Original Fujinon T 400mm f8 Lens on Whole Plate

[Vaughan]

Hello

A couple of quick tests of two new-to-me things: an original (single-coated) Fujinon T 400mm f8 lens, and whole plate film on a Rittreck View 5x7 camera. I've had the Rittreck camera for a year or so and the whole plate back for a couple of months, but only recently did the developing tank and reel arrive so I could process the film.

This is a test shot of the Fujinon T 400mm f8 lens on whole plate film. The specs suggest the image circle is 240mm (20mm bigger than the newer multi-coated version of the lens) and whole plate needs 255mm, so in theory it's just a few millimetres short. The image is focussed at infinity with the aperture set to f22, and a some vignetting is visible in the corners. (The vignette isn't even on both side so most likely my lens standard/board/back/holder aren't perfectly aligned.)

The second image is shot wide open f8 with the lens focussed to ~2.4m which is about as close as I can get with the bellows extended (I just realised I hadn't opened the camera's rear extension, so I could have been closer).

Made with a Rittreck View 5x7 with the Rittreck Whole Plate extension back and Rittreck Hope film holders. Film is Shanghai GP3 100 rated at 100 ISO. Processed in a Poilot 2550 tank (a Chinese copy of JOBO) with a modified Poilot 8x10 reel that has had the central shaft cut shorter to fit whole plate. The reel can process 3 sheets at a time. This is only my third batch of whole plate film through the camera back, holders and tank and I'm still getting to grips with the workflow. There seems to be scratches and surface damage but that's likely my handling and not defects with the film.

While the lens just manages to cover whole plate at infinity – if some vignetting can be accepted – the coverage is more than adequate for closeup work and IMHO it would make a nice lens for portraiture. I have been using it on 4x5 and intend to use it on 5x7, which it covers well.

My particular example of the lens was sold for parts/repair and there is some fungus and physical damage to the rear element glass and coating which would most definitely be affecting sharpness, but I'm pleased with the results. Note also that my camera-scanning technique is not up to par for WP and the negatives show more detail that what's seen in the posted image.

[Potocki]

Hi. I'm about to buy a Fujinon T 400. Is it worth it? I mean the quality of later negatives, sharpness, etc. How does it work with this lens?

[xkaes]

As you've shown, with careful centering, it usable -- especially stopped down and closer than infinity. A lot of people seem to consider even a little cropping a mortal sin -- but not me.

I've never read any explanation as to the slightly smaller IC on the second version of the T 400mm. Are they really the same optically, but Fuji changed their "standards"? Curious minds want to know.

[Vaughan]

I've never read any explanation as to the slightly smaller IC on the second version of the T 400mm. Are they really the same optically, but Fuji changed their "standards"? Curious minds want to know.

Some time in the late 1980s or early 1990s a ban on leaded glass was introduced. This affected lens makers who needed to re-formulate lenses.