what do you guys think of these two lenses
I'v been looking at the two but can't decide
i like the M for its size and weight but would i be better off with the W
what do you guys think of these two lenses
I'v been looking at the two but can't decide
i like the M for its size and weight but would i be better off with the W
Check out the lens reviews on the homepage of this forum. The 300m lens is talked about quite a bit. Also check outhttp://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm for his thoughts on the m lens.
I have the nikkor 300m and love it for 4x5 use. The lens has huge coverage and is lightweight. I like using longer lenses more than wides so the 300mm length was a no brainer for me. I wouldn't trade this lens for the 5.6 version because of the weight, but if I was shooting 8x10 or larger I would definately look for more coverage. I don't shoot color, so I have no opinion on it for color rendition, but for black and white I find it is plenty sharp and contrasty, never had a problem with it. The f9 hasn't bothered me for focusing and I am using a rather dim cambo with the original groundglass, I am sure the 5.6 would be quite brighter.
Let us know what format you are shooting on.
Austin,
Didn't you ask this question in a slightly different way earlier today? I recently sold my Fuji 300CM-W back to Jim, at Midwest Photo Exchange and opted for a brand new Nikkor 300M. The Fuji 300CM-W was a large, heavy weight lens, as are most 300W's. True, it was a faster lens, brighter to focus with indoors, but there was very little difference in the brightness between the two lenses outdoors. Both lenses were capable of covering the 8X10 format. However, the Fuji 300CM-W had a larger image circle and was almost twice as expensive as the Nikkor 300M.
You need to base your decision on your budget restraints, as well as the size and weight of the lens you are willing to carry.
I'd say with that focal length, whether you'll be using it as a 'normal' lens for 8x10, or a longish lens for 4x5, focusing with the slower 300m shouldn't be too much of a problem (unlike say, wide-angles f9's, which can get tricky for some people). I use the fuji 300c (fairly similar to the M)on 8x10 and like it a lot.
So Austin, a little off topic, what do you think of all the little Austin's running around these days? Growing up, it seemed only I and my father were Austin, and now I hear our name is on the top ten lists! How'd that happen? Everytime I hear "Austin" in the store, I turn around, only to see that it's a parent calling after their son... ("hey, that's MY name") ;-)
Yea man I get that alot. I got the whole Austin Powers thing when it first came out when i was in the 5th grade, and many years after. Even now in college I still get it.
When I was a kid, "Austin" mostly meant the name of a tiny car, originally British, but later also made in the U.S. This being the case, it seemed odd that our local dealer for Pierce-Arrow cars, amongst the biggest on the market, was Glenn M. Austin.
Austin,
What do you mean "better off with the W?" As all the others have said if your primary use is outdoors for landscape work you are not likel to notice the difference between the two when focusing on your gg. Will the W (or the comparable Fuji/Rodenstock/Schneider lenses) be sharper, have better resolution? Not likely for most non critical applications. Once upon a time I owned a Schneider Symmar-S MC 240mm in a Prontor Pro shutter. It was a nice lens bu tit was a monster. It never left the studio, never. I replaced it with a Fuji 240 A, the smallest lens in my kit.
I have 300, 360 and 450 lenses and all are f9 lenses. I can;t imagine paying the price for an f5.6/6.3 lens in either the $$ or the weight and size.
I have both lenses and the 300W is just to stinking large and heavy for practical field work. Coverage is wonderful, but considering that you need to stop down any lens to evaluate critical depth of field, I do not concern myself about having a f5.6 lens as I once did.
The 300M is one of my favorite 5x7 lenses because any tessar design is optimized when you can take a center cut from it and it does not have that much coverage over 8x10 for my visual performance criteria. In other words, the image quality can degrade towards the edge of the image circle.
Personally, I would strongly recommend the 305 G Claron for 8x10 as that is my 12" 8x10 lens. This lens will cover 7x17 and its requirement to stop it down to a minimum of f22 to excise certain lens aberations present in a symetrical lens is not a concern with 8x10. If you want a Nikon M series, go with the 450M. Almost as light as the 300M and since this lens will cover 12x20, your 8x10 center cut is as good as it gets.
Cheers!
Nikkor 450 almost as light as the 300M? In a #3 shutter? Maybe you were thinking of the Fuji 450C, which IS about as light as their 300C...(which is also a great lightweight lens)...?
Yes Scott, the 450 C Fuji was my reference. My mistake. When I pack the 8x10, even at f11.5, the 450 C as a modern multi coated optic is just great.
My 450 M Nikon is my ULF choice. Coverage far beyond what is listed in the Nikon literature.
Cheers!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks