Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,499   Posts: 1,543,187   Online: 1180
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    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
    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

  2. #22
    Rick Olson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    U.S. Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    96
    Images
    9
    Kerry ... sure makes buying one of these Fuji lenses a little challenging with all of the different degree measures, images circles, etc.

    Rick

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Olson View Post
    Kerry ... sure makes buying one of these Fuji lenses a little challenging with all of the different degree measures, images circles, etc.

    Rick
    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

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Olson View Post
    Kerry ... sure makes buying one of these Fuji lenses a little challenging with all of the different degree measures, images circles, etc.

    Rick

    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 sanking; 01-17-2007 at 01:02 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #25
    Rick Olson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    U.S. Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    96
    Images
    9
    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

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Olson View Post
    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
    The actual circle of illumination varies a lot even when we compare lenses of the same design, i.e. dagors, plasmats, etc. However, virtually all plasmats are capable of at least 70 degrees of coverage, and most are capable of 77 degrees or slightly more. However, the only factor I am aware of that you can use to determine actual coverage at the extreme limits for ULF work is the human factor, i.e. experience.

    I am not personally familiar with the Fujinon L lens. Is this a tessar or plasmat type lens. If it is a tessar type the coverage should be less than for the plasmat type -W series, but it still should be enough to cover 7X17 with a couple of inches of movement.

    Sandy King



    Sandy King

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shenadoah Valley
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    342
    Images
    4
    "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."

    Shutter mounting lenses does not change the lens image circle if done to the proper lens spacing pecs. If the lens spacing is altered this can and will effect the size of the image circle and cause other problems with abberations.

    If you have a lens shutter mounted and the image circle is altered then most likely the lens spacing has not been properly matched to the original spec. I think commonly extreme wide angle lenses are spaced very tightly and when you shutter mount them this tight spacing might not be possible in a shutter mount, the lens spacing is altered thus effecting the lens image circle. Shutter mounting a lens alone should not have any effect on the image circle if done properly.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    994
    (Front-mounting can substantially reduce the image circle, where the shutter clips the light path, just to avoid confusion.)

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Graham View Post
    (Front-mounting can substantially reduce the image circle, where the shutter clips the light path, just to avoid confusion.)
    Spacing that is too wide can definitely reduce coverage wtih wide angle designs. A shutter opening that is too small can also cause the lens to vignette, either with front mounting as above, or with regular mounting.

    Sandy King

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shenadoah Valley
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    342
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    Spacing that is too wide can definitely reduce coverage wtih wide angle designs. A shutter opening that is too small can also cause the lens to vignette, either with front mounting as above, or with regular mounting.

    Sandy King
    You are right a front mounted lens can get cut off by the shutter and vignette but only under very rare circumstances will a shutter vignette with a normal type mounting and only if if gets in the way of the lens or blocks the optics or some other rare circumstance. Perhaps a hypergon or a very long lens that is slowed down if f-opening by the shutter. These are rare circumstances but yes it can happen but not normally with regular lenses.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin