Suggestions for 300-360mm for 4x5

[Drew Wiley]

All my Fuji C's are incredibly sharp, as are my Fuji A's and Nikkor M. The color balance is very similar in all of them, and virtually indistinguishable from the G-Claron I use in
comparable focal length. The A's and G's have the advantage of close-up correction,
but are superb at infinity with normal stop-down. The M and C's are infinity correted
wide open. Perhaps the best quality of the A series in this kind of focal length, as well
as the G-Claron, is that you have enough coverage to use 8x10 film too, should you
choose to do so. With the others the coverage on 8x10 will be a little tight.

[Two23]

I've been happy with the Rodenstock Geronar 300mm f9, Copal 1. Lots of coverage and it is sharp.


Kent in SD

[Atul Mohidekar]

If you are going to use the lens on a 4x5 camera, I would highly recommend the latest version of the 300mm APO-Ronar lens.

I have done some controlled, but non-scientific, testing with Nikkor M 300mm and APO-Ronar 300mm on a 4x5 camera. The APO-Ronar that I used for testing was the (rare) latest "blue ring" version of the Ronar lens that came with the factory installed Copal shutter and is supposedly optimized for infinity. Both lenses were modern and multi-coated lenses produced in 1990s (Nikkor may be even later). The Ronar weighs slightly less (~10gm) than Nikkor. Nikkor has bigger image circle, but Ronar is more than sufficient to cover a 4x5 with movements. Nikkor is a small lens, Ronar is even smaller. My test results were very close to the naked eye, but under 10x loupe I would rate Ronar slightly higher for its resolution. Ronar is one of the two most used lenses in my kit as I like to shoot with longer than normal focal lengths.

// Atul

[redu]

I'm not looking for a portrait lens. I'd be most likely to use this lens for somewhat distant scenes that I can't get closer to, for one reason or another. Also for architectural details or for cropped portions of cityscapes. But in any event, none of it would be close to a portrait distance.

Are the dialyte lenses all process lenses that are optimized for close distances? I often hear that the process lenses can be used with good results at infinity, but I don't know how sharp they really are at those distances.

I may just bite the bullet and go for a 300 Apo Sironar S, but it's heavy and expensive, and this is sort of a special-use lens for me, not one I'll use every day.

Well in this case, 350mm might not be enough for 4x5. Here is a good comparison of focal lengths for different formats; by taking 35mm 135 format as a reference. For the applications you mention i would go for a 500-600mm tele. There will always be scenes that you would like to get closer but for those you think they are too close, most of the times you have the chances to move back. I have a Komura 500 f7 for this purpose. It's a good lens though i can not compare it with another one at similar focal length.

[Alan Gales]

The Nikkor 300M is an obvious choice which I recommend. For something different what about a Kodak 10" or 14" Commercial Ektar? I just hope that you have a very robust front standard.

[Steve Barber]

If you want something other than the Fuji lenses (I only have one LF Fuji lens, the 600mm f12 Fujinon-T, so I cannot say how their other LF lenses might compare), then I would recommend a 305mm or 360mm f9 G-Claron or the comparable Red Dot Artar or APO-Ronar lenses for focal lengths longer than 210mm on a 4x5 camera. I would not say that these are comparable to the 300mm f5.6 APO Sironar-S, but I think they are close enough. Their reduced weight and bulk more than make up for any slight difference in performance that I can see, using them on a 4x5 with the shorter APO-Sironar-S or Grandagon-N lenses that I have.

[Noah A]

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I think a blue-stripe Apo Ronar would be great, if I can find one.

I'm using two cameras, a Technikardan 45S (which presents no problems) and a Master Technika 2000 (which may limit me somewhat).

I agree that a 300 may not really be long enough for what I want, but I think it's long enough to be different from my 210.

I also have considered an Apo Tele Xenar 400, but it's rare on the used market and pricey if purchased new.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I think a blue-stripe Apo Ronar would be great, if I can find one.

I'm using two cameras, a Technikardan 45S (which presents no problems) and a Master Technika 2000 (which may limit me somewhat).

I agree that a 300 may not really be long enough for what I want, but I think it's long enough to be different from my 210.

I also have considered an Apo Tele Xenar 400, but it's rare on the used market and pricey if purchased new.

Neither the 300 or the 360 Apo Sironar S lenses will physically fit either of your cameras, in case anyone doesn't realize that.

[Richard Wasserman]

Does the 300 Apo Sironar-N fit on the Technikardan?

Neither the 300 or the 360 Apo Sironar S lenses will physically fit either of your cameras, in case anyone doesn't realize that.

[Bob Salomon]

Does the 300 Apo Sironar-N fit on the Technikardan?

No, the rear element is also too large to fit into the hole in the front standard.