Fujinon 450C vs Schneider Tele-Xenar 350?

[rachase]

How does the new Schneider lens stack up against the Fujinon in contrast and resolution? I am looking for a longer, lightweight lens to add to my collection of lenses; mainly for purposes of image compression and bringing distant objects closer in my landscapes and cityscapes. My current longest lens is 210mm. I have sufficient bellows and rail extension for either. I realize that these are two very different lenses because of their differing focal lengths. The Fujinon is obviously more difficult to find because of its well deserved ‘cult’ lens status. Has anyone out there used both lenses? This would be used for 4x5.

[Drew Wiley]

Should be easy to get the Fuji at either Badger or Midwest Photo Exch; they're rarely
out of this lens for very long because it's popular. A superb lightweight lens, but with a very large image circle, so if you're using it on 4x5 be sure to shade it well. The 450 focal length has quite a different angle of view than something in the 350 range; these are really two different categories, so you might want both!

[Don Hutton]

It's my impression that the new Schneider is perhaps a little sharper than the 450 C - almost on a par with the 400mm Apo Tele Xenar (which is awesome!). Not to say that the 450 C is at all shabby, but my impressions from the few sheets of film I have shot with the 350 are "Wow!" On 4x5 you may find the 350 easier to use as the bellows extension of around 320mm is much kinder in any sort of breeze. However, as Drew pointed out, the field of view of the 350 and 450 is quite different and if compression is what you're after, the 450 will be better. The 350 tele Xenar covers 8x10 easily too and is similar weight and size to the 450 C.

[Walter Calahan]

Nothing shabby about a Fujinon lens.

[Drew Wiley]

Usually when I'm in SF I'm carrying a Nikon, but I am very often in Marin with a view
camera. Back when I mostly shot 4x5 I used a 360 constantly, but the 450 rarely,
even when I had it along. Now that I mainly shoot 8x10, I seem to use both lenses
equally. I don't know if this helps you decide, because each of us has a little different
style. But with the longer 450 you are going to get more atmospheric effect from the
fog, heat waves, etc, and the look on 4x5 is distinctly more compressed. But I personally felt the need for both focal lengths. I have made 30X40 Cibachromes with
shots from both lenses that are so sharp that you need a loupe to see all the detail.
But my 360 is also Fuji (A-series).

[David Karp]

The lenses are quite different, both in focal length and in design. The telephoto design has certain characteristics that you might or might not want in a lens. Tilts or swings will have a different effect with the telephoto than a standard design lens like the Fuji. Search the forum and the home page for information on telephotos.

The sort of splits the difference between your 210 and the 450. Many of us have a 210, 300 and 450. I do, and it works pretty well for me, although I use the 300 the least of these three in 4x5, which surprised me.

I have the Fuji 450 C and like it very much. It is small, light in weight, and very sharp. I once owned a Nikkor M 450 and liked it very much too. Razor sharp. It is heavier and in a No. 3 shutter. That is why I sold it and purchased the Fuji.

[GPS]

It's my impression that the new Schneider is perhaps a little sharper than the 450 C - almost on a par with the 400mm Apo Tele Xenar (which is awesome!). Not to say that the 450 C is at all shabby, but my impressions from the few sheets of film I have shot with the 350 are "Wow!"
...

Sorry Don, this kind of comments is a typical case of spreading technically false comments - or, to be kinder, close to it... Unless you do a strictly controlled test your comment has the same technical value as to say - I like this lens more than the other, it pleases me more...
The grater angle of coverage, rightly mentioned in another post, has an influence on the contrast of the final picture, unless you use a good lens shade, something an amateur doesn't give a damn about... An impression of sharpness is linked to the contrast in a picture. Thus your impression can simply be a result of insufficient lens shading, rather than real sharpness.
Saying a lens is sharper than the other without a strictly controlled lens test has the same value as to say - I like this lens more than the other - I like the picture it took better than that of the other lens...
Sure you can like it more (have an "impression", as you say) but it means as much as liking milk more than yogurt... Cheers!

[Don Hutton]

Sorry Don, this kind of comments is a typical case of spreading technically false comments - or, to be kinder, close to it... Unless you do a strictly controlled test your comment has the same technical value as to say - I like this lens more than the other, it pleases me more...
The grater angle of coverage, rightly mentioned in another post, has an influence on the contrast of the final picture, unless you use a good lens shade, something an amateur doesn't give a damn about... An impression of sharpness is linked to the contrast in a picture. Thus your impression can simply be a result of insufficient lens shading, rather than real sharpness.
Saying a lens is sharper than the other without a strictly controlled lens test has the same value as to say - I like this lens more than the other - I like the picture it took better than that of the other lens...
Sure you can like it more (have an "impression", as you say) but it means as much as liking milk more than yogurt... Cheers!

I've actually used both and shared my own personal opinion - which is why I contributed my opinion here. I thought that I had made it clear that my subjective impressions were based only on a few sheets of film, not on any quasi-scientific comparison testing (which I do from time to time on similar lenses - and I don't consider these similar due to the focal lengh differential for my purposes). I've only had the 350 for about two months - it was one of the first available - and will shoot a resolution target with it in a week or two when I find the time and I'll be sure not to share what I learn in case you find my testing methodology disagreeable too. FWIW, neither of the two Fuji 450-Cs I've owned has ever managed over 50lp/mm despite it having an excellent reputation...

[Sal Santamaura]

The lenses are quite different...in design. The telephoto design has certain characteristics that you might or might not want in a lens. Tilts or swings will have a different effect with the telephoto than a standard design lens like the Fuji...

This would be good input except that, perversely, Schneider has used the name "tele" for its new 350 when in fact it's not a telephoto at all. It is a 4 element symmetric design.

...and will shoot a resolution target with it in a week or two when I find the time and I'll be sure not to share what I learn in case you find my testing methodology disagreeable too. FWIW, neither of the two Fuji 450-Cs I've owned has ever managed over 50lp/mm despite it having an excellent reputation...

Don, please do share what you learn. Not everyone will be so unappreciative. By the way, your 450-C results are right in line with sample variations seen in the Chris Perez / Kerry Thalmann tests:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

[rachase]

Thanks for everyone’s input, I’ll probably end up getting both, but am leaning towards getting the Schneider first because of its focal length. We already know that the 450-C is a great lens, especially for its size, I just wanted to get some feedback, even if anecdotal, from people who have used the very new Schneider lens so as to make sure it is not a dud. My intention was to use a highly regarded lens of similar build, as a basis for comparison. A Perez/Thalmann type of resolution test would be ideal but I expect the newness of the Schneider might preclude this. And of course even these tests are not absolute because variation between samples.