View Full Version : 105mm CM-W with Crown Graphic -- does it fit when closed?

James Morris
14-Dec-2018, 13:37
Does anyone know if a Fujinon 105mm CM-W will fit in a Crown Graphic when closed?

Dan Fromm
14-Dec-2018, 14:25
I'm sorry I can't answer directly. My 105/5.6 NW can't quite be closed up in a 2x3 Crown. This http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm -- look for 105 mm lenses -- makes me think that a CM W won't go either.

Drew Wiley
14-Dec-2018, 17:13
Is this for 6x9 film? A Nikkor M 100 has an even larger max aperture, yet is quite small. Extremely crisp and contrasty, just like the other M's. But it won't cover 4x5 film.

James Morris
14-Dec-2018, 17:14
This is for a 4x5 camera.

Drew Wiley
14-Dec-2018, 17:35
The problem with CMW lenses in terms of compactness is that they standardized the entire series from 105 to 250mm on a 67mm filter size, which gives the shorter focal lengths a funnel-like front end. That was wholly unnecessary. One could simply use a step ring if only 67mm filters were on hand. I seriously doubt you can detect any actual optical performance difference between CMW, NW, and multicoated W lenses.

Dan Fromm
14-Dec-2018, 17:49
Drew, Fuji claims that the 105/5.6 CM W covers 174 mm. Probably not what you'd do, but it should cover 4x5.

James, my little 2x3 Crown's box is 50 mm deep. The 4x5 Crown's box is 100 mm deep. When you ask questions about cameras that were made in a range of size, please be as specific as possible about the one you mean.

Drew Wiley
14-Dec-2018, 18:15
Dan - I was referring to the Nikkor M 105 (tessar) in terms of being unrealistic on 4x6. All of Fuji's general 105 plasmats (W,NW,CMW) should marginally cover 4x5. Fuji brochures are notoriously full of typos. But the 105 would probably have to be used at small aperture with minimal movements. Sometimes back tilt can be substituted. Point blank use on something like a Crown Graphic should be OK, but probably not at wider apertures. The CMW tweak seems to be a cosmetic ploy, or maybe just an excuse for the engineers to give themselves busy work as the overall Fuji LF lineup was being trimmed back. The large front end might or might not remove a tad of mechanical vignetting wide open, but has no significant benefit otherwise.

Dan Fromm
14-Dec-2018, 19:46
Drew, Fuji's documentation may be in error, but they claim that some CM Ws are 6/6 and that others are 6/5. Regardless, I've always been puzzled by their coverage claims, have wondered what their designers knew that the competition's didn't.

I don't shoot 4x5, as you know. If I did I wouldn't use a normal lens for 2x3 as a w/a on 4x5. I got my 105/5.6 NW for 6x12. None of my other normal lenses for 2x3 will stretch to 6x12 and 100/6.3 WF Ektars are out of my price range.

Drew Wiley
16-Dec-2018, 20:06
Fuji's coverage claims have always tended to be a bit over optimistic, while Schneider and Rodenstock sometimes seem too nitpicky conservative. Fuji is every bit as good, but relatively insular in terms of explaining their specific methodology. And not even every variation of a specific focal length appears in their known brochures. Plus there's that typo issue. I doubt that at f/32 there's going to be any perceptible difference between a W 105 and a CMW. There might be wide open; but neither will be realistic at wide aperture on full 4x5. Even a 125 is pretty limited until it's stopped down. But it sure beats the image stretching, illumination falloff, and weight of a wide angle design when surplus coverage is not necessary.