Seeking 4x5 Lens Advice - Which Lens To Keep - Fujinon Or Nikkor 150mm 5.6

[hyatts3]

Helo everyone. I'm seeking some input. I've found myself with both a Nikkor W and a Fujinon W 150mm 5.6 lens (multi coated version). They're both in excellent condition and look nearly new to me. I have no need to keep both and I have no experience with either lens. If you had both of these and had to keep one and sell the other then which would you keep?

[Bernice Loui]

They would be nearly identical_same. Shutters accuracy, functional aspects, wear from being used are FAR more important than brand.

Pick your preferred brand tribal loyalty then move on. None of this will make one Narry bit O difference in the print results.


Bernice

[Alan9940]

Personally, I'd keep 'em both as you never know what application might arise someday whereby you'd want a 150. Prices for used analog photo equipment continue to rise as the years pass so, if you sold one, then someday wanted another 150 for some reason you'd probably wind up paying more to replace the one you had. Just sayin...

[Bob Salomon]

Helo everyone. I'm seeking some input. I've found myself with both a Nikkor W and a Fujinon W 150mm 5.6 lens (multi coated version). They're both in excellent condition and look nearly new to me. I have no need to keep both and I have no experience with either lens. If you had both of these and had to keep one and sell the other then which would you keep?
Why not shoot with both and decide which you prefer?

[hyatts3]

They would be nearly identical_same. Shutters accuracy, functional aspects, wear from being used are FAR more important than brand.

Pick your preferred brand tribal loyalty then move on. None of this will make one Narry bit O difference in the print results.


Bernice

I was wondering if this might be the case. The only differences I've been told otherwise were that the Fuji has a larger image circle and "is a 6/6 air spaced lens and the nikkor a 6/4 plasmat. Fuji split the plasmat design apart as they deemed it to be sharper this way." I admit that, while I understand this means the elements are laid out differently, it means means nothing to me practically speaking.


Personally, I'd keep 'em both as you never know what application might arise someday whereby you'd want a 150. Prices for used analog photo equipment continue to rise as the years pass so, if you sold one, then someday wanted another 150 for some reason you'd probably wind up paying more to replace the one you had. Just sayin...

Considered that also and may well take this advice.


Why not shoot with both and decide which you prefer?

Thanks Bob. It may come to that. I thought people with more experience than me may have some compelling reason why one would be the better choice.

[BrianShaw]

Decide on the basis of condition and cost. However you balance them. Otherwise, flip a coin… you’ll likely not see any difference.

Nikkor had the reputation of being “more contrasty” than its peers. I’m not sure I could see that and aligned with Schneider.

[Benjamin]

In case of two similar lenses, go with filter size. If you already have lenses of same filter size as any of the two, or looking to get similar filter-sized lenses, go with that.

It'll avoid you extra costs in the future.

[Bernice Loui]

Which version Fujinon 150mm f5.6, as there were two and variants as this basic design was made for decades.
The inside lettering version advertised a larger image circle (Fuji page previous posted by another LFF member):
217723

Later versions of the "W" had smaller advertised image circle, "EBC" coated and all that (which IMO, makes nada difference these days in real world image making):
217724

Larger image circle alone does not results in a more desirable lens, it is all a set of trade-offs.

Drop the "shaper" idea-belief as they are Fujinon versions essentially equal. Newer version might have higher contrast under specific image conditions like the Nikkor, but one variable like shading the lens with the dark slide when outdoors or a properly set up bellows shade in studio will very effectively negate these difference. This is due to view camera lenses being designed and produced with fewer lens elements than lenses made for roll film or digital cameras. This significantly reduces the mandate for extreme anti-reflection coatings that are absolutely required for complex roll film or digital zoom lenses and such. Essentially those old ways to digital or roll film camera obsessions often do not apply to this view camera stuff.

As for lens testing digest this link from a previous discussion:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155445-Easy-Testing-Used-LF-Lenses

Better to make lots of images with both lenses then decide. Identical and consistency is key here.

Best to pick a one lens (IMO, based on condition & accuracy of the shutter), move on.

One more thing, the great view camera lens equalizer is f22...



Bernice










I was wondering if this might be the case. The only differences I've been told otherwise were that the Fuji has a larger image circle and "is a 6/6 air spaced lens and the nikkor a 6/4 plasmat. Fuji split the plasmat design apart as they deemed it to be sharper this way." I admit that, while I understand this means the elements are laid out differently, it means means nothing to me practically speaking.

