Are the Fujinon "A" lenses optimized to infinity? Often, older "Apo" designs are optimized for macro or process work. Thanks.
Are the Fujinon "A" lenses optimized to infinity? Often, older "Apo" designs are optimized for macro or process work. Thanks.
The cross-section diagrams appear to show a symmetrical design. A symmetrical optical lens, by symmetry, is optimized for 1:1 reproduction of equal size subject and image.
The text in Fuji brochures (from back when Fuji officially sold LF lenses in the US) tend to emphasize the use of the lenses for closeups, but also state their usefulness for distant subjects. There are many reports in this forum and elsewhere of photographers pleased with their performance for distant objects.
Michael, are the lenses exactly or almost symmetrical?
Cheers,
Dan
They are derived from process lenses. Beyond that, I don't know.
What I do know is if you want my 240mm Fujinon-A, you'll have to pry it out of my cold dead hand. It is an outstanding general purpose lens. It has excellent sharpness for landscape (at infinity). For a flower series (color and B&W) I've been doing the last couple of years, it shows outstanding sharpness when used closer, up to 1:1. I've used it wide open with excellent results as well.
I've also got one of the hard to find 360mm Fujinon-As. It too is razor sharp. It's too long to use for close work - I only use it for infinity work.
When I'd had the lens for only a couple of months, I found a water fall just when it was ready for someone to take it's photograph. I was on the other side of the gorge from it - the mist was still rising, the light was just right. Infinity shot, taken at f/11. My wife likes that shot so much that she insisted that I enlarge it to .8x1.0m and hang it in the front hall.
If you can't tell, I really like my 240mm Fujinon-A for landscape work ;-)
Bruce Watson
To echo Hogarth's sentiments both my 240 A and my 300 A are among my most used lenses. The 300 see a lot of duty on my 8x10 for landscapes at infinity and also in the studion for close-ups.
The picture below was taken with the 240 A and scanned on a several generations old scanner.
Whoops and apologies for some reason images don;t seem to be posting for me this AM. A server glitch somewhere.
Neil,
I'll stir the pot a little by suggesting closer-optimized lenses are better for the way most of us shoot. I also use the Fuji 240 A up close. Most compositions have foreground elements for which a closer-optimized lens would be ideal.
I find that few of the landscape compositions I take have everything at infinity, and sharpness at infinity is usually limited by atmospheric properties. Even fewer compostions I take have everything at infinity with a "short long" lens like the 240. For sunsets, sunrises, and other scenic vistas, I tend to be using at least a 300. Flare has been my only criticism of the Fuji 240, shooting into the sun at some off-axis positions (slightly outside the field of view) can be problematic in my experience, so lens shades are good.
BTW, I just picked up a new-in-box 360 Kowa for a good price to go in the Copal 3s I have, so I'm interested in how it performs - the "flare test" was good. I noticed it does not come with the spacer ring the 240 Computar did (also a NIB cheapie).
Steve
The Fujinon A series is optimized for 1:5.
I have a 180A, 240A, and 300A. I can't give enough positive feedback about them, for both closeup and distance shooting.
For some sample + detail sections of images taken with these 3 lenses, see http://www.kenleegallery.com/tech.html
I have several Fujinon lens brochures of different dates. The words in them don't say whether or not the lens is symmetrical, nor what the reproduction ratio the lens was optimized for. My statements are based on the optical construction figure, which is 3 cm high. The optical construction for the Fuji-A appears to be perfectly symmetrical. The figures for all of the other Fuji designs are obviously non-symmetrical. It could be that the curvatures or thicknesses of the optical elements are slightly different, front vs back, or that different glasses were used. However, I think it likely that the optical design of the Fuji-As is perfectly symmetrical.
A symmetrical lens causes certain abberations to vanish when used for 1:1. The abberations will no longer cancel when the lens is used for reproduction ratios other than 1:1. Hence a symmetrical lens should be optimum at 1:1. This doesn't say that it will not be superb at other reproduction ratios.
I would like to know the source for Sal's statement that the Fuji-As are optimized for 1:5.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks