Nikon Nikkor 90mm SW f/8 vs f/4.5

[amellice]

Hi guys, is weight and f-stop is the only difference between these two lenses?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Go here https://1drv.ms/b/s!AggQfcczvHGNkDcTfPK0Jlvn_8vW
for a list of links to, among other things, two Nikon LF lenses catalogs.

 

[John Koehrer]

Physical/filter size too.

 

[ic-racer]

Totally different construction; 7 elements vs 8
Flange-focal distance very slightly different

 

[Doremus Scudder]

As ic-racer mentions, the construction is slightly different. The Nikkor SW f/8 lenses, which include the 90mm, the 120mm and the 150mm are 8-element, 4-group lenses. The SW f/4.5 - f/4 lenses are a larger design and include the the 65mm, the 75mm and the 90mm. They are 7-element, 4-group lenses. All of them, however, have a 105°-106° angle of coverage.

Despite design differences between the two 90mm SW lenses, I believe they are similar performers as regards sharpness, contrast and, most importantly, coverage. Both these lenses have a published IC of 235mm (the f/4.5 at f/16 and the f/8 at f/22). That means, for all practical purposes, that you have the choice between small, light and slow (f/8) and large, heavy and fast (f/4.5). Filter size is also a consideration; 67mm vs. 82mm.

FWIW, the Nikkor SW 90mm f/8 has the largest coverage for its class, significantly more than the Super Angulon f/8 and the Grandagon f/6.8 and the Fujinon SW f/8.

Since my middle name is lightweight, the choice for me is/was clear. You may need/want the brighter maximum aperture for focusing. I, for one, have no problems focusing my stable of f/8-f/9 lenses.

Best,

Doremus

 

[amellice]

thanks guys for your comments, I think I'm gonna stick to the f/8

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi guys, is weight and f-stop is the only difference between these two lenses?

I could only afford the f/8 but was not dissappointed.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I had both and sold the f4.5, keeping the lighter and smaller version.

Having a faster lens can be more convenient for focusing internal architecture. (e.g.) But it's been my experience that my 121mm f8 works fine for that purpose. So, I kept the Nikon f8. I have a Wista metal folding camera for landscape, and the smaller size and weight of the f8 is better. It's a great lens.

I also prefer the smaller filter diameter of the f8: 67mm vs. 82mm. Having an 82mm lens in my kit meant that filters would need to be at least this large. Currently, my largest filter size is 77mm, and filters in this diameter are much more prevalent.

Etc.

 

[Shootar401]

I'm a little late to the game but I have the 90/4.5 and I love it but to be honest I didn't even consider the f/8 version only because the 4.5 took 82mm filters, which all my other lenses take (except my 150mm).

Check out page 4 of this PDF: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf

 

[Joseph Kayne]

Does the 90 4.5 cover 8x10 and do you need a center filter?

 

[jim10219]

Does the 90 4.5 cover 8x10 and do you need a center filter?

No and no.

Generally speaking, none of the 90mm lenses need center filters. Though I guess you could use one if you really wanted to. I don't know if they make one specifically for that lens, but I could be wrong. If I recall, the fall off is only about a half stop at the edges, which isn't enough to bother most people. So you won't find too many people using a center filter for this lens, but a there might be a few who are real sticklers for such things.

I can't find the circle of confusion diameter for that lens, though I know I've seen one online before. I do know that it'll cover up to 5x7 with room for limited movements, but won't do 8x10 at infinity. It should do macro shots at 8x10 though. 90mm is crazy wide for 8x10! It's a wide lens on 4x5!

 

[Dan Fromm]

No and no.

Generally speaking, none of the 90mm lenses need center filters.

Not quite so. Whether to use a CF with a 90 mm lens shot straight ahead on 4x5 is a matter of personal preference, but the unfortunate fact is that with the lens on center the corners will be 1.5 stops down from the center. At least one corner will be farther down if the lens is moved off center (shift, rise/fall).

If I haven't been clear, 90 mm is roughly the shortest lens for 4x5 that's often used without a CF. Personal preference, as I said. It is at the boundary between "don't need to use a CF" and "better use one." Given the expense and the aesthetic appeal (sometimes, to some) of darker corners, using a 90 without a CF can make good sense.

See http://www.galerie-photo.com/center-filters-for-large-format-lenses.html.

 

[jim10219]

Not quite so. Whether to use a CF with a 90 mm lens shot straight ahead on 4x5 is a matter of personal preference, but the unfortunate fact is that with the lens on center the corners will be 1.5 stops down from the center. At least one corner will be farther down if the lens is moved off center (shift, rise/fall).

If I haven't been clear, 90 mm is roughly the shortest lens for 4x5 that's often used without a CF. Personal preference, as I said. It is at the boundary between "don't need to use a CF" and "better use one." Given the expense and the aesthetic appeal (sometimes, to some) of darker corners, using a 90 without a CF can make good sense.

See http://www.galerie-photo.com/center-filters-for-large-format-lenses.html.

Wow! Is it really 1.5 stops? I guess that's significant enough of a difference to warrant consideration. Though for the price, and based on my personal experience thus far, I think I'll pass until I come across a real world scenario where I actually need one first.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I rarely shoot a 90, but when I do, it's likely to be an architectural interior, a tunnel or cave, etc. So the larger faster lens makes sense. I can't imagine shooting color film without a CF (I use an 82mm Schneider version that gives perfectly even illumination). With b&w work just depends on your esthetic.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

thanks guys for your comments, I think I'm gonna stick to the f/8

good choice!