Fuji 210mm. f/5.6 with 67mm filter ring.

[Ig Nacio]

Hi,

Has anyone used this lens? Is it a nice performer, what do you like about it?

It seems to me that its 'overall length' is shorter than that of most other lenses.
Do you know how large is it?

Thank you, kind regards!

[Greg]

Inside or outside writing? Mine has inside writing and works beautifully on my whole plate camera even allowing some movements. I also have a 210mm Nikkor and the Fuji actually covers a bit more and is a bit more compact. The Fuji replaced a Symmar. Fuji was sharper than the (older) Symmar and covered more.

[Rod Klukas]

Ig Nacio,
The lens is OK, but I think there are better ones. The problem is color contrast. It does not separate colors well.

Nikon or Rodenstock are both better choices. Apo-Sironar N from Rodenstock are very reasonably priced, excellent lenses. Just behind are the Nikon W series. The Schneider Apo-Symmar are behind until the Apo-Symmar L series, which are excellent.

We can discuss if you like. I am happy to share info. We can Zoom, if you give me a direct email address, or I can call you if you give me your phone number.

Let me know if you would like to talk.

Rod

[Drew Wiley]

Rod -are you referring strictly to the older single-coated Fuji's with the inside lettering. Why wouldn't a later MC Fuji itself be in just as high a league as an Apo Sironar N or Apo Symmar L? That's what I'd choose if I wanted a 210/5.6. They aren't exactly a secret. But you seem to be distinctly and unrealistically prejudiced against Fuji for some inexplicable reason. Too bad the superb Fuji A series was never made in 210; but the analogous Schneider G-Claron was. I personally shoot a 200 Nikkor M in that approximate focal length - hard to beat that for 4x5 usage at least.

[Ig Nacio]

Hi,

Thank you for your messages : )!!!

The one I was considering is the one with the outside lettering
and 67mm. filter thread.

I was considering that one for two reasons. The first one,
its 'overall length' seems shorter than similar multicoated
lenses from other brands. It seems shorter to me, but I don't
know the exact 'overall length' of it, and neither do I know
the overall length of other lenses from other brands with the
same focal length.

(BTW, I use the word 'overall length' as opposed to just 'size'
or 'length' because B&H Photo specifies this characteristic that
way, and you guys may be more used to read it like that. I am
relatively new here, so... ).

The second reason to consider that lens was that it is a
multicoated lens with Fuji's EBC coating, what may help
better with flare.

I have a field camera and one can reverse some lenses when
closing up the camera's 'shell', and leave the rear point of the
lens facing the front of the camera 'shell'. Instead of removing
and packing any lens away, my idea is to keep put the lens
whose 'overall length' may still fit in when closing up.

I took a look at a Calumet (Schneider) 210mm. f/6.3 that is
very compact, but single coated. There is also a lens often
seen as Calumet, (but is Rodenstock), the Geronar 210mm.
f/6.8 I also took a look at this lens and it is MC.

Yes, I also find amazing the lenses that you guys mention.
Hopefully and slowly, or not so slowly, I can get to use some
of the lenses you guys mention either when backpacking or
in my small studio in the future.

Thank you very much again, kind regards!

[Joseph Kashi]

Hi,

Thank you for your messages : )!!!

The one I was considering is the one with the outside lettering
and 67mm. filter thread.

.....

Yes, I also find amazing the lenses that you guys mention.
Hopefully and slowly, or not so slowly, I can get to use some
of the lenses you guys mention either when backpacking or
in my small studio in the future.

Thank you very much again, kind regards!



My personal comparative experience with these lenses:

I have a 210/5.6 Fujinon NWS outside-writing EBC-multicoated lens. The Fujinon 210/5.6 NWS may be my sharpest lens, with excellent optical characteristics.


I evaluate the Fujinon 210/5.6 NWS as somewhat better than my late model Schneider 210/9 and 305/9 Plasmat-formula G-Clarons and slightly better than my MC 180/5.6 Rodenstock Sironar-N. The Fujinon's definitely superior to my 210 Rodenstock Geronar, which I bought mostly for the Geronar's Copal 1 shutter to mount an early Dagor-formula G-Claron, a decent-enough lens, but not as good as my later Plasmat-style 210 and 305 G-Clarons.


The Fujinon 210/5.6 NWS is a rather large lens, large enough that it's unlikely you could close a field camera with that lens still attached.


The above are single-copy personal comparative tests and of course my comparisons may be idiosyncratic or otherwise off. All of the above lenses seem adequately centered. YMMV, of course.

[Ig Nacio]

Hi,

Thank you for your message : )!!!

Yes, when I look here:
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

According to the link,
there are only two 210mm. multicoated lenses,
or EBC coated, as Fuji calls its multicoating.
One, is labeled as 'CM-W', and the other labeled
as 'NW', that I think is the same one you refer
as 'NWS'.

Both these lenses are 67mm.; both are engraved
on the outer ring only with a 'W'. In spite of
only having a 'W' marked on the ring, the above
webpage marks it with the 'N', so it is 'NW', or
as you mentioned: 'NWS'.

That lens, your lens, from pictures on the internet
does not seem so tall when standing mounted or
unmounted. The rear cell, the bottom part, does not
seem to protrude much. The upper part looks shorter
and less massive than its 'CM-W' counterpart, and
also not as big as some lenses from Schneider and
Rodenstock.

I wonder if you may be able to please measure the length
of the rear cell, from the lens board to the bottom of the
lens; and to please measure from the lensboard to the top
of the lens, including the shutter. I would appreciate it.

My field camera is quiet forgiving. When reversing that
lens and closing up the camera, I think the rear cell will fit
relatively easy. It is the upper part that I have my doubts
in.

Thank you again, kind regards!

[Drew Wiley]

Flare is a non-issue if you use a decent compendium shade (which should ideallly be used even with MC lenses too). A lot of this has to do with just how big you need to enlarge (it would have to be quite large to show any significant difference between most of these lenses). But there are more subtle distinctions in terms of contrast, hue saturation, and maximum image circle. For certain color film applications, I actually prefer single-coated lenses, and in fact, in my favorite focal length category for 4x5 (240-250mm), have both a multicoated Fuji A and otherwise very similar G-Claron single coated equivalent (later plasmat formula, not dagor style), to fine-tune the contrast options. I do the same in the 360mm or 14 inch category too.

It's easy to overthink all this. It sometimes takes some experimentation to settle on what you prefer best. I replaced my very first view camera lens, a 210/5.6 Symmar S, a long time ago for sake of a sharper and better corrected Fuji lens. But that ole Symmar S had its own special gentler "look" in prints; and there are times I regret selling it.

[Ig Nacio]

Hi,

Thank you for your message : )!!!

Yes, I agree with you with regard to the feeling
that the image at the end will render. This
coming from single coated lenses.

For me is also interesting at the moment that
the gear I may use may be pack small, or
as small as possible. For example,
yesterday I mentioned two 210mm. lenses as
examples. One of them, the Calumet-Schneider
that is single coated; and the Geronar that is
multicoated.

The above Fuji website, that I link here again:
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm
shows smaller single coated lenses, the ones
with 49 and 58mm filter rings that also may
yield some very interesting images.

In my bag, the ideal set up are two small-sized
lenses, that either could interchangeably, due
to the small size, stay inside the camera.

When I was looking into the single coated
Fuji lenses, not long ago, I realized that some
of these, the ones with the 58mm. filter ring,
use 'Seiko B shutters'. Is that always the case?
Because 'Seiko B shutters' seem only possible
to be mounted on 48MT lens boards.

I hope I can find a nice single coated lens.
This single coated lens could perhaps go hand
in hand with the multicoated one, just as you
have.

Thank you again, kind regards!

[Drew Wiley]

Don't forget modern tessars unless you need an especially big image circle. For example, there you could choose between (or own both) the Fuji L 210 single-coated tessar, sharp but not clinically so, and hence prized for portraiture, versus the exceptionally crisp and contrasty MC Nikkor 200 M. Both are quite small too, but at f/9, a little less bright focusing than the 5.6 W plasmats - not a problem for me personally, but worth noting anyway.

