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

[Alan Klein]

If you shoot color keep the Fuji. Based on my experience with period 35mm lenses from those makers.

Why?

[Corran]

Alan, at f/22 most lenses will be the same (in performance). One can split hairs about performance at f/8 or /11, and perhaps talk about out-of-focus rendering or image circle differences, but if shooting for max DOF on typical film within the image circle using lenses from the "Big 4" of similar design, there will be basically no practical difference.

[Kirk Gittings]

Take this For what its worth (not much). I have had many lenses of both brands including those two. There is something subtle in the "look" of the negative that I prefer from the Nikons. Over the years I have gradually replaced all my other lenses with Nikons but one.

[Bernice Loui]

At f22, diffraction begins to bite out of any possible optical performance advantage due to diffraction and ability to correct optical issues by design. Essentially, Nature imposes it's way with no possible means to escape. Understand the audience and market optics manufactures were forced to address if they had any interest to produce then sell their optical offerings. Keep this harsh reality in mind with the words to follow.

By the late 1970's modern then new view camera lenses became far more similar than different. This was dictated by what the view camera market demanded. Not a lot of "hobbyist" were into sheet film cameras about that time. Majority of sheet film users back then produced sheet film images to keep a roof over their head, food on their table and profess their passion for making creative images. Majority of sheet film images about that time until the late 1990's were produced on color transparency film. These image makers studied for their profession, understood the nature of film, color, expectations of what a GOOD image is and more. These were folks highly skilled and understood much of what this craft of image making was about. Some did Weddings, some did portraits, some did architectural, some did advertising, few did fine arts images (like Ansel Adams and others).. In all cases, this group of image makers had specific demands and expectations from lens, camera, lighting, film, post processing and all that. Essentially, there were no "hobbyist" level view camera lens offerings from that time as the only real market for view camera lenses back then was this group of knowledgeable, skilled and demanding individuals. If any manufacture tried to produce-sell an inferior view camera lens, that group would never consider that lens ... ever as they simply ran a test to do the evaluation against their current lenses being used to produce work.

Cost of a given view camera lens for the well funded image makers from that time was mostly irrelevant as cost of running an marketing AD studio and all related easily FAR exceeded the cost of the very best offerings by any optics manufacture. Get hired for a well funded AD image job would often involve an Art director, Prop guy, Assistant(s), Stylist (like food), Studio space, BIG flash power lighting (10,000 w/s easily available was very common) and all the light modifiers involved, Proper studio stand for the Sinar P.. all this makes cost of any lens minuscule in comparison and little if any reason to use any lens that is the best available. All this easily cost more than a few hundred U$S per hour studio hour. Cost of that $2,000+ lens pales to the cost of these individuals involved, studio space involved and cost of running those high power strobes.

This became the environment that imposed Darwinism upon any lens offering by any lens manufacture like Schneider, Fujinon, Rodenstock, Nikon.

This is one of the root reasons why any modern lens from the Big Four were essentially same-identical. If any were slightly inferior or slightly different in any way, that market base of users would never accept that lens offering. It was that simple.

What has happened, that entire market and user base of view camera lenses and all related died in the early 2000's being replaced by digital imaging, software driven image bending and all that. This essentially forced the dumping of BIG powerful studio strobe units, high quality monorail view cameras, color film and it's related image processing chain and all that. It all came down to production cost per image and what was market acceptable.

What survived were the Artisty folks doing B&W and similar Group f64 style images made popular and famous by Ansel Adams and others. Then came the image makers seeking to produce those images they admired from members of Group f64 and similar. Except, this group often did not have the extensive education, training and hard earned-real world struggles to meet what demanding customers expected. These image makers often came from the ranks of 35mm and 120 roll film and digital camera world. They carry their marketing indoctrination(s) and habits with them into the very different universe of view camera. Stuff like the "Latest & Greatest" lens, the "Latest & Greatest" camera and all those marketing monikers and more. None of which properly applies to the residuals from the view camera universe that once was.

Old habits and marketing indoctrination(s) don't die easy, they tend to remain and be imposed at all things in the view camera universe even when these habits and marketing indoctrination(s) should have died at the entrance of the view camera universe.

Or why the same text and reaction each and every time this question of "Nikon or Fujinon or Rodenstock or Schneider"...


Bernice

Bernice. What did you mean?
"...One more thing, the great view camera lens equalizer is f22..."

[Alan Klein]

So if I understand you correctly Bernise by F/22 you mean that all four manufacturers lenses are basically the same at that aperture? So where are they different after all?

[Bernice Loui]

Modern Nikkor view camera lenses often produce higher perceived contrast than the others. This might results in the perception of a "sharper" image, in reality the actual "sharpness" is no different than the other. This becomes an individual preference.

How a lens is shaded and stray light from the lens image circle also affects image contrast recorded on film.

This difference in lens contrast rendition can be altered in the print making process.. which should be figured into the print making goals.



Bernice

Take this For what its worth (not much). I have had many lenses of both brands including those two. There is something subtle in the "look" of the negative that I prefer from the Nikons. Over the years I have gradually replaced all my other lenses with Nikons but one.

[Jody_S]

Why?

I always found Nikkor 35mm lenses razor sharp and contrasty in b&w, but coatings do have more effect on color rendition than people think. For 1970s-80s glass, I personally prefer Konica then Fujinon EBC for color cast. For b&w, Nikkor then Canon then Rokkor. Though the Canon 50/1.4 is hard to beat on any metric.

[Bernice Loui]

Essentially yes, they are mostly sharpness-resolution equalized at f22 if their design and production was consistent and good.

Knowing this manufactures ended up with differences in contrast and color rendition and performance trade offs at varied reproduction ratios and optical behavior variations over their image circle.

From the Advertising image days of film, snappy-punchy color images became a thing, market appealing thing. This resulted in higher contrast rendering lenses (Nikkor, Symmar HM and etc) along with films like Fujifilm Velvia, Kodak Ektachrome 100 Plus and all that was driven by what the market demanded and wanted.

This image doctrine appears today in the world of BIG flat screen displays, many of these LED back lighted displays play very bright, high contrast with a very sharp and snappy video images.. There was a time when Plasma displays grew to produce very good video images with good color rendition, contrast rations and overall neutral video image rendition. BIG disappointment for many regarding plasma video displays, they are not bright enough, snappy enough, punchy enough. This is also some of the reasons why plasma video displays have essentially died in the video market place of today.


Bernice

So if I understand you correctly Bernise by F/22 you mean that all four manufacturers lenses are basically the same at that aperture? So where are they different after all?

[Alan Klein]

Essentially yes, they are mostly sharpness-resolution equalized at f22 if their design and production was consistent and good.

Knowing this manufactures ended up with differences in contrast and color rendition and performance trade offs at varied reproduction ratios and optical behavior variations over their image circle.

From the Advertising image days of film, snappy-punchy color images became a thing, market appealing thing. This resulted in higher contrast rendering lenses (Nikkor, Symmar HM and etc) along with films like Fujifilm Velvia, Kodak Ektachrome 100 Plus and all that was driven by what the market demanded and wanted.

This image doctrine appears today in the world of BIG flat screen displays, many of these LED back lighted displays play very bright, high contrast with a very sharp and snappy video images.. There was a time when Plasma displays grew to produce very good video images with good color rendition, contrast rations and overall neutral video image rendition. BIG disappointment for many regarding plasma video displays, they are not bright enough, snappy enough, punchy enough. This is also some of the reasons why plasma video displays have essentially died in the video market place of today.


Bernice

Smart 4K TVs today have different selectable color renditions with more or less saturation, contrast, etc. There are usually half a dozen different selection presets. Plus every selection preset have individual adjustments you can make to contrast, saturation, etc. So you can get pretty much anything you want and view your slides and videos to taste. I tend to make my adjustments however when editing and leave the TV to "normal" preset. That way, if it's viewed on a monitor or Flickr,, it already has the color done to my taste.

[hyatts3]

Modern Nikkor view camera lenses often produce higher perceived contrast than the others. This might results in the perception of a "sharper" image, in reality the actual "sharpness" is no different than the other. This becomes an individual preference.

How a lens is shaded and stray light from the lens image circle also affects image contrast recorded on film.

This difference in lens contrast rendition can be altered in the print making process.. which should be figured into the print making goals.



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).