Fuji 90mm f8 SW or Nikon 90mm f8 SW

[Ben]

I'm new to LF world.

The Fuji is about half the price of the Nikon.

Anyone here know both lenses and have compared them?

Nikon seems slightly lighter at 355g, Fuji at 407g.

Thanks!

[Dan Fromm]

They are both very bad.

Buy on price and condition.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, both real "bad" lenses (why is Dan speaking like a teenager? - "super-baaaaad"), which is why you should get one, not even try it out, reduce the price even lower, and then watch it get instantly snatched up by someone else on this forum. Both are excellent options if you can work in the limitations of f/8 max aperture - typically no problems outdoors, but sometimes potentially an issue with dim architectural interiors. Nitpicking between Fuji and Nikon is a waste of time.
You can't go wrong with either - they're both top quality, so simply go for condition and price, all other things being equal.

[Ben Calwell]

I bought a new Nikon 90mm f8 in about 1985, and it’s still serving me well.

[Kiwi7475]

The Nikkor has a slightly larger image circle (235mm vs 216mm) that would cover 5x7 with almost no movement. If you’re thinking you may go there, get the Nikon. Otherwise just pick based on price and condition, as others say.

Even at f8, at this focal lengths, it will get dark at the edges — not great if shooting when there’s not a lot of light. The f5.6 versions are better — but come at some more weight.

There’s no perfect answer…

[Bob Salomon]

The Nikkor has a slightly larger image circle (235mm vs 216mm) that would cover 5x7 with almost no movement. If you’re thinking you may go there, get the Nikon. Otherwise just pick based on price and condition, as others say.

Even at f8, at this focal lengths, it will get dark at the edges — not great if shooting when there’s not a lot of light. The f5.6 versions are better — but come at some more weight.

There’s no perfect answer…

The Rodenstock Grandagon 90mm 6.8 is quite a bit brighter and not much anger and is a superior tic

[Dan Fromm]

Yeah, both real "bad" lenses (why is Dan speaking like a teenager? - "super-baaaaad"), which is why you should get one, not even try it out, reduce the price even lower, and then watch it get instantly snatched up by someone else on this forum. Both are excellent options if you can work in the limitations of f/8 max aperture - typically no problems outdoors, but sometimes potentially an issue with dim architectural interiors. Nitpicking between Fuji and Nikon is a waste of time.
You can't go wrong with either - they're both top quality, so simply go for condition and price, all other things being equal.

Drew, I take it you never heard the story of the man who was condemned to death and was offered a choice of deaths. One was to be torn apart by four wild horses, the other was to be burned at the stake. To which he said "They are both very bad."

I was being sarcastic too. I haven't used either, would be surprised if either wasn't more than good enough. So the OP's question, although asked with good intentions and genuine curiosity, was somewhat silly.

[Mark Sampson]

Not a silly question if you really don't know. It's worth remembering that both lenses are top-quality professional optics from well-respected companies. As, in fact, are just about all post-WWII view camera lenses.
To speak from experience, I bought a used Nikkor-SW 90/8 thirty years ago and have happily used it since. As my most-used lens for architecture, it has satisfied some rather picky architects and made me a fair amount of money. I plan to keep it... but had it been a Fujinon 90/8 all those years ago, I'm sure that the story would be the same.
Mr. Fromm's advice is good; buy on price and condition.

[Ari]

I've owned both and prefer the Nikon.
My Fuji was was older and single-coated, while the Nikon was a more recent multi-coated version.
Contrast and sharpness were close, but the Nikon clearly had the edge.

[Chuck Pere]

I've owned both and prefer the Nikon.
My Fuji was was older and single-coated, while the Nikon was a more recent multi-coated version.
Contrast and sharpness were close, but the Nikon clearly had the edge.

This was also my experience.