[Sal Santamaura]

...you could choose between (or own both) the Fuji L 210 single-coated tessar...versus the exceptionally crisp and contrasty MC Nikkor 200 M. Both are...at f/9, a little less bright focusing than the 5.6 W plasmats...The 210mm Fujinon L has a maximum aperture of f/5.6. The 200mm Nikkor M has a maximum aperture of f/8.

[Drew Wiley]

Nice to see the guard dog is still awake and on patrol.

[Sal Santamaura]

Nice to see the guard dog is still awake and on patrol.I always post to correct factual errors no matter who makes them. :)

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, I did check your post. And, in fact, thank you for correcting my slip-up. Perhaps I should have had another cup of wake-up coffee this morning.

[Joseph Kashi]

Hi,

Thank you for your message : )!!!

Yes, when I look here:
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm



Both these lenses are 67mm.; both are engraved
on the outer ring only with a 'W'. In spite of
only having a 'W' marked on the ring, the above
webpage marks it with the 'N', so it is 'NW', or
as you mentioned: 'NWS'.


That lens, your lens, from pictures on the internet
does not seem so tall when standing mounted or
unmounted. The rear cell, the bottom part, does not
seem to protrude much. The upper part looks shorter
and less massive than its 'CM-W' counterpart, and
also not as big as some lenses from Schneider and
Rodenstock.

I wonder if you may be able to please measure the length
of the rear cell, from the lens board to the bottom of the
lens; and to please measure from the lensboard to the top
of the lens, including the shutter. I would appreciate it.


Thank you again, kind regards!


Fujinon did not bring clarity to the table when identifying its various lenses. Although their literature shows W, NW, and NWS indicators, all of the lenses are simply marked "W". It is, as you note, more precise to refer to the later EBC outside writing lenses as simply "NW" even though many of those NW lenses underwent significant design changes while still nominally within the NW family, such as different size filter rings, moving from 6/4 to 6/6 all air-spaced designs, etc.

My initial training in experimental physics causes me to prefer actual personal measurement and data rather than looking up what someone else may or may not have gotten correct, so here's a photo that I just took of the Fujinon 210/5.6 NW EBC lens on edge next to a ruler. The Technika-style lens board is precisely on the 3" mark, the front element (including thin UV filter) is almost exactly on the 5" mark, and the edge of the rear elements is on the 2"mark, although parallax makes it look slightly longer. It is a Copal 1 shutter. You should be able to scale any other measurements from the photo and scale. The front is 67mm.

225047

[Mick Fagan]

Ig Nacio, my Fujinon f/5.6 210mm outside lettering marked "W" is multi coated, with a 67mm filter ring and wonderful.

I have since mainly replaced it with a Fujinon 250mm lens as I wished for a longer focal length, there is nothing wrong with my 210mm unit.

I measured the front projection at 42mm, the rear projection at 24.7mm and my wooden home made board at 3mm, which is irrelevant to your issue.

I have a Shen Hao HZX45-IIA wooden folder, this lens cannot be reversed and left in the folded camera. The smaller Fujinon 150 does fit when reversed with the folded camera.

Mick.

225048225049

[Doremus Scudder]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but the Fujinon 210mm f/5.6 with the 67mm filter size was the newest and, presumably, the best iteration of this lens. It is multicoated (EBC coating) and should be an excellent performer on a par with newer comparable lenses from Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikkor. I can't imagine that it would have worse color rendering than any of its competitors.

Still, with the 67mm filter size and the "built-in" lens shade (the larger-than-needed flare to accommodate the larger-than-needed filter) I find it at a disadvantage when compared to other similar lenses with smaller filter sizes.

FWIW, like Drew, I find the 210mm Plasmats generally to large and bulky (I've concentrated on putting together a lightweight kit). My lenses in that focal-length area are the 203mm f/7.7 Ektar, the 180mm f/9 Fujinon A (yeah a bit wider, but close still) and the 210mm f/5.6 Fujinon L (the largest of the bunch, but a sweet single-coated Tessar with lots of coverage for 4x5). The Nikkor M 210mm f/9 would be great and really small if you can lay your hands on one; they're getting pretty hard to find. The Schneider G-Claron in that focal length (f/9 I think) would be great if you can find one mounted in a shutter. There are others in that focal length that are smaller and more compact than the Plasmats too.

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

Funny how a few LF types still scratch their heads about Fuji performance, while pro video and TV crews often think "Fuji first", and don't hesitate to drop anywhere from 15 to 75 K at a pop.

[Sal Santamaura]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but the Fujinon 210mm f/5.6 with the 67mm filter size was the newest and, presumably, the best iteration of this lens...That version is conspicuously marked "CM FUJINON W." Ig, is that the one you were inquiring about?

[Ig Nacio]

Hi,

Thank you for your messages : )!!!

Unfortunately, that Fuji 210mm. will not be able to make the configuration I had expected by reversing the lens.

Thank you @Joseph Kashi and @Mick Fagan for making the measurments : )!!! My camera allows for 3cm., a bit over an inch, to the f
ront of the 'shell'. That was initially perfect, because the rear cell could have gone in that direction without any problem.

However, the camera only allows 4cm. in the direction of the ground glass or to the rear of the camera. The lens is
already 5.15cm., a bit over two inches, including its thin filter. One could take off the ground-glass-hood combo, but it may not be
an optimal storage solution inside the bag. That's why one has to compromise with the other options, if one wants the lens to stay
inside the camera.

I find all these 67mm. options, all in 210mm. focal length, as excellent lenses. I will definitely would like one of these options
in the future. This Fuji lens, and the ones from Schneider, Rodenstock, and Nikon all look very cool!

@Sal Santamaura - This Fuji 'W' version, that only has a 'W' writen outside the ring is quite nice. This lens because of the 67mm.
filter thread may in some aspects resemble the 'CM-W' version. But from pictures, the 'CM-W' version looks bulkier, even though
it has the same same 67mm. thread.

Thank you again, kind regards!

[xkaes]

If it does not have "CM" on the outside of the barrel, it is an "NW" lens.

The CM-W is 3mm longer than the NW. "Bulkier"?

[Sal Santamaura]

Ig, based on your posts I'm surmising that the camera you use is 4x5, although you haven't stated so explicitly. Also, it's clear you're very concerned about flare. Given all the discussion that's taken place so far, my recommendation (if it's a 4x5) is the Fujinon 210mm f/5.6 L. Although single coated, my sample, with it's tessar construction, exhibits minimal reflection due to the small number of air/glass surfaces. Its coverage, less than I'd like for the 5x7 I use it on, is more than adequate for 4x5. With the smaller film size, you'd also usually also be working in the sharpest portion of its image circle.

[Ig Nacio]

Hi,

Thank you for your messages : )!!!

Yes Sal, I was just looking at some pictures of the Fujinon 210mm f/5.6 L and it reminds me a lot of the Schneider, sometimes
labeled as Calumet, 210mm. f/6.1. At least on pictures, it looks very similar. Yes, I use 4x5". From Fuji, I was also suggested
a 210mm. WS f/5.6 on Seiko shutter 48MT. I wonder if you, or any of you guys are familiar with that lens. It mounts on
48mm. lens boards and is single coated. It is not so easy to find 48mm lens boards. I wonder if the lens is a good performer.

Thank you again, kind regards!

[Joseph Kashi]

Hi,

Thank you for your messages : )!!!

Unfortunately, that Fuji 210mm. will not be able to make the configuration I had expected by reversing the lens.



Thank you again, kind regards!

I would second Doremus's comment that a 203/7.7 Kodak Ektar would work well in your intended use.

