Fujinon 125mm f/5.6 W (old version)

[Times2]

I have 150mm Schneider Apo-Symmar f/5.6 and looking for something wider. I think ~ 120mm would be a good fit for me. As I intend to use it for architecture and some environmental portraits.
I think this lens could provide enough coverage as it should have a larger than 200mm image circle(?) and is very cheap but I'm somewhat worried about its sharpness.
I would appreciate your experience with this lens.:)

[Tobias Key]

I have the 125mm 5.6 W but I think it is a newer (80's?) version with EBC coating. Its lettering is on the outside of the lens barrel. I really like the focal length and use it next to a 210mm APO Symmar and same vintage 75mm Super Angulon . I would say the 125mm is a tiny bit less sharp than those two but easily good enough, so most likely less sharp than your 150mm. Mine was less than half the price of my other two lenses. It is a great option as a carry around lens, small enough to fold into my camera, and a similar focal length to fixed lens cameras like Rolleiflexes or film compacts, so very versatile.

[Doremus Scudder]

Just a personal opinion here, so get out your grain of salt when reading :)

If you've got a 150mm lens and plan on using it still and you want to expand you lens kit in the wide direction, I'd go with a 90mm lens. A 125mm (or 135mm) lens is not that much different in view from your 150mm. If you're like me, you'll find yourself using the wider lens and leaving the 150mm in the bag/car/home. I have a kit that includes 90mm, 135mm, 150mm and 203/210mm lenses. I almost always leave the 150mm out when I'm carrying my kit on hikes. I can always crop the image from the 135mm just a tiny bit to get the same view as the 150mm, and don't need to take up the extra space with another lens.

So, my recommendation is to get a good f/8 version of one of the 90mm wide-angle lenses, like the Schneider 90mm f/8 Super Angulon or the equivalent from Nikkor, Fuji, Rodenstock (f/6.8 in this case). And this especially if you need movements in your work much (you mention architecture), since the 125mm Fujinon, even the "old-style" one, has not much coverage.

When I do architectural work, even the 135mm Plasmats don't have coverage enough; I use the 150mm there or the 135mm Wide Field Ektar, which has significantly more coverage in that focal length than the Plasmats

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[Mark Sampson]

I'll second Mr. Scudder's ideas. The 90mm lens is the standard f.l. for architecture, and will provide quite a different look than your 150.

[Bernice Loui]

90mm on 4x5 is very common for architectural images, most often used for interiors. There will be images that would benefit from wider-shorter focal length lenses for these types of images. The more significant question becomes the camera, does the current camera have enough capability to fully utilize the full capability of a large image circle 90mm wide angle lens? This often requires a bag bellows with a camera that has large movement capability for front and rear standards with both standards being able to come close together negating the need for a recessed lens board (not often with a 90mm, shorter focal lengths, possible).

For environmental portraits, 90mm could work good, depending on your image goals. Know the image effects of a wide angle lens.

Common three lens kit for 4x5 would be:

75mm to 90mm wide angle.

150mm to 210mm "normal".

240mm to 360mm Telephoto.


Or:

90mm, 150mm, 240mm to 300mm as a three lens kit.



Bernice

[Kiwi7475]

The above suggestions are standard but it’s not uncommon to shift depending on what you’re going to shoot.

For example many times I mostly bring and shoot 75 and 150 mm.

Other times 90, 150 (and 300mm)

Others I go 65 and 125mm only

Mostly I know what to bring because I know the locations so I kind of expect what I’ll be shooting even if the exact locations vary; except for a very short outing, in the car I’ll usually carry all the above and a 400 mm tele, for my 4x5 kit. Can always run back if I really need to.

So the point here is that sometimes it’s about pairing. Personally I wouldn’t pair a 125 with a 150 or a 90, but if I go wider like 65 I feel 150 is too much of a jump, so I’ll pair it with a 125mm.

Not saying one had to grow the collection to include all these but it seems most people do, including myself, given enough time.

[Kiwi7475]

And to answer your question I have the older 125 W and have no complaints about sharpness…. I think it represents great value and great performance.

[xkaes]

I think ~ 120mm would be a good fit for me....I think this lens could provide enough coverage as it should have a larger than 200mm image circle(?) and is very cheap but I'm somewhat worried about its sharpness.


The cost floor tends to drop out below 120/125mm -- and so does the coverage floor.

By that I mean as the focal length drops, for the image circle to stay the same, the price increases -- and often so does the maximum f-stop.

Take Fujinon as an example. They make a great 125mm f5.6 with an IC of 200mm -- and you can get it for a reasonable price. If you go wider, they have a 105mm f5.6 that barely covers 4x5. If you want to keep a 200mm IC you have to go to 90mm. They have two -- f5.6 & f8. Both are large, heavy, and much more expensive.

So if you want to go past 120/125mm and price is your deciding factor, your options are limited.

[Joseph Kashi]

I have 150mm Schneider Apo-Symmar f/5.6 and looking for something wider. I think ~ 120mm would be a good fit for me. As I intend to use it for architecture and some environmental portraits.
I think this lens could provide enough coverage as it should have a larger than 200mm image circle(?) and is very cheap but I'm somewhat worried about its sharpness.
I would appreciate your experience with this lens.:)


I have copies of both the older single-coated 6/4 125mm Fujinon W and also a later 6/6 EBC multi-coated version. Both are very satisfactory on 4x5. The older 80 degree version barely covers 5x7 but is very nice on 4x5. The newer 76 degree 6/6 EBC multicoated version of the Fujinon 125 NW has a 196mm circle of coverage and thus vignettes on 5x7 but does provide generous movement on 4x5.

The 125mm focal length along the long dimension of 4x5 is approximately equivalent to a 35mm lens on 35mm film, not very wide. A 90mm lens on 4x5 has an e-25.5mm equivalent along the long edge of 4x5. w

One intermediate alternative would be a 105mm/f8 Fujinon NSW ultra wide-angle lens, particularly the later EBC model. The 100 degree angle of coverage gives a 250mm circle of coverage and provides an e-30mm angle of view along the long dimension of 4x5 and e-21mm angle of view along the long edge of 5x7, with generous movement in both instances.

The 105/8 NSW is a nice compromise in a Copal 0 shutter, although it does require 77mm filters. I have one of the later EBC multicoated models and it's excellent.

[Drew Wiley]

I doubt you'll be satisfied with any of the 125/5.6 W's if you need much rise for architectural subjects. They're great with just modest movements, and delightfully portable. But I've also owned and used (mainly for architectural interiors) a 120 Super Angulon, and truly benefitted from its massive surplus of coverage for this kind of application. But that was basically a huge draft horse of a lens, especially with a center filter involved. Otherwise, you've already received some good advice per 90 SW's and architectural performance. I found it nice to have both a 90SW and the petite 125 Fuji W on hand, at least until architectural interior shooting became dominated by MF digital photographers rather than view cameras and 4X5 film; so I sold the 90. I mainly compose things in longer perspective anyway; and when I don't, the little Fuji 125 generally works, and doubles as an excellent "normal" perspective with plenty of spare movement for 6X9 backs at least. ...

Gosh, last year I reprinted a 4x5 negative I had taken with a full Sinar system and that big 120 SA from a ledge over 13,000 feet in altitude, which took a ten day round trip and a hecka lot of ice axe work to get to. I was young then, not even 40 yet, and didn't even know about the smaller Fuji option, which would have done just as good in that particular application. But burning calories is good for you.

[Steve Goldstein]

To the original question of sharpness of the single-coated "inside lettering" 125mm Fujinon-W...

This is one of my most frequently used lenses on 4x5, the other being my 180mm Fujinon-A. When looking at 11x14 finished prints I've never felt I was losing anything in the sharpness department with the 125mm.

[xkaes]

The 105/8 NSW is a nice compromise in a Copal 0 shutter, although it does require 77mm filters. I have one of the later EBC multicoated models and it's excellent.

I had forgotten about the Fuji NSW 105mm. Thanks for mentioning it. It's a great lens, but it's large, heavy, f8, and would break MY bank -- and probably my back, too! It's larger, heavier, and more expensive than the Fujinon 90mm f8.

[abruzzi]

I had forgotten about the Fuji NSW 105mm. Thanks for mentioning it. It's a great lens, but it's large, heavy, f8, and would break MY bank!

Wow. I was going to disagree with you, since I bought my SW 105mm (previous version, inside lettering) a couple years ago for $73 in near perfect shape. But I just checked the bay, and either I got a screaming deal, or prices have gone through the roof in a year and a half. It is my standard wide, when I want a modern 4x5 wide with a generous amount of movement (I shoot the 100mm WFE when I don't need that.)

[Drew Wiley]

This is really a weird year on the Bay. At typical holiday seasons in the past, vendors reduced prices to move inventory quicker. But this year all kinds of things are almost in the Kuiper Belt price-wise, way way out there. Ridiculous, actually. I suspect the lemmings are just following each other; and if nobody bites, the whole trend will go right back down, with the exception of a few inevitably over-rated cult lenses. Timing is everything, along with current exchange rates. Might do better right here, down in the wanted section.

