Fuji 400mm T or Nikon 360mm T ?

[David Rowland]

Hi All

I am in the process of trying to choose between the Fuji 400mm f8 T or the Nikon 360mm f8 T ED does anybody here have experience of both ? and I'd welcome any observations on their pro's and con's

Thanks Dave

[neil poulsen]

I don't have direct experience with either of these lenses. But at the request of Ansel Adams, John Sexton et.al. conducted comparison tests of lenses for contrast, and the Nikon telephotos came out on top. As a result, it's what he uses.

I haven't had occasion to use them yet, but on the basis of his comments in a Sexton workshop that I took, I purchased the 360mm along with the 500mm component. (So, one shutter; two focal lengths.)

Lately, I've seen the Nikon 360 T Ed lens selling for quite reasonable prices.

[Willie]

Saw a comparison my Uncle did some years back. He chose the Nikon, later adding the 500 and 720 elements.
Said the Nikon gave him more options while both were good lenses.

[xkaes]

Much depends on what you already have. If you already have a 250mm or 300mm, I'd go with the Fuji.

You are not giving us much to work with.

What do you want to accomplish?

What do you already have?

[Jeff Keller]

I would guess you have a camera with limited extension:
Nikkor T-ED 360mm f8: flange to focal plane 261mm, IC 210mm @ f22
Nikkor T-ED 500mm f11: flange to focal plane 350mm, IC 210mm @ f22
Fujinon T 400mm f8: flange to focal plane 252mm, IC 220mm @ f22

The Fuji would have a slight advantage for close focusing. It is also reported to be slightly lighter than the Nikkor 360mm f9. I have been happy with my Fujinon T 600mm f12 but haven't used it often. I've never seen any strong opinions to pick the Nikkor or the Fujinon over the other. I haven't used the shorter focal length telephotos. The image quality between the two is probably close enough to choose between them using other criteria.

jeff

[Huub]

I don't have personal experience with the Fujinon T 400mm, but i do have with the Nikon T-ED 360 / 500 mm combination and the Schneider 360mm Tele-Xenar. The Tele-Xenar has the advantage of being a stop faster then it's contenders and also has the shortest flang-focal distance - about 22 cm if i remember correctly. This can have an advantage when close focussing is needed and provides a better balance as less bellows draw is needed when focussing. Remember these are big and heavy lenses, which will strain the front standard on the lighter field camera's.

When it comes to contrast the Nikon has a slightly higher overal contrast, but the Tele-Xenar has a better micro-contrast: it renders fine details in a more pleasant way in my opinion. At the other hand: i doubt many of us will see it in a final print, even when it is 40x50 cm.

I replaced my Tele-Xenar with the Nikon because i wanted to have the option of an even longer lens wiithout having to carry the weight of a Fujinon-T 600mm. So i did put my Nikon in a tophat lensboard and carry the 500mm module as an extra. If needed i change in the field, which doesn't happen that often.

[Steve Goldstein]

There are two versions of the 400mm Fujinon-T. The earlier one is single-coated, has a 240mm image circle, and weighs about 800 grams; the later version is multi-coated, has a 220mm image circle, and weighs around 630 grams. Both take 67mm filters and their flange focal lengths and quite similar.

These differences don't matter much if you're using 4x5, they might matter on 5x7, depending on your usage.

Nikon says the 360 has a 210mm image circle and weighs a bit more than the heavier Fujinon.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't personally use teles for LF shooting per se, but have seen plenty of big enlargements done with the 400 Fuji T which affirm its high repute among former users, many of whom were 4X5 Technika shooters.

[David Rowland]

Hi Thanks for all the replies. I thoughtI posted a response yesterday but it didn't seem to show up ? Anyhow I have a Walker Titan SF which has 430mm bellows draw. The front standard is pretty robust so I'm concerned about the weight of either lens on the camera more the lugging it about in the bag. The 400mm appeals as once purchased I won't be looking for a second set of cells to make a 500mm at a bargain price.The 360mm appeals because I can turn it into a 500mm. I can put up with either it really boils down to which is best. It will be pretty much be used for landscapes. Thanks Dave

[Eric Woodbury]

The Fuji 400T I had didn't seem that sharp, at least my copy. Later, the Nikon 600/800 was quite sharp. All the telephotos are heavy and thus didn't get far from the car. I prefer non-telephotos. If I need a longer shot, I crop. Plenty of negative area.

[Drew Wiley]

I prefer long perspectives, but have sufficient bellows length so that a tele is not needed. So I use a 360/10 Fuji A, which is optically superior to any tele anyway. I also have a 450 Fuji C, very light and compact compared to a tele. Another nice thing about these is that they have big image circles suitable for 8X10 format too. But my brother had a Technika, so needed a tele.

[lassethomas]

Well, my copy of the early single coated fujinon 400T is very sharp but there is some visible CA. Easily fixed if you scan an edit digitaly.
A very good lend overall

[Jeff Keller]

The tests I've seen (https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html) on the Nikkor show the sharpness falling off when longer rear lenses are used however, I've seen users report they are happy with the lenses.

If you think you would use the 500mm focal length, go with the Nikkor. If you doubt you would ever use the 500mm, then there are many excellent choices for the 350-360mm focal length. Most of the other choices would work well with larger formats.

The excellent Fuji A 360/10 Drew mentioned uses a Copal 1 shutter and is lighter than most other lenses in its focal length but is hard to find and expensive.

A couple not already mentioned would be the Ronar 360/9 and the G-Claron 355/9. The 360/5.5 Tele Xenar was mentioned but not the Tele Arton 360/5.5.

jeff

[Drew Wiley]

My brother used the 360 Tele Xenar. It was not well color corrected; the more expensive Tele Arton was. But more modern teles are better than either. The later and uncommon Schneider 400/5.6 Apo Tele Xenar is in a no.3 shutter, so would be relatively heavy if you can afford one. The first generation HM gray front version of that weighs 1270g, while the last black-barrel MRC version weighs 916 g. By comparison the 360A Fuji weighs only 465g, but takes some patience to acquire. I remember when only two really clean examples turned up over a ten year period, and I bought both of them! (Have since sold the spare one to another forum member.)

The 355 GC is also in a no. 3 shutter; but it has a massive image circle suitable for even 11X14 or 12X20 format - still distinctly lighter than general-purpose f/5.6 studio plasmat "bricks" in that focal length, however.

[Don Dudenbostel]

I owned two copies of the Schneider 360mm f5.5 Tele Arton. Both were very sharp but do have some color fringing issues. Not bad Fringing but it’s there. The downside of this lens is size. I believe it takes 95mm filters and is in a copal 3 and is heavy. I’d also suggest a compendium shade.

I also owned a Nikkor set, 360, 500 and 720. The 360 was excellent and imo better than the Schneider TA. I primarily used the 360 set and in rare occasions the 500 and only one or two times the 720. I used the 500 and 720 on my Sinar Norma and found at slower speeds a second tripod advantageous in stabilizing the camera. When using longer exposures it significantly improved sharpness

If picking between the Nikkor or Schneidet there’s no question I’d pick the Nikkor.

Another fantastic lens not mentioned is pretty rare. I owned and foolishly sold a Schneider 350mm f11 Apo Tele Xenar. It’s not really a tele design but is a remarkable lens and in a copal 1 shutter.

I sold my 360 Nikkor set and regret that act also and have been considering another Nikkor of Fuji so keep posting information and opinions.

One other lens I forgot, I had a 400mm Yamasaki and was amazed that it was pretty decent. I didn’t do any comparisons but made some nice images with it.

[Don Dudenbostel]

You really can’t tell anything from a low res image on the internet but the mountain shot is on 4x5 EPP with the 360 f5.5 Tele Arton. I think I shot it 40 or so years ago.

The flowers is with the Nikkor 450mm on Ektachrome 120 using a Canham 617 back. The 450 is a top notch lens.

[David Rowland]

Thanks for all the info guys. I have looked at the fuji A 360mm f11 but the prices are a little steep for the amount I'd use it. one of the Apo Ronar/G Claron types could be contenders but they do use the copal 3 shutters with the extra bulk and lower top shutter speed. Thanks Dave

[Steve Goldstein]

Don mentioned the Yamasaki 400mm. I have one of these, branded as Osaka, which I believe was a house brand for the importer in Pittsburgh(?). Like the Fujinon 400s and the Nikkor 360, it takes 67mm filters, but at 482 grams it's significantly lighter. Coverage is much less than the big boys but more than adequate for 4x5. I have no quibbles with the few images I've made with it. Would a Fujinon or Nikkor have been sharper? No idea..

[Dave Moeller]

I have one of these, branded as Osaka, which I believe was a house brand for the importer in Pittsburgh(?).

FYI: Bromwell Marketing

[Drew Wiley]

Ken Bromwell told me in person these lenses were "good" affordable 4-element "commercial" lenses, but not specialty or superstar lenses. Somewhere I still have his catalog and price list from decades ago. He was a straight shooter, and didn't BS his marketing.

[Mal Paso]

I've not tested the 400mm FujinonT but it resolves fine spiderwebs very well. It's also a very good value, I think I paid $250 for a very nice later MC one. Almost got the 600mm FujinonT but got the f9 NikkorT instead.