Best lens over 240mm for landscapes in 4x5...

[Kodachrome25]

Hi, I am considering a Fujinon 400mm F/8 T since it is 700 grams and is in Copal-1. My current longest lens is a Fuji 240mm F/9 A, love it but a 360-450 might be a nice one for reach once and awhile...

Light, sharp is foremost, speed not as much, strictly black and white...

[Kevin Crisp]

The 450 Fujinon is becoming a legend. Copal 1. Covers 8X10.

[vinny]

I use a 305mm g claron quite a bit and a 450mm nikkor once in a while. Both are pretty sharp and I never leave home w/o them.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6643258209_aa07165e14_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62218065@N00/6643258209/)
salt lake (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62218065@N00/6643258209/) by vinnywalsh.com (http://www.flickr.com/people/62218065@N00/), on Flickr

[Kodachrome25]

Keep em' coming, that Fuji 450 C is spendy and the Nikon one is Copal-3 ( 640 gr. though ). No opinions on the 400 T?

[Drew Wiley]

The 400T is a fine lens which has served many well; but being a telephoto it's bulky, heavy, and not quite as razor sharp as the best primes. Beyond 250, I use a 300 Nikkor M,
a 360 Fuji A, and a 450 Fuji C. All are very compact in small shutters and optically superb.
The Fuji 300C or 300A should also be top notch. Depends on exactly what you want, and
whether you need something which will comfortably cover 8x10 too. But some of these
lenses with huge coverage (like the 450C) need a good shade when shooting 4x5. The only reason to use a telephoto is if you just can't get enough bellows draw for a standard
lens.

[patrickjames]

You need to specify what camera you are using. There aren't many that will have enough draw for a 360 much less a 450.

[Kodachrome25]

I have a friend who has talked about shooting 8x10 for contacts, The Nikon 450 might be the best size to price ratio then. The spendy 360 would not be a bad lens either as a more incremental span from 135-180-240, I suppose that is why I spoke of a 400.

Then again, since I don't see doing many movements with a lens in the 350-450 range on 4x5, I could very well just use APX25, TP, Acros, etc. behind my 180mm CF...:-)

[Kodachrome25]

You need to specify what camera you are using. There aren't many that will have enough draw for a 360 much less a 450.

Good point, I am using a Chamonix 45N-2 with the universal bellows at 395mm max. When I use the 240 A, I am pulling the rear out a couple inches for sure before I even hit the focus knob.

Bear with me...I am relatively new to 4x5....I am sitting here in my office trying to not tire of sorting and exporting some 3,000 raw files and instead, looking at the back of my iPhone using Viewfinder Pro saying "Gee, a little more reach would be nice...:-D

[Old-N-Feeble]

I have the older 45N-1 and bought the Chamonix 60mm extension rail. My next purchase is a 100mm extension lens board (top-hat). That combination will provide 555mm of total extension. I'll not be mounting a monster lens on the top-hat but a 450 Fujinon-C is fine and, for what I'll be shooting, 555mm extension is more than enough. Heck, I may get a 75mm top-hat instead. That's still 530mm of total extension.

[vinny]

you don't need a top hat for a 450mm on the chamonix 4x5's. At least I don't with my homemade extension. M8 knob, M8 threaded insert, piece of 1/2 plywood, done. The bellows can handle 450mm easily.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yes but, more often than not, I need to focus a bit closer than infinity.

[Kodachrome25]

I have the older 45N-1 and bought the Chamonix 60mm extension rail. My next purchase is a 100mm extension lens board (top-hat). That combination will provide 555mm of total extension. I'll not be mounting a monster lens on the top-hat but a 450 Fujinon-C is fine and, for what I'll be shooting, 555mm extension is more than enough. Heck, I may get a 75mm top-hat instead. That's still 530mm of total extension.

Would I be able to get away with the extension only with a 360? 99% of it's possible use would be for landscapes, so I would not be going all that close...

I think I have decided that if I am going to do this, a not gigantic 350-360 is what I really want...

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'd certainly think so. That's 455mm of bellows extension. For landscapes that should be fine. It should be fine for close portraits or still lifes too. You could always get an extension board later if you need it.

[Kodachrome25]

So a 355mm G Claron or Fuji 360 W 6.3 in Copal 3 weighs what, 2+ pounds and covers the entire front standard?

I dunno man, a Copal-1 already feels big on this camera...

[Old-N-Feeble]

I opted for a Kodak Ektar 203mm, 300mm Fujinon-C and 450mm Fujinon-C. These are all in Copal or Compur #1 shutters so they're very compact. I also like the 1.5x spacing of the focal lengths.

[Harley Goldman]

The Fuji 450 is worth the dough. Great lens!! I use mine in the 45N-1 with the extension bracket.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Harley... You've never had need for an extension board with the 450? How close can you focus with it?

[vinny]

Yes but, more often than not, I need to focus a bit closer than infinity.

sure, not a problem. I'm not sure how close I can focus but it's to the point that I'm afraid of harming the bellows (8-10ft). I'd rather use my 305 at that point as it's sharper for close work anyway.

Kodachrome, I wouldn't put a copal 3 5.6 or 6.3 lens on this camera, just too big and HEAVY. Too much stress on the front standard. Same goes for a top hat and a copal 3 shutter. Not that it can't be done.

[Ken Lee]

"I'm not sure how close I can focus"

"How close can you focus with it?"

Formula to determine how close you can focus, given focal length and bellows draw:

D = distance between the lens and the subject (focused)
F = the focal length of the lens
E = bellows draw

D = (E x F) / (E - F)

Example: If the bellows draw is 330mm and you are using a 300mm lens

E = 330
F = 300

D = (E x F) / (E - F)
D = 300x330 / 30
D = 3300 = 3.3 M or around 10 feet

Example: The bellows draw is 330mm and you are using a 210m lens

E = 330mm
F = 210mm

Then D = (330x210) / (330-210)
= 330x210 / 120
= 577mm = 1.89 feet

Example: The bellows draw is 475mm and you are using a 450mm lens

E = 475mm
F = 450mm

Then D = (475x450) / (475-450)
= 475x450 / 25
= 8.55m = 28 feet

[adam satushek]

Sounds like you have plenty of recommendations thus far....but just to add my opinion, I have a nikkor 300-m and 450-m that I use for landscape on 4x5. While the Fuji 450 is smaller and I'm sure an excellent lens it more expensive and I had a hard time finding one so I went with the nikkor and have no regrets. It light for a copal 3, though I don't hike far....and its not my heaviest or largest 4x5 lens so my opinion on this is probably not relevant, its also awesome on 8x10 ( though I am sure the Fuji is as well). And the 300-m is a real gem, if I had to only Cary to lenses in a compact kit it would be my 150 sironar-s and my 300-m. It still surprises me how often I reach for these lenses as I thought of myself as a slightly wider than normal shooter for many years.....but now I'm nor sure what I would do without them.

[Mark Stahlke]

I'll chime in with another vote for the Fujinon-C 300mm. It's a very comfortable focal length for my Shen Hao PTB 4x5 and a stellar lens, too boot. What more could I ask for?

[Kodachrome25]

A 300mm is too close to the 240mm considering what I want to be able to reach for next which is ideally a light 350-360mm or a 400-450mm at the longest. I think I might just wait until I can get a 450 or some other spendy lens at the end of the year, setting up in 4x5 has cost a fair bit, it really needs to pay for it self before any more growth happens.

For what it is worth, I shoot with a 65mm 4.5 Grandagon, 90mm 6.8 Caltar-N II, 135mm Apo Sironar 5.6, 180mm 5.6 Apo Symmar and the 240mm Fuji A 9.0.

Thanks for the answers, I will see some profit from this system and then re-visit the idea, I have plenty of glass to get me by at the moment.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Well, I have different taste in focal lengths. The 65mm, 90mm and 135mm are all approximately 1.5x apart in FL, which I personally prefer, but the 180mm and 240mm are significantly closer together. Have you considered selling the 180 and 240 to fund the purchase of say... a 200-210mm, 300-305mm and 450-460mm? Your full compliment of lenses would then be quite evenly spaced.

[Kodachrome25]

Well, I have different taste in focal lengths. The 65mm, 90mm and 135mm are all approximately 1.5x apart in FL, which I personally prefer, but the 180mm and 240mm are significantly closer together. Have you considered selling the 180 and 240 to fund the purchase of say... a 200-210mm, 300-305mm and 450-460mm? Your full compliment of lenses would then be quite evenly spaced.

It's not really something I have time for since I need to get to work with this gear and I happen to love the spacing across the range, especially 135-180-240, those fields of view just feel perfect. I actually think a 450 C will be a great fit eventually, but at $800-$1,000, I will get it later this year or next year.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Fully understood... we all have our own personal preferences. I've seen a lot of fantastic images shot with the 450-C... just nothing I've done yet... but that's not the lens' fault.:D

[patrickjames]

Keep your eye out for one of the Dialytes- APO Ronar or RD APO Artar which is pretty much what the Fuji C is if I am not mistaken. They will be significantly less than the Fuji. My 300 Ronar was bought as cells for $60 and I put them in a Synchro Compur I had laying around. Great lens. A friend of mine has just about every focal length Artar. Obviously he loves them. I do too.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Patrick... Yes, the Fujinon-C series are dialytes but they're slightly asymmetrical and corrected for infinity whereas the Apo Ronar, Apo Artar, Apo Nikkor, etc. are process lenses optimized for 1:1 reproduction. From what I understand the Apo Ronars that were factory-mounted in shutters had their cell spacing modified for improved performance at infinity. From what I understand the Fujinon-C series are very sharp even wide open as is the Kodak 203mm Ektar dialyte.

[Drew Wiley]

The Apo Ronars over 300mm are in big shutters, therefore much heavier and with more
front end vibration at those long bellows extensions. I'd just go with the Fuji C. These are
infinity corrected. If you want something which is also good near macro, it would be Fuji A
or G-Claron, but the G's are in a 3 shutter once you get into 355 range, the Fuji is still in
a 1 shutter. The Fuji 360A and 450C are my most used 8x10 lenses, but they're also superb
performers on 4X5. But for slightly wider angle of view, I use either the 240A or 250G -
my idea of a "normal" 4x5 perspective or wide on 8X10.

[Kodachrome25]

Drew, that little 240 A is a rock star for sure, it seems to cover it all very well though, being known for great at infinity and exceptional at close range. I'll probably get a 450 C later....cause I just blew that allowance on 1,000 sheets of 4x5 TMY...:-)

[sinhof]

Best lens depends on the theme. My Apo-Ronars has minimum apertures 180 and 260. That means huge depth of field. They don´t need any shutters cause of long times. The barrels are cheap, from 30€. 360mm and 480mm are useful, when photographing mountains, less on the farmland.

[RHITMrB]

I have a similar question along the lines of that in the OP - I want something between 240 and 300mm for mostly landscape use with some portraits thrown in. Is there anything in this range with an aperture larger than f/9 (i.e. not the G-Clarons) but also in a smaller shutter than #3? So far all I can find is the Fujinon W 250mm f/6.3 or f/6.7, but it's not clear to me that these are available in multicoated versions, which is another requirement for me since I shoot color negative.

[Gem Singer]

The Fujinon f6.3 250 NW and f6.3 250 CM-W are EBC coated (multi).

The older Fujinon f6.7 250 W is not EBC coated (single).

See: the Comparison Charts on the LF Home Page.

Also see: www.willwilson.com/fujinon.html

[RHITMrB]

Thanks, that's just the information I needed, and I'll be sure to check the comparison charts in the future! I'll have to add those lenses to my wishlist.

[Two23]

I'm using a Rodenstock 300mm Geronar on my Chamonix o45n and find it a good combination. Another great lens would be the Nikon 300M


Kent in (Reykjavik)

[Lachlan 717]

...these are available in multicoated versions, which is another requirement for me since I shoot color negative.

I'm not sure why you think that you need multicoated? The single coated Fujinon lenses are perfectly fine for shooting colour negs. You might notice a slight contrast difference with a perfectly exposed 'chrome.

And, for what it's worth, the f6.3 model is multicoated/EBC.

[Steve Hamley]

Fujinon 450C is definitely worth it if you can use it.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the Schneider 350mm f/11. Stellar lens in a Copal 1.

Cheers, Steve

[Kodachrome25]

Nice one Steve, 58mm filter threads too. Pretty close in price new to a used 450 C, thanks for the option!

[RHITMrB]

I'm not sure why you think that you need multicoated? The single coated Fujinon lenses are perfectly fine for shooting colour negs. You might notice a slight contrast difference with a perfectly exposed 'chrome.

And, for what it's worth, the f6.3 model is multicoated/EBC.

I often shoot scenes with light sources in the frame and every bit of flare reduction helps.

[Drew Wiley]

The 250/6.7 Fuji is more crisp than most multicoated lenses of similar vintage - probably
due to the special glass they used. I used one quite a bit outdoors with transparency film and the contrast and color rendering was exceptional. At least one famous photographer used this lens for outdoor color neg portraiture. It will cover 8x10; otherwise, select the more common 6.3 MC version.