[Jody_S]

If you shoot color keep the Fuji. Based on my experience with period 35mm lenses from those makers.

[Alan Klein]

Which version Fujinon 150mm f5.6, as there were two and variants as this basic design was made for decades.
The inside lettering version advertised a larger image circle (Fuji page previous posted by another LFF member):
217723

Later versions of the "W" had smaller advertised image circle, "EBC" coated and all that (which IMO, makes nada difference these days in real world image making):
217724

Larger image circle alone does not results in a more desirable lens, it is all a set of trade-offs.

Drop the "shaper" idea-belief as they are Fujinon versions essentially equal. Newer version might have higher contrast under specific image conditions like the Nikkor, but one variable like shading the lens with the dark slide when outdoors or a properly set up bellows shade in studio will very effectively negate these difference. This is due to view camera lenses being designed and produced with fewer lens elements than lenses made for roll film or digital cameras. This significantly reduces the mandate for extreme anti-reflection coatings that are absolutely required for complex roll film or digital zoom lenses and such. Essentially those old ways to digital or roll film camera obsessions often do not apply to this view camera stuff.

As for lens testing digest this link from a previous discussion:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155445-Easy-Testing-Used-LF-Lenses

Better to make lots of images with both lenses then decide. Identical and consistency is key here.

Best to pick a one lens (IMO, based on condition & accuracy of the shutter), move on.

One more thing, the great view camera lens equalizer is f22...



Bernice

Bernice. What did you mean?
"...One more thing, the great view camera lens equalizer is f22..."

[Alan Klein]

If you shoot color keep the Fuji. Based on my experience with period 35mm lenses from those makers.

Why?

[Corran]

Alan, at f/22 most lenses will be the same (in performance). One can split hairs about performance at f/8 or /11, and perhaps talk about out-of-focus rendering or image circle differences, but if shooting for max DOF on typical film within the image circle using lenses from the "Big 4" of similar design, there will be basically no practical difference.

[Kirk Gittings]

Take this For what its worth (not much). I have had many lenses of both brands including those two. There is something subtle in the "look" of the negative that I prefer from the Nikons. Over the years I have gradually replaced all my other lenses with Nikons but one.

[Bernice Loui]

At f22, diffraction begins to bite out of any possible optical performance advantage due to diffraction and ability to correct optical issues by design. Essentially, Nature imposes it's way with no possible means to escape. Understand the audience and market optics manufactures were forced to address if they had any interest to produce then sell their optical offerings. Keep this harsh reality in mind with the words to follow.

By the late 1970's modern then new view camera lenses became far more similar than different. This was dictated by what the view camera market demanded. Not a lot of "hobbyist" were into sheet film cameras about that time. Majority of sheet film users back then produced sheet film images to keep a roof over their head, food on their table and profess their passion for making creative images. Majority of sheet film images about that time until the late 1990's were produced on color transparency film. These image makers studied for their profession, understood the nature of film, color, expectations of what a GOOD image is and more. These were folks highly skilled and understood much of what this craft of image making was about. Some did Weddings, some did portraits, some did architectural, some did advertising, few did fine arts images (like Ansel Adams and others).. In all cases, this group of image makers had specific demands and expectations from lens, camera, lighting, film, post processing and all that. Essentially, there were no "hobbyist" level view camera lens offerings from that time as the only real market for view camera lenses back then was this group of knowledgeable, skilled and demanding individuals. If any manufacture tried to produce-sell an inferior view camera lens, that group would never consider that lens ... ever as they simply ran a test to do the evaluation against their current lenses being used to produce work.

Cost of a given view camera lens for the well funded image makers from that time was mostly irrelevant as cost of running an marketing AD studio and all related easily FAR exceeded the cost of the very best offerings by any optics manufacture. Get hired for a well funded AD image job would often involve an Art director, Prop guy, Assistant(s), Stylist (like food), Studio space, BIG flash power lighting (10,000 w/s easily available was very common) and all the light modifiers involved, Proper studio stand for the Sinar P.. all this makes cost of any lens minuscule in comparison and little if any reason to use any lens that is the best available. All this easily cost more than a few hundred U$S per hour studio hour. Cost of that $2,000+ lens pales to the cost of these individuals involved, studio space involved and cost of running those high power strobes.

This became the environment that imposed Darwinism upon any lens offering by any lens manufacture like Schneider, Fujinon, Rodenstock, Nikon.

This is one of the root reasons why any modern lens from the Big Four were essentially same-identical. If any were slightly inferior or slightly different in any way, that market base of users would never accept that lens offering. It was that simple.

What has happened, that entire market and user base of view camera lenses and all related died in the early 2000's being replaced by digital imaging, software driven image bending and all that. This essentially forced the dumping of BIG powerful studio strobe units, high quality monorail view cameras, color film and it's related image processing chain and all that. It all came down to production cost per image and what was market acceptable.

What survived were the Artisty folks doing B&W and similar Group f64 style images made popular and famous by Ansel Adams and others. Then came the image makers seeking to produce those images they admired from members of Group f64 and similar. Except, this group often did not have the extensive education, training and hard earned-real world struggles to meet what demanding customers expected. These image makers often came from the ranks of 35mm and 120 roll film and digital camera world. They carry their marketing indoctrination(s) and habits with them into the very different universe of view camera. Stuff like the "Latest & Greatest" lens, the "Latest & Greatest" camera and all those marketing monikers and more. None of which properly applies to the residuals from the view camera universe that once was.

Old habits and marketing indoctrination(s) don't die easy, they tend to remain and be imposed at all things in the view camera universe even when these habits and marketing indoctrination(s) should have died at the entrance of the view camera universe.

Or why the same text and reaction each and every time this question of "Nikon or Fujinon or Rodenstock or Schneider"...


Bernice












Bernice. What did you mean?
"...One more thing, the great view camera lens equalizer is f22..."

[Alan Klein]

So if I understand you correctly Bernise by F/22 you mean that all four manufacturers lenses are basically the same at that aperture? So where are they different after all?

[Bernice Loui]

Modern Nikkor view camera lenses often produce higher perceived contrast than the others. This might results in the perception of a "sharper" image, in reality the actual "sharpness" is no different than the other. This becomes an individual preference.

How a lens is shaded and stray light from the lens image circle also affects image contrast recorded on film.

This difference in lens contrast rendition can be altered in the print making process.. which should be figured into the print making goals.



Bernice




Take this For what its worth (not much). I have had many lenses of both brands including those two. There is something subtle in the "look" of the negative that I prefer from the Nikons. Over the years I have gradually replaced all my other lenses with Nikons but one.

[Jody_S]

Why?

I always found Nikkor 35mm lenses razor sharp and contrasty in b&w, but coatings do have more effect on color rendition than people think. For 1970s-80s glass, I personally prefer Konica then Fujinon EBC for color cast. For b&w, Nikkor then Canon then Rokkor. Though the Canon 50/1.4 is hard to beat on any metric.

[Bernice Loui]

Essentially yes, they are mostly sharpness-resolution equalized at f22 if their design and production was consistent and good.

Knowing this manufactures ended up with differences in contrast and color rendition and performance trade offs at varied reproduction ratios and optical behavior variations over their image circle.

From the Advertising image days of film, snappy-punchy color images became a thing, market appealing thing. This resulted in higher contrast rendering lenses (Nikkor, Symmar HM and etc) along with films like Fujifilm Velvia, Kodak Ektachrome 100 Plus and all that was driven by what the market demanded and wanted.

This image doctrine appears today in the world of BIG flat screen displays, many of these LED back lighted displays play very bright, high contrast with a very sharp and snappy video images.. There was a time when Plasma displays grew to produce very good video images with good color rendition, contrast rations and overall neutral video image rendition. BIG disappointment for many regarding plasma video displays, they are not bright enough, snappy enough, punchy enough. This is also some of the reasons why plasma video displays have essentially died in the video market place of today.


Bernice




So if I understand you correctly Bernise by F/22 you mean that all four manufacturers lenses are basically the same at that aperture? So where are they different after all?

[Alan Klein]

Essentially yes, they are mostly sharpness-resolution equalized at f22 if their design and production was consistent and good.

Knowing this manufactures ended up with differences in contrast and color rendition and performance trade offs at varied reproduction ratios and optical behavior variations over their image circle.

From the Advertising image days of film, snappy-punchy color images became a thing, market appealing thing. This resulted in higher contrast rendering lenses (Nikkor, Symmar HM and etc) along with films like Fujifilm Velvia, Kodak Ektachrome 100 Plus and all that was driven by what the market demanded and wanted.

This image doctrine appears today in the world of BIG flat screen displays, many of these LED back lighted displays play very bright, high contrast with a very sharp and snappy video images.. There was a time when Plasma displays grew to produce very good video images with good color rendition, contrast rations and overall neutral video image rendition. BIG disappointment for many regarding plasma video displays, they are not bright enough, snappy enough, punchy enough. This is also some of the reasons why plasma video displays have essentially died in the video market place of today.


Bernice

Smart 4K TVs today have different selectable color renditions with more or less saturation, contrast, etc. There are usually half a dozen different selection presets. Plus every selection preset have individual adjustments you can make to contrast, saturation, etc. So you can get pretty much anything you want and view your slides and videos to taste. I tend to make my adjustments however when editing and leave the TV to "normal" preset. That way, if it's viewed on a monitor or Flickr,, it already has the color done to my taste.

[hyatts3]

Modern Nikkor view camera lenses often produce higher perceived contrast than the others. This might results in the perception of a "sharper" image, in reality the actual "sharpness" is no different than the other. This becomes an individual preference.

How a lens is shaded and stray light from the lens image circle also affects image contrast recorded on film.

This difference in lens contrast rendition can be altered in the print making process.. which should be figured into the print making goals.



Bernice

Bernice, thank you for all your useful information. I really appreciate the thorough explanations you've been posting. Let me ask this. I also shoot with a Mamiya 7 and am always very pleased with the results I get from the 80mm lens. Many people describe that as sharp and contrasty. Would the Nikon have "higher perceived contrast" in a similar way? Note I'm not intending to ask if the lens is going to look just like the Mamiya, I'm just trying to find some way to quantify that statement.

I'm leaning towards keeping the Nikon. My reasoning is because I'm pretty well convinced there will be little to no difference between the two in practical use and upon close inspection the Nikon lens I have appears to be in better condition. It looks like it's never been used and has both original lens caps. That seems to be the best reason I can come up with for making a decision (and is essentially what you suggested).

[Alan Klein]

Have you checked the shutters on both lenses?

[hyatts3]

Have you checked the shutters on both lenses?

Yes, in testing them side by side I cannot perceive any difference between them.

[BrianShaw]

Quarters are best for coin flipping!

[Bernice Loui]

Surface appearance of beauty is not a good or rational reason to get married to any lens (or camera) as functionality and image results of any lens is more than surface deep.

Dealing with lenses in shutter, the top priority is shutter condition, accuracy, repeatability and how wore out it might be. Shutters are the top wear and failure of view camera lenses. If a shutter has problems that is when real problems begin.

Test both lenses under the absolute identical conditions, suspect they will be near if not identical in optical performance to film at f22. This would also be essentially correct and true if all four brands (Nikkor, Rodenstock, Schneider, Fujinon) were tested under identical conditions.

Been there done this back in the 1980's to the introduction of Rodenstock's APO series (more marketing than actual real world on film performance improvements) and Schneider's XL series (larger image circle or physically smaller, worthy improvements)..

Get married to the one that appeals most to you after much dating and considering and thinking of what the relationship might be in your futures.

Schneider, Fujinon, Nikkor, Rodenstock, as previously mentioned they are far more similar than different, pick one that appeals to your tribal instincts then move on.


Bernice




Bernice, thank you for all your useful information. I really appreciate the thorough explanations you've been posting. Let me ask this. I also shoot with a Mamiya 7 and am always very pleased with the results I get from the 80mm lens. Many people describe that as sharp and contrasty. Would the Nikon have "higher perceived contrast" in a similar way? Note I'm not intending to ask if the lens is going to look just like the Mamiya, I'm just trying to find some way to quantify that statement.

I'm leaning towards keeping the Nikon. My reasoning is because I'm pretty well convinced there will be little to no difference between the two in practical use and upon close inspection the Nikon lens I have appears to be in better condition. It looks like it's never been used and has both original lens caps. That seems to be the best reason I can come up with for making a decision (and is essentially what you suggested).

[BrianShaw]

Yes, but…

It’s much better to have a lens and be taking/making photographs than to be extensively dating potential lenses with which to mate. One doesn’t really need to be wedded to a lens until death or all of eternity. :)

[r.e.]

I also shoot with a Mamiya 7 and am always very pleased with the results I get from the 80mm lens. Many people describe that as sharp and contrasty. Would the Nikon have "higher perceived contrast" in a similar way? Note I'm not intending to ask if the lens is going to look just like the Mamiya, I'm just trying to find some way to quantify that statement.

I have a Mamiya 7II and the 80mm lens. It is often said to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made. For some purposes, such as environmental portraits, I think that it can be too sharp. I don't think that its images look like those made with any of the eight large format lenses that I have, which are made by Docter Optic, Fujinon, Nikon, Rodenstock and Wollensak. The Mamiya 80mm is just a different animal.

You're talking about two perfectly good, standard workhorse 150mm lenses. My 150mm was made by Rodenstock. I wouldn't spend 30 seconds worrying about whether it's "as good" as Fujinon's and Nikon's. I agree with the people who are saying that you should just pick one of the two and get on with life :)

In any event, there's already a two page thread, from only four years ago, on the very question that you're asking: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?139202-Nikkor-W-150mm-vs-Fujinon-W-150mm

[opPaulT]

love Fred Pickers advice-
I just bought a used Red Dot Artar f/11 19 inch lens for the 8 x 10. (A new one is $1,100.00) The fellow who sold it to me on approval the only way - said it had been checked out on an optical bench and he would include the test results. I told him not to bother as I had no intention of using it on an optical bench. I know from experience that if a lens can photograph distant twigs and branches sharply against the sky without having them break up into fragments in the print, it is sharp, has no big flare problems, and has passed the most difficult test of resolving power that I have ever put a lens to. One photograph of that situation was all I needed to show the lens was tack sharp. Suppose the bench test had shown the lens was fine but in the field the branches and twigs fell apart? The moral is plain: find out what a thing actually does; not what someone says it does. Want to know if a certain Nikon is capable of making a better negative than a certain Leica? Put them on tripods side by side and make simultaneous photographs at the same speeds. apertures, focus - same everything. Develop the films together and print the negatives side by side (in a glass 2 1/4 or 4x5 negative carrier). You will know.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, back when a full selection of both was in stock in the local pro store, there were serious experienced salespeople too, who swore by Fuji above any other brand of similar lenses - whether Nikkor, Rodenstock, or Schneider. That was prior to the pricey Apo Sironar S series. Doesn't surprise me; and the Fuji W and NW equivalents probably do indeed have a slightly larger critical image circle than the Nikon. But literature-wise, I have found the Fuji brochures a bit over-optimistic with regard to published image circles, and Schneider somewhat too conservative. It would be hard to go wrong with either the Fuji or Nikon 150; but if I were personally shopping for that focal length, I'd look at Fuji first. It was certainly the more popular brand in Japan where the largest quantity of good used lenses is found. And my own experience with Fuji LF lenses supports that. I do use a set of Nikkor M lenses too, but there's no 150 of those, and if there was, it's coverage with respect to 4X5 format wouldn't be ideal.

I don't know why still photographers scratch their heads about Fuji lenses. I once did too. They didn't market very aggressively here like the two big German brands did. But in other applications like pro video or television they have a stellar reputation and command top-end pricing. I use their A-series LF lenses, C-series, and a bit of NW. Superb quality relative to their intended application niches.

[pdmoylan]

I would also check each lens’ flare characteristics. I found Fuji lenses had less controlled flare than Nikons. Color wise I found Nikons a tad more accurate but both are cooler overall than Schneiders. Just my experience. In my comparison of the respective Fuji and Nikki 90f8, the Nikon had greater coverage, more contrast, slightly less saturation than the Fuji. I have always preferred Nikons but that’s just me. The Fuji 300 and 400 teles though good we’re not apo and seemed slightly less sharp than the Nikon counterpart. I used ghe Nikkor 150mm w lens for more than 20 years and have only great things to say about it. Great for closeup work as well.

[LabRat]

The "big four" lenses have quality and a similar look, so it boils down to which you prefer to use... Test 'em!!!

Steve K

[Bernice Loui]

Back in them color transparency centric days overall color balance of the lenses from the big four were zeroed out by cc filters on the lighting on camera or a combo. This once extremely common LF practice essentially negated any significant differences across brands.. Once this is done and sticking to one lens brand tended to keep the color corrections mostly equal-uniform.

In these days of color film, this degree of color tweaking IMO is not really needed given how LF film color images are made then printed.


Bernice



I would also check each lens’ flare characteristics. I found Fuji lenses had less controlled flare than Nikons. Color wise I found Nikons a tad more accurate but both are cooler overall than Schneiders. Just my experience. In my comparison of the respective Fuji and Nikki 90f8, the Nikon had greater coverage, more contrast, slightly less saturation than the Fuji. I have always preferred Nikons but that’s just me. The Fuji 300 and 400 teles though good we’re not apo and seemed slightly less sharp than the Nikon counterpart. I used ghe Nikkor 150mm w lens for more than 20 years and have only great things to say about it. Great for closeup work as well.

[pdmoylan]

Not to diminish the OP’s intentions, but perhaps a more important question: is 150mm the right choice in focal length. It’s about the same as a 40mm lens in 35mm language (163mm diagonal being equivalent to 43mm in 35mm speak). After a couple of years of using the 150mm somewhat exclusively, and subsequently purchasing a 90mm, 210mm, and 300mm over two years, I found the expanded focal lengths freeing and rarely used the 150 thereafter even for closeups. All things being equal, sell the lens you get the highest price for and apply the proceeds against a different focal length.

[Bernice Loui]

Much about brand identity and brand name recognition.

Nikon built a brand identity and brand name recognition from decades of marketing and brand name building in the 35mm film world. Nikon built a HUGE and loyal following on this foundation of 35mm film cameras. Today Nikon's primary business is semiconductor processing devices and microscopes (one of Nikon's original offerings) , photographic cameras are a smaller of what makes Nikon go today. This brand affiliation might stick with those moving from 35mm film or digital to the world of view camera..
https://www.nikon.com/


Fujinon (now Fujifilm) is a very different image making organization. Fujinon is one of Japan's optical "power houses" while they are in the photographic camera and film business, Fuji is much about chemistry and exotic optics. They are one of the two companies in the world that produce extremely complex video zoom lenses with 100 to 1 zoom range with a full aperture of less than f2 (f1.7 or so). These video zoom lenses are extremely complex with lots of motors that are servo uP controlled with proper ergo controls for the camera operator.. like this.. cost only $164K special order from B&H. Have a gander at the products Fujifilm offers beyond optics.
https://www.fujifilm.com/


Canon is the other Japan optical company that makes video zoom lenses like this at the similar to identical cost of six figures like Fujinon.
218031

It demands an extreme amount of optical and uber precision mechanical production and design to attempt a zoom lens like these.. Nikon does not do these optical extreme designs.

Keep this in mind when thinking about Nikon -vs- Fujinon. These 100x large aperture video zoom lenses are FAR more complex, no simple effort to design then produce.



Bernice

[pjd]

Why not shoot with both and decide which you prefer?

+1. No need to get all Tristram Shandy about this.

[Jim Andrada]

Typically those big boxy video lenses are controlled from a master control room - the cameraman is just responsible for lining up the shot. I've seen them in person the couple of times I've gone to the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) show in Las Vegas. The major companies usually have full size studios set up and all the hardware lined up and you can just grab something and frame with it. Neet tripody gadgets with fingertip height control, all kinds of pricey fun stuff.

[Alan Klein]

Well, back when a full selection of both was in stock in the local pro store, there were serious experienced salespeople too, who swore by Fuji above any other brand of similar lenses - whether Nikkor, Rodenstock, or Schneider. That was prior to the pricey Apo Sironar S series. Doesn't surprise me; and the Fuji W and NW equivalents probably do indeed have a slightly larger critical image circle than the Nikon. But literature-wise, I have found the Fuji brochures a bit over-optimistic with regard to published image circles, and Schneider somewhat too conservative. It would be hard to go wrong with either the Fuji or Nikon 150; but if I were personally shopping for that focal length, I'd look at Fuji first. It was certainly the more popular brand in Japan where the largest quantity of good used lenses is found. And my own experience with Fuji LF lenses supports that. I do use a set of Nikkor M lenses too, but there's no 150 of those, and if there was, it's coverage with respect to 4X5 format wouldn't be ideal.

I don't know why still photographers scratch their heads about Fuji lenses. I once did too. They didn't market very aggressively here like the two big German brands did. But in other applications like pro video or television they have a stellar reputation and command top-end pricing. I use their A-series LF lenses, C-series, and a bit of NW. Superb quality relative to their intended application niches.

I like my Fujinon 75mm SWD f/5.6 a lot. But I'm not an expert. (If you click into the photo after it opens it will zoom in a little.)
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=75mm&user_id=55760757%40N05&view_all=1

[Drew Wiley]

I'd probably opt for the Fuji due to the probability of a slightly bigger image circle. But if you took the identical color shot with both, I doubt anyone could detect which was which.