Looking to add a "lighter" 300 to cover 8x10

[Jim Becia]

OK,

I have been doing some research and still have a few questions. I currently shoot mostly 8x10 and my normal lens is a Fuji 300 CM-W in a Copal 3 shutter. It weighs in at a little over 2#. I sometimes hike with my 8x10 all day, and all my lenses tend to be on the heavy side. Of course they also tend to have great coverage. I have been thinking about a 3 lens set that would be "lightweight." (The Nikkor 150 would probably get left behind in this setup as it is no small lens even though it is in a Copal 1. It still weighs in at 2.3#.) My current Fuji 210 seems pretty decent in terms of weight and I do have a Fuji 450 that I can grab in lieu of the Nikkor 450. The 300 is the heavyweight that I need to replace, at least for those times of being away from the car.

My research shows: that the Fuji 300C has 380mm of coverage at f22.
the Nikkor 300M has 325mm of coverage at f22.
and the G Claron has 381mm of coverage at f22.

So, does that mean that the G Claron and Fuji will have still greater coverage when stopped down to f32 and f45 (which are going to be fairly common f stops when using 8x10?) My research shows that Nikon is conservative in their coverage, but I am not sure how that translates to f32 and f45. I don't have the lenses to try so I am hoping that I can get some help in this matter. Looking for something in a modern copal shutter that is smaller than my Fuji, but just as sharp and with coverage that comes close. Thanks. Jim

[koh303]

There is also the Geronar 300mm F9 which is not as small as the fuji C, but is lighter then the other 2.

[Erik Larsen]

Looks like you picked some reasonable choices Jim. I use a 305 graphic Kowa and it is a nice lens. I did the same as you are thinking and swapped my 300 5.6 Fuji for the graphic Kowa. It's smaller and covers 11x14 but is f9 so not as bright but I haven't notice a problem. Same can be said of the 305 computar.

[William Whitaker]

My 300mm f/6.3 Caltar is still listed in the F/S section. It weighs approx. 0.8 pounds on my digital shipping scale. Not a "prestige" lens, but still capable.

[vinny]

I've used the g claron on 8x10 for a decade or so. Lots of coverage, not that heavy.
I had the 300M when I shot 4x5 and wanted something with more coverage and resolution for close up work.

[John Kasaian]

I can't offer a comparison but I can say that the G Clarons are a joy to use. My "lightweight going for a hike 8x10 lens" is a 240 G Claron. I do have a 300M on an aerial camera and it is spectacular when shot wide open. As far as coverage with the 300M, I can't comment because it has never been on the snout of the 'dorff

[Leszek Vogt]

Would 5.6 C. Zeiss *S*Tessar work ? I don't know the specs, but it looks small. PM me...if you would.

Les

[Eric Leppanen]

Best compromise of light weight and coverage that I know of is the Fuji 300A f/9: 420mm image circle at f/22, weighs 410 grams in a Copal 1 shutter. They have been long discontinued but copies still show up for sale from time to time. Over the years I have owned two multi-coated copies of this lens; they were adequate performers (to my eyes the Nikon 300M was sharper but has far less coverage), but some folks swear by them.

[Oren Grad]

Of the lenses that have been mentioned, I have the Geronar and the 305 G-Claron. The Geronar is lighter - it's a triplet, its weight is little more than that of the shutter alone - but the G-Claron has far larger coverage, especially stopped way down.

[Peter De Smidt]

Yes, both the G-claron and the Fuji will have increasing coverage as they are stopped down. The G-claron will hit about 80 degrees at F45.

[Jim Becia]

Yes, both the G-claron and the Fuji will have increasing coverage as they are stopped down. The G-claron will hit about 80 degrees at F45.

Peter,

I will show my ignorance here of lens coverage. So what does that mean in terms of coverage for the G-Claron at f45? Thanks. Jim

[Oren Grad]

So what does that mean in terms of coverage for the G-Claron at f45? Thanks. Jim

11x14 with some room for movement.

[angusparker]

I'd second the Fujinon A 300, great coverage and only a little heavier than the C or Nikkor M. Odd filter ring size though. I think it's 55mm if I remember. Certainly a lot less # than the CM-W.

[StoneNYC]

I find the Fujinon 300 C to be all I need on my 8x10, never found it lacking in any way. Great coverage, sharp as heck, I've thought of getting 2 just to have a backup while they are still clean and not scratched up from time and use, or been left in a molded environment from lens hoarders that don't use them and let them sit.

BUT the G-Clarion is tried and true so it's also a good choice and possibly more available to choose from.

[IanG]

My Agfa Ansco Commercial View came with a coated Goerz AM Opt 12" Dagor, it's a superb small lens with great performance and coverage. The downside is their price has been driven up in the past few year, I was lucky as the previous owner had never used it (it was bought new with the camera by the first owner) preferring a Nikon 300M and said the Dagor was too old and had separation, it did have many years of dirt pushed to the edges of the front element.

I also have a Nikon 300M but actually prefer the Dagor.

Ian

[Jim Becia]

I'd second the Fujinon A 300, great coverage and only a little heavier than the C or Nikkor M. Odd filter ring size though. I think it's 55mm if I remember. Certainly a lot less # than the CM-W.

Angus,

I though of this, and saw the most recent for sale on the FS section. Just a bit more than my budget will allow. Although I am certainly not ruling it out.

[Jim Becia]

I find the Fujinon 300 C to be all I need on my 8x10, never found it lacking in any way. Great coverage, sharp as heck, I've thought of getting 2 just to have a backup while they are still clean and not scratched up from time and use, or been left in a molded environment from lens hoarders that don't use them and let them sit.

BUT the G-Clarion is tried and true so it's also a good choice and possibly more available to choose from.

Stone,

I think at the moment, the 300C and G-Claron are at the top of the list. Maybe a Graphic-Kowa if one were to appear.

[Steve Goldstein]

Stone,

I think at the moment, the 300C and G-Claron are at the top of the list. Maybe a Graphic-Kowa if one were to appear.

Keep in mind that the 305mm Graphic-Kowa/Computar (and the 240mm and 270mm) require a Copal 3S shutter. That's probably not the direction you want to take if you're looking for less weight. My 240mm GK in shutter weighs 532 grams, the 305 could be a bit more. A 300mm Fujinon-C is ~275 grams and a 300mm Nikkor-M is ~290 grams.

[Peter De Smidt]

I have a 305 Graphic Kowa, which I don't use very often, but as Steve says, it's in a Copal 3s shutter.

[Jim Becia]

I have a 305 Graphic Kowa, which I don't use very often, but as Steve says, it's in a Copal 3s shutter.

Peter,

I did not realize it was in a Copal 3s shutter. I already have a lens (not a 305) in a Copal 3s shutter, and it is NOT a small shutter. Thanks for the info.

[StoneNYC]

Peter,

I did not realize it was in a Copal 3s shutter. I already have a lens (not a 305) in a Copal 3s shutter, and it is NOT a small shutter. Thanks for the info.

I didn't realize that either, though the GK's being added into shutters might fit the copal 1? My 210 GK is in a copal 1 but I've also seen them in copal 3 shutters, so, is it possible the person who added the shutter were being overly cautious? What about other shutters that might be physically between the two (I don't know about the less modern shutters, but just throwing it out there about like a Compur or Alphlex etc in case they made a lighter in-between) that would be lighter? But yes the fujinon 300 C is very nice.

[karl french]

The Fujinon C is the obvious choice here. And I happen to have one for sale :-)

[angusparker]

Angus,

I though of this, and saw the most recent for sale on the FS section. Just a bit more than my budget will allow. Although I am certainly not ruling it out.

I got mine for a lot less on the auction site. Probably will set you back around $200 more than the C. I have a C with a repaired filter ring and a slightly out of alignment iris which I would part with for a low price if your in interested......perfect glass.

[Ken Lee]

Arne Croell, one of our esteemed forum members, has tested several of the lenses being discussed here. Lens tests are not everything, but they can put some speculation to rest at times, particularly if someone claims that a particular design out-shines others by leaps and bounds (pardon the mixed metaphor).

See http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf.

[StoneNYC]

I got mine for a lot less on the auction site. Probably will set you back around $200 more than the C. I have a C with a repaired filter ring and a slightly out of alignment iris which I would part with for a low price if your in interested......perfect glass.

Got mine from a member for $600 with box hardly used, they go regularly for $450 on eBay, depends who you trust more, and how much that trust is worth to you.

[StoneNYC]

Arne Croell, one of our esteemed forum members, has tested several of the lenses being discussed here. Lens tests are not everything, but they can put some speculation to rest at times, particularly if someone claims that a particular design out-shines others by leaps and bounds (pardon the mixed metaphor).

See http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf.

Ken, I know that I'm really not a techie guy when it comes to some of the stuff, what do the numbers mean, I'm having trouble figuring out, there's no key that I see, are the higher numbers better or the lower numbers better?

Also sadly no info on the GK's

[Taija71A]

... What do the numbers mean?
__

Please 'Google'...

"Read and/or Understand MTF Charts"... And you will be all set! ;)
________

[StoneNYC]

__

Please 'Google'...

"Read and/or Understand MTF Charts"... And you will be all set! ;)
________

Oh forget it then, that stuff is like Greek to me, except I can actually read some Greek words... Thanks.

[Ken Lee]

what do the numbers mean, I'm having trouble figuring out, there's no key that I see, are the higher numbers better or the lower numbers better?

Higher is better. Line pairs per millimeter: a popular measure.

[Taija71A]

Oh forget it then, that stuff is like Greek to me...

Εντάξει .

[StoneNYC]

Εντάξει .

I should've clarified that I can pronounce them, doesn't mean that I know what they say lol

[StoneNYC]

Higher is better. Line pairs per millimeter: a popular measure.

Thanks! That helps! Makes sense now.

[David Karp]

Jim,

I can speak only about a Nikkor 300 M from experience, and that only up to Whole Plate size. I like it a lot. It has been years since I saw a thread on the subject, but I remember multiple threads comparing the Nikkor M with the Fujinon 300 C. If I remember correctly, there were many users experienced with both lenses who stated that the Nikkor's actual coverage is much greater than Nikon's specs. There were some who stated that the Nikkor M actually has more coverage than the Fujinon C. I have the similar 450mm Fujinon C and it is one of my favorite lenses. I don't think you could go wrong either way. It might be worth Googling the forum for those discussions.

I also have a 210mm Caltar II-E, which is the smaller cousin to the 300mm Geronar. Stopped down to f/16 or more, the 210mm gives good results. I would guess that the 300mm would be similar to the 210mm in that regard.

[Taija71A]

... Except i can actually read some greek words...


.... i should've clarified that i can pronounce them, doesn't mean that i know what they say.

Εντάξει = ok ;)