Fujinon 210mm WS image circle.

Dear All,

Quick question. Does anybody know what the image circle of a Fujinon 210mm WS lens is? I recall that there is one Fuji 210mm that covers 8x10, but at the moment cant recall which one it is.

Thanks for any information.

Gary

I have the first one. It covers 8x10. Go to:

http://members.aol.com/subgallery/byseries.htm

The 210mm W [not WS] is listed at 352mm.

There are two Fujinon Lens.

The old ones have lettering inside the filter ring, they are single coated and image circle is 352 mm at f22. I have this one. It covers 8x10 easily.

The new ones have letters outsite of filter ring, they are multicoated, image circle is 330 mm. Covers 8x10 just enought, no movements.

Thanks! For the helpful replies!!

Gary

I have been kicking around the idea of getting an 8x10. For those of you who have this lens, are you happy with it as an 8x10 wide angle?

Also, if you have a point of reference, how does a 210 compare to a 240? Is it significantly wider? Without having any experience with an 8x10 and anything wider than a 300, it always seemed to me that a 240 would be awfully close to a normal lens, while the 210 would be a nice mild wide angle, like a 35 would be for a 35mm camera.

Divide by 2 if you're shooting 4x5. It'll be like a 105mm.

I am thinking about getting an 8x10, and I do know the rules about dividing LF focal lengths to get 35mm equivalents, but I also wonder if people subjectively feel differently about the "equivalent" when working in 8x10. For example, I would fairly regularly use a 24mm in 35mm, and a 35mm in 645 format, but rarely go wider than 125mm in 4x5 unless I am photographing an interior. The wider lenses just feel different to me in 4x5 than in the smaller formats, and I like using them less. I am wondering if the 240 feels wider to people than they thought it would before they actually used it, or if they feel the need to go wider than that if the have a 300.

4x5 and 8x10 are the same shape. 35mm and 645 are much less square. If you don't like going wider then 125mm on 4x5 you'll likely find 210mm too wide. It's like a 105mm on 4x5.

OTOH 5x7 is closer to the 35mm format in shape. Maybe you'd like that better with wider lenses. 8x10 is just bigger then 4x5. Great if you want bigger contact prints.

To more directly answer your question. I have an 120mm to cover 8x10. Not going to say it gets used alot on the 8x10 but when I want to it's there. So 240mm isn't too wide for me. But then I wouldn't find a 125mm too wide on 4x5 either. So that's just me. Best to use your own expierence for a guide.

David:

I recently acquired an older 8x10 myself to see if 8x10 would suit me. I will comment with the caveat I have done one outing with it where I tested the two lenses I own that would potetially cover. I shot both tranny and color neg.

One of my lenses for 4x5 is an 8.25" (210) Gold Dot Dagor. I had doubts, but to my surprise (and joy) this lens actually covered my 8x10 frame with a bit of room to spare -- it actually it covers better than my Nikkor 300 M.

Anyway, in the few images I took with the 210 it felt just like about a 105 on 4x5. I don't actually own a 105, but do regularly use a 90 and 120 on 4x5 and this seemed to fall about half-way between them on the 8x10 frame.

FWIW, that first outing was a joyful experience and more or less hooked me on 8x10. I have already begun the search for a better 8x10 camera and purchased a more 8x10-specific lens.

PS: Be prepared for some sticker shock on holders!

;),

I got a 8x10 a couple of weeks ago, and have slowing been putting the rest of the kit together. I bought a 120mm Nikon last week, and it is very very very wide. But I will probably get a fair amount of use out of it. I use a 72mm and 58mm on 4x5, so I can see the 120mm getting alot of use. But I like wide angles.

Right now I have 120mm, 250mm, 300mm and 450mm for 8x10. I figure that should keep me quite busy for a while.

Regards.

Gary