Users of Nikkor-w 240mm and Fujinon 250 please step inside

[shadow images]

I am considering keeping either the Nikkor-w 240mm f5.6 or Fujinon 250mm f6.7. I do not have a camera right know to try out the nikkor but have used the fujinon in the past. Which would you chose to keep, size is not a concern.?

[JW Dewdney]

one stop faster = better compositions. what's to wonder about?

well 2/3 of a stop... close enough.

[Per Madsen]

The Fujinon 250mm 6.3 is another alternative, which is only 1/2 stop slower and in a Copal 1 shutter.

I have one, in the multi-coated version, which is razor sharp.

[shadow images]

Had one of fuji 6.3 too, didn't have enough movement. Right now I have the two listed and am considering keeping one thanks for the replies.

[Jim Becia]

I am considering keeping either the Nikkor-w 240mm f5.6 or Fujinon 250mm f6.7. I do not have a camera right know to try out the nikkor but have used the fujinon in the past. Which would you chose to keep, size is not a concern.?

Lyle,

Are you using the lens on 8x10? If so, I would probably keep the Fuji for the larger coverage. I have the 250 which is in a Copal 1 so it is a bit smaller shutter-wise. If 4x5 or 5x7, I would probably go with the faster Nikon. Just my thoughts. Jim

[Ari]

The Fuji's coverage is the reason I'd keep that over the Nikon.
Both are excellent performers, and the f6.7 aperture is not much different from f5.6 when composing on the GG.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I'd have trouble giving you a direct answer because I'm coveting one particular lens myself. In fact, it's the only lens I've ever had stolen. But my toy budget
is exhausted this month. Nonetheless, sell of that out-of-date worthless Fuji 6.7 as cheaply as possible. Nobdody will ever use it. 8x10 film is doomed anyway.

[ataim]

Nonetheless, sell of that out-of-date worthless Fuji 6.7 as cheaply as possible. Nobdody will ever use it. .

Shadow, don't let Drew's Jedi mind tricks work on you.

[Scott Davis]

I've had both the Fuji and the Nikon. The Nikon is big and heavy - A Copal 3 shutter vs. a Seiko (equivalent to a Copal #1 in size/weight). The Nikon is slightly brighter on the ground glass, but only slightly. The Fuji has a larger coverage circle, and it takes 67mm filters, whereas the Nikon takes an 82mm filter. There's a good $100+ difference in price for a polarizer for these two lenses... something to think about.

[shadow images]

Filter are also not a concern. I use a lee setup. Which of the lenses has better contrast?

[Bill McMannis]

I've had both the Fuji and the Nikon. The Nikon is big and heavy - A Copal 3 shutter vs. a Seiko (equivalent to a Copal #1 in size/weight). The Nikon is slightly brighter on the ground glass, but only slightly. The Fuji has a larger coverage circle, and it takes 67mm filters, whereas the Nikon takes an 82mm filter. There's a good $100+ difference in price for a polarizer for these two lenses... something to think about.

While I have no experience with that particular Fujinon, I have had the Nikon for about a decade. For filters, I purchased an 82mm to 77mm step down ring. I have a bag full of 77mm filters previously purchased for my 35mm kit. The step down ring, loosened a couple threads also works well with my Cokin P system. This kept my filter budget under control. Atleast when shooting 4x5 the coverage of the lends with the step down ring is more than adequate with no vignetting.

[kgm]

I haven't used the Fuji. I have the Nikkor W 240mm f5.6. I used it with my 8x10 for 15 years, and swore at it a lot and had to use some tricks to maximize coverage. It's useable for 8x10, but at least for architecture or anything requiring more than minimal rise it can be limiting. I use it now with my 4x5, and like it a lot more.

[frotog]

I inherited a fuji 250mm f6.7. Like DREW WILEY I was initially dismissive. But then I got the first batch of color negs back. The results don't lie.

You really need to do a comparison test, scan the film and do a side by side comparison. The flip advice of some yahoo on a forum is a dangerously stupid alternative to empirical evidence.