Fujinon 125mm f/5.6 W (old version)

[Bernice Loui]

The better solution if camera movements are not needed, consider a "Texas Leica" Fujinon GW690. This could be a better overall solution to meeting the focal lenght/120 roll film needs.

If camera movements are needed the better solution could be a GOOD 2x3_6x9 view camera (Arca Swiss or Linhof) instead of pressing a 4x5 camera with a 6x7, 6x9 roll film back.



Bernice

@all
I wanted something cheapish with 6x7 back and 90-105mm lens but that didn't pan out as I wasn't really sold on the idea of changing bellows and dealing with the recessed board.

[Joseph Kashi]

I had forgotten about the Fuji NSW 105mm. Thanks for mentioning it. It's a great lens, but it's large, heavy, f8, and would break MY bank -- and probably my back, too! It's larger, heavier, and more expensive than the Fujinon 90mm f8.

A newer EBC version of the Fujinon 105/8 SW currently runs about $80-$100 more than old and new versions of the Fujinon 90/8 SW lenses. I like the 105 SW because it's a compromise between 90mm and 120/125mm angles of view while having generous extra coverage for 5x7 (250mm image circle). That extra coverage probably doesn't make much difference on 4x5.

Both the 105/8 and the older Fujinon 120/8 are fairly bulky, with 77mm filters, but are not especially heavy compared to the 90/5.6 lenses. My own single copy comparison is that the newer 6/6 multicoated EBC Fujinon 105/8 NSW is slightly sharper and with more contrast than my older 6/4 single-coated 120/8 SW, but again not enough to make a major difference.

On 4x5, a Nikkor 90/8 SW makes sense if you need a lot of room for movement with a sharp and smaller modern lens - it's got a 235mm image circle at 105 degrees, is very sharp, and not too bulky, with 67mm filters. However, prices for the Nikkor 90/8 have nearly doubled recently.

I suppose that a 3 5/8" (90mm) Wide Angle Dagor would suffice without too much bulk, but they're also more expensive and their area of sharp coverage only suffices for 4x5 with modest movement. My own experience is that the 90 WA Dagor illuminates 5x7 but does not cover 5x7 sharply corner to corner.

If you can swing the recently increased prices, the Nikkor 90/8 SW probably has the best balance of sharpness, good area of coverage, and small physical size.

[Rod Klukas]

The one issue with some of the fuji lenses in the 125mm and longer w series is that their color contrast and overall contrast is poor. Older design I am sure. This makes them sharp, but with some loss in apparent sharpness when the conrast characteristic is lower. The lack of color contrast actually can make it more difficult to focus a lens in low contrast light as well. (In lens design if you increase contrast, you gain some apparent sharpness, but not sharp an appearance as if it is designed for high sharpness. Your image can actually be very sharp but, appear flat. many of these older lenses are better in B&W, than color.

While they are larger and perhaps more expensive. The 115mm Grandagon(286mm IC), the 120mm Nikon SW(300mm + IC), and the 110mm Schneider(286mm IC) all are better lenses in this focal length range for quality.

If you go for the Fuji, I would add a filter such as a Heliopan Kr1.5 to it. In color it will improve the contrast in both color and B&W.

Rod

[Drew Wiley]

Huhh ???? How ancient of a lens are you speaking about, Rod? I admittedly only have experience with MC ones, and they're VERY contrasty and superb with respect to saturated color, almost over the top at times. No "flat" look whatsoever. Just what color films are you speaking about too, and printing method? And no need for a warming filter, unless of course the film itself struggles with balance, like current Ektar does, having a cyan imbalance often needing a KR1.5, !B skylight, or sometimes something even warmer. I'd place any of the MC Fuji's W's right at the head of the pack, being fully equal to anything the German brands offered in general purpose plasmats. Only their own "super plasmat" A series would be distinctly a cut above, and those have smaller max apertures.

The limited image circle of the the Fuji 125 must be kept in mind, though it's a serious liability only in architectural applications where significant rise is needed. But as a "wide"series, or NW, CMW, anything later and multicoated, really, you're largely free from the stretched distortion and exaggerated falloff of a true wide-angle lens design, so there is an oft-overlooked advantage to that fact too, apples to apples focal-length wise. These little 125/5.6 NW's or whatever EBC (multicoated) Fuji's should therefore not be regarded as a replacement for SW-style lenses, but as something in their own right, having different advantages. Not a bad idea to own both styles if you can. Over time, how I addressed the problem was owning the little 125 Fuji for sake of portability and landscape use, as well as roll film backs, and a separate 90 SW for architectural problems.

[Rod Klukas]

If you made images with your lens and a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S, or Schneider Apo-Symmar L, you would see it. But as you are satisfied with what you are getting, that is what counts. i had a customer come and I was teaching him and he could not pick out the object I asked him to focus on. His lens was an EBC coated 300mm. When I went out and showed him what I meant was the object he could find it. But on the ground glass it was very hard to pick out. He was astounded when I put my Rodenstock on his camera at how much easier it was to focus and how dimensional everything looked.
I am glad you have a very good lens, though.

Rod

[Drew Wiley]

NO - I wouldn't see the difference, nor would anyone else, including you, at least where it counts, in the end result itself. That's sheer BS, and basically Europhile prejudice, manufacturing-wise. And lots of other practitioners know that too, and depend on that specific lens more than me. I have all kinds of top-flight lenses to compare with : Nikkor M's, Fuji A's, Kern Dagors, G-Clarons, even Apo Nikkor process lenses which optically outshine any kind of official LF taking lenses; and I have plenty of my own Schneider and Rodenstock experience. And I can print color in the same league as any of the best, and have sometimes blown up 4X5 chromes into 30X40 inch Cibachromes - and if that doesn't squeeze out every tiny detail, nothing will. It's an absolute myth that Fujinon is behind the others. In certain categories, they even got ahead earlier. Today, they're still a leader in certain imaging applications, even though LF lens manufacture itself has now mostly ceased by everyone.

Ground glass composition is a complex subject in its own right. You have to understand the specific personalities of different lenses with respect to that, and even what the most appropriate ground glass is, factoring the angle of incidence. I mainly work with longer lenses, and hate fresnels. But I've never had trouble with the Fuji 125 even in dark sea cave or tunnel entrances. Just my usual habits - wear sunglasses until under the darkcloth, use a good loupe, examine the corners of the field stopped down and not just wide open, etc etc. Easy with experience. Larger formats help. 8x10 is a lot nicer to compose and focus with than 4x5, and 4x5 a lot nicer than a small roll film holder image. But in principle, not very different. That little 125 is of course worthless for anything larger than 4x5, but plenty competent for up to it. There will be some excessive darkness and lack of sharpness toward the corners wide open, but that clears up at typical shooting apertures unless excessive movements are involved.

The end result - the developed chromes or negs themselves, tend to be exceptionally sharp. And the fact that certain other lens tweaks, like the Apo Sironar S, (not N) were engineered to be optimal a stop or two wider open than other plasmats doesn't diminish the sharpness at more realistic working apertures like f/22 or f/32, which pretty much equalizes most of them. A far bigger problem is unevenness of film plane in the holder itself, a generally overlooked factor which lenses often get blamed for instead.

[Times2]

In the end I'm considering fuji sw 120mm f8, super angulon 120mm f8 and nikkor sw 120mm f8. I dont think 125s would work for me.
Would every one of those 120mm fit on my Chamonix 4x5?

[xkaes]

You better check. The rear of the Fuji has an 80mm diameter. The opening on my Toko 4x5 is 82mm -- tight fit.
I suspect the rear diameter of the other lenses to be similar.
What is the opening on your camera?
In short, all of those lenses are HUGE.

[Bernice Loui]

What are the image needs? All three Fujinon 120mm & 125mm f8, Schneider super angulon 120mm & 121mm f8, Nikkor sw 120mm f8 and Rodenstock Grandagon 115mm f6.8 are NOT small. They all have large image circles far beyond what is often needed for 4x5. They are all going to test that Chamonix 4x5 for it's ability to support such a BIG lens and could limit the ability to fully use the full image circle of these lenses. The possibility of lens to camera mis-match is high.

Is this large of an lens image circle really needed for 4x5?

Also, the larger image circle can project lots of stray light inside the bellows causing more flare light inside the camera bellows causing a reduction in image contrast.

It is all a trade-off with no ideal for all. Pick the tools that closes matches what the job is the work within the limits of the tools chosen.



Bernice

In the end I'm considering fuji sw 120mm f8, super angulon 120mm f8 and nikkor sw 120mm f8. I dont think 125s would work for me.
Would every one of those 120mm fit on my Chamonix 4x5?

[Times2]

That much of an image circle is certainly not needed but I would rather have more and not use it than have less and long for more. Per my understanding sharpness is also something to be aware of when it comes to 125mm with 209mm IC and that I m not willing to be worried about. Weight and less light are compromises I'm willing to accept (if my camera is up to it).