I am considering either a 300mm nikkor or a 360 T nikkor for 4x5 use, anyone want to give me the pros and cons of one versus the other? Would the depth of field be more limited for the 360? I do know that the 360 is much heavier and more expensive.
I am considering either a 300mm nikkor or a 360 T nikkor for 4x5 use, anyone want to give me the pros and cons of one versus the other? Would the depth of field be more limited for the 360? I do know that the 360 is much heavier and more expensive.
Yes, telephoto-design lenses are going to be comparatively bulky and clumsy, and will not be quite as optically crisp or
contrasty as something like a 300M. You could also opt for a 360 prime if you have enough bellows draw, but only a couple
models of these exist in a lightwt no.1 shutter, and both are expensive. As focal length increases, depth of field decreases, though the difference between 300 and 360 is not terribly great, and in the real world, you control this with tilts and swings.
There are more choices among 300mm lightweight compact affordable shutter-mounted designs - but if you prefer 360mm to 300mm, there are some f/9 models like the APO Ronar or (if you can find one and are willing to pay) Fujinon A. Another option is the highly regarded 355mm G-Claron.
Me like my Tele-Arton in 360mm.. Bright and smooth , just the way i like them
I would have preferred the Nikkor-M 300/f9 as it's much smaller and lighter for backpacking but I didn't have the bellows extension (M 293.8mm vs T 261mm), and therefore had to opt for the Nikkor-T 360/f8 (and even then it requires to be mounted on a top hat on my Ebony SW45S).
Huge difference in image circle and bellows requirements.Originally Posted by steve hartsfield
The IC for the W 360/6.5 is 494mm, if you want a really big lens. FFL is 345.8mm
The IC for the T 360/8 is 210mm, barely large enough to cover 4x5. FFL is 261.0mm
The IC for the W 300/5.6 is exactly twice that, 420mm. FFL is 287.1mm
The IC for the M 300/9 is 325mm. FFL is 293.8mm
I have all of those except for the T, which offers no advantage IM[-H]O..
The M 300/9 is a really beautiful small lens with full apochromatic correction. That would be my recommendation.
It only weighs 290g, as compared with 800g for the 360/8 T or 1,420g for the 360/6.5 W.
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
I have the luxury of both a 300M and a Fuji 360A. Both are incredible, though the latter has much better coverage for 8x10.
Another great choice would be the Fuji 300C.
If you look at Chris Perez tests http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html both are good lenses.
IC of 300 = 325
IC of 360 = 210
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...s/LF4x5in.html
(weight 290 vs 800g)
Probably how the focal length matches your expected needs should be the deciding factor. The 500 rear element if you have the needed bellows could be a plus for the 360.
Thank you all very much. I am going to research the 355mm G-Claron, it may be hard to find, and I will probably go with the 300mm nikkor. I have a 120mm nikkor, and a 210mm Schneider, so I wanted something around 300mm to 400mm without breaking the bank. By the way I have a Wista cherry wood, and a Linhof Master Technika. The 360 T will work with both, and the 300mm will work with the Linhof.
Just get the 300M Nikkor f/9. Works great on 4X5 and on 8X10 more less straight on. The 355 G-Claron is a real clunker (probably weighs 4 times as much) and will produce lots of bellows flare without a good composite lens shade on 4X5. I have both lenses. K
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks