A-Series Fuji 180 F9 - Good coverage for 5x7?

[Tom Stanworth]

The reason I ask is I am looking to cut down on lenses and am considering a 180 to plug the gap between 110 and 300, rather than both 150 & 210.

I know my 210 G claron covers 10x8 egde to edge with movement and is pin sharp right in the corners despite the fact that it is not supposed to cover 10x8 at all. Does the 180 f9 fuji have more coverage than listed I wonder...if so it might have much more usable coverage stopped down than the regular symmars/sironars which (other than the big Sironar S and Symmar L) have no better coverage according to the spec (being 260mm ish)

The Fuji 180 F9 is listed with 250mm coverage but the Perez/Hevanet test (one sample from the 1970/80s suggests that the edges are not great, only so so.

Can anyone comment on how well this covers 5x7 in the real world for someone looking to enlarge (sometimes considerably) rather than contact print, so the edges need to be good?

It looks so small and great for backpacking!

 

[Steve Hamley]

I've tried this lens on 8x10 in comparison to the Nikkor 200M, and my impression is that both are good for 5x7 without movement. Anything larger or with movement and you'll start getting soft corners. The 200M had more even illumination though. I still have the transparencies and will take another look though.

Steve

 

[Michael Kadillak]

I've tried this lens on 8x10 in comparison to the Nikkor 200M, and my impression is that both are good for 5x7 without movement. Anything larger or with movement and you'll start getting soft corners. Steve

I put this lens on my Canham 5x7 and put 2 1/2" of front rise on (maximum) in horizontal orientation and had ample coverage from f9 through f64 at infinity. In macro mode obviously the coverage would be dramatically improved. I put a high power loup on it and when stopped down I could not see any drop in image quality to the edge. My experience with this lens is that it is light as a feather and sharp as hell and has enough coverage for 98% of what a landscape photographer would utilize this lens for in the field.

The only time I use serious view camera movements in the real world is with architecture and for that serious wide angle lenses would more than likely be employed. But that is a different animal.

I tossed lens test data as a purchasing criteria out the window a long time ago (either from manufacturers or independent testers) because it is highly interpretative and never once provided me with me any information that affected my photography. I put much more credibility with people I know that make photographs with a particular product. When they tell me that they regularly shoot with a particular lens then it is good enough for me. Not once have I been dissapointed with this course of action.

Cheers!

 

[Steve Hamley]

I actually shot two 8x10 chromes with these lenses and based my reply on the inspection of the chromes under magnification.

Steve

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Coverage cannot properly be assessed on the ground glass, only on a neg or a print. I say this because I have put lenses which are miles short of 'useable sharp' coverage on my 10x8 and they illuminate the GG nicely. Resoultion cannot be assessed on GG as it is far from smooth and shows very poor detail relative to a print and certainly will not show up slight softness which even maked eye inspection of a neg will reveal. Enlarge the neg 5x and issues invisible on the GG will become monstrous!

Were I shooting 5x4 I would have no reservation, but with 5x7 and the fact that the Perez/Hevanet test suggested this lens is not the best at the edges made me ask. With the stated 250 ish coverage I am going to be nearer the edges with 5x7 than 5x7 would be, especially if I use movements.

My 159 Wolly 12.5 was supposed to cover 10x8. For contacts maybe, but for enlargement it was horrid at the corners. Looking at the GG none of this was aparrent. Even nake eye inspection of the negs showed how little GG really shows regarding sharp coverage.

 

[Michael Kadillak]

Agree with you completely. I only contact print so my needs for optical resolution is clearly very different than for those that want to enlarge. In fact when I saw that I had the coverage in the 180 A I purchased it simply because of its small size and weight. It has not disappointed me for what I do when I stop it down a bit. If I need a bigger format to properly fit the image I step up to 8x10, 11x14, 8x20 or 12x20.

Some of the most marvelous contact prints I have seen have come from lenses that may not even have been coated and would not hit the radar screen from a resolution criteria. The more I shoot the more I driven by print quality.

Cheers!