There doesn't appear to be a hard line. The "middle" focal lengths have shown up with both Seiko and Copal shutters -- probably a gradual shift over time for each focal length. The part that I'm wondering the most about are the changes that were made to optical designs for some (all?) of these lenses when the change from Seiko to Copal occurred. Some of this might be found in some of the Fujinon literature -- with a careful reading.
Would it help with coverage in your example if one focuses a little closer in and used DoF to pull the background into focus? May not be significant. My Fuji W 360 barely covers 11x14, so besides using F16 or higher, I also try to keep it backed off from infinity if I can.
One of the advantages of clipped corners on the GG is to check for mechanical vignetting at each corner (and possible drop-off) and finding the largest aperture that can be used to avoid vignetting (if possible).
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
I deleted a post above; I mistakenly showed a negative from a Fujinon 125mm SW.
I've purchased many WS 210mm F6.7 and WS 250mm F6.7 lenses, as well as a couple of 180mm WS lenses, all of which came in LS23 Seiko #2 shutters. BTW this is the same size shutter that's in RB67 lenses. I've also purchased Seiko #2 shutters from Japan, all were marked LS23.
Flikr Photos Here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/
“The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”
― Mark Twain
Thanks for mentioning this. I've never seen anything about any Fujinon lenses in #2 shutters. It makes me wonder if these were made for a specific market (possible?) -- or simply replaced shutters for some reason (even less likely).
Bookmarks