Process lenses vs made for landscape lenses

[Herb Cunningham]

Is there a thread where process lenses are tested against the traditional photo lenses?

I have a few process lenses mounted in shutter, and holy moly are they sharp. I have not exerted the effort (and time) necessary to test them, but one in particular, a Nikkor 360 f9 I shot a distant farmhouse on 8x10 and the details are amazing.

Another, a 270 Nikkon wide angle, is equally sharp.

I realize there is more to life than sharpness, i.e. contrast, acutance, etc, but would be interested in some writing before I waste my inexprt time on such a program.

[Jeff Keller]

The ever so helpful Thalmann and Perez have many good web pages ...
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

[Jon Wilson]

I agree Herb. I have a Nikkor 360mm f9 which Steve Grimes installed into wollensak shutter and he added a 2nd scale for it is convertible. Although I have not tried it as a convertible lens, it is nice to have that option. However, I have a 45cm artar which was installed into a copal 3, but it does not seem as sharp as it should be for landscape shot. It might just be an aberation in the glass...I just don't know. Thus, the cost of installing a process lens needs to be weighed into the decision making process.

Another favorite process lens I own is my 480mm Nikkor f9 process lens is one of my favorite barrel lens for landscapes. But it is not a good candidate to be intalled into a shutter without considerabl expense.

My favorite process lens which are a direct fit in a copal 3s shutter are my 240mm & 305mm Graphic Kowa lens.....WOW!

Then, there is the 355 Repro-Claron f9, 150mm G-Claron f9, the 210mm G-Claron f9, and 240mm G-Claron f9 are all super process lens which fit a Compound #4 (210mm Xenar lens shutter), copal 0, and copal 1 shutters respectively.

Thus, to answer your question, I don't know of any threads per se on the subject, but a search of these process lens might come up with one.

take care, Jon

[Herb Cunningham]

I can add a Nikkor 455mm F9 to the pile, also stupidly sharp, I will wait a week and see if there are any other ideas.

My lenses are not on the site that Kerry put up, although one reason I kept my G Claron 305mm is the test data on that site.

I am thinking of a test of: Nikkor 360, Cooke Triple convertible, Nikon W 300mm f5.6

and a Goertz Berliner 300mm f6.8. Not a fair test if it is a competition, to be sure, but would be interesting to see the differences in a contact print side by side.

What would be the appropriate test subject? No brick walls please, a real subject. Any ideas?

[Herb Cunningham]

add the 305 G Claron, and you have five lenses. plenty.

[Darryl Baird]

Jon, can you elaborate the convertibility of an Apo-Nikkor 360mm? I've never heard this before, but I've got both the 360 and 480 in barrels and hesitate remounting because they are heavy and expensive to get into shutters... so you got me curious. :)


I agree Herb. I have a Nikkor 360mm f9 which Steve Grimes installed into wollensak shutter and he added a 2nd scale for it is convertible. Although I have not tried it as a convertible lens, it is nice to have that option. ......

take care, Jon

[Bjorn Nilsson]

Also, the Fujinon A-series lenses are really process lenses. These lenses are very popular because of both their compactness and not least their sharpness.
I've read a few but not all the threads on this series of lenses, but I'm sure that you can find some kind of comparison there (apart from comparing size).
Search for e.g. fuji a240 and similar.

//Björn

[Dan Fromm]

Herb, I use process lenses from 135 mm to 480 mm at distance on 2x3 Graphics. Apo Nikkors, an Apo Ronar, Apo Saphirs. I have a couple I don't use: 14" Apo Process Lustrar Ser. II, too soft and flary wider than f/11; Lomo RF-5, fine lens, but too close to my 420 and 480 Apo Nikkors to be worth carrying; 210/9 Apo Gerogon, great lens but can't be mounted on my little cameras. So there are good 'uns, not so good 'uns, and others.

About targets for informal tests. For me, out-and-about testing of long lenses is a bit difficult because its hard to find a distant more-or-less plane that has fine detail at a variety of scales and that will hold still. This is a real problem when trying to assess corner sharpness. I evade it by using lenses that are very long for the format I shoot, so that only center sharpness matters, do most of my testing of those lenses with lashed-up rigs that have a Nikon SLR at the rear. Answers my questions, economizes on film.

All this said, if your process lenses are good enough to suit you, what's the point of testing? All you'll learn is how little it takes to please you. And, perhaps, that the emphasis many of us put on lens quality is misplaced.

If you want to find out whether you know what really good means, you'll have to shoot your lenses against other highly-regarded lenses and some lowly-regarded ones. I've shot my 150 Apo Ronar against a 1912 CZJ 150/6.3 Tessar. One could be happy with either on 2x3; the Apo Ronar won't cover 4x5, the Tessar will.

Cheers,

Dan

[Herb Cunningham]

Dan, I agree with the point that if we like the lens, no prob. The hidden point in my comments are that I have too many and will want to weed some out. Also, it would be interesting to see what coverage and detail comes thru on 8x10 negatives, although I suspect one would have to take say a farm scene at a great distance so you could see how the houses or barns showed up with magnification. That is why I commented on the 360 Nikkor. I have an 8x10 neg that the buildings are probably 1/4 in tall on the neg, but show up nicely in blowing it up.

Also, since I paid a small fortune for the Cooke, I would like to see if it is really superior to lenses costing 1/4 as much.

[Jon Wilson]

Jon, can you elaborate the convertibility of an Apo-Nikkor 360mm? I've never heard this before, but I've got both the 360 and 480 in barrels and hesitate remounting because they are heavy and expensive to get into shutters... so you got me curious. :)

Darryl, I have not tried my 360mm Apo-Nikkor f9 as a convertible lens, but the Wollensak shutter has 2 aperture scales: First scale, f9, f11, f16, f22, f32, f45, f64
Second scale, f22, f32, f64, f90, f128

I may be wrong, but a quick algebraic calculation in comparing this lens to my triple convertible Protar VII, I calculate this lens should convert from 360mm to 600mm. Now, my curiousity is raised and I need to try it out on my V8.

The person I purchased this lens from advised me he had Steve Grimes install this process lens cells into this Wollensak shutter and he engraved the aperture scale.

Maybe someone else can chime in with more insight.

Jon

[Dan Fromm]

Dan, I agree with the point that if we like the lens, no prob. The hidden point in my comments are that I have too many and will want to weed some out. Also, it would be interesting to see what coverage and detail comes thru on 8x10 negatives, although I suspect one would have to take say a farm scene at a great distance so you could see how the houses or barns showed up with magnification. That is why I commented on the 360 Nikkor. I have an 8x10 neg that the buildings are probably 1/4 in tall on the neg, but show up nicely in blowing it up.

Also, since I paid a small fortune for the Cooke, I would like to see if it is really superior to lenses costing 1/4 as much.
Herb, if you're weeding, ask the lenses, don't ask us. Have a shootout. Then you'll know how your lenses compare with each other, not what we think of our lenses. By doing a shootout you'll eliminate two sources of error: differences between your example of a lens and our examples, differences between your preferences and ours.

This kind of question comes up a lot. I never understand why rumor is more informative than direct measurement.

Cheers,

Dan

[Gene McCluney]

I think Process lenses and General Purpose lenses both do fine at infinity, but close up, the Process lenses may have the advantage.

[Ralph Barker]

Process lenses are dangerous to both your photography and your health. All those APO-Nikkors and G-Clarons should be sent to me for proper disposal. (Big wink)

[Dan Fromm]

Ralphie, send money. Lots of money.

[Darryl Baird]

Yes, I'm even more curious now... I'd probably invest in a shutter if there was a worthwhile bonus. I currently just use this in the studio, but it might get packed with the other 'travel' stuff with the added utility.


Darryl, I have not tried my 360mm Apo-Nikkor f9 as a convertible lens, but the Wollensak shutter has 2 aperture scales: First scale, f9, f11, f16, f22, f32, f45, f64
Second scale, f22, f32, f64, f90, f128

I may be wrong, but a quick algebraic calculation in comparing this lens to my triple convertible Protar VII, I calculate this lens should convert from 360mm to 600mm. Now, my curiousity is raised and I need to try it out on my V8.

Jon

[Jon Wilson]

Darryl:

Yes, I'm even more curious now... I'd probably invest in a shutter if there was a worthwhile bonus. I currently just use this in the studio, but it might get packed with the other 'travel' stuff with the added utility.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Wilson
Darryl, I have not tried my 360mm Apo-Nikkor f9 as a convertible lens, but the Wollensak shutter has 2 aperture scales: First scale, f9, f11, f16, f22, f32, f45, f64
Second scale, f22, f32, f64, f90, f128

I may be wrong, but a quick algebraic calculation in comparing this lens to my triple convertible Protar VII, I calculate this lens should convert from 360mm to 600mm. Now, my curiousity is raised and I need to try it out on my V8.

Jon


Darryl,

I tried my 360mm Nikkor which was marked on the betax #4 shutter with a convertible scale (by Steve Grimes) and the gg looked sharp with the 360mm and with the front cell removed focused out to an estimated 600mm. As expected, the 600mm gg image was not as sharp, but I do believe it would be fine for contact prints. I did take a 4x5 shot using both set ups and hope to develop the film this week.

Jon

[Darryl Baird]

Yes, it's not as sharp as a 360 Nikkor, but I'm wondering how it compares to say another 600 mm (either a telephoto design or not). Saying something isn't as sharp as a VERY sharp lens leaves some wiggle room for pretty decent quality. I think I'd like to see a print or a scan with my own eyes. Please let me know your opinion of your film after it's developed. (what film did you shoot?)

cheers

db




Darryl,

I tried my 360mm Nikkor which was marked on the betax #4 shutter with a convertible scale (by Steve Grimes) and the gg looked sharp with the 360mm and with the front cell removed focused out to an estimated 600mm. As expected, the 600mm gg image was not as sharp, but I do believe it would be fine for contact prints. I did take a 4x5 shot using both set ups and hope to develop the film this week.

Jon