Looking to add a "lighter" 300 to cover 8x10

[Jim Becia]

OK,

I have been doing some research and still have a few questions. I currently shoot mostly 8x10 and my normal lens is a Fuji 300 CM-W in a Copal 3 shutter. It weighs in at a little over 2#. I sometimes hike with my 8x10 all day, and all my lenses tend to be on the heavy side. Of course they also tend to have great coverage. I have been thinking about a 3 lens set that would be "lightweight." (The Nikkor 150 would probably get left behind in this setup as it is no small lens even though it is in a Copal 1. It still weighs in at 2.3#.) My current Fuji 210 seems pretty decent in terms of weight and I do have a Fuji 450 that I can grab in lieu of the Nikkor 450. The 300 is the heavyweight that I need to replace, at least for those times of being away from the car.

My research shows: that the Fuji 300C has 380mm of coverage at f22.
the Nikkor 300M has 325mm of coverage at f22.
and the G Claron has 381mm of coverage at f22.

So, does that mean that the G Claron and Fuji will have still greater coverage when stopped down to f32 and f45 (which are going to be fairly common f stops when using 8x10?) My research shows that Nikon is conservative in their coverage, but I am not sure how that translates to f32 and f45. I don't have the lenses to try so I am hoping that I can get some help in this matter. Looking for something in a modern copal shutter that is smaller than my Fuji, but just as sharp and with coverage that comes close. Thanks. Jim

[koh303]

There is also the Geronar 300mm F9 which is not as small as the fuji C, but is lighter then the other 2.

[Erik Larsen]

Looks like you picked some reasonable choices Jim. I use a 305 graphic Kowa and it is a nice lens. I did the same as you are thinking and swapped my 300 5.6 Fuji for the graphic Kowa. It's smaller and covers 11x14 but is f9 so not as bright but I haven't notice a problem. Same can be said of the 305 computar.

[William Whitaker]

My 300mm f/6.3 Caltar is still listed in the F/S section. It weighs approx. 0.8 pounds on my digital shipping scale. Not a "prestige" lens, but still capable.

[vinny]

I've used the g claron on 8x10 for a decade or so. Lots of coverage, not that heavy.
I had the 300M when I shot 4x5 and wanted something with more coverage and resolution for close up work.

[John Kasaian]

I can't offer a comparison but I can say that the G Clarons are a joy to use. My "lightweight going for a hike 8x10 lens" is a 240 G Claron. I do have a 300M on an aerial camera and it is spectacular when shot wide open. As far as coverage with the 300M, I can't comment because it has never been on the snout of the 'dorff

[Leszek Vogt]

Would 5.6 C. Zeiss *S*Tessar work ? I don't know the specs, but it looks small. PM me...if you would.

Les

[Eric Leppanen]

Best compromise of light weight and coverage that I know of is the Fuji 300A f/9: 420mm image circle at f/22, weighs 410 grams in a Copal 1 shutter. They have been long discontinued but copies still show up for sale from time to time. Over the years I have owned two multi-coated copies of this lens; they were adequate performers (to my eyes the Nikon 300M was sharper but has far less coverage), but some folks swear by them.

[Oren Grad]

Of the lenses that have been mentioned, I have the Geronar and the 305 G-Claron. The Geronar is lighter - it's a triplet, its weight is little more than that of the shutter alone - but the G-Claron has far larger coverage, especially stopped way down.

[Peter De Smidt]

Yes, both the G-claron and the Fuji will have increasing coverage as they are stopped down. The G-claron will hit about 80 degrees at F45.