Page 18 of 22 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 214

Thread: f64

  1. #171
    (Shrek)
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,044

    Re: f64

    I am reading with interest because I am shopping for a new (to me) 300mm lens. I have a Fujinon-W inside lettering with some bad scratches that just isn't doing it; I have a couple of barrel lenses that are quite sharp, 2 fitted to Packards, but I would like a 'normal' 8x10 lens with good contrast and sharpness, in modern shutter. I was going to try another Fujinon (mostly for the price), but from your post I should be looking for a Nikkor. The extra $100 or whatever won't kill me, but I'm tired of buying bad lenses.

    I have a couple of new Fujinons (to me) that I'm going to test first, a 75/5.6 for my 4x5 kit and a 250/6.7 for 8x10. If the latter is sharp, I may stop there.

  2. #172
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

    Re: f64

    There is a fair amount of sample-to-sample variation, as others have pointed out. See Chris Perez and Kerry's lens tests, for instance. I would not conclude that a given 300 Nikkor will be better than a specific Fuji 300 on the basis of a test of one sample.
    “You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
    ― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know

  3. #173

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,804

    Re: f64

    Quote Originally Posted by Jody_S View Post
    I am reading with interest because I am shopping for a new (to me) 300mm lens...I would like a 'normal' 8x10 lens with good contrast and sharpness, in modern shutter...from your post I should be looking for a Nikkor...
    If you're going to use it on 8x10 at f/45 or (especially) f/64, you should absolutely be looking for a 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W. Even sample variation couldn't significantly diminish the huge margin by which it beat the others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jody_S View Post
    ...I have a couple of new Fujinons (to me) that I'm going to test first...a 250/6.7 for 8x10. If the latter is sharp, I may stop there.
    Depends on what apertures you shoot at. If at f/45 and (especially) at f/64, I think the 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W would be much sharper, sample variation notwithstanding. Mine's not for sale, though.

  4. #174

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,804

    Re: f64

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt View Post
    ...I would not conclude that a given 300 Nikkor will be better than a specific Fuji 300 on the basis of a test of one sample.
    The margin of superiority in my results leads me to conclude it's a very good bet that the Nikkor W would be. I'd be more concerned about extrapolating from one focal length to another within a given manufacturer's lens line. Not all Nikkor W focal lengths are created equal, nor are all Apo Sironar S focal lengths, all Fujinon A focal lengths, etc.

  5. #175
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,337

    Re: f64

    Nonsense. If you're only talking 4x5 and need compact lenses (vs big studio clunkers in no.3 shutter), you can go Fuji 300C, 300A (rare), Nikkor 300M, Apo Ronar (Rodenstock), or just stick with that 250/6.7 you already have. You'd have to be one serious big printmaker to ever detect the difference in results. Believe whomever you wish. I don't care. We're all just splitting hairs here. There are all kinds of damn good relatively modern lenses out there to choose from. The
    only reason I stopped using a 250/6.7 was that it was stolen. I replaced it with a 250 G-Claron which turned out to be even sharper, then added a 240 Fuji A, which is even better yet, and has just as big an image circle on 8x10. Gosh, yeah I have some seemingly redundant duplicate choices in my kit; but that's because their predecessors have seen a lot of hard outdoor usage and might not last the duration. Fuji A's and C's, G-Clarons, Nikkor M's - it's almost impossible to go wrong with any lens in these series. The 250/6.7 is an older lens, but a distinct keeper if you already have one.

  6. #176

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,804

    Re: f64

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    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.
    That's an awful lot of deflection / subject changing. My camera is an 8x10 Phillips Compact II, upon a sturdy support system in no-wind conditions, not a 4x5. The sharpest 300mm lens has exactly the same image circle as the least-sharp 300mm lens' image circle. The sharpest 300mm lens (the sharpest of all eight lenses) is in a Copal 3 shutter; the least sharp 300mm lens is in a Copal 1 shutter. None of the lenses I posted about in this comparison are 360mm. The degree of enlargement necessary to see (without magnification by a loupe, i.e. with the naked eye) that seven of the eight lenses degrade dramatically between f/45 and f/64, but the 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W doesn't, is 1X. No enlargement. I mentioned the Nikkor M in response to another person's comment. It wasn't part of the eight lenses in this comparison. I don't use it on 8x10.

    It might be a bitter pill to swallow, but one ought not conclusively discount another photographer's results without having seen them in person. Lenny was right. I've duplicated his results.

