Imagon vs. Fujinon SF

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 24, 2014

Are there any threads here or on other forums or websites that compare Fujinon SF and Imagon lenses? I've been looking at images online and I'm leaning heavily toward the Imagon series because they appear to make a sharper primary image and have nicer glow. I want soft glow, not blur. I like a somewhat subtle effect so I would seldom, if ever, use one wide open. Also, I hate the effect the "strainer" diffusion discs create so I'll be using those with the outer holes closed or I'll just use the shutter's internal aperture if it's nicely rounded.

Alan Gales · Sep 24, 2014

You may be interested in reading this.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?95020-Fujinon-250mm-Soft-Focus

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 24, 2014

Thank you, Alan. That's a helpful read. I'd like to see side-by-side comparisons of images shot with both Imagon and Fujinon SF lenses of equal focal length and at the same apertures (5.6, 8, 11) and with the "strainers" closed if possible. It just seems to me the Imagon has a very different look than the Fujinon. If my eyes don't deceive me it looks like the Fujinon is less sharp and doesn't have the glow of the Imagon.

Alan Gales · Sep 24, 2014

They do have a different look. I know some prefer the Imagon and some prefer the Fuji. I have never shot either lens but from what photographs I have seen on the web, I prefer the Imagon.

If I were buying a soft focus lens, I would look at the Kodak 305mm Portrait lens. It was designed for 4x5 but will also work on 8x10. It has no strainers and gets sharper as you stop it down. The downside is that it's in a big number 5 Ilex shutter (like my 14" Commercial Ektar) and is pricey. The Ilex shutters do have nice bokeh but you need a 4x5 monorail or a larger camera to use one.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 24, 2014

Alan Gales said:
They do have a different look. I know some prefer the Imagon and some prefer the Fuji. I have never shot either lens but from what photographs I have seen on the web, I prefer the Imagon.

If I were buying a soft focus lens, I would look at the Kodak 305mm Portrait lens. It was designed for 4x5 but will also work on 8x10. It has no strainers and gets sharper as you stop it down. The downside is that it's in a big number 5 Ilex shutter (like my 14" Commercial Ektar) and is pricey. The Ilex shutters do have nice bokeh but you need a 4x5 monorail or a larger camera to use one.

Yes, the Kodak 305mm Portrait is a fine lens. I had one briefly about fifteen years ago and sold it when cash was tight. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any available lately for less than $1300. Ten or fifteen years ago all the best US made vintage photo gear was going to Japan... now it's China.

Maybe I should get one of each in hand and give them both a try. I'll bet it'll be a waste of time though because I'm nearly certain I'll prefer the Imagon. The problem is they're so doggone pricey. The Fujis are so much more affordable but if I don't like the look then any dollar amount is too much.

Alan Gales · Sep 24, 2014

I occasionally buy cameras and lenses that I have an interest in and try them out. If I don't like them then I sell. I do lose a little money but it's a cheap rental fee and then I know.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 24, 2014

I'm seriously considering it but I want to do more visual research first.

removed account4 · Sep 24, 2014

most if not all of the kodak portrait lenses i have seen are in somewhat shabby condition
and are missing the front element. so good luck finding a complete one !

( posts about a missing element are a joke, there is no front element for the kodak portrait lens )

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 24, 2014

jnanian said:
most if not all of the kodak portrait lenses i have seen are in somewhat shabby condition
and are missing the front element. so good luck finding a complete one !

Yeah, the one I sold long ago was in very near mint condition but, indeed, the front element was "missing".

removed account4 · Sep 24, 2014

dang broken lenses! i hope you sold it at a hefty discount

Alan Gales · Sep 24, 2014

jnanian said:
most if not all of the kodak portrait lenses i have seen are in somewhat shabby condition
and are missing the front element. so good luck finding a complete one !

There is no front element on a Kodak Portrait lens.

You can buy nice looking ones on Ebay but like Old and Feeble says, they start at about $1,300 asking price.

Dan Fromm · Sep 24, 2014

jnanian said:
most if not all of the kodak portrait lenses i have seen are in somewhat shabby condition
and are missing the front element. so good luck finding a complete one !

John, you've gone over the edge. Y'r post is cruel.

Kodak portrait lenses (12 inch in Ilex 5, 16 inch in barrel) are simple doublets. There is no front group, the doublet is behind the diaphragm.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 24, 2014

jnanian said:
dang broken lenses! i hope you sold it at a hefty discount

Oh... yeah... you know I did.

Alan / Dan... he was joking.

removed account4 · Sep 24, 2014

alan and dan

ONF and i have kind of a running joke ..
i know the lens is sans a front element. ( so does he ) and it used to be a beautiful thing
when clueless sellers said "i am selling this broken lens for a friend " and sold them for cheap on eBay ( i said it dan ! )
kind of like ye olde pre gali brass lens and wolly daze
when water flowed like wine lenses were a song and dance

so for anyone reading this thread thinking i am just terrible and
disinforming ONF or anyone else please notice the goofy smiley faces.
( and his )

just the same thanks alan they have tripled in price since i yearned for one,
and thanks dan for pointing out, yes, i have indeed gone over the edge

good to see you discounted that wrecked lens ONF

cowanw · Sep 24, 2014

If you are going to use the Imagon without the strainers, then it is indeed similar to the meniscus lens, which will not have a lot of glow and will sharpen up quickly if you use the aperture. If you like the glow keep the strainers on hand.

Alan Gales · Sep 24, 2014

jnanian said:
alan and dan

ONF and i have kind of a running joke ..
i know the lens is sans a front element. ( so does he ) and it used to be a beautiful thing
when clueless sellers said "i am selling this broken lens for a friend " and sold them for cheap on eBay ( i said it dan ! )
kind of like ye olde pre gali brass lens and wolly daze
when water flowed like wine lenses were a song and dance

so for anyone reading this thread thinking i am just terrible and
disinforming ONF or anyone else please notice the goofy smiley faces.
( and his )

just the same thanks alan they have tripled in price since i yearned for one,
and thanks dan for pointing out, yes, i have indeed gone over the edge

good to see you discounted that wrecked lens ONF

That's cool, John. I make jokes all the time and get called out for them.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 24, 2014

cowanw said:
If you are going to use the Imagon without the strainers, then it is indeed similar to the meniscus lens, which will not have a lot of glow and will sharpen up quickly if you use the aperture. If you like the glow keep the strainers on hand.

I like the glow but usually in moderation so closed down a half or full stop... probably never more than two stops though because the effect is nearly gone by then. IMO, the strainers affect the highlights in a negative way especially specular highlights. If the lens' internal aperture is nicely round then I'll just use that. Otherwise I'll use the discs with the outer holes closed. I'm not inferring that the strainers are bad. I'm just saying I personally don't like them.

removed account4 · Sep 25, 2014

Alan Gales said:
That's cool, John. I make jokes all the time and get called out for them.

Dan Fromm · Sep 25, 2014

jnanian said:
alan and dan

ONF and i have kind of a running joke ..
i know the lens is sans a front element. ( so does he ) and it used to be a beautiful thing
when clueless sellers said "i am selling this broken lens for a friend " and sold them for cheap on eBay ( i said it dan ! )
kind of like ye olde pre gali brass lens and wolly daze
when water flowed like wine lenses were a song and dance

so for anyone reading this thread thinking i am just terrible and
disinforming ONF or anyone else please notice the goofy smiley faces.
( and his )

just the same thanks alan they have tripled in price since i yearned for one,
and thanks dan for pointing out, yes, i have indeed gone over the edge

good to see you discounted that wrecked lens ONF

John, jokes between friends are fine but the Internet never forgets misinformation.

removed account4 · Sep 25, 2014

Dan Fromm said:
John, jokes between friends are fine but the Internet never forgets misinformation.

im glad we cleared that all up

im actually thinking of asking the moderators to put JOKE
infront of my posts in this thread to make sure i dont disinform people ...

its too bad dopey smiley faces arent enough.

eclarke · Sep 25, 2014

K, the Kodak 305 mm portrait lens has no front element

Imagon vs. Fujinon SF

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency