Users of Nikkor-w 240mm and Fujinon 250 please step inside

[Bill McMannis]

I've had both the Fuji and the Nikon. The Nikon is big and heavy - A Copal 3 shutter vs. a Seiko (equivalent to a Copal #1 in size/weight). The Nikon is slightly brighter on the ground glass, but only slightly. The Fuji has a larger coverage circle, and it takes 67mm filters, whereas the Nikon takes an 82mm filter. There's a good $100+ difference in price for a polarizer for these two lenses... something to think about.

While I have no experience with that particular Fujinon, I have had the Nikon for about a decade. For filters, I purchased an 82mm to 77mm step down ring. I have a bag full of 77mm filters previously purchased for my 35mm kit. The step down ring, loosened a couple threads also works well with my Cokin P system. This kept my filter budget under control. Atleast when shooting 4x5 the coverage of the lends with the step down ring is more than adequate with no vignetting.

[kgm]

I haven't used the Fuji. I have the Nikkor W 240mm f5.6. I used it with my 8x10 for 15 years, and swore at it a lot and had to use some tricks to maximize coverage. It's useable for 8x10, but at least for architecture or anything requiring more than minimal rise it can be limiting. I use it now with my 4x5, and like it a lot more.

[frotog]

I inherited a fuji 250mm f6.7. Like DREW WILEY I was initially dismissive. But then I got the first batch of color negs back. The results don't lie.

You really need to do a comparison test, scan the film and do a side by side comparison. The flip advice of some yahoo on a forum is a dangerously stupid alternative to empirical evidence.