Fujinon W f6.5 360mm vs Nikkor W f6.5 360mm

[Luis-F-S]

Silver ring shutters are just fine.

+1!!!

[xkaes]

I am using an older Fuji W 360/6.3 (inside lettering if it makes a difference) for 8x10 and 11x14 (carefully and closed down significantly). I do not believe there is a great bit of difference between mine and the more recent CM-W as far as design and coverage.

The 360mm W and CM-W have the same image circle and filter thread size. The CM-W is SLIGHTLY slower (f6.5 vs f6.3). They both have six elements, but the CM-W has a full air-space design -- whether that makes for significantly improved results????? At least you won't have to worry about balsam separation!

[Sweep]

Thanks guys. When you see things listed that are apparently the same quality but at considerably different prices I have to ask the question, why?
My comment about the silver shutter ring was half tongue-in-cheek but I also thought it might be a indicator of age. For some reason I got it in my head that the black shutter rings were newer

[karl french]

Yes, the silver ring Copal 3 shutters are older. The Fuji lenses weren't marketed that strongly in the US and the Nikon name has the cachet. Thus the price difference. Both are fine lenses. I have both Fuji and Nikon large format lenses in my collection.

[xkaes]

Newer shutters are more likely to be black. That is true for most lens companies. Does that make them better? That depends on their history/use -- which with a used lens you can only guess about. The newer Fuji 360mm is a 6/6 air-spaced lens. I can't speak about the Nikon. Others will. Why would Fuji move to an air-spaced design -- as they did with MOST of their lenses -- if they didn't think it helped? Remember, they were competing against Nikon, Schneider, and Rodenstock.

[Pere Casals]

Newer shutters are more likely to be black. That is true for most lens companies. Does that make them better? That depends on their history/use -- which with a used lens you can only guess about. The newer Fuji 360mm is a 6/6 air-spaced lens. I can't speak about the Nikon. Others will. Why would Fuji move to an air-spaced design -- as they did with MOST of their lenses -- if they didn't think it helped? Remember, they were competing against Nikon, Schneider, and Rodenstock.

Air spacing is good for designing corrections as it gives more freedom to the designer, but it is bad for flare as we have more air-glass surfaces bouncing photons back and forth and producing flare, etc

At the time, Fuji delayed a lot their multicoating EBC system, Electron Beam Coating was hard to put in production, but it allowed coatings of "11 layers" and using ZrO2, that had a too high melting point (2700ºC) for the by then regular filament coating systems.

This is the history I was told...

I don't how much time that advantage was mantained or if it was a superior coating system compared to the other 3, but it is clear that Fuji then made extensive advertisement of his "best" coating.

That success (since last 70s) allowed them to push new designs with more air gaps and still mantaining good contrast and flat spectral response.

It is also clear that Nikon also had excellent coating technology in the 80s, this is made clear with their 35mm pro zooms incorporating a lot of groups.

[David Karp]

It is true that Fujinons often cost less than comparable lenses from the other three major manufacturers of modern lenses. They did not have a U.S. distributor for many years. A few stores imported them directly. Midwest Photo Exchange used to import used lenses into the U.S.A. from Japan. There is no quality penalty from using Fujinons. They are often available at very reasonable prices for a great lens. Sometimes, particular examples of Fujinon lenses are highly sought after and very expensive. An example is the 360mm version of the A series.

As for shutters, the jagged edged silver ring Copal shutters on my single coated 180mm and 250mm Fujinon W lenses seem more robust than the more modern ones. That may be my imagination, but they work fine, for sure. When I tested all of my lenses for speed, they were all over the place. Some black rimmed shutters were less accurate than the older silver ring shutters. Some black rimmed shutters were pretty accurate too. Xkaes is right. You never know how hard a used lens was used. And the specs allow for pretty wide variation. That is why I said silver ring shutters are fine. Unless there is an obvious problem with a shutter, which you can't evaluate unless you can operate it and perhaps even test it for speed, let someone else pay extra for a black shutter. I would rather save money and put it toward film or another lens in the future.

[xkaes]

To add to this, much depends on your subjects. Shutters tend to be less accurate at higher speeds. I really can't remember a time when I used a shutter speed faster than 1/30. And at that speed -- or lower -- my ear will tell me if the shutter is off because I pay attention to it. Usually, I am counting seconds, on T, so if there is a problem it is with me (too much cheap wine) and not the shutter!

[Alan Gales]

I am using an older Fuji W 360/6.3 (inside lettering if it makes a difference) for 8x10 and 11x14 (carefully and closed down significantly). I do not believe there is a great bit of difference between mine and the more recent CM-W as far as design and coverage.

Vaughn, I think that all the earlier inside lettering Fuji lenses were single coated and all the later outside lettering lenses were multicoated.

I own the same Fuji 250mm f/6.7 (inside lettering) lens as you and also a Fuji 180mm (inside lettering) lens. Both of mine are single coated.

[xkaes]

Vaughn, I think that all the earlier inside lettering Fuji lenses were single coated and all the later outside lettering lenses were multicoated.

Almost, but not quite. Some EBC coated lenses were marked INSIDE the filter ring:

www.subclub.org/fujinon/