Nikon Nikkor SW 90mm f/8 vs. 90mm f/4.5?

[dh003i]

There are auctions on eBay right now for both the Nikon Nikkor SW 90/8 and the 90/4.5. The lens resolution tests (at least in lpmm) show the 90/8 as being exceptional. Can I presume the same is true of the 4.5 at those stops?

Fstop/cnt/mdl/edge
f/11 80 80 60
f/16 67 67 60
f/22 60 54 54

[Ron Marshall]

I have the 90/8. I often shoot in dim locations and I find it bright enough. If you don't mind the weight go for the 90/4.5; I have not used it, but at f16 or f22 there is probably no difference between these lenses.

[Darryl Baird]

The final price difference will be smaller than one would think... so get the 4.5 if you don't need the smaller lens for hiking. The f/8 versions demand a premium for the reasons you've already stated and its small size.

I currently have the Nikkor f/8 and used to have a 4.5 ... sharpest lens I ever owned.

[BarryS]

I've also got the Nikkor 90mm SW f/8 and it's my sharpest lens, too. I've read some reports that the f/4.5 isn't quite as sharp--but nevertheless a great lens. I've really struggled with the f/8 in dim locations and I've considered trading it for the f/4.5, but it's hard to give up the light weight.

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2978/elmwoodfarm1asq9.jpg
Elmwood Farm, Virginia

[Eugene van der Merwe]

The F4.5 gets my vote for sharpness too, sharper than any of my other current or previous lenses (including a 90mm F8 Super angulon), so long as you don't stop down past F32. I certainly wouldn't mind a lighter lens though. The large aperture even makes composing without a dark cloth possible in some situations.

[Diane Maher]

I have never used the f/8 version, but I use the f/4.5 version when shooting in low light situations, most recently at a balloon glow in September.

[Ben Hopson]

I use the f/4.5 and it is razor sharp. It is heavier than the f/8, but is a great lens.

[dh003i]

I had to pass on the 90/4.5, as it's price went way above $400 in the final hour, ended up selling for $600. IMHO, that is nuts, considering that mint ones sold for $400 in past eBay auctions.

The f/8 version is still up for grabs though. Maybe that will fetch a more sane price.

[Don Hutton]

I had to pass on the 90/4.5, as it's price went way above $400 in the final hour, ended up selling for $600. IMHO, that is nuts, considering that mint ones sold for $400 in past eBay auctions.

The f/8 version is still up for grabs though. Maybe that will fetch a more sane price.Typical price for an F4.5 Nikkor 90mm is $600+. One sold a few weeks ago for $400 because no one else put in a bid. One also sold a week later for $800. For sub $600, it is a real bargain if the size and weight aren't an issue for you.

I very much doubt you will see an F8 version for $400 either - they always seem to be in steady demand because of the great combination of small size and huge image circle, and the fact that there is some great info on the particular lens posted on the web by a reputable member of this forum.

If you want a more budget lens, pick up an earlier single coated Schneider Super Angulon or a Caltar WII (same lens). If you're a newbie to LF, stop bothering with the resolution of various modern LF lenses - they are all way better than your technique is likely to be, so buy one within your budget and get shooting. As someone who has spent a heap of time testing and obsessing, I'll tell you first-hand, it's a waste of time - unless you actually enjoy the process, just forget it. A few years ago I bought and tested 10 modern 150mm lenses. I was astounded to find out how well all of them performed. There was a single 'dog', and I'm pretty sure that it was just a bad sample of the particular lens. To separate the top 3, I had to go up to about 15X magnification, which is simply way more than most LF shooters ever consider. Even an 8X, there was pretty much nothing in it with all 10 lenses.

[dsphotog]

I have a Nikon 90 f8, great optics. The main reason I got it is it also covers 5x7.
My packing camera is a 4x5 crown graphic, it won't close with the nikkor mounted,
so for hikes, I use a tiny 90 f6.3 Angulon, also a great little lens.
David Silva
Modesto,Ca

[Darryl Baird]

$600 is a good price for the 4.5, with a great deal of patience and luck you might get one cheaper...the f/8 models will fetch nearly the same level usually. Demand is higher.


I had to pass on the 90/4.5, as it's price went way above $400 in the final hour, ended up selling for $600. IMHO, that is nuts, considering that mint ones sold for $400 in past eBay auctions.

The f/8 version is still up for grabs though. Maybe that will fetch a more sane price.

[Darryl Baird]

I'll look at KEH from time to time, to gauge if prices are moving up or down.... these lenses (http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductList.aspx?Mode=searchproducts&item=0&ActivateTOC2=false&ID=&Size=&BC=&BCC=&CC=&CCC=&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=90mm%20Nikkor) are still in fairly high demand it seems.

[Deepak Kumar]

Bought one in pristine condition for $900 from ebay Eight months ago. If selling for

$600 or around, It's a very good deal. Though I go for one or two day hike weigth

never bother me. As when I get tired I take rest and then move on. It is not like you

can't hike with it. (everything in LF weight a ton, specially tripod)


Secondly it's exceptionlly sharp lens. Brighter view makes it possible to compose,

focus & shoot in fast moving evening light.

Flip side for me, I will have to move to larger filter system from my current Cokin P.

Though after cutting one holder's two front slots I can use it with CPL and one Grad.



Just my two cents

Deepak Kumar

[Nick_3536]

I had to pass on the 90/4.5, as it's price went way above $400 in the final hour, ended up selling for $600. IMHO, that is nuts, considering that mint ones sold for $400 in past eBay auctions.



When B&H was clearing out the Nikon stock that kept the used prices down. I bought a new 4.5 for not much more then $600 [I can't remember exactly how much]. Used from KEH at the time was maybe $20 less and KEH had cut their prices at the time.

I doubt B&H has any left so that means the used market is the only source left.

[Drew Wiley]

I have a 90/4.5 for architectural work, although I have sometimes used it in the field.
Indoors I appreciate the extra brightness, since I generally keep a Schneider 82mm
center filter attached. It is a superb lens, allegedly the best 90 ever. A bit too heavy
for some of the lighter-built 4x5's to hold steady, however.

[Ed Richards]

It is not just the brightness - the 4.5 has noticeably less DOF, which makes it easier to focus than f 8 or even 6.8. Combined with the brightness, it is much easier to focus in dim light. With the larger filters and weight, it is much less portable.

[Mike Herring]

The Rodenstock Grandagon f4.5 is just as sharp. I have used both of these lenses. When I bought my Grandagon it was hundreds of dollars more because B&H bought all remaining Nikon stock. I bought the Nikon 65mm f4, 120mm f5.6 AM, and 210 f5.6 and I am very pleased with all of them. The only lens I like more is my 150mm f5.6 Sironar-S. It is the sharpest lens I have ever used on a 4x5. It reminds me of the Leica Macro-Elmarit 100mm f2.8, which is perhaps the sharpest lens I have ever used.
Happy shooting,
Mike

[Stephen Willard]

From my limited experience and testing, I have found smaller glass is always sharper then bigger glass. This would lead me to conclude that the f8 will be sharper than the f4.5.

[Mike Herring]

Stephen,
I usually agree with you regarding slower optics being superior. I have not found this to be the case with Leitz optics. They are simply sterling wide-open or 1 stop down.

Take care,
Mike

[hanshan]

Where to buy a 85mm UV filter for 90 f4.5? Is 85mm a normal size for UV filters?

[Drew Wiley]

Stephen - this might not have much to do with size. The smaller optic has a smaller
max aperture. It is more difficult and expensive to design the same kind of lens with
a larger aperture, but if the larger lens is used at the smaller max aperture of the smaller lens, the performance might be equal, perhaps even better than the smaller
version. Have you ever seen many copy lenses with large apertures? But the bigger aperture certainly helps with focus in wide-angle; and the 4.5 Nikkor is a very good lens in general. In terms of potential resolution, I think we're splitting hairs here.

[Nick_3536]

Where to buy a 85mm UV filter for 90 f4.5? Is 85mm a normal size for UV filters?

82mm not 85. Unless your Nikon is different then mine. I can't imagine an 85 being used.

[Andre Noble]

Take the 90 F8!

Have have tested a total of 5 of these lenses (two Nikon SW 90 F8's and three Nikon SW 90 F4.5's)

One of the 90 F8's was far and away sharper than any of the other 4 samples.

The other Nikon 90 F8 sample was about as sharp as the sharpest 90 F4.5 sample.

The Nikon 90 F8 has 8 elements. It is a better corrected optic than the 7 element Nikon 90 4.5



No lens I have ever owned, aside from Nikon's own 300 f2.8 AFS was as impressive as that Nikon SW 90 f8.

Oops, I forgot about my amazing Rodenstock 150mm f5.6 Sironar-S lens.

[Armin Seeholzer]

The SW F 8 lenses are totaly distorsion free, stated Nikon in the brochure, but I prefer the f 4,5 which is also a very fine lens in all terms!

Cheers Armin

[dh003i]

Take the 90 F8!

Have have tested a total of 5 of these lenses (two Nikon SW 90 F8's and three Nikon SW 90 F4.5's)

One of the 90 F8's was far and away sharper than any of the other 4 samples.

The other Nikon 90 F8 sample was about as sharp as the sharpest 90 F4.5 sample.

The Nikon 90 F8 has 8 elements. It is a better corrected optic than the 7 element Nikon 90 4.5.

No lens I have ever owned, aside from Nikon's own 300 f2.8 AFS was as impressive as that Nikon SW 90 f8.

Oops, I forgot about my amazing Rodenstock 150mm f5.6 Sironar-S lens.

Depending on the source -- bhphoto, kenrockwell, photographyreview -- I've seen the 90/4.5 listed as having 7, 8, or 6 elements, respectively; although I trust BH the most.

In any respect, I've already went with the 90/4.5, figuring that at similar apertures, performance wouldn't be substantially different, based on many telling me that all the 90mm LF lenses are great.

Probably the easier focusing due to more brightness & narrower DOF is a more important factor. But I'll have to do some comparisons and see if it is substantially more difficult for me to focus the 90/4.5 @ f/8 vs. wide open.

Do you have any numbers on how much better you think the 90/8 is in terms of sharpness?

[dh003i]

The SW F 8 lenses are totaly distorsion free, stated Nikon in the brochure, but I prefer the f 4,5 which is also a very fine lens in all terms!

Cheers Armin

Where do you see these brochures online?

[Nick_3536]

IIRC the 4.5 image circle is listed at F/16. The F/8 at F/22. That implies to me NIkon thinks the F/8 should be stopped down more then the F/4.5.

[BarryS]

IIRC the 4.5 image circle is listed at F/16. The F/8 at F/22. That implies to me NIkon thinks the F/8 should be stopped down more then the F/4.5.

I don't think that assumption is correct. The performance of the 90mm f/8 is outstanding at f/11 (as in better than every other lens I own) and I can't see any sharpness difference at f/16 or f/22.

[timberline12k]

The Caltar 90mm f/4.5 (private label by Rodenstock) is also comparable to the Grandagon or Nikkor SW.

Just put mine up for sale.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=53485

[Bob Salomon]

IIRC the 4.5 image circle is listed at F/16. The F/8 at F/22. That implies to me NIkon thinks the F/8 should be stopped down more then the F/4.5.

Depends on which Nikon brochure you are looking in. Nikon lens brochure 12481-100-5/82 lists them as you state. That one was printed in the USA.

Nikon brochure (8807/B) code 8CE60100 was printed 6 years later and lists the image circles at f8 for the 90 f8 as 154mm and the 4.5 as 200mm and lists both at f22 as 235mm (f8 version) and 312mm (4.5 version).

As a former employee of EPOI at the time that the Nikkor lenses were introduced I would strongly suggest that you follow the specs in the brochure printed in Japan rather then the USA printed brochure.

[Nick_3536]

Nikon brochure (8807/B) code 8CE60100 was printed 6 years later and lists the image circles at f8 for the 90 f8 as 154mm and the 4.5 as 200mm and lists both at f22 as 235mm (f8 version) and 312mm (4.5 version).


312mm? Is that right? I may need to fix that 8x10 ground glass now -)

[Chuck Pere]

Nikon brochure (8807/B) code 8CE60100 was printed 6 years later and lists the image circles at f8 for the 90 f8 as 154mm and the 4.5 as 200mm and lists both at f22 as 235mm (f8 version) and 312mm (4.5 version).

Aren't 200 and 312 for the 120mm lens?

[Bob Salomon]

Aren't 200 and 312 for the 120mm lens?

Yes,

Should be 235mm for the 4.5.

Sorry about that.

[dh003i]

Depends on which Nikon brochure you are looking in. Nikon lens brochure 12481-100-5/82 lists them as you state. That one was printed in the USA.

Nikon brochure (8807/B) code 8CE60100 was printed 6 years later and lists the image circles at f8 for the 90 f8 as 154mm and the 4.5 as 200mm and lists both at f22 as 235mm (f8 version) and 312mm (4.5 version).

As a former employee of EPOI at the time that the Nikkor lenses were introduced I would strongly suggest that you follow the specs in the brochure printed in Japan rather then the USA printed brochure.

Bob,

Any idea what the image circle for he 90/4.5 is @ f/4.5? I think it doesn't quite cover the diagonal of the 4x5 GG.

In any event, the larger image circle of the 90/4.5 @ f/8 is a benefit.

[Steve Goldstein]

I'm not Bob, but I do have a PDF of Nikon brochure 8CE60100, which appears to be of April 2001 vintage, and printed in Japan (thankfully, in English). Interestingly, at the top right of the back page it says it's copyrighted 2002-2004, which is somewhat at odds with the print code at the bottom of the same page. Whatever.

This brochure says the 4.5/90 has a 154mm image circle at f/4.5 and 235mm at f/16. It also lists the 4.5 as having 7 elements in 4 groups.

The 8/90 is stated as having a 154mm image circle at f/8 and 235mm at f/22. It also says 8 elements in 4 groups.

The cutaway pictures are consistent with these element counts as long as one assumes that Nikon have inadvertently colored in an airspace in the front cell of the f/4.5 (OTOH, the 4.5 could be 8 elements if they've mastered the technology of making a double-concave element with zero-thickness at its center).

I don't recall where I got this PDF, but it's a fairly high-quality scan, slightly over 2Megs. Send me an email if you'd like a copy.

steve

[Armin Seeholzer]

This brochure says the 4.5/90 has a 154mm image circle at f/4.5 and 235mm at f/16. It also lists the 4.5 as having 7 elements in 4 groups.

The 8/90 is stated as having a 154mm image circle at f/8 and 235mm at f/22. It also says 8 elements in 4 groups.


The same is stated in the german and french version, which where printed in Holland from around 1991!

Cheers Armin

[Edlog]

first post on this forum, hello everybody :-)

The Nikkor-SW 90mm f/4.5 is both huge and excellent but I sold mine a while ago, I found it too big to carry around..
Edward

[dh003i]

I was testing out my 90/4.5 today in the field with a railroad bridge I was photographing at sunset from an angle on the side. I did some focusing at f/8, and the f/4.5 makes a significant difference to me as lower-light situations -- and image-corners -- are encountered, so I'm going to stick with the 90/4.5.

[shadowleaves]

The 154mm wide-open image circle is so conservative that it's almost misleading, similar to what Nikon said about many other their lense (e.g., M 300/9). I have a Nikkor-SW 90/8 and I can confirm that wide-open at f/8 it covers 5x7 easily with plenty of extra shifting space. I believe what Nikon mean by 154mm is the maximum circle without an oval-shape exit pupil, which causes additional fall-off. Note that this is NOT the elliptical exit pupil that has already been corrected via tilting exit pupil design. It's the oval-shape exit pupil you'll get at wide apertures and it will be gone by f/22. You want to avoid it when taking actual pics, but for focusing purpose it's totally fine and it's what you'll get with any other 90mm lense with 235mm image circle at f/22.


I'm not Bob, but I do have a PDF of Nikon brochure 8CE60100, which appears to be of April 2001 vintage, and printed in Japan (thankfully, in English). Interestingly, at the top right of the back page it says it's copyrighted 2002-2004, which is somewhat at odds with the print code at the bottom of the same page. Whatever.

This brochure says the 4.5/90 has a 154mm image circle at f/4.5 and 235mm at f/16. It also lists the 4.5 as having 7 elements in 4 groups.

The 8/90 is stated as having a 154mm image circle at f/8 and 235mm at f/22. It also says 8 elements in 4 groups.

The cutaway pictures are consistent with these element counts as long as one assumes that Nikon have inadvertently colored in an airspace in the front cell of the f/4.5 (OTOH, the 4.5 could be 8 elements if they've mastered the technology of making a double-concave element with zero-thickness at its center).

I don't recall where I got this PDF, but it's a fairly high-quality scan, slightly over 2Megs. Send me an email if you'd like a copy.

steve

[dh003i]

The 154mm wide-open image circle is so conservative that it's almost misleading, similar to what Nikon said about many other their lense (e.g., M 300/9). I have a Nikkor-SW 90/8 and I can confirm that wide-open at f/8 it covers 5x7 easily with plenty of extra shifting space. I believe what Nikon mean by 154mm is the maximum circle without an oval-shape exit pupil, which causes additional fall-off. Note that this is NOT the elliptical exit pupil that has already been corrected via tilting exit pupil design. It's the oval-shape exit pupil you'll get at wide apertures and it will be gone by f/22. You want to avoid it when taking actual pics, but for focusing purpose it's totally fine and it's what you'll get with any other 90mm lense with 235mm image circle at f/22.

I wonder if, when stopping down enough, the 90/4.5 can cover 8x10. That'd be sweet considering how great a performer the 90/4.5 is (and considering the enormous wide angle you'd get). It's already at 235mm at f/16, and that's probably a conservative estimate too.

[Armin Seeholzer]

No it does not cover 8x10 not even the Schneider 90 XL with a 259mm covering power does! But with the Schneider is not so much missing!
The 120 mm SW Nikkor covers 8x10 but also not by much!

Cheers Armin

[dh003i]

No it does not cover 8x10 not even the Schneider 90 XL with a 259mm covering power does! But with the Schneider is not so much missing!
The 120 mm SW Nikkor covers 8x10 but also not by much!

Cheers Armin

I wonder if it's worth it; i.e., if it's sharp where it's covering 8x10.

[Rodney Polden]

My 120 Nikkor SW's sharpness is very satisfactory, even into the corners on 8x10. Movements are limited to those that still work within the 312 mm IC, and hyperfocal distance focussing helps also. Great lens for 5x7 and 4x5 too. Significant movements can be accomplished on 4x10, for which it is a lens that sings.

[alex_siro]

Greetings to everyone.
I`ve recently come across a 429$ offer for the SW 90 f4.5 and bought it. I took a sharpness test, since I`m particularly interested in edge sharpness when using lots of parallel movements (shifts, etc.).
I`ve just found a good offer for for the SW 90 f8 from the same store.
Reading the posts on this topic, I couldn`t find decisive arguments in favor of neither lens. Since I`m not very impressed with the way the 4.5 performs, I`m thinking about purchasing the f8. The store staff told me that I can refund either lens in case I buy the f8 and decide upon which one to keep. The maximum sum I`d lose this way would be around 130$ (shipping).

I`ve attached a crop of a test picture I took with the 4.5. The left edge of the image is about 11.35 cm away from the center of the lens (5/2 inch + 5 cm shift). The negative was a 4x5 scanned at 6400 ppi using an Epson V700 and downsized to 2400 ppi.
http://img251.imageshack.us/i/img0231qv.jpg/

If there`s someone who has made a head to head test of these 2 lenses, or someone who owns the f8 lens and knows how it performs for the purpose I`ve described above, I`d like to know if it`s worth choosing the f8 instead of the f4.5, because buying it to shoot a test is a bit of a hassle.

Thank you in advance

[alex_siro]

Hope I will manage to upload the scan correctly this time
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/1926/img0231t.jpg

[Louis Pacilla]

Both lenses have fantastic reputations I don't think the f8 version will give you better results.

The appeal of Nikkors f8 90 is it has about the same image circle as there f4.5 version yet is a good bit smaller & lighter .

All other manufacturers 90's w/ smaller maximum f stops & smaller in size have smaller image circles & a good deal less in practical terms.

I have a couple of questions for you. what f stop did make the image at & how sturdy is your tripod .

I just think the Nikkor 90mm f4.5 should preform as well as any 90 out there. IMHO of course

[Leigh]

Where to buy a 85mm UV filter for 90 f4.5? Is 85mm a normal size for UV filters?
Per the Nikon datasheet, the attachment (filter) size for the 90/4.5 is 82mm.

The OD (outside diameter) of that lens is 85mm, which is the size lens cap that you need.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

Depending on the source -- bhphoto, kenrockwell, photographyreview -- I've seen the 90/4.5 listed as having 7, 8, or 6 elements, respectively; although I trust BH the most.
The 1982 Nikon brochure shows the 90/4.5 as 7 elements in 4 groups, and the 90/8 as 8 elements in 4 groups.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

IIRC the 4.5 image circle is listed at F/16. The F/8 at F/22. That implies to me NIkon thinks the F/8 should be stopped down more then the F/4.5.
Image circles for the vast majority of LF lenses are given at f/22, and frequently wide open also.

A few faster lenses have ICs listed at f/16 rather than f/22.

- Leigh

[engl]

Greetings to everyone.
I`ve recently come across a 429$ offer for the SW 90 f4.5 and bought it. I took a sharpness test, since I`m particularly interested in edge sharpness when using lots of parallel movements (shifts, etc.).
I`ve just found a good offer for for the SW 90 f8 from the same store.
Reading the posts on this topic, I couldn`t find decisive arguments in favor of neither lens. Since I`m not very impressed with the way the 4.5 performs, I`m thinking about purchasing the f8. The store staff told me that I can refund either lens in case I buy the f8 and decide upon which one to keep. The maximum sum I`d lose this way would be around 130$ (shipping).

I`ve attached a crop of a test picture I took with the 4.5. The left edge of the image is about 11.35 cm away from the center of the lens (5/2 inch + 5 cm shift). The negative was a 4x5 scanned at 6400 ppi using an Epson V700 and downsized to 2400 ppi.

If there`s someone who has made a head to head test of these 2 lenses, or someone who owns the f8 lens and knows how it performs for the purpose I`ve described above, I`d like to know if it`s worth choosing the f8 instead of the f4.5, because buying it to shoot a test is a bit of a hassle.

Thank you in advance

Keep in mind that you might simply have a poor sample of the 90/4.5, which would make a comparison by anyone else pointless. Sample variation seems to be a problem with that lens, quite a few people seem disappointed with their 90/4.5 sharpness, while others claim outstanding performance. The 90/8, on the other hand, has a nearly flawless reputation.

[pdmoylan]

What I find most attractive with the 90 F8, other than size, weight and coverage, is the high contrast. Resolution and color characteristics are very good, though not apo. It is a standout in its FL. Others who I know commend the 90 F4.5 for its resolution and color (Joseph Holmes). It's a toss-up.

[alex_siro]

Thank you for your answers

The main reason I`m thinking of giving the f8 a try is edge sharpenss when using extreme movements. I`m quite pleased with the way the f4.5 performs in the center. Is it possible for the sample variation of the f4.5 to show up more towards the edges?

I previously posted a scan of the edge of 4.5`s image circle. Is there an owner of f8 who has tested his lens in such a situation?

[alex_siro]

An answer for Louis Pacilla:
The image was taken at f22 before an open window. The tripod is not very sturdy, neither did I use a cable release, but I don`t think shake was an issue, since I couldn`t spot trails anywhere in the image. Previously I took a 5 minute night exposure safe from air drafts and the overall sharpness was the same

[Bob McCarthy]

The scanner may be part of the problem. Have you tested other of your lenses to this degree of magnification? Have you tried sharpening the file before evaluating to make up for scanner loss.

Kinda silly to scan at 6400 dpi and downsample to 2400 when both are above the native optical resolution.

Find someone locally with a pro level flatbed who will help you evaluate. I'd say drum scans but they tend to charge more and it's probably not required.

But on a more practical note, I've owned a Nikon 90/8 and it was a very fine lens. If you don't need the speed, I see little risk in swapping.

This is a focal length most companies do well at. I lucked into a Caltar II N that came along with a camera I was buying and it blows me away for image quality. I know it's a Rodenstock but man is it sharp. I think I got lucky and just got a great sample of a fine formula. Changed my mind about Caltar being second rate.

Bob

[alex_siro]

The scanner is a V700, and, according to filmscanner.info, it has a native resolution of 2300ppi. That resolution, however, cannot be achieved when scanning at 2300. I checked that with Velvia slide film, and scanning at a larger resolution and downsizing results in a slightly better reproduction of details.

Anyway, I bought the f8 for 359$ (not in mint condition but they say it won`t affect image quality). This whole test will cost at most around 120$ (shipping costs), in case I decide to return the f8. I`ll post edge and corner sharpness comparisons as soon as I get the f8.

Sample variation from both lenses might be a problem in judging the difference between the two models, but I took the chance to do the test since I will be able to return either of the two lenses afterwards.

[Drew Wiley]

I think you'll be wasting your time. If you aren't getting sharp images with the 4.5, neither will you with the f/8 at the same working aperture. The 4.5 version is incredibly sharp for a wide angle, and has excellent color characteristics too. But flimsy tripod and no cable release???? That won't do any lens on earth justice.

[Bob McCarthy]

The scanner is a V700, and, according to filmscanner.info, it has a native resolution of 2300ppi. That resolution, however, cannot be achieved when scanning at 2300. I checked that with Velvia slide film, and scanning at a larger resolution and downsizing results in a slightly better reproduction of details.

Anyway, I bought the f8 for 359$ (not in mint condition but they say it won`t affect image quality). This whole test will cost at most around 120$ (shipping costs), in case I decide to return the f8. I`ll post edge and corner sharpness comparisons as soon as I get the f8.

Sample variation from both lenses might be a problem in judging the difference between the two models, but I took the chance to do the test since I will be able to return either of the two lenses afterwards.

Sorry, downsampling is a form of sharpening. It does not add information. When Ted was testing and writing about scanners, he was very clear that oversampling does not replace proper sharpening the appropriate way. With your example the high contrast areas are no sharper than the low contrast areas. I believe the muddiness is more likely the scanner w/o appropriate sharpening.

I would suggest you investigate PK Sharpener as an easy solution to Getting the results you desire.

Bob

[engl]

Sorry, downsampling is a form of sharpening. It does not add information. When Ted was testing and writing about scanners, he was very clear that oversampling does not replace proper sharpening the appropriate way. With your example the high contrast areas are no sharper than the low contrast areas. I believe the muddiness is more likely the scanner w/o appropriate sharpening.

I would suggest you investigate PK Sharpener as an easy solution to Getting the results you desire.

Bob

He is not suggesting to downsample instead of sharpening, just scanning at 6400 to get the most out of the scanner. I have a V700, I get the best results from scanning at 4800-6400, downsampling to 2400 and then applying proper sharpening. Scanning at 2400 and sharpening does not give as good results in my experience.

To the OP about testing and comparing, I do not think you will be wasting your time by comparing the two lenses, there might not be differences inherent to the designs at F16, but there might very well be sample variation making one better than the other. Just make sure to do the test properly to get usable results, sturdy tripod, careful focus, cable release etc.

[senderoaburrido]

Was this dispute ever solved? Is the f/8 definitively sharper? I'm seeing both an f/8 and f/4.5 Nikkor for sale right now and can't decide.

While the brightness could be handy, I think sharpness take precedence for me. 'Been looking all over with Google and this conversation appears to have played out many times. Still, I have not seen an absolute winner declared.

[Bob Salomon]

Was this dispute ever solved? Is the f/8 definitively sharper? I'm seeing both an f/8 and f/4.5 Nikkor for sale right now and can't decide.

While the brightness could be handy, I think sharpness take precedence for me. 'Been looking all over with Google and this conversation appears to have played out many times. Still, I have not seen an absolute winner declared.

The 4.5 is the better performer.

[EdSawyer]

Actually, the f/8 is the far better performer. Not only is it evident from the optical design, but empirical testing bears it out: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html In fact the Nikkor 90/8 is the best 90mm for 4x5 from any manufacturer.

[Dan Fromm]

But Ed, there are no Rodenstocks, Fujis, f/5.6 SAs, or f/4.5 Nikkors in those tests. No news is no news, not news of superiority.

I hope, though, that your news gives the person who posts as senderoaburrido pause. The person seems to be somewhat of a magic bullet chaser, needs to learn that with lenses the difference between best and second best is rarely large and is easily lost with less than perfect technique. Good enough means good enough, and most modern lenses in good condition are better than good enough.

[David Karp]

I had a 90mm f/4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon-N. It was a wonderful lens. Great! After the first few times, I never took it with me on a hike. If I did architecture photos only, I would have kept it forever. I purchased a 90mm f/8 Nikon and it comes with me. It has the same image circle as the Rodenstock, which to me was more important than relative sharpness. They are both plenty sharp enough. I am sure that is the case with the f/8 vs. f/4.5 Nikons as well.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Roughly 20+ years since these lenses last went into circulation, condition will have a lot to do with how well they perform, e.g. lens that's been handled a lot, had a filter ring or rim straightened after a fall, possibly no longer still be in the original 6 bladed Nikon-specific Copal shutter, shim missing. I would hazard a guess that most Nikon SW 90mm f/8's were bought by non-professional hiking landscape photographers shooting relatively occasionally for fun, and would also expect that the majority of SW 90mm f/4.5's were purchased by studio or location professionals who used them more or less daily.

[neil poulsen]

In keeping with my recent acquisition of a Wista technical camera, I just swapped out my Schneider S.A. f5.6 for the Nikon 90mm f8. As has been noted, it's an 8 element design, so I'm not worried about performance. My primary motive was decreasing the size and weight of my 90mm lens in the Wista. Besides, the lens is in keeping with my Fuji 105mm S.W. and my Schneider 121mm S.A., which are both f8 lenses.

Compared to yesteryear, one can find a good f4.5 or f5.6 90mm super-wide lens for reasonable prices. In the unlikely event that I need one of the faster 90mm lenses, I can justify having both lenses.

As a comment, in reviewing amateur lens testing results, I'm also wondering simultaneously about the sample to sample variability. As much time as I know went into the results cited above, I th8ink they fall into the general category of being anecdotal.

[Two23]

I have the Nikon 90mm f4.5. I shoot at night a lot, with flash. Shooting at ~f4 means I need 1/4 the flash power as I would at f8. For me, no-brainer. I don't see these lenses as interchangeable. One will work for me, one will not.


Kent in SD

[hiend61]

Where to buy a 85mm UV filter for 90 f4.5? Is 85mm a normal size for UV filters?

The Nikkor SW 90/4,5 uses 82mm filters. 85mm filters are very rare but I have seen a couple of lenses with 85 mm filter thread. Rodenstock apo Ronars 9/600 and 14/890 have a 85 mm filter thread.

[hiend61]

Actually, the f/8 is the far better performer. Not only is it evident from the optical design, but empirical testing bears it out: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html In fact the Nikkor 90/8 is the best 90mm for 4x5 from any manufacturer.

I have had and used almost daly both Nikkors SW 90 f8 and f4,5, Rodenstock Grandagon 90/4,5 and SK SA XL 90/5,6. All of them superb performers, but I would not say any of them is the best 90 wide angle ever, because I can´t find a reason to say that properly. I sold both Nikkors because I found them a bit more contrastier than " I like", (I shot mainly chromes), and kept Grandagon because it fits my personal taste better. I also kept the SK SA XL 90/5,6 just because It allows for more shift capabilities when I shot 5x7.

[Professional]

In the past when most lenses are still in production as brand new i was planning to get SK SA XL 90, but now after it is gone now the only 90mm i am thinking about is the f4.5 one and i will ignore f5.6 version, but then i am not sure which one, mostly i am thinking about Rodenstock version more than Nikkor or Fujinon 4.5 ones.