[neil poulsen]

Fujinon 450C is definitely worth it if you can use it.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the Schneider 350mm f/11. Stellar lens in a Copal 1.

Cheers, Steve

Which 350mm? Not sure I know this one. Nor could I find it on the lens chart. Very curious, though.

I recently purchased a G-Claron 355mm that I look forward to using this summer.

[Helen Bach]

Likely the Apo-Tele-Xenar Compact (link) (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680387-REG/Schneider_05_1057498_Apo_Tele_Xenar_Compact_350mm_f_11.html).

[Kodachrome25]

Well, I am pretty sure I shot a magazine cover tonight that will pay for the 350 F/11 Schneider, that little guy seems like exactly what I am looking for!

[pdmoylan]

Surprised noone mentioned the Nikkor 360 f8T.

[brianam]

Just be aware the Apo Xenar f/11 (it's not really a tele) is in a Copal 1 shutter but threads into a Copal 3 board. Seems odd.. must've been some logic to this on Schneider's part.

It's great to have a new compact lens in this length, because that Fuji 360A is really rare. (Though if anyone has one to sell, let me know:-) .

[Keith Pitman]

Just be aware the Apo Xenar f/11 (it's not really a tele) is in a Copal 1 shutter but threads into a Copal 3 board. Seems odd.. must've been some logic to this on Schneider's .


Not true. You only need a #3 board if you use the extension tube. The diameter of the extension tube is the reason it needs the #3. Regardless, the lens is still in a #1 shutter.

[Drew Wiley]

Although I once spotted only two battered Fuji 360 A's for sale over a decade, in the last
two years about fifteen of them have come up for sale, a few in almost mint condition.
Figure some old studios are either shutting down or converting to digital. This lens will be
preferable if you're doing closeup as well as distant work, or if you want lots of reserve
coverage on 8x10 film (it's plenty sharp for 4x5 too). The Schneider looks like a very nice
option, but mainly infinity corrected. They aren't exactly common either. You can't go wrong with either. But if you do spot a Fuji, look for the lettering on the outside of the
lens barrel, which is typical of the multi-coated version. There's a slight possibility that a
few single-coated ones are still around, though I've never seen one myself.

[Ken Lee]

There are 360mm process lenses which are likely equal to the 360mm Fujinon A - and they can be mounted into a shutter if necessary.

What the Fujinon has that we won't get with process lenses of equivalent length, is a wide circle of coverage, because it's basically a plasmat. An f/9 plasmat: very clever, those Fujinon engineers!

[Brian Ellis]

I owned and liked the Nikon 300M. I also owned and liked the Fuji 400T. However, I found that I didn't use the 400 nearly as much as I thought I would. 300mm was enough for almost anything I wanted to do. Which was surprising because with 35mm and medium format I used lenses equivalent to more than 300mm a lot. But not with LF for some reason.

[Drew Wiley]

Ken - I was comparing GG focus the other day between the Fuji 360A and the 360 Apo Nikkor (in barrel). The sharpness of the Nikkor was remarkable, and it seems cover 8x10 fine, but in a shutter it would be quite a bit more bulky than the Fuji. It was sorta like
comparing a Maserati to a Ferrari. Incredible optics on both of them. The Fuji is probably
my most used lens over the past couple of decades, because it is so versatile on both
4x5 and 8x10. I'm been so dependent upon it that I managed to pick up a mint spare a
couple years ago, just in case.

[Kodachrome25]

Update, I ordered the Schneider 350mm F/11. For a new lens the price was not too bad, the weight and size fantastic and those who do own and use it seem to rave about it's amazing sharpness.

I look forward to doing some 6x12 work with it on Techpan too, talk about punishing a lens...:-)

[Kodachrome25]

My 350 F/11 arrived this afternoon, last one Schneider had too. I am very pleased with this lens, the size is right, the magnification above my Fujinon A 240mm F/9....perfect. It focuses easily especially when opened the 1/3rd stop or so more than the F/11 setting. On the Chamonix 45N-2 it works perfect, about 8 feet or so with the focus maxed and rear standard slid all the way back, won't need the extension tube.

I finished a roll of EFKE R25 that I had in my 6x12 back with it, indeed, very sharp images.

Thanks for the recommendations, I have exactly the lens I need and love it thus far...