I just measured the total front projection of one of my 203/7.7 Ektars mounted in a standard Kodak Supermatic shutter. It projects only 21mm from the front surface of the lens board and so should work with the field folder. that you described. I also just measured the rear section as projecting only several millimeters from the rear lens board surface. The Supermatic shutter outside dimensions measure as virtually identical in size and mounting hole to a Copal/Compur 0 shutter but the threads are different.

Overall, this Ektar lens is much smaller and lighter than any of the 210/5.6 Plasmats, including the Fujinons. Basically, you're giving up 3/4 stop of maximum aperture and some excess coverage - the 203/7.7 Ektar is rated to cover 5x7 - while the 210/5.6 NW Fujinon almost covers 8x10. That additional coverage, though, in a field camera setting is likely contributing primarily to bellows flare rather than useful additional movement capability.

You are NOT giving up much, if any, optical quality. I've done direct comparisons between two single-coated Kodak 203/7.7 Ektars, a multicoated 180mm Rodenstock Sironar-N, and my 210mm Fujinon NW EBC lenses. The two Ektars produced virtually identical results that optically were fully on-par with the MC Sironar-N and only slightly behind the late-model 210/5.6 Fujinon NW Plasmat. Absolutely more than adequate, especially given the low prices for the Ektars and their very small size.

It's fashionable to trash the Kodak Supermatic shutters, but those with a recent CLA can be very accurate. I recently bought a third such Ektar 203/7.7 made in 1953 (RM) and now used for a 5x7 outfit that I will store away from our home for field use in a distant state. I paid a mere $71 on *Bay for perfect glass and a Supermatic shutter that I just tested as being consistently accurate within 1/6 stop at all speeds below 1/100 and consistently 1/2 stop slow at 1/100 and 1/200. It seems likely that the prior owner had a recent CLA done on that shutter, something that's also advisable even for late-model Copal and Compur shutters that have seen some use. My other two 203/7.7 Ektars have been comparably reliable after a CLA by Carol at Flutot.

Unlike other Ektars of the same period, the 203/7.7 appears to be a single-coated 4/4 Dialyte / Artar design optimized for more distant subjects rather than 1:1 and for at least minimal 5x7 coverage at infinity. Kodak also made the same lens in the UK after WWII using a "Mount 370" and differently named shutters. I have one of those and it performs almost exactly like the US-made model. One potential advantage of many Dialyte / Artar lenses is that they often can be used closer to maximum aperture without losing sharpness and contrast.

This particular Ektar has an excellent, and deserved, reputation as a 4x5 and 5x7 field lens. It's low current price makes it even more attractive, assuming that the glass and shutter are in good condition.

[Ig Nacio]

Hi Joseph,

Thank you for your message : )!!!

I just took a look at e-bay. I saw one nice copy, but is part of a camera kit.
I'll keep an eye open for a nice copy.

Thank you again, kind regards!

[Joseph Kashi]

Hi,


This lens because of the 67mm. filter thread may in some aspects resemble the 'CM-W' version. But from pictures, the 'CM-W' version looks bulkier, even though
it has the same same 67mm. thread.

Thank you again, kind regards!


Fujinon made many non-CMW lenses with a 67mm filter thread, for example, my Fujinon 400T telephoto uses a 67mm filter, as does their 90/8 super-wide angle, the old-style single-coated Fujinon 250/6.7 W, the 210/5.6 late model NW, etc. There are no conclusions that can be drawn from the filter thread size of Fujinon lenses.

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, only advantage ANY modern plasmat has over the Kodak 203mm f7.7 Ektar or APO artar or single-coated 4/4 Dialyte / Artar design might be higher contrast due to multi-coatings. Too often higher contrast is perceived as "sharper" and "better" which is simply false as this is just another aspect of lens personality. Then comes the trade off of modern -vs- older shutters. Older Compur, Compound, Ilex and similar tend to have a far rounder iris which aids in out of focus and in to out of focus rendition. For those who value this, that feature is a plus, for those who tend to value all in the image in perceived focus (f16 to f45) the rounder iris is of nil value added. What is fact, the modern plasmat from any of the big four will be larger than the 4/4 Dialyte / Artar design. As for optical performance, the single-coated 4/4 Dialyte / Artar design is better closer up with little if any perceivable optical performance loss at infinity focus. Having done the modern plasmat -vs- Dialyte / Artar design there are very real reasons why there are so few modern plasmats in the lens sets used to this day.

225106
Typical 200mm_ish visual. Note the size difference and round -vs- pentagon shaped iris.

The 203mm f7.7 Ektar and 8 1/4" APO artar visual.
225107

225108

The The 203mm f7.7 Ektar and 8 1/4" APO artar are used on the Linhof Technikardan 23s for 6x7 or 6x9 roll film images with excellent results and effectively zero issues with camera movements due to their far over sized image circle for 2x3_6x9. Know both of these lenses easily covers 4x5 at infinity focus.

Two shutter versions of the Kodak 203mm f7.7 Ektar, most common is found in a Supermatic shutter, less common and could be more desirable is the Compur/Graphic shutter version. The lens cells from the Compur/Graphic shutter version can be transferred to a modern shutter Copal or similar shutter long as the cell spacing is verified and replicated to the replacement shutter. Add a proper aperture scale as needed. Lost will be the rounder aperture of the original shutter, for some this is a very viable possibility. In recent times, the Kodak 203mm f7.7 Ektar got discovered reducing the market availability and upping the $. Kodak 203mm f7.7 Ektar has been seen in a barrel version, not sure if these were OEM kodak.


Then there is the image circle size obsession, indeed the modern plasmat has a larger image circle than the Dialyte / Artar design, except time after time comparison, images made by The 203mm f7.7 Ektar or 8 1/4" APO artar become preferred in many ways. If image circle is much needed, a lens like the 8 1/2" Dagor will be used where it will have plenty of image circle over the modern plasmat at f22 and smaller and the Dagor is a physically smaller and lower weight lens. All that said, IMO for those beginning the view camera journey it is of great advantage to start with a modern plasmat with a proven and known good Copal or similar modern shutter as they will simply do as asked and not cause added difficulties.

What appears to happen lots these days, individual new and interested in this view camera stuff does plenty of web searching, discovers various lens test from years ago, digest what is published. This coupled with the digital and roll film mind-set/habits of "must have the latest_greatest" gear then applies these ways to this view camera stuff.. which does not apply in the same way due to the nature and history of this view camera stuff. All this can cause plenty of confusion and discomfort and more.


Bernice

[Sal Santamaura]

....Too often higher contrast is perceived as "sharper" and "better" which is simply false as this is just another aspect of lens personality...No, Bernice, it's not "simply false."

Here's a better way you might have worded the last part of that sentence. "...which I don't personally consider the most important aspect of lens personality. Your preferences might be different."

[Doremus Scudder]

Fujinon made many non-CMW lenses with a 67mm filter thread, for example, my Fujinon 400T telephoto uses a 67mm filter, as does their 90/8 super-wide angle, the old-style single-coated Fujinon 250/6.7 W, the 210/5.6 late model NW, etc. There are no conclusions that can be drawn from the filter thread size of Fujinon lenses.

Thanks for the correction. My data shows only two f/5.6 210mm Plasmats, the older ones with smaller filter size and the "NW" with the 67mm filter size. Obviously, my data is incomplete.

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

The brochures with the CMW series was published later. Kerry Thallman's Fuji site provides the two most relevant brochures in this respect. Anyway, I can't personally recall ever seeing a lens actually labeled, NW. It was a just a marketing designation on paper - brochures and price lists. But if there was outside lettering and "W" on the lens, it amounted to the same thing. Sometimes EBC was added, sometimes not; but outside lettering seems to have consistently equated to multi-coating. CM-W's, however, were distinctly labeled as such on the barrel, if I recall correctly. Not much functional difference, except that I regard the oversized 67mm "funnel" front of even the shortest focal length CMW's as illogical, spoiling their optimal portability.

[xkaes]

Thanks for the correction. My data shows only two f/5.6 210mm Plasmats, the older ones with smaller filter size and the "NW" with the 67mm filter size. Obviously, my data is incomplete.

Doremus


There is the 210 f5.6 W (6/4) with a 58mm filter thread, the 210 f5.6 NW (6/5) with a 67mm filter thread, and the 210 f5.6 CM-W (6/5) with a 67mm filter thread,

[xkaes]

The brochures with the CMW series was published later. Kerry Thallman's Fuji site provides the two most relevant brochures in this respect. Anyway, I can't personally recall ever seeing a lens actually labeled, NW. It was a just a marketing designation on paper - brochures and price lists. But if there was outside lettering and "W" on the lens, it amounted to the same thing. Sometimes EBC was added, sometimes not; but outside lettering seems to have consistently equated to multi-coating. CM-W's, however, were distinctly labeled as such on the barrel, if I recall correctly. Not much functional difference, except that I regard the oversized 67mm "funnel" front of even the shortest focal length CMW's as illogical, spoiling their optimal portability.

Let's try to set some things right.

There were no Fujinon lenses marked "NW" on the lens -- anywhere on the lens. The NW lenses were simply marked "W" on the barrel. The boxes were marked "NW". If the "W" appears on the outside of the barrel, the lens is an NW lens -- and it is multi-coated. Otherwise it is single-coated.

If it is marked "W" on the outside of the barrel it is an NW lens and is EBC coated.
If it is marked "W" on the inside of the barrel it is a W lens and is not EBC coated.

[Drew Wiley]

That is exactly what I just stated, xkaes. They never were actually marked "NW" on the lens, or even necessarily on the boxes, mainly just in literature. But I'd be careful about absolute statements. A few transitional examples of multi-coating might exist. Things aren't always totally cut and dried with respect to Fuji, just the significant generational transitions. Same applies to the confusing generational changes of filter thread size in certain focal lengths.

[Joseph Kashi]

The lens labeling and the data that Fujinon put out, at least in English, since 1980 seems to be replete with contradictions and just plain typos, not to mention a lack of clarity and clear differentiation. Perhaps that was intentional, to provide a sense of marketing continuity when optical formulas were changed.

Even back in the 1980s and 1990s when Fujinon was still making and marketing these lenses (and thus closer in time to accurate data rather than the current fog). it seemed no one in the English-speaking world was then sort out Fujinon lenses with confidence. Kerry Thalman tried and provided some data, but with major cautions about completeness and accuracy. It's bound to be even more difficult now a few decades later. I do have a fair number of consistently excellent Fujinon LF lenses and would personally appreciate some consistent and reliable way to differentiate them. What data we have on serial number ranges does not seem to be conclusive.

Perhaps someone on this forum who is bi-lingual in Japanese and English could find some Japanese language Fuji data from that time frame and help provide some data closer to the source and presumably more accurate? Otherwise, it seems, it will be very difficult to sort this out unimpeachably. There does seem to be a lot of hearsay at the moment, and I'm sure that I have been guilty of this as well.

[xkaes]

There does seem to be a lot of hearsay at the moment, and I'm sure that I have been guilty of this as well.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/indexfuji.htm (http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/indexfuji.htm)

[Drew Wiley]

There are also lots of known errors and typos in Fuji literature, some of which have inevitably made their way into web data sheets. No big deal. At this point, we all understand the basic distinctions between earlier inside lettered W lenses, outside lettered multicoated "NW" ones, and the final CM-W series. Details like exact filter thread can be taken on a case by case basis.

[Joseph Kashi]

The subclub/fujinon are the best available English language Fujinon reference materials and we owe XKAES a great deal of thanks for the hard work that he has put into building that reference. I refer to it often and very much appreciate their availability. Thank you!

The problem would seem to be that Fujinon's translated English-language materials had many typos, ambiguous references, and apparent mis-translations, which the subclub pages readily acknowledge. That would seem unavoidable when forced to work with those Fujinon English-language materials.

My original point was that it would be nice if Fujinon archives could be found and used to help clear up some of the ambiguities that surround these consistently excellent lenses, of which I use a fair number personally.