Seeking advice on 120mm lenses

[xkaes]

The GX lenses don't have an IC that covers 4x5" -- except if used for macro shots, and even there, better options are available.

[Bernice Loui]

Sharper or higher contrast?

What is perceived as a "sharper" lens could be a result of a lens with higher contrast instead of being "sharper". It has been mentioned the Fujinon lens in question is an older inner lettering single coated which is likely to produce lower contrast than a modern multi-coated before LF lenses went out of mass production.

What about Schneider 120mm f8 super angulon, which version is the Fujinon being compared to? 120mm f8 SA has been made for a lot of decades going back to the 121mm f8, then single coated 120mm f8, then multi-coated 120mm f8 and the last version of "modern" multi-coated before going out of mass production.

What is the typical aperture used for the Fujinon and Schneider, this is another factors to "sharpness".
Also, it is entirely possible the specific Fujinon lens is not as good as it should be. As there is a very long list of possible reasons why any given lens does not perform as designed/produced, ala "Bad Apple".


Bernice

[xkaes]

Also, it is entirely possible the specific Fujinon lens is not as good as it should be. As there is a very long list of possible reasons why any given lens does not perform as designed/produced, ala "Bad Apple".

Bernice

Or maybe just a "bruised" apple.

[MAubrey]

The GX lenses don't have an IC that covers 4x5" -- except if used for macro shots, and even there, better options are available.

Well, they do have a circle of illumination that covers 4x5 at infinity, at least the f/3.2's do. And since 4x5 is less demanding of resolution than smaller formats, that's okay. Besides they're fun to use. The f/3.2 lenses make great portrait lenses for 4x5. I would note that I've done the comparison, too: the 125mm f/3.2 is definitely sharper than the Xenotar 135mm f/3.5.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Well, they do have a circle of illumination that covers 4x5 at infinity, at least the f/3.2's do. And since 4x5 is less demanding of resolution than smaller formats, that's okay. Besides they're fun to use. The f/3.2 lenses make great portrait lenses for 4x5. I would note that I've done the comparison, too: the 125mm f/3.2 is definitely sharper than the Xenotar 135mm f/3.5.

Yes! My findings, too from direct experience. The Gx680 nominal gate was 8x8cm; the camera has rise and fall, (I believe!), so obviously they were intending it to be used with PC capabilities. Certainly not that far off of 4x5 in terms of sharp coverage

Yesterday I put the 125mm F3.2 EBC GX680 on my 4x5 Plaubel Peco profia, focused at infinity outdoors. The lens looks to me to cover fine the nominal 4x5, and had about 10mm of front rise until I could see the start of the edges of image circle. Being a very modern design (90s) the edges of the circle look pretty good certainly good enough for practical use.

Where these lenses really shine is on adapting to medium format digital monorail platforms. One stop down and you are good as it gets.

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.p...-format.72331/

I have a portrait Photographer friend that had busy studio and clients HATED the results from the 180mm F3.2 EBC GX680. Too freakin' SHARP for their uses; they got rid of it

[xkaes]

Well, they do have a circle of illumination that covers 4x5 at infinity, at least the f/3.2's do.

I'm not familiar with the Fuji 6x8 lenses, but they need an IC of 110mm to cover 6x8. Increasing the IC to 135mm or 140mm would seem sufficient for the camera's movements -- not 160mm/4x5".

Here is what someone, familiar with the lenses has said:

"However, I was intrigued by the Fujinon GX line because it has a massive image circle (120mm for all but the 50mm f/5.6)..."

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.p...-format.72331/

Do you have some other evidence from Fuji that proves this wrong?

[Bernice Loui]

Apple sauce is always an option...


Bernice

Or maybe just a "bruised" apple.

[Bernice Loui]

Fuji GX680 lenses are good, Very Good... Having experience with this camera and lens from back when it was neu. Film image results were typical of "Pro" film image system of that era, film images were unquestionably "sharp" contrasty and all those perks so many photographers were seeking from that time as that was the image goals/demands/expectations from that era. IMO, film images from the GX680 system easily topped the RB/RZ67 system and Hasselblad due to the larger film image (6x6 -vs- 6x8) and the Zeiss/Hasselblad optics were in no way clearly superior to the Fuji GX680 optics.

That said, there was a time when GX680 cameras (all generations) and lenses were really low cost which perked the interest of DIY_er's. As with most that tinker with stuff like this, pressing the original designs beyond their specifications is and often done then published on the web as being "it works" ignoring the original design specifications and design intent. There is something extremely attractive for some to bend the original design into something they want to believe... Some GX680 lenses might cover 4x5, some might not.. question is why? Other than for the sake of tinkering.

Similar happens with countless view camera lenses and how their image circles of designed performance -vs- illumination is mixed up into the want to believe a given lens works on sheet film formats far beyond what the lens was designed for...


Back to the OP's question of "sharp" 120mm lenses, actual lens resolution or higher contrast which is easily perceived as "sharper"...



Bernice

I'm not familiar with the Fuji 6x8 lenses, but they need an IC of 110mm to cover 6x8. Increasing the IC to 135mm or 140mm would seem sufficient for the camera's movements -- not 160mm/4x5".

Here is what someone, familiar with the lenses has said:

"However, I was intrigued by the Fujinon GX line because it has a massive image circle (120mm for all but the 50mm f/5.6)..."

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.p...-format.72331/

Do you have some other evidence from Fuji that proves this wrong?

[MAubrey]

I'm not familiar with the Fuji 6x8 lenses, but they need an IC of 110mm to cover 6x8. Increasing the IC to 135mm or 140mm would seem sufficient for the camera's movements -- not 160mm/4x5".

Here is what someone, familiar with the lenses has said:

"However, I was intrigued by the Fujinon GX line because it has a massive image circle (120mm for all but the 50mm f/5.6)..."

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.p...-format.72331/

Do you have some other evidence from Fuji that proves this wrong?

The GX camera line requires its lenses have an IC that provides 15mm of shift in any direction (though front fall is limited to 13mm by the mechanics of the camera's standard). The 50mm is the only lens that doesn't meet those movement requirements.

I have the 125mm f/3.2 mounted on my Speed Graphic, though its been sitting idle for a couple months, sadly. It and the 180mm f/3.2 are the only reason I still have a 4x5 camera. I'm fully aware that I'm using them "out of spec", but they're cheap and sure fun. I picked them up because of Daniel Unkefer's posts about them here.

[xkaes]

Thanks for this information. I assume that Fuji made a GX macro, which would probably be GREAT on a 4x5!

ADDENDUM: I see that Fuji never made a lens for the GX specifically for macro work. Too bad. I also see they went in BIG for BIG filters -- thanks to the camera movements, I guess, but it seems like they went overboard.