Nikon 90mm SW f8

[Richard Mahoney]

...

Nonsense! The faster and slower W/A lenses in the same focal length from the same manufacturer are not identical designs with one simply having a larger front element to speed it up. They are quite different in performance with the faster version always outperforming the slower version. Go to the manufacturer's web sites and download the curves. You will see that the faster lens has better MTF curves, better coverage, better distortion curves, better longitudinal color aberration curves and better light fall-off curves then the slower version.

Plus, of course, better illumination on the GG thanks to its faster speed.

Putting aside the rest, the illumination by itself is more significant than many people are making out. A 90/4.5 arrived the other day and I've been using it with available light along with my standard 5.6s -- I've nothing slower -- for architectural interiors. Anything slower and I would have found focusing next to impossible -- and I _always_ focus wide open using the depth of field calculator on my Cambo. I did consider whether or not to get the 90/8 but am pleased I didn't. For the work I'm doing it simply wouldn't be up to scratch. And with interiors with available light -- despite the weight and size -- I'd be hesitant to use anything slower than a 5.6.


KInd regards,

Richard

[John Conway]

I agree with Richard. I have been putting together my 4X5 lens kit and I have found the f8 lenses very difficult to use under low light. When I received my Nikkor 65 f4 I was delighted. Focusing on the center of the ground glass is not a problem with the f8 lenses. But the outer edges are where I struggle. I will keep my f8 lenses, since those models are not made any faster. But from now on I will seek faster lenses.

[meerkat]

Putting aside the rest, the illumination by itself is more significant than many people are making out. A 90/4.5 arrived the other day and I've been using it with available light along with my standard 5.6s -- I've nothing slower -- for architectural interiors. Anything slower and I would have found focusing next to impossible -- and I _always_ focus wide open using the depth of field calculator on my Cambo. I did consider whether or not to get the 90/8 but am pleased I didn't. For the work I'm doing it simply wouldn't be up to scratch. And with interiors with available light -- despite the weight and size -- I'd be hesitant to use anything slower than a 5.6.


KInd regards,

Richard

I agree with Richard. I have been putting together my 4X5 lens kit and I have found the f8 lenses very difficult to use under low light. When I received my Nikkor 65 f4 I was delighted. Focusing on the center of the ground glass is not a problem with the f8 lenses. But the outer edges are where I struggle. I will keep my f8 lenses, since those models are not made any faster. But from now on I will seek faster lenses.

This consideration is important to me, too. I'll be documenting the interior of dwellings where light is relatively dim. That's why I initially started my search for a good Nikkor 90/4.5 sample.

But I'm still curious as to why the 8 "surpasses" it and "all the other 90s." Is there something inferior about the 4.5 that makes the 8 such a better lens? I wouldn't think that would be the case, but it was mentioned specifically on this thread in post #19 http://www.largeformatphotography.in...1&postcount=19

What is that specific quality or qualities (aside from physical size) that makes it so much better? I'm about to go ahead and purchase the 4.5 as planned, but now my curiosity has gotten the best of me.

Anyone else think the 4.5 is less of a lens than the 8?

Thanks again.

[EdSawyer]

Meerkat - have a look at the Thallmann/Perez lens tests for empirical evidence on the 90/8 nikon being the king of the 90s. It's also a more sophisticated design with less compromises than the 90/4.5 nikkor.

-Ed

[meerkat]

Meerkat - have a look at the Thallmann/Perez lens tests for empirical evidence on the 90/8 nikon being the king of the 90s. It's also a more sophisticated design with less compromises than the 90/4.5 nikkor.

-Ed

I have seen that website many times in the past. There is no Nikkor 90mm 4.5 lens in their tests. Aside from physical size why does the 8 'surpass' the 4.5? How specifically is it a 'more sophisticated design' over the 4.5 and what exactly are those 'compromises.' And what does that actually mean; i.e., where does all this show up in real world. (I'm not photographing lens charts but I do need some fine detail to be well resolved given all the usual parameters that affect image quality.)

When someone says these things, I just want to know the quantitative answers to those statements. Thanks.

[David Casillas]

Meerkat:
The only one reference of somebody commenting in both lens is in this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.in...t=41880&page=3 in post 23, however it may not be the answer you are looking for. Most comments there agree on f 4.5 being useful.
As for me, I only have owned two F8 and both are great.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I have a chance to pick up the 90/4.5 for a decent price. I'm not new to LF and own several German lenses but no Nikkors, and have yet to use one.

I'd appreciate if you could tell me (empirically) why the 90/8 "clearly surpasses the Nikkor 90/4.5." And how it also "surpasses all other 90s." Again, I'd like the empirical evidence. If the 4.5 is inferior, then I'll start looking for the 8 instead.

(btw, the physical size of the lens is of no importance to me as I'm not a backpacker/landscape photographer.)

Thanks very much.

I'd hardly say it "clearly surpasses" as both lenses produce excellent images. The one thing the f/8 has overwhelmingly in it's favor is the smaller size and weight.

[meerkat]

I'd hardly say it "clearly surpasses" as both lenses produce excellent images. The one thing the f/8 has overwhelmingly in it's favor is the smaller size and weight.

Exactly. It's really all about size/weight priorities or brighter viewing. No one is going to say "yuck, that image was made by using version X or version Y lens." But when I see it stated that 'version X or brand X surpasses all others' without tangible evidence and to the point where version Y is supposedly notably inferior, then that raises the question of "what does that really mean?" In the real world of image making (i.e., making photographs that will have an audience of viewers) it usually means very little.

But I didn't want to spend money on something that is not worth anything because it's so inferior to be clearly noticeable (and it's not my money, the project is being funded 100% by a grant.) I came across this forum and this thread while doing a Google search and shopping for a 90mm lens.

In the meantime, a colleague has offered me the use of their Rodenstock Grandagon 90 4.5 (a Sinaron W version.) I need the brighter focusing aperture since I'll be in fairly low light interiors. They gave me the option to buy it afterwards if I like it and can use it in the future.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

I like mine very much. I have been thinking about doing the same thing as you are proposing. My wonderful 90mm f/4.5 Grandagon-N has been sitting in a drawer. I don't do so much architectural work any more. No more color film, and the Nikkor will meet any needs I might have in that regard anyway. I had an older 90mm f/8 Fujinon which was also very nice, but like all of the rest of the f/6.8 or f/8 90s, the image circle was significantly smaller.

David, is the Grandagon-N sitting in the drawer because of any image quality issues or is it just because it is so big? None of the Rodenstock 90mm lenses are included in the Thalmann/Perez tests.

Edward

[EdSawyer]

Meerkat , do more research, the info is out there on why the 90/8 is better. I read it all did my tests too, and am convinced. Looking at the optical formulas will tell something, if you are familiar with lens design, too. There's a reason the 90/8 sells for as much or more than the 90/4.5 and size is not the only reason.