Fujinon A 360mm

[Doug Dolde]

Did anyone notice a mint one went for a whopping $1825? I have a hard time believing this could go for nearly the price of a brand new 400mm APO Tele Xenar Compact which is likely a better lens as well. Do you think this is just Ebay frenzy or are these lenses really that great?

[Rider]

Could it be inflation?

[Ted Harris]

Not sure I'd pay that much for one but IMO they are that great. I own a 240 A and a 300 A and they are oth great. The 300 A is oneof my most used lenses and, after my 110 SS XL and 150 Apo Sironar W is the one I would be least likely to part with.

On the extraodinarily rare occasions when the 600 and 1200 A's come on the market the prices are even higher. My recollection is that a 600 sold several months ago for nearly 4K.

[Bruce Watson]

Do you think this is just Ebay frenzy or are these lenses really that great?

I've got one just like the one on eBay. IMHO, it's really that good. Razor sharp, very small and lightweight.

[Rider]

Hard to justify when a new Fujinon C 300 /8.5 is only $700, and a new Fujinon C 450 /12.5 is only $900, and a new Fujinon T 400 /8 is only 995. (Both the 300 and 450 are smaller than the 360; not sure about the size of the 400 T).

Unless you're a collector, in which case whatever floats your boat!

[Arne Croell]

Hard to justify when a new Fujinon C 300 /8.5 is only $700, and a new Fujinon C 450 /12.5 is only $900, and a new Fujinon T 400 /8 is only 995. (Both the 300 and 450 are smaller than the 360; not sure about the size of the 400 T).

Unless you're a collector, in which case whatever floats your boat!

However, the 360 A covers 11x14 with movements, which neither the 300 C or 400 T do, nor the 400mm Apo-Tele-Xenar.

$1825 is certainly high though.

[Ted Harris]

Arne beat me to it. They are vastly diffeent lens designs with different coverage. The 360 A has a 504mm image circle and the 300 A a 420mm image circle (possibly the largest of any lens this length in a #1 shutter) and is sharp edge to edge. These were very expensive lenses to produce and were the among the most expensive on the market when the were new. The 300 sold new for 1170 and the 360 for 1557 in 1988.

[Ken Lee]

In addition to their sharpness at distance and at close range, the A series lenses are often smaller and lighter than others of comparable length.

The 300A for example, takes 55mm filters, and weighs only 410 grams.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Just to add to Arne and Ted's comments... The 360mm Fujinon A is the only 360mm non-telephoto ever made that came in a No. 1 shutter. In a non-telephoto, it is also the longest focal length many 4x5 cameras can use. For the 4x5 user, it's a lot smaller and lighter than most other options in the 360mm range - which are either in the much larger, heavier Copal No. 3 shutters, or telephoto designs that are heavier and take bigger filters, but have much less coverage. Comparing it to the 360mm Nikkor T-ED telephoto and the 360mm APO Ronar non-telephoto:

360mm Fujinon A - Copal No. 1, 465g, 58mm Filters, 504mm IC
360mm Nikkor T-ED - Copal No. 1, 67mm Filters, 210mm IC
360mm APO Ronar - Copal 3, 550g, 58mm Filters, 318mm IC

So, the 360mm Fujinon A is the smallest, lightest lens in this focal length range. This makes it an ideal long lens for 4x5 and 5x7.

But, not everyone shoots these formats. Neither the Nikkor T-ED, nor the APO Ronar cover 8x10 (officially, the APO Ronar will if your willing to exceed the manufacturers specs, but the movements will be limited). The 360mm Fujinon A makes a much better all-around lens for 8x10 than either of these, or the any of the 400mm telephotos which won't come close to covering 8x10. The next lightest, smallest lens in this fcoal length range that makes sense as a general purpose lens on 8x10 is the 355mm G Claron. It comes in a Copal No. 3, weighs 855g and takes 77mm filters. While they are excellent, the 360mm f6.3 - f6.8 plasmats are huge and heavy by comparison - typically weighing > 3x the 360mm Fujinon A and taking 95mm - 112mm filters. Fine for in the studio, but a real pain to haul around in the field.

And, for even bigger formats, the 360mm Fujinon A will cover 11x14 and hit the corners of 7x17.

So, it's a very versatile lens. Combine that with the fact that it was very expensive new, and was only in production for about 10 years, and there are very few on the used market. It all comes down to supply and demand. Usually, only two or three come up for sale on eBay each year. So, they tend to fetch some pretty high prices - although I think $1825 may be a new record. ~$1500 had been the typical selling price over the last few years.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Hard to justify when a new Fujinon C 300 /8.5 is only $700, and a new Fujinon C 450 /12.5 is only $900, and a new Fujinon T 400 /8 is only 995. (Both the 300 and 450 are smaller than the 360; not sure about the size of the 400 T).

Unless you're a collector, in which case whatever floats your boat!

Depends on what you need. Suppose you're an 8x10 landscape photographer and you already have a nice 240mm wide angle. A 300mm is awfully close to the 240mm you already own. In this case a 360mm makes more sense - and all other 355mm - 360mm lenses usable on 8x10 weigh 2 - 3x as much and take much bigger, more expensive filters. The 400mm T won't work as it doesn't come close to covering 8x10.

The same argument could be made for 4x5 or 5x7. What if you already have something like 110mm, 150mm, 240mm... a 360mm would be the next logical choice in your focal length progression - and the 360mm Fujinon A is the smallest, lightest available in this focal length range. And many 4x5 cameras don't have enough bellows extension to use the lovely little 450mm Fujinon C.

I actually think most people who are lucky enough to own a 360mm Fujinon A actually use them. I know I do. It's just too good and too versatile to set on a shelf.

Kerry

[Rider]

If that's how much it cost new, it's no wonder they discontinued it!

Kerry, I've read your lens reviews with a lot of interest (that's where I first heard of this lens).

I'm not convinced that a 360 at that price makes any sense at all for 4x5. As you pointed out, the 360 barely made your list of future classics because other lenses in that range are smaller, cheaper and have enough coverage for 4x5. Would anyone say that the 300 Fuji C and Nikon are not sharp enough?

For 8x10 or bigger, I haven't a clue.


And many 4x5 cameras don't have enough bellows extension to use the lovely little 450mm Fujinon C.

The 450mm would be a stretch on my 4x5, but it doesn't mean I'll go and spend any where near $1825 on a 360! If all I wanted was to get that focal length, there are other better options (investing in a different camera, using telephoto, going just a tad shorter with a 300).

Again, the 360 may be just that thing for 8x10 (is Copal 1 that important when you're already lugging around an 8x10? Haven't done it, so I Don't know); But it makes little practical sense for 4x5 at that price.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

I'm not convinced that a 360 at that price makes any sense at all for 4x5. As you pointed out, the 360 barely made your list of future classics because other lenses in that range are smaller, cheaper and have enough coverage for 4x5. Would anyone say that the 300 Fuji C and Nikon are not sharp enough?

I'm not claiming the 360 A is sharper than the 300 C or 300 M, but as they aren't the same focal length and don't cover nearly as much, it's a bit of an apples:oranges comparison. If you already have a 240mm lens and your camera can't handle a 450mm, SOMETHING in the 360mm range may make sense.


For 8x10 or bigger, I haven't a clue.

This is where the versatility of the 360mm A starts to shine. It makes a great normal lens for the 8x10 shooter, but can also serves double duty as a long lens on 4x5 (for those who shoot multiple formats) - or even a modest wide angle on 11x14.


The 450mm would be a stretch on my 4x5, but it doesn't mean I'll go and spend any where near $1825 on a 360! If all I wanted was to get that focal length, there are other better options (investing in a different camera, using telephoto, going just a tad shorter with a 300).[

Yes, but all those options add cost and weight. Whether or not they are "better" depends on the individual user and his/her needs. I'm not saying $1825 is a bargain. I know I paid a lot less than that for my 360 A, but for some users it may make sense - especially for someone who shoots multiple formats. It's no more expensive than buying a 360mm telephoto for your 4x5 plus a 360mm f6.8 plasmat for your 8x10. In the 360 A, you could satisfy both needs with a single lens that is also very compact, lightweight and takes small, readily available, inexpensive filters.

It all comes down to supply and demand and what the market will bear. It only takes two people who REALLY want one to drive the price up - and while $1825 is the highest price I've seen for a 360mm Fujinon A, given its scarcity and versatility, it's hardly the most ridiculous price I've seen for a large format lens on eBay recently.

Kerry

[Doug Dolde]

The BIG question to me is why doesn't Fuji still make them?

[Eric Leppanen]

From the perspective of an 8x10 shooter, the Rodenstock 360mm Sironar S (arguably the best-in-class in this focal length) has sold for as high as $2,000 on Ebay. So paying $1800+ for a Fuji 360A, which is much smaller and lighter and has a slightly larger rated image circle, is not necessarily out of line. Of course, the argument can be made that the Sironar produces a superior image (due to ED glass, etc.) and is easier to focus at f/5.6; I know I got sharper results with my Sironar versus the one copy of the 360A that I had. But many folks swear by their 360A's, and if you take long hikes with your 8x10 it's the only modern portable game in town in that focal length.

For a 4x5 shooter with sufficient bellows extension to accomodate the Fuji 450C, I agree that going 210/240-300-450 is much more cost effective than 240-360-450. But if your camera cannot go that long, then 360 is frequently the longest focal length available without resorting to a telephoto. And as someone who has owned several telephotos, I can tell you that these are not lenses that you want to take on a long hike! They are large, heavy, can make some cameras very front-heavy, can be irritating to use when applying front tilt or swing, and can sometimes pose stabilization issues (Dykinga uses a long-lens support arm when using his 400 APO Tele Xenar, for example). They are fine for short hikes with sturdy cameras, but for longer hikes better choices are available.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

BTW, I'm not suggesting the 360mm Fujinon A is THE lens for everybody, or even that the $1825 price is justified (that's for the market to determine). I'm just pointing out that this lens has a very unique combination of characteristics (compact size, lightweight, generous coverage) not found in any other 355/360mm lens. That, and the very limited supply, helps explain the price.

Ultimately, there were two people participating in that auction who though the lens was worth at least $1800 - to them. And that's what determines the price - not what I think or write.

Kerry

[archivue]

if you consider the weight of the camera+tripod+head+holders+meter+cloth... grammes are important for long hikes ... otherwise there's plenty of splendid big apo sironar N that are sold at the price of their copal 3.

For 8x10, paying extra money for a 240 apo sironar S Versus a N make sens, but in 360, the IC is big anyway, and considering sharpness there's not a big difference !

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

if you consider the weight of the camera+tripod+head+holders+meter+cloth... grammes are important for long hikes ... otherwise there's plenty of splendid big apo sironar N that are sold at the price of their copal 3.

For 8x10, paying extra money for a 240 apo sironar S Versus a N make sens, but in 360, the IC is big anyway, and considering sharpness there's not a big difference !

Yes, definitely. If weight isn't an issue and you're looking for a 360mm lens for 8x10, you can pretty much have your choice of a Sironar-N, Fujinon-W, Nikkor-w or Symmar-S for a song. I am stunned by how inexpensive these lenses have become over the last year or so. These are modern, multicoated optics of the highest quality in modern Copal No. 3 shutters. A couple years ago, you couldn't find one of these for less than $1000 on the used market. Now, you can pretty much have your choice for half that - or less.

Kerry

[Dan Fromm]

Kerry, not to quarrel with you since it doesn't have near the coverage, but according to Boyer's fiches techniques the 360/10 Apo Saphir was made to go into a #1. And to quarrel even less with you because my 360 AS won't go into a #1.

Cheers,

Dan

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Kerry, not to quarrel with you since it doesn't have near the coverage, but according to Boyer's fiches techniques the 360/10 Apo Saphir was made to go into a #1. And to quarrel even less with you because my 360 AS won't go into a #1.

Dan,

Depending on when the lens was made a #1 may mean something different than the modern Copal/Compur/Prontor standard we are familiar with. Perhaps they meant a Supermatic, Rapax or Compound No.1, or even an older dial set No. 1 Compur - which may be entirely different than a modern Copal No. 1. I guess I should have further qualified my statement by saying specifically "Copal No. 1". I usually do, but got lazy this time.

Kerry

[Songyun]

Just to add to Arne and Ted's comments... The 360mm Fujinon A is the only 360mm non-telephoto ever made that came in a No. 1 shutter. In a non-telephoto, it is also the longest focal length many 4x5 cameras can use. For the 4x5 user, it's a lot smaller and lighter than most other options in the 360mm range - which are either in the much larger, heavier Copal No. 3 shutters, or telephoto designs that are heavier and take bigger filters, but have much less coverage. Comparing it to the 360mm Nikkor T-ED telephoto and the 360mm APO Ronar non-telephoto:

360mm Fujinon A - Copal No. 1, 465g, 58mm Filters, 504mm IC
360mm Nikkor T-ED - Copal No. 1, 67mm Filters, 210mm IC
360mm APO Ronar - Copal 3, 550g, 58mm Filters, 318mm IC

So, the 360mm Fujinon A is the smallest, lightest lens in this focal length range. This makes it an ideal long lens for 4x5 and 5x7.

But, not everyone shoots these formats. Neither the Nikkor T-ED, nor the APO Ronar cover 8x10 (officially, the APO Ronar will if your willing to exceed the manufacturers specs, but the movements will be limited). The 360mm Fujinon A makes a much better all-around lens for 8x10 than either of these, or the any of the 400mm telephotos which won't come close to covering 8x10. The next lightest, smallest lens in this fcoal length range that makes sense as a general purpose lens on 8x10 is the 355mm G Claron. It comes in a Copal No. 3, weighs 855g and takes 77mm filters. While they are excellent, the 360mm f6.3 - f6.8 plasmats are huge and heavy by comparison - typically weighing > 3x the 360mm Fujinon A and taking 95mm - 112mm filters. Fine for in the studio, but a real pain to haul around in the field.

And, for even bigger formats, the 360mm Fujinon A will cover 11x14 and hit the corners of 7x17.

So, it's a very versatile lens. Combine that with the fact that it was very expensive new, and was only in production for about 10 years, and there are very few on the used market. It all comes down to supply and demand. Usually, only two or three come up for sale on eBay each year. So, they tend to fetch some pretty high prices - although I think $1825 may be a new record. ~$1500 had been the typical selling price over the last few years.

Kerry

Kerry, the higher resale price of a few lens is due to your "future classics" :)

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Kerry, the higher resale price of a few lens is due to your "future classics" :)

Nah, it's all about supply and demand. Some of the lenses on my Future Classics list, that are readily available new and used, have actually gone down in price since I first published that list. Some have remained about the same and some have gone up substantially - and those are the ones that are in very limited supply.

Kerry

[Songyun]

Nah, it's all about supply and demand. Some of the lenses on my Future Classics list, that are readily available new and used, have actually gone down in price since I first published that list. Some have remained about the same and some have gone up substantially - and those are the ones that are in very limited supply.

Kerry
Oh, which lenses are cheaper now? I will be interested get some good and cheap lens.
By the way, I was reading one of your articles about Rodenstock Sironar-N vs. Apo-sironar-N. Is there any difference between them (except age)?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Oh, which lenses are cheaper now? I will be interested get some good and cheap lens.

I didn't say they were cheap, just less expensive than they once were. For example, back when I bought my 110mm Super Symmar XL, the going rate was $2289 new. I paid $1850 thanks to a $400 trade-in offer from Schneider. In spite of the currently weak US dollar, you can buy the same lens new today for $1659. Back when I bought mine, you couldn't find one used at all as they were new on the market. While there aren't a ton of them on the used market, you can find them if you look.

The 360mm Nikkor T-ED has also come down a bit in price over the years. I think it's just easier to find on the used market these days than it once was - probably thanks to eBay.

The 120mm/150mm Super Symmar HM both went down in price on the used market when the Super Symmar XL series superseded them. While they've bounced back a bit you can still find them for less now than you could back in the early to mid-1990s.


By the way, I was reading one of your articles about Rodenstock Sironar-N vs. Apo-sironar-N. Is there any difference between them (except age)?

Not really. Obviously the ones labeled APO-Sironar-N are newer. The cosmetics are different (snazzy silver racing stripe), and the newer models probably have higher resale value. But if you're looking for the best deal, a slightly older Sironar-N MC, or better still a Caltar II-N will give you a good bang for the buck.

Kerry

[Rider]

I am glad that people on this board, in general, are both passionate about LF and reasonable. A hard combination to find!

Kerry, do you plan to update your future classics, or update the areas of the website that are still "under construction"?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Kerry, do you plan to update your future classics, or update the areas of the website that are still "under construction"?

I'd love to, but I simply don't have the time right now - and probably won't until my kids are off to college. The youngest is currently in 2nd grade. So, it might be a while. I realize some of it is terribly out-of-date. I simply have too much on my plate to give it the attention it deserves. Still, I'm surprised how much traffic my LF pages continue to generate every month. Somebody must still find it interesting after all these years.

My interests have changed a bit as I'm dabbling more in ULF and black and white. I hope to eventually publish some useful articles on ULF equipment and techniques for those who might like to give it a try but are a bit intimidated by the prospect of working with such huge cameras and film. It's really not that bad, but there is a bit of a learning curve even for an old hand like me. I think others can benefit from what I've learned and hope to share the knowledge I've acquired with others who would like to make the next big leap up in format size.

Kerry

[chilihead]

I agree with all the above - the "A" 360 is worth every penny - and a mint one is worth 1800 - Fuji won't be making the the "A" series again - they all (the 180 f9, the 240 f9, the 300 f9 and the 360 f10) are fabulous fabulous lenses. I have them all and wouldn't trade for anything ... two or three stops down and you are at the best apertures of f22 or f32, try that with a 5.6 clunker!

[Ted Harris]

Don't forget the 600 and 1200 A's either :).

[Scott Rosenberg]

from my tests i found that the main attraction of the 'A' lenses was their unmatched coverage / size ratio. they offer tremendous coverage in a small package... however, if you don't need the coverage, as when only shooting 4x5, i found that they offered no performance benefit over the smaller alternatives. for those that need the coverage, they are wonderful lenses, for those, there are smaller options that will perform comparably.

[Songyun]

Don't forget the 600 and 1200 A's either :).

you mean the used one Jim had in stock for only a week?

[ljb0904]

I'd love to, but I simply don't have the time right now - and probably won't until my kids are off to college. The youngest is currently in 2nd grade. So, it might be a while. I realize some of it is terribly out-of-date. I simply have too much on my plate to give it the attention it deserves. Still, I'm surprised how much traffic my LF pages continue to generate every month. Somebody must still find it interesting after all these years.
Kerry

I did. There were just a few websites to look for information for LF lenses and cameras. The lens information was very valuable. I read it until I had it all memorized. I'm happy with my lens collection now. Thanks for having the info available Kerry, from someone who literally just searched the web for info on LF and how to get started. Cheers!

[Harley Goldman]

Kerry,

I have to add my thanks for putting the lens review together. I used it a lot when putting my lens collection together and have been extremely pleased with the results. I found the info most valuable.

[Steve Clark]

Kerry,
As the proud owner of three teenage daughters, I can assure you that you have more "free" time now than you will later on...

[Don Hutton]

I agree with all the above - the "A" 360 is worth every penny - and a mint one is worth 1800 - Fuji won't be making the the "A" series again - they all (the 180 f9, the 240 f9, the 300 f9 and the 360 f10) are fabulous fabulous lenses. I have them all and wouldn't trade for anything ... two or three stops down and you are at the best apertures of f22 or f32, try that with a 5.6 clunker! A while ago, I tested 7 modern (ish) 360mm lenses (two of the 7 were actually 355mms). I did a real world shot on f22 on 8x10 with a little res chart thrown in. And after I didn't believe the results the first time, I redid the entire test and got the same results. The Fujinon A 360mm was in the top three. However, an old tired looking f5.6 "clunker" was better than anything else - a Rodenstock Linhof branded Sironar... It's about 3 times the weight of the 360A and has less coverage, but I also paid less than $500 for it. Everytime I've done these sorts of tests, I am truly astounded by how small the differences are in various optics. There were no dogs and the difference between best and worst was very small.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Kerry, do you plan to update your future classics, or update the areas of the website that are still "under construction"?


I'd love to, but I simply don't have the time right now - and probably won't until my kids are off to college. The youngest is currently in 2nd grade. So, it might be a while. I realize some of it is terribly out-of-date. I simply have too much on my plate to give it the attention it deserves. Still, I'm surprised how much traffic my LF pages continue to generate every month. Somebody must still find it interesting after all these years...After another ten years, I still refer to your pages semi-regularly. Given the intervening decade, your youngest is probably graduating from high school right about now. Based on the For Sale items you occasionally post here, I suspect there will be four more years of tuition to be raised. :) Perhaps starting in the fall you'll have time to update your Web site.


My interests have changed a bit as I'm dabbling more in ULF and black and white...Other than prioritizing you children highest, as everyone should, whatcha been up to photographically lately? Inquiring alleged mind wants to know.

To keep this post somewhat on topic, I should note that more than 15-1/2 years have passed since Kerry sold me a 360mm Fujinon A. It's now my primary lens when shooting 8x10 with a Phillips Compact II. There's nothing quite like it in that focal length.

[Eric Woodbury]

Sal, I have one too. Nice lens, but they have become so expensive. Their numbers must be very limited and it is surprising that other manufacturer didn't make similar lenses or tha the 360 A isn't more plentiful, because as you point out, what a nice focal length for 5x7 and 8x10.

[Sal Santamaura]

...what a nice focal length for 5x7 and 8x10.Not just a nice focal length, but, for use on 4x5, my sample is even sharper than some vaunted competitors:


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?128254-About-the-350-Apo-Tele-Xenar-and-other-350-360mm-lenses&p=1304122&viewfull=1#post1304122