View Full Version : Coverage of Fujinon A 300mm

Donald Hutton
14-Nov-2005, 15:19
Anyone know just how much coverage the Fujinon A 300mm has? I know the stated specs are 420mm which would seem to indicate that it does not cover 7x17 but I remember reading somewhere that it did. Anyone share some user experience on this matter?

14-Nov-2005, 20:08
Hi Don,

According to the following chart... it'll cover up to 8x10.


I can't vouch for the accuracy of the chart though... :)


Ken Lee
14-Nov-2005, 20:33
I have a 300A, but don't know how to measure the coverage. I only have a 5x7 camera at this point.

Christopher Perez's page may be helpful. See here (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/ulfcameras/ulfstart.html" target="_blank).

He mentions that the Fujinon 300A is reported to cover 7x17, but he goes on to state this:

"The 7x17 format is 178 x 432 mm. A full diagonal is 18.38 inches or 466mm."

As coverage is usually listed for f/22, others may have reported adequate coverage for smaller apertures.

Kerry L. Thalmann
14-Nov-2005, 21:03
It has been my experience that the 70 degree coverage spec for the Fujinon A series is very accurate and about the maximum usable coverage for these lenses. Like the other f9 process plasmats (C Claron and Germinar-W) the A series throws a much larger circle of illumination than the specs indicate. However, in the case of the Fujinon A, sharpness deteriorates rapidly beyond the spec and stopping down doesn't really gain a lot in the way of usable coverage. You can probably push the coverage a bit if all you have is blank sky in the corners, or don't mind if the corners going a little soft. I have a photo taken on 8x10 film with a 180mm Fujinon A. In spite of the listed image circle being only 254mm, the circle of illumination JUST misses the corners of 8x10. I'd estimate the circle of illumination to be between 300 and 305mm. However, everything beyond the 254mm published image circle is noticeably soft.

In the case of the G Claron (and Germinar-W), the fall-off in performance is much less dramatic once you get beyond the published specs. For these lenses, usable coverage increases dramatically when stopping down. As is often stated, the G Clarons can be used effectively out to about 80 degrees - far beyond the 64 degree spec. For this reason, the 305mm G Claron makes a much better lens for 7x17 than a 300mm Fujinon A. It's usually less expensive as well. The 360mm Fujinon A, with it's 504mm image circle, is definitely usable on 7x17 or 11x14.

Don't get the wrong impression. I'm a big fan of the Fujinon A series. They offer a unique combination of ultra small size and multicoating which the G Clarons can't match. They are great lenses within the limits of their 70 degree coverage specs (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/as-sfs.htm). You just don't get the large amount of "extra" usable coverage like you do with the G Clarons.


Kerry L. Thalmann
14-Nov-2005, 21:23
Of course, another option in this focal length is the classic 12" Goerz Dagor. Back in ancient time when I shot 11x14 I had a beautiful 12" Golden Dagor that covered with tons to spare. Stopped down to f32 or f45 the Dagor will cover quite a bit more than even the G Claron. Like the 305mm G Claron, the 12" Dagor is also a nice, compact lens that's easy to tote about in the field.


Donald Hutton
14-Nov-2005, 22:46

I had a 240mm A Fujinon and what you say was exactly my experience - which is why I asked the question about the 300mm. I have a 305mm G Claron which covers 7X17 with a bit of wiggle room. However, I only shoot formats larger than 4X5 for Pt/Pd and my compositions often have light sources close to or within the frame (something I seldom do in images intended for silver printing) - I'm finding that the single coating of the G Claron can be a little frustrating under these conditions and was exploring the options with multicoated lenses for the same purpose (now I'm not really sure that weight/size should be any consideration for lens choice when one is thinking about 7X17....). I sold the 240mm A when I purloined a 240mm Germinar W (and now that I have used it, I am convinced it was a steal - just used it exstensively on a trip to Scotland on 4X5 and it is a fabulous optic on 8X10 too - allowing for substantially more movement than the 240mm A did).

The Dagor is a thought, but I suppose that a MC version is going to cost $$$$ because it will be from the Kern factory?...

Michael Jones
15-Nov-2005, 06:14

I had a Kern 14" Dagor and it would not cover my 8x20. It did cover 11x14, however. On the other hand I have a very old 12" Dagor that would cover nearly anything. I would want to try a Kern Dagor first to make sure it covered the format I was using. Good luck.