I found it useful -- I was wondering, if the 105mm won't cover full plate, what shortest Fuji W would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leigh
Printable View
I found it useful -- I was wondering, if the 105mm won't cover full plate, what shortest Fuji W would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leigh
My guess is that the 120 fujinon SW and SW-N would just cover with a reported image circle of 290mm. A bit shorter is the 110mm Super Symmar XL, but that isn't a fujinon lens.
Thanks for the info on this lens... am definitely not interested in it since it doesn't cover Whole Plate.
Greg
My 180mm f/5.6 Fujinon W (single coated) covers Whole Plate just fine. That is the widest lens that I normally use with that format. My 120mm f/8 Fujinon SW also covers, but I don't normally shoot that wide. Not a ton of movement. According to the specs, the 105mm f/8 Fujinons will not cover Whole Plate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huub
Have and use a Fujinon 105mm f/8 with my whole plate camera. First the optic has to be exactly dead center on axis. For images "at infinity", I move the lens forward a tad for the hyperfocal distance. In doing both of these, the lens will barely cover the area on the film within the film guides. The mats for my prints have an openings of 6 x 8 inches, so in the end I am fudging a bit to say the optic does cover whole plate. Since I make digital negatives to print on Platinum/Palladium, I found it easier to just clone information into the corners of the 6.5 x 8.5 inch digital negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Karp
Interesting. Good to know.
As Dan Fromm indicates, it's intended for medium format. Compared to the corresponding Nikon, Schneider, or Rodenstock lenses, it's diagonal is actually 20mm to 30mm larger.
The 105mm f8 SW and NSW were intended to be used on 5x7 and 6x17 camera's if i remember correctly. With a reported image circle of 250mm they have plenty coverage for 4x5 and it is this lens that Greg is talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil poulsen
I'm a bit late to the party, but perhaps there are some stragglers still reading this thread. It is quite different things to try to "make do" with a lens not designed for the purpose and finding one ideally suited to it. None of the lenses mentioned above were really designed to cover 8x10, but the Nikkor SW 120 just makes it at infinity if placed precisely on-axis with no tilt or swing applied. Honestly, that is pretty limiting for any use but some landscape work. For other subjects, especially architecture, you have but two choices: 1. Don't go so wide and make use of some excellent, affordable, and compact lenses, with, say, 80 degrees coverage: The older Fujinon 210-W does amply cover and is still plenty wide, or 2. Spring for and be prepared to haul a lens that is designed for the task, such as the Nikkor-SW 150, Super-Angulon 165, or Grandagon 155. These are symmetrical lenses designed for huge coverage and very low distortion. I know that there is a great deal of enthusiasm on this forum for the Super-Symmar XL 110, but like the Nikkor SW 120 will just barely cover and is in fact a compromise design, trading slightly more distortion for compactness and low weight. It was much less expensive when new than the dedicated 8x10 lenses mentioned above; it was really designed, like the Fuji SW 105/8, for 5x7. I'm sure it is a backpacker's dream.
For the record, I shoot both 4x5 and 8x10 and have the single-coated Fujinon W 180, 210, and 250/6.7, and the G-Claron 305, plus a slew of lenses for 4x5, including the aforementioned Fujinon SW 105/8. It is indeed an outstanding lens, but not for 8x10.