PDA

View Full Version : Fujinon 125mm f5.6: W versus CMW



Timothy So
6-Mar-2007, 09:21
Hi,

I'm pondering whether to get an old or new version of this lens...
The question is: Is there any difference in the Optical Performance (sharpness, resolution, etc) between the older Fujinon-W 125mm f5.6 (52mm filter thread) and the new Fujinon-CMW 125mm f5.6 (67mm filter thread), apart form the slight difference in image circle?
Perhaps Kerry Thalmann or any one could make some suggestions please?
Thanks!! :)

Jim Galli
6-Mar-2007, 09:45
I can give a partial answer perhaps. The problem with all of these discussions and perhaps Fuji has more latitude than the other 3 in the big 4?? I'm not sure. But sample differences can make a lot of difference. Here's my story. I once upon a time owned a 135mm CMW and the 125mm W. The 125 is the older single coated version that must cover about 75 degrees because I seem to be able to do anything I want with it on 4X5. To make this long story short, that 125 knocks my socks off every time I use it. The 135mm never really did anything for me and I sold it. Pure seat of the pants and the next guy that logs in here will tell you just the opposite, so how much value are these vss discussions when ultimately you have to sign off with YMMV.

YMMV

Nick_3536
6-Mar-2007, 09:59
IIRC the old version covers 80 degrees. My 210mm is rated at 350mm? more? Without looking it up.

David Karp
6-Mar-2007, 10:14
I have the one that uses 52mm filters and is EBC coated. It is technically an NW series lens, although it (like all of them) is labeled "Fujinon W" on the barrel. I don't have any experience with the CMW version, but I can tell you that it is sharp, sharp, sharp. If pressed, I would say that it is my favorite lens for landscape photography.

Timothy So
8-Mar-2007, 08:09
Thanks everyone for the comments. I'm going to get the W version and try it out. For me the lighter weight seals the deal, although the IC is slightly smaller... :)

Nick_3536
8-Mar-2007, 08:12
Nope the early models have MORE IC not less.