What of this 300mm for landscape ?

[Sergio]

Hi at all, I'm from Italy, and like take pictures of
mountains landscape, from two years I use a Toyo CF, 90mm f.9 Fujinon,
150mm 5,6 Rodenstock S, about the film, Velvia 50 and Acros 100
Is my intention to buy a used 300mm, now a ingenuity
question; a x shot/frame what result final will be better ?
Whith:Fujinon 300mm T f 8
Fujinon 300mm C f 8,5
Nikkor 300mm M f 9
Rodenstok 300mm APOP Ronar f9

Thanks, and nice week-end, Sergio

[Brian Stein]

All are capable of giving very good results.
Your camera has relatively limited bellows extension: about 350mm from my memory. In view of this you will only be able to focus the non-telephoto lenses to about 2-3m closest, but the 3ooT will focus closer. This may be critical for you. Against this the movements for the telephoto will be less (circle ~210mm versus 260 for ronar and more for the others) and because of the design a little more difficult to use movements. It is also bigger and heavier needing 67mm filter (although ronar is also not small; it is a process lens so often not in a shutter)
The 300c and 300m are both very compact lenses and good for hiking.They have very large coverage, weight litlle and use 52mm filters.
For doing landscape in the mountains I would be looking to the 300C or 300M (which one? the one I can get!) as long as close focus is not super important. As always if you can borrow/hire for a day it is the best!

[Preston]

Sergio,

If you plan to walk about with your gear, the Fujinon C or the Nikkor M will be the way to go. I have the Nikkor and I love it! It is compact, very light in weight, nice and contrasty, and tack sharp. It is one of my most used lenses. If closer focusing is not an issue for you, either of these lenses will be a great addition to your kit.

-P

[drew.saunders]

I have the Fujinon 300C and a Nikkor 200/8 M, and can't tell the difference in quality between them. For your 300mm question, the Fuji has two advantages:

1: It's still being made (but plenty of 300/9 M Nikkor's are available still).

2: If you look at http://www.ebonycamera.com/articles/lenses.html, you'll see that the flange focal distance of the Fuji is 282mm vs. 290mm for the Nikkor. Since your camera has 357mm of bellows extension, that 8mm less that the Fuji needs gives you a pinch more close focus. The math is 1/flange focal distance - 1/bellows extension = 1/distance to object. i.e.: 1/(1/282 - 1/357)=1342mm minimum focusing distance for the Fuji, while 1/(1/290 - 1/357)=1545mm for the Nikkor. Not a huge difference, but something to consider.

The 300T needs 196mm of bellows, which is a huge difference: 435mm minimum focusing distance.

Drew

[Jeffrey Sipress]

What Preston said.

[Ron Marshall]

I have the 300 C and am happy with it. Very light weight.

[Aender Brepsom]

I had the Apo-Ronar 300mm f/9 MC and it was an excellent performer. Very small (takes 49mm filters) and compact.

[gary mulder]

I have a apo-ronar 300mm MC (that takes 52mm filters) which I sent to the factory for adjusting at infinity. And a fuji 300 mm T. My observation is that they have a vary different character. The ronar has a nice micro detail and a "softer" image, the fuji T more contrast, less detail.

[Harley Goldman]

I just picked up the 300M and like it a lot. I have used Preston's as well.

[john borrelli]

Before I purchased my Fuji 300c new, I tried a used Nikon 300m and an older 240mm apo ronar single coated. My experience with these later two lenses was only using them for a few pictures then returning them.

The used Nikon lens had a shutter full of sand when I saw this I returned the lens as it was too close in price to a new Fuji. It is my impression with the few pictures I took with the nikon, that this lens was sharper than my Fuji; by sharper I am referring to what I think of as resolution. The Fuji seems a little contrastier than the nikon.

Some people seem to indicate the Fuji may not be as good with lens flare as the Nikon, I have not noticed a flare problem with my Fuji. I would be happy with either one as individual lens differences, and other factors may outweigh inherent differences.

The older Apo ronar (rated by the store as a 9+ lens and it was in a shutter) had a different look. It was great with a still life. With the still life about three feet from the camera it had a nice creamy quality. However with a landscape with a lot of the subject at distances to infinity it seemed soft. A newer MC version would most likely be a different story. The image circle with the Apo ronar is generally cited as being smaller at distances than the Fuji or Nikon.

I have had the Fuji for about 6 months, I am an amateur, occasional weekend photographer, I have already taken a couple of my favorite photos with the Fuji.