View Full Version : Article on three (U)LF lenses

Marco Annaratone
19-Jun-2006, 02:07

I just wrote an article ("article" is probably too big of a word, but anyway...) on three classic lenses, i.e., the Nikkor-M 450mm, Schneider G-Claron 355mm, and Fujinon-C 600mm. Nothing new under the sun, but I put together in a single place three lenses that represent a good selection for the (U)LF photographers in need of backpacking around lenses with a large circle of coverage.

It's in http://www.fotoavventure.it/freecontent/terra_giganti/eng/index.htm



John Kasaian
19-Jun-2006, 08:44

You've provided a very useful article from a very practical point of view. Most articles are concerned with technical hair splitting, which with modern glass is IMHO a bit misleading----the major players all currently produce superb lenses and the elements(sic) that will determine which model is most useful generally rests on such issues as size, wieght and speed. Your article shows how these three lenses stack up in size against other offerings and I think that is a real service. Few of us will have the opportunity to compare the physical size of lenses side by side unless we live in a major metropolitan area with stores that support large format. For eBay "bottom feeders" like me your side by side comparisons are a useful resource.


Jorge Gasteazoro
19-Jun-2006, 08:49
WHat kind of coin is that? For all I know that coin could have a 2 inch diameter making the lenses about 3 feet... :)

And where are the pictures?? Who cares about the lenses, we wanna see pichurs!!.......:p

Ralph Barker
19-Jun-2006, 08:52
Nice article, Marco. One question - how big is a Euro? ;)

Arne Croell
19-Jun-2006, 09:18
Nice article, Marco. One question - how big is a Euro? ;)
1 Euro is about the diameter of a Quarter.

Enrico Faini
19-Jun-2006, 09:18
Nice article, Marco. One question - how big is a Euro? ;)

it has a diameter of approximately 23mm :)

19-Jun-2006, 09:35
I never knew that a Copal 3 was less than 4 Euro. I learn something new every day!

John Z.
19-Jun-2006, 14:36
Any comments about the differences, similarities, or image quality when comparing these three lenses photographically? It would be interesting to know your opinion.....thanks!

Eric Leppanen
19-Jun-2006, 16:23
Nice article, Marco. Just to add one tidbit: the Fuji 600C works just fine on an Ebony SV45U2 using an extended two-inch lensboard. I had SK Grimes create such a board for me, which enabled the 600C to focus at infinity with some extension to spare.

I am a ridiculous image quality freak, and I did make performance comparisons (set at f/22, using chrome film inspected with a 10x loupe) between the Fuji 450C and 600C and their plasmat or telephoto counterparts when assembling my 8x10 kit (I did not test the G-Claron). I also made a separate comparison between the Fuji 450C and Nikon 450M. For contact prints, I found absolutely no noticeable differences in resolution or contrast between any of these lenses. For 8x10 enlargements, I found the 450C and 480 APO Symmar-L to perform equivalently at infinity, but close-up (fifteen feet in my tests) the APO Symmar L was sharper. The 600 APO Tele Xenar convertible was sharper than the 600C at both infinity and fifteen feet. I found no significant differences between the 450C and 450M at any focus distance, other than the Nikon was slightly more contrasty.

These results made sense to me at the time, in that the larger, more sophisticated designs are purportedly better corrected for a broader range of focus distances (Schneider claims 1:3 to infinity for the APO Symmar L), whereas the Fuji C series is purportedly optimized for infinity (you note that all the lenses you tested are optimized for 1:5, perhaps my information is incorrect?). I frequently ran my tests a couple times, so I am confident that they are correct, at least for the lens samples I had.

Of course none of this makes any difference to the contact printer or ULF shooter.

Marco Annaratone
20-Jun-2006, 06:45
Thank you all very much!


I meant that you can safely go down to 1:5, not that they are optimized for 1:5, sorry for the confusion.


John Z.,

Eric just stole my thunder...

...seriously, I do not have much to add to what Eric just wrote, also because I am not that much of a lens performance expert.


P.S. I tried to diligently localize the write-up (the original version was in Italian) and at the very end I fall flat on my face for this stupid euro thing. Forget about euro coins or quarters, next time I put side-by-side something truly planetary, like an iPOD :-)