Fujinon 300mm & 360mm W puzzle

[Greg]

for what it's worth: I have and use the following:
300mm f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat Series II
300mm f/5.6 Fujinon W
330mm f/6.8 IA Raptar
355mm f/9 G-Claron
360mm f/6.5 NIKKOR-W

All the optics are (more than) quite sharp enough for making contact 8x10 prints.

as for image contrast:
300mm f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat Series II: by far the least contrasty image
300mm f/5.6 Fujinon W, 355mm f/9 G-Claron, and 360mm f/6.5 NIKKOR-W: all very close with the NIKKOR barely being the most contrasty
330mm f/6.8 IA Raptar: noticeably more contrasty than all the other lenses. I believe the optic to be from the 1950s and definitely only single coated optics.

Ironically for making Platinum/Palladium contact 8x10 prints my definite choice is the (vintage) 300mm f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat Series II

[Drew Wiley]

Interesting. But I've got a 30X40 inch Cibachrome right on the wall beside me at the moment, enlarged from an early Fujichrome 50 4x5 shot taken with the 250/6.7, and you literally need a loupe to pick up all the detail in the precisely in-focus portions. Not a trace of color fringing anywhere either. It would be even more precise if shot on 8x10 chrome film instead, though there would have been more depth of field issues, of course.

The issue I had with lenses back when I shot mainly chrome film is that they could sometimes simply be TOO contrasty. That's the problem I had with the 14in multicoated Kern Dagor - the highest contrast lens I have ever owned in any format. Replaced it with the prior single coated Kern. And I often preferred to shoot a single-coated 250 GC over my EBC 240 Fuji A for the same reason (by then my 250/6.7 was stolen).

[xkaes]

There's no way you could determine that from a price list.

You're right, there is no way to know what was going on with FUJI and the W 250mm f6.3, after the NW series emerged. But all of the other W series lenses were immediately removed from the FUJI literature and replaced with NW lenses -- except the W 250mm f6.7. And it remained there for ten years of official price lists. They obviously had a reason not to replace the f6.7 with the f6.3.

[Drew Wiley]

I certainly don't have any inside knowledge of Fuji either, but based on my own substantial experience as a former professional buyer distributing equipment from corporations way bigger than Fuji, i don't take anything for granted.
Some companies were tightly coordinated, others totally predictable for always being a mess in terms of integrating advertising and price list with supply. In fact, some routinely released pricing and ads long before an anticipated product even existed beyond the prototype stage, just to gauge demand well in advance. If demand were insufficient, the product never did go into production.

I remember one big catalog about a decade ago where over 70% of the described and illustrated products never did exist. Fuji is too reputable to pull that kind of stunt, but plenty of miscommunications are inevitable in route in any big company. Think of 3M for example - over 20 different divisions, and none of them seem to communicate with each other.

And "reasons"... well, when the boss hires their own daughter or nephew to run the PR end of things, I've seen information twenty years out of sync. Half the time, they don't even know what the stuff is. Just webpage jockeys these days. But even that's fairly good compared to Govt requisition specs, where you need a degree in Paleolithic Archeology just to understand what they're asking for on a purchase order.

Anyway .... at least we all seem to know the truth about the real world performance of these respective Fuji lenses. That's what counts.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes indeediee...

Too contrasty can be a very real issue when producing ciba-ilford chrome prints from color transparencies.. In this example lower contrast is helpful. Starting with a using a lens with moderate contrast (Kodak Ektar, Commercial Ektar or similar), then lower contrast color transparency film (Fuji Astia), modest lighting ratio (controlled studio lighting), proper lighting color temperature to meet and match the needs of the color transparency film. For the printing process, contrast making as needed and allow the skill, experience, talent of the printer to do their thing.

Seems this method/process has become history and no longer well appreciated today,
Bernice

The issue I had with lenses back when I shot mainly chrome film is that they could sometimes simply be TOO contrasty. That's the problem I had with the 14in multicoated Kern Dagor - the highest contrast lens I have ever owned in any format. Replaced it with the prior single coated Kern. And I often preferred to shoot a single-coated 250 GC over my EBC 240 Fuji A for the same reason (by then my 250/6.7 was stolen).

[Jody_S]

You're right, there is no way to know what was going on with FUJI and the W 250mm f6.3, after the NW series emerged. But all of the other W series lenses were immediately removed from the FUJI literature and replaced with NW lenses -- except the W 250mm f6.7. And it remained there for ten years of official price lists. They obviously had a reason not to replace the f6.7 with the f6.3.

I originally bought my 250/6.7 with the understanding that it would cover 11x14. Never tried because I quickly sold the 11x14 when I realized I couldn't carry it into the field. But the image circle was the determining factor in choosing the 6.7 over the 6.3, which IIRC I could have purchased for less money.

[xkaes]

But the image circle was the determining factor in choosing the 6.7 over the 6.3, which IIRC I could have purchased for less money.

In 1988 Fuji had a suggested price for the f6.7 that was $100 more than the f6.3 -- even though the f6.3 was faster and had EBC coating. The only thing the f6.7 had over the f6.3 was a much wider circle.

[Drew Wiley]

The 250/6.7 might well have been more expensive to make to begin with, especially if a special glass type was needed. Lesser quantities of mfg also equate to higher pricing. That's how manufacturers tend to think unless you're talking about loss-leader nonsense at the head of some WalMart aisle. They look for a consistent percent profit margins for each respective category.

[xkaes]

The 250/6.7 might well have been more expensive to make to begin with, especially if a special glass type was needed. Lesser quantities of mfg also equate to higher pricing. That's how manufacturers tend to think unless you're talking about loss-leader nonsense at the head of some WalMart aisle. They look for a consistent percent profit margins for each respective category.

I guess we've got to thank those crazy guys at FUJI. Instead of having a fire sale to get rid of an old, discontinued lens stock, they simply raised the price on the f6.7, and kept it in their sales brochures for 10 years. Talk about SAVVY!!!

[Drew Wiley]

First of all, Fuji barely had a US Sales presence, maybe a single LF sales rep for the whole country. I talked to him a couple of times. Our local pro house at the time, Adolph Gasser, attempted to keep at least one of every single LF lens made by the "big four" in stock no matter how long an odd or specialty lens might take to sell. And lowering a price for sake of a slow mover just wasn't going to happen. But you could go there and know they'd have it; and that is what drove their particular business model successfully for quite awhile.

I did the same thing for certain lines of high-end woodworking machinery - held the largest selection in the country west of New England, including all kinds of slow-selling one apiece specialty items. People came in even from far out of state due to the huge selection, and we were doing great even during the recession when none of the competition was. If a rare piece of gear took a decade to sell, so be it. We had the bragging rights to it, and sooner or later somebody would indeed pay top dollar. And in that particular kind of gear, newer is generally NOT better. Just an example. I have no idea of what Fuji's strategy was, if they even had one. It's a very big company, and the LF lens division, especially its US sales, probably just a tiny flea on a big dog.

But if it's so important to you that people logically "get rid" of old pathetically obsolete 250/6.7's at liquidation pricing, forgotten on some warehouse shelf years ago, please inform me promptly. I'd hate to see that kind of item become a public nuisance.