The 67mm filter ring is indeed ridiculous... But i settled on 77 filters!
The 67mm filter ring is indeed ridiculous... But i settled on 77 filters!
I’m not sure the reason, but the earlier, single coated generation of Fujinon plasmats tend to have a larger listed image circle than the lens that replaced it. This is most noticeable with the 250mm lenses—the old version is desired by 8x10 shooters because it has a large enough image circle to not only cover, but to give significant movements (398mm instead of the later lenses 312mm). On the 125mm lenses the difference is small—just 12mm. But I’ve wondered whether those numbers are real, or a change in how Fuji specced them out. Nonetheless, the older single coated lenses are still quite nice, but will likely have a little less contrast due to the single coating.
I have the older versions of 180, 210 and 250, quite nice lenses, as i had a 210 super symmar hm and i sold it...
Except for the two longest lenses in the series, the W lenses all have an angle of coverage of 80° (the SW series are 100°). With the replacement NW series, except for the two longest lenses, the NW lenses all have a narrower angle of coverage of 76°. That appears to be the cost of moving to an all air-spaced design -- 6/6.Originally Posted by abruzzi
The conventions of what comprises a usable image circle also varies somewhat. Schneider tends to be conservative, Fuji a bit liberal in that respect. But it also has certain shifts in precise meaning within such brands themselves, depending on specific application or marketing emphasis.
That was my (skeptical) thought--its not a real difference in coverage, just a change in how they evaluate coverage. But the 250's popularity (a 250 W usually costs more than a 250 CM-W) suggests that people agree with the larger image circle rating. Or maybe xkaes is right--the new design just had those limitations. I had never noticed the 6/4 vs 6/6 thing (actually the 125mm is 6/5). Nontheless, I've had lenses from most of the Fuji series and have found all of them quite good (no A's or T's yet though.)
Ahh, the main reason I was going for 125 CMW (instead of W on the outside of the barrel) version was the larger IC, but when i think of it I m not sure how much those 6mm of IC matter in practice
Unlike the W, SW, SWD, NW or NSW series -- each with their own fairly fixed angles of coverage, the CM-W series has images circles all over the place -- and in no particular order -- from 60° for the 450mm to 65° for the 250mm to 78° for the 105mm & 125mm. Fuji did not seem to be targeting a particular film format, so who knows what they were trying to achieve -- the "best" possible images????? Certainly not the lowest price!!! The most consistent feature in the CM-W series is the ludicrous 67mm filter size!!!!
I actually appreciate that Fuji made most of their latest lenses in the 67mm filter size and I think it is a conscious decision. That is why I went with the set of:
NSW 90mm 8
CMW 125mm 5.6
CMW 250mm 6.3
When I head out all I require is a set of 67mm filters and a step up ring. Makes for a much convenient setup.
Convenient unless you have to accommodate two weeks of mountain gear, food, and supplies in the same pack as your camera gear! At that point, especially as one gets older and can't carry a 90 lb pack anymore days on end, somewhat reducing the size and weight of your gear becomes a downright priority. But does that even apply to a husky too lazy to even pull the sled behind him?
But as I stated earlier, I do standardize on 67mm filters and a less petite lens selection for less strenuous situations. I even have one kit that requires 82mm filters as the standard common denominator size.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks