The Nikkor 300mm f/9 lens is currently the longest focal length in my 4x5 kit. Out of boredom, but with genuine interest, I’ve been doing some research on the Fujinon C 300mm f/8.5 lens. I note that on eBay the Fuji regularly fetches $200 to $300 more than its cousin, the Nikkor M 300mm f/9. I’ve wondered why? If folks pay more money for the Fuji, it must be better - right?
Besides the negligible .5 wider aperture, the most noticeable difference is that the Fuji appears to cover 380mm compared to the Nikkor’s 325mm. While this isn’t much of an issue for a 4x5 user like myself, I suspect it is a big deal for 8x10 shooters. It is my understanding that the Nikkor barely covers 8x10 without any movements, while the Fuji covers 8x10 with movements. I suspect this is why the Fuji fetches more $$$ than the Nikkor. Both are diminutive compared to their burly f/5.6 counterparts. I must admit to wondering why 8x10 users worry about the size/weight of their optics? The darn camera weighs a ton all by themselves. I guess every ounce counts - especially when backpacking? I currently subscribe to Edward Weston's belief that; “Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.”
As I researched this issue further, I started to notice online comments from large format photographers regarding a variety of "older" lens designs (i.e. Fuji, Nikkor, Zeiss, Goerz, etc) that have maximum apertures in the f/8, f/9, etc range. Lots of comments about these lenses having wonderful contrast and being razor sharp. While some of these lenses have multi-coating (Nikkor M), many are only single coated lenses. The f/5.6 lenses (Nikkor, Rodenstock, Schneider, etc) appear to have six elements and multi coating. The Nikkor M and Fuji A or C lenses typically have four elements and often single coating. As noted above, Nikkor M’s are multi-coated. While the f/5.6 six element multi-coated lenses are wonderful, they are also larger and heavier. At the moment, size and weight isn’t an issue for me. Maybe that will change?
Here is the $64 question; is it possible that these older design four element lenses have better contrast and are sharper than their more modern f/5.6 brethren? While multi-coating certainly helps with flare, how truly important is that if single or non-coated lenses truly have better contrast and acutance? I assume there are no perfect lenses and that all optical designs have compromises. Is it possible that more lens elements and more coating can impact contrast and/or sharpness?
Clearly a hair-splitting thought process. Please feel free to slap me around and educate me properly
PS - The negatives I’ve made with my Nikkor M 300mm f/9 have shown wonderful contrast and acutance.
PSS - I shoot black and white film exclusively. Maybe if I shot color film and/or transparencies, the advantages of the more modern lens designs would be apparent.
Originally Posted by Salmo22
The Nikkor 300mm f/9 lens is currently the longest focal length in my 4x5 kit. Out of boredom, but with genuine interest, I’ve been doing some research on the Fujinon C 300mm f/8.5 lens. I note that on eBay the Fuji regularly fetches $200 to $300 more than its cousin, the Nikkor M 300mm f/9. I’ve wondered why? If folks pay more money for the Fuji, it must be better - right?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks