300mm lens choice for 8x10

[Dan_1982]

I'm shooting 4x5 now, but going to 8x10, mostly for landscapes - color transparencies and color neg. I'm looking for an xlnt 300mm lens -and I'm very picky (I'm not going up in format with the huge weight and expense increas e, just to get a lens that can 'cover' and produce an xlnt contact print or 2x; otherwise I should stick with 4x5). I tried a Nikkor 300mm M f9 which a lot of people rave about; it's xlnt for 4x5, but my experience with 8x10 is not good enough for me (not very sharp other than the ce ntral area of the image - using 8x magifier - I'd do better enlarging a 4x5 image done with that lens perhaps).

I suppose the best lenses are the big 5.6 guys like the Apo Symmar and Sironar S, maybe the Fuji 5.6. I've heard from som eone that the Fuji 8.5C is sharper than the Nikkor f9 M accross the full 8x10 image. The question is how the 8.5C compares t o the 5.6 lenses. I'm aware that out in the field a heavy 2.5 lb lens is more of a chore t han a .6lb lens, but I'm just concerned with image quality in my asking for help her e. For landscapes there's not much in the way of excess coverage needed (maybe a n inch or so of rise mostly for what I tend to do), but I am looking for truly x lnt image quality across the full 8x10 image. Obviously, if there's just small s mall difference in sharpness, illumination, color saturation, etc. between the l arge 5.6 lenses and the 8.5C then there's no point in getting the large lenses. But if that's the case, then why are those large lenses sold at all - just to co ver more for product and architectural shots? (Also, I've eliminated the G-claro ns from consideration because they are not multicoated (and I don't want to get in bellows lens hoods, etc.) I notice Richard Misrach uses a 300mm f5.6 Fuji (wi th his Deardorff), and he hardly uses any movements. I wonder why he uses such a large lens. Maybe just because it's brighter to view with? Thanks. Dan

[Brian Ellis]

I don't think the F 5.6 lenses are necessarily the "best" lenses in terms of detail and tonal range. They usually have a larger image circle and that's the main reason they're used. While some people carry them in the field, they're made primarily for studio work I believe. Who knows why Richard Misrach uses one - maybe he occasionally needs the larger image circle or maybe his mother gave it to him and he's reluctant to offend her by using another lens. I use three lenses for 8x10 contact printing, the 300mm Nikon M, a 210 mm G Claron, and an old Wollensak triple convertible. All produce stunning contact prints.

[John Bowers]

I salute you Dan! You are rare. You are someone who actually wants to move up to 8x10 for the increase in resolution - the right and only logical reason.

I say this becuase I just don't why so many 8x10 shooters use junk lenses and shoot at f32, f45 and smaller. At those apertures, diffraction as you know limits all resolution. Why not just stick with 4x5? They carry this enormous extra weight for no reason! If they want contact prints, then enlarge the 4x5 by 2x!

Now for the lenses. There are two types. The f9's as you say and the f5.6's. The first lot are "process" lenses. They include the Nikkor M, the G-Clarons and Apo-Ronars. They are optimized for 1:1 use and so really are macro lenses.

The second ones are the Apo-Symmars and Apo-Sironars. These are optimized for infinty or close to infinity. The performace difference between the two is significant. There is no way a process lens will perform like a modern lens optimized for infinity IF shooting at 1:5 and lower magnification ratios.

Now someone will come in and say "no way" and "I love my G-Claron or Apo-Ronar". But they are the ones which probably shoot at f32 or smaller and they are right! At those small apertures it makes no differnce which lens you use! You could use a magnifying glass!

So yes, get the f5.6 ones, but remember shoot at f16 or f22 and no smaller. Be prepared to focus very critically! Get a VERY rigid camera. Realize the lack of any depth of field. And also film flatness comes into effect too! Consider the Sinar Adhesive Film Holders seriously.

Then be prepared to be blown away with the results! Enlarge to 40" x 50" and be stunned!

