Fujinon confusion

[Peter Gomena]

I'm considering buying a Fujinon 250mm lens for my whole plate camera. I see listings on line for f/6.7 and f/6.3 models. The f/6.7 lenses all appear to be older models with the lettering on the lens bezel. The f/6.3 models all appear to be the newer multi-coated lenses with writing on the outside of the lens barrel. Are these basically the same lens with a couple of minor variations? I find no information on the LF home page about the f/6.7. I also see that it generally sells for less than the f/6.3.

[Kevin Crisp]

It think there are lots of threads on this. I believe the 250mm one, with the lettering on the inside and the golden single coating, is the one with a much larger image circle and better suited for 8X10. This is the 6.7 one. I used to have one, which had some pretty significant cleaning marks, and the contrast was excellent nevertheless.

[Dan Fromm]

See this: http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm It seems that the f/6.3ers are (a) newer designs and (b) have less coverage than the older f/6.7ers.

[Peter Gomena]

Thanks, Dan and Kevin. Dan, that chart is most useful, I had no idea it existed.

[Drew Wiley]

I wouldn't worry about the single coating. The 6.7 will easily compete with any later plasmat, plus handle 8x10 comfortably. I surmise it has to do with some special glass type no longer available.

[Peter Gomena]

Yes, I have no problem with single-coated lenses. My 305 G-Claron is single-coated and the sharpest lens I own. The single-coated Fujinon 250s appear to be an excellent bargain on a good lens, and I do want the greater coverage.

[Alan Gales]

I use the Fuji 250mm f/6.7 lens on my 8x10 camera. It is indeed single coated and has an image circle of 398mm. It is plenty sharp. I shade my lenses with a dark slide and have no problem with them being single coated.

Jock Sturgess used the 250mm f/6.7 lens for years.

Warning: nudity. http://www.artnet.com/artists/jock-sturges/

[Drew Wiley]

The lens itself is impressive enough. Saying Jock S. used one means next to nothing. All kinds of similar focal length options from the big four lensmakers would have yielded nearly indistinguishable results. A coke bottle probably would have been good enough for web appications. When I first got one I took a few shots in unusually clean air right at sunset, including a shot across Comb Ridge in Utah in November. I looked at the chromes and thought the lens was flawed. There was a clearly distinguishable sharp separation between violet and orange right above the ridgeline. But everything else looked remarkably sharp. Then under analogous circumstances I picked up a pair of binoculars and there it was again. The damn lens recorded the true effect of natural diffraction over that sharp ridge edge. With my previous lens, it had just sorta gotten blurred together. Then when I got more into 8x10 instead of 4x5, I started really appreciating the 250/6.7.

[Alan Gales]

The lens itself is impressive enough. Saying Jock S. used one means next to nothing. All kinds of similar focal length options from the big four lensmakers would have yielded nearly indistinguishable results.

Drew, I agree with you that similar late model lenses in the same focal length would yield nearly indistinguishable results. I'm just saying that the lens was good enough for Jock Sturgess. Peter said he was trying to find information about the lens. I thought some examples from a Pro might help in his decision.

I paid $300 for mine and was happy to get it. Lately I've seen some go for $200-$250. What a bargain for a nice lens that covers 8x10!

[Drew Wiley]

Three hundred bucks is quite a bargain! Sadly, my 250/6.7 is the only lens I've ever had stolen and not recovered. I replaced it with a 240A, which works fine on
8x10 too, along with the 250 G-Claron, but these are a bit dimmer with f/9 max aperture. The 6.7 was therefore nicer for night photography. But as I continue to
start feeling the effects of aging, miniaturizing my lens kit has become a priority. The 6.7 is decently lightweight with a number 1 shutter; but those little A's and C's and Nikkor M's are really compact for backpacking.

[Alan Gales]

Three hundred bucks is quite a bargain! Sadly, my 250/6.7 is the only lens I've ever had stolen and not recovered. I replaced it with a 240A, which works fine on
8x10 too, along with the 250 G-Claron, but these are a bit dimmer with f/9 max aperture. The 6.7 was therefore nicer for night photography. But as I continue to
start feeling the effects of aging, miniaturizing my lens kit has become a priority. The 6.7 is decently lightweight with a number 1 shutter; but those little A's and C's and Nikkor M's are really compact for backpacking.

I feel for you. I usually take the 250 Fuji and 19" Artar or just the 14" Commercial Ektar when shooting 8x10. As you know I pull my equipment around with a wheeled tool bag but I still have to load and unload it from my Jeep. The easier it is on my back the longer I can shoot.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't mind heavy lenses in my daypack. This past Saturday I did the hill with both my 8x10 kit and a 6x9 in the pack. But this coming weekend I've gotta haul
two weeks worth of food and camping gear at high altitude, and that makes it tricky even to find sufficient space in the pack for my 4x5 kit. When I was a teenager in my 40's I'd simply starve myself on one meal a day, and try to supplement that fishing. That was still back in my big lens, full Sinar kit days. I got
so hungry once that I stumbled onto a meadow filled with wild onions, which have big bulbs - and a big mistake. Them things wahr hot!! Last year we used just a
pinch of em to spice up a freeze-dried rice dish Max-Tex style. I could tote a fishing pole again, but the best fishing hours compete with some of the best photo
lighting.