Fujinon CM/W 450mm f8

[Drew Wiley]

The published circle for the 450 C is 486 mm at f/22 at infinity. That's huge; and most 8x10 shooters tend to use even smaller stops providing a much bigger circle still. And don't throw in a diffraction argument. Even a 30X40 print is only about a 4X enlargement from 8x10 film; so the effect of diffraction would be almost undetectable until clear down to f/64 or so, and even then basic depth of field management is a far bigger concern.

The rated image circle for the 450 CMW is about the same as for the 360A, around 504mm, so only slightly bigger than the 450 at f/22. But since the
C (compact) design is so thin, there's little risk of mechanical vignetting with strong tilts or swings, so by the time you're down to f/45, the effective image circle is actually bigger than most plasmats of the same focal length. Gosh, this is one of my most often used view lenses, and I know its character darn well.

[ic-racer]

Not nessecarily looking for large image circle, but do need good edge to edge sharpness.

The institution where I work has a few Massimo Vitali prints in 20x24. I walk by them almost every day on the way to my office. I'm nearsighted so I examine them (and my own large prints) up close.

I see this every day but it detail always draws me in.

[xkaes]

Not nessecarily looking for large image circle, but do need good edge to edge sharpness.

I see this every day but it detail always draws me in.

I use a Fujinon CM-W 105mm f5.6, so I know something about the importance of edge sharpness. Without any movement, I'm always just a few millimeters from complete darkness at f22.

Edge sharpness only becomes an issue if you are approaching the edge. With 8x10" film and any Fujinon 420mm/450mm lens, the edge of the IC is eight inches away from the corner of the film. That a lot of wiggle room before getting "close to the edge".

As to that picture, the only thing it tells me is that I should have gone into Oncological Dermatology.

[Sal Santamaura]

...It’s intriguing that your experience is so different.

Apparently it's a result of my using large movements where others don't. The image I attached is one that the 450 CM-W was purchased to make after previous inadequate attempts using the 450C.

The published circle for the 450 C is 486 mm at f/22 at infinity...The rated image circle for the 450 CMW is about the same as for the 360A, around 504mm, so only slightly bigger than the 450 at f/22...

As can be seen in the OP's first post's attachment, the 450 CM-W's rated image circle is 520mm, not 504mm. That's 1-1/3 inches larger than the 450 C's. And, unlike the 450C, the 450 CM-W maintains its high performance right to the edge of that 520mm, while the 450C goes mushy well before its specified 486mm. At both f/22 and f/45. My attached 450 CM-W image above was exposed at f/45 for depth of field reasons.

Not nessecarily looking for large image circle, but do need good edge to edge sharpness...

If you'd mentioned that in your original post I wouldn't have chimed in so as to avoid the inevitable attacks.

...Edge sharpness only becomes an issue if you are approaching the edge. With 8x10" film and any Fujinon 420mm/450mm lens, the edge of the IC is eight inches away from the corner of the film. That a lot of wiggle room before getting "close to the edge"...

Even assuming the largest specified image circle among those, the 450 CM-W's 520mm, you're off by a factor of two. With a sheet of 8x10 film centered, its corner is four inches, not eight, away from the edge.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm well aware that Fuji's top end plasmats like the A series and probably the CMW's too have exceptional tangential ray performance. This is evident in extreme tilts as one approaches the limit of the image circle. But the C series is pretty darn good too. And you do have a massive image circle with a 450C, especially at typical working apertures of f/32 to f/64. Like I already said, I'm surrounded right here, right now, by several framed 30X40 color prints which involved that very lens along with significant front tilt, where the naked eye simply can't detect any corner detail loss, not even nose up. And that is a routine expectation from that lens if thoughtfully used. Stopped down below f/22, it actually has a bigger usable image circle than my 360A, which has quite a surplus of its own on 8x10 format. Gosh - we're debating the degree of sheer overkill here between several lenses with very generous image circles, not marginal movement ability like a 300 Nikkor M on 8X10, for example.

Your whole statement that a 450C goes "mushy" well before its specified 486mm doesn't make a lick of sense to anyone using these specific lenses except apparently yourself. Are you only thinking about how the corners appear when you're focussing wide open, or the actual performance stopped down?

Don't get worked up over this, Sal. You certainly have good taste in lenses. But I can't figure out this one. Here I am, often making prints on polyester media which can hold as much detail as film, using the highest quality apo enlarging lenses, and getting immaculately detailed prints up to 30X40 inches, while you're complaining about corners in a modest sized inkjet print - a medium inherently incapable of high detail. I can't figure that out, and find it impossible to blame the lens. Fuji's quality control was superb, and the C series were among their latest, just like the CMW series.

[Sal Santamaura]

...you do have a massive image circle with a 450C, especially at typical working apertures of f/32 to f/64...Your whole statement that a 450C goes "mushy" well before its specified 486mm doesn't make a lick of sense to anyone using these specific lenses except apparently yourself. Are you only thinking about how the corners appear when you're focussing wide open, or the actual performance stopped down?

My earlier attempts at the scene attached above with a 450 C were exposed at f/45, just like the successful one with the 450 CM-W. An image circle of 486mm is less "massive" than one of 520mm. And I stand by my characterization of the 450 C's performance near the edge of its specified circle. I'll not go to the effort of trying to locate it within PHOTRIO's multiply-updated, and therefore very challenging to search, database, but admit to plagiarizing the "mush" description from someone else's post about the 450 C there years ago. It was too spot on not to use.

...I'm surrounded right here, right now, by several framed 30X40 color prints which involved that very lens along with significant front tilt, where the naked eye simply can't detect any corner detail loss, not even nose up...Here I am, often making prints on polyester media which can hold as much detail as film...

"Significant front tilt" does not provide any specificity about how much of the specified image circle was used to expose film. As for those prints, one can only imagine how much of their detail is obscured by glare from their garishly shiny surfaces.

...Don't get worked up over this, Sal...

I never get worked up over my factual posts being disparaged. Rather, I calmly refute the attacks with more facts.

...you're complaining about corners in a modest sized inkjet print - a medium inherently incapable of high detail. I can't figure that out...

Once again failing to read what I posted and continuing to disparage inkjet printing. I never complained about corners in an inkjet print. My earlier attempts at the above Mather Point scene using a 450 C were never printed. Inspecting the negatives on a light box revealed the lens' limitation and no further effort was expended on that film. The inkjet print I made from the 450 CM-W, which by the way is superbly sharp, was not the basis of my recommendation to the OP that he wouldn't be disappointed with 450 CM-W images at 20x24. The advice was given based on using a loupe to examine the 450 CM-W negative. Can we finally stop getting worked up over inkjet's dominance of printing, especially color printing?

[Drew Wiley]

The proof is in the pudding, Sal. It has nothing to do with whether you like or dislike full sheen prints like Ciba or Fujiflex - just the fact that these can hold more sheer detail than any kind of paper surface, and that this detail holds up in my prints clear out to the very corners, based on the 450C lens, along with optimization such as adhesive film holders and precise vacuum easels, ideal enlarging lenses, etc. While you're fishing around trying to locate some data base supporting your opinion amidst Photrio and its piles of unsubstantiated beginner rumors, of all places, I've got hundreds of actual prints taken with this lens saying something else entirely (including big Fuji chromogenic prints of various surface sheens, and lots of FB b&w prints too - in that case up to 20X24's - and not just the shiny Ciba and Fuji Supergloss ones).

You might look into a new lens cloth for that light box loupe of yours, if that is what you are basing all this on! Now we can finally change the subject and debate loupes and lens cloths instead.

[xkaes]

Even assuming the largest specified image circle among those, the 450 CM-W's 520mm, you're off by a factor of two. With a sheet of 8x10 film centered, its corner is four inches, not eight, away from the edge.

I forgot to divide by two, but that's still a lot of shift room. Maybe I've just never needed anything close to that magnitude, but if you do, you do. I have a Fujinon 300mm C f8.5 and never run into any problems with edge sharpness, but I don't tend to use much shift movement with longer lenses -- if anything it's tilt/swing, which is never a problem due to its nature.

It sure is a hunk-o-glass -- and image circle!

[Sal Santamaura]

...It has nothing to do with whether you like or dislike full sheen prints like Ciba or Fujiflex - just the fact that these can hold more sheer detail than any kind of paper surface...

You're so easy to get worked up. That had nothing to do with lenses.

...this detail holds up in my prints clear out to the very corners, based on the 450C lens,...

Absent hard data on how much of the 450 C's specified image circle was used to make the originals, that the prints are sharp "out to the very corners" reveals much about your enlarging system, but nothing about the lens.

...along with optimization such as adhesive film holders...

We've been through this nonsense several years ago when you disparaged my confirmation of Lenny Eiger's assessment of the 300mm f/5.6 Nikkor W. In this instance too, the most rigid 8x10 black and white film was used, in depth-checked holders, with the back vertical, for both the 450 C and 450 CM-W versions of the image I attached above.

...you're fishing around trying to locate some data base supporting your opinion amidst Photrio and its piles of unsubstantiated beginner rumors, of all places...

My reference to that PHOTRIO post (yet another thing you denigrate to boost your "credibility") had nothing to do with supporting my factual first-hand assessment. It was simply to acknowledge that "goes to mush" near the edge of the 450 C's specified image circle was a phrase someone else had used in the past.

...You might look into a new lens cloth for that light box loupe of yours, if that is what you are basing all this on! Now we can finally change the subject and debate loupes and lens cloths instead.

That degrades this thread beyond any further potential value. You always insist on having the last word. Go for it. I'll not post again. Caveat Lector.

[Drew Wiley]

The point is, Sal, you're winging it - you have no facts whatsoever, and what you do state flies in the face of the sheer weight of real experience by many others using this coveted C lens. Note what Xkaes just said - he's getting ample 8X10 coverage with a mere 300 C; and the image circle of the 450 C is way way bigger than what that has. Some people even use this lens for moderate ULF applications. This certainly isn't the first thread on this forum concerning this lens; it has a well-established reputation.

Did you use a vacuum or adhesive film holder in the first place? If not, you began with a weak link in terms of any objective proof on the film itself. I'm not saying that's necessary for every kind of image - but in terms of evaluating lens corner performance, it is. Anyway, good day, and enjoy your 450 CMW, which is no doubt also a superb lens if one can put up with its greater weight.