice, noting that there will be some sacrifice in image quality at macro distances. On the other hand, if you do enough macro work, it may be worth while to get a macro lens dedicated to that work.

[Ernest Purdum]

With a 330mm bellows, 300mm extension would be taken up to get to 1:1 with a 150mm lens. A 180mm lens wouldn't make it.