Nikkor M 450/f9 vs. Fuginon C 450/f12.5

[nick_jones]

Greetings everybody,

 

<p>

 

Previous posts have briefly compared the similarly priced Nikkor M 450/9 and Fugi C 450/12.5 (note, not the faster and more expensive CM-W 450/8). Posters observe that the Fuji has a more convenient filter size than the Nikkor (52mm vs. 67 mm.), is fitted with a copal 1 rather than the Nikkor's copal 3 shutter, and (at least in part as a consequence of the shutter) weighs far less (270 vs. 640 grams). Coverage is comparable (Fuji 486 mm., Nikkor 440), in both cases more than adequate for my 8x10 landscapes, etc.

 

<p>

 

Filter size and weight (since I'm using a big, relatively heavy system not prone to shake) are not factors in my particular case. My question concerns optical quality, esp. contrast and sharpness. Does anyone have experience with both lenses, if not at 8x10, then at 5x7 or 4x5 (apparently an important consideration since the Nikkor M is a Tessar and therefore allegedly loses sharpness towards the edges of the image circle)? Can anyone give an informed opinion of the relative optical qualities of the two lenses? Lines per mm. would be nice but I value subjective impressions too.

Cheers, Nick

[michael_kadillak3]

I just placed two negatives on the light table both of the identical

scene at about the same time. The first is with a Canham 5x7 and a

300mm Nikon M. I feel that it is not a stretch to compare the

qualities of the 450 M Nikon with the 300 M Nikon because they are

identical designs. The second is on a Kodak Master 8x10 with a Fuji

450C 12.5. The coverages are very close to identical. Results - The

Nikon is a bit sharper than the Fuji, but the Fuji has more contrast

than the Nikon. I am equally pleased with each image although I find

noticably different - with my film/developer/aggitation combination.

I have concluded that both will print to a very high degree of

quality.

 

<p>

 

A couple of further comments - If you are truly stating that you are

indifferent to a #3 shutter versus a #1 shutter, you must be shooting

out of the back of your car. Because if you are even taking a short

hike, the extra weight and volume of the shutter and filters for the

Nikon is unnecessary. I have a 250mm Kodak Ektar that I love, but

with that #5 Ilex, it does not get used anywhere as often as I hoped

when I acquired it. Quite honestly I like the look of the Fuji, but

even if that was not the case and I liked the Nikon better, I would

probably still opt for the Fuji because of the flexibility it

affords. I can use it on my 5x7 when I backpack because it is as

light as a feather with better coverage.

 

<p>

 

In my opinion. looking at resolution specifications will not improve

(or detract) from how pleasing the image is to the eye. Ultimately,

that is the only quality that matters. Because the laws of physics

and the associated requirements to correct for optical aberations

predicated by the decisions of each manufacturer, it is the epitomy

of compromise on the part of the consumer. For me, since I am also

shooting 8x10, sharpness is not the dominant criteria - contrast is.

 

<p>

 

I am sure that there is someone in your area that will let you make

several photographs with each of these lenses as a test. When you

look at the results, your decision will be very easy. I will bet you

a cold beer if you ever get to Colorado that you will purchase the

Fuji. I have also never had a unique and unusual problem with fall

off with the Nikon design over other lenses designs even when I

employ a fair amount of camera movements.

 

<p>

 

Good Luck

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Nick

 

<p>

 

If sharpness is really your point then you should have a look at the

following webside:http://www.archiphoto.com/personal%20pages/

LFlenses.html

And maybe your lens would be the Apo Ronar 480mm circle 396mm or the

Apo Sironar N with a circle of about 500mm if only the best is good for

you!

Good luck;-)

[qtluong]

I used to have a 450 M and sold it to get a 450 C. I did not notice

any change in optical quality. This was judged on 5x7 with a 4x lupe

on different scenes. I highly doubt the difference (if any) would

matter in 8x10.

[kerry_thalmann2]

Nick, I have owned and used both of these lenses, but unfortunately,

not at the same time. So, I never did a direct side by side

comparison (same subject, same lighting at the same time, etc.).

 

<p>

 

I will agree with other posters that both lenses offer excellent

performance. The 450mm f12.5 Fujinon C is one of my all time favorite

lenses, but then I put a higher premium on small size and light weight

than you do (the size and weight of the Nikkor M due to the Copal #3

shutter was really my only complaint about that lens). I shot the

450mm Nikkor M on 4x5 and 4x10 and currently use the 450mm Fujinon C

on 4x5 and 5x7, so I haven't come close to pushing the coverage of

either lens (but I doubt if coverage would be a problem for either

lens for 8x10 landscape shooting).

 

<p>

 

I'm really fond of my 450mm Fujinon C, but if weight weren't an issue

and someone offered me a 450mm Nikkor M at an attractive price, I

would not hesitate to take them up on their offer. The good news is

you'll likely be quite pleased with the performance of either lens.

So, there is no "wrong" choice. If I were in your shoes, I'd base my

purchase on the prices and availability of the two lenses.

 

<p>

 

Kerry

[geoffrey_chen]

Nick,

 

<p>

 

As previous posters suggested, get the Fujinon C lens. Late Nikkor M

450/9 is softer and lower in contrast. I believe Bill Glickman had

the similar experience. Those Nikkor M lenses produced in 80s might

be better (Nikon cared about their LF lenses then). I replaced my

Nikkor M 450 with a Schneider apo-artar for greater tonal scale.

Cheers,

[nick_jones]

Thanks to all of your for your responses; they provide valuable

information as I make my choice between these two equally (though

differently) desirable lenses.

 

<p>

 

Michael, I couldn't agree more that the bottom line for a

photographer is how pleasing an image is to the eye, but the question

remains just what are the qualities that give pleasure. My Group

f/64 sensibilities place a high value on sharpness, esp. in an image

that by its subject, design, or place in the tradition clearly

suggests that it is *trying* to be sharp. No, as you say, specs

(resolution, lines per mm.) do not contribute to the viewing

experience, but the quality(ies) represented by those specs in my

estimation clearly do. Besides, while sharpness can't be added to a

negative, contrast, as we all know, is a variable subject to all

sorts of interventions.

 

<p>

 

We do work out of the trunk of our car. Camera and tripod alone weigh

about 25 lbs, but there are always at least two of us and we can

manage short walks with the outfit. The Nikon would add only about

8/10 of a pound; I put a UV filter on each lens anyway and make only

very sparing use of other filters. My High Sierra backpacking days

are behind me now, but as I look back on those long solo cache-less

marches (including the high and rarely flat John Muir Trail), I

realize that nothing on earth could have persuaded me to carry even

the lightest LF outfit. My hat goes off to all of you backpacking

shooters!

 

<p>

 

Special thanks to you, Michael, and to Tuan and Kerry, for providing

some comparative evidence. The Nikkor M 450 may be "soft" or lacking

in contrast against a larger background of LF lenses (including

earlier Nikkors), Geoffrey, but I'm working here within a narrow

range of possibilities. The Rodenstock lenses mentioned by Armin, as

well as the Fuji CM-W 450/8 (520 mm. image circle) and Schneider APO-

Symmar 480/8.4 (500 mm. image circle), fit my focal length

requirements but they are also 2 to 3 times the cost of the Nikkor or

Fuji C450.

 

<p>

 

Let me also emphasize for the benefit of later visitors to this

thread a datum no far not mentioned, that the Nikkor is more than a

full stop faster than the Fuji C450. In fact, at f/12.5, the Fuji is

the slowest among the new lenses in this focal range, which all fall

between f/8 and f/9. I don't expect my subjects will be confined to

sunny landscapes; and the Nikkor 300/9 I work with now already gives

me all the focusing headaches I can handle.

 

<p>

 

So, Michael, if you should ever make it to Pennsylvania or, next

summer, California, I may be collecting on that cold (NA) beer. All

the best, Nick.

[michael_kadillak3]

Sounds like you have accomplished your objective Nick, and that is

great. The beauty of photography is that there is no single answer to

a question. What one finds indifference to, another lives for.

 

<p>

 

Funny, but when I use the Nikon and the 450 Fuji on the same Canham

camera, I do not notice the stop + loss of the Fuji when focusing at

the same scene. The same can be said when I use the Fuji 450 on the

Kodak Master 8x10. However, with the standard ground glass on the

Linhof Technikardan 45S any lens is noticably dimmer on the glass

with all of my lenses - even one rated at f5.6. I need to find a

brightening screen of some sort to get this situation to improve.

 

<p>

 

I will gladly make good on a cold beverage of your choice the next

time we are in either Colorado or California. Good Shooting!