Fujinon soft focus

[robert]

In another forum someone made mention of having a Fujinon SF 420. I didn't know such a lens existed. Can anyone give me any info on this lens? I know they make a 250 and a 180 but I've never seen a 420. Thanks

[Ted Harris]

No 420 and never was AFAIK. I would guess that it was a typo.

[Sheldon N]

The only Fuji 420mm that I'm aware of is their 420mm L f/8 lens. I believe it was a Tessar design that was in their entry level lineup. You still see them from time to time on Ebay at around $400-500.

[Michael Gudzinowicz]

To contact an owner, see: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...id=003CxM&tag=

The 420 mm Fujinon SF/SFS lens has a 62 deg coverage angle giving an image circle of 500 mm.

[Ted Harris]

Whoops! Michael is absolutely right. I had totally forgotten as I havce never seen one or know anyone who has used one. The lens has been discontinued for around 25 years or more. I checked in my Fuji literature and saw no mention of it going back to 1980 but did see it mentioned in much earlier DO Industries listings. It was only availablein a barrel and I don't have any dimensions so have no idea if it could be easily mounted in a shutter. Interesting lens, love to see one some time.

Acomment on performance. I have usedall of the modern SF lenses (except the Congo?Osaka) extensively (see article last year in VC Magazine) and found the Fujinon SF to run a poor third behind the Cooke and Imagon. Of all the SF lenses I have used the original Pinkham Smith on which the current Cooke is modeled is my favorite but it is a huge beast.

[Michael Gudzinowicz]

The reference I have lists it in a #3 shutter, in which case the maximum aperture would be f/8 or f/9 rather than the published f/5.6 The lens is uncommon, so I'd suggest getting the thread diameter and pitch, and the barrel length to compare it to actual shutter dimensions. Another issue is whether you want to tolerate the loss of soft focus due to the effect of a smaller maximum aperture. Grimes probably can mount it in a larger shutter to use at f/5.6.

[Ted Harris]

Michael,

What is the reference you have that lists it in a #3 shutter .... curious as three different references I checked all showed barrel only.

Thanks ... Ted

[Michael Gudzinowicz]

The lens was listed as available in a #3 shutter as f/5.6 in articles published in Petersen's in 1984 and 1986 corresponding to two database entries - one for SF and another for SFS. The copies are buried somewhere so I can't be more specific, though I'm skeptical for the obvious reasons.

[Charles Webb]

[QUOTE=Ted Harris
Acomment on performance. I have usedall of the modern SF lenses (except the Congo?Osaka) extensively (see article last year in VC Magazine) and found the Fujinon SF to run a poor third behind the Cooke and Imagon. Of all the SF lenses I have used the original Pinkham Smith on which the current Cooke is modeled is my favorite but it is a huge beast.[/QUOTE]


Ted,
Where can I find the article, I would be very interested in reading it. Unfortunitely I do not know what VC magazine is so am at a loss where to look. I have been using SF lenses for over fifty years, and agree that the PS is a terrific lens and also my favorite.

I think it would be fun to read your findings, and compare my findings with your article.

Thank you,
C Webb

[BrianShaw]

Okay, I found it... one of the issues I saved:

View Camera Magazine, November/December 2005, Vol XVIII No. 4, page 52.

The article is interesting but unfortunately, the images printed aren't quite capable of supporting the text. But an interesting article nonetheless.

I am struggling a bit, Ted, with your comment that the Fujinon SF is a "poor third". The impression I got from the article is that you really favor the Cooke (no doubt!) and both the Imagon and Fujinon weren't as good in your opinion. But I missed the "poor third" part.

Re softness: "In the case of the Imagon and Fuji, I often find them too soft for my taste."

Re skintones: "Overall, the Imagon gives an appearance of greater sharpness than the Cooke (the Fujinon was similar to the Imagon), especially in the detail around the eyes and the hair."

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but you threw me for a loop with this statement of Fujinon SF being a "poor third". Is there data/information that didn't get published?

The reason I ask is because I have a Fujinon SF and have been quite satisfied with it. Unlike you, however, I haven't had the opportunity to personally do comparisons. Maybe I don't know what I'm really missing!