Fuji-Nikon vs. Schneider-Rodenstock

[brien_szabo]

I will be making a jump into 4x5 and know basically the two lens

focal lengths I want to work with 90 and either 180 or 210. I will

primarily want to shoot landscape but some people and buildings as

well.

 

My question is - I there a huge quality difference between the

Japannese lenses and the German lenses (i believe they are German)?

 

The Fuji Nikon lenses are priced a fair deal cheaper than the others

and I wasn't sure if this was because of name and reputation or is

there really that much of a difference between the two?

 

I can come closer to affording two Japannese lenses than I can two of

the Rodenstock/Schnieder.

 

Thanks.

[streetlevel]

There are great lenses made by both camps...but not every lens is a winner.

 

IMO, no there is not a huge difference between the japanese and german lenses. But when comparing prices make sure you're really comparing apples to apples (ie. similar performance: image circle, aperture, etc.)

 

It may be that the cheaper lens you think you want won't work for what you want it to do.

[ellis_vener_photography]

The Nikon lenses are fine. I use a mix of Rodenstock and Nikon and except for angle of

view can'rt see a difference. I have one fuji lens and it isn't my favorite. kerry Thalmann did

a terrific overview of Nikon large format lenses in 2004 for "View camera" magazine and

came to the same conclusionsI have: Nikon makes terrific large format lenses and doesn't

do anything to promote them.

[capocheny]

Kerry Thalmann writes reviews on all sorts of lenses in View Camera magazine... have

you looked at any of his articles?

 

Aside from that... they are all decent lenses and I don't think you'll go way off track by

using any of them. Personally, I have Schneider lenses in my kit. But, I've also used

the Nikkor 90 F4.5 and it's a beautiful piece of glass as well.

 

You'll also find a lot of folks who love the Fuji lenses...

 

As Will suggested... make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Don't just base the

decision between lenses on price.

 

Cheers

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I am Mr Barrel lens; with a Speed graphic. I have used the ancient 178mm F2.5 Kodak Aero Ektar; which is a tad soft in visual light; wide open. Kerry rates it as a dog :) These were once a fad with astro photography in the 1950's and 1960's; we even had Royal pan too. Not bad for portraits; easy to ground glass focus. A chap last fall did a phot of the other Kerry with it. If left on the window shelf; in direct sun; the tea color is radically reduced on these radioactive lenses. If not bleached; the lens is slower than F2.5; sometimes alot.... <BR><BR>The Xenar 210mm F3.5 in barrel here is fast; and shoots well wide open; it is from circa 1950. This has a better visual focus wide open; sharper astro star fields when on a clock drive than the aero ektar 178mm. My variant is F3.5; most are slower F4.5 ...<BR><BR>Yet another barrel is a 50 dollar Russian 210mm F4.5 Industar-51<BR><BR>Our old enlarger we used before our process camera had a 210mm F5.6 Componon; we shot alot of copying work at F11; with a Durst 138S. This lens also had an MX shutter; and 1/500 Compur; and was a nice closeup lens for LF.<BR><BR><b>An extreme sleeper is the classic 207mm F7.7 Kodak Ektar;</b> darn sharp at infinity; and closeup too. The one I have here is in another league. This is a fantastic lens; and is normally in shutter too. Even Kerry T like them too :)

[scott_fleming1]

There are a lot of links on this page dealing with lenses. Read them and you will

understand the differences and similarities rather than just taking someones opinion as

gospel.

[scott_fleming1]

Oops, forgot to put in the link.

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/

 

Here is one of those links which is Thalman's lens tests. The fourth coulumn over gives

three rows of three colums each. The colums are the line pair per milimeter for the center,

half way out and edge of the lenses at differing f/stops. This is the most objective info

I've found yet. Takes a bit to wade through it but you will know more than most if you

study it a awhile.

 

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

[brian_ellis16]

To summarize, no.

[doug_meek1]

What Brian Ellis said. I have lenses from all 4 makers, and they are all excellent. I slightly prefer the Fuji's due mostly to their small size, but from a standpoint of optical quality, I am unable to discern any appreciable difference.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Worry about what coverage you need; the lenses weight; and what speed you need first. Kerry T has many 90mm reviews of the same Angulon. Here the variation in proformace is interesting. I use the non-Super version on a press camera. It covers 4x5" but not much more at all. Be carefull with specs; coverage is speced usually when lensd is stopped down alot; NOT wide open. Some vendors will give both numbers when you "press them". Coverage was once long long ago meant to be illumination; with only low resolution being ok. Today more folks think this is misstakel and want numbers that define illumination and great sharpness. In engineering we just get the curves; ie illumination versus Fstop and angle. AND MTF or resolution versus fstop and angle. <BR><BR>In process camera applications; the illumination is the first criteria; since picky lith materials dont marry well to dark corners. Here we use a longer lens sometimes; for easier; more uniform lighting; ie less angular coverage.<BR><BR>If a lens has separtion; the performance can be less. Placing a huge bet on another chaps used lens can backfire; if it is faultly; or shims mixed up internally; or reassembled wrong. Folks seem to place a huge bet on anothers sample of one test; and avoid just checking their own stuff too.

[christopher perez]

Condition and age will be more important than the country of origin. Modern glass may be more consistantly manufactured than older optics. Kodak Commercial and Wide Field Ektars, and some Zeiss from the 1950's being the exception.

 

Think more about the size and weight before you choose the source. Fuji makes wonderfully small, light, sharp lenses for 4x5. Schneider has some rediculously fine optics for 4x5 and ULF. Rodenstock makes a great series of 75 degree coverage lenses. And Nikon has a few classics that might be worth looking into.

[suchismit1]

Can someone please list all the legendary lenses from each of the Big 4 ? I know there is the Schneider 110 SS XL that everyone drools over, but what about the others ? Being new to LF I would like to know. <p>Thanks.

[michael_beckmann]

Regarding "normal" lenses, Rodenstock had an edge for a while with their Apo-Sironar-S. Now Schneider have upgraded their Apo-Symmar with the L series. This is not to say that the previous series of lenses from either manufacturer are substantially worse. A Schneider Apo-Symmar is very fine, a Symmar-S MC is almost as fine, a Sironar-N MC is fine too. They just have slightly smaller usable image circle. If you shoot 4x5 for example, you could buy a current state-of-the-art 150mm, and a previous 210 or 240 on the used market, if budget is a major consideration. Or perhaps a new 210mm Apo-Sironar-N.

 

I understand that Nikon have not updated their lenses for several years, so if you buy a new lens kit, you better choose Schneider or Rodenstock IMHO. Note that Rodenstock have pretty much discontinued everything for formats larger than 4x5, or they are in the process of discontinuing it, i.e. they are only selling existing stock. Schneider on the other hand still support 8x10 and even larger formats with their line up, so this may be a point to consider.

 

Regarding wide angle lenses, my recommendation is for the Schneider Super-Angulon XL. The 47mm will cover 4x5! The 72 and 90 mm SA XL are outstanding lenses. They are IMHO the best. From time to time you find the SA XL lenses on the used market. If you plan to use a flatbed camera, and portability is an issue, then you may want to choose the Super-Symmar XL, it is smaller and lighter than the Super-Angulon.

 

I don't know how much you are being quoted for Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. I find $734 for Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 Apo-Sironar-S Lens reasonable. The Super-Angulon XL 90mm is quite an investment at $1,598.95 though.

[michael_briggs2]

All of the big four make excellent lenses. I think all four also make at least one lens that is unique.

 

There is no right answer about which lens is best for you. It may not be the most expensive / most technically advanced lens. For example, Schneider's 90 mm f5.6 Super-Anglon-XL has the most coverage in this focal length and might be the most technically advanced 90 mm lens. However, in my opinon very 4x5 photographers will find the extra coverage useful and this lens is large and heavy, and requires large filters. The 90 mm SA-XL might be the best choice for a 4x5 architectural photographer who wants the most coverage for rare circumstances, or for use with 5x7 film. For a photographer who wants low weight for travel or hiking, the 90 mm f8 Nikkor-SW might be the best choice -- it has large coverage, though not as much as the SA-XL, but it is much smaller and lighter. For someone who wants a faster lens than the 90 mm f8 Nikkor-SW, but doesn't need the extreme coverage of the SA-XL, the 90 mm f6.8 Grandagon-N might be the best choice. Some other photographer might find a great price on a 90 mm f5.6 or f8 Fuji lens.

 

This example with 90 mm lenses shows why different photographers might choose a lens from each of the big four manufacturers.

[c4-contemporary-art]

I used to be kind of obsessed with lens sharpness. Don't get me wrong. A

nice, sharp lens can be a beautiful thing. But it won't help you make better

photos. I purchased most of mine for their max. illumination. That's why I

bought all Rodenstock (previously some nikon as well) - they're faster than

schneiders. This way I could have my cake and eat it too. Fast and sharp.

And I figured if I can see the photo I'm going to take better, than it's less

likely I'm going to screw up. I still use polaroid. But it just helps me work

faster and better. I'm just saying it's good to see the big picture sometimes

too.

[c4-contemporary-art]

Chris - are you trying to insinuate in your own sneaky way that the only

thing Rodenstock is good for is Sironars? Phrased more delicately: Do you

feel the Sironars are better executed designs than the Grandagons or

Ronars?

[kelly_flanigan1]

<I>Rodenstock (previously some nikon as well) - they're faster than schneiders</I><BR><BR>Here my fastest Schneider in 210mm is a F3.5 Xenar; and nearest Kodak is a 178mm F2.5. Both here are in 4x5 speed graphic metal lensboards for 4X5. <BR><BR><BR><b>Did Rodenstock ever make any F2.8 to F3.5 glass in the 180 to 210mm arena?</b><BR><BR>If so waht are they?<BR><BR>For astro work and sports ; fast glass is interesting.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<b>Ie fast glass that will cover a 4x5 frame?</b><BR><BR> In the 180 to 210 arena?

[c4-contemporary-art]

Sorry - should have qualified that - I live in a wide-angle world.

Grandagons and Nikkor-SWs are usually 1/2 stop faster than

Schneiders/Fujis. 4.5/5.6 and 6.8/8.0 respectively.

[christopher perez]

<i>Chris - are you trying to insinuate in your own sneaky way that the only thing Rodenstock is good for is Sironars? Phrased more delicately: Do you feel the Sironars are better executed designs than the Grandagons or Ronars?</i>

<p>

Me? Sneaky? Why... um... what was the question again? Oh yes, are you offering a nice Rodenstock so that I might break my "evil" ways? Or did you want me to say that the only thing Rodenstocks are good for is Sironar boat anchors? :-)

<p>

All kidding aside, Rodenstocks that tempt me tend to be used. I can't bring myself to buy a new one in the US. I'd shop for new Rodenstocks in Europe or Japan. But I haven't had that opportunity or desire.

<p>

I think Rodenstock makes some very fine optics, independent of the product line. I've not had the pleasure of using a Ronar. But I have used Kodak's 203 Ektar and found the four element airspace design to be very nice indeed. And I've stocked my kit with things other than Grandagons, only because a really cheap ancient but beautiful Schneider 75mm f/8 found a way to extract money out of my bank account before I could score a 75 f/6.8 Grandagon. The reason I don't own a Sironar (N, S, or W) is that the APO-W I had was more useful to a 5x7 shooter than it was to me (4x5). So I sold it and bought a very light small mint beautiful radically under-priced Fuji 150 NSW-EBC f/5.6.

<p>

I'll shut up now before I get myself into any further trouble... :-)