Fujinon CM-W 135mm f/5.6 with 6x17=Center Filter Needed?

[Chance2]

I've ordered a Fuji CM-W 135 and am wondering if anyone with experience with the lens can tell me if there might be a need to use a center filter with it.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions or help you can provide.

[Drew Wiley]

I doubt a suitable one is even made because the falloff, while present, is quite minor compared to true wide-angle lenses, at least on a that part of the image circle needed for 4x5 film, which this lens is basically engineered for.

[Chance2]

I doubt a suitable one is even made because the falloff, while present, is quite minor compared to true wide-angle lenses, at least on a that part of the image circle needed for 4x5 film, which this lens is basically engineered for.

I'm hoping it's very minor!

[Drew Wiley]

I shoot a 125, which of course inherently has a bit more falloff than the 135, and it's inconsequential to me (and I'm nitpicky). It's not anything like a typical 120 super-wide ala Super-Angulon and Fuji, Nikkor, Rodenstock clones, which have a full stop and a half falloff. But you have to get longer than "normal" for anything truly even field, typically around 180 on 4x5.

[Chance2]

I shoot a 125, which of course inherently has a bit more falloff than the 135, and it's inconsequential to me (and I'm nitpicky). It's not anything like a typical 120 super-wide ala Super-Angulon and Fuji, Nikkor, Rodenstock clones, which have a full stop and a half falloff. But you have to get longer than "normal" for anything truly even field, typically around 180 on 4x5.

This is good to know. Thanks, Drew.

[ic-racer]

I'm not sure which 125 Drew has but I use the 125mm Fujinon Super Wide on 8x10 B&W. This is an example with no center filter and no center burn. Light source CLS2000 which is pretty even.

[Chance2]

I'm not sure which 125 Drew has but I use the 125mm Fujinon Super Wide on 8x10 B&W. This is an example with no center filter and no center burn. Light source CLS2000 which is pretty even.

I would be happy with that. Thank you.

[Sal Santamaura]

I shoot a 125, which of course inherently has a bit more falloff than the 135, and it's inconsequential to me (and I'm nitpicky). It's not anything like a typical 120 super-wide ala Super-Angulon and Fuji, Nikkor, Rodenstock clones, which have a full stop and a half falloff...

I'm not sure which 125 Drew has but I use the 125mm Fujinon Super Wide on 8x10 B&W. This is an example with no center filter and no center burn...

Yours is one of the Super-Angulon clones Drew referenced. His 125 is a plasmat like the 135mm CM-
W that's the subject of this thread. Totally different animals.

[Chance2]

Yours is one of the Super-Angulon clones Drew referenced. His 125 is a plasmat like the 135mm CM-
W that's the subject of this thread. Totally different animals.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Drew Wiley]

Just depends on what you're doing. The 120 SW's do have a lot of falloff, which can be pretty flagrant if you're shooting chromes or otherwise need even lighting
in the scene. It takes a 1-1/2 stop CF to correct that. The 125 and 135 etc W's, NW's, CMW's are general purpose "normal" plastmats. Damn nice lenses with
a MINOR amount of falloff in the shorter focal lengths, and much smaller image circles than SW's. Much lighter, and without the stretching distortion typical of very wide fields. These choices in lens type are for very different applications. If a normal plastmat has sufficient movement for the job, I'm sure as heck am not going to rent a mule to help me carry a 120 Super-Wide. I've hacked my way up icefields and stood atop peaks with those damn things. Funny how ya gotta learn the hard way that you never needed that big an image circle to begin with, except for certain architectural shots with a lot of front rise. But back when I was young the whole name of the game was finding ways to burn excess energy. Now the name of the game is finding ways to conserve energy.