Good luck.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

"Now for the lenses. There are two types. The f9's as you say and the f5.6's. The first lot are "process" lenses. They include the Nikkor M, the G-Clarons and Apo-Ronars. They are optimized for 1:1 use and so really are macro lenses."

Not true - at least not for the Nikkor M. It is a tessar type (4/3) optimized for infinity. Coverage is tight on 8x10, but I use one on 4x5 and 5x7 and it is great for distant subjects (yes, even at f16 and f22). I also wouldn't dismiss the APO Ronars out of hand just because they are a "process" lens. Look at the MTF curves sometime (or better yet, shoot with one). Of course, in the 300mm focal length, the APO Ronar won't cover 8x10...

WRT to Dan's question about the 300mm f5.6 Fuji. I used to own one of these, and although it's a 300mm f5.6 plasmat in a Copal #3 shutter, it's considerably smaller than the other modern, multicoated 300mm f5.6 lenses. It takes 77mm filters (all the others are in the 86mm - 105mm range) - yet the Fujinon still has a 420mm image circle (plenty for 8x10). Perhaps that's why Misrach preferred it (or perhaps not, best to ask him).

Kerry

[Paul Schilliger]

Dan, the Fujinon C300/8.5 and also 450/12.5 are extremely sharp lense. You won't be desappointed. Remember that at apertures of f32-f45 or more required for obtaining DOF on 8x10, the sharpnes s of the lens is considerably blunted anyway. Go for a 5,6 lens if you need more movements than average.

[Pete Andrews]

Sounds like you're moving up to 10x8 for all the wrong reasons to me. I can't believe that many people enlarge to 40"x50" on a regular basis, and then scrutinise the print from 12" away. There's much more to image quality than pure resolution.Anyhow, Rodenstock's Apo-Gerogon lens is virtually the same as a G-Claron in coverage, but is available multi-coated. (As if it makes any real difference).

[Kevin Kemner]

Dan, you might take a look at Chris Perez' home page for comparative lens tests. Here's the address

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html#300mm_and_longer

good shooting

[Rick Moore]

I own and use both the Fuji 300C 8.5 and 450C 12.5 lenses, and I can state without reservation that they are among the sharpest lenses I have ever used on my 8x10. At both the center and the edges. I use them for landscape and portraits, usually stopped down to F22-32.

The pair of lenses cost me (new) about what one 360 5.6 plasmat would have cost, also new.

One other factor not really mentioned in previous responses, is the matter of filters. Both the above lenses use 52mm filters. I use B- W filters, which list for 18.75 at B&H for 52mm. One 82mm B+W lists for $61.75 (for standard #22, 40, 60, 61, etc.). The set of four I routinely use costs a litte more than one larger filter and weighs about as much as two of the larger filters.

Unless you need the extreme coverage of the plasmats in a studio environment, save the money and weight and go with the smaller tessars and dialytes.

[John Bowers]

Kerry: Sorry, since the Nikkor M's are so similar optically to the G- Clarons and Apo-Ronars I thought that they too were process lenses.

Paul: You say you need to stop down to f32-f45 for 8x10 for a 300mm lens. So why not stop down to f16-f22 on a 150mm lens and shoot 4x5 instead???

[Paul Schilliger]

"Paul: You say you need to stop down to f32-f45 for 8x10 for a 300mm lens. So wh y not stop down to f16-f22 on a 150mm lens and shoot 4x5 instead???"

John, yes, why not? It's what I am doing in any case. Had I read your first thr ead a bit more carefully, I would not have repeated what you had already said! But as some suggested, there is a lot m ore about 8x10 than mere sharpness. I am not a convert, but I think someone who likes to drive a big car would not feel good in a small car, even it's speed is the same! ;-) By the way, I had shot a few samples to compar e the sharpness of those lenses at f22 and at f32 and f45. Passed f22, the degradation is drastic and at f45, the 8 x10 size will hardly compensate for the loss in details. But the richer tonal range remains and it's what makes 8x10 slightly superior. Still there are many subjects who do not require such DOF and can be shot at f22 even on 8x10. T here, I'd be blown up!