CM-W is a fantastic lens and I've used it several times on 8x10 for the following images: Sharp corner to corner. Just not much room for movements!
CM-W is a fantastic lens and I've used it several times on 8x10 for the following images: Sharp corner to corner. Just not much room for movements!
I own three 135mm lenses. An Apo Sironar N, purchased used but in like-new condition; an Apo Sironar S purchased new and a CM Fujinon W purchased new. When photographing subjects at a distance (i.e. landscape, my interest), the Apo Sironar S is least sharp. Next in sharpness is the Apo Sironar N. Sharpest of all is the CM Fujinon W. Not only is the Fujinon top of that heap in sharpness, its edge performance is where the margin of superiority is greatest.Originally Posted by johnmsanderson
The usual caveats about sample variation apply, but both the Apo Sironar S and CM-Fujinon W represent their manufacturers' ultimate era of manufacturing quality control refinement. Also, those who consider other aspects of lens performance more important than sharpness are perfectly justified in holding such opinions. Not any more justified, however, than those who place sharpness at the top of their priority lists.
It's hard for me to make out any distinction on my screen in the linked image, e.g., a mounting rim reflection, or truly aspheric. I'll have to wait until I get ahold of one of these in person some day. But I'm not shopping for any W's; so it's not any kind of priority for me personally - just an academic debate. But I will take your word on the effect, and endorsing the CMW as a top tier lens.
From a portability standpoint, I'm not thrilled with the big funnel front ends of the shorter focal length CMW's, or the big no. 3 shutters of 300mm up (versus the no.1 shutter of the A-series 300 and 360). But going with a 67mm filter and no. 1 shutter in 210 or 250 focal lengths seems reasonable. It would be interesting to compare 8x10 performance of the 250/6.3 CMW versus the classic old 250/6.7 wide. The prior 250/6.3 NW didn't do well with 8x10. The official published image circles moving into the new CMW series shows a distinct increase, but doesn't tell us anything about hypothetically improved corner performance at more typical working apertures, where it most counts.
But this debate is hardly just academic. If the CMW series provides distinctly better edge of circle performance than the previous versions, then it represents a remarkable expense saving opportunity over the Apo Rodagon S series at typical working apertures, which would seem to have a real advantage only at rather wide apertures seldom used in large format photography, except in portrait applications, where sheer sharpness is not necessarily a desirable quality anyway.
Last edited by Drew Wiley; 18-Mar-2022 at 12:00.
The Fujinon 210mm NW and CM-W were both 6/5 design -- not 6/6. As far as I know.
Yes, as you correctly and aptly note, the 210 CM-W is shown as a 6/5 lens, as is the preceding 6/5 210 NW as well as some other 6/5 CM-W lenses, but my post was specifically referencing a comparative test between my 6/4 250/6.7 W and my 6/6 250 CM-W. I do use a 6/5 210 NW and it is one of the best that I have. As noted in my prior post, when I was comparing the 6/4 250/6.7 W and the 6/6 250 CM-W, I did not attempt to compare contrast or micro-tonality, only resolution.
John, so beautiful pics!
As far as I read the cm-w fujinon brochure in Japanese,
it says ED glasses and other special glasses are used.
The chromatic aberrations are much more reduced than the previous versions, as well as other aberrations near to the perfect.
Super EBC multi coating is appiied.
The color rendition is balanced, natural and kept the same for all focal lengths of the cm-w series.
The cm-w series are designed to be like apochromatic from close to far distance.
The image circle is large and maintains luminance, clearness and sharpness to the edge as much as possible.
https://photographysgoldenage.wordpr...ection-2-of-4/
Also look at the graph here for the chromatic aberrations.
So you will see more differences in color than in B&W when comparing cm-w series to the older models.
I will ask a local LF professional shop owner about the design history of cm-w fujinon. He may know more since his fellow is an x-fujinon lens designer.
Now we're getting somewhere ...
It's all Greek to me, but it seems inexplicable that Fuji would mention "special glass" in its Japanese literature, but not in the English literature.
Just as odd, this letter from the Director of Lens Sales doesn't mention it at all.
https://photographysgoldenage.wordpr...ection-2-of-4/
I had decades worth of experience directly dealing with Japanese engineers and bringing special products into this country (non-photo equipment). I can just whole-heartedly repeat the old adage, that a lot gets "lost in translation" - referring not just to the wording, but the whole cultural difference of communicating. Once had not only the CEO, but twelve other individuals in the room at the same time, consisting of engineers and translators for translators for translators. The session ended with me drawing pictures and handing out actual physical samples of machine components they needed to factor in, which they took back to Japan. I've got a few of those machines in my own shop right now; and that method worked out way way better than sending numerical or CAD specs to China, like people do these days, and in return get back mass-produced unreliable junk.
With Fuji, it's remarkable just how much gets lost in translation through typos and data loss when transferred to US literature, or lost between Japan and the often quite unhelpful, misinformed staff at FujifilmUSA. That tendency has got me scratching my head if it is indeed possible Sal is correct about a particular lens element because some generic schematic was simply transferred over, rather than a new one put into the new brochure. I dunno. But until the presence of an aspheric element is conclusively shown, I continue to be skeptical.
But this debate is not just academic. If the Fuji CMW provides significantly better reproduction further out in the image circle, then it's a dramatically less expensive option to the Rodenstock Sironar S series, except perhaps at relatively wide apertures, which are seldom used in LF work anyway, except in portraiture, and in that case, extreme sharpness might not even be desirable.
Low dispersion (ED or similar marketing names) optical glass is common today. Keep in mind low dispersion optical glass was invented at the US National Bureau of Standards cira WW-II, mass produced by Kodak, used in Kodak Ektar and other lenses made at their Hawkeye optics division. Since that time Lanthanum and similar optical glass types have become a marketing foil used and applied to increase perceived lens performance desirability.
~Canon introduced artificially grown calcium fluorite crystal for mass produced Foto lenses back in the late 1960's.
Remain flat un-impressed by any of this magical optical glass hyping as sharpness alone is over valued in too many ways. There are too many other factors that figure into what results in a emotionally expressive and creative image. On the other end of the sharpness obsession are Sorta-Focus lenses and Pictorialism.
~Not one mention of using an aspherical lens element in any of the Fujinon LF lens literature or publications. Until there is written text from Fujinon they used an aspherical element in their LF lenses, this remains a zilch NO.
This chart proves curious and more.
Then I'll bring this up again:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...420-microscope
at 260x, "sharp" enough? How can this vastly improve the image?
Bernice
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks