Schneider Symmar 360mm f/6.8 vs Nikon Nikkor-W 360mm f/6.5 vs Fujinon CM-W f/6.5

[zbvision]

Good afternoon Large Format connoisseurs,


I have been shooting 4x5 for the better part of 3 years on a Linhof Kardan - M with a Schneider-Kreuznach APO Symmar 210mm f/5.6. I love the setup, however I have grown tired of lugging around a monorail and I frequently create 16x20 inch enlargement prints in the darkroom in addition to 20x24 inch digital inkjet prints via scanned in negatives, so I decided to switch over to an 8x10 field camera in favor of greater "resolution" and lighter weight. I recently acquired a near mint Deardorff 8x10 View Camera from Japan, serial #7123, which was constructed sometime between 1992 and 1996 when L.F. Deardorff retired and closed off the Chicago line of production and his son moved the company to Athens, Tennessee. Since purchasing the camera, I've done tons of research on lenses, which led me to the list of comprehensive specifications for new large format lenses created by Michael K. Davis. Utilizing the descriptive details in the aforementioned list, I narrowed down my decision to three lenses. The Schneider Symmar 360mm f/6.8, Nikon Nikkor-W 360mm f/6.5 or Fujinon CM-W f/6.5.


I have a couple quick questions regarding these lenses. First, has any one of you been fortunate enough to test all three lenses, if so, which one produces overall superior image quality? My definition of image quality might be a little different than some, so let me explain. I am looking for the lens with the greatest reduction in ghosting/flaring in addition to the one that produces the sharpest negatives. Based off Michael's list I already know that the Nikon Nikkor-W allows for the greatest range of movements (rises/tilts). Non-factors in my decision are price and weight. I am solely asking for guidance based on performance only and would greatly appreciate any and all input.


I will attach Michael K. Davis' list below for reference. All three of these lenses border each other in three consecutive rows on this list:


https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html




Thank you all for your time, attention, and consideration to this matter :)


Have a blessed day,


Zach

[Greg]

Finding someone who has experience shooting with the three lenses you listed, I dare say, should be challenging. Here is my experience with the Nikkor and two similar lenses on my 11x14:
350mm (14 inch) f/7.7 Goertz Double-Anastigmat
355mm f/9 G-Claron
360mm f/6.5 Nikkor-W
The Goertz has the most coverage. Since it is not multi-coated by any degree, I tend not to use it in direct sunlight. To me the G-Glaron covers more than 444mm at f/22. Nikkor is the best overall performer in my opinion. To me the difference between f/9 and f/6.5 is more than you would think, especially when focusing near the edges of the negative. Nikkor has more overall uniform sharpness across the format than the G-Claron. Now, since I contact print or make digital negatives to contact print from, in practice all three lenses produce excellent negatives for me.

[zbvision]

Finding someone who has experience shooting with the three lenses you listed, I dare say, should be challenging. Here is my experience with the Nikkor and two similar lenses on my 11x14:
350mm (14 inch) f/7.7 Goertz Double-Anastigmat
355mm f/9 G-Claron
360mm f/6.5 Nikkor-W
The Goertz has the most coverage. Since it is not multi-coated by any degree, I tend not to use it in direct sunlight. To me the G-Glaron covers more than 444mm at f/22. Nikkor is the best overall performer in my opinion. To me the difference between f/9 and f/6.5 is more than you would think, especially when focusing near the edges of the negative. Nikkor has more overall uniform sharpness across the format.


Hi Greg,

Thank you for your swift reply. I appreciate your insight. One more quick question, I always read about people referring to 360mm lenses being on a bigger format (11x14 or 12x20) than what I would be using the lens on, so does that mean that the 360mm focal length is not considered a "normal" focal length for the 8x10 format? Based on Michael K. Davis' list, the 360mm focal length on an 8x10 view camera equates to a 50mm focal length on a 35mm camera. That being said, do you know which focal length is considered a more "normal, true to the eye" focal length for the 8x10 format, 360mm or 300mm? I've read conflicting reports regarding the 300mm, some say it equates to a 42mm on a 35mm camera, while others say 45mm. I mainly shoot portraits outside of the studio in addition to landscape photography. I do occasionally dabble in tabletop/studio photography, so I am looking for a lens that has the most coverage on an 8x10 camera and is the most versatile in its use.


All the best,


Zach

[Greg]

Zach,
You bring up an interesting topic as to what lenses are considered to be a "normal" focal lengths for different formats. My definition of a "normal" lens is the one I take with me when I am carrying only a one lens with my camera. This very much differs from how most people define a "normal" lens. My "normal" lens for 8x10 is 300mm. My "normal" lens for 11x14 is a 508mm f/7 Caltar. It's just the way I learned to see with each of these formats.
Greg

[pepeguitarra]

Human Eye Angle of View:

Studies have measured the cone of visual attention and found it to be about 55 degrees wide. On a 35mm full frame camera, a 43mm lens provides an angle of view of 55 degrees, so that focal length provides exactly the same angle of view that we humans have. I don't think they make lenses with a 55 degree angle, except one by Pentax 43mm f1.9, both for Pentax and for Leica.

If a lens with the angle of view of 55 degrees covers the 163mm (diagonal of the 4x5 film) with a focal length of 150mm, a lens with the same 55 degrees of angle of view will need to have 312mm of focal length to cover the 325mm (diagonal of the 8x10 film). That is without movements. Since you want to have some movement, that is the diagonal, which is the diameter of the image circle of the lens, must be larger. Then, the focal length can be shorter. That is why they say anything between 135mm and 180mm is "normal" (remember, each lens has a different angle of view). Same with the 8x10, the normal would be anything from 300mm to 350mm. That would depend on every lens angle of view (for a better term), only Pentax made a lens with the 55 degrees. Most are narrower or wider. That is, using my pencil and my old trigonometry. ;)

[Bernice Loui]

Read this previous discussion about "sharpness":
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?118181-Are-Photographer-s-Obsessed-With-Sharpness-but-blind-to-the-bigger-picture/page2&highlight=8x10

As for flare/ghosting, a GOOD lens shade can make a BIG difference in flare reduction. What works against flare reduction is an over sized image circle as the stray light produced by a over sized image circle will bounce off the bellows interior resulting in stay light and... flare recorded on film.

As for 360mm Nikkor W, Symmar S to APO, Fujinon CM, they are more similar than different due to their design and modern production process.

One of the highest contrast lenses of this focal length made in production would be the Schneider 14" (355mm) f8 multi-coated Dagor. High contrast is not the same a sharpness. High sharpness is not the same as high contrast. There is a symbiotic balance between these two factors and much more that makes a desirable lens.


Bernice






I am looking for the lens with the greatest reduction in ghosting/flaring in addition to the one that produces the sharpest negatives.

Zach

[Oren Grad]

...so does that mean that the 360mm focal length is not considered a "normal" focal length for the 8x10 format? Based on Michael K. Davis' list, the 360mm focal length on an 8x10 view camera equates to a 50mm focal length on a 35mm camera. That being said, do you know which focal length is considered a more "normal, true to the eye" focal length for the 8x10 format, 360mm or 300mm? I've read conflicting reports regarding the 300mm, some say it equates to a 42mm on a 35mm camera, while others say 45mm.

In a technical sense, strictly speaking, "normal" means equivalent to the format diagonal. For 8x10 that's about 310mm for the actual exposed area, with minor variation across film holders. 300 or 305 is the closest you'll find. 360 could be considered a "long normal".

Generations of photographers have been confused by the fact that 35mm cameras were long sold with a 50mm as the standard lens. The diagonal for the 35mm format is 43.3mm, so 50 is actually well on the long side of normal.

On the other hand, from a user's perspective, "normal" can be whatever most closely matches the way *you* see and with which you are most comfortable for regular use. In this sense, my own normal for 8x10 is 270mm. But yours could easily be different. Ask around here and you'll find many different preferences for a standard or "normal" focal length.

[blue4130]

The problem for me comes from trying to do "equivalent" when the aspect ration is so different. How can you compare a 3:2 and a 5:4 or a panoramic 6x17?

[pepeguitarra]

.... "normal" can be whatever most closely matches the way *you* see and with which you are most comfortable for regular use.
\
I think this is the most important part of deciding. In 35mm, I shot almost all the time in 35mm focal length, and in 4x5, I usually use the 135mm. I am not sure about 8x10 because my camera has not arrived yet, but I am going to start with the G-Claron 305/9.

[Bob Salomon]

“I have a couple quick questions regarding these lenses. First, has any one of you been fortunate enough to test all three lenses, if so, which one produces overall superior image quality? My definition of image quality might be a little different than some, so let me explain. I am looking for the lens with the greatest reduction in ghosting/flaring in addition to the one that produces the sharpest negatives.”

Then you should have a good look at the Apo Sironar S as well!

[Neal Chaves]

I worked extensively with the 355mm f9 G-Claron starting in the early 1980s when pundits claimed it was a process lens and not corrected for infinity. Maybe it is but the results looked good to me so I was happy to use it. It replaced the 375mm Caltar (Commercial Ektar) I had been using and was definitely superior, in a modern Copal 3 shutter and more convenient. I was doing some commercial work in color and also making my own Cibachromes and found that the color rendition of German lenses was quite different to that of Japanese glass so I standardized my lens set on Japanese lenses and replaced the G-Claron with a 360mm 6.3 Fujinon W. I have Nikkors and Fujinons in other focal lengths and I am sure I could not exceed the performance capabilities of any of them. Now I am not so concerned with critical color matching between lenses and use the German Super Angulon, Tele Arton and Imagon as well.

[John Kasaian]

I'd consider 12" to 14" normal on an 8x10.
However I've no experience with the lenses you're considering.
IMHO, for 1:1 table top photography you'll need honkin' long bellows if you want to go with a 360mm lens.

[Bernice Loui]

What is a "Normal" lens?

Common photographic definition is a lens used for a particular film-imager format that produces a perspective with near to far objects similar to identical to how the naked human eye renders these near to far objects. The other common metric is using the diagonal of the film-imager format. Normal lens equivalents across film-imager formats is often mixed. One better way would be to view the given lens for a given film-imager format and consider it's rendition of near to far object rendition on the ground glass then resulting print image produced.


As for color rendition of lenses, there are differences in how lenses render color. German lenses are different than French lenses are different from Japanese lenses are different from US of A made lenses. Back in the days when LF color could be done and common, it was common practice to purchase a set of color matched lenses from one brand. Then apply color correction ( cc filters) to adjust and fine tune the overall color rendition for film production lot, processing lab, lighting, printing and more..

Those days are essentially gone now.


There are also differences in contrast rendition, out of focus behavior and a LOT more making the idea-belief there is one lens that is better than the rest... kind of irrelevant. There is only the lens that works well for an Artist-Photographer's image making needs, nothing more, nothing less.



Bernice

[Pfsor]

Once again, simple means can answer the OP better than anything else. Make yourself a viewing frame for the film format you're interested in and you will be able to compare and find seamlessly any lens FL you're interested in. You can then decide for yourself what angle of view of what a FL is more "normal" than the other ones. Chances are you will find that the normality you're looking for cannot be defined down to millimetres as it is usually discussed about.
Also, a good lens shade can change a lens flare performance in such a dramatical way that the usual experience with them shadeless can be thrown out of the window right away. Fortunately, at least some of us know it (Bernice).

[Peter De Smidt]

Or a viewfinder app for your phone.

[chassis]

Normal is subjective. Human vision is binocular so the scene captured is more than what is calculated from the optical design of the human eye. A practical experiment for this is to mount a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera and sit across the breakfast table from a companion. Then do the same with a 35mm lens mounted. For me the 35mm lens on a 35mm camera is the natural or “normal” focal length for that format. 50mm on 6x7 and 100-120mm on 4x5 appeal to me as well.

“Normal” as used by photographic equipment manufacturers is code for a middle focal length lens that is not quite wide and not quite long, and generates a fair a pint of lens sales.

[Bob Salomon]

Normal is subjective. Human vision is binocular so the scene captured is more than what is calculated from the optical design of the human eye. A practical experiment for this is to mount a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera and sit across the breakfast table from a companion. Then do the same with a 35mm lens mounted. For me the 35mm lens on a 35mm camera is the natural or “normal” focal length for that format. 50mm on 6x7 and 100-120mm on 4x5 appeal to me as well.

“Normal” as used by photographic equipment manufacturers is code for a middle focal length lens that is not quite wide and not quite long, and generates a fair a pint of lens sales.

What about all of those 35mm cameras that did not accept interchangeable lenses? They outsold ones with interchangeable lenses!

[Pere Casals]

Normal is subjective. For me the 35mm lens on a 35mm camera is the natural or “normal” focal length for that format.

IMHO, being it subjective, it is more around 50mm and than around 35mm.

We may consider that the we have a good resolving power in the center, because of the Fovea, but a way worse resolving power in the periphery.

We may also feel that our field of view is determined by the movement of the eye exploring the scene with our fovea, without moving the head... Just consider how you explore an image, ...and what happens when you have to move the head if being too close to a big image or object...

As many other things YMMV...

[Bernice Loui]

Errrr, not quite. While human vision is stereoscopic (binocular) which grants depth perception, that is NOT what happens when the stereoscopic (3D) image is flatted on to a flat image (2D).

Lens choice is much about perspective and size of objects perceived front -vs- back irrelevant to human stereoscopic vision and learning how to see what once was stereoscopic then flattened on to a 2D image. This is also where many image makers fail to understand why lens focal length have the resulting image they produce as a 2D print image.

Film and video directors use a Directors View finder that has constant variable effective focal length and variable format ratios to set up how the image will be recorded, lens focal lengths to be used, camera and lighting position, camera moves and more.

For still image making, the visual skill becomes learning how to see in 2D with a given lens focal length and camera position in ways that the flat 2D print might be.


Bernice




Normal is subjective. Human vision is binocular so the scene captured is more than what is calculated from the optical design of the human eye.