Suggestions for 300-360mm for 4x5

[Noah A]

I'm looking to add a longer lens to my kit, which currently consists of 90 and 115 Grandagons and 135, 150 and 210 Apo-Sironar-S lenses.

I'm looking for a lens that will match the sharpness of my current lineup as well as the color rendering and contrast of the Rodenstocks.

The obvious choices seem to be the Nikkor M 300 or Fuji C 300. I know they're probably sharp enough, but I wonder if they'll have a different look from my Rodenstocks?

I'm also curious about the Apo-Tele-Xenar Compact 350mm (or possibly any other tele-design lens that will focus on my Technika).

I need room for a decent amount of front rise/fall, though I know this isn't a problem with most of the lenses in these focal lengths. I'll be mostly using the lens for cityscapes so the working distance will be moderately long.

I'd love to hear from people who have used these lenses as well as other suggestions.

Sharpness is not academic in my case, my prints start at 20x24 inches and I often print 40x50 inches or larger.

[BradS]

I've owned two 300mm Nikkor-M, one 300mm Fujinon-C and currently still own and use many Rodenstock Sironar-N and Grandagon-N. From that limited small sample, I can say that the Nikkor-M is far sharper than the Fujinon-C and that the Japanese lenses do not render color the same as the Rodenstocks. It's not even close. The Japanese lenses, to my eye, are cooler while the Rodenstocks tend toward warm.

Personally, I never found a compelling need for a lens that long on 4x5. I tought that I'd use the 300mm length for portraits. It turns out that peoples' faces look really flat and lifeless when shot with a 300mm on 4x5 (of course, this is due to the camera- to subject distance, not the lens).

Again, my personal opinion, you're often far better off with a really good wide angle when shooting "cityscapes". This allows you to get in closer and cut out extraneous junk - like signs, wires, the street, etc...

[Oren Grad]

The obvious choices seem to be the Nikkor M 300 or Fuji C 300. I know they're probably sharp enough, but I wonder if they'll have a different look from my Rodenstocks?

I can't say anything about color, but there are situations in which OOF rendering will be different. The balance between contrast and resolution - the exact shape of the MTF - will differ as well. If this sort of subtlety matters for your work, unfortunately there's not really any alternative to buying or borrowing the lenses you're considering and testing them for yourself.

If you need something compact, you might also consider the Apo-Ronars, subject to the same caveat. OTOH, if you keep a forklift as part of your kit and if having a consistent optical "flavor" is really important, then to state the obvious, there's always the 300 and 360 Apo-Sironar-S.

[redu]

I use a Tele Arton 360mm f5.5 and mostly for portraits. It's a big and heavy lens. Weighs almost like 1kg. But it is an ideal lens for portraits with it's large aperture. Artons are supposedly better than their elder brothers Tele Xenar 360mm f5.5 due to being multicoated and one extra element (5 element 5 group vs 4 element 3 group design respectively) in design. At the 2nd hand market Xenars are more frequently seen though. Still, if you come across with an Arton it sells around the same price as Xenar. Here (http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/tele_arton_tele_xenar.pdf) is the ancient Schneider brochure describing all about these two.

[vinny]

Don't forget the 305mm g claron. Heavier than the nikkor m, single coated too but I haven't noticed any difference from my rodenstocks, fujinons, and nikkors.

[Ken Lee]

Like the others in the A series, the Fujinon 300 A is a "super-apochromatic" lens, and is remarkably small and light, considering its performance. It has a generous 420 mm circle of coverage. It takes 55 mm filters, and weighs only 410 grams.

Here's a sample image made on 4x5 TMY film on an Arca-Swiss Discovery. The lens had more covering power than the camera had rise. Standing so close to the building, I had to tilt up a bit. The detail image is a magnification of around 8X, made at 2500 spi on a Microtek 2500F scanner.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/f300a.jpg

[Richard Wasserman]

I use a 300mm Apo-Germinar which is tiny, 40.5mm filters, and very light. Its IC is 255mm and it weighs about 225 grams. I unfortunately have only used it with B&W and don't know how it compares to Rodenstock in terms of color. Sorry this isn't completely useful. A bit more info—

http://www.reallybigcameras.com/Docter_Optics/300mm_APO_Germinar.html

[Arne Croell]

The Apo-Tele-Xenar Compact 350mm is not, despite its name, a telephoto type, it is a dialyte like the Apo-Germinar Richard mentioned, or the Apo-Ronars and Apo-Artars. All of these are much smaller than a regular telephoto and are also viable alternatives to the Nikkor-M or Fuji-C.

[Noah A]

I'm not looking for a portrait lens. I'd be most likely to use this lens for somewhat distant scenes that I can't get closer to, for one reason or another. Also for architectural details or for cropped portions of cityscapes. But in any event, none of it would be close to a portrait distance.

Are the dialyte lenses all process lenses that are optimized for close distances? I often hear that the process lenses can be used with good results at infinity, but I don't know how sharp they really are at those distances.

I may just bite the bullet and go for a 300 Apo Sironar S, but it's heavy and expensive, and this is sort of a special-use lens for me, not one I'll use every day.

[jeroldharter]

You don't say what 4x5 camera you have. Some would have difficulty with a 300 and many more with a 360.

You could always get an apo-Sironar-S 300 mm lens to be consistent with your other lenses but it would be very large and heavy.

All of the modern choices (Nikkor 300M, Fujinon 300C, Apo-Tele-Xenar 350, G-Claron 305) will give you huge coverage for 4x5.

I like the 300 mm focal length for 4x5 landscapes. I would keep it simple and get the Fujinon of Nikkor which are small, light, sharp, multicoated, use small filters, and are available.

[Drew Wiley]

All my Fuji C's are incredibly sharp, as are my Fuji A's and Nikkor M. The color balance is very similar in all of them, and virtually indistinguishable from the G-Claron I use in
comparable focal length. The A's and G's have the advantage of close-up correction,
but are superb at infinity with normal stop-down. The M and C's are infinity correted
wide open. Perhaps the best quality of the A series in this kind of focal length, as well
as the G-Claron, is that you have enough coverage to use 8x10 film too, should you
choose to do so. With the others the coverage on 8x10 will be a little tight.

[Two23]

I've been happy with the Rodenstock Geronar 300mm f9, Copal 1. Lots of coverage and it is sharp.


Kent in SD

[Atul Mohidekar]

If you are going to use the lens on a 4x5 camera, I would highly recommend the latest version of the 300mm APO-Ronar lens.

I have done some controlled, but non-scientific, testing with Nikkor M 300mm and APO-Ronar 300mm on a 4x5 camera. The APO-Ronar that I used for testing was the (rare) latest "blue ring" version of the Ronar lens that came with the factory installed Copal shutter and is supposedly optimized for infinity. Both lenses were modern and multi-coated lenses produced in 1990s (Nikkor may be even later). The Ronar weighs slightly less (~10gm) than Nikkor. Nikkor has bigger image circle, but Ronar is more than sufficient to cover a 4x5 with movements. Nikkor is a small lens, Ronar is even smaller. My test results were very close to the naked eye, but under 10x loupe I would rate Ronar slightly higher for its resolution. Ronar is one of the two most used lenses in my kit as I like to shoot with longer than normal focal lengths.

// Atul

[redu]

I'm not looking for a portrait lens. I'd be most likely to use this lens for somewhat distant scenes that I can't get closer to, for one reason or another. Also for architectural details or for cropped portions of cityscapes. But in any event, none of it would be close to a portrait distance.

Are the dialyte lenses all process lenses that are optimized for close distances? I often hear that the process lenses can be used with good results at infinity, but I don't know how sharp they really are at those distances.

I may just bite the bullet and go for a 300 Apo Sironar S, but it's heavy and expensive, and this is sort of a special-use lens for me, not one I'll use every day.

Well in this case, 350mm might not be enough for 4x5. Here (http://lensn2shutter.com/35mmchart.html) is a good comparison of focal lengths for different formats; by taking 35mm 135 format as a reference. For the applications you mention i would go for a 500-600mm tele. There will always be scenes that you would like to get closer but for those you think they are too close, most of the times you have the chances to move back. I have a Komura 500 f7 for this purpose. It's a good lens though i can not compare it with another one at similar focal length.

[Alan Gales]

The Nikkor 300M is an obvious choice which I recommend. For something different what about a Kodak 10" or 14" Commercial Ektar? I just hope that you have a very robust front standard.

[Steve Barber]

If you want something other than the Fuji lenses (I only have one LF Fuji lens, the 600mm f12 Fujinon-T, so I cannot say how their other LF lenses might compare), then I would recommend a 305mm or 360mm f9 G-Claron or the comparable Red Dot Artar or APO-Ronar lenses for focal lengths longer than 210mm on a 4x5 camera. I would not say that these are comparable to the 300mm f5.6 APO Sironar-S, but I think they are close enough. Their reduced weight and bulk more than make up for any slight difference in performance that I can see, using them on a 4x5 with the shorter APO-Sironar-S or Grandagon-N lenses that I have.

[Noah A]

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I think a blue-stripe Apo Ronar would be great, if I can find one.

I'm using two cameras, a Technikardan 45S (which presents no problems) and a Master Technika 2000 (which may limit me somewhat).

I agree that a 300 may not really be long enough for what I want, but I think it's long enough to be different from my 210.

I also have considered an Apo Tele Xenar 400, but it's rare on the used market and pricey if purchased new.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I think a blue-stripe Apo Ronar would be great, if I can find one.

I'm using two cameras, a Technikardan 45S (which presents no problems) and a Master Technika 2000 (which may limit me somewhat).

I agree that a 300 may not really be long enough for what I want, but I think it's long enough to be different from my 210.

I also have considered an Apo Tele Xenar 400, but it's rare on the used market and pricey if purchased new.

Neither the 300 or the 360 Apo Sironar S lenses will physically fit either of your cameras, in case anyone doesn't realize that.

[Richard Wasserman]

Does the 300 Apo Sironar-N fit on the Technikardan?





Neither the 300 or the 360 Apo Sironar S lenses will physically fit either of your cameras, in case anyone doesn't realize that.

[Bob Salomon]

Does the 300 Apo Sironar-N fit on the Technikardan?

No, the rear element is also too large to fit into the hole in the front standard.

[jeroldharter]

I have a 360mm Symmar. I could not believe how big it was, even though I had seen pictures and knew the stats. The fact that the rear element of a 300 won't even fit in the front standard of your camera will makenyou appreciate the Nikkor/Fujinon options!

[jan staller]

I tried a recent 360 Tele Arton and found color fringing and insufficient sharpness
for the kind of color photographs I wanted to make. I then bought a Tele-Xenar APO compact and found it to demonstrably more sharp and free of fringing in difficult
scattered light situations found in rainy weather. It can be focused fine on a Linhof Technika with out the extra lens barrel.

[Richard Wasserman]

Darn!



No, the rear element is also too large to fit into the hole in the front standard.

[John Kasaian]

Nikkor M would be a fine choice. MC, lightwieght and will cover 8x10 so being a tessar, you'll have the "centercut" the sharpest part of a tessar on your 4x5. I've got one on an 8x10 aerial camera and it is ouchy sharp even at the edges.

[Adamphotoman]

You already own some very good lenses -all Rodies. And for the most part you have gone with my favourites-the Apo Sironar S. I also own several Apo Ronars MC 360 and a CL480 and I have had a 305 mm G Claron. I don't believe that you will find these to your liking for distance work. They may physically fit your camera but they may not compare with what you have become accustomed to.

The Fuji compact 300 might work for you. Or the Nikkor M. For colour work You should be able to warm up the images with CC filters. For B & W You could expose and process to adjust for differences.

However, that said, maybe you need to think about a different camera to use with longer Apo Sironar S lenses.

Or! I was thinking of building a box like lens board that could house the larger lens. You would most likely get some vignetting though. And I can't speak about whether the front standard could even handle the extra cantilevered weight.

[mudar]

I am happy with my Apo Ronar 300 in my set with the other Grandagon and Sironar lenses on my Linhof Technika!

[Noah A]

If you are going to use the lens on a 4x5 camera, I would highly recommend the latest version of the 300mm APO-Ronar lens.

