COMPARISON: Fujinon W 250mm f6.7 & Fujinon A 240 f9

[Salmo22]

I'm looking to add a 240mm-250mm focal length to my 4x5 set-up and these two lenses have my attention. I primarily photograph the landscape, so 1:1 performance is not a priority. I like to explore the differences in perspective given by modest changes in focal length, and either of these two lenses would slot nicely between my Nikkor M 200.9 and M 300/9.

The Fujinon W 250/6.7 currently seems a bit "scarce" on the used market. Interestingly, the Fujinon A 240/9 appears more available, but excellent copies are more expensive than the less prevalent W 250/6.7.

What are the pros and cons of these two lenses? Is one superior compared to the other? Sharpness? Contrast?

The specs say the 250/6.7 has a 398mm image circle, which is larger than the A 240/9 363mm image circle. For my 4x5, I believe both have plenty of coverage for movements.

Any comments are appreciated. Thank you.

[Jim Noel]

They are close enough in performance to go by weight. I would go with the lighter on - the 240 f9.

[Heroique]

I'm looking to add a 240mm-250mm focal length to my 4x5 … I primarily photograph the landscape.

I’m not familiar with the 250mm/6.7 other than its overall fine reputation.

But I am a user of the Fuji A 240mm/9 – and as a shooter of 4x5 landscapes, I love it for its tiny size and weight (225g), Copal #0 shutter, EBC coating, and convenient 52mm filter size.

You might also consider the Fuji CM-W 250mm/6.3 (320mm IC, 510g, 67mm filter).

LF forum lens specs here:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

[neil poulsen]

What are you looking for in a lens? What other lenses do you have? I'm not sure about the Fuji A 240 f9, but the 240mm f6.7 is a single-coated lens. If you want multi-coating, look further. Being in a Copal 1 shutter, so it's compact, compared to the huge Copal 3 versions at or near this focal length.

The f6.7 is really nice for those who photograph in both 4x5 and 8x10. At 398mm, the f6.7 gives nice coverage for 8x10, including movements. For whatever reason, I've decided to have all single-coated lenses for 8x10. So, the f6.7 fits in nicely with these other lenses.

By the way, "perspective" relates to camera position, not focal length. The later relates to framing -- how much of the scene fills the ground glass.

[Greg Y]

For a 4x5 kit for landscape I would choose the smaller & lighter 240/f9 A.

[CreationBear]

You might throw the 240/9 G-Claron on your list--it's in a Copal #1, so it's a few ounces heavier than the Fuji 240/9, but you can usually find one at fairly reasonable prices. I haven't put my G-Claron through its paces on my 8x10 yet, but I'm betting movements will be ample enough for landscape applications.

[Peter De Smidt]

" I haven't put my G-Claron through its paces on my 8x10 yet, but I'm betting movements will be ample enough for landscape applications."

That's been my experience.

[drew.saunders]

I used to own the more modern 250/6.3 CM-W and now own a Fuji 250/4.7 Fujinar for 4x5. Of those four, for your needs, I'd rank them (and why) as:

1: 240/9: Because it's small, and fits well with your two Nikkor-M lenses.
2: 250/6.3: Because it doesn't cover 8x10 like the older f/6.7 version, so is cheaper, but will do just fine for 4x5. It's also multicoated, which may or may not appeal to you, but is consistent with your Nikkor-M lenses that are multicoated.
3: 25cm Fujinar: The "fast" Tessar design gives a different look than a plasmat, and it's about the same weight ast the 260/6.3 CM-W, which is why I kept it and sold the 250/6.3.
4: 250/6.7: Since this covers 8x10, it's more collectable, so will cost more, but that doesn't do you any good for 4x5. Let the 8x10 users purchase this lens, unless you expect to want to shoot 8x10 someday.

If you can find and afford a 240/9, that would be the best choice.

[Bernice Loui]

If a large image circle is not needed consider one of the APO "process lens" Dialyte symmetrical lens designs. They are small, have remarkable optical performance and were made for decades in shutter.

From the 300mm lens post# 47.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?163447-300mm-lens-4x5-quot-landscape&p=1598766#post1598766

2. Process lenses that work just fine at infinity and are available in shutters:
2a: Dialyte lenses, 45-48° coverage:
Goerz Red Dot Artar
Schneider Repro-Claron
Schneider Apo-Artar
Rodenstock Apo-Ronar
Docter Apo-Germinar

IMO, due to the "internet" those Fujinon LF lenses have developed cult status. Yes, they are good, but not the only LF lenses with outstanding optical performance.


Bernice

[Alan9940]

I own both of those lenses and use them regularly on both 4x5 and 8x10. In terms of overall performance, sharpness, etc, IMO it would be tough to see any difference between these two optics in any normal size enlargements from 4x5. The 240A is significantly smaller and lighter than the 250/6.7 and would "fit" better with your M-series lenses. However, the 240/A is typically quite a bit more expensive for a good copy. Overall, I'd consider weight as the primary choice between the two, especially if you hike any distances.

[Bernice Loui]

Keep in mind the great optical performance equalizer of f22...


Bernice

[Greg]

Schneider Repro-Clarons are much over looked because people gravitate towards the G-Clarons which probably have more coverage than you'll ever need to use. Intern Repro-Clarons in shutters can be had for "bargain" prices if you are patient and look around. Beware of barrel Repro-Clarons in that it will probably cost you more in the end to have it put into a shutter than to just find one out there already in a factory mounted shutter.

[Drew Wiley]

I've owned all three : 250/6.7, 240/9A, 250/9GC - all wonderful lenses. All cover 8x10 reasonably stopped down. The 250/6.7 obviously has a little bit brighter viewing wide open, is itself in a lightwt no.1 shutter, and uses 67mm filters if I recall correctly. The 240A is the lightest and most compact in 0 shutter, multicoated, very well close-range corrected (but superb at infinity too) and I use a step ring for 52mm filters. The GC is in no.1 and a very similar optically, likewise close-range to infinity corrected, and accepts small filters, but is only single-coated (that's not a compromise by any means, but just means it has a slightly less contrast rendering than the Fuji A, which is why I like owning both. My 250/6.7 was stolen.

Functionally, in terms of either color or black and white work, you'd be hard pressed to find much difference in the actual result. I'd be more concerned about the condition of any older 250/6.7 with respect to shutter condition and yellowing of the special glass type. Real-world image circles are about the same too, if you do plan on using these for 8x10 format. (Don't get confused by the spec sheets. Fuji and Schneider classify these lenses in different categories, with GC specs being ridiculously conservative for sake of standardized industrial applications.) Alan just mentioned "normal-sized" viewing results. I don't know exactly what that means in his case; but I've got 30X40 inch Cibachrome prints from these lenses where you'd actually need a magnifier to see all the detail in the print at precisely in-focus portions. You can't go wrong with any of them.

Note that I am NOT referring to Repro Clarons or older designs. I need lenses in shutter and straight out the gate that work superbly all the way from macro to infinity. I'm an aging backpacker, so love the petite size of these lenses, as well as my Nikkor M's.

[Greg]

Piping in again about Repro-Clarons. Back in, I think, the mid 1990s I was shooting 4x5 Chromes with my Sinar F. I owned several 210mm lenses. Repro-Claron, Red Dot Artar, G-Claron, and a Nikkor-W. One time shot the same scene with all 4 lenses at the same aperture of f/22. The Red Dot Artar was the poorest performer. Repro-Claron and G-Claron produced notably different images. The G-Claron was the very least bit sharper in the center but the Repro-Claron definitely sharper on the edges. Ended up selling the Red Dot Artar. As for the 210mm Nikkor, my memory fails me, but for some reason I kept on shooting Chromes with the Repro-Claron and not the Nikkor. I was backpacking the equipment at the time, so possibly the size of the Nikkor had something to do with my choice.

[Bernice Loui]

Repro-Claron was Schneider's process lens offering. Think Schneider used thoriated glass making them very slightly radioactive. They were one of the under appreciate with suppressed market values for the longest time.. until recently when this view camera stuff became fashionable.

Schneider discontinued their Repo-Claron after they acquired Goerz and the APO artar (Red Dot much the same) lens design and production rights. Based on personal accounts and story, there were two individuals at Goerz that knew how to make a proper APO artar. Schneider continued with the historical and traditionally ways of producing the APO artar until the lens bits ran out.. The folks at Schneider re-designed the APO artar to make it producible via modern means and continued to offer it for years more.

Having been around a LOT of Red Dot Artars, they vary in optical performance. Some have been "tinkered" with in remarkable ways rendering their optical performance icky. Others were as originally made and have stunning optical performance. Applying an n=1 to form an opinion of the optical performance of all Red Dot Artars and APO artar in general is much a generalization.


Bernice



Piping in again about Repro-Clarons. Back in, I think, the mid 1990s I was shooting 4x5 Chromes with my Sinar F. I owned several 210mm lenses. Repro-Claron, Red Dot Artar, G-Claron, and a Nikkor-W. One time shot the same scene with all 4 lenses at the same aperture of f/22. The Red Dot Artar was the poorest performer. Repro-Claron and G-Claron produced notably different images. The G-Claron was the very least bit sharper in the center but the Repro-Claron definitely sharper on the edges. Ended up selling the Red Dot Artar. As for the 210mm Nikkor, my memory fails me, but for some reason I kept on shooting Chromes with the Repro-Claron and not the Nikkor. I was backpacking the equipment at the time, so possibly the size of the Nikkor had something to do with my choice.

[Drew Wiley]

Among Nikkors in that range I use the 200 M, not a W, for 4X5, which is a lot smaller to pack, and has excellent optics. But I sometimes substitute a 180 Fuji A in that general focal-length range. My first 210 was a relatively bulky classic ole 210 Symmar S. But I made good use of its much larger image circle when among the peaks, up close and personal with an ice axe, where a lot of rise was sometimes needed. No, it wasn't as hard-sharp as any of the 240-250's under discussion, or as contrasty, or as well apo corrected; but it was no slouch either.

[Salmo22]

I apologize for my tardy reply, but this recovering from surgery business sometimes is distracting.

Neil asked what I was looking for in a lens and what other lenses I have. I appreciate sharpness, contrast, and a reasonably large image circle. I currently own a Nikkor SW 75/4.5 (rarely used), Nikkor SW 90/8 (infrequently used), Nikkor SW 120/8 (I love this lens), Nikkor W 150/5.6, G-Claron 150/9, Nikkor W 180/5.6, Nikkor M 200/8, Nikkor W 210/5.6, G-Claron 210/9, Nikkor M 300/9, and Nikkor M 450/9. I was able to pick-up the GC 210/9 NIB earlier this year and, with the GC 150/9, and intended to do some table top work during the pandemic. That never happened as my darkroom project has taken on a life of its own. I recently picked-up the M 450/9 in a trade. Haven't used it yet. If I find that focal length appealing for my 4x5 work, I'll likely begin looking for a Fujinon C 450/12.5 as a lightweight alternative.

Clearly I'm a bit of a Nikkor fan-boy, but I look forward to putting my GC's through their paces and think the Fujinon (either A 240/9 or W 250/6.7) would be terrific performers. While I don't backpack, I appreciate having a smaller lens hanging off the end of my 4x5. That big Copal 3 on the M 450/9 is a beast. Even my W 210/56 and SW 120/8 are big pieces of glass.

[Alan Gales]

I own the Fujinon W 250mm f/6.7 lens. I paid close to $300 for mine and I've since seen them go for as low as $250 or even less. I think this has to do with their age. They are excellent lenses and a real bargain for the 8x10 shooter. For 4x5 I'd rather have a smaller, lighter lens. I once mounted my lens on a 4x5 Tachihara to see if I had enough bellows to do a head and shoulder shot. I could just barely but it's weight was very taxing on the Tachihara front standard.