Fujinon L 300mm 5.6

[kleinbatavia]

135551Hello all,

Have had this for a while and it is great on my 8x10. I've used a W version in the past and prefer the rendering of this lens over it's W sibling. Wondering what your experiences and opinions are?

Thanks.

[ic-racer]

135551prefer the rendering of this lens over it's W sibling. Wondering what your experiences and opinions are?

Thanks.

I use the "W" which is very sharp. Can you post an example of the rendering of which you write?

[Peter De Smidt]

I have the 420 version. My understanding is that they are single-coated tessars, and they were a budget-priced lens line, even though they come in big and expensive shutters. The 420 is a very good lens, and I expect the 300mm is as well. The "W" lenses will have greater coverage.

[Drew Wiley]

I would sure like to see how the selective-focus rendering is, esp background blur etc. It's a tessar in a multi-bladed aperture, which sounds good. I toted a similar single-coated Zeiss tessar in barrel into the woods Saturday specifically for those qualities, which are generally absent from more modern lenses, even Nikkor M's, the pinnacle of tessar evolution. But I was doing long lens-cap exposures - always risky in our windy conditions. Before I try to find a Copal 3s shutter for it and pay for the mounting, I'd like to see what else is out there. Any these old tessars are going to be big and heavy, but I just use them for day hiking. The 300L seems like it would be a little restrictive in image circle on 8x10. The studio portrait photographers who loved these lenses generally didn't use tilts and swings to the degree we do in landscape. The 420 should have plenty of wiggle room. But it sure is hard to find any images taken with them other than portraits and nondescript background fabric. One need to see some tree branches or window edges to see if there is an annoying double-lined effect or not.
When I want hard-sharp super-duper whatever I use the Fuji 360 A or 450C. It's a distinctly different niche I'm trying to fill, and the 14" Kern dagor doesn't work
for that either. If you get my drift, I can go out and outright buy a Fuji L for the cost of a clean 3 shutter alone, but bucks is bucks.

[Peter De Smidt]

Drew, I have some landscapes done with the 420 on 8x10, but I'm not sure if I scanned any of them. I'll take a look.

[Drew Wiley]

Thank you. Whenever, if its feasible. There had to be a reason certain people loved these lenses, and it wasn't about price.

[kleinbatavia]

Hi Drew, I use the L on 8x10, has some room, but I don't do anything that requires extensive movements with it. I hate scanning my 8x10's as they somehow never come out well (I use an epson flatbed), contrary to 4x5 which scans ok. Contacts from 8x10 are great though! Will see about getting some shots scanned when I find the time.

As for prices. The big copal 3 shutter probably sells for more than the lens if you pull them apart. That said, this is the case for a very large number of lenses these days. To me the combination of lens and shutter is great, but I really like the colours on the late version mine is in.

[Louis Pacilla]

As for prices. The big copal 3 shutter probably sells for more than the lens if you pull them apart. To me the combination of lens and shutter is great, but I really like the colours on the late version mine is in.

Just in case you are not aware.:)

I'm pretty sure the shutter your lens is in is a Copal 3s which has a different thread/opening then the Copal 3. If the lens in the photo in your 1st post is the actual lens you use then it's a Copal 3s. This is pretty easy to detect at a glance by the different colors on the operating levers/tabs.

[Drew Wiley]

And it's the old 3s shutters which had those wonderful multi-bladed apertures. But in my case, I've got nearly perfectly circular aperture blades in the lens barrel itself, so could just leave them wide open in any Copal. It would be nice, however, if spending the money to begin with, to have the L optics too, just as a comparison. Maybe I'll land a lucky horse trade one of these days. These are the kinds of nuances that one needs to view on the groundglass to appreciate. I apparently stumbled onto a keeper - good coverage and very sharp when I want it, but still with a lovely out-of-focus rendering more characteristic of older lenses.
But merely the style of aperture doesn't tell the whole story. The stars have to align in other respects too.

[Steve Goldstein]

Older regular Copal 3 shutters (not just 3S) also have the rounder aperture. My 240mm Symmar-S is mounted in one. My rule of thumb is that if the aperture scale is linear, i.e. equal spacing between each full stop, it's the newer version. On the older ones the higher-numbered stops get progressively closer together.

[Sal Santamaura]

Older regular Copal 3 shutters (not just 3S) also have the rounder aperture. My 240mm Symmar-S is mounted in one. My rule of thumb is that if the aperture scale is linear, i.e. equal spacing between each full stop, it's the newer version. On the older ones the higher-numbered stops get progressively closer together.All that is consistent with what I've observed. Except I never saw one of the newer Copal 3 shutters, i.e. those with "chunky" speed rings and linear aperture scales, that had more than seven aperture blades and created a more round aperture than modern, all-black Copal 3 shutters with seven blades. If you get a chance, please post a picture of your 240mm Symmar-S shutter stopped down to around f/11, so we can see how round it is. Thanks in advance.

[Steve Goldstein]

Here you go Sal. This is the older style shutter with the finer "teeth" on the speed ring, not the chunkier later style. It has 10 aperture blades and you can see the "nonlinear" aperture scale. Both my lenses in newer Copal 3 with the chunky serrations on the speed ring have only 7 aperture blades.

[Mark Sampson]

Well, I started out in 4x5 with the 210/5.6 Fujinon-L. Quite a sharp lens, although after a couple of years I found that I didn't care for the focal length. And as I was trying to get everything in focus, o-o-f rendition was never even a question (in 1982, in my photographic world, no one cared about that.) Now I'll say that i'd use a Fujinon-L any time.

[axs810]

My first lens was a Fujinon L 300mm f/5.6 then for some dumb reason I decided to "upgrade" and now I use the Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6. I don't know how to really explain it but I really like the L version more than the W. I guess I liked how the L retained sharpness while having a slight soft look to it...the W version just seems so clinically sharp I feel as though it has no special characteristic. Don't get me wrong it's a very nice lens but if I had to do it over again I would just buy the L.


Honestly the only reason I bought the W was to have a newer copal shutter. -___-

[kleinbatavia]

It's interesting, I "upgraded" tot the L after starting with the W version. The L is plenty sharp wherever it is focussed and at least to me, the background has a much more pleasing appearance. The only drawback of this lens is its bulk... I keep considering letting it go, but to date, have not really found a lighter weight alternative in 300-400.


My first lens was a Fujinon L 300mm f/5.6 then for some dumb reason I decided to "upgrade" and now I use the Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6. I don't know how to really explain it but I really like the L version more than the W. I guess I liked how the L retained sharpness while having a slight soft look to it...the W version just seems so clinically sharp I feel as though it has no special characteristic. Don't get me wrong it's a very nice lens but if I had to do it over again I would just buy the L.


Honestly the only reason I bought the W was to have a newer copal shutter. -___-

[axs810]

Sorry I meant the bokeh on the L was more pleasing than the W. They are both very sharp lenses but the L seems to have more "personality" to it

[Sheldon N]

I use the Fujinon-L 300mm f/5.6 as my primary 8x10 lens. I shoot with it wide open most of the time, I agree that the bokeh is nice and I certainly appreciate the lighter weight compared to the other versions.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I never saw one of the newer Copal 3 shutters, i.e. those with "chunky" speed rings and linear aperture scales, that had more than seven aperture blades and created a more round aperture than modern, all-black Copal 3 shutters with seven blades...


...This is the older style shutter with the finer "teeth" on the speed ring, not the chunkier later style. It has 10 aperture blades and you can see the "nonlinear" aperture scale. Both my lenses in newer Copal 3 with the chunky serrations on the speed ring have only 7 aperture blades.Thanks for the image. I must be sheltered, since I never saw a shutter marked "Copal 3" with that front-facing non-linear aperture scale. Both my old 300mm Fujinon W and 420mm Fujinon L are in shutters with their non-linear aperture scales on the outside edge and are only marked "Copal." I didn't know whether they're "3" or "3s," and dangerously assumed that anything old enough to have 10 blades and a non-linear scale was a "3s."

[Drew Wiley]

The extra lever is a dead giveaway on those older shutters.

[kleinbatavia]

Hmm, looks like I just got a nikkor 300mm 9. Once it gets here it will be interesting to compare the images of the 300mm 5.6 L and Nikkor! Anyone else use both?

[axs810]

I've used the Nikon W 300mm f/5.6, Fujinon L 300mm f/5.6, and Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6...can't go wrong with any of those but my favorite was the Fujinon L 300mm f/5.6

[kleinbatavia]

The one I got is the nikkor M 300 9. I am guessing the image won't look as nice on the GG, but I am trying to find ways to shave some weight off my kit for medical reason... If the nikon is good, I may even let the fuji go. Not too sure about that though, may keep it to shoot from the booth of my car.

[Drew Wiley]

The Nikkor M's are rather compact lightweight super-crisp optics with reasonably generous image circles. Wonderful lenses when you want that hard-sharp look
and put a premium upon portabilty. I have no idea what the preceding single-coated Nikkor Q's were like, since I've never seen one. But Fuji L's are more the traditional thick-glass heavy tessar design, and except for the 210, in big no. 3 shutters. Fuji W's are general-purpose plasmats, Fuji A's pretty much the pinnacle
of plasmat design as far as I'm concerned, but now rare and expensive, and the C's wonderful little infinity-corrected dialytes with a rendering similar to Nikkor M's yet bigger image circles. Just depends what you are doing. Old-school tessars seem to have the advantage when it comes to out-of-focus smoothness or bokeh. But those tiny little Nikkor M's, Fuji A's & C's are the cat's meow when it comes to super-sharp contrasty multicoated performance at minimum weight. I'd keep both.

[kleinbatavia]

Hello Drew, the compact and lightweight design is the main (and only) reasons I got the nikkor. Will probably keep the 300mm L too, but for personal reasons I am looking for ways to shave some pounds off my kit. Time will tell...

[welly]

I've used the Nikon W 300mm f/5.6, Fujinon L 300mm f/5.6, and Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6...can't go wrong with any of those but my favorite was the Fujinon L 300mm f/5.6

That's interesting. I've got the Fujinon L 300mm f5.6. It's huge and, apparently, the budget offering. What do you prefer about it over the Fujinon W? Not that I'm complaining about the Fujinon L, I love it and have captured some of my favourite and best photographs with it. It's just huge :)

[Drew Wiley]

I'll be packing an older 360 tessar tomorrow with the 8x10, once again for its subtly smooth out-of-focus rendering with intricate forest branches etc. But on those
multi-day backpack trips at high altitude, it's always going to be lightweight little Nikkor M's and Fuji A's, etc. Three of them weigh less than that single old tessar.
It's nice to have choices, though most of us probably have a budget barrier in that respect.

[StoneNYC]

Here you go Sal. This is the older style shutter with the finer "teeth" on the speed ring, not the chunkier later style. It has 10 aperture blades and you can see the "nonlinear" aperture scale. Both my lenses in newer Copal 3 with the chunky serrations on the speed ring have only 7 aperture blades.

Wow, do you know if the older blades can be fitted into the modern black copal 3's? You may not know, but figured I would ask, would make much better bokeh. Thanks for sharing this. I'm familiar with the differences between various black copal versions but not so familiar with the silver copal versions.

[Steve Goldstein]

Wow, do you know if the older blades can be fitted into the modern black copal 3's? You may not know, but figured I would ask, would make much better bokeh. Thanks for sharing this. I'm familiar with the differences between various black copal versions but not so familiar with the silver copal versions.

I have no idea, but why? The only way I'd even consider this is if I had a totally dead and non-resurrectable old-style donor shutter to begin with. It would be a shame to consider killing a perfectly good working-but-old shutter for this, better to just put whatever cells you want into it and pay SKG to create a new scale for you (and maybe a CLA).

You can occasionally find old Copal 3 shutters on eBay for shockingly little money - I saw one a few weeks ago with decent glass (I forget what) sell for something like $135. Deals like this aren't frequent, but if you're patient and persistent you can find them.

[axs810]

That's interesting. I've got the Fujinon L 300mm f5.6. It's huge and, apparently, the budget offering. What do you prefer about it over the Fujinon W? Not that I'm complaining about the Fujinon L, I love it and have captured some of my favourite and best photographs with it. It's just huge :)


I prefer the Fujinon L 300mm f/5.6 compared to the W version because of the bokeh. It just seems smoother but at the same time holds a semi realistic look to it without getting too bokeh-ee :p (if that makes any sense? lol)

[StoneNYC]

I have no idea, but why? The only way I'd even consider this is if I had a totally dead and non-resurrectable old-style donor shutter to begin with. It would be a shame to consider killing a perfectly good working-but-old shutter for this, better to just put whatever cells you want into it and pay SKG to create a new scale for you (and maybe a CLA).

You can occasionally find old Copal 3 shutters on eBay for shockingly little money - I saw one a few weeks ago with decent glass (I forget what) sell for something like $135. Deals like this aren't frequent, but if you're patient and persistent you can find them.


Why...

Because in my experience EVERY silver copal I have EVER used has either gotten stuck mid exposure or isn't accurate at all or acts differently depending on the angle of the front standard etc, every single one, where EVERY black copal I've ever had works great, never needed a CLA or anything, BUT I prefer the Bokeh of the earlier shutters with rounded and higher count blades.

I asked SK Grimes if they could do it, and they said they couldn't manufacture new ones as the cost would be high, but your post made me wonder if since they are both copal in design, it the older blades could be fitted into modern black copals.

That's why.

Just a thought. Yes it's entirely possible I just had really really bad luck, and I don't like the idea of disassembling a perfectly good shutter, but an already broken one with good blades I would certainly consider.

I would keep the extra parts for the future, I wouldn't throw away anything. I don't generally condone hacking things up unless there's a really good reason.

Thanks, appreciate the info.

[Drew Wiley]

Doubt you're seeing a correlation at all with the specific design of the Copal, just with its potential age & wear n' tear. Copals are rarely or ever accurate at the highest speeds, but most LF photographers never use top speeds anyway. I test every single one of my lenses with a shutter tester. The older Copals have been just as accurate and predictable. You just want to be aware of condition. Sometimes old shutters can stiffen up with inactivity over the years in storage, and need a CLA.

[StoneNYC]

Doubt you're seeing a correlation at all with the specific design of the Copal, just with its potential age & wear n' tear. Copals are rarely or ever accurate at the highest speeds, but most LF photographers never use top speeds anyway. I test every single one of my lenses with a shutter tester. The older Copals have been just as accurate and predictable. You just want to be aware of condition. Sometimes old shutters can stiffen up with inactivity over the years in storage, and need a CLA.

I agree, it's partly age and inactivity.

BUT there's a reason they updated the copals over time, to make them function better (I know this is true of the blades too, the new design of leaves is the most efficient at not breaking) so I'm sure the black copal design inside had minor improvements as well.

Pretty much done buying modern lenses in copal shutters anyway at this point I'll only be looking for long FL lenses in Ilex 5 shutters (and only after I pay off my debt on my current gear).

But the thought of pretty Bokeh in my black copals is a nice dream :) best of both worlds :)

[Drew Wiley]

Since by far the greater volume of shooting I do is with more modern lighter lenses, especially when I'm out in bad weather, I think my older shutters will do just fine during what's left of my personal usage. I've even sold off a few duplicate lenses. "Bokeh" is determined not only by the roundness of the shutter but by the optical design itself. It's easier to find nice examples in older lenses, with the exception of a few modern 35mm lenses specifically engineered for that kind of look.
Quite a different game than soft focus per se. For 4x5 it sure would be fun to try one of those 229 whatever Cooke's. But those are way out of my price league.
It's fairly easy to find nice old 8x10 lenses in barrel.

[kleinbatavia]

Wow, quite te debate about shutters! It's obvious that the shutter has an integral and important role to play in how an image turns out. Combinations of shutters and glass are very interesting from that perspecfive. This is also what I had in mind with this thread. A discussion on (the quality of) just shutters seems a bit of a deviation. Interesting as it may be, I am particularly keen on peoples opinions on the glass. That said anyone with comparisons of the same lens in different shutters is strongly encouraged to post samples!