The Lens Ravings of a Quarantined Large Format Mind...

[Salmo22]

The Nikkor 300mm f/9 lens is currently the longest focal length in my 4x5 kit. Out of boredom, but with genuine interest, I’ve been doing some research on the Fujinon C 300mm f/8.5 lens. I note that on eBay the Fuji regularly fetches $200 to $300 more than its cousin, the Nikkor M 300mm f/9. I’ve wondered why? If folks pay more money for the Fuji, it must be better - right?

Besides the negligible .5 wider aperture, the most noticeable difference is that the Fuji appears to cover 380mm compared to the Nikkor’s 325mm. While this isn’t much of an issue for a 4x5 user like myself, I suspect it is a big deal for 8x10 shooters. It is my understanding that the Nikkor barely covers 8x10 without any movements, while the Fuji covers 8x10 with movements. I suspect this is why the Fuji fetches more $$$ than the Nikkor. Both are diminutive compared to their burly f/5.6 counterparts. I must admit to wondering why 8x10 users worry about the size/weight of their optics? The darn camera weighs a ton all by themselves. I guess every ounce counts - especially when backpacking? I currently subscribe to Edward Weston's belief that; “Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.”

As I researched this issue further, I started to notice online comments from large format photographers regarding a variety of "older" lens designs (i.e. Fuji, Nikkor, Zeiss, Goerz, etc) that have maximum apertures in the f/8, f/9, etc range. Lots of comments about these lenses having wonderful contrast and being razor sharp. While some of these lenses have multi-coating (Nikkor M), many are only single coated lenses. The f/5.6 lenses (Nikkor, Rodenstock, Schneider, etc) appear to have six elements and multi coating. The Nikkor M and Fuji A or C lenses typically have four elements and often single coating. As noted above, Nikkor M’s are multi-coated. While the f/5.6 six element multi-coated lenses are wonderful, they are also larger and heavier. At the moment, size and weight isn’t an issue for me. Maybe that will change?

Here is the $64 question; is it possible that these older design four element lenses have better contrast and are sharper than their more modern f/5.6 brethren? While multi-coating certainly helps with flare, how truly important is that if single or non-coated lenses truly have better contrast and acutance? I assume there are no perfect lenses and that all optical designs have compromises. Is it possible that more lens elements and more coating can impact contrast and/or sharpness?

Clearly a hair-splitting thought process. Please feel free to slap me around and educate me properly :rolleyes:

PS - The negatives I’ve made with my Nikkor M 300mm f/9 have shown wonderful contrast and acutance.

PSS - I shoot black and white film exclusively. Maybe if I shot color film and/or transparencies, the advantages of the more modern lens designs would be apparent.

[Jim Noel]

I won't attempt ot answer most of your questions but I can definitely tell you that as you age weight of equipment will be a problem which increases in significance. I began noticing this at 80 and it gradually increased as I passed 90. Enjoy photography and life while you can, and stay healthy.

[Two23]

I use 4x5, 8x10, and some 5x7. Coverage is a big deal with 8x10. I have the Nikon 300M and like it enough that I don't want to spend the money for the Fuji. The Fuji would also be trickier to use lens tilt with. The f5.6 lenses offer more speed and better correction. I tend to buy either historical lenses or modern lenses. I prefer multicoated modern lenses.


Kent in SD

[Oslolens]

I think you will find the biggest difference when working in tabletop sizes around 1:3 or 1:2. The larger f5.6 will come handy. Also if you find f8 is the right aperture ;) . I had a 210mm apo symmar for 4x5" once, sold it and was surprised to find the 240mm Symmar for 8x10" to be just as sharp in the middle at max aperture.

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Bernice Loui]

Real question is what are your print image goals?

Would be skeptical moving from the Nikor 300M to a Fuji 300C would make much if any significant or any difference in the finished print between these two on 4x5. Their taking apertures would be f16 and smaller. Rendering them both far more similar than different. The difference happens at 8x10 where the larger image circle is needed. On 4x5 the larger image circle is often a dis-advantage as the larger image circle sprays more stray light on to the bellows causing more internal flare light. This is one of the reasons why a larger lens image circle is not always better.

I'm not a fan of modern multi coated lenses like the Nikor 300M or Fujinon 300C in these focal lengths. Really more a preference than absolute. The 300mm / 12" lensed are divided into APO process like APO artar / APO ronar then wider aperture Tessar like Kodak Ektar or Commercial Ektar or Schneider Xenar. Taking aperture and image goals decide which lens type to use. All are in barrel used with Sinar shutter.

Suggest, don't get caught up in this splitting what lens is "best" stuff.


Bernice

[jp]

For B&W use, I don't think there is much difference between single coating and multicoating. Uncoated is a big difference that makes complex lenses impractical. A simple 3 element (or less) lens that's not coated is not a deal breaker.

[Salmo22]

I'm not trying to engage in a "best lens" debate and apologize if my initial post left that impression. My normal tendencies are to acquire the most modern large format lenses I can afford. As a professional shooter, my father was constantly upgrading with the belief it best served his clients. Some of that rubbed-off on me. However, as an amateur fine art photographer who is only seeking to please myself, I like to explore lens options (both old and new) that will give me excellent acutance and contrast.

[Oslolens]

Look at the mtf test done by Thalmann and Co. https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html#300mm_and_longer
All lenses are useful except the bad ones (damaged) and the ones used outside its limitations (6x9cm)

Sent fra min SM-G975F via Tapatalk

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, newer is not always "Better".. this is precisely why ending up with non-multi coated older lenses became the way.

Only way to know what meets your needs is to acquire several samples of the lens in question, test the ~Wee~ out of all (been there done this), then decide on what to keep based on you individual judgment of the lens results. All else is minced words and conjecture.



Bernice



I'm not trying to engage in a "best lens" debate and apologize if my initial post left that impression. My normal tendencies are to acquire the most modern large format lenses I can afford. As a professional shooter, my father was constantly upgrading with the belief it best served his clients. Some of that rubbed-off on me. However, as an amateur fine art photographer who is only seeking to please myself, I like to explore lens options (both old and new) that will give me excellent acutance and contrast.

[Drew Wiley]

The Fuji C 300 is just a bit less common than the Nikkor M, and that seems to dictate the difference in asking price. And it has a slightly larger image circle if 8x10 usage is contemplated, but is still not particularly generous in that respect. Both series of lenses are superb in my opinion, and I use examples of each in various focal lengths. The older single-coated version of the Nikkor tessar is the Q series, and the equivalent single-coated Fuji's are their L series, which a heavier thick-element tessar design. The newer multi-coated lenses will have slightly higher contrast, and are perhaps a miniscule amount sharper, but the minor difference in that respect is almost a non-issue in large format usage. Fuji L's are reputed to have a gentler rendering prized by portrait photographer, which does not imply a lack of sharpness, but a somewhat different personality of rendering which seems less harsh or clinical. But Kent is wrong if he thinks these lenses are not as well corrected as general purpose 5.6 plasmats. F/9 lenses tend to be better corrected because a compromise doesn't have to be made for a larger viewing aperture. But they're plenty bright for outdoor usage. And there's a lot of mythology about older "cult" lenses. The reason to use some of them is if you want the distinctive look that their optics and multi-bladed apertures provide. Some give a very nice out of focus rendition, some do not. In other cases, the image circle decides the choice; but that needs to be factored with tilts and so forth, tangentially, and not just head-on like the spec sheets tell you. The only complete answer is to buy one of everything, and then spend so much time dusting them off that you have no time left for photography itself, and voila, you have your own lens museum. As usual, overthinking this topic is counterproductive.

[drew.saunders]

In 2007, I was looking to get a 300mm lens for 4x5, and at the time, the Fujinon-C was cheaper than the Nikkor-M (not a lot). In addition, the Fujinon-C requires a slightly shorter flange focal distance, so was a better match for my then Tachihara, as I'd be able to focus a wee bit closer. I bought it from Badger in January 2007 for $695. Good thing I save emails! I have the 200/8 Nikkor-M, and it's probably my most used lens. Honestly, I've seen no difference in the quality of the results, both are excellent lenses.

[Drew Wiley]

The only six air/glass interfaces of the Nikkor M tessars, along with multicoating, give them the highest contrast and hue purity of any LF lenses I can think of with the single exception of the late Kern multicoated 14in. dagor, which had only four interfaces. But it's extremely difficult to translate such subtle distinctions into an actual color print, and for all practical purposes, nobody is likely to even detect a difference in results between a 300M and a 300C. One minor downside of Fuji C lenses is that they aren't great very close up (near macro), being infinity corrected, but neither are general-purpose plasmats.

[Bernice Loui]

Rather than over stress on the not worth over stressing about differences between modern lenses that are used at a taking aperture of f16 to f45..

f16 becomes the divide at these focal lengths of 7-1/2" (180_ish mm) to beyond 30" or 800+ mm.

For LF images (5x7_13x18cm) with a taking aperture of f4.5 to f16, lens choice will be a Tessar aka Schneider Xenar, Kodak Ektar, Heilar or similar. These are in barrel as the barrel lenses have a good round aperture, if you're going to use these lenses at these apertures (f4.5 or full aperture _ish) out of focus rendition is a good part of the reason why. To get there shutter speeds down to where the Sinar shutter is happy, apply as much neutral density filter as needed to achieve a reasonable shutter speed for the Sinar shutter.

For LF images with a taking aperture of f16 to f45, the lens choice will be a four element APO process four element air spaced Dialyte aka APO artar, APO Ronar and similar. Dagor is a oddity, which remains preferred for some images. This is also essentially a f16_ish taking lens with personality.
These will be everything in image "sharp" or perception of good focus which will be defined by f16 and smaller taking apertures.

While there are definitely differences in contrast rendition and all that amount these lenses, film, processing, print making all needs to be figured into the how finished print will be. Lens personality is just one facet of the print making whole.



Bernice

[Corran]

You'll notice Nikon being rather conservative with their IC specs and Fuji rather generous.

I don't have the Fuji but I do have the Nikon 300M, and on 8x10 have noticed plenty more IC available than the specs would have you think.

A similar situation - many consider the 450M to cover up to 16x20 despite the 440mm Nikon spec. I have used this lens myself on 8x20 and it covers more than well enough at typically-used apertures.

My guess considering this is that the Nikon and Fuji both have roughly equal image circles.

[Duolab123]

203561

[Duolab123]

203563

This is what I have my 450 M on. Magnificent lens, if you have the bellows for it. I'm not any great artist but it's loads of fun. I picked up a nice 300 M for my 8X10 folder to use in the field, 52mm filters, straight on no significant camera adjustments. I have yet to make a single exposure with the 300.

[Vaughn]

I like my 5.6 lenses, although some up to 6.7 (150mm to 360mm). I am in low light situations for many of my images and the having twice as much light as an f8 lens is nice. That said, I have managed to use f/11 lenses under the redwoods when I have wanted to. Sharpness, contrast, and signatures I will leave up to you and others. I enjoyed my 4x5 enlargements to 16x20 using a 150mm/5.6, but that was a long time ago.

[Duolab123]

Closest thing to Redwoods we have here are Eastern Red Cedar. The only large examples left are in very old church yards in eastern Iowa. I'm not sure how old these trees get to be and are nothing even remotely large, these cedars are quite beautiful, some quite huge by midwestern standards. I've only spent a few days among the California Redwood forests. I've never been more inspired. I can't think of a more lovely place to be than in a forest.

Too bad more old growth trees were not set aside. Everywhere.

[Vaughn]

Closest thing to Redwoods we have here are Eastern Red Cedar. The only large examples left are in very old church yards in eastern Iowa. I'm not sure how old these trees get to be and are nothing even remotely large, these cedars are quite beautiful, some quite huge by midwestern standards. I've only spent a few days among the California Redwood forests. I've never been more inspired. I can't think of a more lovely place to be than in a forest. Too bad more old growth trees were not set aside. Everywhere.

The Western Red Cedar forests I have hiked through on the west side of the WA Cascades come close to the redwoods. Depending on the opening of the National Parks, I am planning a backpack into the redwoods in June...I'll take the the 5x7 most likely. Two images from where I want to go (4x5 carbon and 5x7 platinum)...

