Fujinar 250mm f/4.5 -- what should I expect?

[Ben Syverson]

Just picked up a 250mm f/4.5 Fujinar in a presumably large "Shanel 5B-S" shutter. Given that there is apparently no info about either item on the Internet, I thought I would ask you guys. What should I expect? Is this a process lens?

[Michael Jones]

Just picked up a 250mm f/4.5 Fujinar in a presumably large "Shanel 5B-S" shutter. Given that there is apparently no info about either item on the Internet, I thought I would ask you guys. What should I expect? Is this a process lens?

I'd wager its a Tessar design; probably covers 5x7 well. There is "some" info on the web, it takes several Google searches to bring it up.

Good luck.

Mike

[ic-racer]

I almost bought that but then had a déjà vu, realizing I ALREADY HAD that lens.
I have it mounted in a barrel and just recently mounted it on a lensboard for enlarging 8x10 negatives. So if I bought it, I'd really just be getting the Shanel shutter.

I should have plenty of coverage on 8x10. They had it listed as 10x12 coverage and I suspect that would be correct. The price was good, so unless that shutter doesn't work, you got a real bargain WA 8x10 lens.

[Philippe Grunchec]

Good you had this déjà vu! :)

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks guys, I can't wait to try it out... I'm a bit confuzzled, because if this really is a Tessar design with 55° coverage, that should only give me a 260mm image circle. However, KEH did list it very optimistically as 10x12, which would indicate a much larger circle.

Hmm, well, nothing to do but give it a try!

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Thanks guys, I can't wait to try it out... I'm a bit confuzzled, because if this really is a Tessar design with 55° coverage, that should only give me a 260mm image circle. However, KEH did list it very optimistically as 10x12, which would indicate a much larger circle.

Hmm, well, nothing to do but give it a try!

If it is an f4.5 Tessar (which I am pretty sure it is), I also have a very hard time believing that it would cover 8x10, let alone 10x12.

[Steve Goldstein]

Is this a repro lens, like from a copy machine? A Tessar design in this application would have no trouble covering 8x10 since it's nowhere near infinity. But try to take a landscape photo...

This is pure speculation on my part. I've never seen one of these.

[Chauncey Walden]

Jason, neither of my 240mm Xenars (1929 or 1968 vintage) has any problem covering 8x10.

[ic-racer]

Yes it is a Tessar design. I held it up to an 8x10 camera and at infinity there is still a reasonably good crescent of light seen when peeking in at each corner. In terms of projected image, the light fall off at the edge is much more gradual than a modern lens.

I got mine to do 30x40in enlargements of 8x10 on the baseboard (without having to project horizontal), but I have yet to use it. Its a little soft at the edges compared to the Durst branded Componons, when viewed through the grain magnifier. I suspect the prints will be fine as no one looks at 30x40 prints with a 10x magnifier.

[Ben Syverson]

I would never be using this thing at infinity -- more like between 4 - 12 feet... If it doesn't cover well enough, I'll pass it on to a 5x7 user here or someone in need of a gigantic shutter!

[Michael Jones]

At less than infinity, you'll have no coverage issues. Good luck and keep us posted on your results.

Mike

[Ben Syverson]

Hey guys, I just got the lens today and mounted it on a makeshift lensboard... It is HUGE. But look at that aperture. It practically glows on its own.

The long and short of it is they weren't lying when they promised 10x12... At ∞ and f/4.5, there is more coverage than my camera & bellows will allow. I'm used to f/9 on 8x10, so f/4.5 is a revelation! The GG image is so bright... It's such a breeze to focus now. I think I'm in love.

The DOF is nice too. I use the long dimension for FL equivalence and the physical aperture size for DOF comparison (300mm f/9 on 8x10 = 43mm f/1.3 on 135), which makes this like a 36mm f/0.65 lens in 135 format. Amazing.

I'll load up some sheet film tonight!

[ic-racer]

I just got my Fujinon 250mm 6.7 in the mail today. Just processed the first negatives and they look good. I'd like to mount up my Fujinar 250mm 4.5 and compare the two. I see mine says 250mm on it where as yours says 25cm, but otherwise I suspect they are the same.


I just tried to fit the Fujinar on a Copal 3 and Fujinar is too big. Looks like it probably only fits on that big Shanel.

I think you got a fantastic deal on that.

[Ben Syverson]

Can't wait to see how your comparison works out... I've always been curious about the 6.7!

I really did snag this for a song. I think people stayed away from it because of the weird names. I mean Fujinar and Shanel? Shanel is literally the least Japanese name I can think of. I wonder what made them choose it!

[Ben Syverson]

BTW, the Shanel shutter has a smaller set of aperture markings for 210. So there must be a 210mm Fujinar that is as large as the 250.

[ic-racer]

BTW, the Shanel shutter has a smaller set of aperture markings for 210. So there must be a 210mm Fujinar that is as large as the 250.

Hmmm... I think you are on to a couple of 'sleeper' 8x10 wide lenses here. Since the old style FujiNON 210mm covers 8x10, I wonder if the FujiNAR 210mm covers 8x10, or more?

Since you have the shutter, you might be able to pick a 210mm in a barrel for cheap.

Here is a picture from the net that shows a 210mm that may fit that Shanel shutter.

[Ken Lee]

Fujinar does sound a lot like Tessar.

The 250mm f/4.5 barrel-mounted Tessar is superb for portraits (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/portraits/33.jpg) and landscapes (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/landscape/37.jpg), especially when you want a nice blur in the distance. Circular aperture with more blades than you can easily count. Wonderful !

[ic-racer]

Looks like there is also a 180mm Fujinar in a similar size mount.

[Ben Syverson]

ic, I saw that 180mm -- I wonder if it is the same size mount... I am definitely going to keep my eye out for that 210!

[Ernest Purdum]

The f4.5 Fujinar (or Congo) lenses were very standard for the photographers that worked outside temples, the Imperial Palace and scenic landscape sites. These photographers were a very conservative bunch. Most used 1/2-plate field cameras with film in double book-form darkslide plate-holders containing adapters for film. The lenses were often in barrel with what the Japanese called "Thornton" type roller-blind shutters even in the early 1970's.

You are fortunate to have the Shanel. It's quite an improvement over the T-P type. There were two models of the Shanel - the 5-A and the 5B-S. The 5A was for front-mounted barrel lenses, while the BS was for conventional mounting between the cells. The 5-A came with adapters for lenses between 135 and 300mm. Quite a few lenses,
not necessarily Japanese, can be fitted. The 5B-S was specifically for the Fujinar 210 and 250mm lenses only.

The lens is not any variety of special-purpose optic, just a rather large aperture general-purpose lens.

[Ben Syverson]

Ernest, thank you so much for that information! It is a huge help.

Do you happen to know anything about the Fujinar SC ("soft cover"?) lenses?

[Ernest Purdum]

Ben, I'm sorry I know little about a Fujinar SC. I do have a listing that shows it as available in 180, 210 and 250mm focal lengths. The two smaller lenses were f4.5, the largest f4.7. Format covered was shown as 5X7 for the two smaller, 8X10 for the 250. Usually Fujinars were in barrel, Fujinons in shutter. The SC seems to have been an exception, as it was listed as being available, at least, in Copal 3. That's probably why the 250 was f4.7. I have never seen a full description of these lenses. Maybe somebody else will have, though. There's a lot of knowledge in this forum.

[Ben Syverson]

Thanks Ernest! Once again, that is most helpful. I wonder if the coverage guidelines for the SC apply to the "regular" Fujinar as well. That is, I wonder if the 210mm will cover 8x10 or not... I may have to keep my eye out for one so I can test it in the name of science!

[Ernest Purdum]

The "regular 210MM Fujinar is listed to cover 5X7 with a 240MM image circle at f22. Large aperture and 8X10 coverage would be compatible only if one accepted high expense and large size and weight. All lens design is compromise.

"Regular" and SC Fujinars have the same coverage for their respective focal lengths.

[ic-racer]

The "regular 210MM Fujinar is listed to cover 5X7 with a 240MM image circle at f22.

Where did you find that listing?

[Ernest Purdum]

In the 1970 Camerart trade Directory.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Just found that Fujinar 250mm f/4.5 lens in Japan being currently sold
(and a SHANEL 5A shutter) just in case someone might be interested...

[Ben Syverson]

Thought I would post an update... It turns out that the rated image circle of 240mm is probably about right. Inside that circle, the image is basically perfect. However, because it's not mechanically vignetted, the IC continues way beyond that, getting progressively more swirly.

In practice it means that with no movements on 8x10, the very very edges of the frame have a bit of swirl. Used with movements, you definitely can see the limits of the lens.

Even though it's heavier than my normal lens, I prefer to travel with the Fujinar because it gives me more light for available light work. Also, the lens doesn't protrude at all behind the shutter, so I can collapse the camera with the lens attached.

Attached is an image where I used the full front fall on my camera to reduce headspace. As a result, you can see swirl city on the ground. In this case I think it works, because the ground was distracting anyway.

[drew.saunders]

I picked up the 250/4.7 Fujinar from Keh a couple weeks ago and am really happy with it. Since it takes 77mm filters, I got a regular Lee adaptor ring for it and can use my hood (and square filters, of course), so the single coating isn't so much of a concern for me with regards to flare. The f/4.7 fits into a Copal #3 (I think it's a 3S), but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same hunks of glass, just losing a wee bit of a stop to fit the smaller shutter. As it's only 100g heavier than my 250/6.3 Fuji (but shorter overall), it'll probably keep that slot in my backpack unless I really need the extra sharpness of the plasmat (which I doubt I'll be able to tell the difference).

Here are a couple shots with it:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5042/5292117904_6d1fe86eb0_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/5292117904/)
Fairly open at f/8. This was with the hood and 0.3 ND filter.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4130/5209131379_69927851fa_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/drew_saunders/5209131379/)
f/11 on this one.

[ic-racer]

Ok, I have a 250mm Fujinon 6.7 and a 250mm Fujinar f4.5 but I'm just learning now about the 250mm Fujinar f4.7 that fits a 3s. Is that a "SC" lens? Do you know if it is different in construction than the 4.5?

So, lets see, how many 250mm lenses are there. Does anyone know of more than this?

250 6.7 Fujinon (8x10)
250 6.3 Fujinon (most recent)
250 5.6 Fujinon SF (soft)
250 4.7 Fujinar SC
250 4.5 Fujinar ("Tessar")

[drew.saunders]

Ok, I have a 250mm Fujinon 6.7 and a 250mm Fujinar f4.5 but I'm just learning now about the 250mm Fujinar f4.7 that fits a 3s. Is that a "SC" lens? Do you know if it is different in construction than the 4.5?

Yes, the 250/4.7 is an "SC" and I'm pretty sure it's a Tessar design.

Drew

[B.S.Kumar]

The 4.5 version was also available in a barrel that can be mounted in a Shanel 5A shutter. The elements of this lens can be unscrewed and mounted in a Shanel 5B (or 5B-S?) shutter.

Kumar

[ic-racer]

The 4.5 version was also available in a barrel that can be mounted in a Shanel 5A shutter. The elements of this lens can be unscrewed and mounted in a Shanel 5B (or 5B-S?) shutter.

Kumar

Yes, that is the one I think I need for my 250 f4.5 in barrel. If you come across a Shanel 5B-S, I'd be intrested.

[clickblindwild]

Guys, How is bokeh of Fujinar 300f4.5 ? I will try use this in bellow .

http://produto.mercadolivre.com.br/MLB-434108353-lente-fuji-fujinar-f30-cm-145-com-tampa-aluminio-_JM

[Ben Syverson]

It will probably be good. Post an example when you shoot with it!

The Fujinar 250 goes swirly at the corners on 8x10, but 300mm should have pretty well behaved bokeh.

[clickblindwild]

Thanks Ben!