Which modern lenses have more coverage then specs?

[Nick_3536]

The G-clarons are widely accepted to have more coverage then the claims made by the company. Any other hidden gems?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Nikkor M

[Christopher Perez]

Schneider's 110XL covers 8x10.

Schneider's 150XL might just barely with no wiggle room cover 7x17 (but I haven't had a chance to try it at infinity yet).

Fuji's 150NSW covers 6x8, with room to spare. In fact, its usable on 4x10.

Do either of these count for what you're asking?

[Nick_3536]

If they were cheaper-) Is the Fuji an older model? Or is it the CMW? If the it's the CMW then it's exactly the sort of thing I'm curious about. According to Fuji it covers 5x7 with almost no room for movements. but 6x8 would be about 250mm of coverage.

[Christopher Perez]

If they were cheaper-) Is the Fuji an older model?

Cheaper? I paid $200US for one in like new mint condition.

Older? Than CMW, yes. My 150NWS is the previous generation multi-coated 52mm thread sized optic. It seems to contain more lens groups than a traditional plasmat. Though I don't really know with certainty.

In general, I've found that Fuji W/EBC lenses provide more usable coverage than they're spec'd to have. Similarly the Fuji A-series too. Even one generation back, the W/EBC lenses are world class.

[Christopher Perez]

Sorry to confuse. I meant to type "NSW" in the previous post.

Also look at new Fuji C-series optics for providing greater than spec'd coverage. Can you tell that I love Fuji LF lenses? :-) :-) :-)

[Gem Singer]

Christopher,

I don't see a Fuji 150 NSW listed. Did you mean the Fuji 105 NSW?

I also believe that the Nikkor 120 SW has a larger image circle than Nikon lists for it. I have been using one as an extreme wide angle lens on my 8X10.

[Bob Salomon]

At what image ratio? At what aperture? Beyond the circle of acceptable resolution? That is what the lens manufacturers spec. A lens can easily cover more then what is acceptable to the manufacturer but the edges won't be so good. Neither will the corners. Yes you may gain a bit more coverage by stooping way down but that comes at the cost of diffraction. And all lenses cover larger circles at closer image ratios.

Can you be a bit more specific as to your application and film size?

[Christopher Perez]

I don't see a Fuji 150 NSW listed. Did you mean the Fuji 105 NSW?

My lens is marked Fujinon 150mm W/EBC. The box it came in was marked Fujinon 150mm NSW/EBC. I recall thinking that the NSW might be a derivation of a plasmat design, or something similar. I don't know why, but I also recall seeing a cross-section diagram once that showed un-cemented air-spaced elements (6? or 8?). Sorry for the lack of details or specifics. I must be getting old. :-(

I have also used what I know to be traditional plasmat Fuji W/EBC lenses. They exhibit similar extended coverage areas. And since they hold less value on the used market than new German lenses, Fuji W/EBC lenses can be quite good steals, er, deals. :-)

I used a 250mm f/6.7 Fuji W (not multi-coated) on 7x17. It didn't cover the format at infinity (very close, but no cigar). But I was surprised at how well the lens held its resolution up to the mechanical limits of the optic. For contact print work it was certainly usable and gave a pleasing image out to the field edge.

[Nick_3536]

No I meant the two Schneider lenses. The Fuji lens is very reasonable.

Bob the film formats would be 5x7 and 8x10. Infinity. I don't want mush in the corners. It does seem the lens makers sometimes rate the lenses with a fair safety margin.

[Gem Singer]

I thought that the SW connotation stood for Super Wide and the N connotation meant New. So an NSW would be an upgraded version of the previous Super Wide lens in the same series.

I know that Nikon makes a 150 Super Wide, but I have never seen a Fuji 150 Super Wide. I know that Fuji makes a 125 Super Wide and formerly made a 300 Super Wide. Perhaps they discontinued the 150 Super Wide.

Now, if I could just find out what the CM connotation means on the new W series?

[Bob Salomon]

Nick,

The lens manufacturers are in a horse race. If one company is too conservative then they lose to one of the others even though they might be the same. On the other hand if they are too optomistic then they lose as users would then complain of poor quality at the edges and corners.

The variable is you, the user. If your work lets you be overly optomistic and accept less then critical results on the edges and corners then you may feel the lens is too conservatively rated. On the other hand if you are doing architecture for reproduction or product work for clients that has detail that must be critically acceptable to the extreme edges and corners then you can rest assured that today's lenses are rated properly as to coverage and performance.