Large Format Lenses recommendation

[Guna Dwi]

It looks like a 4x5/ 5x7 lens kit, probably for a Sinar. I've often seen 360mm plasmats on 4x5 Sinar setups. The 250/6.3 and 600/12 are pretty clear giveaways that it wasn't supposed to stretch to 8x10. I wonder what the percentages of people using the 250/6.3 Fujinon on 8x10 are, compared to the 250/6.7 - not high, I'd hazard a guess.

Yes you're right..it comes with Sinar P2 and Sinar F with a lot of accessories

 

[138S]

Actually I already bought the lot yesterday and thinking to sell few items especially the Tele lens because i wont use that much.

Just a question, what Fujinon 600 is ? The T or the C ?

_______

Congratulations, this is an impressive asset !


The Nikkor T was very valued for the fieldability of the kit, if wanting to carry 3 long focals then quite weight and space were saved, and using a single shutter instead 3 also added exposure consistency, while also saving bellows extension. There are not much convetional choices in those lengths and some people used process lenses instead, like the APO Ronar, obviously commanding longer bellows than the Nikkor kit. The Nikkot T kit also has very good coatings. A "rival" glass is the APO Tele Xenar 800, a massive and ultra expensive/scarce thing, but reportedly it is better, specially in the corners, but in landscape, most of the times, what the corners have is irrelevant, in the top corners we may have sky/clouds and in the bottom corners we may have something near that is not in perfect focus.

Instead Christofer Burkett mounts the APO Tele Xenar 800 in his Calumet C1 to take details, for his kind of photography that glass had an advantage, specially considering that it could follow abig enlargement (with APO Nikkor EL 480 enlarging glass!) to craft museum ilfocrhomes.

 

[Guna Dwi]

Just a question, what Fujinon 600 is ? The T or the C ?

_______

Congratulations, this is an impressive asset !


The Nikkor T was very valued for the fieldability of the kit, if wanting to carry 3 long focals then quite weight and space were saved, and using a single shutter instead 3 also added exposure consistency, while also saving bellows extension. There are not much convetional choices in those lengths and some people used process lenses instead, like the APO Ronar, obviously commanding longer bellows than the Nikkor kit. The Nikkot T kit also has very good coatings. A "rival" glass is the APO Tele Xenar 800, a massive and ultra expensive/scarce thing, but reportedly it is better, specially in the corners, but in landscape, most of the times, what the corners have is irrelevant, in the top corners we may have sky/clouds and in the bottom corners we may have something near that is not in perfect focus.

Instead Christofer Burkett mounts the APO Tele Xenar 800 in his Calumet C1 to take details, for his kind of photography that glass had an advantage, specially considering that it could follow abig enlargement (with APO Nikkor EL 480 enlarging glass!) to craft museum ilfocrhomes.

It's Fujinon T 600/12

Maybe i should give it a try to Nikkor kit before i sell it.do you think all three tele lenses (360, 500 and 800) will work on my Chamonix N2? Which lens that need an extension base?

 

[138S]

the 360 requires 261mm bellows to focus infinite, the 500 requires 350mm, and the 800 requires 527mm, see here the Flange Focal Distance value: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf


The N-2 has these specs (https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras/45n2):

So you can even shot the 500, but to focus very close with it you may require the extension board: https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/extensionboards


With some sort of custom top hat lens board (this one is not for chamonix) you may extent a bit more to even shot the 800mm at infinite:



...it would be something equivalent, but it should take a #3 size shutter.

With the extension board and the top hat lens board perhaps you may be in the limits of the camera, to shot those lenses another camera would be better, perhaps a cheap monorail like a CAMBO SC 4x5 would be quite suitable.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's Fujinon T 600/12

Maybe i should give it a try to Nikkor kit before i sell it.do you think all three tele lenses (360, 500 and 800) will work on my Chamonix N2? Which lens that need an extension base?

It's the weight of the longest lenses & distribution of that weight that may be an issue - fine on a hefty Sinar standard, much more demanding of a field camera at maximum extension - even the remarkably rigid Chamonix. I'd mainly be concerned about the 800.

 

[grat]

I'd want some kind of support for the 800. Chamonix makes a lens support, but only for the 8x10 and up.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I agree with Lachlan. Using heavy lenses at long extensions isn't anywhere near as realistic with a little wooden folder as with a Sinar P, and even then it would be wise to use a double support - something easy to rig with monorails. But a tophat ext board with a long heavy tele is a recipe for miserable amounts of vibration. The Chamonix is a well-made little camera, but it's simply the wrong tool for anything longer than a 400 tele.

 

[BradS]

Lachlan - as you've probably noticed yourself, over on the dedicated LF Forum, the recommendation of the 250/6.7 is so habitually prominent that it's as if the 6.3 version didn't even exist (although it would be versatile for up to 5X7).

The 250/6.3 makes a reasonable portrait lens on 4x5 and is also quite lovely on 5x7 but as you've already noted, it is completely unsuitable for 8x10 - especially if the front standard lacks zero detents!

 

[5x7shooter]

The 250/6.3 makes a reasonable portrait lens on 4x5 and is also quite lovely on 5x7 but as you've already noted, it is completely unsuitable for 8x10 - especially if the front standard lacks zero detents!

I've shot my Fujinon 250mm/6.3 CM-W multicoated lens against the single-coated 250/6.7.W, inside lettering. Both are really good, although the 6.3 CM-W is somewhat "sharper" than the older 6.7, perhaps just a bit more contrasty.. It's probably not enough to make a difference in real life nor enough to justify the much higher price of the CM-W.

 

[Guna Dwi]

the 360 requires 261mm bellows to focus infinite, the 500 requires 350mm, and the 800 requires 527mm, see here the Flange Focal Distance value: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf


The N-2 has these specs (https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras/45n2):

View attachment 255326



So you can even shot the 500, but to focus very close with it you may require the extension board: https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/extensionboards


With some sort of custom top hat lens board (this one is not for chamonix) you may extent a bit more to even shot the 800mm at infinite:

View attachment 255327

...it would be something equivalent, but it should take a #3 size shutter.

With the extension board and the top hat lens board perhaps you may be in the limits of the camera, to shot those lenses another camera would be better, perhaps a cheap monorail like a CAMBO SC 4x5 would be quite suitable.

Thanks i will try the 360 & 500 on my Chamonix
So far i've only tested the Fujinon 210/5.6 and happy with the result


Tmax 400 at f5.6

I should test it one by one and see what i like or need

 

[Guna Dwi]

It's the weight of the longest lenses & distribution of that weight that may be an issue - fine on a hefty Sinar standard, much more demanding of a field camera at maximum extension - even the remarkably rigid Chamonix. I'd mainly be concerned about the 800.

Agreed, i dont think to use the 800 on Chamonix

 

[Guna Dwi]

The 250/6.3 makes a reasonable portrait lens on 4x5 and is also quite lovely on 5x7 but as you've already noted, it is completely unsuitable for 8x10 - especially if the front standard lacks zero detents!

I should compare the 210 and 250 and see what i like better for portrait

 

[Guna Dwi]

I agree with Lachlan. Using heavy lenses at long extensions isn't anywhere near as realistic with a little wooden folder as with a Sinar P, and even then it would be wise to use a double support - something easy to rig with monorails. But a tophat ext board with a long heavy tele is a recipe for miserable amounts of vibration. The Chamonix is a well-made little camera, but it's simply the wrong tool for anything longer than a 400 tele.

Fortunately the lenses comes with Sinar P2 and Sinar F, so i better try it on Sinar than Chamonix.

 

[Guna Dwi]

I've shot my Fujinon 250mm/6.3 CM-W multicoated lens against the single-coated 250/6.7.W, inside lettering. Both are really good, although the 6.3 CM-W is somewhat "sharper" than the older 6.7, perhaps just a bit more contrasty.. It's probably not enough to make a difference in real life nor enough to justify the much higher price of the CM-W.

mine is W 250/6.3
have you try it and make comparison ?

 

[Guna Dwi]

I'd want some kind of support for the 800. Chamonix makes a lens support, but only for the 8x10 and up.

Yeah i know, i wish they make it for 4x5 so i have an option to use big brass lens

 

[grat]

Yeah i know, i wish they make it for 4x5 so i have an option to use big brass lens

I don't think the board the front standard sits on would be sufficient to support such a thing. Although, it could be attached to the base plate with a couple of clamps that fit into the ovals on the front of the base plate, which would allow it to be independent of the focus mechanism.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Guna - Even with the Sinar P, for long lenses you'd ideally want a double rail support unified to a strong bar underneath. Sinar offered one, but it's simple to make your own. I use hardwood and then seal it with marine epoxy. The even more serious problem is the inability of most tripod heads to sufficiently support that kind of weight and potential vibration. That's why I don't use any kind of tripod head, but bolt the whole camera apparatus right to the platform top of a heavy Ries wooden tripod. Making adjustments is easy with a little practice. It's how earlier surveyors routinely did it.
But if you must use a head, the most stable will be the Ries platform head or the Sinar tilting head. Ball heads are the worst. It's hard enough in LF telephotography to deal with wind issues, so any additional vibration due to a weak link in the equipment itself just exacerbates that. You'll soon discover that a lot of weight and mass is involved to do it right.
You should think of the monorails versus the Chamonix in terms of completely different kits, with the monorails far more versatile, yet harder to transport. It's really nice to have both systems.

 

[138S]

I should test it one by one and see what i like or need

Congratulations !!!! you are veru fortunate to own that kit !

I hope you get a lot of fun with it, also it time to make a bet to refine your photography. At all, there is no need to play LF to make great photographs, but for sure LF provides an amazing set of resources that allow amazing things. It has to be said that is a bit addictive.

I feel happy when I see somebody like you going forward in the LF realm !

 

[5x7shooter]

mine is W 250/6.3
have you try it and make comparison ?

I have a 210 Fujonon/5.6 NWS, the series immediately before the CM-W ones. This lens should be quite comparable to a 250mm/6.3 W lens, they're the same design. The 210mm NWS is as sharp as the later 250mm CM-W. The CM-W line has very slightly more coverage, officially about 8mm larger image circle. Both are multicoated. I don't see any significant difference between the later W and the CM-W lenses. The earliest 250mm/6.7 (inside writing) was single-coated but that doesn't seem to make any real difference. It's also a excellent lens, and with lots more coverage.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have the Fujinon 210 f/5.6 and the Fujinon 250 f/6.3. I have had the 210 lens for 12-15 years, the 250 for about 4 years. Slowly I have moved my portraiture over to the 250 lens as it just has slightly better out of focus areas and the person stands out from the background more than the 210 lens.

Both the 210 and 250 are really good at portraiture, I now only use the 210 when I am really tight with room, or it is a couple, or small group portrait setting.

You have some wonderful glass there, keep them for a few years to learn what each can do for you before discarding any, if you can.

Mick.

 

[Guna Dwi]

Guna - Even with the Sinar P, for long lenses you'd ideally want a double rail support unified to a strong bar underneath. Sinar offered one, but it's simple to make your own. I use hardwood and then seal it with marine epoxy. The even more serious problem is the inability of most tripod heads to sufficiently support that kind of weight and potential vibration. That's why I don't use any kind of tripod head, but bolt the whole camera apparatus right to the platform top of a heavy Ries wooden tripod. Making adjustments is easy with a little practice. It's how earlier surveyors routinely did it.
But if you must use a head, the most stable will be the Ries platform head or the Sinar tilting head. Ball heads are the worst. It's hard enough in LF telephotography to deal with wind issues, so any additional vibration due to a weak link in the equipment itself just exacerbates that. You'll soon discover that a lot of weight and mass is involved to do it right.
You should think of the monorails versus the Chamonix in terms of completely different kits, with the monorails far more versatile, yet harder to transport. It's really nice to have both systems.

Sounds complicated, i think i will test the 360 and 500 instead of 800. it should be no need extension board right on Chamonix?
Yeah, im plannig to keep Sinar P2 and will sell the Sinar F. so i have both systems, monorail and field camera.

 

[Guna Dwi]

Congratulations !!!! you are veru fortunate to own that kit !

I hope you get a lot of fun with it, also it time to make a bet to refine your photography. At all, there is no need to play LF to make great photographs, but for sure LF provides an amazing set of resources that allow amazing things. It has to be said that is a bit addictive.

I feel happy when I see somebody like you going forward in the LF realm !

Thanks a lot for your advice and support.!
Im looking forward for this addiction

 

[Guna Dwi]

I have a 210 Fujonon/5.6 NWS, the series immediately before the CM-W ones. This lens should be quite comparable to a 250mm/6.3 W lens, they're the same design. The 210mm NWS is as sharp as the later 250mm CM-W. The CM-W line has very slightly more coverage, officially about 8mm larger image circle. Both are multicoated. I don't see any significant difference between the later W and the CM-W lenses. The earliest 250mm/6.7 (inside writing) was single-coated but that doesn't seem to make any real difference. It's also a excellent lens, and with lots more coverage.

Okay, im still comparing 210 with 250 and see which one suits my need better

 

[Guna Dwi]

I have the Fujinon 210 f/5.6 and the Fujinon 250 f/6.3. I have had the 210 lens for 12-15 years, the 250 for about 4 years. Slowly I have moved my portraiture over to the 250 lens as it just has slightly better out of focus areas and the person stands out from the background more than the 210 lens.

Both the 210 and 250 are really good at portraiture, I now only use the 210 when I am really tight with room, or it is a couple, or small group portrait setting.

You have some wonderful glass there, keep them for a few years to learn what each can do for you before discarding any, if you can.

Mick.

Thanks for the insight, that's makes sense. yes i think 250 is better for one person portraiture
i just tested yesterday, and will see the result later.

 

[Guna Dwi]

I don't think the board the front standard sits on would be sufficient to support such a thing. Although, it could be attached to the base plate with a couple of clamps that fit into the ovals on the front of the base plate, which would allow it to be independent of the focus mechanism.

I see, i've seen one like that.