Nikkor SW 90mm or Grandagon 90mm?

[GPS]

...
This kind of questions is the direct consequence of amateurish opinions divulged happily in all photographic forums. The sooner you liberate yourself from these opinions the better for you.

One could also spend one's whole photographic carrier to realize that:

1. Most lenses are better than most photographers.

2. There's no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Or perhaps not...

Marko, whoever reads my answer can see that in no way I added any adjectif to the original question. If most of your lenses are better than you as a photographer it's entirely up to your judgement. Personally, I don't compete in any way with my lenses as they are just tools that I use and I don't care if they are better than you or anybody else.
I agree with you that some answers are stupid ... ;-)

[Marko]

Marko, whoever reads my answer can see that in no way I added any adjectif to the original question. If most of your lenses are better than you as a photographer it's entirely up to your judgement. Personally, I don't compete in any way with my lenses as they are just tools that I use and I don't care if they are better than you or anybody else.
I agree with you that some answers are stupid ... ;-)

Q.E.D.

[GPS]

N.t.p.

[toyoman]

I was reading this string out of curiosity to see if any one else had the same experience as I have had with the different 90s. Not to be the geek, but here is what I think (we all have our opinions) as to the differences:

Two styles of Fujinon F8s early single coated is lighter and has less coverage and is soft till f16, and can have a regular hard lens cap on both ends! The newer EBC is sharper slightly heavier, more coverage and has to have a slip-on cover for the back. Both have a warmish color shift for transparency work.

The Schneider (older Caltars also) was heavy but very sharp, but not as bright. Very blue in the deep shadows for color shift, and had to use color correction of some sort to get the blue out. Slipon for the back.

The Nikkor f8 falls in a happy middle between the Schnieder and the Fujinon for sharpness, and color shift. I didn't like the lens as much because of the pincusion effect (more distortion to the outer edges). This one was the lightest and most compact of the bunch. Slipon for the back.

The Rodenstock 6.8(Sironar, and for some time also Caltar) was the brightest but was heavier like the Schneider. Has good coverage with a compact size overall. Again a slipon for the back. Has almost as warm a colorshift in the shadows as does the Fujinon. Very sharp through all aperatures.

I liked the later model Fujinon (EBC), but the Rodenstock was a close second especially with the larger viewing aperature. The Nikkor was third. I had the Schneider for a while and liked the sharpness of the lens, but couldn't stand the color cast it gave my transparency work. Hope this helps...

[Rich Long]

There's no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

With no offense meant to anyone.... I was always told: "There are no stupid questions, but there are plenty of inquizative idiots." I'm firmly in that category myself.

[Robert Skeoch]

I like the Fujinon myself, but did own a Schneider for years and it was great too. You can't go wrong with any of the big four brands. Nikon might be harder to find new because they stopped making them. The other three are still being sold new.
--Rob Skeoch
www.bigcameraworkshops.com

[Brian K]

Trying to obtain my first 90mm lens. Had a couple of dissappointments from the auction site, although fortunately managed to get my money back, so I'm thinking of just biting the bullet and buying new.

I notice from the landscape lens review on this site that both John Sparks and Kerry Thalmann chose the Nikkor as their preferred 90mm lens, with no mention of Rodenstock (or indeed Schneider).

I've tried to get some information on the Nikkor, but there's not a lot out there. One of my main questions is the size of the front filter thread. I've got several 67mm filters which I use on my 210mm Rodenstock and also on my MF Rollei lenses. I know the Grandagon 6.8 has a 67mm thread, but what size is the Nikkor?

Weight is not so much of an issue for me, so I just want to know which gives the best results - or indeed if they're as good as each other (in which case I would probably opt for the Grandagon due to it being a tad faster).

Any experience/advice?

Thanks.

Nick

I own the 90mm 6.8 Grandagon, I recommend it not necessarily because it's any sharper or better than the other choices but it's f6.8 makes it easier to focus than the f8 lenses, especially in the corners. Having the sharpest lens in the world means nothing if you can't focus it. It's also a 67mm filter size.

[naturephoto1]

I also have a Rodenstock f6.8 Grandagon N MC. The lens is extremely sharp. It is a half stop faster than the Nikon f8, but it does weigh more. I have no personal experience with the Nikon. I have been very pleased with my Grandagon for the last 20 or so years.

Rich

[Sam Crater]

The Nikkor 90 f8 is significantly different from the SA 90 f8 and Rodenstock 90 f6.8 as it is an 8 element design and has a significantly bigger image circle. If you are using 4x5 with big movements, you may in fact see a difference in your images.

[Miguel Curbelo]

The Nikkor 90 f8 was my first LF lens. I was a novice (still am) and I remember I was worried about finding it difficult to focus in low light conditions, but it has never been an issue. I now have ten LF lenses, and the Nikkor 90 is my favourite: it is light, it has a large image circle and it is sharp as a lens should be.