As noted above, any decent modern undamaged lens should be very, very sharp. I'd base my decision largely on coverage, sharpness at the periphery, price, size/weight, and whether the filter size matched what I already own and carry for other lenses.
As noted above, any decent modern undamaged lens should be very, very sharp. I'd base my decision largely on coverage, sharpness at the periphery, price, size/weight, and whether the filter size matched what I already own and carry for other lenses.
I have the Fujinon 240A. It is the sharpest lens in my kit. I have the Sironar S 150mm, which is a very fine lens, but for some reason images taken with the 240mm just jump off the light table. I love that lens. It is small and despite being a f/9 , is very easy to focus in low light. I could not ask for anything better.
I second the comments on the 250mm f/6.3 Fujinon-W. The only advantage of the older 6.7 version is that it covers 8x10.
Makes a nice kit - I have the 90 6.8 Rodenstock, 250 and 400 Fuji and they all take 67mm filters. My 150 is an old Linhof Symmar, which I keep thinking I should replace with a modern lens, until I put the 20x loupe on the negatives and remind myself that it is as sharp as the other lenses.
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
Hi Emre,
i have the Apo Ronar MC 9/240 and it is as sharp as my Apo Sironar-S 5,6/150 and Super Symmar XL 5,6/110. I can not see any differences at infinity and f/22. The Lens is small and light, only the IC - 216 mm - is sometimes littel, but for Landscape and using 4x5 ok.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks