300mm lens 4x5" landscape

[Jody_S]

Most ligtweight 300mm lenses have been listed already, but here is my take:

1. "Regular" taking lenses:

Nikon Nikkor-M
Fuji Fujinon-C

2. Process lenses that work just fine at infinity and are available in shutters:
2a: Dialyte lenses, 45-48° coverage:
Goerz Red Dot Artar
Schneider Repro-Claron
Schneider Apo-Artar
Rodenstock Apo-Ronar
Docter Apo-Germinar

2b. Symmetric Plasmat lenses, 65-70° official coverage:
Fuji Fujinon-A
Schneider G-Claron
Docter Germinar-W

Rodenstock also made the Apo-Gerogon in the last category, but they don't fit into shutters without machining.

Don't forget the Russian process lenses. In Al barrels, much lighter than the Artars for similar build and they can be of excellent quality if you get a good specimen.

[Arne Croell]

Don't forget the Russian process lenses. In Al barrels, much lighter than the Artars for similar build and they can be of excellent quality if you get a good specimen.

Oh, I am aware of them, having written an article about Russian lenses (https://www.arnecroell.com/eastern-block-new.pdf), but I thought the original poster was looking for lenses already in a shutter or being a straight fit into a size 0 or 1 shutter, like the G-Clarons etc. The easiest shutter adaptation of the Russian lenses like the RF-3 or and Industar-11M 300mm version would likely require a size 3 shutter or larger, which defeats the lightweight requirement of the original poster. The same would be true for the Zeiss Jena Apo-Tessars.

[Jim Andrada]

I still use my "ancient" f/9 Repro-Claron 305mm. I bought it new around 1970. But lately for a long lens I use the Nikon 360 - 500 - 720 set (720 on 5 x 7, 360 & 500 on the Technika.) Very sharp, fairly light weight.

[Fermat]

What about a Schneider Xenar 300mm f5.6?

[Steve Goldstein]

Any 300mm f/5.6 lens will be in a Copal 3 or comparable shutter so it will be big and heavy.

[Bernice Loui]

Sure, can be an excellent lens. Except this lens-shutter is going to be BIG. If you're doing landscape images which commonly entails using smaller apertures for film exposures as most landscape folks are into everything in the image apparently sharp. That f5.6 become a size liability.

Know a full aperture f9_ish 300mm is not going to that much dimmer on the GG image as a f5.6, 300mm lens, but the size weight difference needs to be experienced to be properly appreciated.

At this point, optical performance between f5.6 -vs- f9 is not significant enough to get all worked up over or be the deciding factor.


Bernice

What about a Schneider Xenar 300mm f5.6?

[neil poulsen]

My 150mm Topcor with 2x focal length converter is pretty light and small compared to the 300mm 5.6 I use on my 8x10 camera.
Attachment 215266

How effective might this be when used with a 150mm Apo Symmar? How sharp is it with the Topcor?

[Daniel Unkefer]

I have a 300mm chrome barrel Schneider f4.5 Xenar, I like it a lot. Also the 300mm f6.3 barrel Kodak Commercial Ektar. The Xenar is forward mounted so it integrates with the Norma Shutter. It's really not a heavy lens compared to my Symmars and Componons. Sure is bright to look through.

300mm F4.5 Xenar Norma by Nokton48, on Flickr

Forward mounted by my clockmaker friend

[Greg]

How effective might this be when used with a 150mm Apo Symmar? How sharp is it with the Topcor?

Full disclosure, I have never used a 150mm Topcor with 2x focal length converter. I did have a friend who had one and told me it that it produced an excellent image when the lens was stopped down. He also told me that he did try to use the 2X converter with another 150mm brand and tried adapting it to a 210mm, but neither combination was as good as his 150mm Topcor. Not much help here, but I thought I'd pass it on....

[Vaughn]

Sure, can be an excellent lens. Except this lens-shutter is going to be BIG. If you're doing landscape images which commonly entails using smaller apertures for film exposures as most landscape folks are into everything in the image apparently sharp. That f5.6 become a size liability.

Know a full aperture f9_ish 300mm is not going to that much dimmer on the GG image as a f5.6, 300mm lens, but the size weight difference needs to be experienced to be properly appreciated.

At this point, optical performance between f5.6 -vs- f9 is not significant enough to get all worked up over or be the deciding factor.


Bernice

Depends on where one photographs. Having an image over twice as bright is nice (f5.6 vs f9) and becomes significant in the dark forest.

One's tools shape and form the photographer as much as the image. They are a part of the process.