Fuji lens aficionados: CM-W 125mm f/5.6 vs Apo-Symmar L 120mm

[pchaplo]

After studying the links at the top sticky in this forums, I find that I really like theFujinon CM-W 125mm f/5.6 that is for sale:
173694

It appears to be the “CM-W” 125mm at the top of this spreadsheet: (thanks for this great resource!)
173695
Link: http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

Here is the sample image for that spreadsheet:
173696

Here is another pic from the ePay listing: see below sorry trouble with upload limit.

Did I identify the lens version correctly?

I like the manageable front element size and the way it is somewhat protected. EDIT: By manageable, I mean that for my application, the lens barrel is about the same size as the Copal 0. I happen to like that.

Have you used this lens? I was wondering about sharpness and image circle at f/8, infinity focus.

Also I wonder how this lense stacks up against the Schneider APO Symmar-S 120mm f/5.6 L-75

[Dan Fromm]

Here's the listing: https://web.archive.org/web/20180114185530/https://www.ebay.com/itm/Fujifilm-CM-FUJINON-W-125mm-f-5-6-with-COPAL-Shutter-from-Japan-218-B414/332517870487 The fifth image contains the string "CM" End of discussion, that's what it is. The seller says it is a CM Fujinon W. No lie.

Which is better, 120 Schneider or 125 Fuji? Beats me. Fuji claims more coverage, if that matters.

[pchaplo]

I’m delving back into the sticky resources to find specs on the APO Symmar-S 120mm f/5.6 L-75. I have good report from actually user here for that lens, now looking for some user comments from Fujinon CM-W 125mm f/5.6. For the latter, and me being new to Fuji lenses, I wanted to confirm the model and not assume. The array of flavors is somewhat confusing to s first timer.

[angusparker]

The CM has a 67mm filter ring which is a bit silly given the size of the lens. If I remember correctly the earlier versions have smaller hoods/filters but their coatings won’t be as advanced as the latter CM. Their performance will be all roughly equivalent - I.e. excellent. A pixel peeper may say another lens is better but I find the Fujinon uniformly good.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[xkaes]

I like the manageable front element size and the way it is somewhat protected.

I have no idea what you mean by "manageable", but you can spot the 125mm CM-W by its "ridiculously" wide filter thread of 67mm. I have the CM-W 105mm. It's great except for its "ridiculously" wide filter thread of 67mm. OOPS, I mean "manageable".

For a 125mm, I have a Fujinon NW f5.6 with a 52mm thread. Same EBC coating, but a 6/6 air-spaced design instead of the 6/5 design of the 125mm CM-W.

[pchaplo]

No problem, I mean compared to this:
173699

I have no idea what you mean by "manageable" ... OOPS, I mean "manageable .

[pchaplo]

It’s just a matter of taste. I like that the CM-W barrel and front element are about the same size as the Copal 0. That being said, I would like to see a pic of the EBC version with 46mm filter size, as there no illustration link for that lens in the spreadsheet.

[Dan Fromm]

It’s just a matter of taste. I like that the CM-W barrel and front element are about the same size as the Copal 0. That being said, I would like to see a pic of the EBC version with 46mm filter size, as there no illustration link for that lens in the spreadsheet.

You can help yourself. eBay is infested with them. Go look.

[pchaplo]

I didn’t say manageable “filter size,” I said “manageable front element size.”


I have no idea what you mean by "manageable", but you can spot the 125mm CM-W by its "ridiculously" wide filter thread of 67mm. I have the CM-W 105mm. It's great except for its "ridiculously" wide filter thread of 67mm. OOPS, I mean "manageable

[pchaplo]

Hey Dan, I am looking.
You can help yourself. eBay is infested with them. Go look.

[xkaes]

I didn’t say manageable “filter size,” I said “manageable front element size.”

Now I'm even more confused. The actual front element of all of them are the same. The only difference is the filter size. Please educate me.

[Sal Santamaura]

The CM has a 67mm filter ring which is a bit silly given the size of the lens...
...CM-W by its "ridiculously" wide filter thread of 67mm...It's great except for its "ridiculously" wide filter thread of 67mm...

This has been conventional wisdom for a long time. As someone who typically uses filters as well as lenses' full image circles on 4x5, I have an opposite perspective.

Fuji's last line of large format plasmats (CM Fujinon W) overcame a limitation found in other manufacturers' competitive offerings -- not to mention Fuji's prior incarnation. Those others substantially choke down their usable image circles when used at typical apertures (f/22 - f/32) with a filter attached. The CM-W line does not. In my opinion, standardizing on 67mm filter threads was a perfect example of continuous improvement.

[xkaes]

This has been conventional wisdom for a long time. As someone who typically uses filters as well as lenses' full image circles on 4x5, I have an opposite perspective.

Fuji's last line of large format plasmats (CM Fujinon W) overcame a limitation found in other manufacturers' competitive offerings -- not to mention Fuji's prior incarnation. Those others substantially choke down their usable image circles when used at typical apertures (f/22 - f/32) with a filter attached. The CM-W line does not. In my opinion, standardizing on 67mm filter threads was a perfect example of continuous improvement.

I've never had a problem with this, but all of my lenses are "upgraded" to 77mm with step-up rings. I've "upgraded" my CM-W 105 67mm thread to 77mm. Still, if Fuji had left the filter thread at 46mm, it would have a much more compact lens. They could have accomplished a 67mm filter thread without added so much to the front. Increasing the filter size from 46mm to 67mm did not increase the image circle. They were trying to standardize their filter size -- which is generally a good idea -- but seems less important in LF photography.

[Sal Santamaura]

...all of my lenses are "upgraded" to 77mm with step-up rings...Most non-CM-W plasmat image circles are even reduced by a step-up ring under the conditions I described.


...if Fuji had left the filter thread at 46mm, it would have a much more compact lens...If we used cell phone cameras instead of large format, our photography equipment would be much more compact too. :)


...Increasing the filter size from 46mm to 67mm did not increase the image circle...It did for anyone who uses filters.


...They were trying to standardize their filter size -- which is generally a good idea -- but seems less important in LF photography.A good idea indeed, as evidenced by you standardizing yours on 77mm. Why would it be less important in large format than any other format?

[Drew Wiley]

I'd rather have (and do own) the smaller 125 with a 52mm thread, and if necessary on rare occasions use a step-up ring than be forced to carry 67mm filters for the CMW, which is bulkier to begin with. Either way, you've got a bigger image circle than with a Nikon. Yet none are substitutes for the dramatically larger coverage of wide-angle 120's for drastic architectural movements. They will have less distortion and much less illumination falloff.

[scerto]

I love my 125mm CM-W, it just replaced a Nikkor W. I wouldn't go wider than that for my photography

Filter thread is a bit too large for such lens, but it doesn't weigh a lot, so it's manageable.

[xkaes]

A good idea indeed, as evidenced by you standardizing yours on 77mm. Why would it be less important in large format than any other format?

Only because it is typically less important, ex. Minolta/Canon are typically 55mm, Nikon 52mm, Pentax 49mm. etc.

[xkaes]

It did for anyone who uses filters.

I always have a filter on my lenses -- at least a UV -- any frequently a yellow or orange AND polarizer, and only encounter problems wider than 75mm.

[Sal Santamaura]

Only because it is typically less important, ex. Minolta/Canon are typically 55mm, Nikon 52mm, Pentax 49mm. etc.


I always have a filter on my lenses -- at least a UV -- any frequently a yellow or orange AND polarizer, and only encounter problems wider than 75mm.

Should that second quote refer to large format, it's highly likely that, if you're not "encountering problems," you aren't using the 75mm and longer lenses' full image circles.

[xkaes]

Should that second quote refer to large format, it's highly likely that, if you're not "encountering problems," you aren't using the 75mm and longer lenses' full image circles.

Yes, it refers to 4x5. I can assure you that I have not had any problems with vignetting when using >1filter on my 75mm or 65mm lenses. On my 47mm, I am limited to one filter unless I agree to a little cropping in the darkroom.

[Drew Wiley]

Like I said, this is not a lens with a huge image circle appropriate for significant rise etc anyway. A thin step ring isn't going to make much difference. It is a compact precise lens which is justifiably popular with 4X5 landscape photographers.

[AnnikaES]

What happened to the link http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm ?

[Dan Fromm]

It works for me.

[AnnikaES]

It works for me.

Neither Internet Explorer nor Mozilla Firefox can open that page...

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I happen to use an older 125 with 52 mm threads, and mechanical vignetting from even a 52 filter on it (vs step ring and bigger filter) is a very minor issue. This focal length just has a certain limitation in coverage. It's not a wide angle design intended for large amounts of rise. But neither does it have their bulk, weight, distortion, and falloff issues requiring a CF. It is a nice compact lens highly suitable for landscape applications with 4x5 and 120 film. In this respect I don't see any significant advantage to the CMW. I suspect they were just trying to standardize the filter size for the series.

[Dan Fromm]

Neither Internet Explorer nor Mozilla Firefox can open that page...

It worked again with Firefox 61.0.1

[Brian Creek]

I was kinda thinking the same thing. My full-frame digital lenses take filters from 42 - 105 mm. 67mm is totally manageable. My 4" Singh Ray filters will also work on this size well. And FWIW, my Canon 400 f2.8 weighs 8.5 pounds, so weight-wise 4x5 lenses are a dream!
Just my opinion. YMMV.
Brian

[Oren Grad]

Better late than never: there is no "APO Symmar-S 120mm L-75", but there is a 120mm Apo-Symmar L, which does cover 75 degrees at f/22. Thread title has been corrected to avoid spreading further confusion.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd much rather have any of the Fuji 125's than the Schneider, and in fact do, but the NW with a 52mm filter thread. The 67mm thread on the CMW is ridiculous. But any of these are going to be fine performers optically, provided you don't expect a lot of front rise out of them like a big wide-angle lens designed for architectural etc shots (Super Angulon, Fuji SW etc).