If it does not have "CM" on the outside of the barrel, it is an "NW" lens.
The CM-W is 3mm longer than the NW. "Bulkier"?
If it does not have "CM" on the outside of the barrel, it is an "NW" lens.
The CM-W is 3mm longer than the NW. "Bulkier"?
Ig, based on your posts I'm surmising that the camera you use is 4x5, although you haven't stated so explicitly. Also, it's clear you're very concerned about flare. Given all the discussion that's taken place so far, my recommendation (if it's a 4x5) is the Fujinon 210mm f/5.6 L. Although single coated, my sample, with it's tessar construction, exhibits minimal reflection due to the small number of air/glass surfaces. Its coverage, less than I'd like for the 5x7 I use it on, is more than adequate for 4x5. With the smaller film size, you'd also usually also be working in the sharpest portion of its image circle.
Hi,
Thank you for your messages : )!!!
Yes Sal, I was just looking at some pictures of the Fujinon 210mm f/5.6 L and it reminds me a lot of the Schneider, sometimes
labeled as Calumet, 210mm. f/6.1. At least on pictures, it looks very similar. Yes, I use 4x5". From Fuji, I was also suggested
a 210mm. WS f/5.6 on Seiko shutter 48MT. I wonder if you, or any of you guys are familiar with that lens. It mounts on
48mm. lens boards and is single coated. It is not so easy to find 48mm lens boards. I wonder if the lens is a good performer.
Thank you again, kind regards!
I would second Doremus's comment that a 203/7.7 Kodak Ektar would work well in your intended use.Originally Posted by Ig Nacio
I just measured the total front projection of one of my 203/7.7 Ektars mounted in a standard Kodak Supermatic shutter. It projects only 21mm from the front surface of the lens board and so should work with the field folder. that you described. I also just measured the rear section as projecting only several millimeters from the rear lens board surface. The Supermatic shutter outside dimensions measure as virtually identical in size and mounting hole to a Copal/Compur 0 shutter but the threads are different.
Overall, this Ektar lens is much smaller and lighter than any of the 210/5.6 Plasmats, including the Fujinons. Basically, you're giving up 3/4 stop of maximum aperture and some excess coverage - the 203/7.7 Ektar is rated to cover 5x7 - while the 210/5.6 NW Fujinon almost covers 8x10. That additional coverage, though, in a field camera setting is likely contributing primarily to bellows flare rather than useful additional movement capability.
You are NOT giving up much, if any, optical quality. I've done direct comparisons between two single-coated Kodak 203/7.7 Ektars, a multicoated 180mm Rodenstock Sironar-N, and my 210mm Fujinon NW EBC lenses. The two Ektars produced virtually identical results that optically were fully on-par with the MC Sironar-N and only slightly behind the late-model 210/5.6 Fujinon NW Plasmat. Absolutely more than adequate, especially given the low prices for the Ektars and their very small size.
It's fashionable to trash the Kodak Supermatic shutters, but those with a recent CLA can be very accurate. I recently bought a third such Ektar 203/7.7 made in 1953 (RM) and now used for a 5x7 outfit that I will store away from our home for field use in a distant state. I paid a mere $71 on *Bay for perfect glass and a Supermatic shutter that I just tested as being consistently accurate within 1/6 stop at all speeds below 1/100 and consistently 1/2 stop slow at 1/100 and 1/200. It seems likely that the prior owner had a recent CLA done on that shutter, something that's also advisable even for late-model Copal and Compur shutters that have seen some use. My other two 203/7.7 Ektars have been comparably reliable after a CLA by Carol at Flutot.
Unlike other Ektars of the same period, the 203/7.7 appears to be a single-coated 4/4 Dialyte / Artar design optimized for more distant subjects rather than 1:1 and for at least minimal 5x7 coverage at infinity. Kodak also made the same lens in the UK after WWII using a "Mount 370" and differently named shutters. I have one of those and it performs almost exactly like the US-made model. One potential advantage of many Dialyte / Artar lenses is that they often can be used closer to maximum aperture without losing sharpness and contrast.
This particular Ektar has an excellent, and deserved, reputation as a 4x5 and 5x7 field lens. It's low current price makes it even more attractive, assuming that the glass and shutter are in good condition.
Last edited by Joseph Kashi; 27-Feb-2022 at 18:52. Reason: Added measured comparative size of Supermatic and Copal 0 shutters
Hi Joseph,
Thank you for your message : )!!!
I just took a look at e-bay. I saw one nice copy, but is part of a camera kit.
I'll keep an eye open for a nice copy.
Thank you again, kind regards!
Fujinon made many non-CMW lenses with a 67mm filter thread, for example, my Fujinon 400T telephoto uses a 67mm filter, as does their 90/8 super-wide angle, the old-style single-coated Fujinon 250/6.7 W, the 210/5.6 late model NW, etc. There are no conclusions that can be drawn from the filter thread size of Fujinon lenses.
IMO, only advantage ANY modern plasmat has over the Kodak 203mm f7.7 Ektar or APO artar or single-coated 4/4 Dialyte / Artar design might be higher contrast due to multi-coatings. Too often higher contrast is perceived as "sharper" and "better" which is simply false as this is just another aspect of lens personality. Then comes the trade off of modern -vs- older shutters. Older Compur, Compound, Ilex and similar tend to have a far rounder iris which aids in out of focus and in to out of focus rendition. For those who value this, that feature is a plus, for those who tend to value all in the image in perceived focus (f16 to f45) the rounder iris is of nil value added. What is fact, the modern plasmat from any of the big four will be larger than the 4/4 Dialyte / Artar design. As for optical performance, the single-coated 4/4 Dialyte / Artar design is better closer up with little if any perceivable optical performance loss at infinity focus. Having done the modern plasmat -vs- Dialyte / Artar design there are very real reasons why there are so few modern plasmats in the lens sets used to this day.
Typical 200mm_ish visual. Note the size difference and round -vs- pentagon shaped iris.
The 203mm f7.7 Ektar and 8 1/4" APO artar visual.
The The 203mm f7.7 Ektar and 8 1/4" APO artar are used on the Linhof Technikardan 23s for 6x7 or 6x9 roll film images with excellent results and effectively zero issues with camera movements due to their far over sized image circle for 2x3_6x9. Know both of these lenses easily covers 4x5 at infinity focus.
Two shutter versions of the Kodak 203mm f7.7 Ektar, most common is found in a Supermatic shutter, less common and could be more desirable is the Compur/Graphic shutter version. The lens cells from the Compur/Graphic shutter version can be transferred to a modern shutter Copal or similar shutter long as the cell spacing is verified and replicated to the replacement shutter. Add a proper aperture scale as needed. Lost will be the rounder aperture of the original shutter, for some this is a very viable possibility. In recent times, the Kodak 203mm f7.7 Ektar got discovered reducing the market availability and upping the $. Kodak 203mm f7.7 Ektar has been seen in a barrel version, not sure if these were OEM kodak.
Then there is the image circle size obsession, indeed the modern plasmat has a larger image circle than the Dialyte / Artar design, except time after time comparison, images made by The 203mm f7.7 Ektar or 8 1/4" APO artar become preferred in many ways. If image circle is much needed, a lens like the 8 1/2" Dagor will be used where it will have plenty of image circle over the modern plasmat at f22 and smaller and the Dagor is a physically smaller and lower weight lens. All that said, IMO for those beginning the view camera journey it is of great advantage to start with a modern plasmat with a proven and known good Copal or similar modern shutter as they will simply do as asked and not cause added difficulties.
What appears to happen lots these days, individual new and interested in this view camera stuff does plenty of web searching, discovers various lens test from years ago, digest what is published. This coupled with the digital and roll film mind-set/habits of "must have the latest_greatest" gear then applies these ways to this view camera stuff.. which does not apply in the same way due to the nature and history of this view camera stuff. All this can cause plenty of confusion and discomfort and more.
Bernice
No, Bernice, it's not "simply false."
Here's a better way you might have worded the last part of that sentence. "...which I don't personally consider the most important aspect of lens personality. Your preferences might be different."
Last edited by Sal Santamaura; 28-Feb-2022 at 08:42.
Thanks for the correction. My data shows only two f/5.6 210mm Plasmats, the older ones with smaller filter size and the "NW" with the 67mm filter size. Obviously, my data is incomplete.
Doremus
The brochures with the CMW series was published later. Kerry Thallman's Fuji site provides the two most relevant brochures in this respect. Anyway, I can't personally recall ever seeing a lens actually labeled, NW. It was a just a marketing designation on paper - brochures and price lists. But if there was outside lettering and "W" on the lens, it amounted to the same thing. Sometimes EBC was added, sometimes not; but outside lettering seems to have consistently equated to multi-coating. CM-W's, however, were distinctly labeled as such on the barrel, if I recall correctly. Not much functional difference, except that I regard the oversized 67mm "funnel" front of even the shortest focal length CMW's as illogical, spoiling their optimal portability.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks