Large Format Lenses recommendation

[DREW WILEY]

I sure wouldn't sell the Sinar F right away. Remember, most Sinar components are fully interchangeable, mix n match style, a P is going to be miserably heavy in the field, and you'll need a second set of bellows anyway, along with an intermediate standard, if you plan on using very long lenses.

 

[5x7shooter]

Has anyone done a head-on direct comparison between a single-coated Fujinon 135mm/5.6 W (original version, inside lettering) and any of the later multi-coated, outside lettering NW 135mm models? Comparative results?

I'm curious about the trade-off between the extra coverage of the original W 80 degree version of the Fujinon 135mm W and the possibly higher resolution of the later multi-coated NW and CM-W versions.

As I noted above, when I compared my original 250/6.7 single-coated Fujinon W with my 250/6.3 CM-W, the 250/6.7 W was not quite as sharp as the later 250/6.3 CM-W, but not enough to make any discernible difference. On the other hand, the 250/6.7 is reputedly an exceptional optic and might not be an accurate analogy to the various later air-spaced Fujinon 135mm W lens series.

 

[138S]

Has anyone done a head-on direct comparison between a single-coated Fujinon 135mm/5.6 W (original version, inside lettering) and any of the later multi-coated, outside lettering NW 135mm models? Comparative results?

Let me point that any comparisson of that kind is scene dependand, and photographer dependant. Also it depends on color vs BW. It also depends on post processing.

A side by side (MC vs SC) will tell the difference in a particular situation, but the MC effect varies. For example flare generated by rays bouncing in the bellows can be quite larger than the one generated in the single coated glass.

 

[5x7shooter]

Let me point that any comparisson of that kind is scene dependand, and photographer dependent. Also it depends on color vs BW. It also depends on post processing.

A side by side (MC vs SC) will tell the difference in a particular situation, but the MC effect varies. For example flare generated by rays bouncing in the bellows can be quite larger than the one generated in the single coated glass.

The above is certainly true and is probably common ground among those on this forum.

However, I am looking for any actual data on resolution, coverage, flare control, tonality etc. Actual data from several members, even if anecdotal, would be the best guide to a purchasing decision here. I think of this question as a Bayesian approach to deciding which 135W to buy.

So, my question is whether anyone has done a direct comparison of the early 135mm Fujinon W inside writing vs the newer NWS and CM-W versions and what conclusions they drew.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The above is certainly true and is probably common ground among those on this forum.

However, I am looking for any actual data, as "theory" is a poor guide to decision-making for this question.

My question is whether anyone has done a direct comparison on the early 135mm Fujinon W inside writing vs the newer NWS and CM-W versions.

You'd probably need the sort of Siemens star projector used by the manufacturers/ Linhof etc for testing lenses - Cooke Metrology make one for cinema lenses for a little north of 10k I recall.

 

[5x7shooter]

You'd probably need the sort of Siemens star projector used by the manufacturers/ Linhof etc for testing lenses - Cooke Metrology make one for cinema lenses for a little north of 10k I recall.

Thanks, all. i was apparently unclear in my initial question

I am trying to decide which Fujinon 135 W version to purchase, whether the original inside writing single-coated version or the later air-spaced multicoated versions. I can't buy both and run my own tests, so I was looking to experienced forum members to see whether anyone had some actual comparative data, even if merely single-copy comparisons.

The original W version has significantly better coverage for 5x7 but the later versions are somewhat better optically. In the case of the 250mm/6.7 W vs. 250mm/6.3 CM-W, my own comparative tests of those two lenses, that I already own, indicate that not much is given up optically when using the earlier inside-writing W.

The original 250/6.7 W is very sharp but one single-copy 135W/135 NWS-CM-W comparison published over 20 years ago by Thalman and Perez suggest that the 250mm/6.7 W may be a special case rather than more generally true of all early W Fujinons when compared with the later fully air-spaced multicoated NWS and CM-W lines. Aside from the terse data that's part of a much larger sets of tests by Thalman and Perez, I cannot find any comparative data. They had only one copy of each, and who knows whether the early W was damaged?

Hence, I am asking whether anyone on this forum has actually compared the early 135 W vs. later 135mm NWS-CM-W lenses and, if so, what was your comparative impression.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@5x7shooter - your question was fine, it was my answer that was unclear (it should have been to the effect of treating results given without optical bench testing as being potentially flawed by choice of subject matter, film holder etc) - and I suspect that the chances of someone having run up tests between the lenses is low, not least because matched results on transparency is much less of a requirement today. Like you, I'd be interested to see what level of impact the CM-W's design had on the performance of plasmat designs.

 

[5x7shooter]

Fair enough, Lachlan.

I'm just trying to get some practical data to aid decision-making: are the NWS/CM-W lenses noticeably better than the early W series such that the trade-off in useful coverage is warranted?

When I compared my Fujinon 250/6.7 W and 250/6.3 CM-W, my first-order approximation was that the early single-coated 250/6.7 W had at least 90% of the CM-W's optical quality, not enough difference to be noticeable in most practical usage and therefore not worth the CM-W's higher cost, larger size, and lower coverage. However, the 250/6.7 is often alleged to be a very special lens, making these comparative results less generalizable to other focal lengths, even if they were done to peer-reviewed precision.

The coverage vs image quality balancing is more important with shorter focal lengths like 135mm, where the margin of coverage on 5x7 is much thinner and hence finding the right trade-off more important before I make a purchase decision..

With apparently only one single-copy comparative Fujinon 135mm W data set published 20+ years ago by Perez and Thalmann, any additional data, even anecdotal data, is a step in the right (Bayesian) direction, given the infeasibility of buying both lenses.

Also, I wondered about the copies Thalmann and Perez tested, because both the apparent early-W and the CM-W had late-date serial numbers very very close to each other in the 542xxx block, which would not make sense for quite different lenses whose dates of manufacture were 20 years apart. I also wondered because their resolution results for the tested lenses were substantially lower than might be expected for either series based upon their comparable results for Fujinon W/NWS/CM-W lenses in other focal lengths These reasons make me wonder whether there was simply a labelling ambiguity in their published results and whether two CM-Ws were in fact tested, not an early inside-writing W and a much later CM-W.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Perez's data is generally good for just one thing - the trash can! We don't know any of his specific questionable methodology, or even the condition of lenses involved. You're overthinking all this. I did that too, when I first began LF work, so can sympathize.

 

[5x7shooter]

Perez's data is generally good for just one thing - the trash can! We don't know any of his specific questionable methodology, or even the condition of lenses involved. You're overthinking all this. I did that too, when I first began LF work, so can sympathize.

Hi, Drew:

Your experiences are among those few in which I would repose a substantial degree of trust. I'm quite satisfied with my NWS and CM-W lenses but with one exception, my 250mm / 6.7, I have little personal experience with the early single-coated, cemented W Fujinons. I would buy a later air-spaced 135mm EBC NWS except that I definitely could use the extra coverage of the 80 degree early W. An analogy: my early 240mm Dagor-style G-Claron is so-so while my later 210 and 305 plasmat G-Clarions are very satisfying.

Overthinking is probably true. The flip side for me is that over the past 45 years and several dozen LF lenses, I've ended up blindly buying some real disappointments, particularly among older lens designs, so any data is valued. There are so many hearsay and theoretical opinions strongly expressed in the LF area and so little reported actual data, regardless of data quality.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 250/6.7 is an outstanding lens with respect to sharpness, hue rendition, contrast, and its large image circle. Don't worry about the single coating. Right now I'm beside a 30x40 inch Cibachrome print on the wall made with that lens and just 4x5 film, and you'd actually need a loupe to see all the detail in it. What I would be more concerned about is whether a special glass type was involved which has yellowed over time in certain examples, or other condition issues in an older lens like shutter speed accuracy. Otherwise, variations in film sag shot to shot is going to be a much bigger factor than the miniscule optical differences between W,NW,CMW etc. Fuji's literature contains a lot of typos, so it can be frustrating at times. But any of Fuji's 250's should be superb for 5x7.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The reason there is so little "hard data" is that you'd actually need detailed graphs of a number of parameters for each lens under factory optical bench R&D standards. Sometimes these exist, but even they need to be tailored to specific intended applications, such as magnification ratio, various f-stop options, tangential behavior respective to swings and tilts. For that reason, any resource that claims it's objective and impartial by allegedly applying exactly the same test parameters to every lens is inherently going to be misleading in real world use. And all you might be learning is how fatigued the eyes were of the person reading the chart, or worse, their own variations in film sag test to test, if they used film.

 

[5x7shooter]

I concur about the 250/6.7 early W, it's nearly as sharp as my 250 CM-W. After some thought, I hit Buy Now on a near-mint early 135/5.6 Fujinon W, which was the subject of my OP, Thanks to everyone for their help. I'll just wait and see how well the 135 W compares optically to the later 125 and 150 NWS lenses that I have on either side of 135. I'm not concerned about the Seiko shutter. I'll put it on the shutter speed tester and just do another chart.

 

[PonySoldier1887]

I concur about the 250/6.7 early W, it's nearly as sharp as my 250 CM-W. After some thought, I hit Buy Now on a near-mint early 135/5.6 Fujinon W, which was the subject of my OP, Thanks to everyone for their help. I'll just wait and see how it well the 135 W compares optically to the later 125 and 150 NWS lenses that I have on either side of 135. I'm not concerned about the Seiko shutter. I'll put it on the shutter speed tester and just do another chart.

Consider this purely anecdotal as I have done no head-on comparison testing but I have done a lot of photographing in 4x5 and 8x10 over 50+years. The single-coated 135 f5.6, Seiko shutter Fujinon W (writing on lens bezel) is my favorite lens - Planars, Wide-field Ektars, APO Symmars, Angulons, Super Angulons, Grandagons... none of them quite compare! Before the 135 Fujinon the "hands down" favorite was a 127mm Ektar with woefully inadequate coverage. I searched for quite a while for a mint copy and had Carol (Flutot's) do a CLA on the Seiko (which I prefer to both Copal and Compur). Kodak's 135mm WF Ektar was great except for the shutter and there was significant evidence that the WF Ektars were fairly intolerant of "shutter-switching." I hope that your experience with the 135W mirrors my own!
Joel

 

[narsuitus]

I currently have a 65/90/135 lens kit for my 4x5 monorail view camera.

If I were starting from scratch, I would create a new kit with the 65/90/150 from your list.

If I started to do more individual portraits with my 4x5, I would add the 210 or 250 to my lens kit.

 

[5x7shooter]

Consider this purely anecdotal as I have done no head-on comparison testing but I have done a lot of photographing in 4x5 and 8x10 over 50+years. The single-coated 135 f5.6, Seiko shutter Fujinon W (writing on lens bezel) is my favorite lens - Planars, Wide-field Ektars, APO Symmars, Angulons, Super Angulons, Grandagons... none of them quite compare! Before the 135 Fujinon the "hands down" favorite was a 127mm Ektar with woefully inadequate coverage. I searched for quite a while for a mint copy and had Carol (Flutot's) do a CLA on the Seiko (which I prefer to both Copal and Compur). Kodak's 135mm WF Ektar was great except for the shutter and there was significant evidence that the WF Ektars were fairly intolerant of "shutter-switching." I hope that your experience with the 135W mirrors my own!
Joel

Thanks for the "anecdotal" comparison. I'll test the shutter speeds when FedEx gets the 135W here and send off to Carol if needed. She already has the Alphax 4 from my 10" B&L Protar VIIa, which recently failed quite suddenly. She was able to get a Kodak Supermatic on an Ektar 203/7.7 working quite nicely again.

When I have a chance, I'll do a comparison of the early 135 Fujinon W with my 125mm and 150mm later Fujinon NWS lenses nd update this thread with my single-copy 135W data.

 

[DREW WILEY]

An annoying issue with the latest CMW series is how they standardized even the shorter focal lengths to a 67mm filter, making them unnecessarily bulky. But even before that they fiddled around with filter threads in a manner sometimes hard to pin down unless you asked about the specific lens you intended to buy. For example, older 125's were made in three different thread sizes, but I specifically wanted only the 52mm version, so had to make sure that's what was being sent.

 

[5x7shooter]

The forced 67mm CM-W filter thread is indeed annoying on the smaller Fujnon lenses. One of my 125's is a 55mm filter thread and one has a 52mm. That may give some relative date of manufacture and possibly some design change comparison. Both of my 150 NWS are 52mm. I'll identify all by serial number range and the 125s also by filter size when I am able to do some tests and update my posts. Tests will be on 5x7 Delta 100 and XTOL.

 

[5x7shooter]

I concur about the 250/6.7 early W, it's nearly as sharp as my 250 CM-W. After some thought, I hit Buy Now on a near-mint early 135/5.6 Fujinon W, which was the subject of my OP, Thanks to everyone for their help. I'll just wait and see how well the 135 W compares optically to the later 125 and 150 NWS lenses that I have on either side of 135. I'm not concerned about the Seiko shutter. I'll put it on the shutter speed tester and just do another chart.

FWIW, I ended up buying a near-mint Fujinon 135mm W, an early single-coated 6/4 Plasmat because of its better 5x7 coverage. I then made identical test shots with the early 135mm Fujinon W and also with late model 125mm, 150mm, and 180mm Fujinon NW 6/6 Plasmats.

Tests were made on 5x7 Ilford Delta 100 film developed in XTOL 1:2 with intermittent agitation. Test target was an ISO resolution target against a planar backdrop at the focus plane of low contrast but highly detailed Eastern White Pine needles and other foliage. All photos shot at f/22 in rapid sequence outdoors under an overcast sky on a generally calm day. All full-frame 5x7 negatives were then wet-scanned at 2400dpi as 341MB 16-bit BW TIFF files on an Epson V850, imported into Lightroom and identically processed, then compared in Lightroom side-by-side at 1:1 pixel-peeping images. I only tested one copy of each lens model.

Results: All lenses produced high-quality, contrasty images that were excellently sharp at 1:1 and visually nearly identical in terms of both sharpness and contrast. No flare nor veiling was discernible. I was shooting against a sky of bright clouds but not directly into the sun. Subjectively, the 150mm NW Fujinon seemed slightly less crisp, but that could have been slight camera or subject motion due to an errant breeze at 1/4 second or possibly a slight focusing error. All were sharp to the corners except that the 125mm Fujinon NW mechanically vignetted the 5x7 negative about 6 mm in each corner, as expected.

The early Fujinon single-coated 135mm W 6/4 Plasmat produced results just as good as the late model 125mm/5.6 NW EBC multicoated 6/6 air-spaced Plasmat, results that I found entirely satisfactory.

I also made an identical test shot with my best Zeiss Protar VIIa, which is discussed in this forum's 450-480mm lenses on 12x20 thread that devolved into a discussion of triple convertible lenses.

 

[Oren Grad]

We don't know any of his specific questionable methodology...

The only reason for not knowing anything about his methodology is not bothering to look. He says a fair bit about it in the respective pages linked from here:

https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/index1.html

I'm not saying it's beyond criticism, but it's pretty bad form to smear something as questionable while saying you don't know anything about it - and that when the target of your criticism has in fact done exactly the right thing, posting his methods along with his results so that readers can review and judge for themselves.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I stand by my comments, Oren. It's the methodology itself that's deficient. Bob S. pointed that out even more strongly than me, though it might have been on a different forum. It's what Perez leaves out, or ignores, method-wise, that's the issue. I do my homework, as you should realize by now. His own stated procedures are so presumptive and generic with respect to lenses of quite different engineered categories of intended application, the condition and statistical quantity of listed lenses so unknown (presumably only one apiece), and so many pertinent variables left out, that what else can I say? Yes, he deserves credit for an ambitious undertaking - but it's simply too broad and rough a sweep to be trustworthy. If one reads the "fine print", he acknowledges that sheet film sag can be a factor when interpreting results. That's an understatement. It pretty much nullifies everything he lists about specific lens resolution. Any truly objective bench test, like a lens manufacturer would do, is not susceptible to conventional filmholder variables. There's also the potential for eye fatigue in such a broad test. Red flags all over the place, really.

 

[138S]

It's the methodology itself that's deficient. Bob S. pointed that out even more strongly than me

Drew, Bob is totally right in that this test is not useful to decide if one has to buy a (then) new APO Sironar, an APO Symmar or a Nikon W. In fact they are quite similar regarding optical yield.

But with all the respect to Bob opinion, Arne Cröll tested a particular Sironar S 135 unit and also found similar results than Chris :



https://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf , see page 12.

Perez even found even slightly better results, but at extintion instead 10% MTF :

Rodenstock APO Sironar S f/5.6 135mm
f/11 38 42 42
f/16 58 58 38
f/22 64 64 59

Still we have the well known sample to sample varition, and ultimate sharpness of a LF lens is only a little fraction of what we appreciate in a LF lens. Of course ultimate LF lens sharpness is something often irrelevant. What is sharp is the photographer himself, not the lens, and many times too much sharpness is what we don't want, this was discovered before 1895, when modest 13x18cm plates were surpassing 100mpix effective in today's DXO terms.

It's what Perez leaves out, or ignores, method-wise, that's the issue.

Until I know, Mr Perez has recently retired from PROMAX electronics, a well known test equipment manufacturer that had been recruiting the finest technicians. While not an optician (IIRC), a guy that knows well what are precision measures in a laboratory.


Regarding his methodology for that test, it is well better done than how regular photographers would employ his camera. One thing are Lab tests and another other thing are practical tests. Lab tests show average MFT graphs taken in the air, a practical test tell how a lens behaves in practice with film when used in our cameras. Belive me, this is the kind of tests that are really interesting for us, still manufacture's graphs are also quite interesting.

This was a test made on 4x5", it does not tell how a lens behaves in the 5x7 or 8x10 corners, which is a drawback if we shot larger than 45. It is made 1:20, this is ok. It is made on TMX. It is made for useful exposures, film varies its resolving power depending exposure... Probably it has a few mistakes. It tells ratings at extintion, Arne Cröell instead tested 10% and 50% MTF.


See the disclaimer:



This is not a test to read the number and to say a lens is that, it has a context. Those able to make a wise interpretation of this test find it extremly useful.

For sure a practical test like this one may have a flaw in particular reading, and that value could be better, but when Chris said he saw 76lp/mm in a spot he also said he discerned a particular Group.Element in this chart:



which after 1:20 applied ended in that number. Perhaps a particular lens could work better from a better focus/alignment, but that tested sample performed at less as good as he says. So for sure that kind of information has to be handled with care, but it is quite useful if one makes a wise interpretation.

 

[Bob S]

Drew, Bob is totally right in that this test is not useful to decide if one has to buy a (then) new APO Sironar, an APO Symmar or a Nikon W. In fact they are quite similar regarding optical yield.

But with all the respect to Bob opinion, Arne Cröll tested a particular Sironar S 135 unit and also found similar results than Chris :

View attachment 257078

https://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf , see page 12.

Perez even found even slightly better results, but at extintion instead 10% MTF :

Rodenstock APO Sironar S f/5.6 135mm
f/11 38 42 42
f/16 58 58 38
f/22 64 64 59

Still we have the well known sample to sample varition, and ultimate sharpness of a LF lens is only a little fraction of what we appreciate in a LF lens. Of course ultimate LF lens sharpness is something often irrelevant. What is sharp is the photographer himself, not the lens, and many times too much sharpness is what we don't want, this was discovered before 1895, when modest 13x18cm plates were surpassing 100mpix effective in today's DXO terms.





Until I know, Mr Perez has recently retired from PROMAX electronics, a well known test equipment manufacturer that had been recruiting the finest technicians. While not an optician (IIRC), a guy that knows well what are precision measures in a laboratory.


Regarding his methodology for that test, it is well better done than how regular photographers would employ his camera. One thing are Lab tests and another other thing are practical tests. Lab tests show average MFT graphs taken in the air, a practical test tell how a lens behaves in practice with film when used in our cameras. Belive me, this is the kind of tests that are really interesting for us, still manufacture's graphs are also quite interesting.

This was a test made on 4x5", it does not tell how a lens behaves in the 5x7 or 8x10 corners, which is a drawback if we shot larger than 45. It is made 1:20, this is ok. It is made on TMX. It is made for useful exposures, film varies its resolving power depending exposure... Probably it has a few mistakes. It tells ratings at extintion, Arne Cröell instead tested 10% and 50% MTF.


See the disclaimer:

View attachment 257079

This is not a test to read the number and to say a lens is that, it has a context. Those able to make a wise interpretation of this test find it extremly useful.

For sure a practical test like this one may have a flaw in particular reading, and that value could be better, but when Chris said he saw 76lp/mm in a spot he also said he discerned a particular Group.Element in this chart:

View attachment 257080

which after 1:20 applied ended in that number. Perhaps a particular lens could work better from a better focus/alignment, but that tested sample performed at less as good as he says. So for sure that kind of information has to be handled with care, but it is quite useful if one makes a wise interpretation.

And, of course.it ignores all those other lens tests that are so critical like distortion, fall off, color, etc.

 

[138S]

And, of course.it ignores all those other lens tests that are so critical like distortion, fall off, color, etc.

and image circle, bokeh...


Anyway this was quite interesting:

Rodenstock APO Sironar S f/5.6 150mm
f/11 54 54 42
f/16 54 54 54
f/22 54 54 48

Rodenstock APO Sironar S f/5.6 150mm
f/11 76 85 43
f/16 76 76 43
f/22 60 60 48

Rodenstock Sironar N f/5.6 150mm
f/11 76 57 27
f/16 76 76 30
f/22 60 60 43


First we learn that we may have a sample to sample variation. But we don't know if this lower performer S was a bit defective unit of if it lost the calibrated shims. Then we learn the effect of f/22... by f/22 good LF lenses are diffraction limited yet, so if we shot that stopped for DOF then the extra performance won't be noticed much (S vs N).

Later we learn that the N may have worse corners than the S until we stop well (important if we plan shift-rise), and finally some N units may be better in the center than some S units. Not absolute truth, but a clue about what we may want to investigate. We know that Sexton tested several Nikon W units until he found top performers, but many of us would not notice the difference, me included.


We also learn that a converted Symmar (single cell) is not that bad.... and that the yellow filter makes no improvement, contrary to some opinions around, being a totally able portrait lens, also able for the field if razor sharp corners are not critical in a mural, which is the most common situation...

Schneider Symmar Convertable f/5.6 150mm single element at 265mm Linhof 449xxxx 1950's

f/16 48 48 23
f/22 48 48 33
f/32 42 42 38 .

Schneider Symmar Convertable f/5.6 150mm single element at 265mm with #15 yellow filter

f/16 48 48 21
f/22 48 48 32
f/32 30 38 33


In my totally honest opinion, there is a lot to learn from that test, but one has to understand well what he reads, considering it complementary information. We cannot judge a N is equal to a S from numbers, the last has an ED glass in the front for good reasons (control of secondary CA, circle) and it belongs to a higher market segment, still the test gives good clues about how to use LF lenses, and what we may expect (for example, peak performance variability !).

 

[5x7shooter]

.

I may be wrong but IIRC, weren't many of those lens tests done by both Thalman and Perez under both their names and didn't Thalman also publish a lot of the results on his own web site? I thought that Thalman was a pretty respected viewer and writer for the late lamented View Camera magazine. Thalman did reference his own engineering background and I would expect that he understood reasonable experimental process and not going beyond the limits of the data. IHTFP