300mm lens choice for 8x10

[John Kasaian]

I wonder which 300mm lens the OP finally bought 16 years ago?

[Pfsor]

OK so we know Nikkor has conservative coverage specs but how different is coverage between Fujinon C 300m f/8.5 and Nikkor M 300 f/9?
I mean in the field not in the figures I can read in the specs.
I need this info for 8x10. I know that for 4x5 it doesn't matter as they both have ample coverage

The difference in the coverage is exactly the same in the field as it is in the specs. It doesn't change. Go wonder.

[Chauncey Walden]

The specs for a Schneider 240mm Xenar say the coverage is 62 degrees which would be a circle of 228mm at infinity. In the field, one will cover 8x10 sharp corner to corner which is, what, 312mm? Wonder indeed.

[Luis-F-S]

I wonder which 300mm lens the OP finally bought 16 years ago?

Or if he learned anything about lenses! He's probably out with back problems from toting those big suckers!

[George Losse]

The OP has spoken of the 300mm Nikkor M but remember there was more than one Nikkor 300 mm lens.

There is also the 300mm Nikkor W.
I bought mine new back in 1990 and it has been a great lens for me with the 8x10 with plenty of coverage.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in.../LF8x10in.html
It's listed here with a 420mm image circle @ f22, whereas the Nikkor M has 325mm image circle @f22.
An 8x10 image needs an image circle of 312mm, the M just covers that.

[Pfsor]

The specs for a Schneider 240mm Xenar say the coverage is 62 degrees which would be a circle of 228mm at infinity. In the field, one will cover 8x10 sharp corner to corner which is, what, 312mm? Wonder indeed.

You've got it wrong.
The data sheet for Schneider Xenar 240mm f4.5 says: Angle of view at f 16 - 62°. Image Circle Diameter at f/16 - 282mm
Also you don't say at what f stop you can cover sharp corner to corner 8x10 format. Surely not at f 4.5.
It pays to learn how to read specs. Go wonder.

[Chauncey Walden]

And geometry says that the base of an isosceles triangle with an apex angle of 62 degrees and a height of 240mm is 228mm. But, sorry Professor, my German is rusty. f/22 by the way. I wonder how many photographers shoot 8x10 at only f/16 in the field? Wollensak used to give specs that also included what the lens would cover stopped down. Now those would be useful specs.

[Pfsor]

And geometry says that the base of an isosceles triangle with an apex angle of 62 degrees and a height of 240mm is 228mm. But, sorry Professor, my German is rusty. f/22 by the way. I wonder how many photographers shoot 8x10 at only f/16 in the field? Wollensak used to give specs that also included what the lens would cover stopped down. Now those would be useful specs.

Maybe you should first learn the difference between an angle of view and an angle of coverage before you start to debate topics like lens coverage specs. The angle of coverage doesn't change when the angle of view does.
At f/22 the coverage is bigger than that of f/16 - does it ring bells? Go wonder.

[sergiofigliolia]

Thanks Pfsor for your answer. I meant to ask: "since Nikon has conservative specs about coverage and Fuji hasn't. Is there somebody who tried both lenses and can tell me how actually coverage differs from each other?" 😊

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Pfsor]

Thanks Pfsor for your answer. I meant to ask: "since Nikon has conservative specs about coverage and Fuji hasn't. Is there somebody who tried both lenses and can tell me how actually coverage differs from each other?" ��

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Now you say it clearly. I still think that your question is unfortunately a venomous one. You will get answers that show not the difference in the coverage but the difference in personal tastes of anybody who uses the lenses according to their tolerance of image degradation. There you can see that I'm not a friend of so called conservative or not coverage specs declarations. No manufacturer would like to indicate a smaller useful coverage than the lens can give just to be conservative. It would be kicking yourself in your backside. Those who declare the urban myth about conservative or not coverage are just declaring their own tolerance of a degraded image seen as "good enough". The coverage specs are not indicated with this kind of personal taste in mind. They are declared on the actual optical performance guaranteed by the manufacturer. Anything else would be just confusing and compromising the lens objective characteristics. But urban myths have many followers. Enough said, Sergio figliuolo.