Fujinon 1200mm F24 Lens Found!!!

[Drew Wiley]

Film flatness issues can be cured with either an adhesive or vacuum holder. No big deal. As far as diffraction goes, the alleged degredation of f/32 on even 4x5 is hardly even detectable in a 30x40 inch print. Depth of field would be a far bigger issue with a 1200mm lens.

[anton orlov]

Film flatness issues can be cured with either an adhesive or vacuum holder. No big deal. As far as diffraction goes, the alleged degredation of f/32 on even 4x5 is hardly even detectable in a 30x40 inch print. Depth of field would be a far bigger issue with a 1200mm lens.

Haha, I guess that's why they marked apertures down to 128 (as someone said before, not 90 like they were going to) AND it moves much farther down, looks like enough room to go to 256 actually.

[Bernice Loui]

Now for the Academaic... tussle.

Adhesive holder for 20"x24" film, this will need a LOT of stick with significant potential for the 20"x24" film to get stuck. What about air bubbles or alien debris that can occur as the 20"x24" sheet of film is applied to the adhesive film holder?

Vacuum holder for 20"x24" film is common on a process camera. If a 20"x24" camera were to be used outdoors, explain the vacuum pump system and vacuum film back system?

Add to this, camera alignment challenges of a 20"x24" camera.

As for diffraction effects at f32, it really does happen. If an enlargement is made of say 30"x40" from a 4"x5" sheet of film and that 30"x40" print is viewed at say twelve feet or more the differences is not likely going to be visually discernible due to the way human vision works. Now, let's get up close to that 30"x40" print to a distance of less than one foot with a GOOD magnifier. Suddenly actual print quality will be revealed. Better method would be to examine the film using a high quality optical microscope. Evaluation of the film produced with any given lens-camera combo should be done using a high quality microscope, not the print evaluated at a distance.


Bernice

Film flatness issues can be cured with either an adhesive or vacuum holder. No big deal. As far as diffraction goes, the alleged degredation of f/32 on even 4x5 is hardly even detectable in a 30x40 inch print. Depth of field would be a far bigger issue with a 1200mm lens.

[EdWorkman]

<<<<<Now, let's get up close to that 30"x40" print to a distance of less than one foot with a GOOD magnifier. Suddenly actual print quality will be revealed. Better method would be to examine the film using a high quality optical microscope. Evaluation of the film produced with any given lens-camera combo should be done using a high quality microscope, not the print evaluated at a distance>>>

Why would anyone do that??? One can't see the image, only teeny bits.
What's the equivalent magnification for , say, a medium format 'sharp' film at a 'sharp' aperture?
I know Kirk Gittings sez viewing distance doesn't matter, and I disagree from my experience with pinhole images, but except for morbid curiosity, why jam your face so close to an enlargement that the composition is totally lost???
regards
Ed

[Jac@stafford.net]

Reviving a thread 8 years after last post.

Question - what would one do if one found this lens in mint condition?

I will be happy to pay a scrap metal price for it.

[Drew Wiley]

Berenice - it's not like the old days of ATG tape tabs. With the correct 3M adhesive, a 20x24 adhesive holder would be a cinch. The two adhesives, front vs back of the tape, are completely different. But it would be easy to design a portable vac filmholder too these days, really easy. All it takes is a decent little handheld cordless vac. Don't laugh. I've used em on 30x40" vac easels.

[Drew Wiley]

Ed - people got nose to nose with my 30x40 prints all the time. But those were Cibachromes enlarged from 8x10 film, and the level of detail truly warranted it. Not only do I seek an overall effective composition, but want to reward viewers time and again with the ability to discover new details. I consider "normal viewing distance" as hogwash unless you're reading a book. But in the case of the monster lens in question, I presume most of its appeal would be to contact printers, and there's no eye-visible loss in a 20x24 contact print from using such a lens at f/256.

[Greg]

Berenice - it's not like the old days of ATG tape tabs. With the correct 3M adhesive, a 20x24 adhesive holder would be a cinch. The two adhesives, front vs back of the tape, are completely different. But it would be easy to design a portable vac filmholder too these days, really easy. All it takes is a decent little handheld cordless vac. Don't laugh. I've used em on 30x40" vac easels.

Been there and done it in the past. Two mistakes I made: First used a medium size vacuum unit and was way overpowered. All you need is a really small portable vacuum unit. Second was that I used a rather stiff clear length of tubing. It actually transmitted vibrations from the vacuum unit to the holder. A soft very flexible hose solved that. In the end found out that it wasn't worth the trouble for the 11x14 format. But with larger formats could see how that would change things.

[Drew Wiley]

Never use a peristaltic diaphragm or piston vac pump, always rotary. The septum in any 2-sided holder must be reinforced from behind to prevent deflection. The alternate film side becomes a sealed vac chamber. If the holes are small (about 1/16") and intelligently place, surprisingly little vac draw is required, but it must be sustained.

[carterwj]

Quick stats:

Fujinon A 1200mm f/24, 6 lenses in 4 groups, 50 degree coverage for 1120mm image circle, in Copal #3, 102mm front filter size and single coated.

I currently own three samples of the A 600mm f/11 lens but this is the first time I've seen the 1200mm! The only one left on my watch list now is the 300 SW.

Why do you have 3 of the Fujinon - A 600mm? I own one and it was hard enough to find.