Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 vs CM/W version
Could someone please explain to me the differences between the Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 lens vs the Fujinon 300mm f/5.6 CM/W lens? All I could come up with was that the CM/W version has an image circle of 412 while the W version has an image circle of 420. I know the CM/W is the latest version, but is one better than the other or are they optically the same (for the most part)?
These are the only links I could come up with for info on these lenses-
http://www.willwilson.com/fujinon.html
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/fujinon.htm
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byseries.htm
http://thalmann.com/largeformat/CMW_specs.htm
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 vs CM/W version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
axs810
Do you have a picture of your lens. There were multiple "W" lenses. In many cases the lenses with writing on the front retaining ring have larger coverage and are single coated.
Attachment 123714
Re: Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 vs CM/W version
There might be incremental differences, like an attempt to standardize filter thread size on the shorter focal lengths, but for all practical purposes, it would probably be almost impossible to tell the difference in actual images. The entire series has been outstanding for quite awhile. Either of these lenses will be relatively heavy standard plasmats, obviously.
Re: Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 vs CM/W version
PS - yeah, simultaneous posts - older single-coated lenses had the writing on the inside rim of the ring and sometimes greater coverage, while all the modern variations (W, WS, CMW, blah, blah) are multicoated with a tad more contrast, and have writing on the outside of the barrel.
Re: Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 vs CM/W version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ic-racer
Do you have a picture of your lens. There were multiple "W" lenses. In many cases the lenses with writing on the front retaining ring have larger coverage and are single coated.
FWIW, the CM-W lenses are clearly labeled as "CM Fujinon-W". So at least for that generation, there's no ambiguity in identification.
Re: Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 vs CM/W version
ic-racer - I don't own the lens yet but I used to own the Fujinon L 300mm and am looking to get a Fujinon 300mm again...just want to make sure I get the "best" and not doubt my purchase. :) I would hate to have come across info later and find I'd prefer one version over the other
Drew Wiley - That make sense about the possible standardizing filter threads. Many of the CM/W versions I see are in black copals vs the W's that are in copal shutters with the silver ring. Thinking long term - would this make any difference in terms of future repairs? Would one be easier or cheaper to get CLA'd or are they the same?
Re: Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 vs CM/W version
Quote:
Originally Posted by
axs810
Many of the CM/W versions I see are in black copals vs the W's that are in copal shutters with the silver ring.
All CM-W's should be in black Copals, unless someone has remounted them after purchase.
I'm pretty sure the CM-W's, at least, had their designs recomputed. They were introduced pretty late, and were competing with the likes of the Apo-Sironar S and Apo-Symmar. It's likely that there are situations where you could demonstrate a difference. But just as with, say, Apo-Sironar N vs Apo-Sironar S, whether the difference would matter to you is a different question. I wouldn't lose sleep over the difference myself. If you don't already have a well-defined reason as to why you need the very latest and greatest, odds are that you don't - the earlier lenses are already very fine performers for most general-purpose uses.
Re: Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 vs CM/W version
Being later does not necessarily equate with "best". In some cases the specific changes were mandated by eco glass restrictions in the EU market, not by optical
performance per se. Then there was that odd idea to make all the smaller CMW's accept 67mm filters for user "convenience" (*%#!!????), which is exactly why so many of us prefer the more portable older lenses which take smaller filters. But if you want the best of the best, try to find a clean multicoated 300 Fuji A rather
than a W. Still plenty of coverage for 8x10, but superior close-range performance and far lighter in a no.1 shutter. Otherwise, any of these relatively modern
multicoated Fuji 300's will be crisper than your old 300L, and with more coverage, though the tessar formula of the L was popular with portrait photographers per se.
Re: Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 vs CM/W version
Drew Wiley - May I ask why the fujinon L was popular with portrait photographers? I'll look into the fujinon a 300mm but I honestly would prefer a f/5.6 lens because I plan on using the lens mostly for portraiture/environmental portraits etc
Re: Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 vs CM/W version
The L's had a slightly softer edge rendering along with single coating, which is not the same thing as saying they were unsharp. And portrait photographers often use their lenses a wider apertures than product or landscape photographers do. A wide apertures lenses sometimes give a different look than at "ideal" apertures. The L's were never a fast tessar anyway, and if you're following my drift, neither will a fast plasmat necessarily be if you use it as designed. My question would be why it matters. Does you want shallower depth of field or easier focus in dim light? There are plenty of ways to accommodate that. But having what is allegedly the latest and sharpest lens might not in fact dovetail ideally with your wish for enviro portrait applications. When it came to portraits and selective focus, I actually preferred my older Symmar S to the newer distinctly shaper, more contrasty Fuji's. It's about the look; and after all, how big do you need to enlarge the negs when you're talking about large format to begin with? I recently mounted an old Carl Meyer 360 clunker process tessar because it gives me a very pleasing out of focus rendering. Everybody has their favorites; but for the same reason portrait photographers once preferred fast tessar Ektars
to the more precise Commercial Ektars more generally used. There are probably numerous example shots of this and that lens somewhere on this forum, though
it helps to see real prints. Personally, I've never had an issue focusing even an f/12 lens outdoors in these kinds of focal lengths. It's not like working with wide
angle lenses.
