Fujinon 450C vs Schneider Tele-Xenar 350?

[rachase]

How does the new Schneider lens stack up against the Fujinon in contrast and resolution? I am looking for a longer, lightweight lens to add to my collection of lenses; mainly for purposes of image compression and bringing distant objects closer in my landscapes and cityscapes. My current longest lens is 210mm. I have sufficient bellows and rail extension for either. I realize that these are two very different lenses because of their differing focal lengths. The Fujinon is obviously more difficult to find because of its well deserved ‘cult’ lens status. Has anyone out there used both lenses? This would be used for 4x5.

[Drew Wiley]

Should be easy to get the Fuji at either Badger or Midwest Photo Exch; they're rarely
out of this lens for very long because it's popular. A superb lightweight lens, but with a very large image circle, so if you're using it on 4x5 be sure to shade it well. The 450 focal length has quite a different angle of view than something in the 350 range; these are really two different categories, so you might want both!

[Don Hutton]

It's my impression that the new Schneider is perhaps a little sharper than the 450 C - almost on a par with the 400mm Apo Tele Xenar (which is awesome!). Not to say that the 450 C is at all shabby, but my impressions from the few sheets of film I have shot with the 350 are "Wow!" On 4x5 you may find the 350 easier to use as the bellows extension of around 320mm is much kinder in any sort of breeze. However, as Drew pointed out, the field of view of the 350 and 450 is quite different and if compression is what you're after, the 450 will be better. The 350 tele Xenar covers 8x10 easily too and is similar weight and size to the 450 C.

[Walter Calahan]

Nothing shabby about a Fujinon lens.

[Drew Wiley]

Usually when I'm in SF I'm carrying a Nikon, but I am very often in Marin with a view
camera. Back when I mostly shot 4x5 I used a 360 constantly, but the 450 rarely,
even when I had it along. Now that I mainly shoot 8x10, I seem to use both lenses
equally. I don't know if this helps you decide, because each of us has a little different
style. But with the longer 450 you are going to get more atmospheric effect from the
fog, heat waves, etc, and the look on 4x5 is distinctly more compressed. But I personally felt the need for both focal lengths. I have made 30X40 Cibachromes with
shots from both lenses that are so sharp that you need a loupe to see all the detail.
But my 360 is also Fuji (A-series).

[David Karp]

The lenses are quite different, both in focal length and in design. The telephoto design has certain characteristics that you might or might not want in a lens. Tilts or swings will have a different effect with the telephoto than a standard design lens like the Fuji. Search the forum and the home page for information on telephotos.

The sort of splits the difference between your 210 and the 450. Many of us have a 210, 300 and 450. I do, and it works pretty well for me, although I use the 300 the least of these three in 4x5, which surprised me.

I have the Fuji 450 C and like it very much. It is small, light in weight, and very sharp. I once owned a Nikkor M 450 and liked it very much too. Razor sharp. It is heavier and in a No. 3 shutter. That is why I sold it and purchased the Fuji.

[GPS]

It's my impression that the new Schneider is perhaps a little sharper than the 450 C - almost on a par with the 400mm Apo Tele Xenar (which is awesome!). Not to say that the 450 C is at all shabby, but my impressions from the few sheets of film I have shot with the 350 are "Wow!"
...

Sorry Don, this kind of comments is a typical case of spreading technically false comments - or, to be kinder, close to it...:) Unless you do a strictly controlled test your comment has the same technical value as to say - I like this lens more than the other, it pleases me more...
The grater angle of coverage, rightly mentioned in another post, has an influence on the contrast of the final picture, unless you use a good lens shade, something an amateur doesn't give a damn about... An impression of sharpness is linked to the contrast in a picture. Thus your impression can simply be a result of insufficient lens shading, rather than real sharpness.
Saying a lens is sharper than the other without a strictly controlled lens test has the same value as to say - I like this lens more than the other - I like the picture it took better than that of the other lens...
Sure you can like it more (have an "impression", as you say) but it means as much as liking milk more than yogurt... Cheers!:)

[Don Hutton]

Sorry Don, this kind of comments is a typical case of spreading technically false comments - or, to be kinder, close to it...:) Unless you do a strictly controlled test your comment has the same technical value as to say - I like this lens more than the other, it pleases me more...
The grater angle of coverage, rightly mentioned in another post, has an influence on the contrast of the final picture, unless you use a good lens shade, something an amateur doesn't give a damn about... An impression of sharpness is linked to the contrast in a picture. Thus your impression can simply be a result of insufficient lens shading, rather than real sharpness.
Saying a lens is sharper than the other without a strictly controlled lens test has the same value as to say - I like this lens more than the other - I like the picture it took better than that of the other lens...
Sure you can like it more (have an "impression", as you say) but it means as much as liking milk more than yogurt... Cheers!:)I've actually used both and shared my own personal opinion - which is why I contributed my opinion here. I thought that I had made it clear that my subjective impressions were based only on a few sheets of film, not on any quasi-scientific comparison testing (which I do from time to time on similar lenses - and I don't consider these similar due to the focal lengh differential for my purposes). I've only had the 350 for about two months - it was one of the first available - and will shoot a resolution target with it in a week or two when I find the time and I'll be sure not to share what I learn in case you find my testing methodology disagreeable too. FWIW, neither of the two Fuji 450-Cs I've owned has ever managed over 50lp/mm despite it having an excellent reputation...

[Sal Santamaura]

The lenses are quite different...in design. The telephoto design has certain characteristics that you might or might not want in a lens. Tilts or swings will have a different effect with the telephoto than a standard design lens like the Fuji...This would be good input except that, perversely, Schneider has used the name "tele" for its new 350 when in fact it's not a telephoto at all. It is a 4 element symmetric design.


...and will shoot a resolution target with it in a week or two when I find the time and I'll be sure not to share what I learn in case you find my testing methodology disagreeable too. FWIW, neither of the two Fuji 450-Cs I've owned has ever managed over 50lp/mm despite it having an excellent reputation...Don, please do share what you learn. Not everyone will be so unappreciative. By the way, your 450-C results are right in line with sample variations seen in the Chris Perez / Kerry Thalmann tests:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

[rachase]

Thanks for everyone’s input, I’ll probably end up getting both, but am leaning towards getting the Schneider first because of its focal length. We already know that the 450-C is a great lens, especially for its size, I just wanted to get some feedback, even if anecdotal, from people who have used the very new Schneider lens so as to make sure it is not a dud. My intention was to use a highly regarded lens of similar build, as a basis for comparison. A Perez/Thalmann type of resolution test would be ideal but I expect the newness of the Schneider might preclude this. And of course even these tests are not absolute because variation between samples.

[Drew Wiley]

Test targets and so forth don't tell the full story. Get into some extreme tilts or swings, or try closeups, and use a precision filmholder or examine the aerial image.
It takes awhile to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a particular lens
design under the conditions actually encountered in the field. Over time I've gained
a very good feel for what my particular lenses will do well and what they won't.
Pointing at a flat target on the wall and talking about MTF and the image circle is only a starting point, and can be a bit misleading, because that's not how most of us
generally use a view camera! Otherwise all we'd use would be copy lenses designed for targets! A wonderful lens at infinity might not be that good closeup, etc.
So Don I hope you will take the time to do some funny things with your new lens
for the benefit of everyone. I have no idea how well this is corrected closeup, or
how severe a tilt it will take before getting edgy. Not that I'm shopping myself. I have enough lenses in the mid-300 range. But it does sound like a wonderful piece of gear and an excellent option.

[Eric Leppanen]

Don,

I would also be very appreciative of any further test results you can provide regarding your Tele Xenar 350. I am particularly curious about its usable image circle on 8x10, how well does its corner sharpness hold up, and what happens when the image circle is exceeded (does it hard vignette, go soft, etc.).

The Fuji 450C is a fine lightweight lens, but in my tests it did not have as much contrast as other alternatives. I used to lug around a 360 Sironar-S and 480 APO Symmar L for that reason until the weight/bulk of those lenses drove me nuts. If the rated IC of the Tele Xenar is a bit conservative then it could be a fine alternative for general-purpose 4x5 and 8x10 usage.

[David Karp]

[QUOTE=Sal Santamaura;491778]This would be good input except that, perversely, Schneider has used the name "tele" for its new 350 when in fact it's not a telephoto at all. It is a 4 element symmetric design.

Thanks for correcting me Sal. My bad.

[Mark Stahlke]

Don,
Please continue to post your opinions and impressions of the Schneider 350mm. It's on my short list lenses to buy but I didn't want one of the first. I recall some people had problems with the first batch of 80mm SSXL lenses.

I find subjective opinions much more valuable than test target results.

Cheers,
Mark

[rachase]

Pointing at a flat target on the wall and talking about MTF and the image circle is only a starting point, and can be a bit misleading, because that's not how most of us
generally use a view camera! Otherwise all we'd use would be copy lenses designed for targets!

I couldn't agree more! I don't think that it's unreasonable to solicit or provide subjective information about a lens gained from experience, even in regards to attributes like contrast and resolution. This what I would expect from friends, why not from forum members. Thanks, Don.

[GPS]

...
Pointing at a flat target on the wall and talking about MTF and the image circle is only a starting point, and can be a bit misleading, because that's not how most of us
generally use a view camera! Otherwise all we'd use would be copy lenses designed for targets! A wonderful lens at infinity might not be that good closeup, etc.
...

If you measure sharpness, resolution, contrast etc. of a given lens in laboratory test conditions the lens doesn't loose anything of its optical properties when used then in field, does it?
What is misleading is to do a test for infinity and use the lens for closeup but that is not how and why tests are done and used - only ignorants could act so.

[Drew Wiley]

Just depends what you test for. I know, for example, that with an exceptionally strong
tilt my 450C is adversely affected much,much more than my 360A at the same angle.
You can certainly replicate this in an artificial test, but who does and then publishes
the result? You might find a chart or two showing tangential MTF, but it might be
standardized differently than we behave in the field. With one type of lens and a given
film size the quality might diminsh incrementally at the edge of the field; with other
designs it might basically crash. So subjective impressions are still very helpful.

[GPS]

If you want to see how sharpness, resolution, contrast etc. diminishes toward the edge of the IC you make a test. It then diminishes in this way in the field as in the laboratory. The lens optical properties do not change with the lens being here or there... Valid even for 450C and Tele Xenar 350. Period.

[Drew Wiley]

Dear GPS - I have no idea what you're arguing about. How do you pick a lens? Do you
buy one of each or borrow one of each and then do a bench test? Better yet, do you
buy six or each to make sure you have an adequate statistical sample? Or do you first ask someone with some background with particular lenses to narrow your range of
choices? What I DON'T do is simply go to the internet and look at a single set of tests performed on a single lens. I want to know the overall reputation of the lens too,
from people with real-world experience!

[GPS]

Dear Drew, I have nothing against your lens buying habits, believe me. They are not pertaining to the discussed point either. The OP rightly wanted to see Perez test results and listens to other people's subjective impressions. Nothing against that either. But as soon as one and the other is being put on the same level, my common sens starts to work - what do you want, I just use it... ;-)

[Drew Wiley]

I do have an optical bench stored in the shop but don't use it much. Designed it more for enlarging lenses and shutter testing etc. A forum like this one is very helpful if one was looking for an older lens or something soft-focus or for general
quality-control issues, for instance, an off-brand lens like a Congo. There are a lot of
things that hard specs don't tell us. But when specs are published, I certainly look
at them too!

[Sal Santamaura]

...will shoot a resolution target with it in a week or two when I find the time...Don, I'd greatly appreciate your sharing the results of that resolution target test. Thanks in advance!

[Arne Croell]

Sal, MTF curves for the 350mm are now available from Schneider: http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/datasheets/apo-tele-xenar/apo-tele-xenar_compact_11_350_2.pdf

I'm not Don, but in my own testing, it turned out to be a very good lens. I did not have a test of another 360mm to compare it with, but it was as good (center) or slightly better (corners on 4x5) than the 300mm Apo-Ronar and Apo-Germinar I tested before. Resolution at 10%MTF was about 60lp/mm in the center and 36-40 lp/mm in the corners of a 4x5 negative at f/16. f/22 was a tad better in the corners(40-48) and a little less in the center (52). Also, the sagittal and tangential resolution numbers were identical in the corners. Note that I use the Norman Koren test chart (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html) for my personal comparisons, not the USAF bars; the numbers at 10%MTF are smaller than what one would get for a regular bar chart. As a rough estimate, you could add 10-15% on the lp/mm numbers to get a number for a bar chart test. Of course such numbers depend on several variables, so they are essentially only comparable for the same test setup.

[Ken Lee]

For distant subjects, a 450mm lens gives a roughly 29% increase in magnification over a 350mm lens.

So even if a 450mm lens delivers only 71% of the resolution of a 350mm lens, it will still match it in terms of useable resolution. Conversely, a 350mm lens needs to be 29% better than a 450mm lens, just to match it.

If both lenses yield the same resolution, then for distant subjects, a 450mm lens gives a 29% "improvement".

That aside, the Fujinon is highly regarded (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm) because it uses 52mm filters, has large coverage, and at 285g is lighter than many lenses of much shorter focal length.