Fuji lens quality

  I agree; he's been very helpful on this and other forums for years, before the general public had ever heard of the internet,  without simply doing advertising and despite
the endless grousing of some. Much better to have good information about some products than no information at all.
  And on that topic, let's note that we've had reps from some other major manufacturers and distributors drop in here and then leave in disgust. A Mamiya guy gave up
because some demanded that he prove in some way that he worked for Mamiya; the fact was that Mamiya wasn't paying him to participate so he quite rightly did
something else with his time and money.

  Bob also used to identify himself in a signature.  Its missing from
the last post.  Perhaps he got yelled at for being too commercial for
having it.  Now he is being yelled at for _not_ having it there.  
  I agree with Steve that Bob does a good job of looking out for his
clients and posting usually useful information here.
  We also used to have reps for Ilford and Kodak drop in, I think they
got fed up with the bloody mindedness of some participants and left.



---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickb @ix.netcom.com

In article <6lpb2c$9a @news.ncal.verio.com>, Gary Helfrich

This was also my conclusion when deciding between the Fuji 617 and Linhof617
panorama cameras. Optical quality of the Fujinon lens is surprisingly good (I
admit it's not quite as good as my schneider medium format glass, but image
quality is very close to that of my 180 and 300 tele-xenars; my guess was
that the Linhof was about the same (although the Linhof clearly has better
workmanship/precision machining).

--Jim

Bob Salomon is widely known as the rep for HP Markenting (Linhof,
Rodenstock, etc) and his opinions naturally reflect his  pride and interest
in these products. Its most likely that its a situation that "everyone
knows" and easy to presume that.

Conversely, if someone like Bob is too upfront about their commercial
affiliation then there devolves a long thread about gratuitous advertising.

I think Bob does an excellent job of handling the questions he is good at,
and sharing his authoritative product knowlege with a minimum of gratuitous
promotion.

     ---      S.K. Grimes -- Feinmechanik    ----
         --Machine work for photographers
             http://www.skgrimes.com
                    (updated 6-6-98)

Everyone needs to be aware of the fact that Mr. Salomon works for HP Marketing,
which does not sell Fuji lenses. I would guess, although I don't know and don't
care to take the time to find out, that HP Marketing is the distributor of
Rodenstock lenses. Hence the reference only to Rodenstock lenses and not to any
other modern lenses. Some persons who work in the business and participate in this
group make a disclaimer at the beginning of their messages (e.g. the individual
who works for Jobo and whose name escapes me). They are thus very upfront about
their commercial affiliations. Mr. Salomon is not. The only way you can tell of
his employment by HP Marketing is by looking at the "orgainization" line in his
messages. This doesn't mean his views are worthless, only that you need to take
them with the proverbial grain of salt.

You should note that, while it isn't obvious from his message, Mr. Salomon works
for HP Marketing, which doesn't sell Fuji lenses. I would guess, without knowing
or feeling like taking the time to check, that HP Marketing is the
importer/distributor for Rodenstock. Some persons who are employed in the business
and who participate in this newgroup, such as the Jobo person whose name I don't
remember, always begin their messages by stating that they work for such and such
a company and so their comments should be read with that in mind. Mr. Salomon
chooses not to do that. The only way you can tell of his employment is by looking
at the "organization" line in his message.

Bob is right in stating that without side by side / identical situation
testing, all that is said should be considered with *a grain of salt*!!
What hasn't been discussed in detail is what to look for in such a lens
test.

I (like sooooooo many others) started in large format as an AA wantabe.  I
was a serious mountain climber.  Weight of gear was VERY important.  I
decided to purchase the 210mm and 120mm Osaka lenses, because they were so
small and light.  These are basically modern copies (coated) of Kodak
Commercial Ektars.  They also came with a money back guarantee, and I had
a big commercial job with a big budget that week.

I received the two Osaka lenses, and also rented a 120 Super Angulon and a
210 Symar-S.  As the client wasn't on site, I was able to shot a few of
the scenes with both lenses, at different apertures.  I enlarged a few of
these to 16x20, and checked all the transparencies with a high powered
loupe.

Bottom line.....Ron Wisner is correct in his many magazine articles....
any half decent normal lens looks identical to the best brand new modern
glass... at about F16 or smaller.... on a real print (versus test bench).
Diffraction takes over, end of story!

Note that I am talking about "normal" lenses (about 90mm to 360mm on 4x5
film).  Extreme wide angle lenses of older designs usually have resolution
problems that closing down won't solve.  Extremely long lenses of older
designs often have "focus shift" problems (perversely, stopping down makes
this worst).  Then there is the "fun stuff", older lenses not meant to be
sharp... soft focus Wollensaks and others.  Great effects not available in
modern glass.

So.... in all of this "mine is better than yours" discussion... ask what
YOU NEED in a lens????  Do you shoot at F11 or F8 often??  Then by
modern.  Do you shot into bright light sources often (the sun)??  Then buy
modern enough to get multi-coated glass.  Do you use EXTENSIVE camera
movements (this will eliminate 99% of the nature shooters)??  Then check
the coverage specs of the lens, some older lenses are great, but few rival
the newest offerings.  Do you need to backpack with your gear??  Few
modern lenses are close to as light as older lenses.  Use/test/rent a lens
before purchase if at all possible!  This is important with older lenses,
as quality control was far less tight.  That is how to chose a lens, not
listening to others claim "mine is better than yours".

P.S. If i had it to do over again, I would by the Rodenstock Sironar S
line.  I'm no longer an "AA wantabe", have grown older and only backpack
with my Pentax 67.  I now shoot 90% table top.  The extra coverage on
these modern lenses now seems a better option than the light weight of the
Osaka lenses ;-(  My prints wouldn't be "sharper", but being able to
adjust the lens rather than the subject or my location would make my life

Mr. Salomon,

Being one person (two, actually, counting Kerry Thalmann) who _has_ tested and
_published_ findings HEAD to HEAD against other manufacturer's lenses I can say the
difference IS NOT VERY OBVIOUS!!!

Check it out at:  http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/ testing.html

In case you don't have the time to go visit that site you might be interested to
note that at f/22 135mm lenses tested the same or very similarly.  Kerry and I
tested two Kodak Wide Field Ektars, a couple Nikkor 135 W's and one of your much
vaunted APO Sironar-S.

When I read the results all I have as a reference is a number and an f-stop.  I
don't know which lens I'm reading.  This is done intentionally so I WILL NOT
influence the test results.  The entire test would be invalid if I were to "fudge"
a reading on, say, a Congo lens vs. an Angulon.

Testing one lens fails to prove the entire lot as good or bad.  However, given the
growing list of lenses that Kerry and I have so far tested I feel confident our
results will be matched in many additional cases.

Your Rodenstock APO Sironar-S _is_ a fine lens.  Don't get me wrong.  Please.
HOWEVER, there's the matter of a little 135mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar that
I personally own that tests better at f/11 and f/16 than the APO Sironar...

If you would care to call me and talk about this, my number is found below.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Best Regards,
    Christopher M Perez - Engineer IV
    Email - Christopher.M.Pe @TEK.COM
    Tektronix, Inc., Video Network Displays(VND)
 phone - (503) 627-4767 ****************************** fax - (503) 627-1137
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

: You have a glib way of passing on incorrect information.

: My point was to stop accepting blanket statements from people who apparently
: had not actually tested or compared lenses and to try and decide for
: yourself.

In an earlier post, Bob Solomon wrote:

(Referring to older Fujinon -W series lenses vs modern glass)
: There is a big difference in lens performance that would be very obvious
: to someone who takes the time, trouble and expense to compare lenses
: head to head.                                                            

As I requested earlier, can you please post the information that backs up
your statement that there is a "big difference in lens performance"
between the -W Fuji lenses and what is being offered currently?  All I am
attempting to do here is to hold you to your own standards.  If you are
going to make a statement that -W Fuji lenses are inferior to current
lenses, including second tier suppliers such as Congo, you should be able
to back your statement up with facts.  I for one will be very interested
to see proof that Congo lenses are superior to -W Fujis.  

Unlike some people, I could care less what name is on a lens.  I am
genuinely interested in information that would show that Congo lenses are
better performers than Fujinon -W lenses.  Some real money could be saved
here.  For that matter, how does the Congo stack up against an older
Rodenstock design like the Sironar -N.

Gary Helfrich

        I have only owned one fuji lens, the 360 It was the latest design about ten
years ago so I do not know it's complete designation. I eventually switched to
the sironar n lenses and used them for many years.  I felt that the 360 sironar
N  was superior to the 360 fuji I had owned.  I have since switched to sinar,
and in order to use the expolux and auto aperture shutters, have switched to
the sinaron lenses, which are actually rodenstocks. The sinarons that I own are
the latest rodenstocks, the S series ( sinar calls them SE) and I find them
greatly superior to the older N series.
        Some people claim that they can not see a difference and maybe that's true for
them, but I can easily see the difference between my work done with the N
sironars and the S sironars ( sinarons). For me the added expense was well
worth it.

You have a glib way of passing on incorrect information.

<< (if of course you ignore the lens separation problems Rodenstock had a
few years back :->>

The thread concensus seemed to indicate that these lenses were 2 to 3
decades old. Hardly simply "a few years back"

My point was to stop accepting blanket statements from people who apparently
had not actually tested or compared lenses and to try and decide for
yourself.

You might also note that I said <<>> Then how would you know if they were as
good as a modern Rodenstock Apo Sironar N or S or the Apo Symmar?>>>

The last lens is not a Rodenstock. It is a Schneider which we don't
distribute. I could have also added Congo, Doctor, Nikon, etc. The point is
to test lenses yourself. You are the one who is paying the money and using
the lens. Not someone who has used a lens for 20+ years and knows it is as
good without comparing them.

Bob
----------

Sorry, but I don't see any such statement.  He's merely suggesting
people stop making un supported statements without having even owned
the lenses they are evaluating for others.  

Sounds reasonable to me.
                R. Peters

In article <6lobm6$hq @camel19.mindspring.com>,
  "Bob Salomon" <ir004 @mindspring.com> wrote:

Come on Bob,

Most modern glass at shooting f-stops of f16 or f22 will resolve at pretty
close to the diffraction limit.  I know, I did the test on 6 of my lenses, one
of which was a 150 mm Fujinon-W.  If I hadn't put labels on the target I would
not have been able to tell the difference.  I got as much variation with the
same lens with different exposures as I did between different lenses.  So I
would pretty much conclude amoung the big 4 at 210mm there is not much
difference except price which I have found is easy to figure out (if of course
you ignore the lens separation problems Rodenstock had a few years back :-(
which you have pointed out has no relevance today, unless of course you own a
couple of these lenses :-( ).    Kirk

Fujion-W > In article <1998061104200400.AAA12 @ladder03.news.aol.com>,

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Then how would you know that they are not?  Please share any information
you have showing that the Fuji is inferior to the lenses you mention.

Have you?  If you have on-film resolution test results comparing the 210
Fujinon-W to the lenses you mention above, could you please post them
here so we can all draw our own conclusions.

Or are you simply saying that without having done a comparison that the
Fuji is somehow inferior to the lenses you recommend?

As someone who has recently taken the time, trouble and expense to do
just such a comparison, I will say that this is nothing but pure
fallacy.  There is a myth propagated by the photo equipment
manufacturers and press that unless you own the absolute latest and
greatest equipment you can't possibly produce a decent image.  Of
course, the equipment manufacturers and press (who depends on ad dollars
from the manufacturers) have a vested interest in perpetuating this
myth.  The myth becomes even more of a misconception as you move up in
format (where the degree of enlargement to the final print size becomes
smaller).

I will acknowledge that the new lenses perform better in the laboratory
examining the aerial image (and will have surperior MTF curves).  This
is especially true at wide f-stops.  However, on film, the differences
become much smaller.  Especially at normal working apertures (say f16 -
f32 for 4x5)  Even where there are differences on film, those
differences are not likely to be observable on the final print by the
unaided human eye.  

We have not completed our testing or published the complete results, but
based on what we have completed to date, there are a lot of 40 - 50 year
old lenses out there that are capable of delivering resolution on the
final print in excess of what can be detected by the unaided human eye.
Of course, resolution on the final print depends on the enlargement
factor.  If you never print any bigger than 4x (16x20 from 4x5), there
are very few lenses not up to the task.  If you print larger (say 8x -
30x40), a lot of the older (40 - 50 year old) lenses are not up to the
task (but some still are).  In many cases, it is not performance of the
taking lens that determines the limit of the enlargement for acceptable
quality.  It could be the resolution limit of the unaided human eye
observing the final print, or it could be the resolving capability of
the film used (or the grain size).  At small f-stops, it could be
diffraction.  Or, if you have a real stinker, it could be the taking
lens.

In any case, unless you shoot at wide apertures, print bigger than 8x,
view your prints through a loupe, or  prefer to observe aerial images,
the differences in lens performance that you will actually observe are
neither big nor obvious.

This brings us back to the original question.  The Fuji-W series is a
plasmat of fairly modern design and

Then how would you know if they were as good as a modern Rodenstock Apo
Sironar N or S or the Apo Symmar?

Had you compared them to the current lenses in a direct test of the same
image under the same conditions?

Or are you simply saying that without having done a comparison you were
simply satisfied with the quality of the lenses you owned and therefore saw
no need to see how you could improve the quality?

There is a big difference in lens performance that would be very obvious to
someone who takes the time, trouble and expense to compare lenses head to
head.
----------
In article <1998061104200400.AAA12 @ladder03.news.aol.com>,

: Then how would you know if they were as good as a modern Rodenstock Apo
: Sironar N or S or the Apo Symmar?

The implication in this statement seems to be that the current Rodenstock
lenses have a marked superiority to the Fuji -W lenses.  Can you support
this, or it is just speculation?

: There is a big difference in lens performance that would be very obvious to
: someone who takes the time, trouble and expense to compare lenses head to
: head.

I've compared the current Fuji 125 CM-W against a 135 Sironar -S. Same
camera, same subject, same lighting, etc. In most images, there was no
difference between the lenses, even under 100x magnifaction.  The
resolving power of both lenses seemed to be as good as the film (E100S)
could record.  The only time there was a difference was when the shot had
was taken into the sun or some other bright light source. In these images,
the Fuji was noticeable better, and you did not need a Nikon microscope to
see the difference.

I doubt that there is really much difference in optical performance
between the "Big Four" (Fuji, Schneider, Rodenstock, and Nikon).  Bob S
has made a pretty direct statement here that the Rodenstock lenses are
far superior to the competition.  I would like to see this backed up with
some facts other than an offer to send me some more Rodenstock propaganda.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Rodenstock lenses are world class.  As
are offerings by Schneider, Fuji and Nikon.  My point is that none of
these products has any advantage over the others, so why pay the extra
money for the Rodenstock?  I'd get the Fuji, and spend the money saved on
something useful like film or travel.

Gary Helfrich

How do they compare with Schneider Symmar, Rhodenstock Sironar, Nikon
W and Caltar II Symmetrical.

  I used to have a Fuji 210 f5.6 W lens (also a Fuji 90mm and 150mm). I sold
them when I sold my studio business after 22 years.
  The Fuji lenses were excellent. They made many excellent people and product
photos, many of which were reproduced in 4/c printed projects.
  Good stuff, as good or better than the rest of today's good glass. ...pt