Fujinon lenses in general and 150W in particular

non sequiteur · Aug 20, 2024

John Wiegerink said:
I have a mix of Fuji, Schneider, and Rodenstock plus, older Protars and some convertible lenses, again old. None of the Fuji large format lenses I have dogs. Actually I think the Fujinon brand lenses are the "best bang for your buck".

that was a suspicion i had

non sequiteur · Aug 20, 2024

Mick Fagan said:
I've been loathe to enter this thread about Fujinon 150mm lenses; mainly because I have two of the slightly slower Fujinon f/6.3 150mm lenses. One is permanently attached to my Shen Hao HZX45-IIA as the camera folds with the lens board reversed. The other one is permanently attached to a converted Polaroid camera, a Razzle to be precise.

The f/6.3 150 Fujinon is more than adequate for most stuff and coverage is excellent and is more than my Shen Hoa folder is capable of. Filter size is 40.5mm and coupled with a step-up ring to 52mm allows me to use my extensive range of Nikon filters from my 35mm filter armoury.

Mine are both in Seiko shutters, both work excellently; that said my working speeds are usually slow, except for the Razzle where I mostly use 1/125 for hand held.

This was taken with my Shen Hao and one of my Fujinon 150 f/6.3 lenses. In general if the 150mm length is desired or required, this little lens does pretty well for me.

Creswick Uniting Church

Took this in a hurry as the weather was rapidly changing for the worse.

www.photrio.com

That photograph is tack sharp. Maybe a 150/6.3 is a good choice for backpacking?

halfaman · Aug 20, 2024

I have also a couple of Fujinon CM-W, 135 mm f/5.6 and 250 mm f/6.3, along with a SA 90 mm f/8 MC. All are excellent lenses for my taste.

non sequiteur · Aug 20, 2024

halfaman said:
I have also a couple of Fujinon CM-W, 135 mm f/5.6 and 250 mm f/6.3, along with a SA 90 mm f/8 MC. All are excellent lenses for my taste.

How do you rate the 135 in terms of movements (in actual use) and in view angle? It seems it would correspond to 38 mm in 35mm. Which isn't a bad focal length.

xkaes · Aug 20, 2024

non sequiteur said:
That photograph is tack sharp. Maybe a 150/6.3 is a good choice for backpacking?

The 150mm f6.3 is absolutely tiny. It's probably the smallest and lightest of all the Fuji LF lenses. It's even lighter than the 105mm.

Andrew O'Neill · Aug 20, 2024

Large format Fujinon lenses are excellent. Sharp. Good contrast. I have, and often use the 90SW, 125, 180W, and 600C. The 180 (older version with text inside barrel), and the 600 both cover 8x10. The 180 must be stopped down to at least f/22 for full coverage. I often use the 600 on my 14x17.

Ian C · Aug 20, 2024

Regarding post #29

The Fuji 5.6/135 CM-W has 76º coverage angle and infinity-focus image circle of 214 mm per the data in the Sub Club file for Fuji Large Format Lenses.

Using these numbers, the long axis shift from the lens-centered position on the 4” x 5” format (95 mm x 120 mm) at infinity focus, where the image circle is smallest, is 35.8 mm. The short axis shift is 41.1 mm.

Like all lenses, the image circle gets larger at closer focusing distances where the lens is positioned farther from the film. The difference is moderate for subject distances in general photography but can be significantly greater in close-up use.

ZhanTeh · Aug 20, 2024

Another benefit to the later model Fujinon lenses are that most have the same 67mm filter thread.
I have the 90NSW 8.0, 125CMW 5.6 and the 250CMW 6.3, all 67mm filter threads. One set of filters and you are set, no need to bother with step up/down rings.
All of them are plenty sharp for my preference.

rcphoto · Aug 20, 2024

Never met a fuji lens i didnt like.

xkaes · Aug 20, 2024

ZhanTeh said:
Another benefit to the later model Fujinon lenses are that most have the same 67mm filter thread.

That's great for long or wide lenses, but it's ridiculous on their smaller CM-W lenses, like the 105mm. The previous NW 105mm had a filter thread of 46mm -- much more appropriate for such a tiny lens. The 67mm filter hood is almost as big as the lens.

I'm never met a LF user that didn't need to use filter adapters -- you are apparently one of the exceptions.

ZhanTeh · Aug 20, 2024

xkaes said:
I'm never met a LF user that didn't need to use filter adapters -- you are apparently one of the exceptions.

Just a matter of workflow preference. If you can reduce variance, why not?

Mick Fagan · Aug 21, 2024

non sequiteur said:
That photograph is tack sharp. Maybe a 150/6.3 is a good choice for backpacking?

My take on this lens is that it is an extremely good allrounder type of lens. It is so small it is the lens I always have as it resides inside the folded camera. As an added bonus, I have yet to find a situation where this focal length is required/preferred that this lens has let me down.

As for using one of these for backpacking, it would be my first contender. My backpacking, or light field trip lens kit that I always take. Are all Fujinon; 90mm f/8, 150 f/6.3, 250 f/6.3 with this I can pretty much do anything. I also have a Fujinon SWD f/5.6 65mm which is nothing short of brilliant and a surprisingly useful lens for all sorts of imagery. Effectively no movements are possible, but some surreptitious cropping works wonders.

This is the 65mm lens. I always use a centre graduated filter with this lens.

Diamantina NP Bronco Yard

This was somewhere before the halfway mark of a 90km one way drive through part of Diamantina NP in Qld. Which is really the whole of the Diamantina Station, now owned by Qld NP's. It's a pretty big station, we used up around 400km of our fuel...

www.photrio.com

This was taken about 17 years ago with the same 150mm f/6.3 lens as the Church. The version this link goes to is the cropped and darkroom manipulated 8x10" version, back then that was the only way I could get pictures onto the web using my super cheap Aldi flatbed scanner.

The picture immediately prior on my link, is a full contact print scan; it is interesting to switch back and forth.

End of the session!

After a session using 35mm, I shifted to the 4x5 format where I did two horizontal and two vertical shots. We both knew what we wished to do from the 35mm shoot, this was the first of the four sheets, it was the best. I hope this looks...

www.photrio.com

halfaman · Aug 21, 2024

non sequiteur said:
How do you rate the 135 in terms of movements (in actual use) and in view angle? It seems it would correspond to 38 mm in 35mm. Which isn't a bad focal length.

I like a lot the 135 mm focal length for 4x5". I found that it is the angle I want in the kind of photograhpy I do in LF, it is just wide enough to include ambient very naturally photographing any object or person. Movements are more than ok for me, I normally just do horizontal and vertical shifts.

DREW WILEY · Aug 21, 2024

As a backpacker often constrained for space, I standardized on two different filter sizes : 67mm for my 8x10 kit and 6X9 Texas Leicas, but the more petite 52mm set for long-haul 4x5 trips (plus any necessary step adapters). I found it ridiculous that Fuji put a disproportionate 67mm funnel front on even their smaller CMW lenses - apparently whoever made that decision wasn't much of an outdoor pack type! - strange, since, if you look at the asking prices of used lenses, the highest demand is generally on the more petite, most portable versions.

Doremus Scudder · Aug 21, 2024

ZhanTeh said:
Another benefit to the later model Fujinon lenses are that most have the same 67mm filter thread.
I have the 90NSW 8.0, 125CMW 5.6 and the 250CMW 6.3, all 67mm filter threads. One set of filters and you are set, no need to bother with step up/down rings.
All of them are plenty sharp for my preference.

xkaes said:
That's great for long or wide lenses, but it's ridiculous on their smaller CM-W lenses, like the 105mm. The previous NW 105mm had a filter thread of 46mm -- much more appropriate for such a tiny lens. The 67mm filter hood is almost as big as the lens.

I'm never met a LF user that didn't need to use filter adapters -- you are apparently one of the exceptions.

Good points here, but different opinions!

I don't like the newer Fujinon lenses just because they require such large filters. If you need a lightweight and compact kit, then look for lenses that have smaller filter sizes. My lightest kit are all lenses that have, or are stepped-up to, 52mm filters. I have a couple of lenses that need 67mm filters (90mm and 75mm lenses) that I carry when I don't need to be really light (along with a wallet of 67mm filters and a 52-67mm step-up ring so I don't have to carry two sets of filters if I don't want to). But, when I need to be as light as possible, it's the 100mm WF Ektar, a 135mm Plasmat, a 203mm Ektar and a 300mm Nikkor M and 52mm filters.

I guess I'm advising you to keep a future kit and a standard filter size in mind when choosing your 150mm lens.

How about another wrench in the works: I much prefer to carry a 135mm Plasmat than a 150mm. They are not that far apart,, but the 135mm is just enough wider to make a lot of images possible that I would have missed if I only had the 150mm with me. Images from the 135mm can be cropped to the 150mm view without losing significant quality, but I can't get a wider image from the 150mm once I've made the negative . I have both 135mm and 150mm Plasmats, but the 150mm stays in the car or at home for 90% of the time. It's the 135mm that is in all my kits. Maybe look at a 135mm lens instead of your 150mm?

Best,

Doremus

xkaes · Aug 21, 2024

As to the 135mm focal length, the FUJINON CM-W 135mm has a 67mm filter, the NW 135mm has a 52mm size.

Just sayin'.

GregY · Aug 21, 2024

I used my 150 a great deal on 5x7".....I agree with Doremus, although i could get by very well with a 120/210/300 combo

GLS · Aug 22, 2024

non sequiteur said:
But how are the large fornat lenses?

Fuji made some excellent LF lenses.

I own the Fujinon A 9/240 and the Fujinon C 12.5/450. Both superlative.

Fujinon lenses in general and 150W in particular

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency