Fujinon A 240mm f/9 vs Nikkor M 200mm f/8

[Gundus]

Hi there,

I would like your opinion about these two lenses. I know both are lightweight, 52mm filter size, sharp..so I would like more information, about their image quality, performance, contrast, is there much difference in terms of focal length between a 240mm and a 200mm lense?...or why buy the Fuji instead of the Nikon or vice-versa?

I shoot more landscape, but also wanted a lens to perform nice job on portrait and some close up stuff...and be a copal #0 ;)

Thank you for your replys
All the best

[Ken Lee]

I have both and use both. They are both very good lenses. They both perform well at usual distances. The 240mm Fujinon A has more coverage but is 20% longer and thus gives images with a slightly different perspective than a 200mm lens.

Because almost all of my 4x5 photos has been made with lenses between 180 and 250mm, I am keenly aware of differences in perspective given by modest changes in focal length. As a result, I don't consider them interchangeable and have no plans to get rid of one in favor of the other.

If you must choose one, don't need the extra coverage and don't mind cropping a bit, you can use the 200mm and crop when necessary to make images equivalent to those made with a 240mm.

You can see some images made with a 240mm Fujinon A here (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/fujinona/), and some images made with a 200mm Nikkor M here (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/nikkor200m/index.php).

[Alan Gales]

Because almost all of my 4x5 photos has been made with lenses between 180 and 250mm, I am keenly aware of differences in perspective given by modest changes in focal length. As a result, I don't consider them interchangeable and have no plans to get rid of one in favor of the other.

;)

Ken, this statement really shows how different we all are and how lens focal lengths are truly a personal choice.

[Gundus]

Thank you Ken

[Doremus Scudder]

I'll chime in here too.

I agree completely with Ken; 200mm and 240mm lenses give a very different perspective. I, too, have both in my kit and wouldn't want to leave one home (unless I went with 200/300mm, which I do when traveling lightweight). For me, the 240mm fits into the "long" category while the 200mm is on the long side of "normal."

So I'll recommend you get both focal lengths, supplemented by a 135mm (and maybe a 90mm) on the wider end of things.

The Fuji A 240mm is a great performer and is a plasmat, which means good coverage. The Nikkor is a Tessar design and gives a bit less coverage, but still enough for 4x5 (216mm). Another lightweight and great performer in this class is the Ektar 203mm f/7.7. I've adapted mine to take 52mm filters. They show up more often for sale than the Nikkor 200mm, which seems to be rather rare on the market.

FWIW, for city work in Europe I usually carry 90mm, 135mm, 180mm, 210mm and 240mm. It's amazing how often I mount one of the latter three and then decide to change... There really is a difference in the perspectives between these rather close focal lengths, especially when the choices for camera position are limited (I hate setting up in the middle of busy streets).

When "landscaping" I usually carry (75mm) 90mm 135mm 203mm (240mm) and 300mm (the lenses in parentheses being left out when weight is an issue).

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[Gundus]

Yes it hepls :)

Thank you Doremus

[angusparker]

I agree with Ken 200 and 240 are very different in 4x5. I would add that if you want to stick with one brand for consistency of look you might also want to consider the Fujinon 180A and Nikkor 300M as counterparts instead. I own a set of the Nikkor Ms and Fujinon As. The Nikkors have more consistent filter ring sizes but weight a little more on the whole. Besides the 20mm FL difference they are quite comparable for 4x5 but the Fujinons have an edge if you want to use them in larger formats or need more radical movements.

[lbenac]

I agree with Ken 200 and 240 are very different in 4x5. I would add that if you want to stick with one brand for consistency of look you might also want to consider the Fujinon 180A and Nikkor 300M as counterparts instead. I own a set of the Nikkor Ms and Fujinon As. The Nikkors have more consistent filter ring sizes but weight a little more on the whole. Besides the 20mm FL difference they are quite comparable for 4x5 but the Fujinons have an edge if you want to use them in larger formats or need more radical movements.
I have the Fujinon 125/5.6 and the Nikkor-M 200/8 and 300/9.
I mostly take the 125 and 200 with me and almost never take the 300 out.
I have been considering getting a 180-A and 240-A to replace the Nikkor-M but never really got around to it as changing lenses always seems to end-up costing money instead of being a wash.
I feel that I would likely use the 240 focal lens a lot more than the 300 on my field camera and the Fujinon have a slightly different shutter with aperture control at the bottom so that I always fumble between the two. No bif deal in fact.
It is difficult to find any fault on the 200/8 or the 300/9.

Cheers,

Luc

[timparkin]

The 200 tessar has a beautiful look too it and is truly tiny. The look is one of the most identifiable features and so it really shines over the 240A when used at larger apertures (plasmats look a bit gritty - especially the the 5 blade copal shutter mine was mounted in). The 240 has huge coverage thought so if you want sharp images and lots of movement potential the 240A is probably the one to use. Paired up with a 180A and a 135 Sironar N you have a nice lens set (plus a 300M possibly)