Fuji 400mm T or Nikon 360mm T ?

[Drew Wiley]

I prefer long perspectives, but have sufficient bellows length so that a tele is not needed. So I use a 360/10 Fuji A, which is optically superior to any tele anyway. I also have a 450 Fuji C, very light and compact compared to a tele. Another nice thing about these is that they have big image circles suitable for 8X10 format too. But my brother had a Technika, so needed a tele.

[lassethomas]

Well, my copy of the early single coated fujinon 400T is very sharp but there is some visible CA. Easily fixed if you scan an edit digitaly.
A very good lend overall

[Jeff Keller]

The tests I've seen (https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html) on the Nikkor show the sharpness falling off when longer rear lenses are used however, I've seen users report they are happy with the lenses.

If you think you would use the 500mm focal length, go with the Nikkor. If you doubt you would ever use the 500mm, then there are many excellent choices for the 350-360mm focal length. Most of the other choices would work well with larger formats.

The excellent Fuji A 360/10 Drew mentioned uses a Copal 1 shutter and is lighter than most other lenses in its focal length but is hard to find and expensive.

A couple not already mentioned would be the Ronar 360/9 and the G-Claron 355/9. The 360/5.5 Tele Xenar was mentioned but not the Tele Arton 360/5.5.

jeff

[Drew Wiley]

My brother used the 360 Tele Xenar. It was not well color corrected; the more expensive Tele Arton was. But more modern teles are better than either. The later and uncommon Schneider 400/5.6 Apo Tele Xenar is in a no.3 shutter, so would be relatively heavy if you can afford one. The first generation HM gray front version of that weighs 1270g, while the last black-barrel MRC version weighs 916 g. By comparison the 360A Fuji weighs only 465g, but takes some patience to acquire. I remember when only two really clean examples turned up over a ten year period, and I bought both of them! (Have since sold the spare one to another forum member.)

The 355 GC is also in a no. 3 shutter; but it has a massive image circle suitable for even 11X14 or 12X20 format - still distinctly lighter than general-purpose f/5.6 studio plasmat "bricks" in that focal length, however.

[Don Dudenbostel]

I owned two copies of the Schneider 360mm f5.5 Tele Arton. Both were very sharp but do have some color fringing issues. Not bad Fringing but it’s there. The downside of this lens is size. I believe it takes 95mm filters and is in a copal 3 and is heavy. I’d also suggest a compendium shade.

I also owned a Nikkor set, 360, 500 and 720. The 360 was excellent and imo better than the Schneider TA. I primarily used the 360 set and in rare occasions the 500 and only one or two times the 720. I used the 500 and 720 on my Sinar Norma and found at slower speeds a second tripod advantageous in stabilizing the camera. When using longer exposures it significantly improved sharpness

If picking between the Nikkor or Schneidet there’s no question I’d pick the Nikkor.

Another fantastic lens not mentioned is pretty rare. I owned and foolishly sold a Schneider 350mm f11 Apo Tele Xenar. It’s not really a tele design but is a remarkable lens and in a copal 1 shutter.

I sold my 360 Nikkor set and regret that act also and have been considering another Nikkor of Fuji so keep posting information and opinions.

One other lens I forgot, I had a 400mm Yamasaki and was amazed that it was pretty decent. I didn’t do any comparisons but made some nice images with it.

[Don Dudenbostel]

You really can’t tell anything from a low res image on the internet but the mountain shot is on 4x5 EPP with the 360 f5.5 Tele Arton. I think I shot it 40 or so years ago.

The flowers is with the Nikkor 450mm on Ektachrome 120 using a Canham 617 back. The 450 is a top notch lens.

[David Rowland]

Thanks for all the info guys. I have looked at the fuji A 360mm f11 but the prices are a little steep for the amount I'd use it. one of the Apo Ronar/G Claron types could be contenders but they do use the copal 3 shutters with the extra bulk and lower top shutter speed. Thanks Dave

[Steve Goldstein]

Don mentioned the Yamasaki 400mm. I have one of these, branded as Osaka, which I believe was a house brand for the importer in Pittsburgh(?). Like the Fujinon 400s and the Nikkor 360, it takes 67mm filters, but at 482 grams it's significantly lighter. Coverage is much less than the big boys but more than adequate for 4x5. I have no quibbles with the few images I've made with it. Would a Fujinon or Nikkor have been sharper? No idea..

[Dave Moeller]

I have one of these, branded as Osaka, which I believe was a house brand for the importer in Pittsburgh(?).

FYI: Bromwell Marketing

[Drew Wiley]

Ken Bromwell told me in person these lenses were "good" affordable 4-element "commercial" lenses, but not specialty or superstar lenses. Somewhere I still have his catalog and price list from decades ago. He was a straight shooter, and didn't BS his marketing.