I have done some controlled, but non-scientific, testing with Nikkor M 300mm and APO-Ronar 300mm on a 4x5 camera. The APO-Ronar that I used for testing was the (rare) latest "blue ring" version of the Ronar lens that came with the factory installed Copal shutter and is supposedly optimized for infinity. Both lenses were modern and multi-coated lenses produced in 1990s (Nikkor may be even later). The Ronar weighs slightly less (~10gm) than Nikkor. Nikkor has bigger image circle, but Ronar is more than sufficient to cover a 4x5 with movements. Nikkor is a small lens, Ronar is even smaller. My test results were very close to the naked eye, but under 10x loupe I would rate Ronar slightly higher for its resolution. Ronar is one of the two most used lenses in my kit as I like to shoot with longer than normal focal lengths.

// Atul

Thanks Atul, that's what I was looking for. The good news is that I found one for sale.

[Adamphotoman]

I do love the Apo Ronars. My 360 is a multicoated sample supplied in shutter from Rodenstock. It was very late in production. It is superb for close ups and medium distance. Mine was supplied with shims specifically for 4X5 work. I do think you will need to shoot it yourself. Then you compare results to a lens designed for distance.
I have no issue with it being better than your Nikkor M.
Try it against a Fuji compact.
I know the Apo Sironar S will outperform the ronar at distances.

But given cost/size/weight/and physical size restraints, I believe that the Fuji will be a better choice than the Ronar and with a whole lot less bellows too.

All I am saying is with your shorter Apo Sironar S lens choices (that you are happy with) -- you will need to compare results and you will need to see if the ronar lives up to your expectations. You be the judge.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

But given cost/size/weight/and physical size restraints, I believe that the Fuji will be a better choice than the Ronar and with a whole lot less bellows too.

In terms of weight the late "Blue Stripe" 300mm f9 APO Ronar has a listed weight of 270g. The actual weight (sample size of 1) is 253g. The 300mm f8.5 Fujinon C has a listed weight of 250g. I don't have one to weigh, but in my experience with other similar size lenses from Fuji is the actual measured weight tends to be about 20g more than the manufacturer's specs. Worst case the APO Ronar weighs 3g more, but given my experience with other Fuji lenses, I'd be surprised if the actual weight of the APO Ronar is more than that of the Fujinon.

In terms of size, again they are very similar. Both come in Copal No. 1 shutters. Here's the specs for both:

300mm f9 APO Ronar:
Front Diameter = 51mm
Filter Thread = 49mm
Rear Diameter = 37.5mm
Total Length = 47.5mm

300mm f8.5 Fujinon C:
Front Diameter = 54mm
Filter Thread = 52mm
Rear Diameter = 48mm
Total Length = 44.9mm

So, the APO Ronar is smaller around, both front and rear, and the Fuji is 2.6mm shorter front to back. Hardly seems worth quibbling about.

In terms of bellows draw, the Fuji wins, but the difference isn't all that much. The 300mm Fujinon has an ftf of 282.3mm and the 300mm APO Ronar has an ftf of 296mm. Both of the OP's cameras have more than enough bellows to use either lens for general purpose photography, Neither has enough bellows for true macro work. So, it doesn't seem like much of an issue one way, or the other.

In terms of performance, the late "Blue Ring" shutter mounted APO Ronars are amazing. They are true apochromatic lenses, incredibly sharp with no color fringing.

Kerry

[Jeff Bannow]

On a related note, how much bellows extension would be needed for one of these non-telephoto design lenses at portrait distances, like an apo ronar?

[redu]

On a related note, how much bellows extension would be needed for one of these non-telephoto design lenses at portrait distances, like an apo ronar?

1/f = 1/Do + 1/Di

where f is the focal length of the lens, Do is the object distance (distance from lens front nodal point to the person to take the portarit of) and Di is the image distance (roughly bellows draw) This is valid for all lenses including teles but teles have their nodal point further from the camera on lens axis.

Accordingly to tale a portarait of a guy 3m (3000mm) away from our 300mm non-tele design lens, required the bellows draw is calculated to be

1/300 = 1/3000 + 1/Do
1/Do = 10/3000 - 1/3000
Do=3000/9 = 33.33 cm

if i am not wrong.

[Jeff Bannow]

1/f = 1/Do + 1/Di

where f is the focal length of the lens, Do is the object distance (distance from lens nodal point to the person to take the portarit of) and Di is the image distance (roughly bellows draw) This is valid for all lenses including teles but teles have their nodal point further from the camera on lens axis.

Thanks - that helps a lot.

[Adamphotoman]

First; I have 2 Apo Ronars... One is a 360 MC which is a CL available in a Copal 3 Shutter mounted and delivered from Linos exactly to the same specifications as the Blue Stripe [The decorative blue stripe is only for colour coding and Shneider was dressing up their lenses at the same time too-It is all that changed-nothing internal].
A new lens was brought out at the birth of the colour striping. The Apo Sironar-S made it's debut with a red stripe at that same time. This made for easy chart comparisons showing the image circles of different lenses.

Many lenses evolve over time. Mostly coatings and cementing procedures. The best reason to choose a blue stripe is that the shutter may have more life left in it. For my work, I don't need a shutter. My scan back simply starts and stops. However, I do require an aperture.

I need to travel with a laptop and if I do panoramas then I need the pano adapter too. So weight does concern me very much.

I also make 12 to 18 foot longs. Detail is paramount and the scan backs will test every piece of glass without compromise, without letting personalities and emotions get in the way to "colour" lens choices. Digital verification and the ability to see images quickly levels the playing field.

Most Process lenses are optimized for close up work. Late longer 360mm Apo Ronars are still optimized for 1-1 or 10-1 to 1-10 and the 360 has been designed to work at f:22-f:32. This has increased its performance at mid distance and although it may be acceptable for long distance work my equipment simply can not render those far away mountain peaks as sharply as the lenses designed for infinity work.

The shorter 300mm needs to be used at f:22.

Believe me, I want the "photo Lore" or urban legend to be true. To make razor sharp landscape images with this light weight medium priced optic. It just does not live up to my expectations. I am spoiled by the Apo Sironar-S.

When Peter Grote goes hikes up the side of the Himalayas he brings hundreds of pounds of gear and food and shelter with him. He can afford Sherpas and Yaks to carry his load. He brings Apo Sironar-S lenses all the way to 360mm. And then some of the really long Nikkors.

For Noah I still suggest the compact Fuji.

In the end Art is Art and content is sometimes more important than technical excellence. When those do come together it is a beautiful thing...
Grant

[Drew Wiley]

Anything with a no.3 shutter is going to affect critical sharpness on a 4x5. It's a case
of both weight and shutter vibration. Portable field cameras nearing the outer range
of bellows extension just aren't going to do a good job supporting these big lenses and
shutters. If you're contemplating really big prints, I'd stick with a no.1 shutter. The
300mm options would be Fuji A or C, Nikkor M or late Apo-Ronar; in 360 it would be
Fuji A or the new Schneider 360/10 (not the true telephoto design in 3 shutter).
Fuji C and Nikkor M are infinity corrected wide open; but the other lenses should be
extremely sharp at infinity stopped down. For digital use you should actually test them, but at that angle of perspective, and given the apo or almost apo characteristics of all of these, none would likely cause color fringing. Sharpness-wise,
they're all superb.

[Leigh]

I agree that a 300 may not really be long enough for what I want, but I think it's long enough to be different from my 210.
I have 210mm, 240mm, 300mm, and 360mm, and find each sufficiently different from the others to justify carrying all of them, along with a bunch of shorter focal lengths.

It all depends on your needs and your shooting style.

- Leigh

[Don Dudenbostel]

I have both the 300M and the 350 Apo Tele Xenar. The Nikkor is a super little lens but the 350 Schneider is as fine as it gets. By the way it's not a tele design. Don't know why the used the term tele.

[pdmoylan]

Why not the Nikkor 360 F8 T. Moderately heavy with true tele design. Remarkably sharp with slightly less contrast then plasmat designs.

[Noah A]

Thanks to all for your advice. I checked out the MTF charts for the 300 Apo Ronar at infinity and decided to give it a go. I can return it if it's not up to par, but from looking at the data I'm almost certain it will work for my needs.

Just to clear the record, later offline conversations with Bob S. confirmed that the 300 Apo-Sironar-S will indeed work with the MT2000 and the Technikardan. But I have a feeling that while it's without a doubt a fine lens, I'd probably leave it at home most of the time since it's huge.

I have no problem carrying large lenses like the 115 Grandagon, since it's one of my primary optics. But the 300 will be a lens I'll only use once in a while, so I can't allow it to take up too much space in my bag.