New lens advice! 240mm vs 300mm on 5x7?

[htswv]

Hey everybody...was just thinking about using my tax refund to buy myself another lens for my Canham 5x7. I already have a Schneider SS HM 150, Fuji 240 A, Fuji 450C and was thinking about buying a Fuji 300mm C. I shoot mostly landscapes and still lifes and mostly do contact printing (although I do have a Elwood 5x7 enlarger). Do you think the 240mm and 300mm are going to be too close in terms of perspective or angle of coverage? Is there any utility or advantage in buying the 300mm since I already have the 240?

Thanks for your help!

Christian

[Sheldon N]

I think 240 and 300 are quite close together in perspective. I had a 300 and a 240 for quite a while, and have since sold the 300 in favor of a 360.

What about something on the wide end? I think your lens lineup is in need of a 90XL or 110XL.

[Scott Davis]

I've found a perceptible difference between 240 and 300. Now I just have to get my 300 fixed - it's a Kodak Commercial Ektar in Ilex #4, and the shutter is misbehaving. That said, if you can find a nice 360, I'd probably go for that over a 300 to split the difference between 240 and 450. I don't know of too many 14" lenses though that will be compact enough to fit on a Canham 5x7. Most 14" lenses are huge, modern or otherwise.

[Ole Tjugen]

With your setup, I would think hard about a 360mm or so. a 355 G-Claron is not too big, at least compared to a 360mm f:5.6 Symmar!

Personally I use 90, 120/121, 150, 165, 180, 210, 240, 300, 355/360 and 420mm; and I sometimes think I would like to have a 270mm...

[Eric Woodbury]

It really is a question of your person vision. I would think that 240 and 300 are too close to need both. I have a 72, 110, 150, 210, 300, 450, 600, 800 for the 5x7. These are pretty much on 1.4x centers (magnification ratio from one to the next). Turns out I almost never use the 300: I guess I don't see anything there. The 600/800 don't get used much far from the car because of weight. Besides, you have a very large negative and unless you are contacting them, just use the 240 and crop if you need something longer 240 but less than 450.

[Sheldon N]

If you are looking for something on the longer end and dont need huge coverage, a 360mm Apo Ronar may not be a bad choice for a reasonably sized lens.

[Ken Lee]

300 - 240 = 60
60 / 240 = 25%

360 - 300 = 60
300 / 60 = 20%

So there is actually more of a difference between the 240 and 300, than between 300 and 360.

If you were enlarging or scanning, you could probably crop the images made with your 240, by a factor of 25%, and arrive at the equivalent of a 300mm lens. If you were shooting portraits, for example, you would have to step back a bit, to mimic the distance and resulting perspective of a 300mm lens. In effect, you would be shooting 4x5. The 240A is so good, you might never notice the difference, unless you were making big prints, or using very grainy film.

That being said, a violin is not a viola, and a trumpet is not a trombone. Each lens has its own signature. It's nice to have the right lens at the right time. I'm with Ole. He's a wise man.

How about 150...300...450 with 240 as an intermediate length ?

[John Kasaian]

I'd go with a 14" Artar, you can find them quite reasonably priced, they've got loads of wiggle room on a 5x7, they are sharp as a tack and nicely compliment the 240mm.

[Ted Harris]

In longer lenses I use 240-300-360-450 and they all get used, The 300 probably gets the most use in the field. Get whichever length best fits your budget and vision and then get the other later if you feel the need.

[Capocheny]

I'll second Ole's recommendation of the 355 G-Claron!

Great chunk of glass!

Cheers