[Duolab123]

The Western Red Cedar forests I have hiked through on the west side of the WA Cascades come close to the redwoods. Depending on the opening of the National Parks, I am planning a backpack into the redwoods in June...I'll take the the 5x7 most likely. Two images from where I want to go (4x5 carbon and 5x7 platinum)...

Those are beautiful, I've got to get out, there's a rural cemetery near by that have a few virgin red cedars. Unfortunately, Iowa has the least undisturbed native grounds (I've been told) of any state due to row crop farming.
I'm too old to be backpacking, but we got some great old forgotten graveyards etc. I've got to try carbon printing sometime. I know a local instructor, I have everything I would need.
I love contact prints, especially smaller ones. I think 5x7 is a wonderful size. I still have dbl. Weight Azo, and plenty of fresh Fomalux.
Best Regards Mike

[Alan Klein]

The Nikkor 300mm f/9 lens is currently the longest focal length in my 4x5 kit. Out of boredom, but with genuine interest, I’ve been doing some research on the Fujinon C 300mm f/8.5 lens. I note that on eBay the Fuji regularly fetches $200 to $300 more than its cousin, the Nikkor M 300mm f/9. I’ve wondered why? If folks pay more money for the Fuji, it must be better - right?

Besides the negligible .5 wider aperture, the most noticeable difference is that the Fuji appears to cover 380mm compared to the Nikkor’s 325mm. While this isn’t much of an issue for a 4x5 user like myself, I suspect it is a big deal for 8x10 shooters. It is my understanding that the Nikkor barely covers 8x10 without any movements, while the Fuji covers 8x10 with movements. I suspect this is why the Fuji fetches more $$$ than the Nikkor. Both are diminutive compared to their burly f/5.6 counterparts. I must admit to wondering why 8x10 users worry about the size/weight of their optics? The darn camera weighs a ton all by themselves. I guess every ounce counts - especially when backpacking? I currently subscribe to Edward Weston's belief that; “Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.”

As I researched this issue further, I started to notice online comments from large format photographers regarding a variety of "older" lens designs (i.e. Fuji, Nikkor, Zeiss, Goerz, etc) that have maximum apertures in the f/8, f/9, etc range. Lots of comments about these lenses having wonderful contrast and being razor sharp. While some of these lenses have multi-coating (Nikkor M), many are only single coated lenses. The f/5.6 lenses (Nikkor, Rodenstock, Schneider, etc) appear to have six elements and multi coating. The Nikkor M and Fuji A or C lenses typically have four elements and often single coating. As noted above, Nikkor M’s are multi-coated. While the f/5.6 six element multi-coated lenses are wonderful, they are also larger and heavier. At the moment, size and weight isn’t an issue for me. Maybe that will change?

Here is the $64 question; is it possible that these older design four element lenses have better contrast and are sharper than their more modern f/5.6 brethren? While multi-coating certainly helps with flare, how truly important is that if single or non-coated lenses truly have better contrast and acutance? I assume there are no perfect lenses and that all optical designs have compromises. Is it possible that more lens elements and more coating can impact contrast and/or sharpness?

Clearly a hair-splitting thought process. Please feel free to slap me around and educate me properly :rolleyes:

PS - The negatives I’ve made with my Nikkor M 300mm f/9 have shown wonderful contrast and acutance.

PSS - I shoot black and white film exclusively. Maybe if I shot color film and/or transparencies, the advantages of the more modern lens designs would be apparent.

I think you need to get out a little and get some fresh air. :cool:

[Alan Gales]

It's all about the better bokeh that you get when shooting wide open with the Fuji. :rolleyes:

[Salmo22]

I think you need to get out a little and get some fresh air. :cool:

I could not agree more :o

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe the aperture needs to be opened up a little more before people can get through it and enjoy fresh.

[Salmo22]

Maybe the aperture needs to be opened up a little more before people can get through it and enjoy fresh.

:):):)

[Luis-F-S]

I think you need to get out a little and get some fresh air. :cool:

++1!