Nikkor-W 150mm vs Fujinon-W 150mm

[aussie]

Hey everyone, hoping you could lend me some advice. Diving into LF and looking into my first lens, what would your suggestions be between these two?

[David Karp]

The lens labeled Fujinon-W that has the lettering on the inside front of the lens will be single coated. The lens labeled Fujinon-W with the lens around the outer front of the barrel is actually a Fujinon-NW and will be EBC multicoated. It has a larger (224mm) image circle than the Nikkor-W (210mm). Most likely, the Fujinon will be less expensive when compared to a Nikkor-W in equivalent condition. I think the Fujinons in this series are excellent. I have both the 125mm and 150mm. You can't beat the value of the Fujinon lenses. Most who have used lenses from multiple manufacturers will say that lenses from the major manufacturers are equivalent. I have purchased multiple Fujinons from sellers in Japan and they have all been in really good shape.

[Leigh]

I agree with David. The Fujinon lenses I have are excellent.

There are various Fujinon lenses available.
I have the 150mm Fujinon CM-W with outer labeling, which has a huge 260mm image circle.

For reference, the diagonal of 4x5 film is only about 160mm.
An image circle larger than that allows you to use lens movements (rise/fall/left/right/swing).

- Leigh

[aussie]

The lens labeled Fujinon-W that has the lettering on the inside front of the lens will be single coated. The lens labeled Fujinon-W with the lens around the outer front of the barrel is actually a Fujinon-NW and will be EBC multicoated. It has a larger (224mm) image circle than the Nikkor-W (210mm). Most likely, the Fujinon will be less expensive when compared to a Nikkor-W in equivalent condition. I think the Fujinons in this series are excellent. I have both the 125mm and 150mm. You can't beat the value of the Fujinon lenses. Most who have used lenses from multiple manufacturers will say that lenses from the major manufacturers are equivalent. I have purchased multiple Fujinons from sellers in Japan and they have all been in really good shape.

So the later version Fujinon-W will be pretty much comparable to the Nikkor-W apart front a larger image circle. Interesting, thanks a lot David and Leigh.

[David Karp]

Personally, I think Fuji made great LF lenses. Most of my lenses are Fujinon, but I have some Nikkors, Rodenstocks, an Ilex, and a Schneider. (I have too many lenses.) I don't think you can beat them for "bang for your buck" because they are at least as good as any of my other lenses.

This website should be helpful to you: http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/

[aussie]

Personally, I think Fuji made great LF lenses. Most of my lenses are Fujinon, but I have some Nikkors, Rodenstocks, an Ilex, and a Schneider. (I have too many lenses.) I don't think you can beat them for "bang for your buck" because they are at least as good as any of my other lenses.

This website should be helpful to you: http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/

Well the Fuji and Nikkor are the same price and same condition so I'm not sure. That website link is broken by the way.

[Lachlan 717]

Check that the Fuji is in a Copal, and not a Seiko, shutter.

Seiko are good shutters, but hard to repair now.

I had a Fujinon 150mm (outside lettering) that was a great lens.

[Steve Goldstein]

Leigh, are you sure about that? A 260mm image circle is a field of view of over 80 degrees, well beyond what Fuji claimed for the CM-W series. The massive listing David pointed to in post #5 says 223mm for the 150mm lens, 260mm for the 180mm Fujinon CM-W listed just below it.



I have the 150mm Fujinon CM-W with outer labeling, which has a huge 260mm image circle.

[Pfsor]

An image circle larger than that allows you to use lens movements (rise/fall/left/right/swing).
- Leigh

Leigh, the "left/right" is called "shift" in photography parlance. Shorter to type too.

[xkaes]

Fuji made different versions of the 150mm W and the 150mm NW. A complete listing is at:

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/ (http://http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/)

The site is NOT dead -- depending on your system, you might need to drop the http://, or http://www, or just search for "fujinon large format lens list". It's there.

[neil poulsen]

Leigh, the "left/right" is called "shift" in photography parlance. Shorter to type too.

