Fujinon 360 W 6.8 or Rodenstock 360 6.8 Sironar-N

[bwaysteve]

I have a line on these two lenses.My main usage is for 3/4 to head portraits.
Which would be my best bet.I shoot with Leicas and I do like the look of German glas,but price would also be a consideration.My work would be contact prints.

[SAShruby]

If you decide to go with Fujinon, I have one WS type, in pristine condition. My best lens, literaly flawless.

[LH1H17]

get the lightest 360mm plasmat out there... the Fujinon CM-W 360 (new version)

[Songyun]

get the lightest 360mm plasmat out there... the Fujinon CM-W 360 (new version)
The lightest should be 360A

[LH1H17]

The lightest should be 360A

fujinon's 360 A is an awesome lens, but not a plasmat :rolleyes:

[JJ Viau]

Hello there,

I had a 360N and use now only Fuji W-generation lenses on 8x10, but not the 360 model. I think the Fuji lenses are good enough for contact printing (I do develop in Rollo Pyro which cares for contrast anyway). The Rodenstock is very nice but has a large heavy "nose": it was good with a Toyo 810M but questionable with a wooden Canham. For portraits and that focal length in 8x10, coverage will not be an issue anyway.

JJ

[Daniel_Buck]

I'm looking at a 360mm Sironar 6.8, and a Fuji-W 360mm 6.8 for 8x10, both multi coated. They are both used, the Fuji costing a bit more. For general landscape and 'field' shooting (no macro, no studio), at large and small apertures, which one of these would be the more logical choice?

I've searched, but didn't find much of a comparison. I'm assuming they are both good lenses? (I haven't found anything particularly negative on either lenses) Should I save a little and go for the Sironar? Or would the Fuji-W be worth the extra bit?

[Really Big Cameras]

fujinon's 360 A is an awesome lens, but not a plasmat :rolleyes:

Actually, it is. The 360mm Fujinon A is classic 6/4 plasmat type design. The picture is small and hard to see, but there is a cut-away illustration and specs or the Fujinon A series on my Fujinon pages at:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/as-sfs.htm

Ironically, calling the newer 360mm Fujinon CM-W a plasmat is a bit of a stretch. The original Fujinon W series, from the early 1970s were all traditional 6/4 plasmat types. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Fuji began refining their designs by introducing additional air spaces. This page (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/ws-nws.htm) shows that transition. Notice that the older 300mm and 360mm WS lenses were both classic 6/4 plasmats, while the newer 105mm - 180mm NWS models are all 6/6 construction and the 210mm NWS was a 6/5 design.

The current 360mm f6.5 Fujinon CM-W (specs here (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/CMW_specs.htm)) is a 6/6 design. While, it's certainly derived from their earlier 6/4 plasmats, is a 6/6 design a true plasmat? After all, the original plasmat was similarly derived from the 6/2 Dagor by the addition of an air space in the each group, but most people would not consider a 6/4 plasmat a Dagor (perhaps a Dagor derivative, but not a Dagor). I think most people still think of the Fujinon CM-W series as plasmats, but they actually aren't.

Kerry

The current 360mm f6.5

[LH1H17]

Actually, it is. The 360mm Fujinon A is classic 6/4 plasmat type design. The picture is small and hard to see, but there is a cut-away illustration and specs or the Fujinon A series on my Fujinon pages at:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/as-sfs.htm

Ironically, calling the newer 360mm Fujinon CM-W a plasmat is a bit of a stretch. The original Fujinon W series, from the early 1970s were all traditional 6/4 plasmat types. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Fuji began refining their designs by introducing additional air spaces. This page (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/ws-nws.htm) shows that transition. Notice that the older 300mm and 360mm WS lenses were both classic 6/4 plasmats, while the newer 105mm - 180mm NWS models are all 6/6 construction and the 210mm NWS was a 6/5 design.

The current 360mm f6.5 Fujinon CM-W (specs here (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/CMW_specs.htm)) is a 6/6 design. While, it's certainly derived from their earlier 6/4 plasmats, is a 6/6 design a true plasmat? After all, the original plasmat was similarly derived from the 6/2 Dagor by the addition of an air space in the each group, but most people would not consider a 6/4 plasmat a Dagor (perhaps a Dagor derivative, but not a Dagor). I think most people still think of the Fujinon CM-W series as plasmats, but they actually aren't.

Kerry

The current 360mm f6.5

interesting.. thanks for the clarification! i was aware that both "A" type and "CM-W" type were 6-element designs, but without doing my homework I had just assumed that "plasmat" meant "big, bright and heavy" lens :rolleyes:

as an aside, I do have high regard for my 450mm CM-W for its lightness, at least compared to my W 360 nikkor monster. The 360mm CM-W should also be a fine lens...