PDA

View Full Version : Lens Reputations- Are We Kidding Ourselves?



Brian Vuillemenot
8-Jan-2007, 19:14
Frank Petronio's post of earlier today about not being able to get even the value of the Copal #3 shutter that his 240 Caltar-IIN came attached to on E-Bay got me thinking. I just received a beautiful mint 210 Caltar-IIN lens, also from the aution site, for a mere $205. The same lens, if it had the words "Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N" on it and was new, would have sold for more than 4 times as much ($964.95 from B&H). The 210 Apo-Sironar-S would have set me back six times as much!

Since I've been watching this forum, I've seen several lens lines become legendary, most notably the Apo-Sironar-S and Super-Symmar-XL series. However, it seems like no one on here can ever come to any definitive conclusion whether or not these lenses are worth the sustantial premiums under real world (key words) shooting conditions. Don't get me wrong, I frequently use and love several lenses from these series, but I'm beginning to wonder how much of the reputation is real and how much is just a combination of techno-geekery, OCD, paranoia, and "keeping up with the Jonses". I mean, if I had paid over $1200 for an Apo-Sironar-S as opposed to the $200 for the Caltar-IIN, would the difference be worth the extra thousand dollars? Any thought, comments, or observations?

John Kasaian
8-Jan-2007, 19:27
FWIW, I'd prefer to be known for taking legendary photographs rather than for using legendary lenses.

I know for a fact that I can take some pretty miserable photographs with some well respected lenses!

BrianShaw
8-Jan-2007, 19:32
In many ways we probably are kidding ourselves. I like the way John expressed it.

Another way some folks kid themselves is thinking that old (or not so old, even) photographic equipment is worth the sum of the total value of the parts. :D

Ted Harris
8-Jan-2007, 19:36
OK, call it BS becaue it is not something I can quantify but I do know that there is a certain snap/feeling/aura ... call it what you will to the images from the 110XL, same from the 135 Sironar S and the 150 W ... I can't put a finger on it, I can't quantify it and it happened with the very first images from these lenses. Not to say that every exposure I have made with them was spectacular because that isn't the case for sure. I suspect though that if I went throigh the keepers shot for myself as opposed to for a client over the past 5-6 years when I have owned these lenses a preponderance of them would have been made with those three and the Fujinon 300A.

And all forgive me for opening the Pandora's Box of mythical lens discussions. That is not my intent but there are differences in optics.

Oren Grad
8-Jan-2007, 19:39
Brian, I use a 210 Apo-Sironar-S as my normal for 6.5x8.5, and routinely crank the front standard of my Eastman up to the limit of its coverage.

So yes, for me it's definitively worth every penny compared to the N, under real world shooting conditions.

Frank Petronio
8-Jan-2007, 19:44
One thing I've learned is that you can spend $2000 on a beautiful Leica Summilux ASPH and still have the 35mm image quality be blown away by a $100 6x6 Seagull.

Or the 4x5 from your precious 110XL blown away by that ratty old 8x10 brassy...

Marko
8-Jan-2007, 19:48
Don't get me wrong, I frequently use and love several lenses from these series, but I'm beginning to wonder how much of the reputation is real and how much is just a combination of techno-geekery, OCD, paranoia, and "keeping up with the Jonses". I mean, if I had paid over $1200 for an Apo-Sironar-S as opposed to the $200 for the Caltar-IIN, would the difference be worth the extra thousand dollars? Any thought, comments, or observations?

Absolutely. Satisfaction is priceless. Provided, of course, that money is not an issue.

But for those of us who have to ask the question, the answer is already there.

If you're still in doubt, make two identical pictures, one with rented high end lens and the other with the "budget" lens. Make everything identical, including the final prints. Annotate the prints on the back with the lens model and put them away for a week. Then take them out without looking at the annotations and try to guess which one is which.

And don't forget to let the Jonses take their guess too. It's them you're doing all this for anyway, because you already know the answer, don't you? :)

Brian Vuillemenot
8-Jan-2007, 19:55
Brian, I use a 210 Apo-Sironar-S as my normal for 6.5x8.5, and routinely crank the front standard of my Eastman up to the limit of its coverage.

So yes, for me it's definitively worth every penny compared to the N, under real world shooting conditions.

Yes, of course it is worth it if the other lens won't cover your format. But if the coverage is sufficient between the two, as is the case for 4X5, is it worth the $1000 difference?

Brian Vuillemenot
8-Jan-2007, 19:59
"If you're still in doubt, make two identical pictures, one with rented high end lens and the other with the "budget" lens. Make everything identical, including the final prints. Annotate the prints on the back with the lens model and put them away for a week. Then take them out without looking at the annotations and try to guess which one is which."

Hi Marko,

I'm not talking about a "budget" lens here, except for the price. When the topic comes up, most of the posters on this forum claim that there is no real-world difference between the Apo-Sironar-S and -N lenses when used on 4X5 under almost all conditions. And the $1000 saved will buy a lot of quickloads...

naturephoto1
8-Jan-2007, 20:10
Certainly the need, usage ultimate print size, image usage, and budget are of prime consideration. For certain applications including landscape, travel, hiking a distance from a vehicle the size, weight, portability are all of prime consideration for lens selection. Obviously lenses used in the studio for product photography, architecture, portraiture have different requirements.

Rich

Oren Grad
8-Jan-2007, 20:13
Yes, of course it is worth it if the other lens won't cover your format. But if the coverage is sufficient between the two, as is the case for 4X5, is it worth the $1000 difference?

Yes, if you can afford it; no, if you can't. ;)

Marko
8-Jan-2007, 20:47
Hi Marko,

I'm not talking about a "budget" lens here, except for the price. When the topic comes up, most of the posters on this forum claim that there is no real-world difference between the Apo-Sironar-S and -N lenses when used on 4X5 under almost all conditions. And the $1000 saved will buy a lot of quickloads...

If you are in a position to notice, it will buy even more regular sheet film.

And most lenses made over the last 50 years or so are better than most photographers born in the same period anyway.

:)

Christopher Perez
8-Jan-2007, 22:00
Brian,

If you can use or need the coverage of the more expensive lenses, then it's worth the price of admission.

If, OTOH, you know the limits of your lenses and those limits meet or exceed your needs, then many lenses built for LF use over the past 50 or 60 years will suffice.

When making fabulous images, the limiting factors are seldom lens design or implementation (except, again, in the case of coverage). Rather, the limits are our imaginative abilities to produce wonderful images. :)


... I've seen several lens lines become legendary, most notably the Apo-Sironar-S and Super-Symmar-XL series. However, it seems like no one on here can ever come to any definitive conclusion whether or not these lenses are worth the sustantial premiums under real world (key words) shooting conditions...

David Karp
8-Jan-2007, 22:21
I was looking at some Weston photographs the other day. I have to go out and get a Rapid Rectilinear. ;)

Seriously, I think that if you can afford it, there is no reason not to have the best glass for your application. Whether it is the extra image circle you will need, or something that you can't explain about the lens that is important to you, by all means take advantage of it.

On the other hand, it is true that outstanding, even monumental, images were made with lenses far less sophisticated than the ones most of us use today. So personally, I don't worry about having the newest, most sophisticated super lens.

I can't afford a 110XL, so I use a 125mm Fujinon W. I can't afford a 150mm APO-Sironar-S, so I use a 150mm Fujinon W. Sure, it would be nice to have a bigger image circle, but given my budget, I have put together a bunch of very nice used lenses, many of them based on the state of the art in the 1980s, and they are plenty good for me. Our predecessors in the early and mid 20th century would have lusted over these lenses. And even so, many of my best photos were taken with my simplest (and first) lens, a 210mm Caltar branded, Rodenstock-manufactured triplet. (Lets see if I do any better with that focal length now that I have a new (used) Caltar branded Rodenstock-manufactured Plasmat.)

Eric Leppanen
8-Jan-2007, 23:16
The modern wonder-optics (if I am using Christopher Perez's term correctly) frequently offer not only improved coverage but also improved flare resistance. The aforementioned SSXL series, in addition to their excellent coverage-to-weight ratios, are also some of the most flare resistant lenses I have tested. The updated Cooke XVa also has superb flare resistance, even better than that of my APO Sironar S. Since I like making cliched sunrise and sunset shots, modern lenses can make all the difference between a successful or failed shot. A lens hood can help an uncoated or single-coated lens produce excellent results in many cases, but it doesn't help when you shoot directly into the sun.

Wonder-optics in some cases also provide better edge sharpness and, for color shooters, improved resistance to chromatic aberration when extreme movements are applied. They can be a bit more idiot-proof (e.g., a multi-coated optic will be more forgiving if you forget to bring the lens hood along, etc.). That being said, all these additional capabilities typically cover exception cases for the average photographer, providing a benefit maybe 5-10% of the time. So if you have the cash lying around, take the wonder optics and run! But they are hardly a prerequisite for stunning photography if you can't afford them.

Of course the Caltar series has a branding problem: almost no one knows what a Caltar is, and almost no one has any motivation to find out, regardless of how good the glass is. Just be sure you're not the poor sap to have purchased it new (and who will bear the brunt of lost resale value), and you'll come out just peachy, right? What's wrong in selling a Caltar cheap if you bought it cheap? :)

John Kasaian
8-Jan-2007, 23:29
Wait long enough and probably every LF lens will be considered "legendary" :rolleyes:

Ed K.
9-Jan-2007, 01:26
Most 210 lenses are pretty darned good. The wider ones tend to show off their maker a bit more. Also, if your format of the day uses the 210 as a wide angle, getting close to the coverage limits, the differences show up more. I woudn't be surprised to learn that your new Caltar is a good lens. As it is a Caltar, at least it won't get Schneideritis ( but Calcreep? ).

Many posts here have referred to a new tripod as the sharpest new lens. What of film types, processing, film flatness and the rest? There are probably many variables. Lenses all do have their characters. If you find one that pleases you, then who cares who made it or what you paid for it unless its an "investment"?

One of my favorite lenses for 4x5 in terms of image quality is a 135mm Rodenstock APO Sironar N. It's not an expensive or large lens, and coverage isn't that much either, but it sure has something magical about images made with it - they just snap. I own the 210 Sinaron S, which I hear is in reality a Rodenstock APO Sironar N. It's just a great lens for 4x5 and I wouldn't bother looking for anything else - it's probably sharper than most of the film I shoot. For the ways I use my 210, I don't miss the extra coverage on 4x5. Same goes with the 135. But for my 90, I got a lens with a lot of coverage because I hate center filters and somehow, I always need a lot of coverage.

It seems that faster lenses, as well as lenses that have more coverage and multicoatings bring the money. After that, perhaps brands matter. Many of the Schneider lenses have desireable specs. If the type of shooting you do doesn't need the costly extra coverage or whatever, and you like the results you get, not much else really matters.

It's easy to get stuck in the lens envy thing too. Sometimes, the "wunder lens" isn't really all that hot when put to one's own personal shooting. I have a Fujinon 240-A, which is generally loved and regarded as a must have. It's good, but really, it's nothing very special and it's not even as sharp as my lowly Sinaron 210. But, it does fill a slot in the kit when needed, and well, it works. I also have a Fujinon 360 6.3 that nobody seems to think is a good lens. For 8x10, it is a real favorite for great color and hair-splitting, distortion free sharpness and joy. I'll never, ever, sell it. So silly me, I absolutely love a lens that has no brand mix status! Maybe the Caltars vary more than others, but all lenses vary from specimen to specimen.

Post back to let us know how your new lens works out!

John O'Connell
9-Jan-2007, 07:00
It never made any sense to me why anyone would prefer the Sironar-N or -MCs to the Caltars. The lenses are exactly the same, but the buy-in cost is higher with the Sironar. And there is no objective performance advantage to the -Ns or -MCs or Caltars versus other lenses--every manufacturer makes a 72-degree multicoated plasmat.

The only time I can see paying extra for the 75-degree coverage of the -S series is when the -N is marginal for the format, like with the 210 Sironar-N or -MC and the 8x10 format. The 3 degrees would allow some movements.

I also don't think of run-of-the-mill Sironars as magical lenses. Some people claim that they have a better OOF rendition, which I kind of agree with but can't imagine anyone paying extra for. When you talk about lenses with reputations, I think of the Sironar-W series: 80+ degree plasmats designed as taking lenses. Or I think of the SSXL series: light, fast, wide. Or Series V Protars. All of these lenses have something that others don't, and are priced accordingly.

