Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
Here is the kind of thing I have every reason to quibble with. Let's take that 450C for example. People stick that on a 4x5 with insufficient support, obviously a long
bellows extension, maybe a stupid ballhead, then lo and behold, get less than ideal results. Or they forget what a huge image circle of light it collects, so don't
shade it sufficiently. On the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate to use it even with a roll film back because it's so damn sharp. All these optics degrade a bit below
f/32, then dramatically more between f/45 and f/64. Just depends on your degree of enlargement whether this is a practical issue or not. Then, let's take my Fuji
360A. The Kern dagor might be a legendary cult lens, but is nowhere in the same league. Nor is any general purpose plastmat I've ever used. But again, it has a
big image circle and one has to be conscious of flare, though the multicoating does handle this a bit better than the equivalent G-Claron. I base this on big Cibachromes directly enlarged. Once somebody starts talking DPI the whole question is skewed by digital complications of distinctly lower expectations. Holder
depth means nothing if this pertinent variable isn't in relation to a vacuum system of perhaps adhesive holder. Anytime I enlarge bigger than 20x24 I use a precision back, otherwise nitpicking alleged lens variables is MEANINGLESS. Every single lens you've mentioned so far is capable of superb results. Very few
filmholders are adequate for the task. And don't forget the variable of shutter vibration, which of course its directly related to the mass, extension, and support of any given camera itself. For example, my Fuji 600C gives me quite sharp results with my 8x10 folder directly atop a Ries tripod (assuming no wind), but my
4x5 Norma has a problem with that big shutter; yet no problem at all with a 450C in no.1 shutter. So apples to apples, even very similar optical designs like
355 G Claron vs 360 Fuji A : the Fuji will give sharper results due to the lower vibration small shutter, yet impose a bit of mechanical vignetting due to that same
shutter in ULF situations (no problem at all with 8x10). All kinds of variables come into play. ... So now lets throw in the Nikkor M remark. It's a way smaller
image circle than a Fuji A; so yes, maybe center of image performance will differ; but the A is going to have distinctly better edge and closeup performance, esp
on 8x10 film. But I'd defy anyone to distinguish which of these two lenses made an immaculate 30x40 high gloss (polyester) print from 4x5 film itself. Even a low power loupe wouldn't do it, nose up to the print. At a certain point it's all overkill. If I'm on a long backpack trip, I'll pack the M for its light weight. If I'm
shooting closeups or 8x10, the Fuji A is the superior optic. I don't even use the Kern 14" much anymore. But then again, in most cases you probably couldn't even distinguish in print when I have. I just don't like that bigger shutter on 4x5 - want more mass behind it.
Bookmarks