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