Fujinon 180mm. f/9 - Curious about some specs.

[Bernice Loui]

Using a digital camera to evaluate view camera lenses, not gonna work. Digital image sensors have an entire stack of filters and often micro lenses to aid the image sensor to produce the image data. These solid state image sensors do NOT behave like film.

The only valid way to do any kind of view camera testing is to use them as they have been designed to be used. In the case of Fujinon-A, G-Claron, Symmar-S and countless others, they were and are designed for film, NOT solid state image sensors with a stack of filters and micro lenses in front of the image sensor.. why is this different than film? These image sensor surfaces do not have the same light reflectance- absorbance- responds as film. As for resolution, diffraction for a given lens aperture must be figured in and how might contrast rendition be measured? What about in to out of focus rendition and transition?

As previously posted and mentioned, this previous post comparing scanner to Leica M420 microscope image of 5x7 Ektachrome made using a 14" APO artar decades ago provides some idea as to the optical performance of a process lens on paper has not been made ideal for images at or near infinity.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...420-microscope

Working or image taking aperture should depend on image goals, not the idealized lens aperture. Think lens serving your image goals instead of serving the idealized lens design goals.

Having done plenty of these lens test decades ago, not convinced these test are of any generalized value except for checking out a specific lens before ownership acceptance.


Bernice

More by chance I found a Fujinon-A 240mm. I already have a G-Claron and a Symmar-S in 240mm. When I have the time and the inclination, i will try to find out how the three differ. I didn't want to make excessive lens tests here. My plan was to make "real world tests" on 4x5" at f/22. This is my normal working aperture for most cases.

Now I have already done some pre-tests with a digital camera instead of film (1:20). The Symmar and the G-Claron were slightly better (higher resulution) than the Fujinon-A at f/22, but the latter was better at f/32 than both others at f/22. I was wondering if I did make I am unsure whether I have not worked exactly or whether this can be the case. I think I will do some extra tests also at 1:5 or 1:3.

[roadhouse]

Thank you for the answers so far. My main question was, if there is any information, if these Fujinon-A lenses were designed to be best used at specific apertures?

As far as I know manufacturers mostly try to get better performance at more open apertures. For example Rodenstock Apo Sironar-S lenses do reach their optimum performance (in terms of resolution) at least one stop earlier than the Apo Sironar-N. But anyway, the best theoretical lens performance in a perfect lens (which does nearly not exist) would be at full open aperture. I'm not quite sure about that, but I think I have read one day, that especially macro lenses are designed to deliver still a very good quality even at very small apertures.

I was a bit surprised what was suspected behind my question My tests with the digital camera were only to make a first test, before I will test them with film. I'm aware that film does not behave like a sensor and at which magnification these lenses should be used at best. And I never wanted to make tests to generate any generalized knowledge.

[Drew Wiley]

Roadhouse, wider aperture optimization is rarely a priority in large format applications for a number of reasons, including the need for making the most of image circles for sake of movements, unlike regular cameras, and the kinds of depth of field issues which come with the territory of the longer focal length lenses needed for larger film, relative to equal angles of perspective. There is also the issue of less than ideal sheet film flatness in many instances, which is itself best corrected with greater depth of field at smaller apertures.

Most LF lenses have their specs at f/22 as a kind of mid-range convention, while a few like wide-angle designs might give them at f/16 instead; graphics applications are generally at f/22 1:1, though none of these instances automatically imply that if/22 s the "best" working aperture for other than tightly standardized applications. And certain fast lenses for sake of shooting at wider apertures, like the old f/4.5 portrait tessars, had shallow depth of field in mind all along, and didn't place much emphasis on sheer detail capacity.

And yep, you're pretty much wasting your time trying to compare ordinary digital camera performance to LF lens performance. It's a common and understandable mistake to take point blank results and try to weigh them against the much more varied usages of large format lenses, particularly when it comes to the sheer precision and versatility of something like a Fuji A lenses. But I'd just run with it, and get out there shooting with the lens. And frankly, it really doesn't matter all that much whether its the GC or the Fujinon A version. Can't go wrong either way. The big general purpose plasmats in no. 3 shutter will, however, exact a penalty due their sheer weight, and potentially even with respect to more front standard vibration - and the specs won't tell you a darn thing about how that can potentially affect sharpness!

But don't overthink this. Nearly all the modern lenses by the "big four" manufacturers - Schnieider, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Nikon - are going to be excellent optically within intended realistic applications. And other than a few specialized types, it's more important to think about the logistics of weight, filter size, cost, etc, than get nitpicky over tiny differences in hypothetical resolution. Right behind me I've got a 30X40 inch Cibachrome printed directly from an old 4X5 Ektachrome 64 film (about twice as "grainy" as current Ektachrome), and taken with a Symmar S lens nowhere near as sharp or contrasty as my later Fuji and GC options. I can tell the difference; but the public can't, even that big.

To hit your nail of a question squarely on the head - No, I'm not aware of Fuji publishing anything about "best working aperture" for any of their LF lenses. It would make little sense to do so, given all the potential variables involved. But here's how I break down the A series in simple practical application terms, at infinity, that is :
180A superb on roll film and 4x5, OK with limited movements on 5X7; 240A, superb on roll film, 4x5, and 5X7, decent with modest movements on 8x10; 300A, great for everything up to 8x10; 360A, great for everything up to 8x10, with generous movements on 8X10, but only marginally useful with 11X14 film. The rare giant dinosaurs of 600A and 1200A, specialty lenses for ULF cameras only. At close ranges, the image circles of all of the series are obviously bigger.

[xkaes]

... here's how I break down the A series in simple practical application terms, at infinity, that is :
180A superb on roll film and 4x5, OK with limited movements on 5X7; 240A, superb on roll film, 4x5, and 5X7, decent with modest movements on 8x10; 300A, great for everything up to 8x10; 360A, great for everything up to 8x10, with generous movements on 8X10, but only marginally useful with 11X14 film. The rare giant dinosaurs of 600A and 1200A, specialty lenses for ULF cameras only. At close ranges, the image circles of all of the series are obviously bigger.

Yeah, the Fujinon 1200mm A has a IC of 1120mm = 44 inches". I won't be using that one on my 4x5 -- and not just because it weighs FIVE pounds!

And back to the OP, the best f-stop. It depends on what "BEST" means. As the saying goes, "One man's ceiling is another man's mirror" -- or something like that.

[roadhouse]

[...] To hit your nail of a question squarely on the head - No, I'm not aware of Fuji publishing anything about "best working aperture" for any of their LF lenses. It would make little sense to do so, given all the potential variables involved.

Thanks for your reply. I do own several large format lenses from different decades. Most of them are Rodenstock or Schneider lenses. There are information from both manufacturers including MTF charts and at which best magnification scale to use these lenses. I did not find these information from Fujifilm. Also these Fuji lenses are quite rare here in Europe.

And back to the OP, the best f-stop. It depends on what "BEST" means. As the saying goes, "One man's ceiling is another man's mirror" -- or something like that.

First of all in terms of resolution and typical optical errors (aberration, coma and so on). It should be clear, that the optimal aperture must not always be the best to use in specific situations. But I think it is helpful to know how your tools works. What you make of it is in your hands.

[xkaes]

MTF charts, etc. are interesting, but "in the field" you choose the f-stop based on the situation, not the highest "whatever" from some chart. You'd get stuck using one "best" f-stop for each lens.

More importantly all lenses change their aberrations as the f-stop changes, so that, for example, lens X has better control of coma and chromatic aberrations when stopped down but better control of diffraction when opened up.

If it's that important, you should test every lens at every f-stop at every magnification.

[Doremus Scudder]

Just to address the OP's question further.

Most "general purpose" LF lenses, including the Fujinon As (if I'm not mistaken) are sharpest at f/16-f/22. This is the "sweet spot" between lens aberrations, which show up at wider apertures more than smaller, and the effects of diffraction, which show up at smaller apertures more than larger.

So, if you're making photographs of flat walls with no need for depth of field, then, by all means, use your sharpest aperture (f/22 or whatever the one is the manufacturer chooses for giving specs for).

If you, like me, need to balance depth of field with lens sharpness, then you need a way to optimize/compromise to get what you want. I like using the method described in the "How to select the f-stop" article here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html .

Depth of field usually trumps sharpest aperture in real life. If you want more, you stop down more; the overall impression of everything being in focus is better than gaining a tiny bit of extra sharpness and having distracting out-of-focus areas. The converse is true if you want to minimize depth of field.

And, with LF, the effects of diffraction won't be visible in a print unless you use a very small aperture and print very large. I certainly can't see the effects of diffraction at f/45 (with cropped 4x5 film) enlarged to 16x20 without a loupe...

Maybe just take some photos and quit agonizing over maximizing all your variables?

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

Schneider and Rodenstock did make available both head-on and tangential MTF charts at various f-stops for some of their lenses, which was sometimes helpful making choices between lens options. But I'm unaware of anything analogous from Fuji. They could be cryptic at times in their literature. But anyone who has actually uses these lenses understands that when they referred to their A series as "Super Plasmats" they weren't bluffing. With Fuji literature, you almost need to read between the lines at times.

But like Doremus just suggested, don't become Savonarola unnecessarily flogging yourself with such details like a whip. Fuji A's are wonderful if you can afford them, but Schneider GC's do almost the same thing at more reasonable current asking prices. The main distinction for me would be between the quite portable 360A in no. 1 shutter, very practical for even 4X5 field camera use, and the 355GC, where a bulkier no. 3 shutter takes over instead. Other than that, all of them are relatively compact, and overall, cumulatively offer quite a selection of focal lengths all the way from 150 to 360. (GC = 150, 210, 270, 300, 355; Fuji A = 180, 240, 300, 360)

[Bernice Loui]

Adding further on this..

There were few if any "hobbyist" view camera lenses made by any of the significant or major view camera lens brands well over a century of view camera optics history. Majority of view camera lens brands did their very best at their view camera lens offerings as they were designing "strict" optics without added corrections for fixed box, fixed lens type cameras. Add to this, view camera images and users were driven by image quality more than mass accessibility economics or view camera lenses were moderately "mass produced" at best. Production numbers never reached anywhere near the millions of lenses produced by Canon(over 150 million), Nikon(over 110 Million) or similar.

That said, the ideal lens aperture for any given image depends on image goals, this drives lens choice in many ways.
Once the creative artistic image maker bust out of the Group f64 ideology of "every item in the image MUST be ~sharp~" opens up a much greater possibilities for creative sheet film/view camera image making. Key to this is mastery of what a GOOD view camera can do (this means using all available camera movements front & rear, limitations and strengths of each optical formula and how best to apply them, film and film processing behavior, print making and more).

Knowing this fact and reality of view camera lenses and what a GOOD view camera is capable of, lens choices are divided into selective focus and most in perceived to be in focused.

For images that require selective focus with smooth and pleasing transition from in to out of focus and personality of the out of focus areas via large lens apertures, the overall preferred would be a Tessar (Kodak Ektar, Xenar, Fujinar, Rodenstock Yaserx, Boyer Saphir, _ _ __) or Heilar with a distant lesser Double Gauss aka Planar-Xenotar-or similar. These work good at full lens aperture to about f16.

For images that require most if not all of what is in the image in perceived focus (yes, lenses have a single true focused plane. Outside of this is perceived in focus). APO process for longer than normal focal length or symmetrical Dagor type designs for normal focal length would be preferred. This means using a lens aperture of f16 and smaller to about f45. Past f45, diffraction bits IF projection enlargements apply. For contact prints f90 would work great as would a pin hole "lens". Full aperture of f9 or smaller is not a dis-advantage for longer than normal focal length lenses, but a BIG advantage as their physical size and weight is greatly reduced without giving up optical performance. As for the "lens optimized" for 1:1 or some finite reproduction ratio, IMO mostly horse pucky as proven over many, many sheets of film using APO process lenses (Dialyte formula) they are excellent from infinity to 1:1 with nil variation from barrel lenses out of a process camera to in shutter by the manufacture spec'ed for infinity. Their optical performance is excellent in all cases.

Or, why the modern Plasmat view camera lens does SO well as a starting point with few disadvantages. IMO, it is pointless to do generalized lens testing as these test often can never reveal the personality of a given lens under the image making, image goals of a given image maker. They are generalities at best or why IMO, these published lens test found on the web are of limited value. What is useful, testing-checking out a given lens before purchase-ownership to assure it meets your needs with the understanding of lens design limitations. Given new view camera lenses are a rarity today and view camera lenses on the used market come with an unknown history, best to check them out before ownership acceptance.

Wide angle view camera lenses are a different barrel of "light"...

Then we come to the entire universe of Soft Focus lenses where "sharpness" is not a consideration or significant concern.

Most common problem with the common view camera lens is the shutter.

As for MTF curves, anyone ever noticed the curves published are calculated, not measured?


Bernice

[Sal Santamaura]

...quite a selection of focal lengths all the way from 150 to 360. (GC = 150, 210, 270, 300, 355...

That list now omits both the real G-Claron 240mm and Drew's unicorn mythical G-Claron 250mm.