Fujinon-EP 3.5/50 vs Fujinon-ES 4/50 real world + Pancolar

[alex ph]

Reading discussions about enlarger lenses you might probably already encountered some arguments about "cheap" 4-glass Fujinon-ES 4/50, a "much better" 6-glass Fujinon-EP 3.5/50 and the "excellent" Fujinon-EX 2.8/50 with EBC coating. When I got the "cheap" ES, I was positively impressed by its performance. So when I later had a finer made EP I was pretty curious to see the difference which is not related to darkroom experience, but to real world photography. I took both for a walk in the grey light of these days, putting both on Sony Nex-5.

Here are some mixed results from both wide open:

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5



A more consecutive though non-scientific comparison, both lenses always WO. I bet you'd have the same difficulty as I had to say which one is which. To make it clear, the EP 3.5/50 goes first, the ES 4/50 follows.

#1b


#2b


#3b


#4b


#5b


#6b


#7b


#8b



100% unprocessed crops compared, always WO. The first goes the 6-element EP 3.5/50, the next is 4-element ES 4/50

#1c


#2c


#3c


#4c


#5c


#6c



Corner performance is one of the issues regularly discussed regarding the ES 4/50, as compared to the more complex EP 3.5/50. Here is an unprocessed crop from a ES corrner (first image), compared to a crop from the center of the same shot (the second image). Sorry, I don't have a brigter shot of the same subject. Still I think that even this one shows quite an even IQ throughout the field.





I'd say that both lenses perform eally close. Maybe the EP 3.5/50 is tad sharper, but I cannot event guarantee that having made all the shots handheld, while the light conditions were not at the best.

What intrigues me most is a merely absent difference in bokeh between the two, one of which is Tessar type and the other is Double Gauss.

[blotafton]

Nice to see some samples from these lenses. I was looking for a 50mm EX before but they are all i Japan it seems.

[alex ph]

Glad you appreciated. I've seen some EX copies from European sellers. The downside is that they are traded for 60-80, while you may find a perfectly conserved ES for 10-15 and a EP for 20-30.

[kds315*]

[alex ph]

[jamaeolus]

Very interesting. Very close indeed. Your efforts are appreciated.

[alex ph]

Thank you, Jamaeolus!

[alex ph]

Just to add another reference point, comparing Fujinons with one of the refined Double Gauss lenses, Pancolar 1.8/50 ("zebra" version). The same location, another day. You may wish to look at the corresponding pictures above.

Each shot is taken at f1.8 (WO) and at f2.8, to make it closer to the Fujinon-EP max aperture. And following this link you may compare the set with some more test shots taken with both Fujinon-EP and with Minolta C.E. Rokkor enlarger lenses.

#1 Pancolar 1.8/50 at f1.8, min focusing distance


#2 Pancolar 1.8/50 at f2.8


#3 Pancolar 1.8/50 bokeh at f1.8


#4 Pancolar 1.8/50 at f2.8


#5 Pancolar 1.8/50 at f1.8, a 100% unprocessed crop


#6 Pancolar 1.8/50 at f2.8, a 100% unprocessed crop - I could come closer for this shot than for the previous one, before the seagull ran away


#7 Pancolar 1.8/50 at f1.8, a 100% unprocessed crop


#8 Pancolar 1.8/50 at f2.8, a 100% unprocessed crop


Opposed to the Fujinons, Pancolar improves sharpness, contrast and corner performance with each next step of the iris closed down. While Fujinons do not change much, just OOF shapes become better pronounced.

I'd say the results are of little surprise. Pancolar renders the image airier, with better sharpness at infinity than Fujinons, beyond the WO. Meanwhile Fujinon-EP is clearly sharper across the field and thus renders the image flatter in some way.