  7. #177

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,804

    Re: f64

    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    If you're going to use it on 8x10 at f/45 or (especially) f/64, you should absolutely be looking for a 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W. Even sample variation couldn't significantly diminish the huge margin by which it beat the others...
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    Nonsense. If you're only talking 4x5 and need compact lenses (vs big studio clunkers in no.3 shutter), you can go Fuji 300C, 300A (rare), Nikkor 300M, Apo Ronar (Rodenstock), or just stick with that 250/6.7 you already have....We're all just splitting hairs here...
    It's not nonsense. My response stated "If you're going to use it on 8x10 at f/45 or (especially) f/64..." Those are the conditions under which I tested and that's the format which requires substantial coverage. On 4x5, where one would be using larger apertures, and under conditions I neither tested nor reported on, the Fujinon 300mm f/9 A might be sharper than the 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W, as might the 250mm f/6.7 Fujinon W. But that's not the format I read a question to be asking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    ...Fuji A's and C's, G-Clarons, Nikkor M's - it's almost impossible to go wrong with any lens in these series...
    This thread isn't about "going wrong with" those lenses or formats other than 8x10. It's about how Lenny tested his 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W at f/64 and didn't find the resulting negative wanting for sharpness compared to f/45. I've duplicated that result. No amount of arm waving about irrelevancies will change the facts.

  8. #178
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

    Re: f64

    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    The margin of superiority in my results leads me to conclude it's a very good bet that the Nikkor W would be. I'd be more concerned about extrapolating from one focal length to another within a given manufacturer's lens line. Not all Nikkor W focal lengths are created equal, nor are all Apo Sironar S focal lengths, all Fujinon A focal lengths, etc.
    I don't own either. I have a Symmar-S and a Graphic-Kowa in that focal length. I don't have a dog in that fight. Your claim that Nikkor 300 Ws are likely superior across the board to Fujinon Ws, though, does not follow. You might've had an outstanding version of the Nikkor and a terrible version of the Fujinon. There's a reason that empirical scientific testing depends on large sample sizes and repeatability, including repeatability by other testers. Your test shows that for your system, and how you used the lens, that one lens was superior to the other. That's valuable to know, but basing a generalization about the likely performance of other lenses would be premature at best.
    “You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
    ― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know

  9. #179

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,804

    Re: f64

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt View Post
    ...Your claim that Nikkor 300 Ws are likely superior across the board to Fujinon Ws, though, does not follow...
    I said that 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor Ws are likely superior to 300mm Fujinon Ws, not Fujinon Ws "across the board." My experience has been that, for a given lens line, there's usually a "sweet spot" focal length. Perhaps in the Nikkor W line 300mm was it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt View Post
    ...You might've had an outstanding version of the Nikkor and a terrible version of the Fujinon. There's a reason that empirical scientific testing depends on large sample sizes and repeatability...
    While there certainly is sample variation, something I always point out, the margin of superiority in this case, even if my 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W is the best one ever assembled and my 300mm f/9 Fujinon A / 300mm f/5.6 Fujinon W are the worst ones ever to roll of Fuji's line, is so high that I'm unabashed in making the prediction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt View Post
    ...repeatability by other testers. Your test shows that for your system, and how you used the lens, that one lens was superior to the other. That's valuable to know, but basing a generalization about the likely performance of other lenses would be premature at best.
    Again, the margin is sufficiently large for me to generalize, but I encourage those who own other samples of these lenses to duplicate the comparison. I've spelled out all the conditions. Please have at it.

  10. #180
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,337

    Re: f64

    These simply aren't scientific results. You'd have to design an optical bench and have something truly flat as your target. Kodak once made TMX or microfilm glass
    plates for such purposes, though with color film, only a precision vac filmholder would do. And as far as "batch variation" in fully modern manufacture is concerned, "the usual suspect", I doubt it unless your statistical sample base is significant (non single uses has that kind of quantity of anything), and unless you
    first rules out the other suspects. But there are also special application issues. The reason I typically carry a Fuji 360A in that focal length is that I'm an opportunistic shooter. I frequently encounter subjects near macro, where this lens or a G-Claron is going to perform significantly better than a general purpose lens. Or I might have an architectual subject, or be in the redwoods, where I need dramatically more rise than something like a 300M. But at the same time,
    I might carry an old 360 Zeiss process tessar as well, because I prefer its out of focus rendering where selective focus is the name of the game. But overall,
    a more relevant test, and a necessary one to pin down this given subject fairly, would first be to evaluate what is happening in those filmholders. Film sags,
    acetate typically more than estar, and 8x10 significantly more than 4x5. Your center to edge findings with an ordinary holder are automatically defeated by this
    very fact. That isn't science; it's rolling the dice and then blaming something else.

Similar Threads

  1. my experiance w/ f64 backpack
    By Steve M Hostetter in forum Gear
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 31-Jan-2009, 08:50
  2. Feedback On the f64 Backpacks
    By paul owen in forum Gear
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 30-Jan-2004, 13:18
  3. Shooting all the time at f64
    By Raven Garrow in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 24-May-2000, 20:25

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •