Best 250 for architecture from a distance for a field camera

[Christianganko]

Good evening all

Currently doing a project but some locations are a little far for me to get to without getting myself run over.

I was looking at the fujinon W 250 6.3 as this seems like a popular choice for a 250 and covers 4x5 easily.

Would you LF heads know of any better??

Shooting in BW and using a linhof 4x5 technika

Thank you!

[Mick Fagan]

I have that exact same lens and using it with my SHen Hao HZX45-IIA wooden folder have found it to be excellent; effectively superseding my 210mm lens.

Brilliant coverage, small enough and has also been a stand out portrait lens, which wasn't what I thought it would be doing.

One day I thought I would do a direct comparison between my 150 and 250 lenses. The camera, apart from fine focusing and changing lenses, wasn't moved at all.

Forgot to mention that the 250mm image was cropped slightly more, but the drawing power of the 250 over the 150 is quite obvious. From the 210mm lens I've been using for yonks, the 250mm is the bees knees.


232489232490

[Lachlan 717]

The Fujinon 250mm f6.7 has a larger IC (could be important for architecture). It is single coated, though.

Both Fujinon 240mm A and G Claron 240mm might also fit the bill. These are f9, though, but have large ICs.

[citychicago]

I have the CM Fujinon W 250mm f6.7 and it's incredibly sharp. I use it on a 4x5 Linhof Technika (and a 5x7 Canham) and have yet to reach the edge of the image circle.
Be sure to read http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/fujinon.htm for lots of info on Fujinon lenses.
232491

[Bernice Loui]

What lens exposure aperture will be most often used?

Honestly, do not limit lens choice to the web TooT_ed Fujinon lenses as modern plasmats as a lens formula family are FAR more similar than different.
Those LPM test are no where near as revealing or conclusive as they should be, distilling the absolute good_ness of any particular lens to a single number based on interpreted LPM with the many challenges fixed for any kind of camera/film/processing/visual interpretation testing..

What is often perceived as "Sharp".. can be not more than higher contrast not "sharper". Add to this, there are always production variations among lenses small as they may be within modern production methods and tolerances.

All that said, DO consider any 250mm/240mm f5.6_ish Plasmat from any of the big four.. Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schneider Nikkor.. Yes, there will be variations is coating and contrast rendition.. Generally, their image circle releative to 4x5 will be more than plenty and beyond the camera movement capability of a 4x5 Linhof Technika. Know any 250mm/240mm Plasmat will be large.. Do use the proper off center lens board specific to the Technika to optimize possible camera movements..

Most often used lens exposure aperture is significant as this has a direct impact on the overall size/weight and all related to the specific lens. Alternative lens like a 240mm f9 G-Claron wil be smaller and all that compared to a f5.6_ish Plasmat with nil performance difference on film.

Keep in mind the great lens performance equalizer is f22... Then comes contrast, color rendition, into out of focus rendition (of zero importance to some) and a long list of other lens personality traits that may or may not be significant to your specific image goals..


Essentially, don't make lens choices based on what is found on the web as lens choice is FAR more complex than what has gained popularity due to web based promo.. There is no "best lens" just a mixed baggie of trade-offs.

Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Just how big do you need to print? I've got a 30X40 inch Cibachrome right beside me on the wall that you'd need a loupe to see all the detail in, and I shot it 4x5 using the old Fuji 250/6.7. A tiny Fuji A 250/9 (MC) or 250/9 Glaron (SC) is even sharper; and all these lenses have a big enough image circle to cover even 8x10 film comfortably. But you might want to stay away from the bulky 250/5.6's in big no. 3 shutter from Schneider, Rodenstock, or Nikon simply due to their much greater toting weight and size. Don't worry about the minor distinction between single-coated and multi-coated options. You need an effective lens shade either way pointed into the sun; but the difference in end result, in either color or black and white film, is so minor that few people would even notice it. And your original hunch of a Fuji W 250/6.3 would be excellent, just as long as you aren't thinking of graduating into 8x10 format later.

[Christianganko]

Thank you all for the examples, links and inifo!

In all honesty I think a 6.3 or 6.7 is as dark as I can deal with. All my lenses are 5.6. I have the newest GL and fresnal for the linhof and they help a lot thats for sure.

Lens size is not a terrible issue. But i will take into account.

Print wise its undecided yet. Its at initial stages and more than likely goimng into a book first. But of course its always at the back of my mind.

I think unless I see a huge sway otherwise through stuff i will research I will mostl likely go for the fujinon. My 150 is fuji and its an awesome lens.

Will see whats out there!

Thank you again!

[Vaughn]

I agree with Drew. Although if size and weight are not an issue at all, then one of the 5.6 plasmats at a great price will also do you well.

I use a Fuji 250/6.7 for 8x10 (contact printing only) and it has proven to be a wonderful lens...but I also carry the Fuji 300mm/5.6 brick! Oh...and their 360mm/6.3 finds it way into the pack sometimes...a lead brick!

Since you (and architectural photo in general) do not seem to be looking for an unusual 'look', the Fuji 250/6.3 are inexpensive, small and good quality. Their 180mm/5.6 is pretty sweet, too. I am using one with the inside writing (single-coated) for 5x7.

[jnantz]

Wollensak tele optar (10") is a great lens, coated short bellows draw ... usually a barrel but you can find it factory installed in an alphax shutter I think.. or get the wizards at SK GRIMES to install it into a shutter for you. if you find a barrel a great guy and repair man "whir-click" might have a shutter to mount it in, I know he had a part I needed for one of my oldies and is an alphax betax guru, if offered a betax shutter, grab it, they are priceless!

added later:
What kind of photographs do you like to make? My suggestion was for negatives with crispness and contrast, if pictorial imagery floats your boat ... look for either a chrome barreled Schneider Symmar convertible 150/265 or 135/235 take the front element off its the longer FL, but be aware, the focal node is further back so infinity might need IDK 70-80mm more bellows? ) or look for a 10" Wollensak Portrait Veritar, its in an Alphax shutter usually, used wide open gives you a pictorial soft image stopped down it's sharp.

[Mark Sampson]

I haven't used them, so can't comment on the Fuji lenses in question. Of course they have a fine reputation, as seen in the previous posts.
I do have a 10" Wollensak Tele-Optar. It's barrel-mounted and I use it, occasionally, on a 3x4 Speed Graphic. Finding one of those in a shutter might take a while.
However, I also own a Nikkor-M 300/9. Its optical qualities are superb, and it would easily fit on the OP's Linhof Technika. It's been my go-to 'long' lens on 4x5 for over 25 years, and I'd recommend it most highly.

[Bernice Loui]

If the lens is used in a bright environment ground glass image brightness difference between a lens with full aperture of f5.6 -vs- f9 for a 250_ishmm focal length lens on 4x5 is not that much difference. This is due to the longer focal length effectively concentrating the image light on to the GG.. This is where a proper matching fresnel lens can aid in GG image brightness, but the grooves in the fresnel could hinder critical focusing on the GG.

~At best fresnel add on GG focusing aids are a trade-off, learning how best to focus the GG image is an acquired skill that demands time and practice. Brightest GG image alone will not accomplish this need.

Keep in mind there were no "hobbyist" LF view camera lenses made during the time when these modern Plasmat formula lenses were designed-produced. ALL of them designed by the big four Fujinon, Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor were producing these lenses for working photographers that knew precisely what they needed for images that kept a roof over their studio and food on their table. While there ARE differences in contrast rendition and to a much smaller degree "sharpness" ALL were absolutely capable of producing high quality images.. There have been Millions upon Millions of published and mass printed images made on these lenses.. Essentially, pick any from the Big four, have the shutter checked for proper operation and focus in image making.

~Simply adding a proper lens shade does wonders for image quality.

It might be possible your image goals of architectural images made from a distance will need a lens with a much longer focal length than 250_ish mm. The focal length needed might be 360mm or more. It this becomes real, then you're into telephoto design LF lenses for the Technika as it will not have enough bellows and camera extension for non telephoto lenses more than 14" or 360mm. The Technika is not the most ideal camera for using long focal length lenses as it was originally designed as a hand held press camera. Might discover there are baked in and unalterable limitations with the Technika driven by what lens is used.


Bernice



Thank you all for the examples, links and inifo!

In all honesty I think a 6.3 or 6.7 is as dark as I can deal with. All my lenses are 5.6. I have the newest GL and fresnal for the linhof and they help a lot thats for sure.

Lens size is not a terrible issue. But i will take into account.

Print wise its undecided yet. Its at initial stages and more than likely goimng into a book first. But of course its always at the back of my mind.

I think unless I see a huge sway otherwise through stuff i will research I will mostl likely go for the fujinon. My 150 is fuji and its an awesome lens.

Will see whats out there!

Thank you again!

[Christianganko]

Thanks all

Love this forum

@Jnantz I am topographic photographer. Up unitl recently I have been shooting on a medium format 6x7. But recently have found my return interest in 4x5 for detail and resolution.

At the moment i dont see myself having too many over the road shots but I dont want to get caught out and also would like to see what perspective it delivers to the work I am doing.

I use the technika out of partly not knowing completely the result I prefer and working with locations and focal lengths. I initially thought colour for instance but then realised BW would work better. I do have a monorail. A Sinar P2. Its hefty but not impossible to take to locations. Especially as I will be driving. And its dead accurate and solid as a mountain.

@Mark Sampson I will check out the 300. Members also mentioned the plasmats but in all honesty i cant find any on ebay. What am doing wrong? The ones that I have found are like 3k and over!!

Is there a specific term / number /make i need to stick in the search?

Thankj you all again!

[Christianganko]

Thanks also @bernice

Very informative information and things to think about.

As I mentioend above. I cant find a decently priced plasmat anywhere?!!! It could be i need ot empty my cache but not sure until I do i guess. I also am aware of the longer lengths and the technika. I have a monorail so depending on the results i get from tests I may need ot drag that out to locations if i get the longer lenses.

[rfesk]

Search for a 300mm lens. Schneider Symmars are good, Symmar S are better. They are not $3000. Plasmats are common on Ebay. Actually a Tessar (4 element lens) would be adequate if modern.

[jnantz]

Thanks all

Love this forum

@Jnantz I am topographic photographer. Up unitl recently I have been shooting on a medium format 6x7. But recently have found my return interest in 4x5 for detail and resolution.
==
Is there a specific term / number /make i need to stick in the search?



ahh thanks Christianganko
if you start to look into a Schneider look up "schneideritis" it's harmless, and might be the magic word that saves you some $$
here's some info on plasmat design: https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/235672-what-exactly-is-a-plasmat/

[Havoc]

As I mentioend above. I cant find a decently priced plasmat anywhere?!!! It could be i need ot empty my cache but not sure until I do i guess.

It is far harder to find anything else than a plasmat I would think. As you were asking about a Fujinon, something like a Fujinon (CM-)W certainly is. Just the 150/6.3 W is a tessar according to Thalmann. All the Schneider Symmars(-S) are. And loads of others.

[Bernice Loui]

The Plasmat.. most common modern LF view camera lens formula. Rooted in the Dagor lens formula from over a century ago, essentially an air spaced variant of the Dagor.. If you currently own a modern LF view camera lens with a full aperture of f5.6, it is extremely likely to be a Plasmat. Nil focus shift at full aperture of f5.6 to the smallest f-stop on the lens (typically f45), typical image circle angle of 70 degrees plus/minus.. some degrees depending on the specific variant, typically diffraction limited at f22 with GOOD optical performance from f16 to f45, Not so nice into out of focus rendition, often found with modern multi-coatings and modern glass types allowing market TooT_ed "APO" correction.. flat field... good geometric distortion and overall correction of optical "ills"..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmat_lens

~Essentially meets the majority of LF view camera image making needs with ease and GOOD results.. Or why the Plasmat lens formula has become SO common in the universe of LF view camera lenses.. it is the most fitting general purpose LF view camera lens in many ways..

Examples:

Fujinon:
~W / WS series, inside and outside lettering.
~A series.
~CM-W series.

Rodenstock:
~Sironar.
~Sironar N / S.
~APO Sironar series..
~Sironar W (variant of).

Nikkor:
W-series.

Schneider:
~Symmar, Convertible series.
~Symmar S series.
~Symmar APO.
~Symmar L series.

These are a partial list of "taking" LF view camera lenses. There are enlarging lens variants and LOTS more..

ALL of the above is absolutely capable of delivering excellent images If the optics are in proper condition and properly applied. As previously mentioned, differences will be in contrast rendition and other less significant aspects of lens personality.

Bernice









As I mentioend above. I cant find a decently priced plasmat anywhere?!!! It could be i need ot empty my cache but not sure until I do i guess. I also am aware of the longer lengths and the technika. I have a monorail so depending on the results i get from tests I may need ot drag that out to locations if i get the longer lenses.

[Drew Wiley]

Plasmats tend to be the most abundant variety of modern view lenses on the used market, and therefore generally the most affordable in common focal lengths. But there are certain exceptions, depending on supply and demand. 150's, 180's, 210's, and to an only slightly less extent, 250's, are abundant in several brands. But once you reach 250, some of them are going to be in big no. 3 shutter rather than small 0 or 1. A series Bernice skipped on her above list is the later Schneider G-Clarons, which are their equivalent to the Fuji A "Super Plasmat" series, especially well corrected for very close range as well as infinity. But given the stipulation for an f/5.6 or close to that viewing aperture, that narrows down the list to "general-purpose" plasmats from any or the "big four" manufacturers.

Tessars have less image circle relative to focal length, and anything 300mm is going to be distinctly longish and narrow perspective with 4X5 applications. I find 250's and 300's different enough in view angle that I generally carry both for 4x5 format. But in the most modern tessar version, Nikkor M's, toting a 200M and 300M is an especially nice petite combination, but again, of smaller aperture than requested. Most often I carry a 180 Fuji A, 250A, and Nikkor 300M, and optionally a 125 Fuji W for cramped architectural work, and maybe a 450C (dialtye design) for very long views. All but the 125 have small max apertures; but that fact never bothers me personally.

For an entire decade I shot nothing but a 210/5.6 Symmar S for all my 4x5 usage: landscape, outdoor architecture, and color portraiture. It had a generous image circle and nicer "bokeh" than my subsequent super hard-sharp, more contrasty plasmats. But it required fairly large 77mm filters.

[Bernice Loui]

Schneider G-Claron... Plasmat formula indeed. Notable today, the 355mm G-Claron has become an item due to image circle and optical performance in a modest package. This and many other really Good optics are of this age old lens formula-design.

During the early years of 4x5 (circa 1980's) A 210mm f5.6 Rodenstock Sironar-N was the main lens, used it for virtually all images made, simply worked in most every way. Some time later, it was replaced with a Kodak Commercial EKtar (Tessar formula) for lens personality differences.

In recent times, there has been a flood of Sinar DB mount lenses for surprising cost.. Ended up with a few. All are good and useful in their own way.
Notable is the dimensions of the 300mm f5.6 Symmar S..
232548

IMO, unless there are specific image goals and lens personality preferences related directly to lens personality. A modern Plasmat from any of the Big Four will often prove to NOT be the limiting factor.. There are Too many other aspects of image making that can go so very wrong in so many ways.


Bernice



Plasmats tend to be the most abundant variety of modern view lenses on the used market, and therefore generally the most affordable in common focal lengths. But there are certain exceptions, depending on supply and demand. 150's, 180's, 210's, and to an only slightly less extent, 250's, are abundant in several brands. But once you reach 250, some of them are going to be in big no. 3 shutter rather than small 0 or 1. A series Bernice skipped on her above list is the later Schneider G-Clarons, which are their equivalent to the Fuji A "Super Plasmat" series, especially well corrected for very close range as well as infinity. But given the stipulation for an f/5.6 or close to that viewing aperture, that narrows down the list to "general-purpose" plasmats from any or the "big four" manufacturers.

Tessars have less image circle relative to focal length, and anything 300mm is going to be distinctly longish and narrow perspective with 4X5 applications. I find 250's and 300's different enough in view angle that I generally carry both for 4x5 format. But in the most modern tessar version, Nikkor M's, toting a 200M and 300M is an especially nice petite combination, but again, of smaller aperture than requested. Most often I carry a 180 Fuji A, 250A, and Nikkor 300M, and optionally a 125 Fuji W for cramped architectural work, and maybe a 450C (dialtye design) for very long views. All but the 125 have small max apertures; but that fact never bothers me personally.

For an entire decade I shot nothing but a 210/5.6 Symmar S for all my 4x5 usage: landscape, outdoor architecture, and color portraiture. It had a generous image circle and nicer "bokeh" than my subsequent super hard-sharp, more contrasty plasmats. But it required fairly large 77mm filters.

[Christianganko]

Thank you all for the vast information!!

Total noob on 4x5 lens design so completely missed the obvious!!

I found a few Nikkors but man do they look hefty! I think I am settling on the fujinon. Relatively small and the 6.3 and image circel seem more than adequate.

Unless of course I find another brand cheaper or in better condition etc

Is there a beneifit in getting the black Fujinon W over the not black??

Would like a Symmar APO but besides the physical heft, the price also seems to be on the higher end.

Thank you!

[Doremus Scudder]

IM-HO, the last thing you need on a 4x5 camera is a huge 300mm f/5.6 Plasmat with more image circle than you could possibly use. They're in #3 shutters, require huge filters and weigh more than some field cameras. They were really designed for use on 8x10 cameras.

For 4x5, smaller tessars like the 300mm Nikkor M or one of the smaller "super Plasmats" like the G-Clarons or Fuji A or C series are much more practical, even though they have a smaller maximum aperture (f/9 usually).

Heck, a 210mm f/5.6 Plasmat is too large for my tastes. Coverage is not an issue with 4x5 and lenses longer than 200mm or so in just about any design, unless you use extreme movements. So, unless you like bulky lenses that take huge filters, look for more compact designs than the f/5.6 Plasmats. Again, the G-Clarons and the Fujinon A lenses in the 240mm range are really compact and a pleasure to work with (and carry), as are the Fujinon A 180mm, the G-Claron 200mm and 210mm and the Nikkor M 200mm (if you can find one!). I really like my vintage Ektar 203mm f/7.7.


The shorter focal lengths are where you need to be careful of image circle size if you use lots of movements. 150mm Plasmats are usually adequate, but smaller than that often requires wide-angle designs if you need to use significant amounts of rise, shift or front tilts and swings.

Best,

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

Any 250mm modern plasmat will easily cover 8x10 at f22, any of these lenses will exceed the ability of the Technika.
Back to chose any 250mm_ish modern plasmat that meets your fancy. Fujinon, Nikkor or ...

Observation, most new to this view camera stuff tend to be drawn to Japanese brands like Fujinon or Nikkor. This is likely due to being around Japan brands like Nikon, Canon, Fuji or .... Carrying forth habits and familiarity..

Historically, the prime brands in the LF view camera universe were Schneider or Rodenstock, they were the prime brands for LF sheet film cameras back in the days when the 4x5 monorail was the most commonly used. That generation of photographers that applied sheet film to put a roof over their studio and meals on their table are essentially gone, long gone. Those that continue to do that kind of image making have moved on to a view camera with a digital back and related digital post image processing... which is an essential means of image production today.

Nikon tried to get a footing in the view camera lens market back then, failed. Stopped producing view camera lenses. Their view camera lenses found a following among landscape photographers for specific lenses such as their Nikkor M series. Nikon's other view camera offerings were not that special other than promo and notoriety by John Sexton doing ADs for Nikkor back in them days.. Fujinon was mostly lesser known in the US market, they had limited distribution but very popular in Japan. Looking at the price sheets from back then, Nikkor and Fujinon lenses were lower cost than Schneider or Rodenstock for the same lens formula and focal length.. Optical performance wise, they are as mention too many times, essentially identical making Nikkor or Fujinon a good value back then..Yet the majority of working photographers deeply preferred Schneider or Rodenstock... Then the web-internet happened dispersing info and promo and informing folks new to this view camera stuff about lenses.. based on their opinions and ...

~So much for that history..

Be careful with the "APO" marketing moniker, don't react like a moth drawn to the light of "APO"... might get burned..
as the metric/definition of "APO" as it is not a solid and well defined description of how the lens might actually perform.
What the last generation of modern Plasmat formula lenses did offer was improved contrast (typically higher), better flare control (by not much, easily equaled by a good compendium lens shade unless there is extreme back lighting conditions where the most modern lens coatings do help to a degree), slightly improved image circle.. These are incremental improvements and IMO, not worth the current extra cost.. having tried-demo them back when they were neu...

If you're hankering for an APO lens, the APO "process" lens with the Dialyte lens formula (another Dagor variant). These will have smaller image circles compared to a Plasmat, with optical performance higher than the typical Plasmat. They are an excellent choice for longer than normal focal length lenses.
Examples are APO ronar, APO artar, APO nikkor (often in barrel only) and others.. they are excellent from f16 to f45.. at infinity to life-size 1:1 with modest size for their focal length.

Comparasion between a 300mm f5.6 Symmar S, Plasmat -vs- 300mm f9 APO ronar, Dialyte.
232576


Bernice


Thank you all for the vast information!!

Total noob on 4x5 lens design so completely missed the obvious!!

I found a few Nikkors but man do they look hefty! I think I am settling on the fujinon. Relatively small and the 6.3 and image circel seem more than adequate.

Unless of course I find another brand cheaper or in better condition etc

Is there a beneifit in getting the black Fujinon W over the not black??

Would like a Symmar APO but besides the physical heft, the price also seems to be on the higher end.

Thank you!

[Bernice Loui]

Oh, might consider a 300mm lens instead of 250_ish mm lens, this is one of the most often used longer focal lengths for 4x5..
No issues with using a 300mm non-telephoto design lens on a Technika.

Bernice

[Christianganko]

Thank you all for the info and insights!

@bernice thanks for the info and history lesson. I appreciate any and all information. In some manner its kind of a similar thing with products being made in china but people believing only american or European will do. All a lie of course. Its all down to quality control and management. Maybe a few years back it would have held true though.

I have landed on a fujhinon W black. I would like a schneider just to try and keep all my lenses similar brand etc (OCD on my part) but my budget ceiling is 350 and they go for more. Also they are pretty large. On a slight tangent is 240 the actual focal leangth on them????

Happy Saturday!

[Drew Wiley]

Fuji has been a leader in lens quality for the past 50 years; they just didn't market their LF products as aggressively in this country as Schneider and Rodenstock. And you don't need to worry about the minor distinction between nominal rounded-off focal length and the exact focal length at infinity. Gotta fine focus using a loupe anyway, factoring in view camera movements. I own both a 240 G-Claron and 250 Fuji A and use them interchangeably, though one is older and now due for a bit of rest, just like me, and neither is precisely the box label focal length. The official spec sheets give you that.

[Robert Opheim]

With a Technika I think a smaller lens would work best. I have a Limhof Technikardan and a Nikon W 240mm in a #3 Copal shutter. The lens is large and heavy for even the Technikardan.

[Christianganko]

@robert. I agree. As sturdy as the technika is, i wouldnt want to stick a hefty lens on it. If i did go down that route i would use the p2

[Bernice Loui]

Sinar P/P2, easily supports a 480mm f4.5 Xenar.. no issues..
232597

Sinar Norma, does much the same with the 480mm f4.5 Xenar...
232598

This would be an "issue" with a Technika..

Bernice




@robert. I agree. As sturdy as the technika is, i wouldnt want to stick a hefty lens on it. If i did go down that route i would use the p2

[Christianganko]

@bernice The P2 looks crazy with that lens hahaha but not surprised it holds firm. Its a beast :)

[Drew Wiley]

One could always go mongrel : Norma with a P2 front standard substitution to handle the extra lens weight better. That's what I'd do if I wanted to shoot with my 760 Apo Nikkor.