Ed Richards
9-Jan-2007, 07:36
Putting aside the magic bullet issue, I wonder how much of the lust for lenses is driven by how much of our lives are caught up in digital - putting aside any aesthetic questions, digital equipment is generic and disposable, and generates little love. Even beyond that, our appliances and everything else is now made just good enough, to last just long enough that we will not be too pissed when it breaks. LF lenses are like jewels by comparison.

BrianShaw
9-Jan-2007, 07:49
I was looking at some Weston photographs the other day. I have to go out and get a Rapid Rectilinear.

Funny you should say that...

I have a RR that I used once. I was totally impressed with it but then it found its way into the back of a drawer. A couple of months ago I bought a very clean, functioning Anniversary Graphic that came with an uncoated No 31 Kodak Anastigmat. Compared to my modern lenses I suspect it is a cheap piece-of-junk... but I think it is becoming my favorite lens.

I might even change my name to Edward! (I already use a Weston meter, so I'm halfway there...right?)

BrianShaw
9-Jan-2007, 07:52
Putting aside the magic bullet issue, I wonder how much of the lust for lenses is driven by ...

or, maybe jealosy. I tend to be rather conservative in my spending (okay... some folks call me CHEAP). But when I see other people posting about having one-of-every-lens/camera-ever-made (no offense intended, Ole), I too start looking at lenses I may or may not really need. Foortunately my wife is my concience and has a rather stringent test for "need".

Ernest Purdum
9-Jan-2007, 08:05
I think a lot of it depends on the photographs you intend to take.

If you make your living taking architectural photographs, you are going to have to spend lots of money.

If you take landscapes as a hobby, you can economize.

Ken Lee
9-Jan-2007, 08:32
It's not just the lens model that has it's own "mojo" - it can be the whole company as well. Some people love Leicas, others love Canons. Some like German lenses, others like Hasselblads. It's about more than just numbers and measurements. Cars are the same way.

On the other hand, one copy of a camera may be more "lucky" for you artistically than another, even though both appear to be identical copies.

Ask any musician about their instruments. Sure, a master can make great music on a piece of junk - but it's not uncommon for a serious musician to try out dozens of horns, violins, guitars, or even mouthpieces, before they find "the one". I imagine that the same is true for painters with their brushes, or sculptors with their tools.

Although our education encourages us to do so, there's no need to pin these things down, like we might pin down a butterfly. When we do, we kill it, and it's no longer a butterfly.

The important thing is having the awareness to sense these nuances. They are not so different from the nuances that make great photographs.

John Kasaian
9-Jan-2007, 08:54
I think the legendary jazz great John Coltrane said it best:

"You can play a shoestring if you're sincere."

Outside of structural failure, I think the same applies to most things in life, including LF gear.

Jim Galli
9-Jan-2007, 09:20
I'm such a gear head I always think in terms of my auto heritage. In the USA in the late 1950's when I was growing up the Europeans were making the most elegant little machines with dual overhead cams and compressors to get amazing power from tiny engines. In America not wanting to abandon our chrome plated battleships, we took a different approach. Since gasoline was flowing like water and the supply would never end we accomplished the same thing with brute force. 352 cubic inches not enough? Hell, we'll make it 427 then and put dual 4 barrel carburetors on it. Gas was 23.9 cents a gallon. Who cared if it transformed a gallon of the stuff into noise and eye watering polution every 8 miles.

I take the same approach with photography. (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Conley/1114Conley.html) While you guys are spending that extra $1500 bucks to get from 67 lppm to the magic 76, I keep adding inches squared at the back. Fault me if you like, but I'm having a hell of a good time. Burning silver Chloride like we used to burn gasoline.

Christopher Perez
9-Jan-2007, 10:07
I agree with Ken on this.

If you think that a lens or a certain tool will "make you" as a photographer, then there's no limit to what you can investigate, try, noodle over, ponder, and get wound around the axel about.

If you find tools that you really like and "connect" with, then there's no need to explain or justify yourself to anyone.

If you really understand all this and can see differences between the various tools that are somehow important to you and your expression as an artist, then you are probably quite outstanding, and well beyond the abilities of many of us.



It's not just the lens model that has it's own "mojo" - it can be the whole company as well. Some people love Leicas, others love Canons. Some like German lenses, others like Hasselblads. It's about more than just numbers and measurements. Cars are the same way...

Ask any musician about their instruments. Sure, a master can make great music on a piece of junk - but it's not uncommon for a serious musician to try out dozens of horns, violins, guitars, or even mouthpieces, before they find "the one". I imagine that the same is true for painters with their brushes, or sculptors with their tools...

Ted Harris
9-Jan-2007, 12:23
I agree too. Not only that, the perfect 'instrument' for one may not be the same for someone else. Camera example, my Toyo AII-L is beatup, missing paint, etc but functions smoothly and well and I know all of its quirks. Others might well turn their noses up at it but it is my favorite camera because I am so familiar with it and it feels right ....

Dan Fromm
9-Jan-2007, 13:14
Ted, Chris, in general you guys have the right of it. But, Ted, do you really think that, say, a Luminar will shoot no better than the equivalent Tominon?

Cheers,

Dan

Ron Bose
9-Jan-2007, 13:36
Folks,
The reason I went for a 110XL, 210 Sironar-S and a 305 G-Claron as my "sweet-three" even for shooting 4x5, was because I knew I would go to 8x10 one day.

A couple of years later I did go to 8x10 and my "sweet-three" for 4x5 are still my "sweet-three" for 8x10, although the 450 Fujinon joins the pack when the 8x10 is up on the tripod.

I've done ad hoc comparisons between the 150 Sironar-N and the 210 Sironar-S, I know that I like the latter a lot and the 150 gets left at home. It might be a lens-perspective thing as well as the added 'zing' whatever that may be ....

Cheers,
Ron

Ron Bose
9-Jan-2007, 13:43
btw, my favorite Leica glass is the stuff from the early 50's, they have a beautiful 'look'. I neither can afford or desire the latest and greatest aspheric Leica designs because they don't look so good to me ..... and they cost 'stupid' money !

Alan Davenport
9-Jan-2007, 14:13
I'm not kidding myself. Two-thirds of my LF lenses bear the Caltar label, because any time I can get the exact same lens for half the dough I'm OK with it. If you're buying lenses to take photographs, who cares how much they're worth when resold? I expect my kids to sell them after I'm gone.

Ole Tjugen
10-Jan-2007, 05:24
Since I've already been "referred to" in an earlier post, I'd better say something too...

Yes, of course we're "kidding ourselves". The hunt for the supreme lens with the best sharpness and the best coverage and the best bokeh is a wild goose chase, or maybe a red herring. Get a lens, and use it. The brand doesn't matter, age doesn't matter much either. Most lenses made in the past century are good enough for 99% of all jobs.

I have both "legendary", "run-of-the-mill" and "trash" lenses; in most cases I can't tell from the negative (or print) which lens it was shot with.

All my lenses were bargains too, the combined cost was less than the price difference between a used Caltar and a brand new Rodenstock. I'd rather have two very different lenses than one which can replace both, at five times the price...

catshaver
16-Jan-2007, 10:16
I'm beginning to wonder how much of the reputation is real and how much is just a combination of techno-geekery, OCD, paranoia, and "keeping up with the Jonses". I mean, if I had paid over $1200 for an Apo-Sironar-S as opposed to the $200 for the Caltar-IIN, would the difference be worth the extra thousand dollars? Any thought, comments, or observations?

You know, I had felt pretty much the same up until yesterday. This little scuffed up Wollensak 135 raptar appeared to match image quality with my 150 Sironar S, so I began to entertain thoughts of selling the Sironar online. I wanted to print images that would help the lens sell, so I went into the darkroom and enlarged an image to 16x20, then printed only a small portion of that image. Then I scanned the smaller image at 600 dpi, cropped it and blew it up. Here is what I got:

Original full image-
http://www.scottedwardsimages.com/images/deadhorse.jpg

Detail of 16x20 image enlarged 3x-
http://www.scottedwardsimages.com/images/deadhorsedetail.jpg

This lens is scary sharp and retains robust midtones at extreme enlargements.

I'm keeping it. It is worth every penny.

william linne
16-Jan-2007, 10:35
I've used Rapid Rectilinears that are 100 yrs old and stopped down a couple of stops, you can't tell the difference between a modern lens and the RR. Just don't shoot into the sun;)


I've got one of two brass lenses in my collection and most of them are pretty sharp. Some of them aren't so sharp but have unique qualities of their own.

W.

paulr
16-Jan-2007, 11:13
It's interesting talking to lens technicians about this. Any time I've asked a question about what's better, they always ask "better for what?"

They make it clear that their job is balancing compromises for specific intended uses. A 110XL may or may not be better than a 120 super angulon, depending on your purposes. If you need sharpness at wider than normal apertures, or need something small and light, the XL blows the super angulon away. If you use the lens at f16 or smaller, don't mind a dim focussing image, and don't care about the weight, the super angulon is at least as sharp.

It's already obvious that some of us need a big image circle, others don't. Some need wide apertures, others don't. Some need performance at high magnifications, others don't. Some care about rendering of out-of-focus areas beyond the focal plane (or in front of it), others don't. Some care about color rendition, others don't. Some even care more about sharpness than others.

Excellence in any of these qualities requires certain design compromises. The important thing is to know what you want, so you can pick your compromises wisely.

GPS
16-Jan-2007, 12:01
Exactly - and for the reasons explained above, all the talk "I have a box of old these and those and they are as good -if not even better - as the newest ones..." is the same self kidding as to say "the new ones are better, no doubt..." When you know that the majority of amateurs don't even care about a decent lens shade then you know the true measure and the value of this self kidding...

william linne
16-Jan-2007, 12:25
I've really gotta let up on the self-kidding.

Bruce Watson
16-Jan-2007, 14:05
It's not just the lens model that has it's own "mojo" - it can be the whole company as well. Some people love Leicas, others love Canons. Some like German lenses, others like Hasselblads. It's about more than just numbers and measurements. Cars are the same way.

On the other hand, one copy of a camera may be more "lucky" for you artistically than another, even though both appear to be identical copies.

Ask any musician about their instruments. Sure, a master can make great music on a piece of junk - but it's not uncommon for a serious musician to try out dozens of horns, violins, guitars, or even mouthpieces, before they find "the one". I imagine that the same is true for painters with their brushes, or sculptors with their tools.

Although our education encourages us to do so, there's no need to pin these things down, like we might pin down a butterfly. When we do, we kill it, and it's no longer a butterfly.

The important thing is having the awareness to sense these nuances. They are not so different from the nuances that make great photographs.

Nicely said.

Aaron van de Sande
16-Jan-2007, 14:18
Photographing itself is simililarily irrational... we don't need to do it to survive, why bother?

Some people enjoy having the finest and best, others brag about the great pictures they can get out of a ratty lens and cheap film.

C. D. Keth
16-Jan-2007, 15:40
More important than any sharpness, contrast, bokeh, or feel to any equipment is that you like it and enjoy using it. Then you will think more about making pictures than acquiring newer (or older) or better (or specifically flawed, mojo filled) equipment.

vijayn
22-Jan-2007, 00:26
Oh, I buy Apo Sironar S lenses simply because I love their acronym (ASS) - for my photography, MC Geronars are good enough. But seriously, more than absolute resolution, it is usually flare control and color balance (I use EPP exclusively) that matter the most to me. Personally I like Rodenstock's modern coatings with EPP; someone else might as well prefer Schneider's with Velvia; or whatever.

Jim Jones
22-Jan-2007, 09:48
A few wealthy photographers must deliver fine images of a wide variety of subjects. They are justified in owning a battery of great lenses. Most of us have neither the need nor the means for doing this. It is easier to make the most of what we can afford than pursuing the elusive magic lenses. There are enough challanging subjects to keep a perceptive and creative photographer busy for a lifetime with an Anniversary model Speed Graphic and its original lens. This might not pay the bills, but it rewards the soul.

Christopher Perez
22-Jan-2007, 09:57
Right on!

I just picked up a copy of Primitive Photography. I know, it was printed in 2002 and I'm a little slow. But that's not the point. The point is that there are instructions on building everything needed to take a fine photograph. This includes lenses.

How badly does a person want to make an image? There are many times tools to be purchased or constructed that will meet or exceed the need. :) :) :)



A few wealthy photographers must deliver fine images of a wide variety of subjects. They are justified in owning a battery of great lenses. Most of us have neither the need nor the means for doing this. It is easier to make the most of what we can afford than pursuing the elusive magic lenses. There are enough challenging subjects to keep a perceptive and creative photographer busy for a lifetime with an Anniversary model Speed Graphic and its original lens. This might not pay the bills, but it rewards the soul.