Tele lens on 4x5?

[earnwkw]

I am thinking of the buying one from the below lens :

1. Fujinon 300mm C
2. Fujinon 300mm T
3. Nikon M 300mm
4. Schneider tele -xenar 360mm 5.5

I like to select particular area from landscape that's why i need a tele lens. I may also use the lens in portrait.

I perfer 1 and 3 (they are similar i think ?) because of their smaller size ( i hike a lot) , also i have enough bellow so non-tele design is not an issue.
However i heard that the tele lens use a tele-design so that their angle of view will be smaller from what a normal lens will do. I wonder if it will make the lens effectively more tele than a normal lens.

Thanks.

[BradS]

The Fujinon-C and Nikkor-M are normal design - they are not tele lenses. The other two are telephoto design. The normal lenses, Nikkor-M and Fujinon-C will require the full 300mm of bellows to focus at infinity. The 300mm Fujinon-T, will require less than 300mm of bellows because it is a telephoto design. All three of these are 300mm focal length...they will all have nominally the same magnification...the differences in bellows draw are the only difference - well, aside from the obvious difference in size and weight of the lenses.

Does that answer your question?

[Ron Marshall]

I am thinking of the buying one from the below lens :

1. Fujinon 300mm C
2. Fujinon 300mm T
3. Nikon M 300mm
4. Schneider tele -xenar 360mm 5.5



What camera will you use with the lens, and how much bellows does it have?

[Len Middleton]

Couple of other considerations for you...

1. The non-telephoto designs (1 & 3) will likely also cover 8x10 (and smaller) if you ever decide to migrate to other formats (never say never!!).

2. If you do any movements, the telephoto will run out of movement well before the non-telephoto designs will. Also if you use lens axis tilts or swings, the lens nodal point is well in front of the lensboard which can result in some additional adjustments required when using tilts and swings.

Presumeably that muddys the water further for you...

Regards,

Len

[Brian Ellis]

All other things being more or less equal, a normal lens rather than a telephoto would be my choice as long as my camera bellows was long enough. By "long enough" I mean not just long enough to focus at infinity (i.e. 300mm of bellows draw) but long enough for general purpose photography, which means often needing to focus closer than infinity (which for me would mean at least 330 inches of bellows draw and preferably more). Len has given some of the reasons. As he points out, and contrary to what someone else said, there are quite a few differences between a telephoto and a non-telephoto lens besides just the necessary bellows length and the differences don't generally favor using a telephoto if you have a choice. In addition to those mentioned by Len, telephotos in general have a reputation for not being quite as "sharp" as normal lenses.

[aduncanson]

I am sure that Brian meant 330mm, not 330 inches, of bellows. For portraiture with a conventional 300mm lens you might actually want more than 360mm of lens extension achieved by means of bellows draw or a top hat lens board. Some press cameras and field cameras can't provide that and so the industry gave us telephoto designs.

[Len Middleton]

To put Brian's bellows draw comments into context (other than his obvious error of needing at least 27.5 feet of bellows draw), my 355mm (14") Repro-Claron on my camera with 16" bellows draw can focus no closer than 10 feet. My Repro Claron is a dialyte design normal lens in shutter, and mounted on a flat lensboard.

Hope that helps provide you with some further insight,

Len

[douglas gove]

earnwkw...i have both a Nikkor 300m and Fujinon 400t that i use on my Wista SP...i employ a top hat board with the 300...the 400t requires only about 250mm extension...my old eyes can not discern any difference in sharpness...the 400 requires some different tecniques do to image circle and nodal point...bought the 400 to reach and compress some scenes...doug

[Scott Davis]

I used to have the Fuji 300T when I shot mostly 4x5. It was a terrific lens, great resolution and color fidelity. The biggest downside was applying movements, specifically for me rise and fall, as I mostly used it for landscape so other movements were seldom applied. It runs out of image circle pretty fast - it just covers 5x7 with maybe 10-15mm to spare, and then it falls off pretty fast. It does cover quite well up to the limits of its image circle though. it is also an f8 lens, so it is more limited than a non-tele 300 in terms of exposure. If you have the bellows to use the more compact Nikkor 300 (I forget which one is the smaller one), I'd get it and not look back. If you have limited bellows extension but still need the 300mm focal length for a 4x5, I would not hesitate to get the Fuji.

[earnwkw]

as said in OP , don't worry the bellow extension for me , i have a zone vi which got 22inch bellow draw which shall be more than adequate.

it seems a better choice to stick with the normal design lens. So any comment on nikon versus fujifilm?

[seabird]

So any comment on nikon versus fujifilm?

I anticipate that in real world use they will be indistinguishable in terms of image quality. That means other factors become more relevant:

According to the comparison charts both are in copal-1 shutters and both take 52mm filters, so nothing to choose between them there. The max aperture of the Fuji is slightly wider (f8.5 v f9); the image circle of the Fuji is slightly larger, and the Fuji is slightly lighter in weight. Those considerations *might* tend to favour the Fuji, but in reality, the differences are pretty minor.

If you are looking to buy new then you have no choice - it has to be the Fuji because Nikon no longer manufacture LF lenses and I'd be surprised if you find any retailers who still have it in stock. If you are looking to buy second hand then I suspect the Nikkor will be easier to find through the normal sources.

Declaration of interest: I have the Nikkor-M 300 for 4x5 and love it.

Hope this helps

[Drew Wiley]

Besides the differences in movement and coverage, telephoto lenses will be significantly heavier and bulkier. They will probably give compromised performance at
close distances. And I really doubt they are in fact equal to the optical quality of the two standard lenses you mentioned. As far as the Fuji C and Nikkor M are concerned,
these are both outstanding lenses on 4x5, but a little tight with 8x10 coverage. I would resort to a telephoto design only if my camera didn't have sufficient bellows for
another option.

[earnwkw]

thanks all for the contribution . I will look for a fuji c or nikon m =]

[Jim Rhoades]

I've had a Fuji 300T and a Nikon 300M. The Fuji was no where near as sharp as the Nikon and a pain to work with too. If you have the bellows, to me there's no question, buy the normal lens.

Sold the 300T and will never let go of the M. I use it for 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10.

[seabird]

I've had a Fuji 300T and a Nikon 300M. The Fuji was no where near as sharp as the Nikon and a pain to work with too. If you have the bellows, to me there's no question, buy the normal lens.

Sold the 300T and will never let go of the M. I use it for 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10.

Jim, +1 on the 300M :) , but I think the OP is tossing up between the 300M and the Fuji 300-C (not 300-T). Do you have any experience to share regarding the 300-C?

Cheers

[Jim Rhoades]

Seabird, Nope I never used a 300C. I do have a Fuji 105 that is a very nice lens. I don't know if there would be any difference between the C and M.

I will say that the two best, sharpest lenses that I have ever used are the 300M and a Docter Germinar 240W. I know that Fuji made a 240 that's a touch smaller than the Germinar. However I have learned that once you find a really sharp lens you never let it go. BTW, the Germinar fits inside my Linhof.

Funny thing is you never know what will turn in an amazing performance. I had a high rated 135mm Plasmat but my 135 Schneider Xenar from my Crown Graphic kicked it's butt all over the ground glass. I gave up the coverage for the sharpest lens. I'm still looking for a 135 that's really sharp, with coverage. If I could only find a Sironar S in my price range that's as sharp as they say..

[BradS]

I had a beautiful 300mm Nikkor-M some years ago. It is a wonderful lens but, always wanted the 300mm Fujinon-C instead because of its seemingly superior specs (on paper). So I sold the Nikkor and bought the compact fujinon. It too was a fantastic lens...in fact, I really could not find any practical difference between the two. They are both small, take 52mm filters, fit in a copal #1 shutter....both cover 8x10 with plenty of room. Neither really has any advantage at all over the other.

Oddly, I ended up selling the Fujinon too. I found a 300mm APO Sironar-N which, asside from focal length has nothing in common with the two compact lenses. The Sironar is a monster lens. Hugh, heavy, bright(!). Well, OK it too is wonderfully sharp and has ample coverage for 8x10.

In short, I really don't think there is any practical difference between the 300mm Nikkor-M and the 300mm Fujinon-C.