[xkaes]

Wow. I was going to disagree with you, since I bought my SW 105mm (previous version, inside lettering) a couple years ago for $73 in near perfect shape. But I just checked the bay, and either I got a screaming deal, or prices have gone through the roof in a year and a half. It is my standard wide, when I want a modern 4x5 wide with a generous amount of movement (I shoot the 100mm WFE when I don't need that.)

You lucked out for sure. The last EBAY sale was $350 -- and that was the SW single-coated model, not the NSW version. I hope that makes your day!

[Times2]

@all

Thanks for your thoughts and advice. I have Chamonix F2 which I didn't actually plan to buy, as I wanted something cheapish with 6x7 back and 90-105mm lens but that didn't pan out as I wasn't really sold on the idea of changing bellows and dealing with the recessed board. Maybe with Chamonix that doesn't need to be the case but still 90mm on 4x5 seems very wide to me.
Anyway, one reason I was thinking about 120 was that it seemed "right" in the viewfinder app while looking around a few rooms with people in them, compared to 150mm where I didn't have more space to go backward.
There is also Fujinon 120mm f8 which is kinda cheap but i haven't found any reviews on it.
Btw I am aware that price and quality are strongly correlating but still hoping for some unreasonably cheap/good lens:D

[xkaes]

@all
There is also Fujinon 120mm f8 which is kinda cheap but i haven't found any reviews on it.

The SW 120mm f8 is harder to find but because it has a 100 degree angle of coverage it is large and heavy and usually not cheap! It should cost just a little less than the NSW 125mm f8 -- which is very similar except no EBC coating.

[Greg]

There is also Fujinon 120mm f8 which is kinda cheap but i haven't found any reviews on it.
Btw I am aware that price and quality are strongly correlating but still hoping for some unreasonably cheap/good lens:D

I have and use a FUJI 120mm f/8 lens on my whole format Chamonix and it covers the whole plate format with a beautifully sharp image.

[Bernice Loui]

Fujinon replaced the 120mm f8 SW with the 125mm f8 NSW, lettering on the lens barrel. Image circle not large enough for 8x10, does work good on 5x7 and smaller formats. Both Schneider 120mm f8 Super Angulon and Nikkor 120mm f8 SW ~just covers~ 8x10 stopped down just past f22.

Question again, is this large an image circle really needed for 4x5 or 6x7 roll film? Here is what the Fujinon 125mm f8 NSW, Fujinon 105mm f8 SW and a 127mm f4.7 Kodak Ektar (just covers 4x5) looks like in the same picture.
223187

223188


The Kodak Ektar will produce better images at f8 than both Fujinon wide angle lenses at f8. The Ektar is much smaller and much brighter on the GG being full aperture at f4.7. Either Fujinon f8 wide angle lenses are going to be HUGE relative to a Chamonix light weight field folder. Do-able, yes, rational choice to go with the Fujinon f8 wide angle lenses, depends on your image goals. What is fact, the Fujinon f8 wide angle lenses are NOT a good choice for 6x7 roll film, while the 127mm f4.7 Kodak Ektar would be an excellent choice (as would the Fujinon 125mm f5.6 W or similar modern plasmat from any of the big four), why?

As for bargain view camera lenses, times have changed due to the growing popularity of this view camera stuff. There was a time 10-15 years ago when film camera stuff was being dumped on the market en-mass at remarkable $. Far less so today due to the current interest and fashion of view camera. Yet, it is all relative. Consider one sheet of color 4x5 film cost about $5-6, one sheet of B&W 4x5 film cost about $2-3 per sheet, processing not included.
This adds up to the $ of a good lens and view camera and all related pretty fast. IMO, focus on making images, chose the tools (lenses, camera and all related) needed to accomplish the image goals then proceed.


Bernice





@all

Thanks for your thoughts and advice. I have Chamonix F2 which I didn't actually plan to buy, as I wanted something cheapish with 6x7 back and 90-105mm lens but that didn't pan out as I wasn't really sold on the idea of changing bellows and dealing with the recessed board. Maybe with Chamonix that doesn't need to be the case but still 90mm on 4x5 seems very wide to me.
Anyway, one reason I was thinking about 120 was that it seemed "right" in the viewfinder app while looking around a few rooms with people in them, compared to 150mm where I didn't have more space to go backward.
There is also Fujinon 120mm f8 which is kinda cheap but i haven't found any reviews on it.
Btw I am aware that price and quality are strongly correlating but still hoping for some unreasonably cheap/good lens:D

[Drew Wiley]

It's already been indicated that a lightweight wooden folder camera is involved. That makes any kind of big heavy lens tricky for the front standard to reliably support without vibration. An important factor to consider!

[Bernice Loui]

The better solution if camera movements are not needed, consider a "Texas Leica" Fujinon GW690. This could be a better overall solution to meeting the focal lenght/120 roll film needs.

If camera movements are needed the better solution could be a GOOD 2x3_6x9 view camera (Arca Swiss or Linhof) instead of pressing a 4x5 camera with a 6x7, 6x9 roll film back.



Bernice



@all
I wanted something cheapish with 6x7 back and 90-105mm lens but that didn't pan out as I wasn't really sold on the idea of changing bellows and dealing with the recessed board.

:D

[Joseph Kashi]

I had forgotten about the Fuji NSW 105mm. Thanks for mentioning it. It's a great lens, but it's large, heavy, f8, and would break MY bank -- and probably my back, too! It's larger, heavier, and more expensive than the Fujinon 90mm f8.

A newer EBC version of the Fujinon 105/8 SW currently runs about $80-$100 more than old and new versions of the Fujinon 90/8 SW lenses. I like the 105 SW because it's a compromise between 90mm and 120/125mm angles of view while having generous extra coverage for 5x7 (250mm image circle). That extra coverage probably doesn't make much difference on 4x5.

Both the 105/8 and the older Fujinon 120/8 are fairly bulky, with 77mm filters, but are not especially heavy compared to the 90/5.6 lenses. My own single copy comparison is that the newer 6/6 multicoated EBC Fujinon 105/8 NSW is slightly sharper and with more contrast than my older 6/4 single-coated 120/8 SW, but again not enough to make a major difference.

On 4x5, a Nikkor 90/8 SW makes sense if you need a lot of room for movement with a sharp and smaller modern lens - it's got a 235mm image circle at 105 degrees, is very sharp, and not too bulky, with 67mm filters. However, prices for the Nikkor 90/8 have nearly doubled recently.

I suppose that a 3 5/8" (90mm) Wide Angle Dagor would suffice without too much bulk, but they're also more expensive and their area of sharp coverage only suffices for 4x5 with modest movement. My own experience is that the 90 WA Dagor illuminates 5x7 but does not cover 5x7 sharply corner to corner.

If you can swing the recently increased prices, the Nikkor 90/8 SW probably has the best balance of sharpness, good area of coverage, and small physical size.

[Rod Klukas]

The one issue with some of the fuji lenses in the 125mm and longer w series is that their color contrast and overall contrast is poor. Older design I am sure. This makes them sharp, but with some loss in apparent sharpness when the conrast characteristic is lower. The lack of color contrast actually can make it more difficult to focus a lens in low contrast light as well. (In lens design if you increase contrast, you gain some apparent sharpness, but not sharp an appearance as if it is designed for high sharpness. Your image can actually be very sharp but, appear flat. many of these older lenses are better in B&W, than color.

While they are larger and perhaps more expensive. The 115mm Grandagon(286mm IC), the 120mm Nikon SW(300mm + IC), and the 110mm Schneider(286mm IC) all are better lenses in this focal length range for quality.

If you go for the Fuji, I would add a filter such as a Heliopan Kr1.5 to it. In color it will improve the contrast in both color and B&W.

Rod

[Drew Wiley]

Huhh ???? How ancient of a lens are you speaking about, Rod? I admittedly only have experience with MC ones, and they're VERY contrasty and superb with respect to saturated color, almost over the top at times. No "flat" look whatsoever. Just what color films are you speaking about too, and printing method? And no need for a warming filter, unless of course the film itself struggles with balance, like current Ektar does, having a cyan imbalance often needing a KR1.5, !B skylight, or sometimes something even warmer. I'd place any of the MC Fuji's W's right at the head of the pack, being fully equal to anything the German brands offered in general purpose plasmats. Only their own "super plasmat" A series would be distinctly a cut above, and those have smaller max apertures.

The limited image circle of the the Fuji 125 must be kept in mind, though it's a serious liability only in architectural applications where significant rise is needed. But as a "wide"series, or NW, CMW, anything later and multicoated, really, you're largely free from the stretched distortion and exaggerated falloff of a true wide-angle lens design, so there is an oft-overlooked advantage to that fact too, apples to apples focal-length wise. These little 125/5.6 NW's or whatever EBC (multicoated) Fuji's should therefore not be regarded as a replacement for SW-style lenses, but as something in their own right, having different advantages. Not a bad idea to own both styles if you can. Over time, how I addressed the problem was owning the little 125 Fuji for sake of portability and landscape use, as well as roll film backs, and a separate 90 SW for architectural problems.

[Rod Klukas]

If you made images with your lens and a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S, or Schneider Apo-Symmar L, you would see it. But as you are satisfied with what you are getting, that is what counts. i had a customer come and I was teaching him and he could not pick out the object I asked him to focus on. His lens was an EBC coated 300mm. When I went out and showed him what I meant was the object he could find it. But on the ground glass it was very hard to pick out. He was astounded when I put my Rodenstock on his camera at how much easier it was to focus and how dimensional everything looked.
I am glad you have a very good lens, though.

Rod

[Drew Wiley]

NO - I wouldn't see the difference, nor would anyone else, including you, at least where it counts, in the end result itself. That's sheer BS, and basically Europhile prejudice, manufacturing-wise. And lots of other practitioners know that too, and depend on that specific lens more than me. I have all kinds of top-flight lenses to compare with : Nikkor M's, Fuji A's, Kern Dagors, G-Clarons, even Apo Nikkor process lenses which optically outshine any kind of official LF taking lenses; and I have plenty of my own Schneider and Rodenstock experience. And I can print color in the same league as any of the best, and have sometimes blown up 4X5 chromes into 30X40 inch Cibachromes - and if that doesn't squeeze out every tiny detail, nothing will. It's an absolute myth that Fujinon is behind the others. In certain categories, they even got ahead earlier. Today, they're still a leader in certain imaging applications, even though LF lens manufacture itself has now mostly ceased by everyone.

Ground glass composition is a complex subject in its own right. You have to understand the specific personalities of different lenses with respect to that, and even what the most appropriate ground glass is, factoring the angle of incidence. I mainly work with longer lenses, and hate fresnels. But I've never had trouble with the Fuji 125 even in dark sea cave or tunnel entrances. Just my usual habits - wear sunglasses until under the darkcloth, use a good loupe, examine the corners of the field stopped down and not just wide open, etc etc. Easy with experience. Larger formats help. 8x10 is a lot nicer to compose and focus with than 4x5, and 4x5 a lot nicer than a small roll film holder image. But in principle, not very different. That little 125 is of course worthless for anything larger than 4x5, but plenty competent for up to it. There will be some excessive darkness and lack of sharpness toward the corners wide open, but that clears up at typical shooting apertures unless excessive movements are involved.

The end result - the developed chromes or negs themselves, tend to be exceptionally sharp. And the fact that certain other lens tweaks, like the Apo Sironar S, (not N) were engineered to be optimal a stop or two wider open than other plasmats doesn't diminish the sharpness at more realistic working apertures like f/22 or f/32, which pretty much equalizes most of them. A far bigger problem is unevenness of film plane in the holder itself, a generally overlooked factor which lenses often get blamed for instead.

[Times2]

In the end I'm considering fuji sw 120mm f8, super angulon 120mm f8 and nikkor sw 120mm f8. I dont think 125s would work for me.
Would every one of those 120mm fit on my Chamonix 4x5?

[xkaes]

You better check. The rear of the Fuji has an 80mm diameter. The opening on my Toko 4x5 is 82mm -- tight fit.
I suspect the rear diameter of the other lenses to be similar.
What is the opening on your camera?
In short, all of those lenses are HUGE.

[Bernice Loui]

What are the image needs? All three Fujinon 120mm & 125mm f8, Schneider super angulon 120mm & 121mm f8, Nikkor sw 120mm f8 and Rodenstock Grandagon 115mm f6.8 are NOT small. They all have large image circles far beyond what is often needed for 4x5. They are all going to test that Chamonix 4x5 for it's ability to support such a BIG lens and could limit the ability to fully use the full image circle of these lenses. The possibility of lens to camera mis-match is high.

Is this large of an lens image circle really needed for 4x5?

Also, the larger image circle can project lots of stray light inside the bellows causing more flare light inside the camera bellows causing a reduction in image contrast.

It is all a trade-off with no ideal for all. Pick the tools that closes matches what the job is the work within the limits of the tools chosen.



Bernice





In the end I'm considering fuji sw 120mm f8, super angulon 120mm f8 and nikkor sw 120mm f8. I dont think 125s would work for me.
Would every one of those 120mm fit on my Chamonix 4x5?

[Times2]

That much of an image circle is certainly not needed but I would rather have more and not use it than have less and long for more. Per my understanding sharpness is also something to be aware of when it comes to 125mm with 209mm IC and that I m not willing to be worried about. Weight and less light are compromises I'm willing to accept (if my camera is up to it).

[Bernice Loui]

Excessive image circle can increase flare light inside the bellows causing reduced image contrast on the film image. larger image circle is NOT always an advantage in any way, it can be a problem in more ways than one.

Modern plasmat lenses will have a smaller image circle at full aperture (f5.6) with the image circle increasing as the aperture is reduced or stopped down? What might be the working or taking lens aperture for the images in mind? This tends to drive lens choice?

As the lens image circle is used with wide angle view camera lenses, there will be light fall-off. This fact is baked into the lens design and physics of light. If is often compensated for by using center filters with essentially a netrual density spot beginning at the center of the filter then gradually tapering off towards the edges of the filter to compensate for the light fall off of the lens. Know if these wide angle lenses (120mm/121mm/125mm f8 and 115mm f6.8) are used on 4x5 to the limits of their image circle, light fall off could be an issue. With a light weight field folder, the standard bellows often becomes the camera movement limiter effectively stopping and limiting the full use of the large image circle these lenses are capable of.

Think over ALL these and other factors (do not decide on larger image circle is auto best) before considering which lens.


Bernice



That much of an image circle is certainly not needed but I would rather have more and not use it than have less and long for more. Per my understanding sharpness is also something to be aware of when it comes to 125mm with 209mm IC and that I m not willing to be worried about. Weight and less light are compromises I'm willing to accept (if my camera is up to it).

[Drew Wiley]

Flare itself can be a creative tool. But you are sure right about having too much of an image circle, Bernice. A common example would be my love of the 450 Fuji C on both 8x10 and 4x5 film. But with 4x5 in any high key situation, I need to be very careful to use an efficient compendium shade to cut off excess incoming angular light. The tapered bellows on my Norma also helps, versus the later Sinar 4X5 box bellows, which tunnels more of the surplus light straight back.

With the big old 120 Super Angulon and its own huge image circle, excess angular light was easy to trap using the bag bellows option; but I had a compendium in play too.

[Joseph Kashi]

FWIW - I own two copies of the EBC multiicoated Fujinon 125/5.6 NW Plasmats and one of the single coated Fujinon 120/8 SW Biogon/Super Angulon super wide-angle lenses and I have tested them against each other. I've also tested them against the earlier single-coated 135mm/5.6 W Plasmat. I am very happy with the 125 NW lenses in my 4x5 kits - they're small, light, very sharp and contrasty, easy to use, and have ample coverage for 4x5.

I have to agree with Drew and Bernice - the later EBC multicoated 125 NW Fujinon is a sweet spot for 4x5, even if it doesn't have as wide a coverage circle as the 120SW. Every lens is a compromise between diverging requirements and emphasizing one component completely, while excluding consideration of other needs, usually results in disappointment, not optimization.

Problems with flare caused by the 120mm SW lens's overly large image circle are very real on 4x5 while it's hard to envision a situation in which a 4x5 user would ever need that much coverage.

The later EBC multicoated Fujinon 125 NW models have excellent sharpness and contrast, somewhat better than the 120SW in my tests. That said, the earlier 80 degree single-coated 125mm W versions are just as sharp.

The later multicoated 125 NW (outside writing on lens barrel) has a sharp image circle of 76 degrees, 196mm, which is ample for a shorter lens on 4x5, particularly in outdoor work. The earlier single-coated versions have a sharp coverage circle of 80 degrees, about 208-210mm.

The earlier single-coated 120SW (inside writing on lens ring) and similar super-wide-angle Biogon/Super Angulon designs are really designed for 5x7 and for 6.5"x8.5" "whole plate" size film, which was still popular in Japan, the UK, etc. when these 120mm lenses were made in the 1970s. They have a 100 degree angle of sharp coverage, about 290mm diameter. That works well for 5x7 and whole plate sizes, but is overkill at best for 4x5.

While the 125 NW lenses use 52 or 55 mm filters, te 120 SW uses 77mm filters - that's a MUCH bigger lens, so much so that it will be awkward on most 4x5 field cameras. The 125 NW lenses in contrast are right-sized for 4x5 outdoor work.

[Times2]

@all thanks for pointing out to different drawbacks of SW lenses.

@Joseph

Do you think the prices difference, between a single coat (inside lettering) vs CM W, tells a significant difference between their corresponding sharpness and contrast? Would you personally buy the more expensive one?

[ruilourosa]

I have the newer model125 5.6, excelente lens in everyway....

[DG 3313]

+1
And to answer your question I have the older 125 W and have no complaints about sharpness…. I think it represents great value and great performance.

[xkaes]

@all thanks for pointing out to different drawbacks of SW lenses.

@Joseph

Do you think the prices difference, between a single coat (inside lettering) vs CM W, tells a significant difference between their corresponding sharpness and contrast? Would you personally buy the more expensive one?


There are often THREE options for any focal length with FUJINON lenses -- the early single coated (writing inside filter ring), EBC versions (writing outside barrel), and CM-W (newer -- and are usually MUCH more expensive). I'd look for the features FIRST before the stage of the lens. The CM-W are nice, and cost more, but that doesn't mean that you will notice the difference. They cost more because there is more demand because people THINK they are better -- whatever "better" means. The only CM-W I have is the 105mm because it has a SLIGHTLY wider IC, not because it gives better results over the NW 105mm. The trade-off is it has a ridiculously long and wide 67mm filter snout.

[ruilourosa]

The 67mm filter ring os indeed ridiculous... But i settled on 77 filters!

[xkaes]

77mm is my filter size as well, but the NON-REMOVABLE hood/snout/shade on the CM-W 105mm is so big it basically makes the lens TWICE the size! If they had made it removable that would have avoided the issue -- but they did the same thing with the 125mm, 135mm, and 150mm.

[Drew Wiley]

Even the previous W (or NW in the literature) series of 125 came in three different filter sizes, all smaller than the funnel front 67mm of the CMW. But I specifically sought out the 52mm version to match my light backpacking 4X5 set of lenses and 4X5 folder, all either 52mm lenses themselves, or with step-up rings for sake of petite 52mm filters. But in day use kits, either with my heavier Sinar monorail system, 8x10 folder, or MF gear, I standardize on 67mm filters instead.

[ruilourosa]

The 67mm filter ring is indeed ridiculous... But i settled on 77 filters!

[abruzzi]

I’m not sure the reason, but the earlier, single coated generation of Fujinon plasmats tend to have a larger listed image circle than the lens that replaced it. This is most noticeable with the 250mm lenses—the old version is desired by 8x10 shooters because it has a large enough image circle to not only cover, but to give significant movements (398mm instead of the later lenses 312mm). On the 125mm lenses the difference is small—just 12mm. But I’ve wondered whether those numbers are real, or a change in how Fuji specced them out. Nonetheless, the older single coated lenses are still quite nice, but will likely have a little less contrast due to the single coating.

[ruilourosa]

I have the older versions of 180, 210 and 250, quite nice lenses, as i had a 210 super symmar hm and i sold it...

[xkaes]

I’m not sure the reason, but the earlier, single coated generation of Fujinon plasmats tend to have a larger listed image circle than the lens that replaced it.

Except for the two longest lenses in the series, the W lenses all have an angle of coverage of 80° (the SW series are 100°). With the replacement NW series, except for the two longest lenses, the NW lenses all have a narrower angle of coverage of 76°. That appears to be the cost of moving to an all air-spaced design -- 6/6.

[Drew Wiley]

The conventions of what comprises a usable image circle also varies somewhat. Schneider tends to be conservative, Fuji a bit liberal in that respect. But it also has certain shifts in precise meaning within such brands themselves, depending on specific application or marketing emphasis.

[abruzzi]

The conventions of what comprises a usable image circle also varies somewhat. Schneider tends to be conservative, Fuji a bit liberal in that respect.

That was my (skeptical) thought--its not a real difference in coverage, just a change in how they evaluate coverage. But the 250's popularity (a 250 W usually costs more than a 250 CM-W) suggests that people agree with the larger image circle rating. Or maybe xkaes is right--the new design just had those limitations. I had never noticed the 6/4 vs 6/6 thing (actually the 125mm is 6/5). Nontheless, I've had lenses from most of the Fuji series and have found all of them quite good (no A's or T's yet though.)

[Times2]

Ahh, the main reason I was going for 125 CMW (instead of W on the outside of the barrel) version was the larger IC, but when i think of it I m not sure how much those 6mm of IC matter in practice:D

[xkaes]

Unlike the W, SW, SWD, NW or NSW series -- each with their own fairly fixed angles of coverage, the CM-W series has images circles all over the place -- and in no particular order -- from 60° for the 450mm to 65° for the 250mm to 78° for the 105mm & 125mm. Fuji did not seem to be targeting a particular film format, so who knows what they were trying to achieve -- the "best" possible images????? Certainly not the lowest price!!! The most consistent feature in the CM-W series is the ludicrous 67mm filter size!!!!

[lazyhusky]

I actually appreciate that Fuji made most of their latest lenses in the 67mm filter size and I think it is a conscious decision. That is why I went with the set of:
NSW 90mm 8
CMW 125mm 5.6
CMW 250mm 6.3
When I head out all I require is a set of 67mm filters and a step up ring. Makes for a much convenient setup.

[Drew Wiley]

Convenient unless you have to accommodate two weeks of mountain gear, food, and supplies in the same pack as your camera gear! At that point, especially as one gets older and can't carry a 90 lb pack anymore days on end, somewhat reducing the size and weight of your gear becomes a downright priority. But does that even apply to a husky too lazy to even pull the sled behind him?

But as I stated earlier, I do standardize on 67mm filters and a less petite lens selection for less strenuous situations. I even have one kit that requires 82mm filters as the standard common denominator size.

[xkaes]

My filter size is 77mm, but I still don't like the 67mm size on the CM-W lenses. Why? Because instead of just a filter size, they built in lens shades which makes many of the lenses much larger / longer than they needed to be. Whether using an NW or CM-W 105mm, I need a step-up ring to 77mm, but the CM-W 67mm HOOD makes a tiny lens much larger than necessary. So they didn't make things any more convenient for me, as I have to buy step-up rings whatever filter size they chose -- but I live with it because the CM-W 105mm gives me 12mm more IC than the narrow NW version.

[Joseph Kashi]

223726

Above is a comparative photo of 3 different 120-125mm lenses. On the left is a Schneider 120mm/6.8 Angulon, an older design that covers 5x7, but barely so. It has good coverage and decent sharpness over the 4x5 negative but the outer ring of that coverage isn't quite as sharp as either of the Fujinons. Still, it's small and works well enough.

The middle lens is a Fujinon 125/5.6 NW series, a multicoated 76 degree coverage model with a 55mm front filter ring (the last NW version has a 52mm front filter.) It doesn't quite cover 5x7 but coverage is quite ample on 4x5. It's small, convenient, very sharp, and easy to focus.

The right side lens is an original model Fujinon 120mm/8 SW super wide angle. The front filter is 77mm, the rear element is 80mm diameter. The single-coated 120mm SW is a full stop dimmer when focusing than the small 125/5.6 NW. While quite adequately sharp with overkill coverage, the original 120/8 SW super-wide Fujinon is not quite as crisp as either the smaller 125NW in the middle or the 120 SW's follow-on, the 125mm NSW super-wide (EBC multicoated, outside writing on lens barrel), which is even larger, with 82mm filters. These large super-wide-angle lenses can be awkward and ungainly in the field, particularly on lighter 4x5 folding and field cameras. I use some, but only when really needed for larger formats than 4x5.

The original single-coated Fujinon Plasmats, the W series (writing inside on lens ring), are also very good. The lack of multicoating is not a deal-killer as you should be using a good adjustable lens shade in any event. The advantage for me for some early W models is their slightly larger field of coverage, about 8% larger diameter circle of coverage, making 135mm and longer lenses very usable on 5x7.

I do not see any significant practical image quality difference between any of the Fujinon Plasmat series, whether first W, mid-production NW, or the late model CM-W Fujinons, certainly not enough to justify spending a lot more money for a late-model CM-W unless its in impeccable condition.

Comparing my original single-coated Fujinon 250/6.7 W with my very late model 250mm/6.3 CM-W EBC multicoated model, I see no practical quality difference in actual use on 5x7. Comparing multiple copies of my original model single-coated 135/5.6 W Fujinons with multiple copies of later model Fujinon 125/5.6 NW and 150mm/5.6 NW lenses, again I see no significant difference between the oldest and the newer series Plasmat lenses.

YMMV if you're pixel-peeping at 16X.

Comparing all of these Fujinons to various late-model Schneider,, Nikkor and Rodenstock large format lenses, again no significant difference in practical use. It's more a matter of quality control at the factory - Fujinon had excellent quality control - and the physical condition of a particular lens copy.

[Times2]

Thanks a lot!

[xkaes]

Thanks for the visual comparison. And I think my NSW 90mm f8.0 is a beast!!!