Fujinon A vs. C

[Jarin Blaschke]

Hi everybody:

Soon going into 12x20 and hopefully 14x17 thereafter, I’ll have to leave my (8x10) apo-Sironar Ss behind for the format. It seems that, aside from waiting years for a 550 XXL to come around, my best modern option in a 600ish focal length with decent coverage is something Fuji.

How does the A 600mm compare to the C as far as sharpness at infinity? I understand the A series is made for macro or copy work and optimised for close distances.

Are the A and C both tessar designs? If not, what are they?

How does the look, sharpness and contrast of these lenses compare to each other, as well as to my familiar Rodenstock Ss?

Thanks!
Jarin

PS: I intend to future-proof the negs for 4x enlargement.

 

[Alan9940]

Lots of info here: http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm, if you haven't seen this already. I've never seen a 600A in the "wild" so best of luck finding one, if you decide on that lens. I use a 360A on 8x10 and, IMO, it's a perfectly sharp lens at all distances; same with my Fuji 450C. Can't say I've ever noticed any significant contrast differences.

 

[ic-racer]

Soon going into 12x20...sharpness at infinity?

If that is inches then I'd think that errors in T-value (home made film holders?) and errors in getting the front and rear standard parallel and vibration from wind and aperture selection and precision of infinity focus will be the limiting factors for infinity sharpness. Lens type probably won't matter unless you are comparing to a home-made lens or want to shoot wide-open for some reason.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Jarin,

A general answer to your questions: Fuji A lenses are Plasmats (six elements/four groups) and perform very well at infinity as well as close up. The smaller size comes from the smaller max. aperture. Coverage for the same focal length will be greater for an A than a C series lens. These latter may be Tessar designs (four elements/four groups at least - I know the L-series lenses are Tessars).

Example, Fuji A 300mm coverage at infinity = 480mm. Fuji C 300mm coverage at infinity = 320mm. Angles of coverage are 70° and 66° respectively. Longer C-series lenses have a smaller angle of coverage. The 600mm C series angle is only 55° (coverage circle 620mm) while the 600mm A series has a 70° angle of coverage and an image circle of 840mm.

FWIW, I love both my Fuji A lenses (180mm and 240mm) on 4x5. Small, large coverage and really sharp.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

 

[DREW WILEY]

Neither are tessar. A's are highly corrected plasmats. The 600A will be very rare, quite heavy, and truly expensive if you ever find one. The 600C is a compact (C stands for compact) 4 element airspaced dialtyte design. A fine lens, relatively easy to acquire, and going for around $2000 on the used market these days. I've only seen two 600 A's come up for sale in my lifetime (or perhaps the same one selling twice). These were made prior to multicoated A's, of which the longest is 360. I don't personally shoot anything larger than 8x10, but I have heard of the 600 C being used on cameras as big as 20x24, probably with limited movements. C's are infinity corrected, while all the A's are close-range corrected, yet still superb at infinity. The optical quality of either lens series is so high that it's almost laughable to be worried about such details if you're just contact printing.

 

[5x7shooter]

Tessar designs are all, by definition, four elements in three groups, with two elements behind diaphragm cemented together as the third and final group. Four elements in fourt groups are usually Dialyte style large format lenses. Tessars and Dialytes are both very good designs, particularly when the maximum aperture is limited to f/6.3 as was done with Kodak's excellent Commercial Ektar lenses.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Tessar designs are all, by definition, four elements in three groups, with two elements behind diaphragm cemented together as the third and final group. Four elements in fourt groups are usually Dialyte style large format lenses. Tessars and Dialytes are both very good designs, particularly when the maximum aperture is limited to f/6.3 as was done with Kodak's excellent Commercial Ektar lenses.

Thanks for the info. My post shows my ignorance and lack of education in lens design (note I said "may be Tessars..."). So I stand corrected: Fujinon C series lenses are likely dialytes: four air-spaced elements. Glad to not have misled the OP.

Best,

Doremus

 

[DREW WILEY]

And C being "compact", the four airspaced elements are relatively thin, and even the 600 mm C is quite portable. Traditional tessars tend to have thick elements, and even a Fuji 300L tessar is a cumbersome beast compared to a 300C dialyte, more than three times the weight; it even weighs more than the 600C! Nikkor M's are a lighter wt modern tessar design.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

The optical quality of either lens series is so high that it's almost laughable to be worried about such details if you're just contact printing.

Thanks for all the info, Drew.

Indeed, but how would you expect either lens to hold up at 4x enlargement? For landscapes I intend to limit the aperture to f/45 and only shoot distant subjects. Portraits are possible too, and thus wider apertures.

How would you describe the “look” of the C and A? Particularly if I’m used to apo sironar Ss in 8x10?

-Jarin

 

[Bob S]

Why f45? Do you like diffraction or don’t focus and tilt at the correct point? Your lens is optimized at 22.

 

[DREW WILEY]

4X is nothing. You'll have far bigger problems with film flatness and depth of field issues. Due to both these issues, f/22 is rarely realistic in 8X10 photography, while f/45 tends to be the sweet spot for enlargements. I use adhesive filmholders that solve the sag problem. I've never used a 600A, but I do have a 600C and various other A's, including a 360. These are fully modern contrasty hard-sharp lenses. Don't underestimate Fuji; their lenses are every bit as good as German ones. But even finding a 600A sounds unrealistic; even the 360 is now rare.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

4X is nothing. You'll have far bigger problems with film flatness and depth of field issues. Due to both these issues, f/22 is rarely realistic in 8X10 photography, while f/45 tends to be the sweet spot for enlargements. I use adhesive filmholders that solve the sag problem. I've never used a 600A, but I do have a 600C and various other A's, including a 360. These are fully modern contrasty hard-sharp lenses. Don't underestimate Fuji; their lenses are every bit as good as German ones. But even finding a 600A sounds unrealistic; even the 360 is now rare.

Agreed. In 8x10, I find f/32 ideal if I can wrangle sufficient depth of field. I'll stretch to f/45 if needed, and if it requires f/64, I'll just know that it needs to remain a contact print. f/22 is great for distant stuff if you nail it, but at /16 to /22, I have less than absolute certainty of the movements and their absolute perfection across the entire ground glass at that point - at least for enlargements. f/32 gives me more inner peace while shooting, and f/45 is still quite good if I need it..

Drew: what's your technique for adhering film to your holders? How do you slide in the film with tape on the holder? What kind of tape to you use? How often do you change it out?Do you wear gloves for fingerprints? I feel like I'll likely need it in 12x20.

There are 3 Fujinon A 600s on eBay right now. They are not cheap, of course.

-Jarin

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've described adhesive holder quite a few times on the Large Format Forum. The tape is a 3M ATG acrylic tape that has permanent adhesive on one side, and repositionable adhesive on the other side. I can't recall the exact product number, but could look it up. I haven't had to change the tape ever yet - going on 30 years! The holders have to be modified to allow the film to be dropped in rather than slid in. As far as lenses go, lots of ULF shooters select from graphics lenses rather than photographic lenses. 4-element process lenses like an Apo Nikkor 600 or 760 will be better corrected than any regular taking lens. The standards for Apo designation are significantly higher, while the image circles are rated very very conservatively at infinity because of the much more stringent repro standards involved. A minor issue with them is that their max aperture is typically around f/9. A bigger problem is that they are barrel lenses, so you have to come up with some kind of big shutter. Even though I own a number of these lenses are use them quite a bit for lab applications, Fuji C's are far more practical in the field. Too much weight or too large a shutter at long bellows extension can cause vibrations unless your camera is built like a tank with an exceptionally rigid front standard. None of these lenses under discussion have pleasant out of focus blur or "bokeh". You might think of having an entirely different kind of lens for portraiture than for landscapes.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Would you expect an A to outperform a C at a non-diffraction limited aperture?

Where would I find your post on the holders on LF forum? Do you cut out the guide rail that the film normally slides along? Do you wear nitrile gloves or the like?

J

 

[Nodda Duma]

The price range of those A’s on ebay are crazy. I could design and build a really nice custom lens for less than that.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

The price range of those A’s on ebay are crazy. I could design and build a really nice custom lens for less than that.

I've always thought that should be one of the lenses you might go after, but the market might not be there because so few people are using 16x20 and above. KangRinpoche did that with their copy of the 600mm Fujinon-C, which is available for under $2k sans shutter.

Another one is the 150mm Nikkor-SW, which covers 8x10. But I suspect small-run fabrication of a long 8x10-up lens would be cheaper than a doing a wide one.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If it's a conventional Lisco or Fidelity holder, the inner fins are simply cut off using a sharp utility knife and steel straightedge. But 12x20 might require custom mfg. If I have to use a changing tent in the field, I either bring along little nitrile finger cots or ordinary alcohol-only disposable finger wipes. I can't comment on the extremely rare single-coated 600 and 1200 A's. Allegedly only 6 or 7 of the 600's were ever made, and only 2 or 3 1200's. I have later multicoated 180, 240, and 360 A lenses. Fuji marketed them as "Super Plasmats", and they weren't bluffing. C's are excellent too, but not ideal for near-macro applications. You seem to be overthinking the whole sharpness question, and I'm someone who cut my teeth on big Cibachromes that make anything inkjet look like spray can graffiti. The precision of any camera, filmholder, and enlarging system is the real question. These Fuji lenses are more than competent for the task.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Thanks, Drew:

12x20 holders are almost made to order anyway, so perhaps they can be ordered sans fins.

Do you put adhesive at the 4 corners plus one in the center? Or do you place more points than that?

If I’m bonkers enough to get a 600mm Fuji A, are there any problems/ adjustments I need to anticipate, considering it’s a single-coated plasmat with a lot of air-to-glass surfaces?

J

If it's a conventional Lisco or Fidelity holder, the inner fins are simply cut off using a sharp utility knife and steel straightedge. But 12x20 might require custom mfg. If I have to use a changing tent in the field, I either bring along little nitrile finger cots or ordinary alcohol-only disposable finger wipes. I can't comment on the extremely rare single-coated 600 and 1200 A's. Allegedly only 6 or 7 of the 600's were ever made, and only 2 or 3 1200's. I have later multicoated 180, 240, and 360 A lenses. Fuji marketed them as "Super Plasmats", and they weren't bluffing. C's are excellent too, but not ideal for near-macro applications. You seem to be overthinking the whole sharpness question, and I'm someone who cut my teeth on big Cibachromes that make anything inkjet look like spray can graffiti. The precision of any camera, filmholder, and enlarging system is the real question. These Fuji lenses are more than competent for the task.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The adhesive tape is applied in parallel strips lengthwise. Some ULF shooters just put a spot of it in the center to help prevent buckle, but film won't be truly flat in that case. Single coated lenses aren't a problem. You should use a good shade regardless. For example, Schneider G-Claron plasmats are a very similar design to Fuji A except for always being single-coated, and going only up to 355mm; but I've never had a flare issue with them. The 355 GC has a bigger image circle than the 360 Fuji A, so is sometimes used by 12x20 shooters; but that's just because it's in a bigger no.3 instead of the no.1 of the 360 Fuji, so has less mechanical vignetting from the shutter itself....doesn't mean the far corners are equally good; but that's a non-issue contact printing.

 

[Luis-F-S]

I’d be looking at a 24” RD Artar in shutter. It's a whole lot more reasonable and easier to find.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

I’d be looking at a 24” RD Artar in shutter. It's a whole lot more reasonable and easier to find.

I need proper movements, though. Especially with such paltry ULF depth of field.

J

 

[DREW WILEY]

You need to talk more to people who actually use graphics-style lenses on ULF. You have to remember that the published specs for them are for extremely tight apo dot alignment right out to the corners of the rated circle at f/22. The usable circle for general photography at smaller stops can be significantly bigger. Even a 240 Apo Nikkor will cover 8x10 at f/16 without movements. A 360 Apo-Nikkor will handle a fair amount of movement; so I'd expect a 600 or 760 to be quite usable even on 16X20 film. These lenses were once quite expensive, but are now are a bargain, though you'd still need to either equip them with a shutter or use the lenscap method of long exposures. Remarkably, I just noticed that a 600 A sold a few months ago - it went for $8000 in a Copal 3s shutter, which is a very nice multi-bladed shutter. With really big lenses like this you also have to acquire big filters, and it all adds us to quite a bit of bulk and weight. The even rarer 1200 A weighs a full 5 lbs, and its largest aperture if f/24. ULF contact printers sometimes use stops as small as f/256.

 

[Luis-F-S]

I need proper movements, though. Especially with such paltry ULF depth of field.

Like Drew said, you need to figure out what you're doing. If you want to spend $8k on a 600A, by all means go for it. For a 5th of that or less, you can get the 24" RD Artar, with great coverage for ULF. You could probably buy a 24, 30 & 35" RD Artar for less than one 600A! I spent under a grand on my 24" mounted in a Copal 3 shutter. But it's your money and time. Look at Angus Parker's Blog on 14 x 17" ULF lenses:

https://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2015/2/ulf-lens-recommendations-14x17

 

[dodphotography]

4X is nothing. You'll have far bigger problems with film flatness and depth of field issues. Due to both these issues, f/22 is rarely realistic in 8X10 photography, while f/45 tends to be the sweet spot for enlargements. I use adhesive filmholders that solve the sag problem. I've never used a 600A, but I do have a 600C and various other A's, including a 360. These are fully modern contrasty hard-sharp lenses. Don't underestimate Fuji; their lenses are every bit as good as German ones. But even finding a 600A sounds unrealistic; even the 360 is now rare.

600a on eBay recently... asking 9,000 whoppers

 

[Bob S]

The film manufacturers all know that sheet film sags. Camera manufacturers and holder manufactures also know this and manufacturing takes the sag into account when engineering their products!