Lens shootout on the table.

[redu]

I have been working on this for some time now. I know there is a long debate going on regarding process lenses (AKA flat field lenses) when used for general purpose or product photography. In this topic you will find a comparison of such process lenses with a modern Macro lens (Scheneider Makro Symmar HM 120 5.6) and one of the modern general purpose lenses (Rodenstock Sironar N 210 5.6)

Tested lenses are

Rodenstock Sironar N 210 5.6
Computar Symmetrigon 210 6.3
Schneider G Claron 210 9

Schneider G Claron 150 9
Konica Hexanon GR II 150 9

Schneider Makro Symmar HM 120 5.6

Lenses tested at fmax, f11, f22 and f45.
The camera is a Cambo Master PC with a PhaseOne Powerphase scanback attached.
Scans are performed at 8400x6000 pixels resolution.
No USM (unsharp masking), no noise reduction, no cleaning at all.

I will comment briefly.

The biggest problem was focusing. These lenses are both very good pieces of optics and one pixel precision focusing was essential to be able to see the differences. I have done many trials and these are the best focussed ones among many trials. The focal plane is the surface that Linhof logo resides and the front faces of the winding dial and the shoes.

Schneider Makro Symmar and the Rodenstock Sironar are MC lenses and they produced better contrast. This is evident on the histogram since at both ends there are clips which means the dynamic range of the scanback (which is real wide by the way) is not enough. Process lenses must be single coated hence produced slightly less contrast.

G Clarons are good but they are both prone to flare however Konica Hexanon GR-II is not. Konica Hexanon GR-II also has a huge image circle. I loved this lens.

Anyway see for yourself.

Fmax results here

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9598/rodenstocksironar210mma.jpg

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3048/computarsymmetrigon210m.jpg

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1021/schneidergclaron210mmat.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/678/schneidergclaron150mmat.jpg

[redu]

Fmax Continued

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/2760/konicahexanongrii150mma.jpg

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4806/schneidermacrosymmarhm1.jpg

[redu]

F11 results here

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9598/rodenstocksironar210mma.jpg

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/3048/computarsymmetrigon210m.jpg

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/1021/schneidergclaron210mmat.jpg

Sorry no image for G Claron 150 @ f11

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2760/konicahexanongrii150mma.jpg

[redu]

F11 results continued

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4806/schneidermacrosymmarhm1.jpg

[redu]

F22 results here

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9598/rodenstocksironar210mma.jpg

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/3048/computarsymmetrigon210m.jpg

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/1021/schneidergclaron210mmat.jpg

http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/678/schneidergclaron150mmat.jpg

[redu]

f22 results continued

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2760/konicahexanongrii150mma.jpg

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4806/schneidermacrosymmarhm1.jpg

[redu]

f45 reults here

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9598/rodenstocksironar210mma.jpg

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3048/computarsymmetrigon210m.jpg

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1021/schneidergclaron210mmat.jpg

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/678/schneidergclaron150mmat.jpg

[redu]

f45 results continued

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/2760/konicahexanongrii150mma.jpg

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/4806/schneidermacrosymmarhm1.jpg

[ROL]

Holy cow! This thread is still loading after 5 minutes on my DSL. How about providing a few tantalizing low-res images and a link to your results? :eek:

[vinny]

That's cool and all but boring to look at. How about a blonde with a nice set of cans for the next test?

[Daniel Stone]

That's cool and all but boring to look at. How about a blonde with a nice set of cans for the next test?

X2 :D

or at least some frosty beer shots w/ some properly placed "sweat" beads on the outside of the can.

-Dan

[Dan Fromm]

What a lot of effort!

What magnification did you shoot at?

What illumination did you use? I ask because with film exposure errors reduce measured resolution. I have no idea whether this is true for digital capture devices like the scanning back you used. When checking lens performance on film at near distances I use electronic flash to eliminate motion blur and variability in exposure. I realize this isn't possible with a scanning back.

Why did you use a target that seems to have a limited range of fine detail?

Your one really surprising result was that y'r 150/9 Konica Hexanon GR II isn't prone to flare. Mine was quite flary. The difference between what I saw and what you saw could have been due to differences between our beat-up old lenses or to differences in light sources out of the frame.

[redu]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your understanding. :) It took some time but it was really fun. I believe an old dusty Technorama with many scratches has enough detail. No..? (i.e. check the blue dust in the Linhof logo crops at 4 o'clock position as a reference)

M is about 1:2.5. Light sources are continuous flourescents equivalent to 3KW halogens. Actually i was very cautious for the movement. You may notice the effect of minor stand shake in the G Claron 150 @ f9 100% crop of the dial. Other than that one i am pretty sure there is no negative effect of movement in the photos.

I would like to underline the CA errors in Rodenstock Sironar, Computar Symmetrigon and even in Clarons at wide open. This is pretty visible in the dial crops and in out of focus areas as colorization towards red and blue. I am amazed to see how well Hexanon was corrected and of course there is no trace of CA in the Makro Symmar as i would expect to see.

I would recommend to open the same thread in multiple windows and compare different shootings side by side.

[Brian C. Miller]

Holy cow! This thread is still loading after 5 minutes on my DSL. How about providing a few tantalizing low-res images and a link to your results? :eek:

+1

Redu, this is an interesting test, but you need to crop the images much further. My browser simply locks up for a bit while these images are loading.

[redu]

I understand some of you guys have browser locking up issue. I am sorry for that. However the total size of the images in this thread is no more than 35MB. This shouldn't be a big deal for a moderate computer and internet connection. Mine is a simple Dell netbook with a Chrome browser and i haven't got any locking up whatsoever even after i have opened three copies of this thread simultaneously.

[dh003i]

redu, thank you very much for these excellent tests. It is nice to see actual results and comparisons. These are very systematic, relative to what most of us here would do.

I haven't done side-by-side comparisons and think I'd need to do that of equivalent images to be sure, but all of these lenses look like great performers from my brief scroll.

[Bob Salomon]

So why, if most large format lenses are diffraction limited, except for process lenses, did you shoot at f45? And most of those lenses were never designed for reproduction greater then 1:10 so why do extreme close-ups? And what did the corner detail look like?

Basically this was an interesting excercise but it really doesn't show wht these lenses were designed to do, except for the macro lens.

[redu]

Hi. I believe all lenses are diffraction limited regardless they are process lenses or not. And one of the results of this test is the visible effect of diffraction clearly noticeable in all f45 shootings. All lenses clearly show a considerable drop in resolution at f45 shootings when compared to their f22 performances. The magnification ratio is like 1:2.5 for all shootings. There aren't any extreme close up shootings but 100% crops might look like a separate closeup shooting since all lenses were extremely sharp. Honestly talking i am really amazed how sharp these lenses can get at f11 or f22.

My verdict :

1) I believe all lenses get almost equally sharp at apertures between f11-f22
2) MC lenses have better contrast but again this doen't mean that Symmetrigon, Clarons or Hexanon has low contrast. They are OK and if needed contrast can be improved digitally.
3) Symmetrigon and Clarons are prone to flare but strangely Hexanon is perfect.
4) Other than the Macro Symmar and Hexanon all lenses show CA up until f22.

[Dan Fromm]

1) I believe all lenses get almost equally sharp at apertures between f11-f22

Strong disagreement. See, e.g., http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html My own acceptance tests got similar results.


3) Symmetrigon and Clarons are prone to flare but strangely Hexanon is perfect.

Strong disagreement with respect to Clarons vs. Hexanon GR IIs. I've shot 1 150/9 plasmat type G-Claron, 1 210/9 dagor type G-Claron, 3 240/9 dagor type G-Clarons, 1 150/9 GR II, 2 210/9 GR IIs. All at apertures from f/9 to f/22, near and far subjects. No flare problems with the G-Clarons, bad flare from light sources slightly out of the frame with the GR IIs. GR IIs want to be used with hoods.

At 1:2.5 the effective aperture is approximately 1/2 stop down from nominal.


4) Other than the Macro Symmar and Hexanon all lenses show CA up until f22.

I don't know what to think about claims of chromatic aberration with digital image capture. Well corrected lenses that seem to produce no color fringes on film are reported to produce color fringes on chips. Will someone please explain to me why I should believe this is real and not an artifact of the chips?

[redu]

Strong disagreement. See, e.g., http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html My own acceptance tests got similar results.

These are real life shootings. Unless i shoot resolution charts (i am sure some people here will find them extra boring) it wouldn't be possible to comment on meainingful lpm values. Besides 8400 pixel samples on a 100mm scan line leaves me only with 84 pixes/mm which would limit the measurable lens resolution to 42lpm. I believe all of these lenses are pretty capable to produce 42lpm at least with 40-50% modulation in the centre.




Strong disagreement with respect to Clarons vs. Hexanon GR IIs. I've shot 1 150/9 plasmat type G-Claron, 1 210/9 dagor type G-Claron, 3 240/9 dagor type G-Clarons, 1 150/9 GR II, 2 210/9 GR IIs. All at apertures from f/9 to f/22, near and far subjects. No flare problems with the G-Clarons, bad flare from light sources slightly out of the frame with the GR IIs. GR IIs want to be used with hoods.

At 1:2.5 the effective aperture is approximately 1/2 stop down from nominal.

I have full respect to your test results. In my case if you check G Claron 210 @f9 Linhof logo crop and compare it with Hexanon GR-ii @f9 Linhof logo crop you will notice the difference.




I don't know what to think about claims of chromatic aberration with digital image capture. Well corrected lenses that seem to produce no color fringes on film are reported to produce color fringes on chips. Will someone please explain to me why I should believe this is real and not an artifact of the chips?

CA is a product of the optical system and i don't think the sensor has got anything to do with it. Unlike the Super Angulon 120 / 8 tested here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=33199&highlight=shootout) the amount of CA is very small in both of these lenses but it is there by the exception of Macro Symmar and Hexanon.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Redu thanks for this test I like it more then line pairs per mm!
I have two Konicas 210/260 mm and I think they are MCs!
I did a test with film and I did it more for the bokeh, but had not time jet to scan them!
But as soon I find the time they will be on my HP!

Cheers Armin

[redu]

Armin,

With their pentagon apertures I don't expect these process lenses to produce bokeh as nice as a lens with almost circular aperture; still i would love to see your bokeh performance test results. Actually i think the simple aperture mechanism is the only difference between a general purpose lens and a flat field process lens which is designed primarily to shoot 2d subjects where you have no out of focus areas within the frame. Cheers

[Once]

<snip>

My verdict :
1) I believe all lenses get almost equally sharp at apertures between f11-f22
2) MC lenses have better contrast but again this doen't mean that Symmetrigon, Clarons or Hexanon has low contrast. They are OK and if needed contrast can be improved digitally.
3) Symmetrigon and Clarons are prone to flare but strangely Hexanon is perfect.
4) Other than the Macro Symmar and Hexanon all lenses show CA up until f22.

Thank you, redu, for this lens test. You could not illustrate better the level and the value of these tests. And don't be surprised that other posters strongly disagree with your test results. It is all logical when you know the level and the value of these tests, declared by an poster as "excellent and systematic". Big thank you for it! What an excellent illustration that is!

[JosephBurke]

All well and good--but how about that blonde with the nice set of cans just to satisfy the dirty old ba**ards here like myself!

[Once]

All well and good--but how about that blonde with the nice set of cans just to satisfy the dirty old ba**ards here like myself!

Don't know what you mean by the nice set of cans on that blonde but heavens forbid. It would only distract from the scientific excellency of the test. For blondes go somewhere else.

[Robert Jonathan]

In terms of fine detail, the Schneider Makro HM wipes the floor with the other lenses... probably because it's designed for that focusing range.