Hi,
Has anyone used this lens? Is it a nice performer, what do you like about it?
It seems to me that its 'overall length' is shorter than that of most other lenses.
Do you know how large is it?
Thank you, kind regards!
Hi,
Has anyone used this lens? Is it a nice performer, what do you like about it?
It seems to me that its 'overall length' is shorter than that of most other lenses.
Do you know how large is it?
Thank you, kind regards!
Inside or outside writing? Mine has inside writing and works beautifully on my whole plate camera even allowing some movements. I also have a 210mm Nikkor and the Fuji actually covers a bit more and is a bit more compact. The Fuji replaced a Symmar. Fuji was sharper than the (older) Symmar and covered more.
Ig Nacio,
The lens is OK, but I think there are better ones. The problem is color contrast. It does not separate colors well.
Nikon or Rodenstock are both better choices. Apo-Sironar N from Rodenstock are very reasonably priced, excellent lenses. Just behind are the Nikon W series. The Schneider Apo-Symmar are behind until the Apo-Symmar L series, which are excellent.
We can discuss if you like. I am happy to share info. We can Zoom, if you give me a direct email address, or I can call you if you give me your phone number.
Let me know if you would like to talk.
Rod
Rod -are you referring strictly to the older single-coated Fuji's with the inside lettering. Why wouldn't a later MC Fuji itself be in just as high a league as an Apo Sironar N or Apo Symmar L? That's what I'd choose if I wanted a 210/5.6. They aren't exactly a secret. But you seem to be distinctly and unrealistically prejudiced against Fuji for some inexplicable reason. Too bad the superb Fuji A series was never made in 210; but the analogous Schneider G-Claron was. I personally shoot a 200 Nikkor M in that approximate focal length - hard to beat that for 4x5 usage at least.
Hi,
Thank you for your messages : )!!!
The one I was considering is the one with the outside lettering
and 67mm. filter thread.
I was considering that one for two reasons. The first one,
its 'overall length' seems shorter than similar multicoated
lenses from other brands. It seems shorter to me, but I don't
know the exact 'overall length' of it, and neither do I know
the overall length of other lenses from other brands with the
same focal length.
(BTW, I use the word 'overall length' as opposed to just 'size'
or 'length' because B&H Photo specifies this characteristic that
way, and you guys may be more used to read it like that. I am
relatively new here, so... ).
The second reason to consider that lens was that it is a
multicoated lens with Fuji's EBC coating, what may help
better with flare.
I have a field camera and one can reverse some lenses when
closing up the camera's 'shell', and leave the rear point of the
lens facing the front of the camera 'shell'. Instead of removing
and packing any lens away, my idea is to keep put the lens
whose 'overall length' may still fit in when closing up.
I took a look at a Calumet (Schneider) 210mm. f/6.3 that is
very compact, but single coated. There is also a lens often
seen as Calumet, (but is Rodenstock), the Geronar 210mm.
f/6.8 I also took a look at this lens and it is MC.
Yes, I also find amazing the lenses that you guys mention.
Hopefully and slowly, or not so slowly, I can get to use some
of the lenses you guys mention either when backpacking or
in my small studio in the future.
Thank you very much again, kind regards!
Originally Posted by Ig Nacio
My personal comparative experience with these lenses:
I have a 210/5.6 Fujinon NWS outside-writing EBC-multicoated lens. The Fujinon 210/5.6 NWS may be my sharpest lens, with excellent optical characteristics.
I evaluate the Fujinon 210/5.6 NWS as somewhat better than my late model Schneider 210/9 and 305/9 Plasmat-formula G-Clarons and slightly better than my MC 180/5.6 Rodenstock Sironar-N. The Fujinon's definitely superior to my 210 Rodenstock Geronar, which I bought mostly for the Geronar's Copal 1 shutter to mount an early Dagor-formula G-Claron, a decent-enough lens, but not as good as my later Plasmat-style 210 and 305 G-Clarons.
The Fujinon 210/5.6 NWS is a rather large lens, large enough that it's unlikely you could close a field camera with that lens still attached.
The above are single-copy personal comparative tests and of course my comparisons may be idiosyncratic or otherwise off. All of the above lenses seem adequately centered. YMMV, of course.
Hi,
Thank you for your message : )!!!
Yes, when I look here:
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm
According to the link,
there are only two 210mm. multicoated lenses,
or EBC coated, as Fuji calls its multicoating.
One, is labeled as 'CM-W', and the other labeled
as 'NW', that I think is the same one you refer
as 'NWS'.
Both these lenses are 67mm.; both are engraved
on the outer ring only with a 'W'. In spite of
only having a 'W' marked on the ring, the above
webpage marks it with the 'N', so it is 'NW', or
as you mentioned: 'NWS'.
That lens, your lens, from pictures on the internet
does not seem so tall when standing mounted or
unmounted. The rear cell, the bottom part, does not
seem to protrude much. The upper part looks shorter
and less massive than its 'CM-W' counterpart, and
also not as big as some lenses from Schneider and
Rodenstock.
I wonder if you may be able to please measure the length
of the rear cell, from the lens board to the bottom of the
lens; and to please measure from the lensboard to the top
of the lens, including the shutter. I would appreciate it.
My field camera is quiet forgiving. When reversing that
lens and closing up the camera, I think the rear cell will fit
relatively easy. It is the upper part that I have my doubts
in.
Thank you again, kind regards!
Flare is a non-issue if you use a decent compendium shade (which should ideallly be used even with MC lenses too). A lot of this has to do with just how big you need to enlarge (it would have to be quite large to show any significant difference between most of these lenses). But there are more subtle distinctions in terms of contrast, hue saturation, and maximum image circle. For certain color film applications, I actually prefer single-coated lenses, and in fact, in my favorite focal length category for 4x5 (240-250mm), have both a multicoated Fuji A and otherwise very similar G-Claron single coated equivalent (later plasmat formula, not dagor style), to fine-tune the contrast options. I do the same in the 360mm or 14 inch category too.
It's easy to overthink all this. It sometimes takes some experimentation to settle on what you prefer best. I replaced my very first view camera lens, a 210/5.6 Symmar S, a long time ago for sake of a sharper and better corrected Fuji lens. But that ole Symmar S had its own special gentler "look" in prints; and there are times I regret selling it.
Hi,
Thank you for your message : )!!!
Yes, I agree with you with regard to the feeling
that the image at the end will render. This
coming from single coated lenses.
For me is also interesting at the moment that
the gear I may use may be pack small, or
as small as possible. For example,
yesterday I mentioned two 210mm. lenses as
examples. One of them, the Calumet-Schneider
that is single coated; and the Geronar that is
multicoated.
The above Fuji website, that I link here again:
http://www.subclub.org/fujinon/byfl.htm
shows smaller single coated lenses, the ones
with 49 and 58mm filter rings that also may
yield some very interesting images.
In my bag, the ideal set up are two small-sized
lenses, that either could interchangeably, due
to the small size, stay inside the camera.
When I was looking into the single coated
Fuji lenses, not long ago, I realized that some
of these, the ones with the 58mm. filter ring,
use 'Seiko B shutters'. Is that always the case?
Because 'Seiko B shutters' seem only possible
to be mounted on 48MT lens boards.
I hope I can find a nice single coated lens.
This single coated lens could perhaps go hand
in hand with the multicoated one, just as you
have.
Thank you again, kind regards!
Don't forget modern tessars unless you need an especially big image circle. For example, there you could choose between (or own both) the Fuji L 210 single-coated tessar, sharp but not clinically so, and hence prized for portraiture, versus the exceptionally crisp and contrasty MC Nikkor 200 M. Both are quite small too, but at f/9, a little less bright focusing than the 5.6 W plasmats - not a problem for me personally, but worth noting anyway.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks