I honestly don’t think my lenses know their ancestry.
Many moons ago I bought into the “German is better” but after using many other lenses I realized that it’s more about subject, composition , and lighting than anything else.
I honestly don’t think my lenses know their ancestry.
Many moons ago I bought into the “German is better” but after using many other lenses I realized that it’s more about subject, composition , and lighting than anything else.
Are there differences between Fujinon -vs- Nikon (alphabetical order) yes, Significant, NO_at this point in the LF era. Much the same can be applied to Rodenstock -vs- Schneider.
The more significant challenge will be shutters in GOOD condition.
Seriously, pick a modern lens brand & focal length and move on.
Once into vintage lenses like Kodak Ektar, Cooke, Boyer & etc that is when lens personality can become interesting.
Bernice
I have 4 Nikkors SW 75mm, SW 90mm f4,5, SW 120mm, APO Nikkor 610mm f9 the rest are Schneider/Rodenstock and some old ones like 2 Universal Heliars, Imagons etc.
The lens is never the Problem its alway's me behind the camera!
Armin
Didn't check my list, but I only have one Fuji 250/6.3....since it covers 5x7. For me it's mostly mm's that I desire vs where it's made....tho sometimes I look for specific character that the lens may have.
Les
I find the Japanese lenses to be every bit as good as the German lenses, and in certain cases, even better. Most of the general-purpose plasmats and general wide-angle lenses are quite similar, regardless of brand. But each brand also has their own specialty lenses worth recognition. You refer to Fuji NW vs CMW. You could actually include all the later W,NW,and CMW lenses with outside lettering, all very similar except for minor details like filter size, and all excellent for general-purpose work. But certain older single-coated Fuji W's with inside lettering are also coveted for good reason. There are more highly corrected, more compact "Super Plasmat" Fujinon A lenses too; but these have smaller maximum f-stops (no problem for me), and some focal lengths are rare and quite expensive. Then there is the Fuji C series of compact lightweight lenses, very well made. Nikkor M series lenses are also compact and highly corrected, but have somewhat smaller image circles relative to focal length. People like me who backpack a lot are more likely to pay attention to size and weight rather than brand. Almost all late lenses from any of the "big four" manufacturers are very very good. And so are lots of earlier ones. And there are also good reasons why many of us on this forum choose to ignore Ken Rockwell's half-baked opinions.
That´s the question. I have never seen a bad LF lens from the big four, but I have seen a lot of bad pictures by me.Originally Posted by Armin Seeholzer
YOu're neglecting some great old American lenses.I have Fuji's, Nikkor's, Schneider's and Rodenstock's. But the ones I turn to most often are Wollensak and Kodak. The modern sharp cut-off lenses don't see the way I do. I don't like their "cut & paste" look except for some architecture. It certainly does not render the figure, or nature in anything close to the reality of human vision.
Me too, Jim.
Big fan of Fuji lenses, mostly because they are modern and a often have a smaller size or slightly different fl. Here is my take on the best 4x5 lenses: https://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blo...x5-view-camera
One word of caution about vintage or older lenses. They might have a preferred rendering or "look" for certain genre, which is indeed a valid aspect of choosing a lens. But in the discussion of this, there are a number of practitioners who work only in black and white, and form their opinion based upon that. Nearly all modern lenses are decently color corrected, but not all older lenses are; so that's an important point in lens selection, if you intend to shoot color film as well as b&w.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks