Hi all,
I'm looking for a long lens on 4x5 for mountains landscapes with a linhof technika.
On long lens I've already own a nikkor-m 300mm which is perfect, but I would like to push a step further on focal lenght...
I hesitate between a nikkor T ED 360mm and a Fujinon-T 400mm. I've read that the nikkor have an excellent feedback, and the fujinon is not bad also.
If anyone have advices and tips on those lenses, thanks!
I can't comment on the Fujinon, but I have the Nikkor 360 (500 and 720 too). It's a good lens. But 360mm won't feel much longer than your current 300mm. You might consider a Nikkor 500T - and there happens to be one in the FS now. Of course it depends on the bellows extension of your Technika.
Bob
I think like Bob, having a 300 there is little need to have a 360, just crop the 1cm per side the 300mm negative and you will have mostly the same than with the 360.
So at the end (IMHO) it depends on if you prefer the 400 or the 500 focal. My guess is that it may be way more sample to sample variation than diffrence in product average performance. And perhaps no practical difference about IQ...
You know, you may need a "telephoto" board with stackable rings ...
I have a Fujinon T400. It is a very nice lens and produces great images, but it is very heavy.
The Nikkor is the sharpest and best of the 4x5 Teles, significantly better than the Fuji. Plus it's convertible so you can get 3 focal lengths with the appropriate rear sections.
I don't have either lens. But I've seen a number of Fuji 400T images which were extremely sharp and had excellent contrast. It's the next lens on my 4x5 GAS list.
Rich
The 400mm Fuji T is roughly 11% longer than the Nikkor 360.
Grain aside, if it's only 89% as sharp as the Nikkor, the Fujinon T is still equivalent due to its 11% greater magnification. If it's sharper than that, it's better.
The question is: How large do you need to print in order to discern a difference ? Can your methodology reveal the difference ? In other words, if your enlarger lens or scanner lens can't detect the difference, neither can you.
I had a Fujinon 400T and found it very sharp at best aperture, particularly in the center. 16x20 prints are perfectly sharp (especially with a digital workflow which can make even a modest lens look superb under the right conditions). However, I replaced it with a 450mm Fujinon C because of its tremendous circle of coverage and suitability for view camera movements and larger formats, not to mention that it takes only 52mm filters, weighs nothing, etc.
Your real limitation here is the camera. Even if you don't want a monorail, there are several field cameras which can accommodate a 450mm prime lens (or a 600mm Tele lens if you can find one), such as the Wisner Technical Field and the Canham. I believe the Chamonix is also in this list.
Another option is a 5x7 camera with a reducing back. If you're lucky you can find an old one in working condition for less than the cost of a box or two of sheet film or a few tanks of petrol.
I don't have direct experience, but I was recently at a Sexton workshop. He commented that Ansel Adams had him do some lens testing, and they found that Nikon lenses generally exhibited the most and best contrast. Based on their tests, they would favor purchasing Nikon lenses at that time over others.
He also indicated that their testing showed the Nikon tele's to be the sharpest by a significant margin, to the point where he wouldn't even consider using a Schneider tele.
I have the complete 360, 500, 720 Nikkor set. I was really quite surprised at how good/sharp they are. I use them on my Technika 4 x 5 and Kodak 2D 5 x 7 for which I made an adapter to take the Technika boards. 500 works just fine on the Technika. I once had the Nikkor 600 on the Technika - it was usable but a bit difficult to mount and a bit too extreme.
Mr Pérez measured Fujinon T, Nikon T and Tele Xenar Compact. The tested Fujinon T is the 300, not the 400, but form the 300 version we can guess the Fujinon T 400 performance.
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html
Yes, it had been said a number of times that these are not "perfect" lab tests, but still practical tests...
Anyway I think nobody could tell a real difference from image quality in practical LF photography.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks