Opinion about Fujinon

[mdarnton]

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.

[xkaes]

...I spent a lot of time responding to your arm waving...

Maybe, someday, this forum will get to the point where we can actually see this sort of thing happening. I certainly hope not.

[Drew Wiley]

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.

[consummate_fritterer]

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.

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.

[Michal Makowski]

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 ��

[Vaughn]

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.

[angusparker]

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

[Drew Wiley]

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.