Thoughts on Fuji Fujifilm CM Fujinon W 210mm ?

[Times2]

Hi,


I'm looking to buy a portrait lens and this one seems to be in the best condition with okish price.
Do you have any experience with it? Would you recommend it?

Thanks:)

[Times2]

There is a similar thread to this one but I figured it was about different version.

[xkaes]

I've not used that CM-W, but it's almost identical to the NW 210 f5.6 -- that should be available at a lower price. They have the same filter size and lens coating. The CM-W has an image circle 9mm wider, so unless you are doing 8x10" that's inconsequential.

http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm

[Sal Santamaura]

I've not used that CM-W, but it's almost identical to the NW 210 f5.6...Incorrect. Unlike earlier versions, the CM-W series used aspheric elements that improved performance at the edge of their image circles:


https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?132007-Is-a-Fuji-CM-W-Worth-the-Extra-Over-a-NW-W&p=1338453&viewfull=1#post1338453

[xkaes]

That's where the "almost" comes in. For 4x5 and 5x7 you're not using the edges.

[Sal Santamaura]

That's where the "almost" comes in. For 4x5 and 5x7 you're not using the edges.With 5x7, unless no movements are employed, one most certainly does use the edges. In my experience, the difference in performance is clearly visible.

[xkaes]

Since the OP concerns "portraiture", which means bellows extension -- and probably uses a 4x5" anyway -- the edges are probably not an issue.

But there are plenty of people that buy lenses with images circle much greater than they will ever use. These lenses are typically much larger, heavier, and more expensive than what's actually needed, but many shutterbugs still think "If it costs more, it must be worth it".

[Times2]

How does it compare to Nikon 210mm or Schneider Kreuznach Symmar S 210mm?

[Bernice Loui]

Post the Fujinon literature that notes Aspheric element(s) in the CM-W series.

This is a image clip from:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/CMW_specs.htm

Screen shot:
225655

Based on the Fujinon literature, not a lot special about the CM-W, 72 degree image angle at f22. No different than Plasmats from Nikkor, Schneider, Rodenstock.
They will near diffraction limit at the great lens equalizer of f22. Then comes the question of contrast, in to out of focus rendition and all that other lens personality stuff.


Bernice




Incorrect. Unlike earlier versions, the CM-W series used aspheric elements that improved performance at the edge of their image circles:


https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?132007-Is-a-Fuji-CM-W-Worth-the-Extra-Over-a-NW-W&p=1338453&viewfull=1#post1338453

[Drew Wiley]

There's no indication of an aspheric element in any of the CMW's, or in fact, any Fuji LF lens of any series. It's darn rare with any brand. There are more cost effective methods.

[xkaes]

Post the Fujinon literature that notes Aspheric element(s) in the CM-W series.
Bernice

I haven't seen that in any Fuji literature regarding the CM-W lenses, but anything is possible. You would think if they did something special that they would make a big deal about it. The optical formula is changed slightly because the flange focal length of the CM-W is 4mm longer than that of the NW, and the angle of coverage is 1 degree larger.

It's interesting to note that THREE of the CM-W lenses have SMALLER image circles than the lenses they replaced!

I also have not seen any head-to-head comparisons of any CM-W vs NW lenses -- but I haven't actually looked for them

The only comparison that I have done is between the 105mm f5.6 CM-W vs the NW. I used the NW for years, and it's a great lens. I bought a CM-W because it has a slightly larger image circle -- 174mm vs 162mm. That's not much, but it helps with 4x5" close to infinity. Neither is very "roomy" for 4x5 work, but I did not notice any difference in image quality. I just wish the CM-W didn't have such a large, long filter hood -- but I can live with it.

[Bernice Loui]

They are far more similar than different. Modern Plasmats regardless of the brand.

Sharpness given the specific lens sample will be far more similar than different. Differences will be more apparent with contrast rendition. In to out of focus rendition for the modern Plasmat is not smooth as they are designed to be used between f11-f45 optimized for f22 with shutters that do not have a round iris as they are designed for majority of the image in apparent "sharp" focus.

IMO, don't sweat too much over which variant, brand and etc of modern Plasmat as mentioned previously, they are all far more similar than different. Also far too much obsession is put on the value of far excessive image circle with the tiniest physical lens size and weight discounting the actual image goals. All view camera lenses are a set of trade offs as a given. Don't fall into the marketing or web found hype, Know ALL modern view camera lenses were designed, marketed, produced sold to folks that used these tools (lenses) as a means to an end (image) for profit with demanding customers and audience. Hobbyist that delved into sheet film view camera stuff back then was a lot less common back then. This is much about carrying on mass market current digital or past 35mm film camera marketing habituated thinking into this sheet film view camera stuff which shared far less in common with current mass market digital or past 35mm film camera stuff.

Portrait images involve a LOT more than lens/camera. List of priorities could look like this:

~Needs of the portrait sitter.

~Pose & portrait image goals, head/shoulder, 3/4 length, full length, environmental. Single portrait sitter or group? Background/environment is part of this need.

~Expression captured with the portrait sitter(s).

~Lighting and light modifiers, likely more important than the lens/camera. Choice of constant light, natural light, strobe will have a very significant effect on the portrait image. Proper light meter will be needed to set lens taking aperture, lighting ratios and more. It is an absolutely essential item unless instant preview digital is the imager.

~Lens choice, IMO for 4x5 the lens formula of choice would be a Tessar formula with in barrel or shutter with a round iris (no exceptions) and full aperture of f4.5 to f6.3. Heilar and similar can do well for portrait images. Lens focal length will depend on pose head/shoulder, 3/4 length, full length, environmental..etc.

4x5 head/shoulder lens focal length could be 210mm/8-1/2" to 300mm/12".
4x5 3/4 to full length lens focal length could be 150mm/6" to 210mm/8-1/2".
4x5 environmental to group portrait lens focal length could be 120mm to 150mm.

Image circle is a lesser consideration due to the portrait sitters distance to lens/camera and camera movements are not often used if at all for portrait images.

~Then camera to properly support the needs of the lens choice and camera support system.


There are many other factors that figure into portrait images, lens/camera is a smaller part of the much greater whole.


Bernice






How does it compare to Nikon 210mm or Schneider Kreuznach Symmar S 210mm?

[Sal Santamaura]

...But there are plenty of people that buy lenses with images circle much greater than they will ever use. These lenses are typically much larger and more expensive than what's actually needed, but many shutterbugs still think "If it costs more, it must be worth it".

Fujinon CM-W lenses today don't cost more than lenses from other manufacturers of the same focal length. Some photographers find the improved edge performance and higher contrast valuable.


How does it compare to Nikon 210mm or Schneider Kreuznach Symmar S 210mm?I've owned both of those. Neither was particularly sharp. I don't have a 210mm Fujinon CM-W, but do currently use both 135mm and 450mm samples. Both are far superior to the Nikon and Schneider.


Post the Fujinon literature that notes Aspheric element(s) in the CM-W series.

This is a image clip from:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/CMW_specs.htm

Screen shot:
225655

Based on the Fujinon literature, not a lot special about the CM-W, 72 degree image angle at f22. No different than Plasmats from Nikkor, Schneider, Rodenstock...

Again, edge sharpness, especially if using them on larger formats like 5x7 or whole plate, is quite a special thing for some photographers. For others, not so much.


...They will near diffraction limit at the great lens equalizer of f22...Diffraction is real. However, it degrades lens performance from a particular lens' starting point. Those lenses with superior performance end up performing better after diffraction degradation than those that started out performing worse. Here's one thread where naysayers perpetuated the myth that "they're all the same" due to diffraction:


https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?71322-f64&p=1321449&viewfull=1#post1321449


...Then comes the question of contrast, in to out of focus rendition and all that other lens personality stuff...

Yup. Stuff that mainly impacts performance at larger-than-optimum apertures.


I find it interesting how intensely people who don't like certain aspects of large format photography will proselytize against holding those performance factors in high regard. Why is that?

[r.e.]

A copy of this lens was posted in the For Sale sub-forum less than an hour ago: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?167910-FS-Fujinon-CM-W-210mm-f-5-6-lens-in-Copal-1-shutter-Excellent-Cond

[Bernice Loui]

Edge "sharpness" is FAR over rated. If a HUGE image circle is needed HUGE camera movements to meet a given image goal, I'll simply apply a lens with a FAR over sized image circle for a given sheet film format..

Like a 165mm f8 Super Angulon for 5x7. No possible way to get close to the image circle of that lens for 5x7 due to limits of the Sinar and that camera offers substantial camera capabilities.

Negative of a far excessive image circle is flare light inside the bellows causing lower contrast to be recorded on the sheet of film.

If the overall image goals are well know and understood, the proper lens trade off choice can be made.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

For 4X5 format, all the 210/5.6 plasmats seem to have ample image circle.

[Bernice Loui]

Again, post the Fujinon publication or source to note the Aspheric lens element(s) in their CM-W series.. Otherwise this is Foto myth and needs to stop here.

Bernice



Incorrect. Unlike earlier versions, the CM-W series used aspheric elements that improved performance at the edge of their image circles:


https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?132007-Is-a-Fuji-CM-W-Worth-the-Extra-Over-a-NW-W&p=1338453&viewfull=1#post1338453





Again, edge sharpness, especially if using them on larger formats like 5x7 or whole plate, is quite a special thing for some photographers. For others, not so much.




Post the Fujinon literature that notes Aspheric element(s) in the CM-W series.

This is a image clip from:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/CMW_specs.htm

Screen shot:
225655

Based on the Fujinon literature, not a lot special about the CM-W, 72 degree image angle at f22. No different than Plasmats from Nikkor, Schneider, Rodenstock.
They will near diffraction limit at the great lens equalizer of f22. Then comes the question of contrast, in to out of focus rendition and all that other lens personality stuff.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

The question came up regarding CMW performance versus a 210 Symmar S, which is an older Schneider design. It required a 77mm filter; but I liked it for its lovely rendering, certainly not as uber-sharp or contrasty as current offerings, or really, any of the multi-coated Fuji's, but more pleasant in terms of background blur, slightly gentler portrait applications etc. Just a different personality lens. But I've made numerous 30X40 inch Cibachromes of landscape and nature closeup made with that old 210 Symmar S and old-school Ektachrome 64 film. No, they're not in the same nitpicky league as the same sized prints made using later lenses and later 8x10 film, and even better enlarging lenses; but the distinction is actually something the general public never seemed to notice. This whole topic sometimes gets overblown.

[Sal Santamaura]

Again, post the Fujinon publication or source to note the Aspheric lens element(s) in their CM-W series.. Otherwise this is Foto myth and needs to stop here...Try looking at a CM-W Fujinon with your own eyes, Bernice. To use the old saw, it's "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer." Not myth. Reality. :)

[Bernice Loui]

No trust in “my” eyes on visualizing any of the elements in the Fujinon CM-W are Aspheric. What if the believed Aspheric Lens elements are inside the CM-W lens cells?

Unless the lens designers at Fujinon publicly state the CM-W has Aspherical lens element(s), your assertion cannot be verified and confirmed.

~"intuitively obvious to the most casual observer." = Cognitive Bias.
https://betterhumans.pub/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18

The Schneider Super Symmar XL does have an Aspherical lens element per their public ADs and Patent issued.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4773745/en?oq=schneider+Kreuznach+Schitthof

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/hiltrud-ebbesmeier-nee-schitthof

And this previous LFF discussion:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?111365-Schneider-Super-Symmar-HM-series


Bernice


I’m
Try looking at a CM-W Fujinon with your own eyes, Bernice. To use the old saw, it's "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer." Not myth. Reality. :)

[Sal Santamaura]

...What if the believed Aspheric Lens elements are inside the CM-W lens cells?...They are! However, believe it or not, light passes all the way through those cells, and the way it's refracted by them -- even the elements inside them -- is clearly visible.

OK, Bernice, don't believe your lyin' eyes. Demand further proof! :)

[Drew Wiley]

Nothing on the official Fuji CMW schematic shows an aspheric element. Nor does the only moderate price increase for the CMW series suggest that kind of element present. On the other hand, the schematic for the conspicuously expensive Schneider Super Symmar XL clearly shows one aspheric component; and their advertising distinctly states that too. There might well have been some change in glass type involved proceeding into Fuji's last series of W's, just like the other brands, due to EU ingredient restrictions; but Fuji is generally mum about their glass varieties involved.

[Bernice Loui]

This will be the last reply Sal,

~Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds and Beliefs are so Hard to Change?~

https://research.com/education/why-facts-dont-change-our-mind


Bernice




They are! However, believe it or not, light passes all the way through those cells, and the way it's refracted by them -- even the elements inside them -- is clearly visible.

OK, Bernice, don't believe your lyin' eyes. Demand further proof! :)

[xkaes]

This summary on their ASPHERIC optics from Schnieder suggest the main benefits are smaller size, lower weight, and larger apertures. None of these seem to apply to the CM-W lenses vs the NW models.

https://schneiderkreuznach.com/application/files/3515/0781/8891/aspheric-technology.pdf

[Drew Wiley]

Aspheric design can be used for all kinds of things. Nowadays moulded plastic aspherics or hybrid glass/plastic aspheric lenses are becoming routine in certain small lens applications. But as lenses get bigger, the risk of differential expansion-contraction stresses get greater with plastic elements; and things start getting a lot more expensive with optical glass aspherics per se. There's a specialty maker of aspheric lenses and mirrors just a few miles up the road from me. They'll make you anything you want for the right price. Just bring along your NASA credit card. They even made the correction lenses for the Hubble Space Telescope.

[xkaes]

They even made the correction lenses for the Hubble Space Telescope.

I remember that "contact lens".

[Bernice Loui]

For those curious about what happened to Hubble, The Report.

https://spacese.spacegrant.org/Failure%20Reports/HST_Failure_report.pdf

All 132 pages of it..


Bernice



I remember that "contact lens".

[Drew Wiley]

I sure remember it too. I dealt with the owner several times a week in terms of facilities supplies, and even supplied them with the mount adhesive for those "contact lenses". We had quite an industrial and military customer base back then. They were on the opposite side of town back then; and he passed away before I retired. They used to open up a small section of their facility once a week in the evening to amateur telescope makers, giving them free training and access to a bit of their secondary equipment to grind their own mirrors. I've heard of up to 18" reflector mirrors being made in there by amateurs using older equipment. That ended due to the pandemic; but it might start up again now that all local restrictions have now officially just ended.

[Bernice Loui]

Canon has been at this Aspheric lens thing for a while now.

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/special/exhibition1.html


Bernice



This summary on their ASPHERIC optics from Schnieder suggest the main benefits are smaller size, lower weight, and larger apertures. None of these seem to apply to the CM-W lenses vs the NW models.

https://schneiderkreuznach.com/application/files/3515/0781/8891/aspheric-technology.pdf

[r.e.]

This summary on their ASPHERIC optics from Schnieder suggest the main benefits are smaller size, lower weight, and larger apertures. None of these seem to apply to the CM-W lenses vs the NW models.

https://schneiderkreuznach.com/application/files/3515/0781/8891/aspheric-technology.pdf


Thanks, I have one of those lenses, but hadn't seen that document.

[Drew Wiley]

Wasn't the Leica Noctilux one of the first, if not the first, ordinary camera lens using an aspheric lens element?

[Vaughn]

I have a variety of Fuji W focal lengths...the 210mm not being one of them. All nicely sharp all-around great lenses (180, 250, 300 and 360mm). Well-corrected like most modern lenses, so might lack the 'feel' of older lenses/designs...as Bernice mentioned. The 250/6.3 Fuji W would be another option if you have the bellows to play with. It is usually cheaper than the older single-coated Fuji W 250/6.7 that covers 8x10.

[Bernice Loui]

Canon did the first production Aspherical lens. 55mm f1.2 AL, 1971.
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/fd158.html

Canon made a 50mm f 0.95 in 1961.
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/s43.html

This lens was used on the Gemini program.
225676


Bernice


"Leica Noctilux 50mm f1.0 vs. Leica Noctilux 50mm f0.95 – Price
The fastest Leica lens and in current production is the latest Leica Noctilux 50mm f0.95ASPH that was released in 2008.

~(Canon actually made the first 50mm f0.95 lens years earlier)~

Here in the UK the retail price to buy a new Noctilux 50/0.95 is in excess of £7.2k. Used Noctilux lenses hold their value well but this is more than double the cost of a used Noctilux 50mm f1.0. Most of the Leica shooters that I know use a f0.95 not the older f1.0 but I was not in a position to spend that kind of money on one lens."

https://mrleica.com/leica-noctilux-50mm-f1/



Wasn't the Leica Noctilux one of the first, if not the first, ordinary camera lens using an aspheric lens element?

[r.e.]

Stanley Kubrick's Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7)

[xkaes]

Canon did the first production Aspherical lens. 55mm f1.2 AL, 1971.


Aspherical optics even made it into "pedestrian" cameras such as the Kodak EXTRAMAX 110 camera of 1978:

http://www.subclub.org/shop/kodak.htm

[Bob Salomon]

Aspherical optics even made it into "pedestrian" cameras such as the Kodak EXTRAMAX 110 camera of 1978:

http://www.subclub.org/shop/kodak.htm

A molded aspheric element was very common with P&S cameras in the late 80s onward.

[John Layton]

Early aspheric elements - such as present within the first versions of both the Leitz 50mm Noctilux and 35mm Summilux lenses, were ground to shape at great expense. Lenses after this utilized molded aspheric elements...a bit cheaper to produce and, if done correctly (and in consideration of optical advances in general), at least of equal optical quality.

[Sal Santamaura]

This will be the last reply Sal,

~Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds and Beliefs are so Hard to Change?~

https://research.com/education/why-facts-dont-change-our-mind...

That's a lounge post. Possibly even not suitable for there, since, rather than address a lens which is the subject of this thread, it implies those who disagree with you don't rely on facts, i.e. an ad hominem.

I'll sit back while others might carry on your attack. :)

[xkaes]

I do remember running across some Fuji literature (?) stating that the CM-W lenses were designed to compete with the latest APO lenses from other manufacturers -- which is obvious -- but I don't recall anything stating that Fujinon lenses had something special in their optics.
If I can recall where I saw this, I'll pass it along.

[Drew Wiley]

Both Schneider and Fuji already each had their own series of lenses better corrected than any general purpose plasmats of the era, namely the Fuji A series, and Schneider's plasmat version of G-Claron. But these had smaller max apertures and a more limited focal length selection. Fuji never said anything about glass types involved with anything. Perhaps they wanted to be free to tinker with that at will if needed, or just preferred to otherwise keep it secret. They're often an inscrutable company with respect to other categories of products too. One almost has to read between the lines at times.

[xkaes]

Fuji never said anything about glass types involved with anything. Perhaps they wanted to be free to tinker with that at will if needed, or just preferred to otherwise keep it secret. They're often an inscrutable company with respect to other categories of products too. One almost has to read between the lines at times.

And like many companies selling STUFF, they use this to their advantage -- keep the customer hypnotized in a FOG. They don't actually DO anything different -- they just change the "packaging". I must assume if Fuji actually did something special with their CM-W large format lenses, they would announce it from the hilltops -- just as they did with their EBC coating.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/arkku/7028835671/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/arkku/7028835671/)


I don't see anywhere that Fuji did this with aspherics in large format lenses. If so, I'd like to add it to my -- apparently popular -- tables. Curious minds want to know.

[Bernice Loui]

This discussion is rooted in the same old saw Foto folks have been after since it's beginnings, going after "Gear" that is the latest-greatest to gain a "special" advantage in the images made. Be it lens, camera, tripod, film, processing, print making and all more.

More important is realization that the "latest-greatest" in modern times remains another set of trade offs, The Foto widget (lenses in this case) could offer some specific plus while giving up something else. Key is knowing what is important to the specific image making needs and working within the limits of what these tradeoffs are -vs- driving after the dream item that cannot be a reality.

Thus, the constant toot about modern view camera lenses from the big four, Nikkor, Schneider, Fujinon, Rodenstock being more similar than different. As for the "Gee-Golly-Wiz" Schneider SSXL aspheric wide angles, Yes, still have the 110mm and 150mm sitting in storage, neither have been used in a while. The 110mm has been displaced by a 115mm Grandagon, the 150mm SSXL has been displaced by a 165mm Angulon. Not sufficient improvement to put the SSXLs into the must always use category.. as there are FAR more other aspects of image making that result in a expressive print-image.

~These high Zoot lenses are not a magical devices that produces an expressive-creative image all on their own.

~Consider how SO many of the most notable expressive/creative images made was done on and with FAR lesser Gear.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

xkaes - I seriously doubt Fuji was ever trying to keep anyone in a "fog". Large format optics was a relatively small amount of their overall business, though not as small as Nikon's involvement; and they never did aggressively market that segment in the US to the extent Schneider and Rodenstock did. They did keep up a token trade show presence with a single Rep. But that fact shouldn't be mistaken for them being any less of a player quality-wise; and they had they own especially desirable special offerings, like compact 'C's, and highly corrected, yet at the same time, small with big image circle, A's.

As far as Fuji's inscrutability at times, that's not uncommon in the "lost in translation" world of Japanese specialty marketing to Western users. It's not like consumer electronics. I directly dealt with this kind of thing for several decades in a different manufacturing category, but fortunately had links right to the very top on a first name basis, as well as opportunities to directly interact with the engineers. Never was there anything deceptive in that relation, just real issues of communication and very different customs. Once the CEO showed up with a retinue of twelve combined engineers and translators, to make certain both sides fully understood specific requests.

But yes, the addition of an expensive glass aspheric would have no doubt elicited some distinct statement if that ever occurred. I'll go with the official schematic and common-sense pricing that it didn't happen. If someone else want to dissect an expensive lens and prove otherwise, it's their prerogative. But why would Fuji even go that route if it wasn't necessary? Schneider fumbled on their first run of aspheric Symmars, and got the adhesive wrong. It's not like using tiny moulded plastic aspherics in amateur applications. But every player among the big four was trying to establish their own niche with something special. It's called competition.

[Bernice Loui]

Again, fact IS modern LF view camera are far more than good enough to produce excellent images. The added features as noted by APO, HM, XL and all are extensions of previous lens designs that had their envelop of performance tweaked maybe extended a bit. Yet, fact remains all are more than good enough for a given set of trade-offs.

~Always keep in mind the great LF lens equalizer of f22..

Again, the LF view cameras market and all related back then was a very different world than consumer or pro-sumer 35mm film stuff. These folks generally knew what they needed, generally how this stuff works and did not tolerate stuff that did not get their needs did. As previously mentioned, you're doing a Hi-Buck studio job worth several thousand U$D per studio hour, this often included cost of props, models lighting rentals and LOTs more. Film and processing cost were a insignificant cost to the overall project-job, lens as a project-job expense would remain a tiny fraction of a project-job like this.. Or why the most costly lens available is just not that big a part of the $ budget, and why any LF view camera lens manufacture has zero reasons to design-produce lenses that did not fit this need/requirement/expectation.

Yes, Schneider had a Horrid time trying to make those aspheric lens elements for the SSXL back when they first tried to produce them. According to Robert Kippling apps engineer at Schneider USA at that time, it was the aspheric element that cause the extremely long production delay. To get the first 110mm &1 150mm SSXLs out to those who pre-ordered, Schneider made the initial few using hand ground aspheric elements at no small expense. This first batch were essentially hand built proto lenses. The 110 mm & 150mm SSXL here are from the first initial production. There has been zero issues with the 110mm & 150mm SSXL since day one. Personality wise, the SSXL is sharp, snappy contrast, low distortion, good color rendition and compact for what they do. These lens personality traits expected from a state of the art LF view camera lens. They are used when these personality traits are needed.

Later SSXL production had uber precision moulded aspheric elements and Schneider had problems with them initially. Schneider then figured it out with later production SSXL offerings.

Good modern LF view camera lens yes, but again these SSXLs are not a cure-all magical lens that will, "make the image for you."

As for Fujinon, they are one of two optical companies that have the capability to design and produce these video box lenses.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1309393-REG/fujinon_ua107x8_4besm_4k_premier_8_4_900mm_16_8_1800mm.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=CjwKCAjw8sCRBhA6EiwA6_IF4YVogYdOdBmypEaHxMkDIbsG-o-PtRsmfkgAeKXGR_OcooClO9d2jxoCA-QQAvD_BwE

The other is Canon.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1314025-REG/canon_uj86x9_3b_p01_dss_uhd_digisuper_86_broadcast.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=CjwKCAjw8sCRBhA6EiwA6_IF4Qwkk5XjQe-U6dK1lx-nDdNvM-Yv_WaCvHgyYWjEl7xLvCGtznBirBoC7uMQAvD_BwE


Fujinon is easily capable of design and production of aspheric and countless other optical specialities... at a $. Question is, what can and is the market for their design/production offerings?



Bernice










But yes, the addition of an expensive glass aspheric would have no doubt elicited some distinct statement if that ever occurred. I'll go with the official schematic and common-sense pricing that it didn't happen. If someone else want to dissect an expensive lens and prove otherwise, it's their prerogative. But why would Fuji even go that route if it wasn't necessary? Schneider fumbled on their first run of aspheric Symmars, and got the adhesive wrong. It's not like using tiny moulded plastic aspherics in amateur applications. But every player among the big four was trying to establish their own niche with something special. It's called competition.

[Bob Salomon]

xkaes - I seriously doubt Fuji was ever trying to keep anyone in a "fog". Large format optics was a relatively small amount of their overall business, though not as small as Nikon's involvement; and they never did aggressively market that segment in the US to the extent Schneider and Rodenstock did. They did keep up a token trade show presence with a single Rep. But that fact shouldn't be mistaken for them being any less of a player quality-wise; and they had they own especially desirable special offerings, like compact 'C's, and highly corrected, yet at the same time, small with big image circle, A's.

As far as Fuji's inscrutability at times, that's not uncommon in the "lost in translation" world of Japanese specialty marketing to Western users. It's not like consumer electronics. I directly dealt with this kind of thing for several decades in a different manufacturing category, but fortunately had links right to the very top on a first name basis, as well as opportunities to directly interact with the engineers. Never was there anything deceptive in that relation, just real issues of communication and very different customs. Once the CEO showed up with a retinue of twelve combined engineers and translators, to make certain both sides fully understood specific requests.

But yes, the addition of an expensive glass aspheric would have no doubt elicited some distinct statement if that ever occurred. I'll go with the official schematic and common-sense pricing that it didn't happen. If someone else want to dissect an expensive lens and prove otherwise, it's their prerogative. But why would Fuji even go that route if it wasn't necessary? Schneider fumbled on their first run of aspheric Symmars, and got the adhesive wrong. It's not like using tiny moulded plastic aspherics in amateur applications. But every player among the big four was trying to establish their own niche with something special. It's called competition.

Schneider had their own proprietary distribution in the USA after they split from Burleigh Brooks in the early 70s.
Rodenstock had distribution through Berkey Photo Marketing until 1986 when we became the USA distributor, except for those lenses that Calumet directly imported and Sinar private labeled.
Nikon Inc was the distributor in the USA for Nikon lenses.
Fuji never directly imported their lenses in the USA. They were imported by DO Optics until they quit importing them. Then they became a direct dealer import by some retailers. In short, they never had the USA marketing and distribution that Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikon had.

[Bernice Loui]

IMO or why Schneider/Rodenstock became the preferred LF view camera lens brands in the USA back then.

Nikkor was never quite able to match the marketing/distribution and brand recognition Schneider/Rodenstock enjoyed. Since then, the market and LF view camera users has changed lots. Folks wanting to try LF view camera stuff today often has a history with 35mm film or digital making Nikkor and Fuji a more familiar brand. As an extension of what is comfortable and familiar, there can be gravity towards brands these brands. This combined with the "latest-greatest" mind set cultivated from the consumer driven market can results in discussions like, "which LF lens is better or best." when in fact is is all a set of trade-offs with no such lens as "best".

As for Fujinon LF lenses, have several, they are good, no better or worst than any of the others.


Bernice




Schneider had their own proprietary distribution in the USA after they split from Burleigh Brooks in the early 70s.
Rodenstock had distribution through Berkey Photo Marketing until 1986 when we became the USA distributor, except for those lenses that Calumet directly imported and Sinar private labeled.
Nikon Inc was the distributor in the USA for Nikon lenses.
Fuji never directly imported their lenses in the USA. They were imported by DO Optics until they quit importing them. Then they became a direct dealer import by some retailers. In short, they never had the USA marketing and distribution that Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikon had.

[Drew Wiley]

There was a specific Fuji Rep, Bob, under their direct employ. I talked to him numerous times. But perhaps it was by avoiding a middleman they managed to sell at a slightly lower price point, despite equal quality. Pro and cons. You and I both have similar backgrounds, Bob, though in different types of product category. I bought direct whenever possible; but it takes a lot of volume clout to do that. Nikon crippled themselves in certain categories, especially survey instruments, by their sheer inflexibility at the US distribution level. And I wasn't even aware of Fuji optics at first. No problem. Now at my age I appreciate some of the more petite lens offerings of Fuji and Nikon, but back then didn't think twice about hauling a metal monorail and big clunker 120 Super Angulon up a 13,000 ft peak in an 85 lb pack.

[10x8]

I always loved using the w 210mm Fuji to photograph my farm animals. The Schneider isn't sharp enough for the details in their beautiful eyes. It somehow changed the color of their eyes(?!) and was a bit soft on the edges. Fuji on the other hand was crisp! Also, it was cheaper too and that was with shipping from Japan. Don't understand the fuss about Schnider...

I only used Rodenstock enlarger lenses though.

[Drew Wiley]

All of the big four made fine enlarging lenses, though Schneider was behind the others at one time. Early on I used Componon S, but now have Apo Rodagon N's, regular Rodagon, El Nikkors; but the best of all of em are Apo Nikkor process lenses. Fuji's better EX enlarging lens selection only went up to 135mm.

My rural property was just too much work for me to realistically keep it up later in life, so I sadly had to sell it. No more farm animals or crops. But there is plenty of ranch land and open space right around here with horses, cattle, coyotes, bobcats, seldom seen mtn lions, and a number of two-footed critters those four-footed animals won't associate with because they have better taste and higher class. I can imagine them saying, "There goes the neighborhood".

[xkaes]

xkaes - I seriously doubt Fuji was ever trying to keep anyone in a "fog".

I never said they were.

[xkaes]

But yes, the addition of an expensive glass aspheric would have no doubt elicited some distinct statement if that ever occurred. I'll go with the official schematic and common-sense pricing that it didn't happen. If someone else want to dissect an expensive lens and prove otherwise, it's their prerogative. But why would Fuji even go that route if it wasn't necessary? Schneider fumbled on their first run of aspheric Symmars, and got the adhesive wrong. It's not like using tiny moulded plastic aspherics in amateur applications. But every player among the big four was trying to establish their own niche with something special. It's called competition.

You certainly should be nominated for the "Run on sentence Award"

https://mymodernmet.com/longest-run-on-sentence-william-faulkner/

[mike rosenlof]

I have the CMW 125mm. It's a good lens. Sharp, well made. etc. etc. I know that doesn't help the OP too much with the 210, but it's closer to on-topic. :)

[MAubrey]

I have the CMW 125mm. It's a good lens. Sharp, well made. etc. etc. I know that doesn't help the OP too much with the 210, but it's closer to on-topic. :)

The longest sentence in Drew's post is only 21 words long. And it isn't a run on.

But to throw my hat in the ring for the topic at hand. The CM W's optical design changes is only limited to moving to a fully air spaced design rather than glued groups. The air spaced design means better CA correction and thus higher edge acuity. This would normally be at the sacrifice of contrast, but coating advances effectively removes that problem entirely.

[xkaes]

The longest sentence in Drew's post is only 21 words long. And it isn't a run on.

I guess you've never read Hemingway.

I could go on.

But that would miss the point.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm being put in the same league as Hemingway? That's quite a compliment! Did he write about lenses too? Or are more than three sentences just too much to take in at once?

[Joseph Kashi]

The initial set of Fujinon W series lenses are shown as 6/4 elements/groups. The intermediate NW (New W) series moved on to mostly 6/6 fully air-spaced elements.

The final CM-W series mostly continued the NW series 6/6 designs. I did a side-by-side comparison of resolution only between the 6/4 Fujinon W 250/6.7 and the latest 250 Fujinon CM-W. I saw no practical difference in resolution. I did not measure contrast nor color character of the lenses but would expect that the EBC-multicoated CM-W would have somewhat better contrast although the CM-W's extra 4 air-glass interfaces would reduce the EBC benefit at least somewhat.

As a practical matter, on the single copies of each that I directly compared, I did not see any practical difference between the original 250/6.7 W and the late CM-W 250. YMMV of course and there's always sample variation.

[John Layton]

....what about that long sentence in Ulysses? Something like 47 pages? Drew...you up for the challenge?

[Drew Wiley]

I thought Ulysses Grant made more grunts than speeches. Won him the election at least, and served him well in the War. Maybe the Greek Fates got fed up with long-winded speeches long ago, and wanted to make a point.

[Joseph Kashi]

While taking a tax law course in law school, I came across one sentence in the US tax code that was 697 words long in that single sentence.

What I mostly learned from the tax law course was that it was a fine cure for insomnia and that I would rather be burned at the stake than be a tax lawyer.

Hemingway, on the other hand, was once challenged to write a serious story using not more than six words and replied "Baby shoes for sale. Never used."

[Sal Santamaura]

Incorrect. Unlike earlier versions, the CM-W series used aspheric elements that improved performance at the edge of their image circles:


https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?132007-Is-a-Fuji-CM-W-Worth-the-Extra-Over-a-NW-W&p=1338453&viewfull=1#post1338453


There's no indication of an aspheric element in any of the CMW's, or in fact, any Fuji LF lens of any series. It's darn rare with any brand. There are more cost effective methods.


Again, post the Fujinon publication or source to note the Aspheric lens element(s) in their CM-W series.. Otherwise this is Foto myth and needs to stop here.

Bernice


Try looking at a CM-W Fujinon with your own eyes, Bernice. To use the old saw, it's "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer." Not myth. Reality. :)


No trust in “my” eyes on visualizing any of the elements in the Fujinon CM-W are Aspheric. What if the believed Aspheric Lens elements are inside the CM-W lens cells?...


...believe it or not, light passes all the way through those cells, and the way it's refracted by them -- even the elements inside them -- is clearly visible.

OK, Bernice, don't believe your lyin' eyes. Demand further proof! :)


Nothing on the official Fuji CMW schematic shows an aspheric element. Nor does the only moderate price increase for the CMW series suggest that kind of element present...

I've just taken out both my 135mm and 450mm CM Fujinon W lenses as well as the one Fujinon A lens Drew and I agree about, namely, the 360mm f/10 version. Whether or not Fuji included aspheric elements within either front or rear cells of these CM-Ws, there can be no doubt that the front cells' front elements' front surfaces are aspheric.

Examining front surface reflections from a light source, the 360A's are uniform edge to edge. The front surfaces of each CM-W front cell reflect an obvious change in prescription radius when approaching their edges.

So, as it turns out, Fuji didn't hide the evidence. It's out there in plain sight for anyone willing to look at it. Here's the 450:

225724

[johnmsanderson]

CM-W is a fantastic lens and I've used it several times on 8x10 for the following images: Sharp corner to corner. Just not much room for movements!

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b46b0607e3c3a7a060eacde/1629128513087-2PI1KXKQE5T5K8JDPNPP/12_Triple+Crossing%2C+East+PIttsburgh%2C+PA.jpg?format=2500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b46b0607e3c3a7a060eacde/1593644915679-LIN2YJKEBZPHOCH71BF7/John-Sanderson-Railroad-Landscape-New+Boston-Ohio.jpg?format=2500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b46b0607e3c3a7a060eacde/1625079369252-P6L3VQE1UL0KVLCUSVH2/John_Sanderson_Mingo_Junction_Ohio_Railroad_Landscapes.jpg?format=2500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b46b0607e3c3a7a060eacde/1635538231785-M6D4FXHG2HLH8U1SK8CJ/John_Sanderson_Murdo_South_Dakota_Central_103C.jpg?format=2500w

[Sal Santamaura]

CM-W is a fantastic lens and I've used it several times on 8x10 for the following images: Sharp corner to corner...

I own three 135mm lenses. An Apo Sironar N, purchased used but in like-new condition; an Apo Sironar S purchased new and a CM Fujinon W purchased new. When photographing subjects at a distance (i.e. landscape, my interest), the Apo Sironar S is least sharp. Next in sharpness is the Apo Sironar N. Sharpest of all is the CM Fujinon W. Not only is the Fujinon top of that heap in sharpness, its edge performance is where the margin of superiority is greatest.

The usual caveats about sample variation apply, but both the Apo Sironar S and CM-Fujinon W represent their manufacturers' ultimate era of manufacturing quality control refinement. Also, those who consider other aspects of lens performance more important than sharpness are perfectly justified in holding such opinions. Not any more justified, however, than those who place sharpness at the top of their priority lists.

[Drew Wiley]

It's hard for me to make out any distinction on my screen in the linked image, e.g., a mounting rim reflection, or truly aspheric. I'll have to wait until I get ahold of one of these in person some day. But I'm not shopping for any W's; so it's not any kind of priority for me personally - just an academic debate. But I will take your word on the effect, and endorsing the CMW as a top tier lens.

From a portability standpoint, I'm not thrilled with the big funnel front ends of the shorter focal length CMW's, or the big no. 3 shutters of 300mm up (versus the no.1 shutter of the A-series 300 and 360). But going with a 67mm filter and no. 1 shutter in 210 or 250 focal lengths seems reasonable. It would be interesting to compare 8x10 performance of the 250/6.3 CMW versus the classic old 250/6.7 wide. The prior 250/6.3 NW didn't do well with 8x10. The official published image circles moving into the new CMW series shows a distinct increase, but doesn't tell us anything about hypothetically improved corner performance at more typical working apertures, where it most counts.

But this debate is hardly just academic. If the CMW series provides distinctly better edge of circle performance than the previous versions, then it represents a remarkable expense saving opportunity over the Apo Rodagon S series at typical working apertures, which would seem to have a real advantage only at rather wide apertures seldom used in large format photography, except in portrait applications, where sheer sharpness is not necessarily a desirable quality anyway.

[xkaes]

The initial set of Fujinon W series lenses are shown as 6/4 elements/groups. The intermediate NW (New W) series moved on to mostly 6/6 fully air-spaced elements.

The final CM-W series mostly continued the NW series 6/6 designs.

The Fujinon 210mm NW and CM-W were both 6/5 design -- not 6/6. As far as I know.

[Joseph Kashi]

The Fujinon 210mm NW and CM-W were both 6/5 design -- not 6/6. As far as I know.


Yes, as you correctly and aptly note, the 210 CM-W is shown as a 6/5 lens, as is the preceding 6/5 210 NW as well as some other 6/5 CM-W lenses, but my post was specifically referencing a comparative test between my 6/4 250/6.7 W and my 6/6 250 CM-W. I do use a 6/5 210 NW and it is one of the best that I have. As noted in my prior post, when I was comparing the 6/4 250/6.7 W and the 6/6 250 CM-W, I did not attempt to compare contrast or micro-tonality, only resolution.

[mhayashi]

John, so beautiful pics!
As far as I read the cm-w fujinon brochure in Japanese,
it says ED glasses and other special glasses are used.
The chromatic aberrations are much more reduced than the previous versions, as well as other aberrations near to the perfect.
Super EBC multi coating is appiied.
The color rendition is balanced, natural and kept the same for all focal lengths of the cm-w series.
The cm-w series are designed to be like apochromatic from close to far distance.
The image circle is large and maintains luminance, clearness and sharpness to the edge as much as possible.

https://photographysgoldenage.wordpress.com/2018/07/31/fujinon-large-format-lens-ephemera-collection-2-of-4/

Also look at the graph here for the chromatic aberrations.
225775

So you will see more differences in color than in B&W when comparing cm-w series to the older models.

I will ask a local LF professional shop owner about the design history of cm-w fujinon. He may know more since his fellow is an x-fujinon lens designer.

[Drew Wiley]

Now we're getting somewhere ...

[xkaes]

As far as I read the cm-w fujinon brochure in Japanese,
it says ED glasses and other special glasses are used.

It's all Greek to me, but it seems inexplicable that Fuji would mention "special glass" in its Japanese literature, but not in the English literature.

Just as odd, this letter from the Director of Lens Sales doesn't mention it at all.

https://photographysgoldenage.wordpress.com/2018/07/31/fujinon-large-format-lens-ephemera-collection-2-of-4/

[Drew Wiley]

I had decades worth of experience directly dealing with Japanese engineers and bringing special products into this country (non-photo equipment). I can just whole-heartedly repeat the old adage, that a lot gets "lost in translation" - referring not just to the wording, but the whole cultural difference of communicating. Once had not only the CEO, but twelve other individuals in the room at the same time, consisting of engineers and translators for translators for translators. The session ended with me drawing pictures and handing out actual physical samples of machine components they needed to factor in, which they took back to Japan. I've got a few of those machines in my own shop right now; and that method worked out way way better than sending numerical or CAD specs to China, like people do these days, and in return get back mass-produced unreliable junk.

