Finally picked up one of these older Fujinon lenses, and tested it to see how well it covers 8x10.
https://youtu.be/R7vZnlv6R8c
Printable View
Finally picked up one of these older Fujinon lenses, and tested it to see how well it covers 8x10.
https://youtu.be/R7vZnlv6R8c
Even at F22 appears to me a teeny bit of falloff. Focused hyperfocally bigger circle excellent 8x10 focal length IMO. I like olde single coated lenses for B&W Have Fun!
I think that was mostly down to me not centring the lens... I've had it since out in the field and was very careful about that. All looked great! I'll try focussing on the hyperfocal distance next time. Thanks!
You bet. Always enjoy your videos :) Hilarious and informative. Like the Monty Python music LOL
Andrew, thanks for doing this. Nice test.
This matches my experience as well. However I no longer use it on 8x10 because I tend to use movements, and there just isn’t room for any. Rather use another lens that has a larger illumination circle.
I'd love to have a Schneider 150 XL, but it's not a 90mm equivalent. I friend of mine used to let me borrow his years ago... Anything out there that has more IC than the Fujinon? Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi7475
Lenses that cover 8x10 with movements and that are relatively close to the 180mm focal length are rare. Several try but don't quite get there... like the 165mm Angulon, 159mm Wollensak, 7" Goerz Berlin or Series III Dagor, 7" WF Ektar, 165mm WA Dagor, 185mm Repromaster, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
The Protar v 183mm is one that covers with movements, but it's tough to focus with (F18!). The modern ones that do cover "nicely" are going to be monsters... e.g. 165mm Super-Angulon, 210mm super-Symmar XL, 155 Grandagon.... there's others.
I think if you want to go that wide, then the Nikkor SW 150mm and particularly the Super-symmar XL 150mm are the more reasonable ones. Not small but not gigantic. Just crop a little bit from 150 to 180mm if needed. Or from the other side, go for a Computar 210mm f9.
One more thought. If you’re really set on “it has to be 180mm”, then the most rational way is to simply shoot a 90mm lens in 4x5. There just isn’t a great alternative in 8x10, if it also has to be light, cheap, etc. That’s just the reality, albeit not what we all would like to hear.
Sadly, the Nikkor SW 150 is a tad out of my price range... I think I've got WA covered for 8x10. Nikkor SW 120, Fujinon W 180, Nikkor W 210, and 240.
There are two versions of the lens, one in a Seiko shutter the other in a Copal. In my testing the Copal shutter version has a slightly larger circle.
https://youtu.be/vrxdf79QXic
https://youtu.be/vrxdf79QXic
If you have to have a 180mm lens that covers 8x10, the Zeiss Dagor f/9 is a good choice. Not easy to find, but it has an image circle of 15 1/2 inches. Tiny and sharp. My favorite 810 wide angle lens. The regular Dagor 240mm f/6.8 lens has an image circle of 14 inches. Yes, a Protar v 181mm will cover slightly more (16 inches of image circle) than Zeiss Dagor f/9, but it is not easy to focus.
This is interesting because there was the 180mm W f5.6 and the 180mm W S f5.6. There's lots of literature about the W series, but not about the W S series, but they appeared at the same time. The shorter W series lenses had Seiko shutters, as did the W S series, but the longer lenses had Copal shutters. The exceptions seem to be the 180mm, 210mm (?), and 250mm f6.7. They started out with Seiko shutters and later switched to Copal shutters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaughan
Why that would impact the image circle is a good question. Perhaps at the same time the shutter switch was made, the optical design was tweaked. Without much literature on the W S lenses, there's not much to work with.
Anyone have any W S series literature?
early brochure
180 W f/5.6
80 degrees
image circle at f/22 - 305mm
Copal 1
recommended format 8 x 10
1982 brochure
180mm NWS f/5.6
76 degrees
image circle at f/22 - 280mm
Copal 1
recommended format 6 1/2 x 8 1/2
in 1982
105mm to 250mm - NWS
300mm and 360mm - WS
Quote:
Originally Posted by xkaes
Of the single-coated lenses, those in size 0 shutters (150mm and shorter) are always Seiko. Lenses in size 1 shutters are often found in either Seiko or Copal. The front and rear cell thread diameter of the Seiko and Copal shutters are significantly different so the lens cells are not interchangeable(*). The rear lens cell diameter is also significantly different so they are probably a different optical formulae.
In my testing the Copal shutter version had about 7mm larger circle, which matters quite a bit when trying to cover 8x10. For anything smaller it's not significant.
(*) I purchased a very nice 180mm lens in Copal shutter that was faulty and a nasty 180mm lens in Seiko shutter that was working, with the intent to swap them over and beat the system. It didn't work. I ended up getting the Copal shutter fixed, and the lens in the Seiko shutter cleaned up nicely so I ended up with two working lenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg
The NW 180mm lens is a different lens design from the W & W S 180mm lenses (6/6 vs 6/4), that explains the difference in !C (76° vs 80°) between them.
But the question is the difference in the IC of the 180mm W vs the 180mm W S. It appears that the difference is because of the shutter used (Seiko vs Copal) -- see above post #14.
Here is an interesting thread, related to “180mm & 8x10” topic:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi7475
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-Lens-Database
Andrew, interesting video as always, thanks.
WS : S = Seiko. Great information in post #14.
11x14 print from the 180mm.
Attachment 249324
Good guess, but the longer focal length W S lenses only came in Copal shutters -- just like the W lenses. The shorter focal length W and W S lenses were the ones that were provided with Seiko shutters.Quote:
Originally Posted by ic-racer
Link seems broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by ic-racer
Where was the FL demarcation? My 180mm is in Seiko. And, I’ve seen multiple 250mm in Seiko shutters.Quote:
Originally Posted by xkaes
There doesn't appear to be a hard line. The "middle" focal lengths have shown up with both Seiko and Copal shutters -- probably a gradual shift over time for each focal length. The part that I'm wondering the most about are the changes that were made to optical designs for some (all?) of these lenses when the change from Seiko to Copal occurred. Some of this might be found in some of the Fujinon literature -- with a careful reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lachlan 717
Would it help with coverage in your example if one focuses a little closer in and used DoF to pull the background into focus? May not be significant. My Fuji W 360 barely covers 11x14, so besides using F16 or higher, I also try to keep it backed off from infinity if I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by ic-racer
One of the advantages of clipped corners on the GG is to check for mechanical vignetting at each corner (and possible drop-off) and finding the largest aperture that can be used to avoid vignetting (if possible).
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lachlan 717
I deleted a post above; I mistakenly showed a negative from a Fujinon 125mm SW.
No guess. Vaughan mentioned the "S" lens element only fits the Seiko and won't fit in the Copal.Quote:
Originally Posted by xkaes
Your statement -- "WS : S = Seiko." -- is too broad, as I pointed out. Only the short W S lenses were sold with Seiko shutters. The longer length W S lenses were sold with Copal shutters -- and were not marked W C. So how does "WS = Seiko" when the shutter is a Copal?Quote:
Originally Posted by ic-racer
Attachment 249331
I've purchased many WS 210mm F6.7 and WS 250mm F6.7 lenses, as well as a couple of 180mm WS lenses, all of which came in LS23 Seiko #2 shutters. BTW this is the same size shutter that's in RB67 lenses. I've also purchased Seiko #2 shutters from Japan, all were marked LS23.
Thanks for mentioning this. I've never seen anything about any Fujinon lenses in #2 shutters. It makes me wonder if these were made for a specific market (possible?) -- or simply replaced shutters for some reason (even less likely).
Quote:
Originally Posted by xkaes
I think it is clear there was an empiric observation the 180mm WS only fits a Seiko shutter. S = Seiko. See post #14.
The 180mm always came in a #1 shutter, and as mentioned in post #14:Quote:
Originally Posted by ic-racer
And since W S lenses appeared in Copal shutters from 180mm (#1) up to 360mm (#3), the "S" can't refer to "Seiko".Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaughan
Seiko shutters came in #0 and #1 sizes. The thread pitch of the Seiko #0 shutter is the same as the Copal, Compur and Prontor #0, but the original retaining rings have slightly different shapes.
There was no Seiko #2 shutter. Shutters marked LS23 were Seiko #1 shutters, which are slightly larger than Copal etc. #1 shutters. Seiko #1 shutters were used for Fujinon 180mm f/5.6, 210mm f/5.6 and 250mm f/6.7 lenses. They can be used to mount Fuji GX680 lenses.
Kumar
That's GREAT information. I've never seen that in any of the Fuji literature (which can be hard to find, and has known errors), but it explains the mystery of the mid-range Fujinon W & W S lenses.
Whoops, My Bad. Kumar is right of course, LS23 is Seiko #1, not #2....Quote:
Originally Posted by B.S.Kumar
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...4d6e5a7f_o.jpgGetting There Set of GX680 Lenses Seiko Shutters by Nokton48, on Flickr
These are all LS23 Seiko #1 Shutters. As you can see I have a few. LOL
I know it's a long shot, but has anyone run across any Fuji literature on the W S series of lenses?
What do you want to know? The published marketing literature has errors and does not really document when specofic chamges were made. The web site (I forget the name right now, jyst search for “fujinon large format lens) is about the best effort to compile everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by xkaes
The best reasoning behind the “S” was an indication the lens was made for mounting in a shutter abd not a barrel. Some tessar Fujinar 180mm lenses were barrel and Copal 3.
I haven't had time to pile through these brochures, and you are probably aware of them anyway, but here is a 5 part archive of Fuji Lens information:Quote:
Originally Posted by xkaes
https://archive.org/details/FujinonL....TeoliJr.A.C.1
Thanks, I've looked through those JPG archives. I might have missed it, but I don't see anything specific to the W S lenses. The problem seems to be a lack of material on the early FUJINON years. I have literature on the W lenses -- before the NW series -- but nothing on the W S lenses (although a lot of it is undoubtedly the same). Seiko shutters were more prevalent with the early FUJINON lenses -- the time period lacking literature.
You need the right part of the archive.Quote:
Originally Posted by xkaes
https://archive.org/details/FujinonL...20%2813%29.jpg
The pages are all mixed up, but I did find some information on the WS series; specifically a lens I just ordered:
https://archive.org/details/FujinonL...20%2874%29.jpg
The WS 250mm f6.7.
Interesting reading...
Thanks but those "WS" lenses are really "W" lenses, not "W S" lenses. The "S" in the "WS" lenses means "series", just as it does in the "NWS" lenses. Same with "AS", "SWS", "SWDS", "NSWS", etc. I'm referring to the lenses where the "S" is set off from the other letters -- "W S". That only happened with the "W" lenses -- there are "W" inscribed lenses and "W S" inscribed lenses. No lenses are inscribed "WS". The "W S" lenses are early lenses. Here are two examples -- same lens, one is "W", the other "W S".Quote:
Originally Posted by MAubrey
Attachment 249384
Attachment 249385
Yes, I know what they look like. I have the second one.Quote:
Originally Posted by xkaes
But the S in WS doesn't series. That'd make this page very silly sounding.
https://archive.org/download/Fujinon...20%2839%29.jpg
I'll agree that Fuji's designation has its problems -- but, if "S" doesn't mean "series" on that lens list, what does it mean? It certainly doesn't mean "Seiko", because those lens came in Copal shutters. And it certainly doesn't mean "shutter", because the SWD series on that page all came in shutters, but don't end with an "S".Quote:
Originally Posted by MAubrey
The “S” is for "Seemed like a good idea at the time." これはアメリカ人を混乱させるだろうQuote:
Originally Posted by xkaes
Attachment 249446
Matching serial number lens and packaging.
Just to muddy the waters, no space on the box printing; space on the lens.
For what it is worth, I believe that the “S” nomenclature refers to the lens’ line being Fujinon’s “standard”design lenses, much like Schneider’s Claron range having G, C, D, Vario etc.
Your lenses is a "W" lens, not a "W S" lens.
Fujinon boxes and lenses are well-known to have different lettering. For example, the NW lenses are marked "W" on the lens and "NWS" on the box.
And your example does not explain why many of Fuji's Fujinon lenses are marked "W" and "W S" on the same lens -- regardless of what's on the box (see my comparison photos, above).
Ummm…. Pretty sure that’s a “W S” clearly marked on the front of my lens….
And, what I wrote still holds up when you read what Kerry wrote about Fujinon lenses: “ Early samples were single coated and in Seiko shutters”. He has done the research. I suspect that the simple “W” lenses will have later S/Ns and be in Copal shutters and will have dropped the “S” as it became redundant/tautologist overtime. It appears to be reintroduced when the EBC line superseded the original, single coated range, again to signify their standard lenses.