Nikon Nikkor SW 75/4.5 Experience Compared to Nikkor SW 90/8

[darr]

Hey! Has anyone used both the Nikon Nikkor SW 75/4.5 and SW 90/8 lenses, and can you share your thoughts?
I understand that personal preference can play a role, but I'm curious about any noticeable differences in quality.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my inquiry.

Best regards,
Darr

[Per Madsen]

I have both.

The 75/4,5 are very sharp and a good wide angle. On F 11 it is very good across the whole negative.

On F 4,5 the Zeiss Biogon are better, but much larger and hideously expensive.

The 90/8,0 are extremely sharp and probably the sharpest 90 mm for 4 * 5. I also have the 90/8,0 Super Angulon, which is less contrasty and not as sharp (single coated and in a Compur 00 shutter).

[Vaughan]

I'm not sure what you're asking. I have a Fujinon SWD 75mm f5.6 and 90mm f5.6 lenses (both the older models, but they are EBC multi-coated not single coated). On 4x5 the Full-Frame Equivalent of the 75mm is ~24mm and the 90mm is ~28mm and they both have excellent image quality. I'm sure that lenses from the other major manufacturers will be similar. The choice may depend on whether you need (the equivalent of) a 24mm or 28mm lens.

The shorter 75mm lens will have smaller image circle so will offer less movements than the 90mm. The physics of the optical design will also make vignetting more obvious on the shorter lens, requiring a centre filter for critical work.

Not all large format cameras can use a lens as short as 75mm: some like the Linhoif Technika need focussing attachments, some need recessed lens boards, some can't compress the bellows enough to reach infinity focus even with a recessed board, so check before buying. (The older Fujinon SWD lenses come in Seiko 0 shutters which are mechanically difficult/impossible to mount on recessed Technika lens boards, later models on Copal shutters have no problems.) Some cameras can reach infinity focus but the wide angle of view may include the front bed in the frame when in portrait orientation.

[xkaes]

I understand that personal preference can play a role, but I'm curious about any noticeable differences in quality.

Best regards,
Darr

What do you mean by "quality"? Quality of the lens/shutter construction, or quality of the images? If the latter, you need to define that further as well. Color, resolution,.........

[darr]

I have both.

The 75/4,5 are very sharp and a good wide angle. On F 11 it is very good across the whole negative.

On F 4,5 the Zeiss Biogon are better, but much larger and hideously expensive.

The 90/8,0 are extremely sharp and probably the sharpest 90 mm for 4 * 5. I also have the 90/8,0 Super Angulon, which is less contrasty and not as sharp (single coated and in a Compur 00 shutter).

Thank you, Per.
I have the Nikkor SW 90/8 and 90/4.5 and I am thinking about trading the 90/8 for the SW 75/4.5 but cannot try it our before I do. I appreciate your insightful experience about these lenses.

[darr]

I'm not sure what you're asking. I have a Fujinon SWD 75mm f5.6 and 90mm f5.6 lenses (both the older models, but they are EBC multi-coated not single coated). On 4x5 the Full-Frame Equivalent of the 75mm is ~24mm and the 90mm is ~28mm and they both have excellent image quality. I'm sure that lenses from the other major manufacturers will be similar. The choice may depend on whether you need (the equivalent of) a 24mm or 28mm lens.

The shorter 75mm lens will have smaller image circle so will offer less movements than the 90mm. The physics of the optical design will also make vignetting more obvious on the shorter lens, requiring a centre filter for critical work.

Not all large format cameras can use a lens as short as 75mm: some like the Linhoif Technika need focussing attachments, some need recessed lens boards, some can't compress the bellows enough to reach infinity focus even with a recessed board, so check before buying. (The older Fujinon SWD lenses come in Seiko 0 shutters which are mechanically difficult/impossible to mount on recessed Technika lens boards, later models on Copal shutters have no problems.) Some cameras can reach infinity focus but the wide angle of view may include the front bed in the frame when in portrait orientation.

Thank you for your comment.
Just want to hear user experience from those that have shot with both lenses and their opinion when compared.

[darr]

What do you mean by "quality"? Quality of the lens/shutter construction, or quality of the images? If the latter, you need to define that further as well. Color, resolution,.........

If you have experience with both lenses how do they compare in your opinion.
This is not rocket science, just personal opinion.

[MartyNL]

Darr, what's your opinion, image quality wise, of the two 90mm Nikkors, f4.5 vs f8, if I may ask?

I have the technical data.

[Michael R]

I doubt you would be disappointed from an image quality perspective. Generally speaking I always expect shorter (or longer) focal lengths to be slightly less awesome than middle/standard focal lengths, but whether or not this makes any visible difference in print quality depends - as usual - on magnification, subject matter, use of image circle etc etc you know the drill.

I assume you've either used this focal length before or have experience with the equivalent angle of view on smaller formats, but one "caution" I'll throw out is (my opinion of course) 75mm is really quite short. I used to do much more work with short focal lengths and bought a 72mm after having used a 90mm a lot, and I really found it to be quite a jump. I ended up not using it anywhere near as much as I had expected. I found the experience quite different than using something like a 21mm on 35mm format for example. At this point I kind of see anything shorter than 90mm as more of a special purpose lens, but this will obviously depend on the type of photography one is doing.

On the technical side, one reason I didn't get a Nikon 75mm is because with a focal length that short I really wanted a dedicated center filter and didn't want to mess around with which one(s) would work. Again this is a personal thing and may or may not be relevant depending on the type of photography, negative vs reversal film etc.

If you want to see image examples made with Nikkor short focal length lenses on 4x5 (including the 75mm), try to find John Sexton's Places of Power.

If you have experience with both lenses how do they compare in your opinion.
This is not rocket science, just personal opinion.

[Greg]

Thank you, Per.
I have the Nikkor SW 90/8 and 90/4.5 and I am thinking about trading the 90/8 for the SW 75/4.5 but cannot try it our before I do. I appreciate your insightful experience about these lenses.

A while back I had pretty much the same dilemma. Owned and used a 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor-SW and a 90mm f/5.6 Schneider Super-Angulon XL with Schneider IVa Center ND filter. Seriously thought about trading one of them and acquiring either a 75mm or 65mm lens. I was able to try out 65mm and 75mm optics. For me the 75mm was too close to the 90mm. Opted to get a 65mm f/4 Nikkor-SW with a center ND filter. I shoot only B&W 4x5 and actually prefer using the 65mm without the center ND filter a lot of times. Ended up keeping both the 90mm optics. The Nikkor-SW is dedicated to my 4x5. The largest I print is 11x14, and I suppose a simple, much smaller, Angulon would work out to be just fine for me. The Super-Angulon XL is dedicated to my whole plate camera... it just barely covers whole plate. When I do use it on my whole plate camera, I normally shoot two sheets of film, one with and one without the center ND. Sometimes the light falloff just makes the final printed image, but I have a hard time seeing its effect on the GG. To each their own. Another photographer I knew preferred using 75mm and 120mm Nikkor optics on his 4x5, and ended up selling his 90mm.