Suggested 360mm lens?

[dh003i]

I'm looking for a 360mm lens for my 4x5 sometime in the future. What are your thoughts on the best 355mm - 400mm lens?

Here is my current line-up of lenses: Nikkor 90/4.5, Schneider Symar Convertable 150/5.6 or 6.5 (I forget), Xenotar 135/3.5, and Kodak Ektar 203/7.7.

I'm looking for a lens that is longer than the long-normal 203, and slightly telephoto for focusing in on narrower points of interest. I took a shot I'm happy with with my Oly E-3 at 50mm (equiv to 375 on 4x5), which is almost twice the effective focal length.

I'm looking for a good all-around lens, with emphasis on sharpness and coverage; but I don't want another monster like my Nikkor 90/4.5. I suppose the 203/7.7 was easy enough to focus, but the light was good, and I haven't tried it in dimmer light. So somewhere in-between those two extremes would be good, with more leaning towards a size/weight of the 203/7.7.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Here's a list of a few possibilities I found:

355 Schneider G-Claron
360 Nikon Nikkor W
360 Schneider APO-Symmar
360 Fuji Fujinon CM-W
360 Rodenstock APO-Sironar S
360 Rodenstock APO-Sironar N
360 Rodenstock APO-Ronar
360 Nikon Nikkor T ED
400 Schneider APO-Tele-Xenar HM
400 Schneider APO-Tele-Xenar HM Compact
400 Fuji Fujinon T

I'm also looking for something under $500, so I guess that rules out the 360 Nikkor.

Funny Backstory

Here's the backstory to that. At the Outer Banks, I went to a foggy "tree island" place on Manteo / Roanoke "Island". I took a picture of a tree with fog in the background and some distant trees behind it; looks like something in Africa. Took it with my Olympus E-3 at 50/11. Now, equivalent LF focal length is 375mm, but my longest lens is the Ektar 203/7.7. So I took a shot of it, framing as best I could, at 203/45.

As it turns out, the film I took that shot with was horribly mashed into the film holder; I had loaded it one evening -- after I'd had several glasses of wine -- and this was before I realized the film had to go behind the metal rails. So I stuck it in the same way as the dark-slide cover came out, then put the dark-slide cover over it. The result was of course a scratched piece of film which was really out of proper alignment.

But because I shot at f/45, I still got a great tack-sharp image (and the numerous scratches were taken care of by the diligent work of Edgar Praus at Praus Productions (http://www.4photolab.com/Pages/services01.html) upon scanning in). After scanning, I got the CD, and cropped that picture to the same framing as my shot with my Olympus lens at almost twice the effective focal length. This was throwing away a lot of the data; file-size went from 733 to 207 MB. The picture still significantly outresolves my Olympus E-3 shot, I'd say by at least 2x as much.

Comparing straight from the scan vs. out-of-JPEG for Olympus, the colors are of course different, with Olympus' colors being more saturated green, but still not showing some detail areas and different sections as well. There is also considerably more latitude for enhancing color with the 4x5 image before running into awful issues with banding; although I am comparing it to a JPEG, the RAW would fare better.

All-in-all, considering my poor film-loading "technique" and the fact that I had to crop the image to get similar framing, that's pretty remarkable. Also, I shot at a larger f-stop than I needed to, as the first thing I needed in focus was relatively far away.

Bummer Backstory

After showing that 4x5 transparency and another to friends at a bar/restaurant, I folded a paper towel over them to protect them while we ate, then forgot about them when I went to shoot pool. They were grabbed up along with everything else left on our table and went to he dumpster. Fortunately, I'd scanned in one of them before this happened; and I have slightly less exposed versions of each.

I won't be bringing my transparencies anywhere without a binder from now on. Arg.

[Jim Galli]

360mm lenses are BIG. and HEAVY. There are few exceptions to that rule. One possibility that is rare in the extreme is the 360mm Ronar that came in a Compur #2 shutter in the 1960's. Another possibility is the Fuji 450mm f12.5 lens in Copal 1. Coverage need not be a concern. Any of them will cover 8X10. 355mm Dagor's are nice, but pricey in the extreme. G-Claron is next in line for size, weight after these mentioned. Always a great choice. I love my G-Claron's. After that we're talking Large Marge.

[dh003i]

Thanks for your response. What about he Apo Ronars?

Also, looking at the the 4x5 lens comparison chart (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html), do the weight measurements account for the shutter the lenses would be mounted in? If not, do you know where I can find information on the weights of the various copal shutters? I've Google'd this and can't seem to find it.

[keith english]

What about the true telephoto for 4x5 like the 400 from Osaka imported by Bromwell i believe. Anybody had experience with them. They are reasonably priced at about $700 new. I was considering one.

[Steve Goldstein]

A couple of other lenses, not on your list:

360mm f/10 Fujinon-A
350mm f/11 Schneider something-or-other (recently introduced)

Both these lenses are in Copal 1 shutters. Neither is likely to meet your $500 limit unless you can find a very scratched-up single-coated Fujinon (which is likely to work just fine anyway).

[Ken Lee]

The 360 f/9 APO-Nikkor is quite small and light, because it is f/9 and barrel-mounted. It's a superb performer. It has lovely blur at all settings, and has a many-bladed diaphragm. It takes fairly small filters too: 52mm if I recall correctly.

If your camera lets you use barrel-mounted lenses (no shutter) you can save size, weight and expense. You can always shoot shutter-mounted lenses too, if you want to. With the money you save buying one of these, you can buy another camera.

[Drew Wiley]

What camera are you using? How much bellows draw, and how strong a front standard? For 4x5, I'd avoid anything in a #3 shutter due to weight and potential
vibration. That leaves you with the Fuji 400T, Fuji 360A, and the new Schneider, all
in #1 shutter. Unless you are very lucky, you will need about a grand for any of these
lenses.

[dh003i]

Sorry, I should have told you guys my camera: I have a monorail, the Linhof Kardan Super Color. The rail itself is 18.5 inches long. The bellows have about 13 inches of draw from the front inside standard to the rear inside standard.

However, the ground-glass is about 1.25 inches further behind the end of the bellows on the rear standard; and the front standard is about 0.75 inches wide. So does that mean I effectively have enough draw for a 15 inch (381mm) lens focused at infinity?

However, even if that's the case, I suppose I wouldn't want to push it. 305mm is probably the highest I can go, so I guess that leaves:

Fuji 300/8.5-64 Fujinon C (380mm image circle @ f22) - 250g
Nikon 300/9-128 Nikkor M (325mm image circle @ f22) - 290g - $390 (eBay)
Fuji 300/8-64 Fujinon T (213mm image circle @ f22) - 415g
Schneider 305/9-90 G-Claron (381mm image circle @ f22) - 460g - $350 (eBay)

[resummerfield]

I would avoid a telephoto design if you have the bellows, so that leaves 3 excellent lenses. I've used all 3 of those you list, and currently have and use the Nikkor M.

[Donald Miller]

I use the 305 G Claron on my 5X7. It is a delightful lens. I also own a 305 Repro Claron. It is probably the smallest 305 that you can buy...according to Schneider it is as sharp as the G Claron but has slightly less coverage. I shot the Repro Claron on my 4X5 and never ran out of coverage. Mine is mounted in a Compur shutter.

The front element of the Repro Claron is quite small (something less than 49mm)...I use sheet filters with the lens so don't know the actual filter size...

[Bill_1856]

The 15" Wollensak Tele-Raptar is cheap cheap, good good, and big big.
The 360mm Schneider Tele-Xenar is cheap, good, and light (considering), but the Compound shutters will probably need a little TLC from a good shutter technition.

[dh003i]

Sorry, I should have told you guys my camera: I have a monorail, the Linhof Kardan Super Color. The rail itself is 18.5 inches long. The bellows have about 13 inches of draw from the front inside standard to the rear inside standard.

However, the ground-glass is about 1.25 inches further behind the end of the bellows on the rear standard; and the front standard is about 0.75 inches wide. So does that mean I effectively have enough draw for a 15 inch (381mm) lens focused at infinity?

However, even if that's the case, I suppose I wouldn't want to push it. 305mm is probably the highest I can go, so I guess that leaves:

Fuji 300/8.5-64 Fujinon C (380mm image circle @ f22) - 250g
Nikon 300/9-128 Nikkor M (325mm image circle @ f22) - 290g - $790 (eBay)
Fuji 300/8-64 Fujinon T (213mm image circle @ f22) - 415g
Schneider 305/9-90 G-Claron (381mm image circle @ f22) - 460g - $350 (eBay)

The Nikkor M seems like a very sharp lens, at 42-67 lines/mm on T-max from f/11-f/22 according to C. Perez, but I could only find one without a shutter on eBay for $390; so I presume add $300 for a Copal 1, and $790 would be the price.

The 305/9 G Claron seems like the best option, I suppose. Enormous image circle, enough for 8x10 with a decent amount of movements (a nice normal lens if I ever want to move up). It is also very sharp, even sharper than the Nikkor, at 54-67 lines/mm from f16 - f22. And at 460g, it isn't too heavy, about as heavy as my 14-54mm zoom lens with my Oly E3.

Although it does definitely seem bigger than my Schneider 150/5.6 :-).

[Len Middleton]

I agree with Donald on the Repro-Claron.

I have the 355/f9 version in a Compur 2 shutter, and use it on 8x10 with movements, although I cannot say that I have used movements at infinity with it. Used it on my 4x5 Technika and with the 16" draw was able to focus down to about 10 feet.

It is sharp, and extremely compact. One of the really great things about its compact size is to be able to close up my field camera with it inside, just by flipping the board backwards with the lens pointing toward the ground glass.

Oh, and likely cheaper than the G-Claron as well.

Hope that helps,

Len

[Don Dudenbostel]

A 355 is really pushing the limits of your camera. You might be tight on bellows if you want to do anything close with a 300mm. I would suggest the Nikkor T 360. It takes about the same bellows draw as a 210mm and is a super performer and is in a copal #1. I replaced my 360 tele arton due to size, weight and the Nikkor outperformed it by a wide margin. I teach gifted photo students and have put together a 4x5 kit that includes a Osaka 400 tele. The Osaka pleasantly surprised me in how good it is. It's in a #1 copal, very light weight, resistant to flare and quite sharp and contrasty. I've seen a couple for sale here and on the bay. My lens is branded another name that I can't recall at the moment but it's a Osaka and I paid $150 for it in E+ condition.

With the limited bellows on your camera the Nikkor or another tele is the only thing I would consider.

[dh003i]

I agree with Donald on the Repro-Claron.

I have the 355/f9 version in a Compur 2 shutter, and use it on 8x10 with movements, although I cannot say that I have used movements at infinity with it. Used it on my 4x5 Technika and with the 16" draw was able to focus down to about 10 feet.

It is sharp, and extremely compact. One of the really great things about its compact size is to be able to close up my field camera with it inside, just by flipping the board backwards with the lens pointing toward the ground glass.

Oh, and likely cheaper than the G-Claron as well.

Hope that helps,

Len

Thanks for the suggestion on the Repro Claron, but the 305/9 Repro-Claron is actually more expensive right now ($695) than the G-Claron 305/9 ($450). It must have caught on to people that it's a nice small lens with excellent macro-capabilities.

[dh003i]

A 355 is really pushing the limits of your camera. You might be tight on bellows if you want to do anything close with a 300mm. I would suggest the Nikkor T 360. It takes about the same bellows draw as a 210mm and is a super performer and is in a copal #1. I replaced my 360 tele arton due to size, weight and the Nikkor outperformed it by a wide margin. I teach gifted photo students and have put together a 4x5 kit that includes a Osaka 400 tele. The Osaka pleasantly surprised me in how good it is. It's in a #1 copal, very light weight, resistant to flare and quite sharp and contrasty. I've seen a couple for sale here and on the bay. My lens is branded another name that I can't recall at the moment but it's a Osaka and I paid $150 for it in E+ condition.

With the limited bellows on your camera the Nikkor or another tele is the only thing I would consider.

Thanks for your response. The Nikkor T 360 is way out of my price-range at around $1000+. I paid less than $460 for Nikkor 90/4.5 in a Copal 0. That's a lens I'll be using a lot, and it is a ginormous piece of glass. $1000 seems a little bit too much for a focal length that I'm going to need in case I can't get physically closer to something and want to crop in on it.

Using the 1/S1 + 1/S2 = 1/f formula, I determined that with the 305mm lens, I can focus on something within 5 - 13 feet, depending on whether I assume I have 13in (330mm) or 15 in (381mm) of extension; although brightness (effective f-number) would diminish to f/11.2 if I can focus it on something 5 ft away:


S1 = 1/(1/F – 1/S2) = 1 / (1/305mm - 1/381mm) = 1529mm (5 ft)
Bc = S2 / F = 381mm / 305mm = 1.25x
Ne = Bc * N = 1.25 x 9 = 11.25

(where S1 = distance to object; S2 = lens-film distance; F = focal length; Bc = bellows correction factor; Ne = adjusted f-number; N = stated f-number)

I think that math is right.

For me, even 13 ft would be enough, as I wanted this lens for more distance landscape subjects where I want to crop in and can't get closer.

[Len Middleton]

Thanks for the suggestion on the Repro Claron, but the 305/9 Repro-Claron is actually more expensive right now ($695) than the G-Claron 305/9 ($450). It must have caught on to people that it's a nice small lens with excellent macro-capabilities.

Surprised at the price difference. The G-Claron has much greater coverage than the Repro-Claron, although as noted the Repro-Claron is much more compact. A $245 difference for more compact lens with less coverage seems a bit excessive. I expect it is not the same seller for both lenses. And there may be other differences (condition, shutter, etc.), that do not make it an apples to apples comparison.

Also with a Linhof Kardan, compact would not seem to be a major selection criteria. Both are good lenses (I have 150, 210, and 305 G-Claron, as well as the 355 Repro-Claron), and price may the be critical determinant.

Good luck,

Len

[Jiri Vasina]

I would also vote for a Schneider Repro-Claron 355mm. I have a 305mm one, and it's and excellent lens - use it on 5×8" and have never run out of coverage. It's very small, very light, very sharp...

Jiri

[Len Middleton]

If bellows draw is an issue for a non-telephoto lens, you might be able to use a "top hat" Technika style lensboard (as made by Ebony?).

If you do not have a Kardan to Technika converter board, you will need one of those as well for the above solution (also provide a small bit of extra extension). It would be possible to build / get built a Kardan top hat lensboard, but that would be a one-off from what I have seen.

I have the 305 G-Claron and the 355 Repro-Claron on Technika boards, so I know they will fit...

Len

[Armin Seeholzer]

The APO Ronar 300 mm is not on your list and is a wonderfull perfomer!!!
I don't sell mine!

Cheers Armin

[dh003i]

Surprised at the price difference. The G-Claron has much greater coverage than the Repro-Claron, although as noted the Repro-Claron is much more compact. A $245 difference for more compact lens with less coverage seems a bit excessive. I expect it is not the same seller for both lenses. And there may be other differences (condition, shutter, etc.), that do not make it an apples to apples comparison.

Also with a Linhof Kardan, compact would not seem to be a major selection criteria. Both are good lenses (I have 150, 210, and 305 G-Claron, as well as the 355 Repro-Claron), and price may the be critical determinant.

Good luck,

Len

Well, the repro-claron is selling in a nice wooden lens-board (and they are different sellers), but that souldn't make that much difference:


Schneider Repro Claron 305 f 9.0 , 11x14 coverage...in like new condition in beautiful copal 3S on newish Deardorf 6x6 board mounted by SK Grimes.

The description of the G-Claron is:


The 305 G-Claron is in excellent+ to mint- condition.Shutter is accurate by the result I got from shooting Velvia 100. The glass has no scratch/cleaning mark/fog/fungus/separation. No visible internal dust by looking through the lens.

And the pictures bear that out.

I'll look into that lens-board you suggested too.

[Don Dudenbostel]

If you are looking at ebay the seller with the Repro claron is asking way too much. It appears to be a late Schneider (Kern?) lens in a copal shutter which is nice but if you research the closed auctions one sold in a shutter recently for $173. Be patient and look around some and you should be able to find a nice shutter mounted Repro Claron for under $250.

[Len Middleton]

I do not have the skill that Mr. Grimes had, and his crew appearently continues display. But then again, I did not need that to mount lenses onto 6x6 Deardorff lensboards. So that remark provides little value in the transaction.

What concerns me is the 11x14 coverage statement. I know that I have run out of room on my 355 Repro-Claron on 8x10 with severe front tilt, so I am having difficulty with a lens that is 20% shorter covering 11x14, and it seems a little suspect. Schneider quotes 302mm for a 360 Apo-Artar @ f22 (similar design), so I would wonder about the claim for 11x14 at infinity.

Now you of course, do not need that coverage, but to me it leaves the other claims suspect...

If you need one now, then the G-Claron looks to be a better deal, otherwise Don's advise is sound if you have the time.

My thoughts,

Len

[Jiri Vasina]

Truly, I do not know the exact coverage of my 305mm Repro-Claron, I use it with no problems (have never run out of coverage) with my 5x8". But it's not recommended for 8x10" infinity work AFAIK - because of the limited movements available (if any at all). 305mm G-Claron is a good lens to use on 8x10" on the other hand.

Therefore I would assume the 355mm Repro-Claron to be good on 8x10", but possibly of limited use (for landscape/infinity work with movements) on larger formats like 11x14". Unlike G-Claron, again...

But that's not (that) important for someone intending to use the lens on 4x5". There it's highly unlikely he would run out of coverage with either of them, and the smaller size of a Repro-Claron might be a bonus. And even if he decides later to go larger, it would still be an useful lens...

Jiri

[dh003i]

Thanks for your comments all...yea, I figured that the Repro-Claron at $600+ was a complete rip-off. Maybe the seller is just hoping for an ignorant buyer. I'm sure that happens sometime. I should try that when I sell my 58/1.2 Minolta Rokkor. I think it has been going for $400. Maybe I can get $600 or $700 out of someone who thinks that's a normal price ;-)

In any event, yea, I'm leaning towards the G-Claron. I may eventually want to go to 8x10, and the G-Claron is exceptionally sharp for an 8x10 lens.

[dh003i]

Just wanted to follow up on this thread. I got a G-Claron 305/9 in excellent condition for about $410, considering excellent ones on KEH.com are $570.

Regarding its focus limitations, on my Linhof Kardan Supercolor, with regards to its ability to focus on subjects near the camera, I found it able to focus on a chair about 8 ft away. That corresponds to a 1/(1/305 - 1/(96 * 25.4) = 348.6 mm extension, or 13.7 inches. There was still about 1-1.5 inches more of room to extend the bellows out; so it can focus to something as close as 5.5 feet away on that monorail [1/(1/(305/25.4) - 1/14.7)].

This corresponds to a maximum of about 0.22x magnification.

[senderoaburrido]

Reviving this. Is there a reason the 355mm G-Claron goes for over twice the price of the 305mm? I'm looking for a lens around 360mm myself, for portraits, and currently I'm eyeing an 360mm WA Apo-Nikkor. The cost plus mounting it in a shutter with SK Grimes is less than the cost of a 360mm Fujinon-A (over 1000$ CAD), and just under the cost of the 355mm G-Claron's I see on eBay.

[Kevin Crisp]

I am also using my 305 REPRO claron a lot these days. It covers 5X7 with room to spare. But to put it in shutter you need a Compur 2, which is no spring chicken. Most easily found on the original 240 Symmars. I use that same shutter for front mounting 355 and 420 R Clarons and have two back up shutters just in case.

[Lachlan 717]

Reviving this. Is there a reason the 355mm G-Claron goes for over twice the price of the 305mm? I'm looking for a lens around 360mm myself, for portraits, and currently I'm eyeing an 360mm WA Apo-Nikkor. The cost plus mounting it in a shutter with SK Grimes is less than the cost of a 360mm Fujinon-A (over 1000$ CAD), and just under the cost of the 355mm G-Claron's I see on eBay.

Make sure you confirm that the Nikkor can be shutter-mounted. Most of these APO-Nikkors can't be.

