I am trying to decide on a 300mm lens that will primarily be used for 4x5 portra it work (strobes and existing light) with some occasional backpacking and landsc apes. I have decided to forgo potentially better coverage for 8x10 as that is no t something in my immediate plans and I do not want the extra weight and size of the Copal #3 lenses.

My choices are:

Rodenstock APO-Ronar 300/9 Nikkor M 300/9 Fuji-C 300/8.5 Schneider G-Claron 305/9

I have scoured all of the threads here, Q Tuan Long's excellent site, Kerry's lens tests, Wulff's ratings, and anything else I could find.

I have read a lot of interesting opinions about all of these lenses:

- The APO-Ronar has less coverage according to the specs but in practice its cir cle of sharpness is similar to the others.

- Lots of people love the Nikkor and the Fuji for sharpness and contrast but no one has any compelling evidence of one over the other.

- Some people feel the G-Claron is not as good at infinity but some (including S chneider literature) say it is just as good as the others at F22+ and it has mor e coverage.

I know that any of these lenses will do the job well but the one thing I would l ike to know is if anyone has done some side-by-side testing of these lenses (par ticularly for portrait work). Has anyone shot some TMAX 100, Provia, or Astia on two or more of these lenses and can say definitively that one has a significant advantage over the others? I am not looking for theory and MTF data ? real worl d subjective opinion is more interesting at this point.

Thanks.