??? Small 355-360mm Lens for 5x7 / 8x10 In #1 Shutter ???

[Sal Santamaura]

I used them on a Phillips, Sal. Two different ones. And they do buzz like heck. Put your fingernail against the front aluminum riser of the front standard. Maybe this has marginal effect on something fairly stable like an 8x10 folder on a big Ries tripod, but it could distinctly compromise things at the end of a 4x5 monorail...

My comparison was performed on a 4x5 Phillips. Regardless of fingernail or other palpation, I can detect no "buzz" at 1/60 with the Kern Dagor's Compur 3.

...I'm not saying blur, but a deal-breaker in comparison to other choices, including the gentler no.3 Copal 3s used for the previous Kern run. No guessing here. I spent a lot of time and money on that one. So No no no no. It's not just the optics...

How can shutter "buzz"/movement impact optical performance in any way other than by inducing motion blur? I stand by my evaluation that 355mm Kern Dagor optics themselves are simply least sharp of the three lenses I compared. Restricted, as usual, to the samples of each that I possess.

...as far as any new Schneider 360 semi-teles out there, are you just surfing ads stuck in the system to the end of time; or does someone ACTUALLY have any left in stock...

Not an obsolete ad. Go to the Linhof Studio page I linked in posts #20 and #23 and note that it still says "IN STOCK" for the 350mm Apo Tele Xenar Compact. I purchased one from them just a few months ago. Paula at Linhof Studio is scrupulous about keeping the stock status updated on that page. If anyone wants one, don't hesitate to order it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Of course you can't at a 60th, Sal. Doesn't mean it's not happening. Set it at a second and you will feel it. And of course it doesn't impact actual optical performance but net performance, just like any big shutter. For example, even though a 355 G-Claron is very very similar to
a Fujinon A optically (except for single vs multi-coatings), the Fuji will deliver sharper images in many cases due to the much smaller shutter. You might argue that the formulas are different... yeah, exact glass types perhaps... but something must account for the bigger image circle of he G-Claron, to which I'd simply respond, less mechanical vignetting due to the bigger shutter. Trade-off. But you have certainly done a favor by showing who has the Schneider still in stock. Sounds like a wonderful lens, though I have no personal interest because I do use the Fuji A, both on 4x5 and 8x10. I've even used it with roll film backs, which need a lot of enlargement.

 

[Ai Print]

The Fujinon was not only sharpest among this group, it has the most coverage. However, if one cannot find a clean sample, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the Apo Tele Xenar Compact.

Possibly subjective to some but how much sharper are we talking in terms of the Fuji A vs 350 Apo Tele?

 

[DREW WILEY]

The Fuji would have a distinct advantage at near-macro. It's superb at close range as well as clear to infinity. Otherwise, you'd probably never notice the difference in say, a 30x40 inch print, esp if you are shooting 8x10 film. Nor would you with a late 14" dagor, properly
supported. But there are real differences, esp if a camera isn't rigid enough to handle a no.3 shutter at this kind of extension. The big image circle of the Fuji A is also nice, esp when strong tilts are involved or a lot of rise, like I often encounter around here in the redwoods. But if I didn't already have a Fuji A, I would have pounced in a heartbeat upon the Schneider. Anything that focal length in a no.1 shutter is a real treat to work with.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...of course it doesn't impact actual optical performance but net performance, just like any big shutter...

I have trouble making sense of this statement. Optical performance is what the lenses, mounted in their shutters, at the apertures and speeds I used, put on film. It's what I was interested in determining. Perhaps you're calling that "net" performance. If so, given that examination under 30X magnification revealed absolutely no evidence of image degradation due to shutter "buzz"/vibration, I maintain the Kern Dagor's "optical" and "net" performance (using your definitions) are identical under the conditions of my test. Although it has some wonderful characteristics for use on other formats, its glass just isn't as sharp as the others, rendering it inadequate for me to use on 4x5 for landscapes. I greatly enjoy it as a portrait lens on whole plate though.

...even though a 355 G-Claron is very very similar to a Fujinon A optically (except for single vs multi-coatings), the Fuji will deliver sharper images in many cases due to the much smaller shutter. You might argue that the formulas are udifferent...

Yes, they are. I have a 270mm G-Claron, purchased brand new not too many years ago. It's in a Copal 1 shutter. Just like my 300mm Fujinon A is. And the G-Claron, as a consequence of its different optical design and glass, is less sharp than the 300A. Nothing to do with shutters. The G-Claron just doesn't have the optical performance of the Fuji. However, that's not important on 8x10. And its focal length (equivalent to 135mm on 4x5) is not readily available in other lenses.

Note that not all Fuji A-series lenses are so stellar. In particular, the 180A falls far short; mine as well as, reportedly, most others. Each focal length and specific sample ought be evaluated individually. However, patterns do emerge.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...The Fujinon was not only sharpest among this group, it has the most coverage. However, if one cannot find a clean sample, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the Apo Tele Xenar Compact...

Possibly subjective to some but how much sharper are we talking in terms of the Fuji A vs 350 Apo Tele?

I cannot offer s numerical answer, but will provide an analogy.

Under similar conditions (same scene at the same 50-foot distance, same lighting, same shutter speed/aperture, same film and same developer/regime) to the comparison I reported on in this thread, I previously compared a 135mm Apo Sironar N to a 135mm Apo Sironar S. In other threads the subject of what magnification those two lens lines are optimized for has been discussed. In my comparison, I printed the two resulting negatives, using an LPL 4500II with glass negative carrier and 120mm Nikkor AM-ED as an enlarging lens, at a magnification of 1.5X. In other words, the full-negative prints were 5.5 inches x 7.125 inches. Even in those small prints, the Apo Sironar N print was visibly sharper than the Apo Sironar S print. A subtle but noticeable difference. That's about how much sharper I'd subjectively describe the 360mm Fujinon As as being than the 350mm Apo Tele Xenar in this recent comparison.

 

[Ai Print]

In my comparison, I printed the two resulting negatives, using an LPL 4500II with glass negative carrier and 120mm Nikkor AM-ED as an enlarging lens, at a magnification of 1.5X. In other words, the full-negative prints were 5.5 inches x 7.125 inches. Even in those small prints, the Apo Sironar N print was visibly sharper than the Apo Sironar S print. A subtle but noticeable difference. That's about how much sharper I'd subjectively describe the 360mm Fujinon As as being than the 350mm Apo Tele Xenar in this recent comparison.

For what I am looking for out of LF lenses, I would call that considerably sharper, because the smallest I ever print is 11x14, 16x20's are common and 20x24's are rather routine. Now I am wondering how it compares at or near infinity because that is how I mostly use the 350. And interesting you use the AM 120 Nikkor, aside from price and rarity is there a reason for that over say a 150 Apo N?

Also, you are saying the 135 N is sharper than the S and not the other way around? I have heard it is in the center but not sure at what distance. I had the 135 N and had no complaints about it, none with my current lens the 135 S either.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...interesting you use the AM 120 Nikkor, aside from price and rarity is there a reason for that over say a 150 Apo N?...

I don't have an Apo Rodagon N enlarging lens, but, even if I did, it's optimized for 6X magnification and specified as usable down to 2X. At 1.5X, the 120 Nikkor AM-ED, which is an 8-element macro lens optimized for 1X, performs superbly. It doesn't have enough coverage for much larger prints than, say, whole plate size from 4x5 negatives, but I don't think anything can beat it at 1.5X. I doubt I'll ever encounter a 170mm Apo El-Nikkor, which was optimized for 2X from 4x5 and is extraordinarily rare, but suspect the 120mm AM-ED is just as well corrected for 1.5X. I did buy a misrepresented ("brand new") 180mm Apo Nikkor to try for 4x5 enlarging, but its rear element was badly scratched and I returned it to the eBay seller for a full refund, including shipping both ways.

...you are saying the 135 N is sharper than the S and not the other way around? I have heard it is in the center but not sure at what distance...

Yes, my N is sharper throughout the 4x5 field. My scene places most objects, including the resolution chart, 50 feet away. The N series was computed for 1:20, while the S was designed for 1:10. While the S might maintain its central sharpness further out from the center, it never reaches the N's sharpness under these conditions. I had the film oriented vertically and around 14mm or front rise when making this comparison of the 135s.

...Now I am wondering how it compares at or near infinity because that is how I mostly use the 350...

My back yard isn't that big so I settle on 50 feet as the best available test simulation of infinity. I don't think the sharpness ranking of 350mm Apo Tele Xenar and 360mm would change at infinity, but testing them would be the only way to know for sure. Also, always be aware that sample variation can be significant enough to change results.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Here we spar again, Sal. I had two different Fuji 180 A's, and they even more crisp than my Nikkor 200M on 4x5. Yet either type is sharper
than any 210 general-purpose plastmat I've ever personally encountered. And in another routine match-up, alternating between a Fuji 240A
and my 250 G-Claron, it's almost impossible to detect a difference in either practical function or the look of the negs. The real-world coverage is seemingly identical. The Fuji is a tad lighter (0 shutter instead of no.1). Only when shooting chromes does the multicoating of the A seem to differentiate itself through a bit more contrast. Joe Holmes gave me quite a lecture about this once; but I'm convinced he tried these A lenses way back when, well prior to when I started using them in no-doubt later rendition. I've never even seen a single-coated version of the 360, for example, though I know they did once exist. And Fuji has some of the best quality control in the business,
so talking about batch variation doesn't make much sense unless lenses are distinctly earlier.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

Drew, you frequently mention your "250 G-Claron" in posts, with a consistency that convinces me that 250 is not a typo. I believe I have copies of all the G-Claron literature Schneider ever posted on their website, at least back to the Dagor-style lenses in a 1976 publication, and it's all consistent - they list a 240 and a 270, but not a 250. I'm curious - can you post a picture of your lens?

BTW, Schneider did list a 250mm f/5.6 C-Claron R in a 1976 brochure of copier lenses...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Interesting. I'll have to see when my G-Claron spec sheet was printed, and if it matches the sales brochure from the same era (80's). Both
my lens and the spec sheet label it 250. Sometimes these things are rounded a bit, if one compares them to the literal focal length in the
fine print, and maybe someone at Schneider called them on it. I don't know.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I had two different Fuji 180 A's, and they even more crisp than my Nikkor 200M on 4x5...

I have both a Fujinon 180mm A and a Nikkor 200M, each purchased new. At f/22, with no movements, the M is sharper than the A everywhere except dead center of a 4x5 field.

...I had two different Fuji 180 A's...either type is sharper than any 210 general-purpose plastmat I've ever personally encountered...

The recent comparison testing I completed also included a 210mm Rodenstock Apo Sironar N and a 210mm Schneider Apo Symmar. Both plasmats were sharper overall than either the 180A or 200M; the Apo Symmar was sharper than the Caltar, living up to its reputation. To reiterate, these exposures of my back yard "standard scene" that includes a resolution chart 50 feet away were made at f/22. The 180A was purchased from Badger two years ago and represents Fuji's latest production. So far, my results line up with those Christopher Perez and Kerry Thalmann published

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html​

for the 180A and 200m. The 180A might make a nice lens for roll film, however.

...Joe Holmes gave me quite a lecture about this once; but I'm convinced he tried these A lenses way back when, well prior to when I started using them in no-doubt later rendition...

In my opinion, Joe was right. My 180A is EBC multicoated and from Fuji's most-refined production. It falls short on the edges, just like old ones and every other one did.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have hundreds of 4x5 negs and chromes that prove otherwise, Sal. And I am quite certain very very few people try to get as much detail
in a big print as I sometimes do. You would start getting falloff with strong movements on 5x7. (I've tested the image circle on 8x10 film).
And the 180 has a BIGGER usable image circle than the 200M, something perfectly predictable with a 70+ deg "Super Plasmat" design vs
a Tessar. But the real test of sharpness is not large negs, but highly enlarged little ones. And in this respect, ALL my Fuji A's and Nikkor M's are critically sharp using 6x9 roll film. So this is a bit of an academic argument between us. We're talking about overkill in terms of image quality. But if you want something, albeit generally in longer focal lengths, that outperforms any of these, it would be the Apo Nikkor graphics lenses. Yet again, no sense in investing in shutters for these if it's just about overkill. I'm more interested at this point in my life
in less analytically sharp lenses, namely those with a bit more character in the out-of-focus areas, esp for 8x10 work where there tends to
be a surplus of information on the negative anyway.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...You would start getting falloff with strong movements on 5x7...

I bought the 180A for use on 5x7, hoping that reports of its poor edge resolution were attributable to any of the wishful thinking causes you've mentioned. No such luck; it's not even as good as the 200M for that use, even with minimal movements. Others agree with my assessment:

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...-Nikkor-200M-vs-Fuji-180A-more-data-Long-Post​

My "normal" on 5x7 is now a 180mm Caltar IIN.

...But the real test of sharpness is not large negs, but highly enlarged little ones. And in this respect, ALL my Fuji A's and Nikkor M's are critically sharp using 6x9 roll film...

That's why I said the 180A might make a nice lens for roll film.

...So this is a bit of an academic argument between us. We're talking about overkill in terms of image quality...

What's overkill to you is a baseline requirement for me. In my opinion, 4x5 is an awfully small piece of film; 5x7 is a bit better. I'm interested in small enlargements that resemble contact prints as closely as possible. The 180 A doesn't do it, even at 1.3X. That's only whole plate size from 5x7. And my enlarging lens for 5x7 is a 240mm Apo Nikkor.

I'm more interested at this point in my life in less analytically sharp lenses, namely those with a bit more character in the out-of-focus areas, esp for 8x10 work where there tends to be a surplus of information on the negative anyway.

To each his own. If the negative will be enlarged at all, I want to start with nothing less than the sharpest image possible. Out of focus areas are, in my work, to be avoided. And 8x10 negatives don't, in my opinion, contain a surplus of information. By the time one stops down enough to avoid out of focus areas, diffraction renders them just sharp enough for contact prints.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Since I'll be less poor soon, I've been considering adding to my lens set instead of selling some off. This means I might buy 90mm, 180mm, 240mm and 355-360mm lenses over the next few months. Following is a list of candidates. If anyone has other suggestions then please post them. I want small relatively modern coated or multicoated lenses (multicoated preferred) that easily cover 5x7 with just a little room to spare. I want Copal or Compur #0 or #1 shutters for smaller size and lesser weight. I prefer that none are telephoto lenses, mostly due to their physical length. However, I am researching the 350mm Apo Tele Xenar mentioned.

90mm f/8 Nikkor-SW... This is the only lens I want in this focal length.
180mm Fujinon-A or Symmar-S MC or Apo Symmar... Probably the only three I'd be interested in.
240mm Fujinon-A or G-Claron... Any other suggestions for a small-ish sharp contrasty lens?
355mm G-Claron or 350mm Apo Tele Xenar... I can't afford a Fujinon-A in this focal length... Any other suggestions?

EDIT #1: BTW, I'm not looking for the least pricey options nor am I looking for the absolute best regardless of price. I'm looking for excellent optics in excellent shutters in excellent condition... that aren't extremely expensive.

EDIT #2: The 350mm Apo Tele Xenar isn't a telephoto design, it's a modern multicoated dialyte. So I'm very interested in this option. Every lens in my current kit, above 200mm is a dialyte. However, they appear to be a bit difficult to find.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...The 350mm Apo Tele Xenar ...appear to be a bit difficult to find.

Not difficult at all. See the link I included as part of posts #20 and #23. In stock for immediate delivery.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thank you, Sal. However, a new one shipped from Europe to the USA is more than I can afford to pay... in the neighborhood of US$1300 delivered. I'd be very interested if I could find a decent used example (not cosmetically perfect) for US$600-800. That may be wishful thinking though.

 

[Nokton48]

I was shooting today with a 360mm F11 Kern-Arau process lens, but that's very rare and very expensive.
The 360mm F9 Apo Ronar is not bad at all. I have one is a barrel and it was not all that much.
I use the Sinar Mechanical Shutters but that may not work for you.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thank you, Nokton48. I can't afford expensive lenses but the Apo Ronar is affordable. But aren't they usually mounted in #3 or #3s shutters? I don't want to use a rear shutter unless I completely converted to that platform.

 

[Nokton48]

I'm not sure; I use barrel lenses instead of ones in shutter. But I've seen and read about people who convert the Sinar shutters to their cameras, for example, Deardorffs. Then you could use any barrel lens you can find that is suitable. And that is what I do, but I have Sinar view cameras.

I just took a quick look here's one in a Compur #2

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RODENSTOCK-...820390?hash=item4844accbe6:g:hxwAAOSwsB9WCCpp

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm scared to death of #2 shutters because there was never a standard and repair parts surely must be nonexistent.

 

[Jesper]

I know that 300 is outside the desired range of 355-360mm but perhaps could the Nikkor M300/9 be used. Although it is a bit short it is small, affordable and fairly common.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thanks, Jasper. The 350-360mm (375mm is okay too) will fill a gap between the 300mm and 450mm lenses I already have. I know most people consider it silly to have focal lengths so close together... me too when I use the left side of my brain but the right side of my brain is relentless when it comes to lens lust.