I have opportunity to buy this lens for 350$. But I don’t know nothing about it. The lens is in perfect condition :-) Could you give me some information about this Fujinon. I need the lens for 8x10 work.
Attachment 173287
Printable View
I have opportunity to buy this lens for 350$. But I don’t know nothing about it. The lens is in perfect condition :-) Could you give me some information about this Fujinon. I need the lens for 8x10 work.
Attachment 173287
Michal,Quote:
Originally Posted by Michal Makowski
I have a newer version of this lens. I think the only difference is this is a single coated lens, while mine is multi coated. It covers 8x10 easily with room for substantial movements.
I have several Fujinon lenses. They are all excellent.
The lens might be in perfect condition but that is an older shutter. What condition is it in? Considering it’s age it might need a CLA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michal Makowski
Glass is great, shutter seems to be ok but I will do CLA anyway if I buy it. What about image quality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Salomon
From one picture, it looks in good shape, and the shutter is easy to test. As to pricing, I have no idea, but that is easy to check as well. For details on all of Fuji's LF lenses and their FIFTEEN 300mm lenses check out:
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/
I have shorter focal length versions of that lens. I own several other Fujinons and have yet to use a Fujinon lens that I did not like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michal Makowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Becia
I'll add to what Jim has said and I'll also add that the version you are considering (lettering inside rim) was Fujinon's general purpose plasmat but had additional IC (80 degrees) then the competitors general purpose plasmats as well as Fujinon's later general purpose plasmat (lettering on outer barrel) all of which had around 70-72 degrees
Here's a link to mid 1970's Fijinon large format lens catalog which has the specs for the version your inquiring about .https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00886/00886.pdf
BTW-I have no idea if the asking price of $350 is to high by market value but I will say a 300mm plasmat w/ IC of 80 degrees from other manufacturer would cost you what this lens was offered to you for + at least $2000 more.
Really???? ! 300 general-purpose plasmats are common, although I can't tell from the posted picture whether or not it even is a plasmat or a Fuji L tessar. The 3S shutter itself is coveted by some if in good shape. It is a realistic price.
Drew, in this case, it is the W (plasmat) lens which is in a copal 3 shutter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
I also have the newer version. I paid $500 about ten years ago.
Thanks. Fine lenses, either way.
Thank You all for your comments and help. I decided to buy that Fujinon. But the seller have one more lens to sell which is even greater mystery than Fujinon.
Learn to use the forum's resources. In particular, http://www.largeformatphotography.in...mainly)-lenses has a link to an article about Ilex lenses. They're not mysteries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michal Makowski
Dear Dan,Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
Yeap there are not mysteries but in resources quoted by you there are lots of information about old Ilex lenses and shutters :-(
One thing to possibly consider is size and weight. Since a National Park is in your "name", you might want to consider size and weight. Because I do a lot of hiking, I chose the incredibly small and light Fujinon C 300mm f8.5. Yes, it is a stop slower, but it might work for your purposes -- it covers 8x10. It is undoubtedly harder to find and probably more expensive, but it might "fit your bill". But I'm assuming that 8x10 users don't consider weight or size to be obstacles/considerations -- I'm a mere 4x5 shooter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michal Makowski
Good choice and a very reasonable price. In this postQuote:
Originally Posted by Michal Makowski
I reported on a comparison test that showed (for my samples, at least) it outperformed a pristine multicoated 300mm f/9 Fujinon A and was only bested by an extraordinary 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W. Also note that your lens' shutter has ten blades forming a very round aperture, which could be of benefit if you don't stop down far enough to avoid out-of-focus areas in your images.
Thank You Sal! You make my day :-). Currently I'm using only B&W negatives so I don't bother about single coating, sometimes less is more. I'm not a big fan of very contrasty images.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura
I seriously doubt any lens test that puts a Fujinon A behind a general-purpose plasmat of similar vintage. I also shoot Fuji C's and Nikkor M's which are exceptionally crisp, but with less coverage respective to focal length. G-Clarons are similar. Where this really becomes evident is when using roll film backs and greater magnification printing. Ironically, what I'd like to add is a Fuji L for its subtler edge rendition and background blur with 8X10 film.
You expressed those doubts in the thread I linked to. In that thread, I spent a lot of time responding to your arm waving and deflections. Even though you're repeating the injection of doubt in this thread, I'll not repeat all the refutations I posted in that thread. I suggest anyone interested follow the link I posted here in #17 and read for themselves what transpired after that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
This would not be the first time that I have read that the early, inside-letter, Fujinon-W lenses best other similar lenses in sharpness to a degree that seems incredible. It's one reason, along with their exceptional image circles, that I bought four of them.
Maybe, someday, this forum will get to the point where we can actually see this sort of thing happening. I certainly hope not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura
Yes, just after I posted, I noted you were actually implying something similar. Tolike Sharpness is almost a non-issue with modern LF lenses. Portability, coverage, and price seem more relevant. I did notice a visible improvement in my big Cibachromes back when I switched from Symmar S to Fuji lenses; but right now I'm sitting beside a 30X40" print from the Symmar and old Ektachrome 64 days that looks darn crisp to most people. Just about every flavor in the ice cream store tastes good.
RIGHT: The only two references regarding similarity are Nikkor-M and Fujinon-L because those are both Tessar designs. The others are not of the same design. Plasmats, such as the G-Claron and Fujinon-A are better comparisons. The Fujinon-C are another design altogether, being a 4-4 design. Of course, these can all be 'tweaked' for better close or far applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
I’m building my 8x10 setup for contact printing so I’m free of your concerns about sharpness of enlarged image. We have to remember that final output – enlargement also depends on: enlarger lens, enlarger alignment etc. Camera lens could be out of our planet but that's not help if we will be using bad enlarging lens , IMHO they should be at least the same quality. Sometimes for many of us technical aspects become more important than making images ��
The Fuji W 300mm/5.6 will serve you well. It was my only 8x10 for many years. I have always contact printed. Nice and bright when focusing in the darker parts of the forest.
As said before Fujinon are great and generally well priced lenses - coated, modern shutters etc. The W lens are heavier and faster, I’m more partial to the A and C series which are lighter and smaller.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
W, NW, & CMW represent a minor evolution of general-purpose plasmats, large aperture and consequently heavy in longer focal length. The A series was deluxe grade with superior close-range correction (but also excellent at infinity). C stands for compact 4 air-spaced elements; very portable but not very good approaching macro (infinity optimized). L was the thick-element single-coated tessar series prized by portrait photographers. There was also a T telephotobseries. They made only a few enlarging lenses, purported to be quite good. But Fuji and Nikon did not market their LF lenses in the US as aggressively as Schneider and Rodenstock, even though they were just as good, maybe better in instances.