Any Real Reason To Favor One Particular Lens Line?

[djdister]

If you restrict your thinking to any single line of lens maker you will miss out on the many special characteristics of lenses that don't have direct comparisons from other makers. A Wollensak Verito is not exactly the same as a Kodak Portrait lens, and somehow I have both of them. I also have Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji and Nikkor. When it comes to the supply and demand for these LF lenses, it would be shortsighted to get hung up on a single line. Try one, try many, but get started and don't overthink it...

And, if you want to compare and debate MTF curves, well, you've come to the right place!

[Sal Santamaura]

Only reason I prefer the Fuji CM-W line is that in the focal lengths I prefer they all use a 67mm filter so I only have a single set to take along.

Additionally, while many seem to complain about that size, it is in reality a significant advantage with the shorter focal lengths if one regularly uses filters. Other brands tended to make their front cells' filter threads as small as possible in the interest of compactness. Then, if one employs movements to any degree, vignetting from filters becomes problematic. I've never run out of unimpeded image circle with a shorter CM Fujinon W that has a 67mm filter attached. Good design decision.

[xkaes]

I don't have a problem with the CM-W 67mm standardized filter size -- but they could only do that for lenses under 300mm. But the reason I don't have a problem is that my standard filter is 77mm. So I have to get step-up rings for all my lenses, anyway -- except one, maybe two.

If someone uses 67mm as a standard, the CM-W lenses work great, but not everyone uses that as a standard.

My beef is with Fuji's approach. Instead of placing the filter ring relatively close to the glass, they put it far out. Fuji probably thought, "free lens shade", but for me it just makes the lens much larger than it needs to be. In my case I sold my TINY NW 105mm f5.6 for the CM-W 105mm f5.6 due to its SLIGHTLY larger image circle -- but its almost twice the size of it's NW predecessor (which has a 46mm filter thread), thanks to its elongated, 67mm cone.

So the "67mm almost"-standard is great for the 67mm users, but for everyone else it means either step-up or step-down rings.

It doesn't work for everyone -- and like I said before, the filter thread, and other features, are what you should consider in a lens purchase, not the brand name.

[Mark J]

Good points. Because I use a lot of 67mm for slightly smaller lenses ( and 49-67 step-up rings ) I've avoided buying a Symmar-S 210mm because it's out of step with many other similar lenses, in having a 77mm filter.

[Drew Wiley]

That's one of the reasons I eventually sold off my 210 Symmar S (it had seen some pretty hard use anyway). I do own even bigger filter sets, including 82mm. But for travel and backpacking, I standardize on either 67mm or 52mm, depending on the lens set I have along (plus reduction step rings as needed).

And for that tighter range of portability using petite 52mm filters, the Fuji CMW design is counterintuitive. Even a tiny 105 has a big odd funnel front end for sake of 67mm filters. Makes no sense to me. My 125 NW is plenty good, and uses 52mm. Little Fuji A lenses are better corrected than general-purpose plasmats anyway; and compact "C" Fuji lenses are top-end too except for extreme close-ups. The Nikon 200M is tiny compared to the old Symmar S 210, and superb unless you need an especially generous image circle.

I'm not adverse to heavier gear. I'm just older now. Numerous times I've hacked my way up 13,000 foot ice pitches wearing an 85 lb pack, with a full Sinar kit in it, including the 210 Symmar S plus a brick-weight 120 Super Angulon replete with CF and an 82 mm filter set - PLUS ten days of camping gear and supplies, rope, Gitzo metal tripod etc. But them days is long over, and I'm glad I downsized a lot the photo gear. I still have and use the Sinar system, plus a full 8X10 kit, but sure as heck don't backpack or climb with it anymore. Studio or road usage is a whole other topic, and maybe there the last generation Fuji CMW's do make sense.

[xkaes]

It can be crazy. I've got a Vivitar 20mm lens with a ridiculously large 82mm filter thread, and a Vivitar 19mm lens with a ridiculously small 62mm filter thread. Go figure. I use a step-up ring on one, and a step down ring on the other. LF isn't the only place with filter threads all over the place -- but it sure does "take the cake".

[Alan Klein]

It can be crazy. I've got a Vivitar 20mm lens with a ridiculously large 82mm filter thread, and a Vivitar 19mm lens with a ridiculously small 62mm filter thread. Go figure. I use a step-up ring on one, and a step down ring on the other. LF isn't the only place with filter threads all over the place -- but it sure does "take the cake".

Don't you vignette with the step-up?

[xkaes]

Don't you vignette with the step-up?

Step-up rings rarely cause vignetting, but it's easy to test.

The more likely vignette problem is with step-DOWN rings. On my Vivitar 20mm with an 82mm filter thread, the answer is NO lens vignetting with a step-down ring to 77mm -- and on other lenses as well. Of course the step-down ring needs to be tested and it decreases the number of filters that you can pile on, but it varies from lens to lens. Many lenses have a very wide ring around the front of the lens -- for the brand name, focal length, f-stop, serial #, etc. In these cases, especially with long lenses, vignetting is not an issue. I have a Vivitar 120-600mm f5.6/8.0 with an 82mm filter thread -- a step-down ring to 77mm works fine because of the wide front ring. Same thing would work on the Tamron 200-500mm lenses, and many others too.

TEST, TEST, TEST. Very easy with any step-up or -down ring. BUT, with LF, you have to add in any expected movement of the lens.

[Mal Paso]

I think it was in the '70s AA proposed that gelatin filters behind the lens degraded image quality less than glass filters in front of the lens. The only glass filters I use are polarizers.

Caltar lenses can be a very good value. I have a 210mm Sironar and a 115mm Grandagon purchased for less under the Caltar II N label rather than Rodenstock.

[Drew Wiley]

Filters behind the lens, even gels, are a no-no unless the lens has been specially designed with that in mind. It's an utter myth that rear-mounted gels are going to give sharper images than modern coated glass filters mounted in front of the lens. Just the opposite. Gels smudge and crinkle and attract dirt and grit easily; and rear mounting is generally a bad idea. Yes, uncoated glass filters, perhaps routine back in Ansel's Day, do attract condensation and need cleaning way way more often than coated and multicoated glass ones.

In terms of position, graphics process lenses were designed for gel filter placement at the nodal point between the two cells, and often came with a slot to accept those along with optional Waterhouse stops. However, I get superb result with front mounted glass ones. Some truly big telephoto lenses have a built-in rotating contrast filter set installed at a specific internal position. But any lens actually optically engineered for rear-mounted filters would be a rarity.

Have you ever seen some of AA's classic 8x10 shots blown up more than a 3X enlargement? Well, I've seen a lot of those, and nearly all of them are quite unsharp by modern standards.