Fuji vs Nikon

[GWalls]

Been looking for a 360mm lens for a 8x10 camera. Find about 300.00 difference in price between a Fuji 360 mm 6.3and a Nikon 360 mm 6.5. Any real difference in the lens quality or image quality?

Thanks

 

[jim10219]

I haven't used either of these, but as a general rule, no. Both Fuji and Nikon are top tier lens makers. And if I'm not mistaken, and I may be because I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe they are both Plasmat designs, so in practical use, they should be very similar. So if they're both in similar condition, then I would probably go for which ever is cheaper, unless you already own a bunch of lenses of the more expensive brand and it's worth it to you to keep a consistent look throughout your portfolio (because the different coatings do provide very subtlety different colors between brands).

Personally, most all of my modern lenses are Fuji, if for no other reason than they tend to be the cheapest. I've never had a reason to complain about any of them.

 

[Mick Fagan]

If the Fujinon is a WS 360 unit, then I would suggest you should get it. An aquaintenance has one of these, it has enough coverage for 11”x14” film. Not only does he have superb coverage on his 8”x10” camera, it is seriously good. Heavy mother, weighs about 1½kg.

As for Fujinon lenses, versus others. I don’t think there is too much in it. Each major lens manufacturer, on the whole, made pretty good stuff. I, over a period of about 5 years, switched my entire 4”x5” lenses over to Fujinon lenses. Their pricing is, as you know, attractive. Their performance is, as I know, better than what I am capable of.

Mick.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For each class of lenses, each lens in the class is about the same. People buy one of them and build a religion around the lenses from that manufacturer.

 

[Alan Gales]

Like Jim10219 says, there may be very slight differences in color reproduction. I remember my Contax Zeiss lenses claiming that all their lenses were color balanced so they all produced the same exact color. This may have been a marketing ploy. It really doesn't matter in most instances unless you did product photography maybe. I've heard that on the Fuji lenses the older single coated lenses produce color a little different than the newer multicoated ones. Both of mine are single coated.

I own Fuji, Kodak, Schneider and Wollensak lenses. That's one of the things I love about large format, not having to stick with one brand.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Like Jim10219 says, there may be very slight differences in color reproduction. I remember my Contax Zeiss lenses claiming that all their lenses were color balanced so they all produced the same exact color. This may have been a marketing ploy. It really doesn't matter in most instances unless you did product photography maybe. I've heard that on the Fuji lenses the older single coated lenses produce color a little different than the newer multicoated ones. Both of mine are single coated.

I own Fuji, Kodak, Schneider and Wollensak lenses. That's one of the things I love about large format, not having to stick with one brand.

Back in ye goode olde days, careful product photographers (I was one) would for a given project use transparency film of one batch, CC filters when necessary, lights of known color temp., often included a color test strip for critical work, and lenses from one manufacturer of similar vintage just to eliminate every possible variable as far as color balance was concerned. I had Schneider, but it didn't really matter who made the lenses so long as they were all similar. Even if your color was a wee bit off, it was important that everything be off the same direction and amount, otherwise the reproduction of the transparencies would be a nightmare.

 

[Alan Gales]

Back in ye goode olde days, careful product photographers (I was one) would for a given project use transparency film of one batch, CC filters when necessary, lights of known color temp., often included a color test strip for critical work, and lenses from one manufacturer of similar vintage just to eliminate every possible variable as far as color balance was concerned. I had Schneider, but it didn't really matter who made the lenses so long as they were all similar. Even if your color was a wee bit off, it was important that everything be off the same direction and amount, otherwise the reproduction of the transparencies would be a nightmare.

Thanks E. for your professsional insight. What you say makes a lot of sense!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Thanks E. for your professsional insight. What you say makes a lot of sense!

Thanks Alan, but I was semi-pro and part-time at best - in '87 a deal I couldn't pass up on a Linhof Super Technika three lens factory outfit plus Super Rollex 6x7, "Anatomische" grip, multifocus finder etc. etc.(all in original boxes) came my way, even so it was more than I had ever paid for ANYTHING and I needed to put it to work. Product photography was a no-brainer with that outfit. I paid for the Linhof, also paid for a Deardorff V-8, a '69 440 sixpack 4 spd. Roadrunner (less than 1/2 what the camera cost) and put some in the bank.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Both are going to be big heavy studio plasmats and optically equal. Color rendering will probably be identical if mfg from the 70's onward. I personally use a Fuji 360 A f/10, which is lightwt and optically superior to either, but hard to acquire.

 

[Alan Gales]

Thanks Alan, but I was semi-pro and part-time at best - in '87 a deal I couldn't pass up on a Linhof Super Technika three lens factory outfit plus Super Rollex 6x7, "Anatomische" grip, multifocus finder etc. etc.(all in original boxes) came my way, even so it was more than I had ever paid for ANYTHING and I needed to put it to work. Product photography was a no-brainer with that outfit. I paid for the Linhof, also paid for a Deardorff V-8, a '69 440 sixpack 4 spd. Roadrunner (less than 1/2 what the camera cost) and put some in the bank.

So do you still have the Linhof, Deardorff and Roadrunner?

That Roadrunner would be worth a fortune today!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

So do you still have the Linhof, Deardorff and Roadrunner?

That Roadrunner would be worth a fortune today!

Still have the cameras, the car was lethal so it turned into a 100 percent original '64 XLCH Sportster. Safer (!) and easier to store.

 

[Alan Gales]

Still have the cameras, the car was lethal so it turned into a 100 percent original '64 XLCH Sportster. Safer (!) and easier to store.

I had a 1973 Dodge Charger Rally Sport. It had the 340 Magnum engine, bubble hood with factory hood pins, and Slap Stick automatic transmission. Not as fast as your Road Runner but they were a rare beast. I know a fellow who collects Chargers and he knows of them but has never even seen one. It would be worth a lot today but I sold it long ago.

64 XLCH Sportster sounds fun. I now own a 2003 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon. I bought it new in 2003 which was the first year of the Rubicon. I've got a little over 50,000 miles on it.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

I have two Nikkors and like them both, a 150/5.6 and 300/5.6. To me Nikon is consistent in quality. No experience within Fuji so can’t comment.

 

[iakustov]

I am also looking for 360mm lens for 8''x10'' and would rather buy 360mm Fujinon A, which is smaller, but it is difficult to find, there was one on ebay a couple of months ago.
Between the two, I'd rather opt for Fujinon due to smaller filter diameter (86mm vs 95mm of Nikon, if I am not mistaken) and less weight.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Fuji A takes 67mm filters, and its no.1 shutter and lighter weight mean less vibration on the front standard, which is indeed a real factor with many view cameras. An optically similar lens at lower price but in no.3 shutter and single-coated (but more compact than general-purpose plasmats) is the 355 G-Claron. I could also mention Dagors and the latest Apo Tele Xenar, but there seems to be a culture of price gouging on those at the moment. I still have several 360's and find the Fuji A the most versatile.

 

[Vaughn]

If the Fujinon is a WS 360 unit, then I would suggest you should get it. An aquaintenance has one of these, it has enough coverage for 11”x14” film. Not only does he have superb coverage on his 8”x10” camera, it is seriously good. Heavy mother, weighs about 1½kg... Mick.

That is the use of my Fuji W 360/6.3. It is my primary lens for the 11x14 -- especially when I need a shutter. It is a secondary lens for the 8x10...250mm and 300mm are used more often, but the 360mm was nice out in Death Valley.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

The Fuji A takes 67mm filters...

Incorrect. It takes 58mm filters.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Dang, you're right again, Sal. I forgot I use a 58 to 67 step ring on that thing.