need help deciding: 240mm Symmar S or 250mm Fuji W

[jimsimmons]

This will be the final lens in my 4x5/6/7 kit to round out the 55/90/150 set

I'm using now. I'm honing in on a 240mm Schneider f/5.6 Symmar S or a 250mm

Fujinon f/6.3 W. My 150mm is a Symmar S and other than the smallish 210mm

image circle, it's very sharp and has great saturation. Other than having that

good experience, I can't decide. I think they both come in #3 shutters, and

they seem in photos to be about the same size (larger than I'd like!). Please

don't recommend a 240mm f/9 Fuji A or G-Claron. They cost more than I'm

willing to spend. I sunk big bucks into my 90mm SA-XL and 55mm Grandagon, so

the telephoto just isn't going to get that kind of $$ resources applied to it

(the 90 is my go-to lens; the 240/250 will be least used). Appreciate any

knowledgeable input.

[mark f]

Before I got to the end of the post, I was going to recommend the G-Claron partially because it was less expensive. I just checked KEH and they had both the Symmar and the G-Claron and the G-Claron was less money......I'd at least consider the G-Claron.

[jimsimmons]

I hear you, Mark, but I'm looking at a couple of 250mm Fujis from a reputable dealer that have good glass and an accurate shutter but with ugly cosmetics (my ideal standard!) for $199-249, which is what I lucked into paying for my 150mm Symmar S. But you're right - the 240mm Symmar S I'm looking at is more like $350-500, which is what a 240mm Fuji A seems to sell for these days. I guess I'm asking if I can get the Fuji 250mm, save some money, and still get a good sharp lens with decent saturation and constrast. If the answer is No, then I'll heed your advice.

[jon_wilson]

I have used the 240mm Schneider Symmar-S, the Fujinon 250mm f6.7, the 240mm g-claron, 240mm Graphic Kowa, and 240mm Docter Germinar-W f9

These are all great lens. The Symmar-S is in a copal 3, whereas the Kowa fits a copal 3s. I recently sold my Symmar-S.....very nice MC coated lens, but IMO large cells which require 77mm filters.

All of these lens will produce nice photographs and each of these definitely will cover through 8x10 if that is a future are of interest for you. I have found the 240mm G-claron as little as #450 in a barrel....they are a direct fit into a copal 1 shutter.

I am hard pressed as which is the best. For myself, I have kept my Funjinon 250mm f6.7, Docter Germinar-W 240mm f9 (both in copal 1 shutters) and really love my 240 Graphic Kowa f9.

Have fun deciding. It has been, and still is, a delimina for me. Jon

[michael_briggs2]

Fuji LF lenses are excellent. I don't think you should have any worries about sharpness,

contrast or color saturation. If I remember correctly, the f6.3 model of the 250 Fuji-W

replaced the f6.7 model. Probably all of the f6.3 versions are multicoated. AFAIK, an easy

way to identify multicoated Fuji LF lenses is to check that the lettering is on the

circumference of the barrel.

[scott_davis5]

Look for the Fuji 250 f6.7. It has a much larger image circle than the f6.3. The difference in speed between f6.7 and f6.3 is less than 1/4 stop, so for brightness on the groundglass it is imperceptible, and unless you're shooting chromes for publication, is probably well within the acceptable margin of exposure error. I have been very pleased with my Fuji LF lenses - I have the 250 f6.7 and a Fuji 300T f8 telephoto for my 4x5. Both are outstanding in terms of sharpness, contrast and color fidelity.

[michael_briggs2]

Fuji lists the coverage of the older 250 mm f6.7 as 398 mm diameter, of the middle aged

f6.3 as 312 mm diameter. I can't imagine ever running out of coverage with either lens with

4x5. So the extra coverage of the f6.7 model is a consideration only if you might someday

use a larger format. Also, you probably won't find the f6.7 version at a bargin price, because

the extra coverage makes it popular with 8x10 photographers.

[jovo]

Having just acquired a Fuji 250 f6.3 from KEH, I can assure you it's one honey of a lens. Though it was already stated above, it's worth reiterating that it comes in a Copal 1 shutter and isn't nearly as hefty as you may think. It has a 320mm image circle so it covers 4x5 handily, 5x7 well, but is a bit shy for 8x10 (which may be why it's so reasonably priced when purchased second hand.). In Excellent+ condition from KEH, it was less than one third of Badgergraphic's price for a new one, and is indistinguishible from LN condition to my eyes. I've shot eight sheets with it thus far with completely satisfactory results.

[richard baznik]

I have the Fuji 250 6.3 and it never disappoints. Good movements, sharp, and reasonably sized.

[jimsimmons]

I decided to get the Fuji 250mm. Ordered it from Jim at Midwest Photo this morning. 8+ condition for $249 with a recent model black Copal 1 shutter, excellent glass. I'm jazzed about getting it. Have a #1 shutter vs. a huge #3 shutter swayed my decision, but mostly it was the positive reviews by you folks that gave me permission to save the money from the Symmar. Thanks to all.

[tom_johnston4]

<p>I realize that this thread is very old but I was doing some research on the lenses in question when I found it and I would like to comment on a post made by Scott.</p>

<p>He wrote: <br>

<em><strong>"The difference in speed between f6.7 and f6.3 is less than 1/4 stop, so for brightness on the groundglass it is imperceptible, and unless you're shooting chromes for publication, is probably well within the</strong> <strong>acceptable margin of exposure error. "</strong></em><br>

Differences in the maximum aperture of lenses have nothing to do with exposure error, of course, and they do not introduce error. There is no "margin of error" involved here.</p>

<p> </p>