300mm lens choice for 8x10

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

John,

But the 300mm Nikkor is NOT similar optically to the G Claron or the APO Ronar. In fact, all three are very different designs. As I stated earlier the 300mm Nikkor M is a 4 element - 3 group tessar type optimized for distant subjects. The angle of coverage is 57 degrees at f22 (pretty standard for a tessar). It is intended for general purpose photography and not designed specifically for close-up work. It is multicoated.

The G Claron is a 6 element 4 group process plasmat. Schneider rates the coverage at 64 degrees at f22 (but others claim it covers a lot more, up to as much as 80 degrees at small stops). It is single coated.

The APO Ronar is a 4 element 4 group dialyte that is very similar in design and performance to the classic Goerz APO "Red Dot" Artar. Like the Artar, it has a narrow field of coverage (48 degrees at f22). So, it will not cover 8x10 at infinity in the 300mm focal length. It's been around a long time. Older samples are single coated, more recent ones are multicoated.

Perhaps you are confusing the Nikkor M series with the older APO Nikkor. The APO Nikkors were 4 element - 4 group process lenses similar in design to the APO Ronars and Artars. I believe the coverage was also similar. They were single coated and mostly sold in barrel mount. Totally different design, with a different intended application, than the Nikkor M.

Now, that said, a lot of people use these so called "process lenses" for general purpose landscape work and are ver pleased wih the results. Personally, I have a few process lenses that I use for landscape work on 4x5 and they are some of the sharpest lenses I own. For example, I have a 240mm f9 Fujinon A that is a 6 element - 4 group process plasmat similar (but not identical) to the G Claron. The Fuji also happens to be multicoated and one of the sharpest lenses I own - even for distant subjects (compares favorably to my 210 APO Symmar at f16 and beats it at f22 - in terms of resolution at 20:1). Often, what you give up with the slower "process" lenses is not sharpness, but speed and in some cases coverage. What you gain is lower cost, less weight and smaller filter sizes. I'm personally a fan of small, lightweight lenses (as long as they are excellent performers), but then that's based on my own personal needs. Plus, I'm not shooting anything bigger than 5x7 these days - so that is also a consideration when reading my comments. I'm sure Dan (and you and everybody else) has his own set of priorities. I don't find focusing a longer than normal lens difficult at f9, but for wide angles it can be a problem. I also don't need the coverage of a 300mm APO Sironar-S (if I did, that's what I'd use). I do love the APO Sironar-S in the shorter focal lengths, but for MY needs I greatly prefer the 300mm Nikkor M, due to it's small size and weight. YMMV. It might not be the best choice for you, or Dan, but it works for me.

Kerry

[Jeff Buckels]

Dan: The Wollensak triple convertible Brian Ellis mentions is probably the Series Ia (right Brian?). It's a super lens -- 13", 20", 25". Having said that, you can EASILY tell the difference between the resolution of this lens and that of the best of the best lenses mentioned in the other responses: Enlarge to about 24x30 and stick a 20X loupe in your eye. Otherwise, forget it. -jb

[Larry Huppert]

About a year ago I tested several 300mm lenses for 4x5 use. Since I shoot architecture, the quality of the image at the extreme of the image circle mattered to me. I tried the Fujinon 300C, and was very disappointed beyond around 250ish mm of image circle. If I was contact printing, I would probably have felt the results were OK, but not good, great or stunning. Maybe I had a bad sample? If I were shooting 4x5 landscapes, I would have been very happy with the lens as the image quality in the center is great!

[Edward Chung]

You can try the Voigtlander Collinear. I had one use for many years on my Deardorff 8x10 and it provides a lot of movement. From the information I have the lens will cover 11x14 at F22.

[Edward Chung]

Sorry, I forgot to mention the lens should be a Voigtlander Collinear 310mm F6.3.

[Jim Galli]

Surprised myself a few weeks ago. For whatever reason (forgotten now) I made identical afternoon exposures on Velvia in the desert southwest at high altitude (7500' ghost town of Belmont NV.) within 5 minutes of each other, one with my 305 G-Claron, and one with my 240 Fuji f9a, same setup, same subject, just swapped lenses. The Claron is NOT as sharp, as expected, but in that situation where there is a 3+ stop difference between sunlit areas and shadows, the Claron produced beautifully illuminated shadow detail that was down in Zone 2 with the Fuji, while sunlit areas of the chromes were equal. Sometimes single coating ain't so bad. Even though the 240 is sharper looking through a 40X microscope, either would print nicely at 20X24 from 4X5, so what's the big deal.

[Don Hall]

Kerry, I have been considering the Fuji 240A and was intrigued by your comment that at F22 it beat the 210 Schneider. How does it compare (the Fuji 240) at infinity to your Nikon 300M as far as resolution and contrast ?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Don,

Compared to the 210mm APO Symmar, my 240mm Fujinon A is ever so slightly sharper at f22 (probably not enough to even notice in actual use - I'm referring to shots of a test target). At f16, the APO Symmar is shrper in the corners, but the Fuji is sharper in the center. Again, these differences are very small and unless you're shooting a test chart, probably not noticeable. Also, please note, my experience with these lenses is primariily on 4x5 and a little 5x7. I believe Don is asking about these lenses for 4x5 use (not 8x10, as Dan was in his original question).

Compared to the 300mm Nikkor M - it's a tough call. I REALLY like both lenses. See:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

and

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/mid-rang.htm

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/300-450.htm

for more info on these two lenses.

I terms of resolution, the Fuji 240 is slightly better, but I think the Nikkor has slightly better contrast (probably due to a simpler design with fewer air:glass interfaces). In both cases the differences are very small and the net sum is that both lenses are outstanding. In real world use, I think you'd be quite pleased with either lens.

The Fuji does have one advantage. It's also an outstanding lens for close-up shooting. And, if you have about 480mm of bellows draw, you can shoot with it at 1:1. Of course, for more distant subjects, the Nikkor has the advantage of longer focal length. Guess that's why I have both, and use them both often. I think if I had to choose one or the other, it would simply come down to how they fit in with my other lenses (in terms of focal length) and not have anything to do with image quality (they are both outstanding).

Kerry

[sergiofigliolia]

OK so we know Nikkor has conservative coverage specs but how different is coverage between Fujinon C 300m f/8.5 and Nikkor M 300 f/9?
I mean in the field not in the figures I can read in the specs.
I need this info for 8x10. I know that for 4x5 it doesn't matter as they both have ample coverage

[xkaes]

Fuji made 300mm lenses from f5.6 to f9 that might meet your needs. Check them out at:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm