Fujinon 360mm f-6.5 Lens

Discussion in 'Ultra Large Format Cameras and Accessories' started by Rick Olson, Jan 12, 2007.

  1. Rick Olson

    Rick Olson Member

    Messages:
    98
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    U.S. Pacific
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I was wondering if anyone had information on using this lens for 7 x 17 or larger ULF sizes. I checked the Badger Graphic Sales site and it shows it has an image circle at 485mm at f-22. I read that 7 x 17 requires an image circle of about 466mm, which means the lens will cover with minimal movement. I know that stopping down throws a larger image circle and was looking to see if this lens would be a viable option at f-64+ for 7 x 17 to allow generous movement of the front (lens) standard. I want to be able to have a bright image and this lens stops down to f-128, which is good if I need it compared to other similar plasmat lenses in this range.

    Thanks,
    Rick
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Emile de Leon

    Emile de Leon Member

    Messages:
    96
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Location:
    Middletown c
    I have that same lens, Got it mint for $250-. It is sharp as a tack even wide open and will cover your 7x17 well. Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com.
     
  3. ReallyBigCameras

    ReallyBigCameras Advertiser

    Messages:
    523
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Emile,

    Is yours the current f6.5 CM-W version that Rick is asking about? If it is, you got a HECK of a bargain. It currently sells for $1595 new and is seldom seen on the used market.

    Or do you have the older 360mm 6.3 Fujinon-W ($250 would still be a bargain)? I have one of these, but haven't had a chance to use it on ULF yet to test the coverage. If this is the one you have, is yours the singe coated, or multicoaed version?

    Thanks,
    Kerry
     
  4. Rick Olson

    Rick Olson Member

    Messages:
    98
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    U.S. Pacific
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Hello Kerry,

    Who has this lens new for $1595.00?

    Thanks,
    Rick


     
  5. ReallyBigCameras

    ReallyBigCameras Advertiser

    Messages:
    523
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Sorry, my mistake. Badger Graphic has the 300mm f5.6 Fujinon CM-W for $1595. Their price on the 360mm f6.5 Fujinon CM-W is $1925 (making Emile's deal potentially even better).

    Kerry
     
  6. Emile de Leon

    Emile de Leon Member

    Messages:
    96
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Location:
    Middletown c
    Hi Kerry,
    Opps...mine is the 6.3 model. It is amazingly sharp! I got it and a mint 300mm Sironar N both for $500- from a photog going digital. Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com.
     
  7. Emile de Leon

    Emile de Leon Member

    Messages:
    96
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Location:
    Middletown c
    And...It is the multicoated version and will cover 7x17. Nice to have that bright GG. Try it, you'll like it! Emile
     
  8. FredW

    FredW Member

    Messages:
    234
    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Location:
    Calgary, Can
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have the older 6.3 model, its MC, and use it on 11x14, without problems, even with 2-3 inches of front rise. Its an outstanding lens.
     
  9. Donsta

    Donsta Member

    Messages:
    145
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Rick

    Don't be too certain that you will get much more coverage by stopping it right down - most 360mm plasmats have mechanical vignetting at the limitation of the image circle. For example, I have a 360mm Apo Sironar which actually does not cover 11x14 because the filter ring vignettes when you stop it right down. I'd be careful to check the exact lens you have in mind before forking out for it. I had a Schneider Apo Symmar 360 which had mechanical vignetting at the spec'd image circle.
     
  10. Rick Olson

    Rick Olson Member

    Messages:
    98
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    U.S. Pacific
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Thanks Donsta,

    I guess the 355 G-Claron would be a better choice since this lens appears to be well respected for 7 x 17 and allows movements.
     
  11. Rick Olson

    Rick Olson Member

    Messages:
    98
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    U.S. Pacific
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Further to my message above, what makes the 355 G-Claron so special in regards to its ability to cover 7 x 17? It is a smaller focal length lens and has a smaller native image circle at f-22 when compared to the Fuji above. Is it the design of the G-Claron (non-plasmat?) that allows it to cast a large image circle when stopped down compared to a plasmat lens? Why no concerns of mechanical vignetting with the G-Claron? Thanks for your clarification on this.

    Rick
     
  12. Jeremy

    Jeremy Member

    Messages:
    2,767
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Location:
    Denton, TX
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    According to the manufacturer's charts yes, but in reality the G-Clarons have huge coverage. It's due to the design of the lens.
     
  13. ReallyBigCameras

    ReallyBigCameras Advertiser

    Messages:
    523
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Rick,

    Actually, the G Claron IS a plasmat (6/4 construction). I suspect the greater coverage of the G Claron is due to the absence of field stops. A field stop mechanically limits a lens' field of view. Most older lenses (Dagors, Angulons, etc.) did not incorporate field stops. Without a field stop to mechanically limit coverage, many older lenses have a much larger circle of illumination than circle of acceptable definition. The problem with this situation is that different people will have different opinions about what exactly constitutes "acceptable definition".

    A real world example - The Schneider Angulon is a derivative of the famous Goerz Dagor (6/2 construction). The powers of the elements were switched (it's often referred to s a reverse Dagor design) and the outer elements are oversized (compared to a standard Dagor of same focal length) in an attempt to increase coverage by elminating mechanical vignetting. Since the goal was as much coverage as possible, the Angulon design doesn't incorporate any field stops. Early Angulon ads and brochures touted coverage as high as 107 degrees for the Angulon (here's a Schneider catalog from 1939 that lists the coverage of the Angulon series as 105 degrees).

    Yes, an Angulon will throw a huge circle of illumination, but just how much of that huge circle is actually usable. Well, again it depends a bit on personal opinion, but in my experience with several Angulons of varoius focal lengths and vintages, usable coverage is around 80 degrees at f22 and increases to about 90 degree in the f32 to f45 range. I've been deliberately vague here as this is based on my own personal criteria for "acceptable definition".

    So, Schneider publishes these outlandish 105 - 107 degree coverage claims and photographers start saying the Angulon has very dismal corner performance - it's soft at the edges, etc. Because, frankly, it does go soft in the corners, very soft, if you try to use the full 107 degree coverage (or even much more than 90 degrees). This isn't good for Schneider. It makes them look bad and hurts the reputation of their products. So, after WWII they start to gradually reduce the published specs on their Angulon series. By the 1960s, the published specs for the Angulon are a much more conservative 80 - 85 degrees at f22. The lenses still throw this huge circle of illumination, but the expecatations are now a lot more reasonable regarding the usable coverage of these lenses.

    In order to avoid this problem from recurring, sometime in the 1970s, Schneider started incorporating field stops into the deign of their general purpose taking lenses. They use the field stops to limit the circle of illumination to something at, or slightly larger, than the published coverage specs. So, with these field stops, they have set a hard limit on maximum possible coverage and have removed any ambiguity concerning what constituites "acceptable definition".

    So, back to the G Claron. It doesn't appear to have any field stops incorporated to limit maximum coverage. In this way, it's still a bit of an "old school" lens. Beyond the published coverage spec, the G Claron's performnce tapers off very gradually. And the performance at the extremes can indeed be improved by stopping down, thus effectively enlarging the circle of acceptable definition. Most photographers who use G Clarons consider the usable coverage to be about 80 degrees at f32, and maybe a couple degrees more if stopping down to f45 or f64.

    Another lens that apparently didn't incorporate field stops is the old 355/360mm Symmar (often called the Convertible Symmar). Older samples came in Compound or Ilex shutters, had an engraved focal length of 360mm and a maximum aperture of f5.6. I have a later sample (ca. 1971) that is engraved 355mm and has a maximum aperture of f6.8 (due to the physical limitations of the Copal No. 3 shutter). Schneider rated this lens to cover 70 degrees at f22. Like the G Claron, coverage continues to increase as you stop down. Like the 355mm G Claron, users have reported that these older Convertible Symmars cover 12x20 with a bit left over at small stops.

    When the original single coated Fujinon-W line debuted in the early 1970s, Fuji advertised 80 degrees of coverage. I suspect these lenses either had no field stops, or less restrictive field stops than their Schneider and Rodenstock contemporaries (Symmar-S and Sironar-N). When the newer multicoated Fujinon-W series (called NWS in the literature, but still labeled as Fujinon-W on the lenses) debuted around 1980, I have no idea if they incorporated field stops to limit maximum coverage. They did reduce the coverage claims in their published specs to a more conservative 72 degrees (more, or less, depending on focal length).

    I recently purchased one of these 1980s vintage 360mm multicoated f6.3 Fujinon-W lenses (like the one Emile has - I paid considerably more for mine, though). I haven't yet had a chance to test the coverage. Based on Emile's, and other, user reports, I'm sure it will cover 7x17 just dandy. How much more, I can't say. I'll find out eventually when I have chance to test it along with some of my other ULF lenses. I'm planning to add 14x17 as my next format. So, I want to see just how much my various lenses cover before deciding which to keep and which to sell.

    Kerry
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Rick Olson

    Rick Olson Member

    Messages:
    98
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    U.S. Pacific
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Kerry ... thanks. I have learned a great lesson this evening!
     
  16. Tri Tran

    Tri Tran Subscriber

    Messages:
    103
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Location:
    OC,Californi
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Hi Rick
    Which city are you in OC? I have the lens and it cover 8x20 wide open.Let me know if you want to check it out. I'm in Laguna Hills. Hope this helps. TT
     
  17. Rick Olson

    Rick Olson Member

    Messages:
    98
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    U.S. Pacific
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Hello Tri Tran ... Thanks. Which of the lenses discussed do you have? The Fuji 360, f-6.5, the Fuji 360, 6.3 or the G-Claron. I am in Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach. Perhaps we can discuss via PM. I am interested in your application of the lens.

    Thanks,
    Rick
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2007
  18. Tri Tran

    Tri Tran Subscriber

    Messages:
    103
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Location:
    OC,Californi
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Hi Rick,
    It's a CM W 360 6.5 MC latest model. Please check your PM for contact info.Thanks. TT
     
  19. sanking

    sanking Restricted Access

    Messages:
    4,813
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Location:
    Greenville,
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I used a 360mm 6.3 Fujinon-W for several years on 7X17. It gave plenty of coverage for this format, but covered slightly less than the 355 G-Claron. The 360mm Fujionon¡-W I had, which was one of the older ones, did not cover 12X20, thouugh it just missed.

    Sandy
     
  20. ReallyBigCameras

    ReallyBigCameras Advertiser

    Messages:
    523
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Sandy,

    When you say your 360mm Fujinon-W was "one of the older ones", are you referring to one of the REALLY old single coated models from the 1970s? Or, do you mean one of the EBC multicoated ones from the 1980s that pre-dates the current CM-W models?

    The easiest way to tell which you have is the location of the lettering on the front cell. Inner lettering, like on the 420mm Fujinon-L shown below, indicates single coated.

    [​IMG]

    Outer lettering, as shown on the 360mm Fujinon A below, indicates EBC multicoating.

    [​IMG]

    The one I have, is the EBC multicoated version. It is in a factory Copal No. 3 shutter with the chrome ring and definitely multicoated.

    The reason I ask is the early single coated models were advertised with 80 degrees of coverage. When the newer, EBC multicoated NWS versions came out, the advertised coverage for most focal langths was reduced and the designs of the shorter focal lenths changed from the standard 6/4 plasmat configuration to either 6/5 or 6/6 construction. I'll have to check all my old Fujinon brochures to see if/when the 360mm f6.3 Fujinon construction ever changed.

    If, indeed, the multicoated version of the 360mm f6.3 Fujinon-W covers nearly 12x20, it has a few advantages, on the 7x17 (and posibly 8x20) formats over the 355mm G Claron and 355/360mm Convertible Symmar. For one, it is multicoated. Compard to the G Claron, it is a stop faster and not much bigger (86mm filters vs. 77mm filters). This also makes it considerably smaller than the 355/360mm Convertible Symmar (86mm vs. 105mm filters). And while it may sell for a little more than the Convertible Symmar, at typical selling prices ~$300 - $350 less than a comparable condition G Claron, it's a true bargain among shutter-mounted, multicoated ULF lenses. Most of the ones I've seen for sale recently have been priced in the $499 - $549 range - compared to ~$799 - $899 for a shutter-mounted G Claron.

    Kerry
     
  21. sanking

    sanking Restricted Access

    Messages:
    4,813
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Location:
    Greenville,
    Shooter:
    Large Format

    Kerry,

    It was definitely one of the older ones, single coated and made in the late 1970s. I owned a 180mm version of the older lens and I am fairly certain it would cover 80 degrees, but the 360mm specimen definitely did not cover that much. I figure it was more like 75-77 degrees because it takes about 79 degrees to cover the 12X20 format and the one I had definitely missed. I thought I read somewhere that the longer versions of this lens, i.e. 360mm and 480mm, had slightly less coverage in degrees than the shorter ones, but I can not find the referene.

    Sandy
     
  22. ReallyBigCameras

    ReallyBigCameras Advertiser

    Messages:
    523
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Sandy,

    I just went back and checked through my stack of old Fujinon brochures. From what I can tell, other than the coatings, there was no change to the design from the orignal 360mm f6.3 Fujinon-W until the 360mm f6.5 CM Fujinon-W was introduced in the mid-1990s.

    The original Fujinon-W line, introduced in the early 1970s were single coated and advertised to cover 80 degrees at f22. Very early literature shows the coverage of all focal lengths from 135mm - 360mm to be 70 degrees wide open and 80 degrees at f22. A brochure I have from July, 1973 lists the image circle of the 360mm f6.3 Fujinon-W as 608mm at f22. By March of 1976, this figure had been reduced to 485mm (but the angular coverage was still listed as 80 degrees).

    Starting around January 1979, the shorter members of the Fujinon-W line were redesigned. At that time, the EBC multicoated NWS line was introduced. A brochure dated January, 1979 includes both the older single coated WS line and several new NWS models. In the NWS series, the 135mm, 150mm and 180mm focal lengths were 6/6 construction. The 210mm NWS was a 6/5 design and the 250mm f6.3 was a 6/4 plasmat type. Coverage of the 6/6 designs was listed as 76 degrees. The 6/5 210mm design was rated to cover 71 degrees and the 250mm f6.3 model had only 64 degrees of coverage.

    The two longer focal lengths, 300mm and 360mm, continued to be called W (or WS). They were now EBC multicoated, but continued to be groupd with the older, sngle coated WS line. Other than the coating change, the specs remained unchanged. Still, a 485mm mage circle and an incorrect 80 angular coverage. These specs remained unchanged until September, 1984 when someone finally noticed that the 485mm image circle spec didn't correlate with the claimed 80 degree coverage. At that time, the angular coverage was changed to 68 degrees to match the rated image circle. These specs, and the lens construction remained the same through the the mid-1990s when the NWS Fujinon-W line was discontinued and replaced by the current CM Fujinon-W line.

    So, as far as I can tell, prior to the introduction of the CM-W line, there were no design changes to the 360mm f6.3 Fujinon-W. Specs caged, but they seem to be for the purpose of correcting errors, rather than reflecting actual design changes. Fujinon literature from the 1980s is full of errors. In one brochure I have from 1982, someone manually glued little tiny correction slips in several boxes in the specification tables to correct printed errors.

    So, I'm hopeful that my multicoated 360mm f6.3 Fujinon-W will cover just as much as your older, single coated model. Based on Emile's report, it sounds like it might. In any case, it will cover at least 7x17 just based on the manufacturer's specs. Perhaps the usable coverage will be a bit more, maybe enough for 8x20 straight on, which would give me a bit of head room for movemens on 7x17.

    Kerry
     
  23. Rick Olson

    Rick Olson Member

    Messages:
    98
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    U.S. Pacific
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Kerry ... sure makes buying one of these Fuji lenses a little challenging with all of the different degree measures, images circles, etc.

    Rick
     
  24. ReallyBigCameras

    ReallyBigCameras Advertiser

    Messages:
    523
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Rick,

    It was for this very reason I started collecting Fuji brochures several years ago and created my unofficial Fujinon LF lens pages. I also wrote a more detailed (and more up-to-date article on Fujinon lenses for View Camera. I think it was published in the Nov/Dec 2001 issue, but I'd have to check to be sure.

    Fuji hasn't had an official US dstributor for their LF lenses since the late 1980s. With the new global economy and dealers like Badger Graphic and Midwest Photo Exchange, you can easily get new Fuji LF lenses, but information on older Fuji lenses is hard to come by.

    Kerry
     
  25. sanking

    sanking Restricted Access

    Messages:
    4,813
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Location:
    Greenville,
    Shooter:
    Large Format

    The same challenges exist with lenses by other manufactuerers when the issue is ULF. Virtually all lens manufacturers give coverage at f22 for projection type printing where several magnifications are involved. For ULF works, where we normally would never enlarge more than about 2X, one can generally use all of the circle of illumination (if you stop down enough), which is usually way more than stated coverage.

    Another thing you have to take into consideration is that while the lens itself may provide X amount of coverage shutter mounting may reduce this coverage. In theory a 14¨Dagor should cover 12X20 with an inch or two of movements, but in practice many don´t. In fact, I have even seen a 16.5¨Dagor that would not cover 12X20.

    Sandy King
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2007
  26. Rick Olson

    Rick Olson Member

    Messages:
    98
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    U.S. Pacific
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Sandy ... is there some type of factor or estimate for getting the estimated "full" image circle compared to what is published by the manufacturer at f-22? The Fuji 360mm that I have at the top of this thread has an image circle at 485 at f-22. What might I expect the "full" circle to be? What type of shutters might limit the circle? Is that called mechanical vignetting? Are the Copal 1 shutters less prone to this due to their larger size?

    Thanks,
    Rick