Suggestions for 300-360mm for 4x5

[Noah A]

I'm looking to add a longer lens to my kit, which currently consists of 90 and 115 Grandagons and 135, 150 and 210 Apo-Sironar-S lenses.

I'm looking for a lens that will match the sharpness of my current lineup as well as the color rendering and contrast of the Rodenstocks.

The obvious choices seem to be the Nikkor M 300 or Fuji C 300. I know they're probably sharp enough, but I wonder if they'll have a different look from my Rodenstocks?

I'm also curious about the Apo-Tele-Xenar Compact 350mm (or possibly any other tele-design lens that will focus on my Technika).

I need room for a decent amount of front rise/fall, though I know this isn't a problem with most of the lenses in these focal lengths. I'll be mostly using the lens for cityscapes so the working distance will be moderately long.

I'd love to hear from people who have used these lenses as well as other suggestions.

Sharpness is not academic in my case, my prints start at 20x24 inches and I often print 40x50 inches or larger.

[BradS]

I've owned two 300mm Nikkor-M, one 300mm Fujinon-C and currently still own and use many Rodenstock Sironar-N and Grandagon-N. From that limited small sample, I can say that the Nikkor-M is far sharper than the Fujinon-C and that the Japanese lenses do not render color the same as the Rodenstocks. It's not even close. The Japanese lenses, to my eye, are cooler while the Rodenstocks tend toward warm.

Personally, I never found a compelling need for a lens that long on 4x5. I tought that I'd use the 300mm length for portraits. It turns out that peoples' faces look really flat and lifeless when shot with a 300mm on 4x5 (of course, this is due to the camera- to subject distance, not the lens).

Again, my personal opinion, you're often far better off with a really good wide angle when shooting "cityscapes". This allows you to get in closer and cut out extraneous junk - like signs, wires, the street, etc...

[Oren Grad]

The obvious choices seem to be the Nikkor M 300 or Fuji C 300. I know they're probably sharp enough, but I wonder if they'll have a different look from my Rodenstocks?

I can't say anything about color, but there are situations in which OOF rendering will be different. The balance between contrast and resolution - the exact shape of the MTF - will differ as well. If this sort of subtlety matters for your work, unfortunately there's not really any alternative to buying or borrowing the lenses you're considering and testing them for yourself.

If you need something compact, you might also consider the Apo-Ronars, subject to the same caveat. OTOH, if you keep a forklift as part of your kit and if having a consistent optical "flavor" is really important, then to state the obvious, there's always the 300 and 360 Apo-Sironar-S.

[redu]

I use a Tele Arton 360mm f5.5 and mostly for portraits. It's a big and heavy lens. Weighs almost like 1kg. But it is an ideal lens for portraits with it's large aperture. Artons are supposedly better than their elder brothers Tele Xenar 360mm f5.5 due to being multicoated and one extra element (5 element 5 group vs 4 element 3 group design respectively) in design. At the 2nd hand market Xenars are more frequently seen though. Still, if you come across with an Arton it sells around the same price as Xenar. Here is the ancient Schneider brochure describing all about these two.

[vinny]

Don't forget the 305mm g claron. Heavier than the nikkor m, single coated too but I haven't noticed any difference from my rodenstocks, fujinons, and nikkors.

[Ken Lee]

Like the others in the A series, the Fujinon 300 A is a "super-apochromatic" lens, and is remarkably small and light, considering its performance. It has a generous 420 mm circle of coverage. It takes 55 mm filters, and weighs only 410 grams.

Here's a sample image made on 4x5 TMY film on an Arca-Swiss Discovery. The lens had more covering power than the camera had rise. Standing so close to the building, I had to tilt up a bit. The detail image is a magnification of around 8X, made at 2500 spi on a Microtek 2500F scanner.

[Richard Wasserman]

I use a 300mm Apo-Germinar which is tiny, 40.5mm filters, and very light. Its IC is 255mm and it weighs about 225 grams. I unfortunately have only used it with B&W and don't know how it compares to Rodenstock in terms of color. Sorry this isn't completely useful. A bit more info—

http://www.reallybigcameras.com/Doct..._Germinar.html

[Arne Croell]

The Apo-Tele-Xenar Compact 350mm is not, despite its name, a telephoto type, it is a dialyte like the Apo-Germinar Richard mentioned, or the Apo-Ronars and Apo-Artars. All of these are much smaller than a regular telephoto and are also viable alternatives to the Nikkor-M or Fuji-C.

[Noah A]

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.

[jeroldharter]

You don't say what 4x5 camera you have. Some would have difficulty with a 300 and many more with a 360.

You could always get an apo-Sironar-S 300 mm lens to be consistent with your other lenses but it would be very large and heavy.

All of the modern choices (Nikkor 300M, Fujinon 300C, Apo-Tele-Xenar 350, G-Claron 305) will give you huge coverage for 4x5.

I like the 300 mm focal length for 4x5 landscapes. I would keep it simple and get the Fujinon of Nikkor which are small, light, sharp, multicoated, use small filters, and are available.