[Dan Fromm]

Lachlan, see: http://www.skgrimes.com/lens-mounting/table-of-lenses-fitted-to-shutters

Its been done. Price is the big question. I haven't done the research so don't have well-founded beliefs about current prices of the lenses mentioned, the ease of finding them or skgrimes prices for remounts. Even so I doubt the assertions in post #27 above.

[Greg]

Might I suggest a little bit longer lens... a 500mm f/7 KOMURA. Use it on my 4x5 Chamonix and love it. Doesn't require a lot of bellows extension. Covers 4x5 with little front movement possible but that doesn't bother me and the lens is amazingly, I mean amazingly sharp. Best thing is that the 500mm f/7 KOMURA can be had for a very reasonable price.

[mdarnton]

I'm looking for a lens around 360mm myself, for portraits. . .

If you are looking for portraits on 4x5, the best deal running is the 15" Tele-Optar/Raptar, in shutter, for $150 or so.

[Kevin Crisp]

The Tele-Optar is a really nice lens. But it weighs 2+ pounds?

[senderoaburrido]

The Tele-Optar is a really nice lens. But it weighs 2+ pounds?

2+ pounds is probably a bit much for the front standard of the Canham DLC.

[senderoaburrido]

Lachlan, see: http://www.skgrimes.com/lens-mounting/table-of-lenses-fitted-to-shutters

Its been done. Price is the big question. I haven't done the research so don't have well-founded beliefs about current prices of the lenses mentioned, the ease of finding them or skgrimes prices for remounts. Even so I doubt the assertions in post #27 above.

All the Fujinons and g-clarons around that focal length that I could find on ebay were 900 CAD plus. I have an eye ona 360 apo nikkor that, combined with sk grimes' shutter mounting fee comes out to 800-something CAD. I don't have a spare copal 3, though. Only a copal 3s. Either way those prices are astounding.

[Dan Fromm]

I just took a quick look at ebay.com.

http://web.archive.org/save/http://www.ebay.com/itm/Schneider-355mm-f9-G-Claron-Copal-3-/112323922769 In shutter, BIN USD 695

http://web.archive.org/save/http://www.ebay.com/itm/Schneider-355mm-f9-G-Claron-Copal-3-/192122114352 In shutter, USD 699, BIN 908.70

No 360 Apo-Nikkors, plain or WA, active or sold. A plain 360 just covers 8x10. What format do you need.

One sold 360 Fujinon-A.

I continue to doubt your assertions about prices and availability.

[MAubrey]

I just took a quick look at ebay.com.

http://web.archive.org/save/http://www.ebay.com/itm/Schneider-355mm-f9-G-Claron-Copal-3-/112323922769 In shutter, BIN USD 695
...
I continue to doubt your assertions about prices and availability.
695USD is 900CAD plus. Those are the same.

[John Kasaian]

A Zombie thread, but the 14" APO Artar hasn't been mentioned yet. Mine is in a Dial set Compur and looks like it would fit on a 4x5 lens board.

[Dan Fromm]

695USD is 900CAD plus. Those are the same.

Thanks for the sanity check. According to xe.com, a moment ago USD 695 = CAD 938.63. I had no idea the loonie was flying so low.

[Tim Meisburger]

I think you meant to type US $700 = $946 CAD. Canada is a bargain these days, as the dollar soars.

[MAubrey]

Thanks for the sanity check. According to xe.com, a moment ago USD 900 = CAD 946. I had no idea the loonie was flying so low.
Yeah. I miss the place, but I'm quite happy to be being paid in USD these days!

[Kevin Crisp]

Making America Expensive Again.

[senderoaburrido]

Thanks for the sanity check. According to xe.com, a moment ago USD 695 = CAD 938.63. I had no idea the loonie was flying so low.

Yeah, I'm getting murdered by it right now. It was fun making 11 CAD an hour in 2013. Not so fun now.

[MusicalPhotog]

Going through this old thread, I saw a lot of comments about the Apo-Nikkor 360mm f/9 lens. So I thought I would share mine. It's mounted in a Copal 3 shutter; not sure by whom. It's small, light-weight, covers 8x10, with plenty of wiggle room. And it takes 67mm filters.

So if you get a chance to get one of these, do it. You won't regret it.

193180