Schneider vrs Fujinon for 6x9

[mark_muse]

I am trying to decide between a Schneider APO Symmar L 120mm �5.6 and a Fujinon

CM/W 105mm �5.6 to use as a normal lens on an Ebony 23S. I shoot mostly

landscapes in the eastern US.

 

Since I can't try before I buy I am looking for experience/info/insights. They both

provide ample coverage. They cost about the same. I am sure the 120 is heavier. One

bit of info that would really help is which would perform best for resolution at smaller

apertures. If it is any indication of meeting the mfgr spec, the Symmar is marked to

�64 while the Fujinon, I think, is marked to �45.

 

I am also looking at a used 65mm Super Angulon. Was this a good lens? Does it

require a center filter?

 

Any informed comment would be helpful.

 

Thanks in advance!

Mark Muse

[michael_briggs2]

Both the Apo-Symmar-L and the Fuji-CMW are such fine lenses that diffraction will be the dominant limitation of resolution from about f22 or f32 to smaller apertures (larger f-numbers). I think it unlikely that you will be able to tell the lenses apart by their resolutions at f32, f45 or f64.

 

The best answer as to whether the 65 mm Super Angulon requires a center filter is that needing a center filter is not a property solely of the len -- instead it depends on the lens, format (which you have specified), film, subject matter, and photographer's taste/judgement. The last factor we can't know -- the best answer is to try the lens and see whether you notice more falloff in illumination then you find acceptable.

 

A technical answer can be given from Schneider's datasheet (on their website) for the current 65 mm f5.6 Super-Angulon. Assuming that the diagonal of your negative is about 105 mm, and that as an example the lens is used centered and without movements, then you are using 62% of the radius of the image circle. Further assuming that the lens is used at f22 and focused at infinity, the top solid-line curve on the relative illumination graph shows that the corners of the film will receive about 45% of the illumination that the centers receive. Most photographers would probably find this easily tolerable, at least for negative film.

[doug_dolde]

Since you are in the focal range, why not get the incredible Super Symmar XL 110mm? If you ever decide to shoot 4x5 or 5x7 you can still use the lens. I use one for 4x5 and it's a beauty. Here's and image made with it.<div></div>

[george_hart1]

Mark: I shoot mainly 6x9 on your camera's bigger brother, the 45S. I have the 110XL but it's overkill for 6x9. I have replaced this as my "normal" lens for 6x9 work with the combination of 135/5.6 Apo-Sironar-S and 90/8 Nikkor-SW. These are a "long" and a "short" normal, equivalent to approx 40 mm & 61 mm in small format. Depends on how you "see" as to what you are happy with.

 

As to performance at small apertures, I think you'll find that once you get to f/22 and smaller, there is nothing to choose between most LF lenses.

 

Re: centre filters -- using rollfilm, I find that I don't need a centre filter even with my 55/4.5 Apo-Grandagon and transparency film. That's in contrast to 4x5 film, where I need a CF most of the time with my 75 mm lens.

[steven_dusk1]

Mark, if you are shooting rollfilm exclusively then don't rule out the Schneider 120/5.6 Digitar which has better resolution than the 110XL and can be used wide open successfully. In my experience, the 120 Digitar does not appear to be a flat field lens, but if you have successfully used process lenses in the past then it will not be an issue.

 

Be aware that diffraction becomes a serious problem for this format at anything past f/22. f/32 can be okay on occasion, but f/45 is always too soft.

 

As others have mentioned, try the 65 without the centre filter before parting with the cash. The centre filter for my 55 never goes with me any more...

[lars ake vinberg]

Mark - I used both the 120 Digitar and the 5.6/65 Super Angulon on 6x9.

 

The 120 Digitar is incredibly sharp, from wide open to small apertures. At f45-f64 it won't matter that much, though. Coverage is ample - it illuminates far more than the specified 150 mm IC. I use it with my SW23 for stitched panoramics resulting in 6x16 cm format. The Apo-Symmar will probably be equal at smaller apertures.

 

The 5.6/65 Super Angulon works well on 6x9. It does benefit from the use of a CF, but results can be acceptable without one, depending on the motive. Also, if final output will be digital then it is possible to simulate a center filter digitally. Still, especially with color transparency film the lens benefits from the use of a center filter. That has to be weighed against the hassle and cost of stepping up to larger and more expensive 86mm filter size.

[golliegwillie]

I own the Fujinon W 125mm f5.6 and it's an unbelievably sharp lens. When I view my transparencies through my Peak zoom loupe at the 16x magnification setting, the resolution is incredible- it's like the scene is right there in front of you and you're zooming in it. Any of my other lenses, including my 250mm Fuji which is favorite, show some level of image degradation with the loupe set at 16x, but not a well focused image with my fuji 125mm. It's clinically sharp- and I do shoot 6x9 rollfilm primarily.

 

Kerry Thalman actually revised his future classic list to include the Fuji 125mm CM-W version as a low cost (and lighter weight) alternative to the 120mm f5.6 Schneider Super Symmar HM, which he had previously proclaimed as best in class.

 

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm

 

One of the reasons he dismisses the 120mm APO Symmar is it's lack of coverage (only 179mm-not a problem for 6x9, but somewhat limiting if you decide to move up to 4x5). The CM-W 105mm has a similiar coverage limition- but again that won't be a problem for 6x9.

 

The 120mm f5.6 Schneider Super Symmar HM and 125mm f5.6 Fujinon CM-W have coverage of 211 and 204 respectively, making both more versatile lenses. The older "W" version of this lens (which what I have), also deserves some consideration, simply because it's even more lightweight at 125g and has similiar coverage at 198mm. Some comments about the "W" (or NWS version- Fujinon never printed NWS on the lens) are provided here:

 

http://www.greenspun.com/com/qtluong/photography/lf/lenses4x5.html

 

I paid $275 for mine and they are regularly available used for under $350 on Ebay, and often at Midwest Photo Exchange. The CM-W version goes for about $400-450 used and $650 new.

[golliegwillie]

Oh, as far as the 65mm Super Angulon for 6x9 goes, I own a Ilex 65mm f8 Acugon, which is based on the same lens design, and I have never felt any need for a center filter ( and I couldn't add one if I wanted to since the Ilex has no filter threads). I've never found it difficult to focus for 6x9, and I have never notice any vigneting in my final images. Just be sure to mask out the 4x5 area (if you are doing 6x9 on a 4x5 camera) because viewing a 65mm over a 4x5 area IS disorientating without a center filter.

 

I consider my Ilex 65mm to be a pretty good lens, but it suffers in comparison to my 125mm Fuji. I would expect similiar performance from the f8 65mm Super Angulon. To get a performance upgrade you're going to have to move up to a f5.6 model. Also avoid the Super Angulons in "00" compur shutters like the plague. One of the things I like about my Ilex is the smooth copal 0 it came in.

[leonard_evens]

I don't know if it is relevant, but I have a Horseman Technical Camera which uses 6 x 9 format. I have the Horseman 65 mm lens for that camera, and I've never felt the need for a center filter. 65 mm is not a specially short focal length for 6 x 9. For example, 90 mm for 4 x 5 has a larger angle of view.

[paul_owen]

Mark, the newer L versions are supposed to be the business.....but Fuji's are no slouches either! Difficult choice! I use the 65mm 5.6 Super Angulon and it is one of my favourite lenses! It is very useful with 6x12 and 6x9 but I also use it on 5x4 (granted with limited movement but even with a few mms of rise/fall the image is very sharp right to the edges/corners of the 5x4 negative. I can't imagine needing a CF for this lens. I can highly recommend it for 6x9! in fact there is a mint example at the moment on Ebay.uk!! (apologies if the advertising offends!)

[mark_muse]

Thank you, one and all. Very helpful!

 

Mark

[golliegwillie]

Apparently I might have over stated Kerry Thalmann's endorsement of the Fuji CM-W 125mm.

Here is the clarification I received from Kerry on Sat, August 9, 2003:

 

"Hi,

 

"Kerry Thalman actually revised his future classic list to include the Fuji 125mm CM-W version as a low cost (and lighter weight) alternative to the 120mm f5.6 Schneider Super Symmar HM, which he had previously proclaimed as best in class."

 

This is not 100% accurate. I did not revise my Future Classics list to include the 125mm Fujinon CM-W. I revised it to include the 110mm Super Symmar XL, the 135mm Planar T*, the 135mm APO Sironar-S, the 150mm Super Symmar HM, the 240mm Fujinon A, the 360mm Fujinon A and the 450mm Fujinon C. I do not consider the 125mm Fujinon CM-W to be a Future Classic (you will notice it is not shown in any of the photos, including the "group photo" at the top of the page). It is a very good lense, to be sure, but there are also other very good lenses not on my list of Future Classics. I only mentioned it as a clarification to my statement that the 120mm Super Symmar HM is the only lens in this focal length that it well suited to 4x5 use. Of course, the 125mm Fujinon CM-W is also well suited to 4x5 use, but that does not automatically make it a Future Classic in my book. I was just not aware of it at the time I made my original statements, and was mentioning it only as a clarification. Perhaps I should have been more clear. In any case, a very good lens, but not on my personal list of Future Classics. Perhaps I need to update my Future Classics page again to eliminate this confusion.

 

"The older "W" version of this lens (which what I have), also deserves some consideration, simply because it's even more lightweight at 125g"

 

This is also not accurate. I'm sure if you actually weigh your 125mm Fujinon W you'll find that it weighs far more than 125g (probably closer to 225g). The 125g was an obvious typo in the Fujinon literature that seems to have popoated to the point where it s now considered fact - even though it couldn't possibly be true (the shutter alone weighs nearly 125g, and I know of no lens in a Copal No. 0 that weighs less than 150g - the 100mm APO Symmar at 165g is about as light as it gets).

 

Kerry"