Fujinon 125mm f/5.6 W (old version)

[Bernice Loui]

Excessive image circle can increase flare light inside the bellows causing reduced image contrast on the film image. larger image circle is NOT always an advantage in any way, it can be a problem in more ways than one.

Modern plasmat lenses will have a smaller image circle at full aperture (f5.6) with the image circle increasing as the aperture is reduced or stopped down? What might be the working or taking lens aperture for the images in mind? This tends to drive lens choice?

As the lens image circle is used with wide angle view camera lenses, there will be light fall-off. This fact is baked into the lens design and physics of light. If is often compensated for by using center filters with essentially a netrual density spot beginning at the center of the filter then gradually tapering off towards the edges of the filter to compensate for the light fall off of the lens. Know if these wide angle lenses (120mm/121mm/125mm f8 and 115mm f6.8) are used on 4x5 to the limits of their image circle, light fall off could be an issue. With a light weight field folder, the standard bellows often becomes the camera movement limiter effectively stopping and limiting the full use of the large image circle these lenses are capable of.

Think over ALL these and other factors (do not decide on larger image circle is auto best) before considering which lens.


Bernice

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).

[Drew Wiley]

Flare itself can be a creative tool. But you are sure right about having too much of an image circle, Bernice. A common example would be my love of the 450 Fuji C on both 8x10 and 4x5 film. But with 4x5 in any high key situation, I need to be very careful to use an efficient compendium shade to cut off excess incoming angular light. The tapered bellows on my Norma also helps, versus the later Sinar 4X5 box bellows, which tunnels more of the surplus light straight back.

With the big old 120 Super Angulon and its own huge image circle, excess angular light was easy to trap using the bag bellows option; but I had a compendium in play too.

[Joseph Kashi]

FWIW - I own two copies of the EBC multiicoated Fujinon 125/5.6 NW Plasmats and one of the single coated Fujinon 120/8 SW Biogon/Super Angulon super wide-angle lenses and I have tested them against each other. I've also tested them against the earlier single-coated 135mm/5.6 W Plasmat. I am very happy with the 125 NW lenses in my 4x5 kits - they're small, light, very sharp and contrasty, easy to use, and have ample coverage for 4x5.

I have to agree with Drew and Bernice - the later EBC multicoated 125 NW Fujinon is a sweet spot for 4x5, even if it doesn't have as wide a coverage circle as the 120SW. Every lens is a compromise between diverging requirements and emphasizing one component completely, while excluding consideration of other needs, usually results in disappointment, not optimization.

Problems with flare caused by the 120mm SW lens's overly large image circle are very real on 4x5 while it's hard to envision a situation in which a 4x5 user would ever need that much coverage.

The later EBC multicoated Fujinon 125 NW models have excellent sharpness and contrast, somewhat better than the 120SW in my tests. That said, the earlier 80 degree single-coated 125mm W versions are just as sharp.

The later multicoated 125 NW (outside writing on lens barrel) has a sharp image circle of 76 degrees, 196mm, which is ample for a shorter lens on 4x5, particularly in outdoor work. The earlier single-coated versions have a sharp coverage circle of 80 degrees, about 208-210mm.

The earlier single-coated 120SW (inside writing on lens ring) and similar super-wide-angle Biogon/Super Angulon designs are really designed for 5x7 and for 6.5"x8.5" "whole plate" size film, which was still popular in Japan, the UK, etc. when these 120mm lenses were made in the 1970s. They have a 100 degree angle of sharp coverage, about 290mm diameter. That works well for 5x7 and whole plate sizes, but is overkill at best for 4x5.

While the 125 NW lenses use 52 or 55 mm filters, te 120 SW uses 77mm filters - that's a MUCH bigger lens, so much so that it will be awkward on most 4x5 field cameras. The 125 NW lenses in contrast are right-sized for 4x5 outdoor work.

[Times2]

@all thanks for pointing out to different drawbacks of SW lenses.

@Joseph

Do you think the prices difference, between a single coat (inside lettering) vs CM W, tells a significant difference between their corresponding sharpness and contrast? Would you personally buy the more expensive one?

[ruilourosa]

I have the newer model125 5.6, excelente lens in everyway....

[DG 3313]

+1

And to answer your question I have the older 125 W and have no complaints about sharpness…. I think it represents great value and great performance.

[xkaes]

@all thanks for pointing out to different drawbacks of SW lenses.

@Joseph

Do you think the prices difference, between a single coat (inside lettering) vs CM W, tells a significant difference between their corresponding sharpness and contrast? Would you personally buy the more expensive one?

There are often THREE options for any focal length with FUJINON lenses -- the early single coated (writing inside filter ring), EBC versions (writing outside barrel), and CM-W (newer -- and are usually MUCH more expensive). I'd look for the features FIRST before the stage of the lens. The CM-W are nice, and cost more, but that doesn't mean that you will notice the difference. They cost more because there is more demand because people THINK they are better -- whatever "better" means. The only CM-W I have is the 105mm because it has a SLIGHTLY wider IC, not because it gives better results over the NW 105mm. The trade-off is it has a ridiculously long and wide 67mm filter snout.

[ruilourosa]

The 67mm filter ring os indeed ridiculous... But i settled on 77 filters!

[xkaes]

77mm is my filter size as well, but the NON-REMOVABLE hood/snout/shade on the CM-W 105mm is so big it basically makes the lens TWICE the size! If they had made it removable that would have avoided the issue -- but they did the same thing with the 125mm, 135mm, and 150mm.

[Drew Wiley]

Even the previous W (or NW in the literature) series of 125 came in three different filter sizes, all smaller than the funnel front 67mm of the CMW. But I specifically sought out the 52mm version to match my light backpacking 4X5 set of lenses and 4X5 folder, all either 52mm lenses themselves, or with step-up rings for sake of petite 52mm filters. But in day use kits, either with my heavier Sinar monorail system, 8x10 folder, or MF gear, I standardize on 67mm filters instead.