Deciding between Rodenstock vs. Fujinon entry level 150mm lenses

**Mike in NY** · 9-Mar-2019, 19:29

I see no need to buy both lenses and sell the one I like least. I posted my question hoping to learn from anyone who might have had enough experience with both lenses to offer insights into the distinctions beyond those that I already mentioned, such as the Fujinon's notably wider circle of coverage.

**Peter De Smidt** · 9-Mar-2019, 19:53

Both are generally excellent lenses. Doing careful and statistically relevant tests is a huge undertaking. Even if someone here has samples of both lenses, and the ability to do very careful tests, that wouldn't say that your samples would be exactly the same, and comparing image circles between manufacturers isn't straight forward. So it's unlikely that anyone can give you the advice that you're seeking. Pick one based on condition and price. If you really can't decide, flip a coin.

**Bernice Loui** · 9-Mar-2019, 19:57

Why do you believe there are any significant differences between the Rodenstock -vs- Fujinon?

-How long have you been burning sheet film, about how many sheets?

Bernice

Originally Posted by Mike in NY

OK... back to my original question... does anyone have thoughts on differences between the two lenses?

**Mike in NY** · 9-Mar-2019, 20:02

I'm sorry, but I just have to say that I'm continually baffled by posts that do not answer an OP's original question, both in this instance and in other threads. I appreciate when people explore tangents, but only after they address the question originally asked. Honestly, there are times when I think we should change the name from LPF forum to ADD forum. Think about it... I researched a number of purchasing options, narrowed it down to two, and wanted to know if anyone had an opinion about the contrast between the two lenses in question, based on their experience. That was my topic. If you don't believe me, go back and look at Post #1.

Then someone has the nerve to presumptuously ask me how many sheets of film I've exposed, all because I asked if there was a difference in contrast between two different lenses. Really? That kind of post often makes me ask myself why I bother posting questions and looking for friendly help in this forum. I feel like St. Sebastian tied to a tree and pierced by half a dozen arrows just for seeking advice.

Look, we're all friends here, and conversations tend to take twists and turns, but honestly, it doesn't sit well with me when someone makes a dig at me without knowing anything about me, my background as a photographer, or having viewed my work. I'm simply interested in answers to the topic I raised (e.g., contrast between two specific lenses) than condescending questions that reflect upon the person who asked them, not me. For those who can shed light on the original topic, I am extremely grateful for your insights (Eric, for example, among others). If you are unable to address the question I raised, resist the temptation to offer a non-response and move along to another thread.

Thank you.

**Bernice Loui** · 9-Mar-2019, 21:06

The only way to decide Rodenstock or Fujinon is to purchase BOTH lenses, then do lots of lens testing on your own to decide which lens works for your image making needs. While there are differences between Rodenstock, Nikkor, Schneider, Fujinon as mentioned many times before these four are far more similar than different in sharpness, contrast, color rendition and such. This is due to their common lens formulation-perscription of a six element Plasmat. There are slight variations in each individual lens, again the only way to really determine this is to test the specific lens. Once any specific lens becomes acceptable, sell the lens that is not acceptable or pass on the unacceptable lens on to another image maker.

There is no valid way to determine the specific visual results for a specific individual lens via web based images. There are FAR too many variables in the way data for images is compressed, transmitted, image monitor performance and more.

This is the premise or why the comment was made about home many sheets of film used-produced. For those who have burned a few hundred boxes of film over a few decades, the question of lens performance would have been experienced and understood to some degree.

Also as previously mentioned, LF film lenses made after the later part of the 1970's by Rodenstock-Fujinon-Schneider-Nikkor were designed and intended for working professional photographers where their livelihood depended on their image-making performance. Add to this the cost of setting up a 4x5 or larger studio film image and the cost of film including Polaroids that were very common to evaluate the image and set up before the film was exposed. All these real world cost demands nothing less than the best lens performance possible as the cost of a single studio image can easily exceed the cost of a new lens back in those days. On location images can cost more than studio work due to all the other adders from permits to location rental and a LOT more.

Consider this question of Rodenstock or Fujinon being better in this context.

Bernice

**Mike in NY** · 9-Mar-2019, 21:18

Originally Posted by Bernice Loui

For those who have burned a few hundred boxes of film over a few decades, the question of lens performance would have been experienced and understood to some degree.

Another arrow for St. Sebastian, who made the mistake of asking a question with the hope of learning from more experienced photographers, not by being belittled by them.

**AJ Edmondson** · 9-Mar-2019, 21:39

I chose the Fujinon over the APO Symmar for one reason (used both). I prefer the older single coated lenses for their rendition (relative to contrast)... they remind me - in performance - of the old single-coated Angulons. For my taste, the APO Symmars are too "harsh" but we all have our own definitions. As far as sharpness, I honestly haven't seen any measurable difference in sharpness but maybe I am just not refined enough (and I rarely print anything larger than 11x14).
Joel

**Bernice Loui** · 9-Mar-2019, 21:40

Specific to this question, the only way to learn this is to experience these lens differences in real life, real time, real world.

-There is no other effective way.

There was a time when better photography stores would offer trials, loaners or rental lens for customer evaluation. This was another means to gain real world, real time experience with these lenses. This has been mostly replaced by hear-say and self proclaimed experts on the web.

Journey of learning, acquiring knowledge-wisdon is never easy or instant. This journey is often full of failures, mistakes, happenstance, Serendipity, total defeat and at times results. There is no short cut or instant answer to this question as it is packed with complexity and subtlety.

Bernice

Originally Posted by Mike in NY

Another arrow for St. Sebastian, who made the mistake of asking a question with the hope of learning from more experienced photographers, not by being belittled by them.

**andrewch59** · 9-Mar-2019, 21:42

If they are similar enough that the choice becomes a flip of a coin, choose by filter size. My largest modern lens takes 67mm filters if I were to get a bigger lens I would have to buy more filters. However if I go down in size I can use step up rings.