The NW is marked W on the outside of the lens barrel.
There is also the single-coated Fujinon L series 210mm. The image circle of 240mm is generous for 4x5 and adequate for 5x7. It is quite small, with a filter size of 49mm
Kumar
The NW is marked W on the outside of the lens barrel.
There is also the single-coated Fujinon L series 210mm. The image circle of 240mm is generous for 4x5 and adequate for 5x7. It is quite small, with a filter size of 49mm
Kumar
I have too many lenses. I also have a 210mm Fujinon L. Also a very nice lens, and better for backpacking 4x5 than the bigger lenses.
What makes a "super" lens super often boils down to a few extra % of resolution, a few extra % of coverage compared to its peers. Often those extra % are meaningless unless we shoot under extraordinary conditions or make prints of extraordinary size. If we use a digital workflow where sharpening is available, these differences can become even more inconsequential.
It's may be better to look for a lens that is affordable and portable, which takes filters of convenient size.
You might find these articles interesting: they compare some new lenses with older equivalents and suggest that the differences can oft be... over-stated.
Nikkor 200mm M vs two Bausch and Lomb 8x10 Protar Series V
c.1950 Schneider 90mm Angulon vs c.2000 Schneider Super Symmar 110mm XL
Uh, er... old lenses equate to old shutters, which might not be as dependable. Or maybe someone has secret longings to move up in format eventually, so might
want to consider if a lens investment has the necessary extra coverage or image circle. Or maybe color photography will be on the wish list and determine best lens choice. Then there is the issue of flare on older lenses versus modern multicoatings. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing - sometimes one does seek a "vintage" look. But since the used market is flooded with excellent general-purpose modern plastmats at insanely low prices, why not go that route unless one has some distinct reason not to. Heck, last nite I was looking at one of my 30x40 Ciba print taken on the earliest 4x5 Fujichrome 50 with a 210 Symmar S - an utterly "pathetic" lens compared to some I own now. I can certainly detect that that old print is not as sharp as my newer ones; but the public certainly can't,
especially if they're now accustomed to the great mediocre equalizer of inkjet printing. And frankly, I doubt many people even have the darkroom skills, or good enough printing gear, to take advantage of the subsequent improvements in sharpness and apochromaticity. The whole subject tends to get silly.
Sorry, my post was confusingly written.
I merely meant to state that differences between lenses of modern design and manufacture are often given exaggerated importance.
Dang.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks