Any (Un)Happy Users of the 400/8 T fujinon lens.greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
I am a french amateur photographer trying to get long lens inputs for my 4x5 inches sytem (linhof Master Technika). I have on the top end of my system a 360 Apo Ronar MC (Copal 3). Recently I saw a 400/8 Fujinon T lens for sale. I found only spare information on this forum (I looked before at Mr. Thalmann and Mr.Perez sites ) about the T series.
I hope someone can tell me about the quality of this lens? Itís worth to sell the 360 apo ronar ?
Thanks in advance and best regards from France
-- RaphaŽl zeiher (email@example.com), October 08, 2001
I used the 400 T for a number of years. I sold it only because I switched cameras and my new camea had a longer bellows than the previous camera so I didn't require a telephoto lens any more. I thought it was an excellent lens and it was relatively small and compact for a 400 mm telephoto. The Copal 1 shutter makes it relatively easy to back pack compared to the Copal 3 shutters you typically see on modern normal 360 mm lenses. I can't tell you whether you should sell your existing lens to buy the 400 T - only you can decide that - but I can tell you that I don't think you'll be disappointed with the quality of the 400 T. As I remember, having the nodal point out in front of the lens made it very slightly more time consuming to compose and focus when using front movements - but this wasn't a problem for me and in any event it's inherent in any telephoto lens, not just the 400 T.
-- Brian Ellis (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 08, 2001.
Iím currently using the 400 Fuji Telephoto and am quite pleased with it.
Itís relatively compact for a 400 mm and it is very sharp. Could you rent one to compare? The APO Ronar will probably cover more and I expect might be sharper. But with a #3 shutter on the Ronar the Fuji will be a better choice for backpacking/hiking.
-- Joseph A. Dickerson (email@example.com), October 08, 2001.
On 45 there isn;t much difference between the 2 focal lengths. If you want longer lenses Wista makes both bed and lensboard extensions for Linhof that would get you longer then 340.
-- Bob Salomon (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 08, 2001.
I have a Fuji 600 mm T, and I have used the 360 APO Ronar. Assuming that the 600 T performs about the same as the 400 T, I don't think that you will see any improvement in sharpness going to the 400 T. You may lose some, as was noted in one of the earlier responses. I do think that you'll find the T lenses more susceptable to flare than the APO Ronars, even though the latter are only single coated. That's to be expected if only because the telephotos have more elements than the 360 Ronar. If you tend to do compositions that include the sun, you should probably test a T lens before you make the purhcase. It sounds like you're not under any pressure to sell the APO Ronar, even if you purchase a new lens. If that is the case, I suggest that you consider the Nikon 500 mm telephoto. As Bob S. noted, the 400 mm is quite close to your 360. The 500 mm is different enough to be worth having, assuning that it works with your camera. If weight later becomes an issue, you could trade in your APO Ronar for a 360 rear element for the Nikon, and you'd still have both focal lengths. Personally, I prefer having the extra coverage afforded by the primary lenses, but you may have a different style and opinion.
-- Bruce M. Herman (email@example.com), October 08, 2001.
Thanks for the quick input. Bob, please read the question Question: "I hope someone can tell me about the quality of this lens? Itís worth to sell the 360 apo ronar ? " Your answer: "On 45 there isn't much difference between the 2 focal lengths. If you want longer lenses Wista makes both bed and lensboard extensions for Linhof that would get you longer then 340". It seems that there isn't any improvement in sharpness going for the 400 T and the lense is more susceptable to flare than my Apo Ronar MC (multicoated).
-- Raphael Zeiher (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 09, 2001.
I can't comment on the quality. I have never seen the spec and curves for the lens from Fuji, but I can give you this info.
A 360 on 45 has a horizontal angle of view of 18.5 degrees and a 400 is 17 degrees. That is about the difference (within 0.5 degree) of using a 110mm or a 120mm on 35mm or a 180 vs a 190mm on 6x6.
in short the additional 40mm doesn't do much for you.
With a 500mm you would get to 14 degrre coverage (145mm on 35mm) and with a 600mm you would get to 11.5 degrees ((about 165mm on 35mm).
These would do more for you if you need additional length.
-- Bob Salomon (email@example.com), October 09, 2001.
Ralph, Bob is famous for not reading the question (and even when he does he usually doesn't understand it anyway). The Ronar will be superior in contrast due to fewer air-glass surfaces, it will have fewer problems with flare due to fewer air-glass surfaces/simpler formula as well as the multicoating (the Fuji is probably an EBC version - their terminology for multicoating, if it isn't the Ronar is definitely superior). As others have stated the #1 shutter of the Fuji is a plus. If you are limited by bellows draw to a standard lens of <400mm the Ronar is probably the one to have (lucky you to have a multicoated version) - I wouldn't replace it. As Bob stated going to 400mm doesn't buy you much as far as image size goes (you already knew that). If increased image size is a cosideration in your decision, and if you can find the movements (or add a Wista tube) to use a standard 450mm, I would recommend the 450/12.5 Fuji instead; it's very lightweight, contrasty and sharp, and enough of a change from the Ronar to make it worthwhile.
-- Wayne DeWitt (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 09, 2001.
Not mentioned in the previous post - the 450mm Fuji is in a #1 shutter and weighs an order of magnitude less than the 360mm Ronar or the tele lenses.
-- Wayne DeWitt (email@example.com), October 09, 2001.
Also---the 450 C(ompact), though much smaller, throws a nearly 500mm image circle, vs the 220mm of the 400 telephoto. BOth are in Copal 1 shutters, but the 450 is MUCH smaller and lighter. Badger Graphics has the 450 for $995, the 400 Tele is $1095 US dollars. I suspect the 450 might be sharper than the 400, but have never user either lens, so will defer to those with experience. The 12.5 aperture of the 450 might make focusing a little difficult at the ends of the day, or on dull days.
-- Terry Roth (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 04, 2002.