Seeking 4x5 Lens Advice - Which Lens To Keep - Fujinon Or Nikkor 150mm 5.6

[Alan Klein]

Have you checked the shutters on both lenses?

[hyatts3]

Have you checked the shutters on both lenses?

Yes, in testing them side by side I cannot perceive any difference between them.

[BrianShaw]

Quarters are best for coin flipping!

[Bernice Loui]

Surface appearance of beauty is not a good or rational reason to get married to any lens (or camera) as functionality and image results of any lens is more than surface deep.

Dealing with lenses in shutter, the top priority is shutter condition, accuracy, repeatability and how wore out it might be. Shutters are the top wear and failure of view camera lenses. If a shutter has problems that is when real problems begin.

Test both lenses under the absolute identical conditions, suspect they will be near if not identical in optical performance to film at f22. This would also be essentially correct and true if all four brands (Nikkor, Rodenstock, Schneider, Fujinon) were tested under identical conditions.

Been there done this back in the 1980's to the introduction of Rodenstock's APO series (more marketing than actual real world on film performance improvements) and Schneider's XL series (larger image circle or physically smaller, worthy improvements)..

Get married to the one that appeals most to you after much dating and considering and thinking of what the relationship might be in your futures.

Schneider, Fujinon, Nikkor, Rodenstock, as previously mentioned they are far more similar than different, pick one that appeals to your tribal instincts then move on.


Bernice

Bernice, thank you for all your useful information. I really appreciate the thorough explanations you've been posting. Let me ask this. I also shoot with a Mamiya 7 and am always very pleased with the results I get from the 80mm lens. Many people describe that as sharp and contrasty. Would the Nikon have "higher perceived contrast" in a similar way? Note I'm not intending to ask if the lens is going to look just like the Mamiya, I'm just trying to find some way to quantify that statement.

I'm leaning towards keeping the Nikon. My reasoning is because I'm pretty well convinced there will be little to no difference between the two in practical use and upon close inspection the Nikon lens I have appears to be in better condition. It looks like it's never been used and has both original lens caps. That seems to be the best reason I can come up with for making a decision (and is essentially what you suggested).

[BrianShaw]

Yes, but…

It’s much better to have a lens and be taking/making photographs than to be extensively dating potential lenses with which to mate. One doesn’t really need to be wedded to a lens until death or all of eternity.

[r.e.]

I also shoot with a Mamiya 7 and am always very pleased with the results I get from the 80mm lens. Many people describe that as sharp and contrasty. Would the Nikon have "higher perceived contrast" in a similar way? Note I'm not intending to ask if the lens is going to look just like the Mamiya, I'm just trying to find some way to quantify that statement.

I have a Mamiya 7II and the 80mm lens. It is often said to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made. For some purposes, such as environmental portraits, I think that it can be too sharp. I don't think that its images look like those made with any of the eight large format lenses that I have, which are made by Docter Optic, Fujinon, Nikon, Rodenstock and Wollensak. The Mamiya 80mm is just a different animal.

You're talking about two perfectly good, standard workhorse 150mm lenses. My 150mm was made by Rodenstock. I wouldn't spend 30 seconds worrying about whether it's "as good" as Fujinon's and Nikon's. I agree with the people who are saying that you should just pick one of the two and get on with life

In any event, there's already a two page thread, from only four years ago, on the very question that you're asking: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ujinon-W-150mm

[opPaulT]

love Fred Pickers advice-
I just bought a used Red Dot Artar f/11 19 inch lens for the 8 x 10. (A new one is $1,100.00) The fellow who sold it to me on approval the only way - said it had been checked out on an optical bench and he would include the test results. I told him not to bother as I had no intention of using it on an optical bench. I know from experience that if a lens can photograph distant twigs and branches sharply against the sky without having them break up into fragments in the print, it is sharp, has no big flare problems, and has passed the most difficult test of resolving power that I have ever put a lens to. One photograph of that situation was all I needed to show the lens was tack sharp. Suppose the bench test had shown the lens was fine but in the field the branches and twigs fell apart? The moral is plain: find out what a thing actually does; not what someone says it does. Want to know if a certain Nikon is capable of making a better negative than a certain Leica? Put them on tripods side by side and make simultaneous photographs at the same speeds. apertures, focus - same everything. Develop the films together and print the negatives side by side (in a glass 2 1/4 or 4x5 negative carrier). You will know.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, back when a full selection of both was in stock in the local pro store, there were serious experienced salespeople too, who swore by Fuji above any other brand of similar lenses - whether Nikkor, Rodenstock, or Schneider. That was prior to the pricey Apo Sironar S series. Doesn't surprise me; and the Fuji W and NW equivalents probably do indeed have a slightly larger critical image circle than the Nikon. But literature-wise, I have found the Fuji brochures a bit over-optimistic with regard to published image circles, and Schneider somewhat too conservative. It would be hard to go wrong with either the Fuji or Nikon 150; but if I were personally shopping for that focal length, I'd look at Fuji first. It was certainly the more popular brand in Japan where the largest quantity of good used lenses is found. And my own experience with Fuji LF lenses supports that. I do use a set of Nikkor M lenses too, but there's no 150 of those, and if there was, it's coverage with respect to 4X5 format wouldn't be ideal.

I don't know why still photographers scratch their heads about Fuji lenses. I once did too. They didn't market very aggressively here like the two big German brands did. But in other applications like pro video or television they have a stellar reputation and command top-end pricing. I use their A-series LF lenses, C-series, and a bit of NW. Superb quality relative to their intended application niches.

[pdmoylan]

I would also check each lens’ flare characteristics. I found Fuji lenses had less controlled flare than Nikons. Color wise I found Nikons a tad more accurate but both are cooler overall than Schneiders. Just my experience. In my comparison of the respective Fuji and Nikki 90f8, the Nikon had greater coverage, more contrast, slightly less saturation than the Fuji. I have always preferred Nikons but that’s just me. The Fuji 300 and 400 teles though good we’re not apo and seemed slightly less sharp than the Nikon counterpart. I used ghe Nikkor 150mm w lens for more than 20 years and have only great things to say about it. Great for closeup work as well.

[LabRat]

The "big four" lenses have quality and a similar look, so it boils down to which you prefer to use... Test 'em!!!

Steve K