Comparison: 450mm f12.5 Fuji versus 450mm f9 Nikon M

[neil poulsen]

I just saw a 450mm f12.5 Fiji lens today. I was struck to see that it's mounted in a Copal 1 shutter. So, I'm wondering how the Fuji lens and the Nikon 450mm f9 M Nikkor lenses compare? I know that the Fuji has a modestly large image circle. But, the Nikon is faster.

[Carsten Wolff]

I liked either when I had them. I did like the Fuji a bit better, probably mostly because of the smaller shutter and me traveling a fair bit with LF. These two lenses have been compared a lot; I don't really have anything else to add, other than I also used the Fuji as a small 765mm lens with a teleconverter with good results. I ended up selling both as I don't use long lenses much. [I still have a fairly cheap, but stellar 15" Wolly tele (favoured even over the great 14" Commercial-Ektar), which I use e.g. for 5x7" sessions when not abroad.]

[gregmo]

I can't comment specifically on the 450's, but I do own a Nikon 300 M and Fuji 600 T F12. With the Fuji shutter, I don't care for the fact that I need to open the copal's dark slide each time to cock it and then close it before taking the shot. It adds one more step and no other lens I own requires me to do that.

[Kevin Crisp]

I've been really impessed with the Fuji, but have never compared it head to head with the Nikon. I once forgot to shut down the aperture on the Fuji and was amazed to find the overexposed negative sharp edge to edge at infinity when wide open.

[Jim Becia]

I just saw a 450mm f12.5 Fiji lens today. I was struck to see that it's mounted in a Copal 1 shutter. So, I'm wondering how the Fuji lens and the Nikon 450mm f9 M Nikkor lenses compare? I know that the Fuji has a modestly large image circle. But, the Nikon is faster.

Neil,

I have and use both lenses. However, the Nikkor is in my 8x10 pack and the Fuji is with my 4x5/5x7 pack. I find both of them to be sharp as a tack. I went with the Nikkor for the 8x10 because I wanted a brighter image on the ground glass. With the Fuji on the 4x5/5x7, the slower lens does not seem to equate to a darker image because the light seems to hit the ground glass straight on but it certainly is a little darker on the 8x10. I picked the Nikkor up at KEH as "bargain" and the price was right so I did not hesitate to get it. The Nikkor is certainly bigger. Both are great lenses.

[Drew Wiley]

My 450 Fuji is one of my most used lenses for 8x10. Never had a problem with the small max aperture with regard to either composition or focus. I use it quite a bit
on my 4x5 Norma too, since that has plenty of rail and bellows extension. I'l like to own a 450M too, since it's the only one of the M series I don't have, but due to
its bigger shutter and wt, would probably use it only on 8x10. I imagine the Fuji's are going to steepen in price, since they have just recently been discontinued from
mfg and do comprise a unique niche in terms of compactness for this kind of focal length. The Nikkors seem a lot more common at the moment.

[David Karp]

I have had both. I used the Nikkor on 4x5 and got some nice images with it. It is small for a 450mm, but the Fuji is so much smaller and easier to handle. I sold the Nikkor and replaced it with the Fuji. I use it way more than I ever thought I would on 4x5, and also use it for 5x7 and Whole Plate. The Fuji is sharp. So was the Nikkor. I never had a problem focusing either lens on 4x5. I don't have a problem with the Fuji in the larger sizes. I highly recommend that little Fujinon. I really like it.

And by the way, Carsten's great tip on using a Fuji teleconverter screwed on to the front filter threads of the Fuji works great. I saw a post he made on this trick years ago and bought one of them from KEH. It was cheap, the optical performance is good, and I got some really nice WP negs made with the combo. Thanks Carsten!

[David Karp]

I made a mistake. It is an Olympus teleconverter.

[Steve Hamley]

Never had the Nikkor, but you cannot go wrong with the Fuji. Incredibly sharp, small shutter, and just a wonderful lens. One of my faves on every format.

Cheers, Steve

[Carsten Wolff]

I have had both. I highly recommend that little Fujinon. I really like it.
And by the way, Carsten's great tip on using a Fuji teleconverter screwed on to the front filter threads of the Fuji works great. I saw a post he made on this trick years ago and bought one of them from KEH. It was cheap, the optical performance is good, and I got some really nice WP negs made with the combo. Thanks Carsten!

Thanks, David, I'm glad you got some good results as well.
I now do miss the Fuji a bit actually; its more than just a smidgen smaller than my current glass, too. Nothing wrong with the Nikkor of course: Either works.

[David Karp]

Carsten,

The 450/teleconverter combo eliminated any desire I had for a Fuji 600 C. That is good too. For my wallet. :-)

[Drew Wiley]

I doubt a tele-converter would ever give optical performance anywhere near as good as a prime less, if that is important to you. That Fuji 600C is certainly sweet.

[Carsten Wolff]

I doubt a tele-converter would ever give optical performance anywhere near as good as a prime less, if that is important to you. That Fuji 600C is certainly sweet.


....I was waiting for that :)

[Daniel Stone]

I love my 450C. So light, yet super sharp. A "staple" lens in my 5x7 lens bag, and one of the most used in the lineup.

Had the Nikkor(actually, have owned 2 of them). Both were splendid for 8x10 AND 4x5(using a Calumet C1 for both). A strong front standard is recommended(well I'd recommend that at least).

-Dan

[neil poulsen]

Thanks for all the responses. What's a fair price for a Fuji? The one I saw is selling for $1100. In writing this, I was wondering about selling my Nikon 450mm M to get the Fuji 450C.

[Jim Cole]

Thanks for all the responses. What's a fair price for a Fuji? The one I saw is selling for $1100. In writing this, I was wondering about selling my Nikon 450mm M to get the Fuji 450C.

Neil,

If it's worth about $400 bucks to you for the weight savings, then I would say yes. I don't think you'll gain anything more.

[Drew Wiley]

It's not just the tote weight that counts. Given a bit of a breeze, a long bellows extension, and a less than rock-solid front standard on a 4x5, and it can make the
difference between a blurred shot and a crisp one. Most 8x10's have inherently more mass to handle the difference in lens weight and potential shutter vibration.
Most field 4x5's don't.

[sanking]

I just saw a 450mm f12.5 Fiji lens today. I was struck to see that it's mounted in a Copal 1 shutter. So, I'm wondering how the Fuji lens and the Nikon 450mm f9 M Nikkor lenses compare? I know that the Fuji has a modestly large image circle. But, the Nikon is faster.


BTW, that is not correct about the image circle. The image circle of the 450M is in fact much larger than that of the 450 Fujinon C. I owned and used both of these lenses on 12X20 some years back. The 450C would barely cover the format, the 450M covered with many inches to spare. In fact, I even used the 450M on 20X24" format. You had to close down to f/64 or f/90 to get contact print quality on the extreme corners, but you would not come close to that with the 450C.

So for any kind of ULF work the 450M has a big advantage in coverage from my experience. And I remember from conversations with Dick Arentz that he also highly recommended the 450M for 7X17 and 12X20 work.

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

Guess it depends on your expectations. The M design in general seems to have way more practical coverage well-stopped down than the published specs, but the
quality of the corners certainly suffers at a certain point... and what constitutes acceptable resolution differs in contact printing from enlargement. I don't shoot any
format larger than 8x10, so can't realistically address the ULF question, but the 450C has loads of spare coverage for 8x10, although one has to be careful about edge resolution with extreme front tilts or swings (rarely an issue). Guess I'll know better when I get ahold of a 450M myself....it's still on my wish list.

[sanking]

Guess it depends on your expectations. The M design in general seems to have way more practical coverage well-stopped down than the published specs, but the
quality of the corners certainly suffers at a certain point... and what constitutes acceptable resolution differs in contact printing from enlargement. I don't shoot any
format larger than 8x10, so can't realistically address the ULF question, but the 450C has loads of spare coverage for 8x10, although one has to be careful about edge resolution with extreme front tilts or swings (rarely an issue). Guess I'll know better when I get ahold of a 450M myself....it's still on my wish list.

Drew,

Yes, you do have to stop down the 450M a lot to get decent image quality on the corners of 20X24, and no question it would not be good enough for enlargement without some creative sharpening.

But think about this, 450mm is real wide on 20X24. Nothing else of modern vintage comes close to covering 20X24 at that focal length. In fact, even in the vintage world the only lens that covers as well would be one of those Series IV or V Protars. And those lenses fly to Asia at 3X-4X the going price of a 450M. At one time I owned one of those long Series IV or V Protars and frankly it was a dog compared to the 450M.

All considered the 450M is one of the current grand bargains in lenses for LF and ULF.

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

I certainly hope I can either purchase or horse trade for one of 'em while they're still common.... but other expenses take priority at the moment. The M's are certainly the apogee of tessar design.

[Ray Van Nes]

I will throw something else into the mix. I just picked up a Schneider Repro -Claron 420mm from ebay for $310. Yes, it is slightly shorter but it is coated, very sharp , compact and in my case quite affordable. It is about half the price of the Nikkor and a quarter of the Fuji. The other two are very fine lenses but this might be worthy of consideration in your quest.
Cheers

[Drew Wiley]

Well ... there's also the 450 Apo Nikkor.... incredibly sharp, reasonably lightwt, affordable, and from my casual testing, seems to have lots of coverage on 8x10, but
you'd have to add a shutter. I use it routinely for enlarging, but have fiddled with it on my view cameras just for fun.

[Thom Bennett]

I have a Nikon 450mm Q model that I intend to use on the 11x14. Got it a little cheaper than the M versions that were out there and I assume that the specs are close if not the same.

[Drew Wiley]

The Q is simply the single-coated predecessor to the M. The Fuji L series is similar, which includes a 420; but these are somewhat heavier due to thicker glass
elements - some people prefer them for portrait work, because, while sharp, they aren't quite as hard-sharp or high-contrasty as M's.

[neil poulsen]

BTW, that is not correct about the image circle. The image circle of the 450M is in fact much larger than that of the 450 Fujinon C. I owned and used both of these lenses on 12X20 some years back. The 450C would barely cover the format, the 450M covered with many inches to spare. In fact, I even used the 450M on 20X24" format. You had to close down to f/64 or f/90 to get contact print quality on the extreme corners, but you would not come close to that with the 450C.

So for any kind of ULF work the 450M has a big advantage in coverage from my experience. And I remember from conversations with Dick Arentz that he also highly recommended the 450M for 7X17 and 12X20 work.

Sandy

Sandy, This addresses my question. Thanks so much. I'd much rather trade weight and a little inconvenience for overall coverage. I have a 450mm M, and after looking at the specs, I was wondering if I should go for the 450mm C for the "additional" coverage. The specs on this site suggest that the 450mm C has 46mm of additional image circle. I bought the 450mm M for 2X to 3X enlarged 8x10 negatives.