Which Modern 360mm Lens?

[Ron Marshall]

Aside from image circle and max. aperture, are there any important differences between the modern 360mm lenses from the big four: Fuji W 360/6.3; Fuji CMW 360/6.5; Nikon W 360/6.5; Schneider APO Symmar 360/6.8, Rodenstock Sironar N 360/3.8?

For portraits on 5x7 and 8x10.

[Kirk Fry]

They are all too sharp??? What about a 14 in Commercial Ektar? Or one of the Kodak Portrait lenses? Or, good god, one of those mushy things Galli uses. KFry

[8x10 user]

The Rodenstock's Apo-Sironar-S lens is considered by many to be the sharpest lens from the "big four". Although many people like the look produced by classic lenses.

[Ron Marshall]

They are all too sharp??? What about a 14 in Commercial Ektar? Or one of the Kodak Portrait lenses? Or, good god, one of those mushy things Galli uses. KFry

How different would the image from a modern lens be from that of a Commercial Ektar, if they were both shot wide open?

[Drew Wiley]

In addition to the huge 5.6 plastmats, you should also include lenses like the G-Claron
and Fuji-A, which although out of production and originally intended for closeup work,
have proven extemely versatile and are fully modern in design. There are also quite a
few graphics lenses in this focal length which have been successfully adapted to camera use and are certainly equal to the plastmats in terms of resolution, though with
smaller maximum apertures. Generally, the look of all these "modern" modern lenses is
somewhat different than the old classics like the dagor or commercial Ektar, but it all
depends what you need.

[Ken Lee]

There are also barrel-mounted lenses (no shutter) which you can use if you're equipped appropriately. I have a wonderful 360 APO-Nikkor lens, in barrel, that is superb for close work and portraits. It's rather small. Like vintage barrel lenses whose apertures are virtually round, it has a 12-bladed diaphragm.

[William McEwen]

Ron, I'm very happy with my Schneider G-Claron 355mm.

[Mark Sampson]

To address your original question: It's unlikely that you'd see important differences between the 'big 4'. Their design and construction standards are very similar- extremely high. Your intended application doesn't come anywhere close to the performance limits of those lenses- even if you're enlarging to 30x40". The chief difference between the modern multicoated plasmats and 'classics' like the 14" Ektar will be in contrast, not resolution. That's without getting into extremely personal ideas about out-of focus rendition, etc. So you could hardly go wrong with any of them.

[Ron Marshall]

In addition to the huge 5.6 plastmats, you should also include lenses like the G-Claron
and Fuji-A, which although out of production and originally intended for closeup work,
have proven extemely versatile and are fully modern in design. There are also quite a
few graphics lenses in this focal length which have been successfully adapted to camera use and are certainly equal to the plastmats in terms of resolution, though with
smaller maximum apertures. Generally, the look of all these "modern" modern lenses is
somewhat different than the old classics like the dagor or commercial Ektar, but it all
depends what you need.

I'm looking for a lens with a large aperture to shoot wide open, so something between 5.6 and 6.8.

[Ron Marshall]

There are also barrel-mounted lenses (no shutter) which you can use if you're equipped appropriately. I have a wonderful 360 APO-Nikkor lens, in barrel, that is superb for close work and portraits. It's rather small. Like vintage barrel lenses whose apertures are virtually round, it has a 12-bladed diaphragm.

If I can't find what I want in shutter I might go for a barrel lens (with Sinar shutter, or get it mounted).

I have only modern lenses. I have seen images from Heliars and soft-focus and Pretzvals, and they all have a distinctive signature.

But I am curious how subtle the difference would be between the image from something not so recent, such as a Commercial Ektar 360/6.3 and modern lens such as a Fuji 360/6.3?