Was the Fujinon C line ever sold as a process lens?

[StoneNYC]

Hey guys, IanG and I were having a discussion about the Fujinon C lens line, and were asked to move this to the lens discussion area.

IanG is under the impression that at some point the C lenses were sold as process lenses by fuji and marketed as such in a barrel lens before they were sold as compact Copal shuttered lenses for lightweight field photography.

However I've never seen anyone mention this before, although the lens design is of Dialyte origins I thought the C line was somehow modified for distance work and not 1:1 work.

I would be very interested to see any information showing this lens sold as a process lands or even sold in a barrel design, as I haven't seen anything but Copal shutters. Furthermore those I've spoken to have insisted that the C line was always sold as a multi coated design (EBC I believe is the acronym?) but if long enough ago to be sold as a barrel process lens, then my impression is that it would be single coated and not have the EBC.

Discuss...

PS to see the beginning of the discussion see this thread

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=120428

[Drew Wiley]

"C" means "compact", and the series always seems to have been tailored to highly portable field use. There is a long history of 4-element airspaced lenses being
used for all kinds of applications, but I'm unaware of anything in Fuji literature which would imply a Fuji process predecessor to the C design. They seem to have
been infinity optimized from the word "go", and also differ from graphics-derived 4-element lenses like Apo Ronars and Artars by having a distinctly larger image circle or angle of view. "EBC" was a marketing term obviously noting multi-coating; but some lenses were multi-coated previously without this label. For instance, in the A series, outside lettering generally indicates multicoating, inside lettering single-coated. General purpose plastmats can be similarly identified. But I've never seen or even heard of a single-coated C. But there are other people who know about Fuji than I do. I just love shooting with them.

[ic-racer]

I don't know if I can contribute anything useful, but one should be mindful of the difference between Fujinon and Fujinar. Some of the Fujinars are single-coated process lenses. There are Fujinars that have been labled "T," "E," "K," "W" and "SC" and maybe even with "C?". Need to keep looking for more examples...
https://www.keh.com/256265/250-f4-7-fujinar-sc-copal-bt-62-mt-5x7-lens

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah... They've made lenses for all kinds of applications, and perhaps there could be something coincidental. So ya gotta keep the parameters to view camera lenses. But I've never seen process lenses this compact to begin with, so it seems like something designed anew this way from the start. Too bad so much about
the specific lens design is never publicized. I can't get beyond Kingslake, prior to the modern revolution of computerized design. They did take a classic 4-element configuration even used for Commercial Ektars, but modernized and miniaturized it (and smaller max apertures obviously). At the same time, compared to close focus 4-element designs like Apo Ronars (also excellent at infinity), they extended the field at typical working apertures to around 70 degrees. And even the 450 is so damn sharp that I can use it for roll film backs. Doubt the 600 would be that acute, but it is mindblowing with 8x10 film.

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, compactness has more to do with the mounts than with the lenses. TTH made Apotals, tessar type process lenses, and tessar type Copying Lenses. I have a couple of their copying lenses and an Apotal. To my eye they're all the same but the Copying Lenses are much more compact. Apotals' barrels are positively obese, the Copying Lenses' barrels are much trimmer.

[StoneNYC]

The 305 Repro-Claron I have is fairly compact, not as compact as the 300 C but fairly compact, it's in a bulky metal body so it's heavier, but I suppose it could be re-mounted for lighter use and be CLOSE to a C but still, different companies, different line.

[Mark Sampson]

I believe that Fuji lenses were distributed in the USA by a company called D.O. Industries in Rochester, for a while anyway. You might track down some info on their lenses; it's not impossible that Fuji's graphic-arts optics bore the D.O. name in this country. But that's pure speculation on my part.

[Drew Wiley]

Sometimes the mere optics of graphics lenses aren't all that bulky, but the barrels are. That's why process Clarons are quite a bit longer than G-Clarons marketed for view cameras, despite lacking shutters. G-Clarons are specialized plasmats very similar to Fuji A's. Much better near-macro performance than Fuji C's, but still
excellent at infinity. These lens comparisons are like sending a kid into Baskin Robbins - just too many good options to choose from.

[StoneNYC]

Sometimes the mere optics of graphics lenses aren't all that bulky, but the barrels are. That's why process Clarons are quite a bit longer than G-Clarons marketed for view cameras, despite lacking shutters. G-Clarons are specialized plasmats very similar to Fuji A's. Much better near-macro performance than Fuji C's, but still
excellent at infinity. These lens comparisons are like sending a kid into Baskin Robbins - just too many good options to choose from.

I don't know about G-Clarons, I only have a single Repro-Claron, so not sure how they differ, just wanted to clarify that I wasn't personally speaking about the G-Clarons as I have no experience with them.

[Drew Wiley]

Mark - I doubt Fuji graphics optics were ever marketed in the US. High-end video and movie lenses seem to be abundant. Even their enlarging lenses are rare here. There were several different distributors for their view camera lenses if you include direct importers. They just didn't advertise as much as Schneider or
Rodenstock.

[Drew Wiley]

"Claron" were made over quite a time span for several different applications, just like Ronars etc etc. Some were tessar design; but the more modern ones were
mostly advanced virtually apo plasmats. "Repro" implies being marketed for copy cameras, but might be fine for general photography too. But if they are G-Clarons in factory shutter, it obviously means they were marketed for studio tabletop use in view cameras. But these lenses are superb outdoors too. They are
single-coated, but still have excellent tonality and contrast. Find and deal on any of them - buy it!

[ic-racer]

This is the picture of the 250mm Fujinar "SC" lens I found. It looks more compact than the 'regular' Fujinar 250mm shown below. It also may be in a Shanel shutter (though the KEH ad indicates Copal, which I cannot verify).

So, possibly "C" for compact and "S" for Shanel. Just a guess.

130753

130748

[Dan Fromm]

"Claron" were made over quite a time span for several different applications, just like Ronars etc etc. Some were tessar design

Dagor. Documentation provided on request.

[Taija71A]

__

>> Was the Fujinon C line ever sold as a process lens?

Quick Answer:

I have never seen any Documentation... To support this impression.
Therefore, I would 'lean' to the conclusion... No.
_______

[IanG]

Fujinar lenses came in all type 35mm (format) upwards so don't read anything too much into the name. At some stage the Fujinars became Fujinons.

Stone started this thread after I made a comment in a FS thread where I bought a 203mm f7.7 Ektar in a Compur 1, which is a Dialyte and according to Kodak well correct for up to 1:1 actual size photography.

I commented that I'd seen the Fujinon-C lenses sold as Repro lenses (in the UK) some years ago.

There's a lot on misinformation about some Fuji lenses as for quite long spells the LF & Graphics lenses were privately imported and sold in the US & European markets. About 15 years ago the UK Importer described the Fujinon-C's as APO Tessar type lenses but Fuji themselves said they were 4 elements in 4 groups, so a Dialyte (or modified Dialyte).
design.

If you compare the Fujinon range of lenses to the comparable Schneider and Rodentsock ranges then you'll see that the Fujinon-A and Fujinon-C ranges have similar specifications to the Repro/Process lenses which are all similarly compact lenses.

Ian

[Drew Wiley]

Fuji A's and C's are VERY different lenses. The A's are close-range corrected plasmats (though superb clear to infinity), while the C's are all four element types
for general use, but NOT close-range corrected in the sense that four-element Apo-Ronars and are, for example, but do provide a much bigger image circle than
Apo Ronars, Artars, etc. Hence the C-series would not even be a logical choice for graphics reproduction. Neither design is a Tessar. Fuji's tessars were the L series. Ian, I think you've got all this incorrect. I shoot these things all the time, in several focal lengths. Lots of us do. The most highly corrected tessars are the Nikkor M series; but they are for general use and not true apochromatic graphics applications. There were some Nikkor tessar-design lenses sold as relatively inexpensive copy lenses, classified as Process Nikkors, concurrent with the single-coated predecessor to the M, labeled "Q", but these were unrelated to either the Q and M and were obviously sold in barrel for electronic shutters. Nikon's better graphics lenses were four-element Apo-Nikkors. The even more expensive
Apo El Nikkors are still in manufacture, but now only in fixed aperture versions for machine and medical optics.

[Drew Wiley]

Dagors are unrelated to any of the above, but are comprised of back to back cemented triplets. Dan has just pointed out how some early Clarons were dagor design sold for graphics applications, apparently to correct my opinion there were some tessars involved. I've only owned regular shooting G-Clarons in shutter
and none of the graphics flavors, which also included a wide-angle design too apparently.

[Arne Croell]

To further muddy things up, Repro-Clarons were symmetric dialytes, Schneiders equivalent to the Apo-Artars and -Ronars in the 1960's before they bought Goerz Am.Opt. and switched to the Apo-Artar name. Earlier versions used thorium glasses in the outer lenses and are thus radioactive (and yellow-brown), later Repro-Clarons are not.

[Dan Fromm]

There were some Nikkor tessar-design lenses sold as relatively inexpensive copy lenses, classified as Process Nikkors, concurrent with the single-coated predecessor to the M, labeled "Q", but these were unrelated to either the Q and M and were obviously sold in barrel for electronic shutters. Nikon's better graphics lenses were four-element Apo-Nikkors. The even more expensive
Apo El Nikkors are still in manufacture, but now only in fixed aperture versions for machine and medical optics.

Drew, the first Apo-Nikkors (so engraved, so marketed) were all tessar types. They were later replaced by dialyte type Apo-Nikkors. Interestingly, the two types were sold simultaneously for a while. Process Nikkors (so engraved, so marketed) are 4/4 double Gauss types, not inexpensive copy lenses.

Nikkor-Q means "four element Nikkor." Process Nikkors were initially sold as Nikkor-Q (so engraved, I've had one) and were later rebadged Process Nikkor.

See http://www.galerie-photo.com/apo-process-nikkors-en.html

[Drew Wiley]

I didn't know "Q" was ever used in relation to process lenses. But Nikon made (and still makes) all kinds of esoteric lenses. "Q" was distinctly used for general taking tessars, including single-coated large format versions prior to the multicoated M's. They still turn up sometimes. All my own Apo Nikkors are late four-element dialyte design. These were quite expensive new, so even higher than what you describe, if my memory is correct, though I obtained most of mine outright free. I use them for critical enlarging work. But a couple of the bigger ones I have mounted on Sinar boards, so could use these for shooting too, but generally prefer my more compact Fuji's in similar focal length. On the web auction site all kinds of things turn up, but I don't think they're always correctly identified. It's nice to see actual items and count internal reflections etc, note the precise labeling etc - more for the sake of curiosity than need. I've got about all the process lenses I'll ever need, too many in fact. Thanks for the link. I've seen it before. But I've seen certain "process" Nikkors that aren't even on those
lists. I wonder whether Nikon or Fuji makes Mitutoyo's machine optics?

[Jim Andrada]

Just a strangeness of having multiple standards for transcribing Japanese into Roman letters - Mitutoyo is pronounced Mitsutoyo even though it isn't written that way. There is no "Tu" sound in Japanese.

[Dan Fromm]

I didn't know "Q" was ever used in relation to process lenses.

Drew, my 260/10 Nikkor-Q was identical to this http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/apo/pro260.html lens in every respect except that it was engraved Nikkor-Q, not Process Nikkor. More evidence that you don't know everything, another reason to be more humble.

[Dan Fromm]

Y'know, I've chased process lenses for a while and have never seen one made by Fuji. Can anyone here document the existence of process lenses made by Fuji? Rebadges (if that's what they are) that might have been made by Fuji don't count.