After a bit of the usual research on the interweb, large format forum, browsing brochures, MTF's, and wotnot I'm no closer to sussing out which 240mm and 300mm lenses would suit me.
I mainly do landscape on 5x7. I like movements so tele lenses are out. I have bellows extension up to 500mm. I'm not a weedy bloke so lugging heavy lenses into the field isn't a problem. The lenses would also need to be multi-coated (had issues with single coated lenses in the past so I wish to avoid them). In these lenses I would be looking for consistency of (high) resolution across the film plane above all but would like to know about the usual illumination and distortion across the field, and colour fidelity. My technique also requires that the lens performs extremely well at f5.6 - f11(ish).
From the last sentence you may think that I would be interested in one of the f5.6 lenses from any of the big four. However, I would be interested in how these larger lenses perform against their smaller apertured brethren. If the performance of the f5.6 lenses turns out to be 'average' in the range f5.6 to f11(ish) then I'll consider the lighter lenses, all else being equal.
However, am I correct in thinking that while the Fujinon A (and C?) and the Nikkor-M are small, light and by all accounts sharp enough, these perform better at close ranges rather than infinity because they are effectively process lenses? This was my impression of the Fujinon-A 240mm - sharp on close objects up to say 1:20 but at infinity it was average. In this respect, would the heavier lenses be better?
I don't hear much about the heavier lenses so I would be interested in hearing people's impressions in the field of Fujinon's CM, Nikon's W range as well the those from Rodenstock and Schneider given the remit in the second paragraph. I may also be looking at something in the 450 to 480mm range as well (Schneider's Apo-symmar 480mm appeals to me).
Sorry for the lengthy post.
Many thanks
Steve.
Bookmarks