180mm for 5x7

[arthur berger]

Which would be a better choice for use on a 5x7... 180mm Schneider symmar-S or Apo-Symmar or Fujinon with inside lettering or 180 Fuji with
outside lettering.Any thoughts or reasons? I like Dagors but rare in that focal length.

[AJ Edmondson]

I used a 180mm APO Symmar on my Canham 5x7 and was completely satisfied with it (both in coverage and performance)... that said, the Fujinons with lettering on the front bezel are great (MY OPINION ONLY). I just like the way the older single-coated lenses perform. I no longer shoot 5x7 but kept the 180mm f5.6 APO Symmar and use it on 4x5.
Joel

[Greg]

I use a 180mm Fujinon with inside lettering on my whole plate for B&W work and love it. Had a chance to use a Dagor once and, if I remember correctly, at f/45 it had more coverage but the Fujinon was sharper... of course we're comparing optics made probably 50 years apart.

[Luis-F-S]

Check the coverages and decide. I doubt the optical quality will be the determining factor. Or buy both and see which you like better.

[Pere Casals]

All have similar coverages...

The fujinon with inside lettering would be (I guess) single coated, The Symmar-S can be single or multi coated, and the APO Symmar is multi-coated for sure.

I don't think a difference can be noticed beyond coating. I you like a Dagor because of the single coating footprint then you know what want. If you like the Dagor because of bokeh then all those 3 are slightly inferior.

Both 3 are excellent general purpose lenses.

[Vaughn]

I have been using a Fuji W 180/5.6, inside lettering on my 5x7. Pleased with it so far...I just traveled a month with the 180mm and a Computar Symmetrigon 210mm/6.3 on an old Eastman View No.2. No front tilt, but lots of front rise which was no problem for either lens.

[Eric Woodbury]

Not among the choices listed, but I use the Fujinon A 180mm/9. Not fast, but it covers well and is sure light weight.

[Drew Wiley]

Optically, the Fuji A 180/9 would unquestionably be the pick of the litter.

[Vaughn]

Not among the choices listed, but I use the Fujinon A 180mm/9. Not fast, but it covers well and is sure light weight.

The newer Fuji W 180mm (outside lettering) has a little more coverage than the Fuji A 180mm (about 30mm), but being in a Copal 0, the Fuji A makes a great traveling lens. One would just keep the front movements a little more mellow.

A graph of recent Fujis coverage (outside lettering):

[Dan Fromm]

Nice list, Vaughn, but it is a little incomplete. Joe McGloin's site has information on more Fuji lenses, including directions for recognizing them, but is much less concise.

[Drew Wiley]

The Fuji A is an 80 degree lens. The circle of illumination will actually cover 8x10 point blank, but the corner definition falls off way too much to make it a realistic lens on film this large, unless used close-up, an application in which this lens series excels. With the 5X7 format, you'd want to be conservative with front movements at infinity. With 4x5 and smaller, miles of wiggle room. The smaller aperture is a non-issue outdoors compared to 5.6 general purpose plasmats. But for portraiture, I prefer the less acute rendering of the old Symmar S series.

[arthur berger]

Thanks for all your input. I decided on the 180mm Fuji with the inner lettering and ordered one I had seen on the bay.
Arthur

[Bernice Loui]

Had the 180mm Fujinon A twice for 5x7. Once during the mid 1990's and later in the early 2000's.

Pass twice, No thank you, never again. Just not for me.
Coverage was_what it is_ok. Resolution based on testing two examples were lesser than the 7-1/2" Kodak Ektar (likely due to lager aperture used with the Ektar, Fujinon A starts at f9, Ektar is GOOD at f8. Larger aperture = higher resolution), color was not for me, contrast was ok...



Bernice



Optically, the Fuji A 180/9 would unquestionably be the pick of the litter.

[Eric Woodbury]

Bernice, larger aperture = lower diffraction, not higher resolution. With a "perfect lens", your statement is true, but for the lenses we can afford, not necessarily true. Best to stick with the "two stops down" rule.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, unless one wants very shallow depth of field, Bernice, why on earth would a large format shooter use wider apertures? For portraiture I'd rather have a fast tessar anyway for that kind of application. Decently stopped down, the Fuji A's truly are just what Fuji claims them to be, "Super Plasmats" - better corrected both close up and at infinity than general 5.6 plasmats. Eighty degree coverage. The color correction is absolutely superb. But they are modern relatively high contrast lenses which I don't like for things like portraiture. The out of focus rendering or bokeh is rather harsh, and a gentler contrast rendering is indeed often desirable in portraiture. For landscape use and nature closeups they're amazing. Incredibly sharp, even with greater magnification like roll film usage. Portable too. But I have no idea what specific applications the Poster has in mind, so am just chiming in with my two cents worth. I wouldn't use a 180 Fuji A for typical architectural work either, regarding 5x7, because the image circle is somewhat shy for serious rise; with 4X5, yes.

[Bernice Loui]

7 1/2" Kodak Ektar has a full aperture of f4.5, two stops down would be .... f8_ish.

Using a Sinar P which is quite precision and GOOD film holders allows using f8 at infinity focus with not a lot of DOF problems. So no, large aperture LF lens are not beyond affordability and using them with a precise imaging system in specific image making situations works GOOD with large aperture LF lenses.


Bernice





Bernice, larger aperture = lower diffraction, not higher resolution. With a "perfect lens", your statement is true, but for the lenses we can afford, not necessarily true. Best to stick with the "two stops down" rule.

[Bernice Loui]

For the same reason why aero-recon lenses for BIG roll film back in the day used fixed LARGE aperture lenses with LONG focal lengths. When focused at or near infinity, large aperture works, and works good enough to do high definition military intelligence recon.

As sheet film grows so does problem with lens options, lens availability and $, problems with depth of field-depth of focus grows with the exception of images at infinity focus. Specifically to 8x10 a larger film formats where one of the constant struggles is with DOF-F, lens choices, film flatness and more..

We have batted this about more than once Drew and the replies continue to repeat much the same. It seems we have been at this LF stuff for about as many decades.. over that time we have figured out what works for our image making needs. There was a time when 8x10 with apertures smaller than f32 were the thing for me. Since then, moved on to 5x7 with all the optical advantages of that smaller format. Adding to this was using the largest possible taking aperture mixed with careful use of camera movements to achieve absolute focus control.

LF image making is not always about everything in SHARP focus or actually apparently sharp focus as any lens has a single true point of focus.

There was a time when the Group f64 mind set was doctrine and ideology, since then I'm no longer a believe in the Group f64 doctrine-idealogy as exampled in soft focus, selective focus and more offers a broader variety of expressive image making possibilities.

As for lenses, the variety available to use for image making is not small.


:)
Bernice





Well, unless one wants very shallow depth of field, Bernice, why on earth would a large format shooter use wider apertures? For portraiture I'd rather have a fast tessar anyway for that kind of application. Decently stopped down, the Fuji A's truly are just what Fuji claims them to be, "Super Plasmats" - better corrected both close up and at infinity than general 5.6 plasmats. Eighty degree coverage. The color correction is absolutely superb. But they are modern relatively high contrast lenses which I don't like for things like portraiture. The out of focus rendering or bokeh is rather harsh, and a gentler contrast rendering is indeed often desirable in portraiture. For landscape use and nature closeups they're amazing. Incredibly sharp, even with greater magnification like roll film usage. Portable too. But I have no idea what specific applications the Poster has in mind, so am just chiming in with my two cents worth. I wouldn't use a 180 Fuji A for typical architectural work either, regarding 5x7, because the image circle is somewhat shy for serious rise; with 4X5, yes.

[Drew Wiley]

Since when has an ordinary film holder ever held the film precisely flat??? Recon and mapping aerial and cameras tensioned their big film on spooled rolls.

[Bob Salomon]

Since when has an ordinary film holder ever held the film precisely flat??? Recon and mapping aerial and cameras tensioned their big film on spooled rolls.

And vacuum backs

[Bob Salomon]

For the same reason why aero-recon lenses for BIG roll film back in the day used fixed LARGE aperture lenses with LONG focal lengths. When focused at or near infinity, large aperture works, and works good enough to do high definition military intelligence recon.

As sheet film grows so does problem with lens options, lens availability and $, problems with depth of field-depth of focus grows with the exception of images at infinity focus. Specifically to 8x10 a larger film formats where one of the constant struggles is with DOF-F, lens choices, film flatness and more..

We have batted this about more than once Drew and the replies continue to repeat much the same. It seems we have been at this LF stuff for about as many decades.. over that time we have figured out what works for our image making needs. There was a time when 8x10 with apertures smaller than f32 were the thing for me. Since then, moved on to 5x7 with all the optical advantages of that smaller format. Adding to this was using the largest possible taking aperture mixed with careful use of camera movements to achieve absolute focus control.

LF image making is not always about everything in SHARP focus or actually apparently sharp focus as any lens has a single true point of focus.

There was a time when the Group f64 mind set was doctrine and ideology, since then I'm no longer a believe in the Group f64 doctrine-idealogy as exampled in soft focus, selective focus and more offers a broader variety of expressive image making possibilities.

As for lenses, the variety available to use for image making is not small.


:)
Bernice

Ever look at those recon images of the personnel around the Cuban missle sites, or the missles in the ship holds? Those were all 5x5” long roll aerial film shots from RF101 Voodoos out of Homestead AFB, FL. Those were shot by my squadron and I printed many of them either on a Kodak package printer for prints up to 10x10” or on Durst or Loge enlargers for prints up to 24x24”. Also duped the film on Loge and all were detailed enough for the photo interpreters and for Langley and JFK.

If you haven’t seen them before they are usually displayed at the AeroSpace Museum in DC under one of our units Voodoos.

[Bernice Loui]

Previously discussed Bob.

US military Foto recon went from 10x10 roll to 5x5 roll film to reduce weight and get more images during any given fly over. This was the origins of the 3" f4.5 Biogon type lens (exposures made at or near f4.5) and others used for recon Fotos. Notable was the side looking camera used on the SR71. This aero recon camera has a special flat mirror in front of the lens and has a image stabilization and ground speed compensation (Similar to Fairchild) system to limit camera movement that will blur images made. Have pictures of this camera, SR71 and the related electronics some where from the SR71 that is on display at Edwards Field Riverside, CA.

They were later printed up to 10x10 using a 6" Goerz Magnar enlarging lens specifically designed for 2x reproduction. This enlarging lens is exceptional in it's performance at 2x.

It is remarkable what can be seen on these Foto Recon films in many ways.


Bernice




Ever look at those recon images of the personnel around the Cuban missle sites, or the missles in the ship holds? Those were all 5x5” long roll aerial film shots from RF101 Voodoos out of Homestead AFB, FL. Those were shot by my squadron and I printed many of them either on a Kodak package printer for prints up to 10x10” or on Durst or Loge enlargers for prints up to 24x24”. Also duped the film on Loge and all were detailed enough for the photo interpreters and for Langley and JFK.

If you haven’t seen them before they are usually displayed at the AeroSpace Museum in DC under one of our units Voodoos.

[Bob Salomon]

Previously discussed Bob.

US military Foto recon went from 10x10 roll to 5x5 roll film to reduce weight and get more images during any given fly over. This was the origins of the 3" f4.5 Biogon type lens (exposures made at or near f4.5) and others used for recon Fotos. Notable was the side looking camera used on the SR71. This aero recon camera has a special flat mirror in front of the lens and has a image stabilization and ground speed compensation (Similar to Fairchild) system to limit camera movement that will blur images made. Have pictures of this camera, SR71 and the related electronics some where from the SR71 that is on display at Edwards Field Riverside, CA.

They were later printed up to 10x10 using a 6" Goerz Magnar enlarging lens specifically designed for 2x reproduction. This enlarging lens is exceptional in it's performance at 2x.

It is remarkable what can be seen on these Foto Recon films in many ways.


Bernice

Bernice, we flew 5” roll for obliques and 9” roll for verticals. The 9” was flown in RB 66 widow makers the 5” in first RB 101 Voodoos and then in RF4C currently I believe in RF16s.

[David Lindquist]

Previously discussed Bob.

US military Foto recon went from 10x10 roll to 5x5 roll film to reduce weight and get more images during any given fly over. This was the origins of the 3" f4.5 Biogon type lens (exposures made at or near f4.5) and others used for recon Fotos. Notable was the side looking camera used on the SR71. This aero recon camera has a special flat mirror in front of the lens and has a image stabilization and ground speed compensation (Similar to Fairchild) system to limit camera movement that will blur images made. Have pictures of this camera, SR71 and the related electronics some where from the SR71 that is on display at Edwards Field Riverside, CA.

They were later printed up to 10x10 using a 6" Goerz Magnar enlarging lens specifically designed for 2x reproduction. This enlarging lens is exceptional in it's performance at 2x.

It is remarkable what can be seen on these Foto Recon films in many ways.


Bernice

Thank you very much Bernice for confirming what's long been my hunch about the origins of the Goerz Magnar enlarging lens. Given its price of $2600.00 on my 1970 Goerz price list (where it's called the Imperial Magnar II). I always thought U.S. military reconnaissance was a more likely market than even the most finicky commercial lab.

David