Printable View
Hmmmm, surprised that no one has mentioned the Fujinon A 300 lens. IMO it outperforms most if not all of those mentioned, takes a 55mm filter so you can use a stepdown ring. I don't know the image circle offhand but I have never run out of movement with it. This one of my two or three most used lenses and one of the last I would ever give up. They have been out of production for several years but do come up on the used market.
To choose a lens based on its filter size seems like an odd standard for purchase. I think most people do what I do, buy the best lenses you can afford, buy all your filters for the largest one and use step up rings on all the rest and leave them on the lens. This allows me to use one size lens cap and filter size for all my lenses. My largest is a Nikkor 120 with a 77mm (if I remember right). All my other 4x5 lenses step up to that including the 47, 65, 90, 150, 210 and 305.
The only limitation becomes the lens standard opening for the rear element. The Nikkor rear element would not fit through the standard of the Walker so I passed on a great deal on one. Some years later I was talking to Walker and he said no problem he would have just drilled it out for me for free! Darn!.
Kirk,
The Walker Titan is a nice camera. I bought mine used, and Mike Walker is working on it now, for free! He is giving it an overhaul and making sure it is up to par in all respect even though I am not the first purchaser. Very personable and seems to be a great guy. He wants the users of his cameras to be satisfied.
Mark,
You might think about it this way: The Fujinon L, Xenar (and its Caltar Pro cousin) may have been lower priced, but they are the same lens design as the vaunted Nikkor 300M. The Nikkor is multicoated, but I am beginning to think that in most situations the difference between MC and SC is pretty hard to see. I have a very nice SC 90mm f/8 Fujinon that has helped change my views on this subject.
Mark,
"These are all "low budget" tessars, and it's psychologically hard for me to move to a cheaper lens, even though it likely performs on par with its more expensive cousins."
Vanity has always had a large price tag. I have a fuji 300 5.6 L, single coatings preferred. As sharp as anyone would want. It does use a 67 filter. I also have a calter II N 240 f 5.6. I use the same lee filter system for both, works hunky dory. My preference for the fuji was OVER the schneider.
If you are willing to give up the psychological wall you have put up you can find some great glass for little money. As a sample, I have a 210 Konica hexanon GR II mint condition I payed $42.00 for. For sharpness, I will put it up against any lens any member of this forum wants to throw at it. Plus I have saved money for film and chemicals.
"Hmmmm, surprised that no one has mentioned the Fujinon A 300 lens." -- Ted Harris
It's under consideration, but a bit dark at f/9...
"To choose a lens based on its filter size seems like an odd standard for purchase. I think most people do what I do, buy the best lenses you can afford, buy all your filters for the largest one and use step up rings on all the rest and leave them on the lens." -- Kirk Gittings
I completely agree, Kirk! But I've already standardized to 67mm, and would like to have a modern 300mm that fits in.
"You might think about it this way: The Fujinon L, Xenar (and its Caltar Pro cousin) may have been lower priced, but they are the same lens design as the vaunted Nikkor 300M. The Nikkor is multicoated, but I am beginning to think that in most situations the difference between MC and SC is pretty hard to see." --Dave Karp
It's not so much the design as the quality control. ( Definitely not a case of "a tessar is a tessar is a tessar...") I'd hope the above lenses would all be "pretty good" in that regard. But I also worry a bit about coverage and corner performance with a tessar design, which is usually a bit more restricted than a plasmat. I agree about the single coating being almost equivalent to a multi-coating, and I actually prefer the single, as multi-coated lenses get a bit harsh with my processing.
It's tough looking for the "perfect lens." All input so far is very much appreciated!
Did I miss where you mentioned the film size you're using? If 8x10, the coverage of Tessar 300's might be an issue. As a 4x5 shooter, my dollars went long ago for a 300/9 Nikkor-M and I've never regretted it. (I did put it on an 8x10 once and it was sharp in the corners there too.) And experts agree- you'll find the *perfect* lens on the same shelf next to the magic bullets.
"Did I miss where you mentioned the film size you're using? If 8x10, the coverage of Tessar 300's might be an issue."
Oops, my mistake! Yes, I shoot 8x10, but usually with fairly minor movements. 300mm Tessars should be okay, (they usually have a 350mm-ish image circle), though my `druthers would be for a plasmat. The Nikkor-M is a bit pricey and dark for me, but the Fuji-L, Xenar, and Caltar Pro are very strong contenders. The older, single-coated Commercial Ektar, Astragon, Acutar, and Paragon lenses are also tessars, and possibilities if I run across a nice one.
"And experts agree- you'll find the *perfect* lens on the same shelf next to the magic bullets."
I may have to bite the magic bullet, spring for a second set of filters and keep the Caltar II-N. I don't think my backpack weighs enough yet...
Epilogue: Just bought a Fujinon-L 300mm for $305 (incl. s&h) on ebay. Not a status lens, but I'm sure I'll be happy with it. Thanks to all, and to Dave and John, it's all your fault... ; )
Such responsibility. Oh my! Please report back. I hope you will be pleased.