Fujinon 105 f/8 rear barrel diameters

[Mark J]

I was just looking for info on the subject of rear barrel diameter on these wide angles but drew a blank.
I think I could have found this on the 'Cameraeccentric' website database, but it seems to be down - hopefully not permanently.
I think I have hard-copy at work.... but anyway.

The older Fuji 105mm f/8 SW in Seiko has 70mm OD which is good re. my ( modified ) Gandolfi which is machined to accept 70.

Did the later 'N' lenses with Copal with the 6/6 element/group construction have a larger rear barrel, or the same ?

The otherwise excellent xkaes Fuji database doesn't have a column for this parameter, unfortunately.

[Dan Fromm]

Whenever a site is unavailable, look on archive.org

http://web.archive.org/web/201701231...fujinon_1.html

[xkaes]

The rear outer diameter for the NSW 105mm f8 is 75mm. You should be able to attach the rear element through the rear standard without too much trouble.

[Mark J]

Thanks both. I had a look at this a few weeks ago, I think, I couldn't remember the difference.

[Mark J]

Actually the later catalogues were not on Camera Eccentric, in the end.
However there's one on Kerry Thalmann's pages -
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/mar-1997.htm

[rfesk]

Therefore, to be clear, the NSW 106mm f8 lens with the 75mm outer diameter will require the rear lens element group to be unscrewed from the shutter and reattached through the back of the camera after the front group/lensboard has been mounted on the camera.

Some people do that - I personally would select another lens to use.

[xkaes]

Therefore, to be clear, the NSW 106mm f8 lens with the 75mm outer diameter will require the rear lens element group to be unscrewed from the shutter and reattached through the back of the camera after the front group/lensboard has been mounted on the camera.

Some people do that - I personally would select another lens to use.

The earlier SW 105mm solves that rear element "problem", but whether it's the SW 105mm or the NSW 105mm it's a big, heavy sucker. That's why I use the CM-W 105mm f5.6. It's light & tiny in comparison, and is a full f-stop faster & brighter. But if you need a lot of movement, or are using a format larger than 4x5", the CM-W 105mm is NOT an option.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

[Mark J]

Yes, this is for me a super-wide for 5 x 7". I think I'm inclining towards trying a good example of the earlier lens first. I had thought about the rear-barrel removal/refit before, it's do-able, but adds to the set-up time, which is not negligible for the camera overall. The weather is so fickle in the UK that an extra 30sec can mean a lost image.
The later one has better coatings, but it also has 4 more air-glass surfaces. Flare, shooting into the light is something i want to minimise, but i don't think these constructions are much flare-prone ..... Unless anyone has hands-on experience with the earlier lens ? Are the 1970's Seiko shutters pretty reliable ?

[xkaes]

Are the 1970's Seiko shutters pretty reliable ?

That sounds like a good topic all its own -- and probably has been discussed many times. I haven't had any trouble with mine, but I only have one -- not exactly an ample sample size.

[Mark J]

Ok, thanks, I'll have a quick search.
It's slightly too late to go back on that, since I just bought a near-Mint example of the 'SW' on EBay !
I think I can test the shutter speeds at work.
The final part that swung me was that the earlier lens weight 405g, the newer 'N' lens if 570g.