Suggested 360mm lens?

[dh003i]

I'm looking for a 360mm lens for my 4x5 sometime in the future. What are your thoughts on the best 355mm - 400mm lens?

Here is my current line-up of lenses: Nikkor 90/4.5, Schneider Symar Convertable 150/5.6 or 6.5 (I forget), Xenotar 135/3.5, and Kodak Ektar 203/7.7.

I'm looking for a lens that is longer than the long-normal 203, and slightly telephoto for focusing in on narrower points of interest. I took a shot I'm happy with with my Oly E-3 at 50mm (equiv to 375 on 4x5), which is almost twice the effective focal length.

I'm looking for a good all-around lens, with emphasis on sharpness and coverage; but I don't want another monster like my Nikkor 90/4.5. I suppose the 203/7.7 was easy enough to focus, but the light was good, and I haven't tried it in dimmer light. So somewhere in-between those two extremes would be good, with more leaning towards a size/weight of the 203/7.7.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Here's a list of a few possibilities I found:

355 Schneider G-Claron
360 Nikon Nikkor W
360 Schneider APO-Symmar
360 Fuji Fujinon CM-W
360 Rodenstock APO-Sironar S
360 Rodenstock APO-Sironar N
360 Rodenstock APO-Ronar
360 Nikon Nikkor T ED
400 Schneider APO-Tele-Xenar HM
400 Schneider APO-Tele-Xenar HM Compact
400 Fuji Fujinon T

I'm also looking for something under $500, so I guess that rules out the 360 Nikkor.

Funny Backstory

Here's the backstory to that. At the Outer Banks, I went to a foggy "tree island" place on Manteo / Roanoke "Island". I took a picture of a tree with fog in the background and some distant trees behind it; looks like something in Africa. Took it with my Olympus E-3 at 50/11. Now, equivalent LF focal length is 375mm, but my longest lens is the Ektar 203/7.7. So I took a shot of it, framing as best I could, at 203/45.

As it turns out, the film I took that shot with was horribly mashed into the film holder; I had loaded it one evening -- after I'd had several glasses of wine -- and this was before I realized the film had to go behind the metal rails. So I stuck it in the same way as the dark-slide cover came out, then put the dark-slide cover over it. The result was of course a scratched piece of film which was really out of proper alignment.

But because I shot at f/45, I still got a great tack-sharp image (and the numerous scratches were taken care of by the diligent work of Edgar Praus at Praus Productions upon scanning in). After scanning, I got the CD, and cropped that picture to the same framing as my shot with my Olympus lens at almost twice the effective focal length. This was throwing away a lot of the data; file-size went from 733 to 207 MB. The picture still significantly outresolves my Olympus E-3 shot, I'd say by at least 2x as much.

Comparing straight from the scan vs. out-of-JPEG for Olympus, the colors are of course different, with Olympus' colors being more saturated green, but still not showing some detail areas and different sections as well. There is also considerably more latitude for enhancing color with the 4x5 image before running into awful issues with banding; although I am comparing it to a JPEG, the RAW would fare better.

All-in-all, considering my poor film-loading "technique" and the fact that I had to crop the image to get similar framing, that's pretty remarkable. Also, I shot at a larger f-stop than I needed to, as the first thing I needed in focus was relatively far away.

Bummer Backstory

After showing that 4x5 transparency and another to friends at a bar/restaurant, I folded a paper towel over them to protect them while we ate, then forgot about them when I went to shoot pool. They were grabbed up along with everything else left on our table and went to he dumpster. Fortunately, I'd scanned in one of them before this happened; and I have slightly less exposed versions of each.

I won't be bringing my transparencies anywhere without a binder from now on. Arg.

[Jim Galli]

360mm lenses are BIG. and HEAVY. There are few exceptions to that rule. One possibility that is rare in the extreme is the 360mm Ronar that came in a Compur #2 shutter in the 1960's. Another possibility is the Fuji 450mm f12.5 lens in Copal 1. Coverage need not be a concern. Any of them will cover 8X10. 355mm Dagor's are nice, but pricey in the extreme. G-Claron is next in line for size, weight after these mentioned. Always a great choice. I love my G-Claron's. After that we're talking Large Marge.

[dh003i]

Thanks for your response. What about he Apo Ronars?

Also, looking at the the 4x5 lens comparison chart, do the weight measurements account for the shutter the lenses would be mounted in? If not, do you know where I can find information on the weights of the various copal shutters? I've Google'd this and can't seem to find it.

[keith english]

What about the true telephoto for 4x5 like the 400 from Osaka imported by Bromwell i believe. Anybody had experience with them. They are reasonably priced at about $700 new. I was considering one.

[Steve Goldstein]

A couple of other lenses, not on your list:

360mm f/10 Fujinon-A
350mm f/11 Schneider something-or-other (recently introduced)

Both these lenses are in Copal 1 shutters. Neither is likely to meet your $500 limit unless you can find a very scratched-up single-coated Fujinon (which is likely to work just fine anyway).

[Ken Lee]

The 360 f/9 APO-Nikkor is quite small and light, because it is f/9 and barrel-mounted. It's a superb performer. It has lovely blur at all settings, and has a many-bladed diaphragm. It takes fairly small filters too: 52mm if I recall correctly.

If your camera lets you use barrel-mounted lenses (no shutter) you can save size, weight and expense. You can always shoot shutter-mounted lenses too, if you want to. With the money you save buying one of these, you can buy another camera.

[Drew Wiley]

What camera are you using? How much bellows draw, and how strong a front standard? For 4x5, I'd avoid anything in a #3 shutter due to weight and potential
vibration. That leaves you with the Fuji 400T, Fuji 360A, and the new Schneider, all
in #1 shutter. Unless you are very lucky, you will need about a grand for any of these
lenses.

[dh003i]

Sorry, I should have told you guys my camera: I have a monorail, the Linhof Kardan Super Color. The rail itself is 18.5 inches long. The bellows have about 13 inches of draw from the front inside standard to the rear inside standard.

However, the ground-glass is about 1.25 inches further behind the end of the bellows on the rear standard; and the front standard is about 0.75 inches wide. So does that mean I effectively have enough draw for a 15 inch (381mm) lens focused at infinity?

However, even if that's the case, I suppose I wouldn't want to push it. 305mm is probably the highest I can go, so I guess that leaves:

Fuji 300/8.5-64 Fujinon C (380mm image circle @ f22) - 250g
Nikon 300/9-128 Nikkor M (325mm image circle @ f22) - 290g - $390 (eBay)
Fuji 300/8-64 Fujinon T (213mm image circle @ f22) - 415g
Schneider 305/9-90 G-Claron (381mm image circle @ f22) - 460g - $350 (eBay)

[resummerfield]

I would avoid a telephoto design if you have the bellows, so that leaves 3 excellent lenses. I've used all 3 of those you list, and currently have and use the Nikkor M.

[Donald Miller]

I use the 305 G Claron on my 5X7. It is a delightful lens. I also own a 305 Repro Claron. It is probably the smallest 305 that you can buy...according to Schneider it is as sharp as the G Claron but has slightly less coverage. I shot the Repro Claron on my 4X5 and never ran out of coverage. Mine is mounted in a Compur shutter.

The front element of the Repro Claron is quite small (something less than 49mm)...I use sheet filters with the lens so don't know the actual filter size...