Curiously a search of this forum yielded very little hands-on information about this lens.
Looking to use it on 8x10 for 20x24" enlargements in B&W. I have the W 300mm and W 150, and in spite of the size and weight of the 300, it is my favorite 8x10 lens, The 450 is not that much heavier.
Maybe I'll just have to buy it and report back if no one else has one.
I can’t provide much info since I have not used it… but maybe it’s not widely popular because the Fuji C 450mm is so much more smaller and lighter with comparable coverage and, this I can say, is an excellent performer optically. Could that be the reason? Is there any reason to go to a 2 lbs heavier lens?
This page won't give you much, if any, more information that you have, but it does list the other Fujinon options -- like the smaller, light, easier-to-find, less expensive (?) 450mm C f12.5, mentioned above.
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm
There also the 420mm L f8.0 that is well-regarded, and pretty heavy, too. It has an IC like to C -- around 480mm -- no match for the 450mm f8. So the CM-W wins the movement trophy -- if that is what you're looking for.
I suspect that not many people have used it, but I won't be surprised if we hear from some users on this FORUM.
... and, there's the Nikkor M 450mm f/9 in a Copal #3 shutter, making it somewhere between the Fujinon C series and the W in size. Mine is a fine performer.
Doremus
Those with the Nikkor 450/9 and or Fujinon 450/11, are you enlarging 20x24 or bigger?
I have the 450mm f/8 CM Fujinon W, 450mm f/12.5 Fujinon C and 420mm Fujinon L. The 450 C is, in my experience, greatly overrated for 8x10 use. The outer inches of its specified image circle are mush. The 420 L is a tessar; very well suited to portraiture, but not that sharp outside its central area. The 450 CM-W is superb, maintaining excellent sharpness and contrast right to the edge. This 450 CM-W negative was made with front fall that used the full rated circle. I haven't enlarged to 20x24, but inkjet printed it up to 13x17. However, examining the negative with a loupe convinces me you wouldn't be at all disappointed with its images at the larger size.
Interesting, Sal. That’s definitely not my experience with the 450 C, but for my landscapes, I don’t push it with lots of movements, at most a modest rise and some tilt… the 8x10 negs are always sharp to the corners as inspected by loupe. I’m not alone in thinking this, eg:Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...on-C-450-f12-5
It’s intriguing that your experience is so different.
My experience with the Fuji 450C is the same as Kiwi7475, though I only contact print my 8x10 negs so, perhaps, the corners would always look good.
Oh my gosh, Ice Racer, the 450/12.5 C is a stellar performer. Very generous image circle for 8x10; and even loupe sharp 40 X 60 inch prints from 8x10 film would be no problem if the subject was consistently in focus, the film plane truly flat, and the enlargement itself precise. I've done all kinds of 30X40 inch optically-enlarged Cibachromes and Fuji Supergloss prints which exhibit extreme detail throughout taken with this lens - no qualitative falloff in the corners whatsoever. I'm surrounded by framed 30X40's taken with that lens right now. And by loupe sharp, I mean you'd need a loupe or at least reading glasses to appreciate all the detail in these big prints themselves! The enlarged corners are immaculate too; and quite a bit of front tilt was used in each case. But I printed them with high-end enlarging lenses, like the 360/5.6 El Nikkor and 305/9 Apo Nikkor.
I have no idea what Sal's alleged problem is; but he might be the only user on the planet with that kind of complaint, which might not have anything to do with the lens itself, but something else in the workflow. If one wants a draft-horse sized general purpose Fuji CMW or earlier Fuji plasmat instead, I'm sure they'll do an excellent job too. I just can't afford to rent an elephant and mahout to carry a set of bulky studio lenses when I already get such outstanding, or even better, performance from petite Fuji A and C series lenses.
The C series is infinity corrected, and superb at mid-range too, but not ideal for close-ups like their A series. One problem is that the image circle is so big that you want a good compendium shade in place to prevent flare from excess light like a blank sky or an adjacent snowfield, especially is you use the 450/12.5 for 4x5 format too, which I often do. And like most LF lenses, you don't want to shoot these wide open, but decently stopped down.
So unless you are thinking of mainly close-up or near macro work, then 450/12.5 C would be an excellent choice, especially from a portability standpoint. But if you're mainly doing studio work, and your 8x10 has a seriously rigid front standard, then the 450/8 CMW or earlier NW might be preferable. But any 450 would be clumsy for close-up work in general; and something like a 360A or 355 G-Claron would make a lot more sense in those long bellows extension cases.
I have no problem.Those who ask questions and are potentially mislead by members who disparage my answers without paying attention to the details ("edge of the specified image circle") might have a problem.
Before anyone who knows everything about everything jumps in to speculate about the condition of my 450 C, it was purchased brand new and is still indistinguishable from new today. I bought the 450 CM-W specifically to overcome the 450 C's limitations at the edge of its rated circle.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks