Fujinon lenses in general and 150W in particular

[non sequiteur]

In medium format land I have always had a soft spot for fuji glass, the rangefinders specially. But how are the large fornat lenses?

I'm thinking of re-entering the 4x5" arena (god forbid my wife read this!) and was thinking of the fujinon w150/5.6 as a general lens. Last time around I had a calumet branded 210 from Schneider (with a horrible view camera from cambo, horrible for schlepping around, this time it will be a field camera!), and while it was as sharp as anything with plenty of movements it was a bit long for my liking. Is the w150 EBC coated? I intend to shoot a fair bit of c41 so I like to think multicoating is good (don't ruin my fantasy!). Is there any room for movements with the w150?

Does it matter if it's in a copal or seiko shutter? I like seiko watches, but have no clue on their shutters. I have no quarrel with copal, they're good in my book, it's just an open question.

 

[non sequiteur]

All of the answers to your lens questions are here:

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00910/00910.pdf

Most important consideration of the shutter is condition rather than brand. Both are decent shutters if in good working order.

Yeah I read that sales blurb but I want to hear from users of it and other fujinon lenses. That is more valuable to me.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

There are different variants of the 150mm f/5.6 Fujinon-W. The earliest version, which was single-coated, was offered in both Seiko and Copal shutters. It can be identified by the lettering on the front beauty ring (inside the filter ring) rather than on the lens barrel.

As far as I know all later versions were EBC (multicoated) and were offered only in Copal shutters.

So, to answer your question, if it's in a Seiko shutter (nothing wrong with them, BTW) it's not EBC. If it's in a Copal shutter it's more likely to be EBC and you can figure it out at a glance. Also, the coating of the early versions is straw-colored, EBC lenses reflect blues and purples.

There's lots of info here: http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm

 

[Mal Paso]

Nothing wrong with Fujinon Lenses. I have a 400mm Tele that is tack sharp.

 

[blee1996]

There's lots of info here: http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm

That link provides all the details about coating, coverage and variants of all Fujinon W lens. The older lenses tend to have a bit more coverage, while the later ones have better coating.

I have several Fujinon lenses in other focal length, and they are equally good as comparable Schneider, Rodenstock or Nikon. You will be happy with the results, if the lens is in good condition and well maintained.

 

[abruzzi]

I’ve very pleased with Fujinon lenses on my LF/view camera. I’ve used on SW lens—105/8 — plus a few W/NW/CM-W—105,180,210 two 250s. I also have a Fujinon-A 180 which is nice but also tiny.

 

[xkaes]

All of the answers to your lens questions are here:

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00910/00910.pdf

That PDF only covers Fujinon lenses at one point in time. For a complete list, visit:

THE WORLD'S MOST COMPLETE FUJINON LARGE FORMAT LENS LIST

 

[Alan9940]

The subclug.org link above will provide ALL the info you could ever want regarding Fuji LF lenses. I have several different focal lengths and versions that I use on 4x5 and 8x10. After shooting only Schneider glass for many years, I can't see any notable difference that would lead me to avoid Fuji glass. I have both single coated and EBC coated Fuji glass and they're all wonderful!

Perhaps the trickiest part of buying Fuji LF lenses is knowing exactly what you're buying. Over the years within the various series of glass, Fuji made incremental changes that aren't necessarily obvious or easy to identify. The versions with lettering on the outside of the barrel vs inside are, of course, easy to tell apart, but the W series in particular may not be so easy. For example, the NW series is the later EBC coated W series and in the 150mm range they have one version with 52mm filter thread and another with 55mm filter thread. I'm sure neither would be better than the other technically, but filter size may be important to you.

Anyway, do a bit of research and you'll be fine. You really can't go wrong with Fuji glass.

 

[non sequiteur]

For some reason the subclub site doesnt work? Could be due to me being in eu?

 

[xkaes]

Try another browser or computer or operating system or ISP or your security settings. One of these things is blocking it. The website is there.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Each of the "big four" manufacturers of LF lenses had their own specialty lines. But they all also had their general purpose lens selections, which were quite similar to one another. In terms of quality, Fuji is right up there, often ahead of the German lens quality, depending on the decade of manufacture. But anything in a Seiko shutter is likely to be of older vintage - not necessarily bad, but not fully modern either.

The problem with Fuji literature is that it's riddled with typos. Or else, they don't show all the evolutionary variations of a particular focal length. For example, between a 125/5.6 W, NW, and CMW, you might encounter even more than three different filter thread sizes. Alan noticed the comparable confusion over the 150mm version. Then you've got the deluxe A-series "super plasmats", better corrected than most general purpose lenses from any manufacturer, but with smaller maximum apertures.

All Fuji's later lenses were EBC multicoated, with the exception of the sole remaining L-series tessar (210), which remained single-coated. That doesn't mean these lenses were all actually labeled EBC. Generally, lettering on the outside of the lens barrel indicated a multicoated (EBC) one, whereas inside letter applied to older single-coated versions.

I don't know about the European market, but here in the US, Fuji lenses are often the best buy, while still being top-notch quality. There are certain very expensive "cult lens" exceptions to that. But when you're talking about highly popular general-purpose ones, like 150's and 210's, there are plenty of bargain lenses still in excellent condition.

 

[GregY]

All of the answers to your lens questions are here:

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00910/00910.pdf

Most important consideration of the shutter is condition rather than brand. Both are decent shutters if in good working order.

BTW, I’ve shot some very nice color neg on rather basic lenses, like an uncoated triplet. If the subject and composition are good then the technical superiority takes a step back.

Actually "all the answers" would have to include Kerry Thalman's info IMO

Future Classics

Lightweight Lenses

Fujinon Lenses

 

[Richard Man]

FWIW, I have personal experience with the Fujinon 150/5.6 (not W but they should be very similar). It's as good as any 150mm Plasmat in terms of sharpness/resolution/blah blah, except comparing to the APO Sironar S (not the N) that is going to be 3x-4x the price for teeeeeeeny bit of benefit. I have 6 feet wide prints made with this lens and it's superb.

My taste has moved to vintage lens and soft focus lens, but for general purpose, you will not regret the Fujinons.

 

[xkaes]

Fuji's SF line of lenses were not EBC coated either -- but they are coated -- and, as Drew pointed out, there's plenty of errors in Fuji literature. For example, a few single-coated lenses, such as the diminutive 150mm f6.3, is sometimes listed as EBC coated. That's why it's best to check the link I provided above.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Among later lenses, the presence of just a single coating was not a sign of inferiority, but a deliberate decision related to the marketing category. Soft focus lenses were intended to have a certain effect, and the L series had its following mainly in the studio portrait trade, where lighting ratios were easily controlled and excessive contrast generally frowned upon.

Likewise, the superb Schneider G-Claron line remained only single coated all along, whereas their Japanese counterpart, the Fuji A line, was multicoated after a certain point. The functional differences between these two particular lines is small - just a slight difference in contrast (plus logistical distinctions in shutter, weight, specific focal lengths, etc.) I shoot lenses from both categories, even in extreme outdoor conditions.

I doubt the Apo Sironar S line is really any better than the last of the Fuji W's (CMW) when stopped down to f/22. But they were designed to reach optimal performance about a stop wider than typical general-purpose plasmats do.
I have the relevant Rodenstock spec sheets somewhere, comparing their own plasmat offerings.
And if you restrict the maximum aperture to f/9 or f/10, then it allows the "super plasmat" Fuji A's to come into the equation, which are significantly better at close-range work, yet also superb at infinity. Of course, one tends to pay dearly for any of these advanced designs.

 

[non sequiteur]

Yeah, my budget is a bit limited, but I'm sort of set on 150 mm just trying to decide between nikon and fuji.

 

[xkaes]

And keep in mind that plenty of single-coated lenses might not really gain much from multi-coating. Also, that "multi-coating" does not mean that all of the elements are multi-coated (whatever that means). I look at several of my EBC coated lenses, and they do not look anything like the "typical", multi-colored, multi-coated lenses from the 35mm optics. Multiple-element lenses -- ex. ZOOMS -- benefit more from muilt-coating; lenses with fewer elements, not so much. You'll hear rave reviews from users of single coated lenses, because that's all the lens needs. Fuji, Minolta, etc. only put multi-layers on glass elements where it made a difference -- and a lot of the time, it doesn't.

That can make a difference in your wallet.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's no need to overthink this. It would be hard to tell the difference in results between Fuji and Nikon lenses of similar vintage. I'd be more concerned about optimal condition, including the shutter.

 

[Richard Man]

You can't go wrong with either Nikkor or the Fuji. They are even similar size. Go with one with newer shutter ;-)

 

[ic-racer]

Probably more important to look for a good working shutter than any particular name on the lens elements.

 

[ags2mikon]

I have a number of large format Fujinon lenses and I am quite happy with them. I also have some Schneider and Rodenstock lenses and I really can't see any real difference. Some of my fuji lenses are the really old Fujinar Tessar type that are single coated and they are also very good. They just don't have the same coverage as a plasmat type. A 16x20 print from a 4x5 negative is fairly easy with any good lens from anybody.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Indeed. The old Fujinar and Fuji L lenses, just like other tessars, have more limited coverage than typical plasmat lenses. But among their many plasmats, the angle of coverage is often greater than their contemporaneous competition. But there is a caveat to the brochure specifications themselves : Fuji tends to be over-optimistic with their image circle specifications, while Schneider tends to be very conservative. When in doubt, it's best to solicit the opinions of actual users of specific lenses.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yeah, my budget is a bit limited, but I'm sort of set on 150 mm just trying to decide between nikon and fuji.

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".

 

[Mick Fagan]

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

 

[non sequiteur]

Indeed. The old Fujinar and Fuji L lenses, just like other tessars, have more limited coverage than typical plasmat lenses. But among their many plasmats, the angle of coverage is often greater than their contemporaneous competition. But there is a caveat to the brochure specifications themselves : Fuji tends to be over-optimistic with their image circle specifications, while Schneider tends to be very conservative. When in doubt, it's best to solicit the opinions of actual users of specific lenses.

yep, hence this thread!