I think that Leigh's intended meaning above is pretty obvious.

[Pfsor]

I think that Leigh's intended meaning above is pretty obvious.

Obvious or not it's still called "shift" in the photography parlance, isn't it?

[Pfsor]

Well the Fuji and Nikkor are the same price and same condition so I'm not sure. That website link is broken by the way.

The link works well for me.

[Leigh]

Leigh, the "left/right" is called "shift" in photography parlance.
I'm quite well aware of that, thank you.

But a newbie may not know what "shift" means in this context.

Typing left/right was simpler than explaining the "shift" concept.

An all-important point in any presentation is crafting sentences that the audience will understand.

- Leigh

[Pfsor]

Typing left/right was simpler than explaining the "shift" concept.
- Leigh

In what is shift more difficult to grasp than swing? Can you explain?

[xkaes]

It's called a lot of things by a lot of people, authors, and manufacturers. Some call it "SHIFT", others, like Ansel Adams, prefer "SLIDE". Leslie Stroebel, in "View Camera Techniques", considered by many to be the Large Format Bible, calls it "Lateral Movement". Others refer to it as "Lateral Shift", "Lateral Slide", and "Right/Left Shift". Some manufacturers have decided to simply leave the feature off of their cameras altogether, so that they can completely avoid this horrifically complex and difficult issue. How can you even bring up a topic, let alone, argue about it, if you don't even know what to call it? However, I hope you are not losing a lot of sleep over this. For me, it's just a lot of BULL SHIFT. So what do I call it? "BS", of course.

[Leigh]

In what is shift more difficult to grasp than swing? Can you explain?
I am in no way obliged to explain my actions to you.

Who appointed you grammar police for this site?
Mind your own business.

- Leigh

[Pfsor]

Who appointed you grammar police for this site?
Mind your own business.

- Leigh

Grammar? Are you sure you know what grammar is? You meant semantics, didn't you? How about swing - clockwise, anticlockwise? Simple enough for beginners?

[xkaes]

And what's all this baloney about "RISE/FALL" vs "RISE and FALL". Can't they just come up with one word for it?

And why are we talking about the Roman Empire, anyway? They didn't even have cameras! They were too busy burning and pillaging for any of that.

Where's Roseanne Roseannadanna when you need her?

165296

[Leigh]

anticlockwise
Do you mean counter-clockwise? Too bad you don't know English.

- Leigh

[Dan Fromm]

And what's all this baloney about "RISE/FALL" vs "RISE and FALL". Can't they just come up with one word for it?



Decentering movements. Swinging movements. Who cares how we say what we say as long as we manage to communicate?

[xkaes]

165297

[Leigh]

"Movements" is probably the most inclusive generic term.

"Shift" would be movement with the lensboard parallel to the film, regardless of direction.

"Swing" would indicate rotation about any axis perpendicular to the optical axis of the lens.

"Lens rotation" could indicate angular movement about the optical axis.
That would be meaningless unless the lens suffers from some grotesque aberrations.

- Leigh

[Alan Gales]

Decentering movements. Swinging movements. Who cares how we say what we say as long as we manage to communicate?

Amen brother!

We have members from all over our country plus many other countries. Who cares if we talk a little differently?

[Pfsor]

Do you mean counter-clockwise? Too bad you don't know English.

- Leigh

Anticlockwise - in British English. Too bad you don't know it. Still bad tempered?

[Leigh]

Anticlockwise - in British English. Too bad you don't know it. Still bad tempered?
This is not a British site.

It's an American site, using American English.

Still clueless?

- Leigh

[Pfsor]

This is not a British site.

It's an American site, using American English.

Still clueless?

- Leigh


Leigh, the Brits of this forum must love you. The policeman of this site has had his final word?

[xkaes]

Here you go -- just fill in your name...

165298

[Pere Casals]

Hey everyone, hoping you could lend me some advice. Diving into LF and looking into my first lens, what would your suggestions be between these two?

The Fujinons are really good, as good as the other 3 major brands, some say that made with a really good QC. EBC coating also really good.


An issue with Fujinons is that they usually come Seiko shutters, and there is some general dislike with those shutters... Seiko had high expertise in clockwork, (a lot), and perhaps they made shutter designs with too complications.

Seiko shutters are very good, but it looks that servicing these are not as easy.

I've the 90 and 65 EBC Fujinons, superb glasses, I bought both for little money but because shutters were not in shape. As I like to see my life complicated, I messed (with a friend helping me) inside the Seiko clockwork...

I guess the better price of the Fujinons is because a share of the buyers avoid Seikos. So, what I recommend, if you buy a Fuji, is that you make sure the Seiko is working OK.

Understand me, I'm not saying that Seiko shutters are not a good option, but I suggest you to investigate a bit on shutters, as this is the single component that can "fail" with use.

Regards.

[Dan Fromm]

An issue with Fujinons is that they usually come Seiko shutters, and there is some general dislike with those shutters...

Oh, dear. Not quite correct.

Early Fujinon LF lenses are in Seiko shutters, newer ones are in Copals. And then there are some in or on Shanel #5s.

Re general dislike of Seiko shutters, please speak for yourself. If you must make strong claims, please support them with data.

More generally, please make sure you're right before laying down the law.

[B.S.Kumar]

Most shutters, including Seiko, "fail" due to not having a CLA performed. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with them. As for spares, ask any of your repairers to get in touch with me, and I can supply as many "donor" shutters as they want for parts.

Kumar

[Luis-F-S]

Hey everyone, hoping you could lend me some advice. Diving into LF and looking into my first lens, what would your suggestions be between these two?

Yes, get one or the other in a modern (Copal) shutter. Won't make much difference to image quality which one you choose.

L

[Pere Casals]

Oh, dear. Not quite correct.

Early Fujinon LF lenses are in Seiko shutters, newer ones are in Copals. And then there are some in or on Shanel #5s.

Re general dislike of Seiko shutters, please speak for yourself. If you must make strong claims, please support them with data.

More generally, please make sure you're right before laying down the law.


Hello Dan,

Here you have a discussion on Seikos.

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/seiko-vs-copal-and-other-shutters.35273/

OP say "I'm picking up what seems to be a general dislike or distrust of the Seiko large format shutters." ... What do the posters on this board think of them?"

Another say "I certainly wouldn't turn my nose up at a Seiko. I you're concerned, shoot an e-mail to Flutot's or Grimes--they've seen it all and can offer a meaningfull critique."

I've never heard that from a Copal shutters...

I'd not made and strong statement about Seikos quality, If you read my post I say "Seiko shutters are very good, but it looks that servicing these are not as easy."


Sorry, I was wrong saying "Fuji usually comes with Seiko", I forgot say the decades, still ebay has a lot of (to me) amazing Fujinon glasses with Seiko.

165301

[xkaes]

Only early Fujinon lenses -- meaning PRE-early 1980's -- used Seiko shutters. That was 35 YEARS AGO! They quickly made to switch to Copal. If you find a Fujinon lens in a Seiko shutter, it will likely be single coated since they didn't start using EBC coating until the late 1970's -- and then only on certain lenses. Since lens production increased over time, you are much more likely to find a Fujinon lens in a Copal shutter -- AND with EBC coating. The earlier Seiko lenses are also more likely to have fewer elements, as well as more groups. See the list for details -- www.subclub.org/fujinon/index.htm

[Pere Casals]

Only early Fujinon lenses -- meaning PRE-early 1980's -- used Seiko shutters. That was 35 YEARS AGO! They quickly made to switch to Copal. If you find a Fujinon lens in a Seiko shutter, it will likely be single coated since they didn't start using EBC coating until the late 1970's -- and then only on certain lenses. Since lens production increased over time, you are much more likely to find a Fujinon lens in a Copal shutter -- AND with EBC coating. The earlier Seiko lenses are also more likely to have fewer elements, as well as more groups. See the list for details -- www.subclub.org/fujinon/index.htm


Let's put numbers, some 30% of the Fujinons at Ebay come with Seikos. My 90 and 65 are EBC and Seiko.

EBC multicoating is from 1977, the SWD line are all EBC coated since 1978. Other lines transitioned a bit later (last non EBC are from 1982, I think) and are more difficult to be seen in Seiko, but it's very easy to find the popular SWD with EBC and Seiko.

[Lachlan 717]

This is not a British site.

It's an American site, using American English.

Still clueless?

- Leigh

I was on your side until you wrote this rubbish (garbage in the oxymoronically contrived "American" English).

Pretty sure it's a site open to the world's LF community.

You might also look a bit silly when you consider the OP's handle is "Aussie". If s/he is, in fact, Australian, s/he will use "Anti clockwise". Basic Latin prefixes doesn't scare most of the English speaking world...

[xkaes]

Let's put numbers, some 30% of the Fujinons at Ebay come with Seikos. My 90 and 65 are EBC and Seiko.


EBC multicoating is from 1977, the SWD line are all EBC coated since 1978. Other lines transitiones a bit later and are more dificult to be seen in Seiko, but it's very easy to find the popular SWD with EBC and Seiko.

You seem to be confirming everything I said. I would say a 2:1 ratio for Copal:Seiko shutters also confirms what I said, but I would not use EBAY as some sort of random sample in this case. That would be the same as going to a hospital to determine the average age of a city -- the people in the hospital would tend to be older than average. Similarly, I would predict that older Fujinon lenses are more likely to show up on EBAY -- for a lot of reasons, such as the lens, the shutter, and the owner all getting older.

[Pere Casals]

You seem to be confirming everything I said. I would say a 2:1 ratio for Copal:Seiko shutters also confirms what I said, but I would not use EBAY as some sort of random sample in this case. I would predict that older Fujinon lenses are more likely to show up there -- for a lot of reasons, such as the lens, the shutter, and the owner all getting older.

Yes... perhaps photographers tend to sell more at Ebay the copies with Seikos because older and the Seiko, and because this there are circulating more Seikos...

Anyway my personal tests suggest to me that my 65 and 90 from 1979/81 are extremly sharp, being extremly able glasses, single reason to replace it would be the coverage of the lasts XL and the like. Anyway I don't feel much need for movements with the 65 focal.

[xkaes]

Other lines transitioned a bit later (last non EBC are from 1982, I think)

Not quite. The L series, the SF series, and the non-labelled "Fujinon" series were never EBC coated. These were sold well past 1982. And their price list shows a couple of the W series lenses as single coated into 1986.

[chassis]

I have a Nikkor W 150/5.6 and enjoy it.

[xkaes]

Anyway my personal tests suggest to me that my 65 and 90 from 1979/81 are extremly sharp, being extremly able glasses, single reason to replace it would be the coverage of the lasts XL and the like. Anyway I don't feel much need for movements with the 65 focal.


The only substantive difference between the SWD Seiko lenses and the SWD Copal lenses are that the Copal lenses have an 8/6 design instead of the earlier 8/4 design. I can't say for sure, but I would assume that Fuji made the change because it created somehow/somewhat better images in their opinion/tests. But in either case, they are both fantastic lenses.

[Pere Casals]

The only substantive difference between the SWD Seiko lenses and the SWD Copal lenses are that the Copal lenses have an 8/6 design instead of the earlier 8/4 design. I can't say for sure, but I would assume that Fuji made the change because it created somehow/somewhat better images in their opinion/tests. But in either case, they are both fantastic lenses.

IMO the the design change is related to EBC performance, with multicoating it happens that adding 2 groups (this is 4 air/glass surfaces) do not increases much parasite light and flares, while saving 2 cementing operations in manufacturing, at the expense of coating those 4 additional surfaces, and perhaps also improving other features, giving the designer freedom to ajust the position of 2 additional elements, this would allow more refinated corrections for aberrations, distorsion and focus plane flatness.

[Pere Casals]

...This is a constant in lens design history, the single coating innovation made the plasmat more interesting aganist competing designs tending to retain a lower number of groups.

[xkaes]

Let me add a slight correction. I just looked at the 1988 Fujinon price list and it lists the W 250mm f6.7 as single coated. It was by no means a "bargain" lens, but they didn't EBC coat it. Who knows how long it stayed that way. And, who knows, maybe they are still making some of the single coated SF, L, and Fujinon lenses today -- especially since Nikon is out of the market.

[xkaes]

Another point is that not all air-to-glass surfaces in multi-coated lenses are multi-coated. I know this to be the case for Minolta's and Carl Ziess' T* multi-coated lenses. It is probably true for Fujinon's EBC lenses as well and most, if not all, other multi-coated lenses.

[Pere Casals]

Let me add a slight correction. I just looked at the 1988 Fujinon price list and it lists the W 250mm f6.7 as single coated. It was by no means a "bargain" lens, but they didn't EBC coat it. Who knows how long it stayed that way. And, who knows, maybe they are still making some of the single coated SF, L, and Fujinon lenses today -- especially since Nikon is out of the market.

Fuji discontinued LF lenses in 2013, IIRC

/off/ They have recently launched a new mild MF digital system 43x32mm, the GFX mirroless system, slightly less than 2x the FF surface.

[Pere Casals]

Another point is that not all air-to-glass surfaces in multi-coated lenses are multi-coated. I know this to be the case for Minolta's and Carl Ziess' T* multi-coated lenses. It is probably true for Fujinon's EBC lenses as well and most, if not all, other multi-coated lenses.

At least in the case of LF lenses all air/glass surfaces are multicoated if the lens is MC, I think.

The case I know is the nano crystal coating for nikon DSLR glases, this a layer of sub-microscopic particles of 10-20 nm to bend light rays gradually into the glass. In this case only key elements are coated with that technology, not all because cost. Then some elements are <N>, (Nano Crystal), the rest are multicoated.

[Don Dudenbostel]

If I'm not mistaken the Fujinon lenses with the writing on the inner ring are the ones with greater coverage. These are the single coated ones but image circle. I had the 250 f6.7 with writing on the inner ring and it covered 8x10 with ample movements where as the 250 f6.3 with the the writing on the outer barrel will just barely cover. I also owned a 125 with the writing on the inner ring that would cover 5x7. I looked up the specs for both and the 125 with the inner writing covers a 210mm image circle and the outer writing on the barrel is 198mm. The 250 with the writing on the inner ring has 398mm vs 312 and 320mm for the f6.3 versions with the writing on the outer barrel.

[xkaes]

That's pretty much true for the W lenses, but not for the SW lenses -- which became the SWD series. When the W series evolved into the NW series (which are only marked "W" on the outside of the barrel), the 6/4 design was changed to a 6/6 design and EBC coating was added. Both of these are improvements, but the image circle did drop -- typically from 80 degrees to 76 (on the wider NW lenses) all the way down to 64 (on the longer NW lenses). Two steps forward, one step back.

[Mark Sampson]

Back to the OP's question... both the Nikkors and Fujinons are top-quality lenses. You can't go wrong either way. Since all of them are used now, make your decision on condition and price.

[xkaes]

Back to the OP's question... both the Nikkors and Fujinons are top-quality lenses. You can't go wrong either way. Since all of them are used now, make your decision on condition and price.
I agree, but there might be other features to consider. There were at least three versions of the Fujinon 150mm f5.6 -- 1 W & 2 WS. There are differences in the shutter (Seiko vs Copal), coating (single vs EBC), filter size (46, 52, & 55mm), and Image Circle (224 vs 245mm). There may be similar "version" changes in the Nikon 150mm f5.6, for all I know. Taken together, these may be more important than brand, price, or condition -- but at least they should be thrown into the mix, along with size, weight, and optical design.