With Fuji, it's remarkable just how much gets lost in translation through typos and data loss when transferred to US literature, or lost between Japan and the often quite unhelpful, misinformed staff at FujifilmUSA. That tendency has got me scratching my head if it is indeed possible Sal is correct about a particular lens element because some generic schematic was simply transferred over, rather than a new one put into the new brochure. I dunno. But until the presence of an aspheric element is conclusively shown, I continue to be skeptical.

But this debate is not just academic. If the Fuji CMW provides significantly better reproduction further out in the image circle, then it's a dramatically less expensive option to the Rodenstock Sironar S series, except perhaps at relatively wide apertures, which are seldom used in LF work anyway, except in portraiture, and in that case, extreme sharpness might not even be desirable.

[Bernice Loui]

Low dispersion (ED or similar marketing names) optical glass is common today. Keep in mind low dispersion optical glass was invented at the US National Bureau of Standards cira WW-II, mass produced by Kodak, used in Kodak Ektar and other lenses made at their Hawkeye optics division. Since that time Lanthanum and similar optical glass types have become a marketing foil used and applied to increase perceived lens performance desirability.

~Canon introduced artificially grown calcium fluorite crystal for mass produced Foto lenses back in the late 1960's.

Remain flat un-impressed by any of this magical optical glass hyping as sharpness alone is over valued in too many ways. There are too many other factors that figure into what results in a emotionally expressive and creative image. On the other end of the sharpness obsession are Sorta-Focus lenses and Pictorialism.

~Not one mention of using an aspherical lens element in any of the Fujinon LF lens literature or publications. Until there is written text from Fujinon they used an aspherical element in their LF lenses, this remains a zilch NO.

This chart proves curious and more.
225781

Then I'll bring this up again:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164451-5x7-Ektachrome-Epson-4990-scanner-vs-Wild-M420-microscope

at 260x, "sharp" enough? How can this vastly improve the image?


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

I'm not doubting Sal's physical observation, just the interpretation of it. The effect he was observing could have been due to the beveled mounting rim on one of the elements. And substitution of newer glass types was no longer an option if Fuji wanted to continue marketing to Europe. What is interesting in comparison to the exceptional performance of the old 250/6.7 is how the glass on many of those 6.7's have distinctly yellowed, and were somewhat yellow to begin with - quite possibly an indicator of thoriated glass. All the major players had to reformulate, eliminating certain allegedly hazardous ingredients. That was rumored to be the reason behind the new Schneider L series of W's.

Low-dispersion glass makes a lot of sense when it comes to premium medium format lenses where print magnification ratios dramatically increase relative to LF sheet film enlargements. I can clearly detect the difference in print, especially color prints, between my otherwise quite good P67 300 Takumar and my later deluxe 300 EDIF version.

Fluorite elements have never been an ideal option due to the cost. And the Schneider Super-Symmars which employed it were, well, sheer tanks of surplus bulk, weight, and extra expense.

I don't know what your "Comparison Chart" is derived from, Bernice; but I'd have to apply a few strong question marks to that too.

[Bernice Loui]

Have Plenty of known canon aspheric lenses and other here including Schneider SSXL, no matter how the element is illuminated, the aspheric elements are NOT discernible visually in any way.

Point being, visual assessment of what appears to be aspheric lens elements are not always reliable with plenty of self deceptions in that process of assessment.

This and the fact using an aspheric lens element alone will not result in the miracle make-it-all wonder_lens.

The assertion of Fujinon using aspheric lens elements in their LF view camera lenses is a example of how once an individuals minds has been fixed on a choice, facts, reality and more cannot and will likely not change that mind. This factoid of how the humanoid mind works can be applied to a very long list if beliefs and more.


Bernice

[xkaes]

I dunno. But until the presence of an aspheric element is conclusively shown, I continue to be skeptical.


As others have mentioned, there are a lot of ways that glass can be special -- without it being aspherical. But why Fuji would make lenses with something special -- whether aspherical, APO, ED, flourite, etc. -- and not mention it, is difficult to imagine. They labeled their A series as "Super-apochromatic".

[Bernice Loui]

Yes indeediee..

Bernice



And to add to the mix, there are a lot of ways that glass can be special -- without it being aspherical.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I can't come up with any miraculous excuses for buying yet another lens, let alone dissecting one; so it's wait and see for me. As the saying goes, "exceptional claims require exceptional proofs".
Aspherics CAN make tremendous differences. Every major telescope now being placed either on earth or in space is based on aspherics - even aspherical mirrors capable of being reshaped thousands of times a second. But most of us can't afford a twenty billion dollar tripod anyway, let alone the optics that go with that. And I'll spare my own allotted thousand bucks for the next big roll of Fujiflex printing medium, if it ever comes in given current shipping circumstances. But if this or that particular CMW like a 250 just did happen to show up especially affordably, there would be a temptation ... but certainly not to dissect it!

[Sal Santamaura]

Have Plenty of known canon aspheric lenses and other here including Schneider SSXL, no matter how the element is illuminated, the aspheric elements are NOT discernible visually in any way...The discussion is about CM Fujinon W lenses, not Canon or Schneider. Those other brands' aspheric elements' locations within their cells, if different than the Fujinons' front element front surface aspherics, would easily account for your inability to see the same reflection difference that results from a prescription change at the edge.


...Point being, visual assessment of what appears to be aspheric lens elements are not always reliable with plenty of self deceptions in that process of assessment...Exactly. Which is why your immediately preceding quoted statement illuminates the unreliability of your CM Fujinon W "assessment."


...This and the fact using an aspheric lens element alone will not result in the miracle make-it-all wonder_lens...Nor has anyone claimed that it does. My and johnmsanderson's results simply described high performance in terms of sharpness, specifically edge sharpness.


...The assertion of Fujinon using aspheric lens elements in their LF view camera lenses is a example of how once an individuals minds has been fixed on a choice, facts, reality and more cannot and will likely not change that mind. This factoid of how the humanoid mind works can be applied to a very long list if beliefs and more...More attacking the messenger when your beliefs contradict reported facts/reality. Why the intense need to be right while denigrating objective observations documented by others?

Whatever happened to this from four days ago?


This will be the last reply Sal...

[BrianShaw]

Who is johnmsanderson?

I think I know to whom you refer after googling, but where can we read his assessment?

[Sal Santamaura]

Who is johnmsanderson?...Scroll up 17 posts:


https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?167896-Thoughts-on-Fuji-Fujifilm-CM-Fujinon-W-210mm&p=1637102&viewfull=1#post1637102

[xkaes]

.... objective observations documented by others?


I must have missed something.

[Joseph Kashi]

John, so beautiful pics!

So you will see more differences in color than in B&W when comparing cm-w series to the older models.

I will ask a local LF professional shop owner about the design history of cm-w fujinon. He may know more since his fellow is an x-fujinon lens designer.

Yes, now we're getting somewhere that has the possibility of being factually based. Thank you to Mr. Hayashi.

[BrianShaw]

Who is johnmsanderson?

I think I know to whom you refer after googling, but where can we read his assessment?

Thanks. Saw the post but didn’t remember the name.

[Sal Santamaura]

...objective observations documented by others?...


I must have missed something.

Indeed. You must have missed posts #60 and #61.

What you apparently didn't miss is embracing the propensity some here have to attack other photographers. It's a strange phenomenon that manifests in denigration of different aesthetic preferences and denial of observable realities. As someone more interested in the physical world around me than human foibles, I'll continue to post facts and rebut nonsense whenever this phenomenon shows up in threads. :)

[xkaes]

There is nothing in those posts that proves anything.

You have a weird definition of "attacking photographers" when simple, straightforward evidence is asked for.

I must admit, though, you'd make a great defense attorney -- "I object, your Honor, on the grounds that the question is an attack on my client".

[Sal Santamaura]

There is nothing in those posts that proves anything...Like Bernice, you're unwilling to believe your lyin' eyes. You demand some other kind of PROOF! :)


...You have a weird definition of "attacking photographers" when simple, straightforward evidence is asked for...Being presented with simple, straightforward photographic evidence and then failing to credit the photographer who presented it is the very definition of an attack. Again, you're doing exactly what Bernice did.


...I must admit, though, you'd make a great defense attorney -- "I object, your Honor, on the grounds that the question is an attack on my client".Lawyers deal with emotions when attempting to convince juries. I'm an engineer who deals only with objective facts. Nice try, but no cigar.

[BrianShaw]

I think what would be appropriate proof” is a spec sheet or advertisement that confirms the issue… wouldn’t you agree, as an engineer ? Observation and expert judgement is good sometimes but consensus hasn’t happened.

[xkaes]

Lawyers deal with emotions when attempting to convince juries. I'm an engineer who deals only with objective facts. Nice try, but no cigar.

It's a good thing you didn't go into law because law is based on evidence -- and you have apparently failed to convince this random jury of your photographic peers that Fujinon CM-W lenses contain any aspherical glass.

Perhaps you should buy a copy of Arnold Markle's legal textbook/"bible" -- "Evidence", 1976, West Law -- and present your "evidence" here once again:

https://www.amazon.com/Criminal-investigation-presentation-evidence-justice/dp/B0006COHWE

[Bernice Loui]

Risking actions by the moderators with this reply.. and not in any way typical of how "I" would respond or reply on LFF..

This request direct to Sal Santamaura or anyone that continues to assert and perpetuate the currently non-factual assertion the Fujinon CM-W series contains an aspherical lens element(s) will continue to be regarded as fiction and nothing more than a personal-individual opinion of visual observation.

Producing any publication from Fujinon's lens designers or marketing brochure/specification sheet/technical reference material/Patent issued directly connected to the Fujinon CM-W will confirm or deny the assertion of any aspheric lens elements used in the Fujinon CM-W series. Until these Facts and Hard evidence has been posted, personal-individual claims and assertions remain a personal-individual opinion, NOT FACT or TRUTH.

~Again, It's real simple Sal Santamaura or others that assert the Fujinon CM-W is designed-produced with an aspheric lens element, Provide or produce any publication direct from Fujinon referencing their CM-W series IS designed-produced with an aspheric lens element.~

If an individual were to publish a technical paper or research study based on personal-individual opinions/observations alone calming these opinions/observations are FACT and the way Nature IS, peers will work to confirm then verify these opinions/observations. If these opinions/observations prove un-verifiable, the entire pile of opinions/observations will be relegated to the circular file, Done.

The Scientific Method or a try at preventing opinions/observations from causing self-deception as to what is reality-fact -vs- what is not reality-fact.
Similar methods are applies to the interpretation of law-rules.. with less rigor than the Scientific Method (not going into this at this point).

Reason for the absolute persistence in the assertion of claim the Fujinon CM-W has an aspheric lens element has much to do with the way information is perpetuated via the web today. Folks new to all this seeking facts, truth, information will and can be easily mis-lead by hearing what they want to hear about what they are looking for. This is precisely how Foto myths begin, perpetuated then take on a life of their own in the world of the internet.

So, if facts and truth matters, the effort spent can have some value.


Bernice

[Tin Can]

Amen

Thank you Bernice

[xkaes]

This is precisely how Foto myths begin, perpetuated then take on a life of their own in the world of the internet.

Bernice

Fodder for a new thread for sure -- "FOTO MYTHS THAT HAD ME FOOLED, at least for a while".

My list would start with "listening to my ex-brother-in-law"!

[Joseph Kashi]

FWIW - I'm an experienced trial lawyer who started working with large format way back about 1970-71, when I studied some with Minor White at MIT while pursuing other fields of study as an undergraduate and then graduate student.

Might I suggest that we apply some standard legal evidence and proof concepts here to help sort out where we are factually in this continuing dispute, which seems to lack sufficient hard evidence either way and which currently rests primarily upon materials of questionable evidentiary weight, upon questionably translated materials, and upon interpretation and surmises.

I'm not arguing with anyone here, implicitly or directly, just suggesting a framework for finding the kernel of real fact in what is a question of great interest to me as a serious user of Fujinon LF lenses prominently along with other brands.

Someone who is making an assertion of fact in a civil law case has the burden of proving that assertion of fact as being more probably true than not, particularly when making an assertion that is not already consensus among experts in the field. (I mention only civil law trial procedure because criminal law has a much higher burden of proof constitutionally and isn't relevant here.)

Put simply, if one is trying to prove something that's not a consensus among experts, then the person making the assertion must provide enough reliable hard evidence to prove that their assertion is more probably true than not. Absent providing that quanta of sufficient evidence, the assertion is "not proved". It is NOT "disproved", only not proved. Plate Tectonics is a good example of something not proved until solid evidence emerged 30 years after the concept was first proposed and ridiculed.

Until enough proof is in, it's a "not proved" hypothesis.

Hearsay, repeating what some other second-hand source may have said, is usually not good evidence in most instances because of the errors that almost inevitably occur during repetition.

Translated sales brochures that have known inconsistencies are evidence of a sort, but the weight given to such evidence and its persuasiveness must be considered as lower due to the already-known inconsistencies. That's not very different than the lower weight given to verbal testimony where cross-examination shows inconsistencies.

When newer, more reliable evidence is later found, that should result in a re-evaluation about whether the prior assertion should now be considered as more probably proven or disproven (think Bayesian analysis).

Mr. Hayashi's interest in obtaining first-hand evidence in the native Japanese language is the sort of more reliable evidence that would help us better evaluate questions about the design and construction of CM-W lenses, and I prefer to wait for that information.

There's one other thing that I've learned after many years of law practice - civil discourse and provable facts count a lot more than personal attacks and "name-calling", which tends to diminish credibility.

[Michael R]

To the soapbox!

[BrianShaw]

To the soapbox!

LOL. If only…

[Oren Grad]

OK, this one is off the rails... and starting to tumble down the embankment.