In 35mm lens terms the difference is approximately that between a 35mm lens
and a 50mm lens. I agree, my use of the term "very little" was poorly
chosen. I should have said something like "there isn't a real big
difference."
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote in message
...
the image is about 70% larger in area using a 300mm
vs a 240mm on any format. I would hardly call that
"very little difference"

JCO


On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:00:38 GMT, "BCampbell"
wrote:

You might consider keeping your Nikkor 300 M. It will cover 8x10 and
wiith
8x10 there's very little difference between 300mm and 240mm. .



"Collin Brendemuehl" wrote in message
. com...
While learning 8x10 is going to take time continuing more with 4x5
will be useful in the mean time.
And, since I like to work slightly on the wide side,
a 240mm on the 8x10 would be a good thing.

So ...

I'll sell my Nikkor-M 300/9 (a nice compact lens in a good shutter)
for $500
or
trade it for a nice Fujinon-A 240/9 EBC even up

(The Nikkor is in great shape. Clean glass and a modern shutter that
was recently serviced by the camera shop before I bought it.)

And ...

I've still got the Rodenstock APO-Ronar 600/9 for sale.
Contact me & I'll give you a bargain on it just to get rid of it.

Along with ...

For 4x5 a nice little wood unit or another Busch D would be practical.

(With these last 2 items a trade might work??)

Collin