Re: Rodenstock Grandagon N f6.8 75mn
Exactly my thoughts.
I and I am thinking about grandagon. I really would like the 72mm, but its a 1000 bucks and the Nikkor is 500. Hmmm, could get the grandagon, the nikkor and the schneider, see which one I like and sell the other two. Like I said though, the 72 would be my first choice, if I can convince my wife. Since it is purely mechanical it could last forever if taken care of. Can't say that about a modern lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bernice Loui
Or why there are no modern "APO" last version made plasmats in the lens set used. IMO, too many photographers are obsess with how "sharp" a lens or film or print is, but does not see the overall expressive impressions any given image is saying to the viewer. This is the divide between techno photographers -vs- artistically expressive image makers, art fans -vs techno widget fans.
Yet, the hard hitting high contrast, artificially sharpened lenses have become the standard due to market demands by photographers of the current generation. This is why the majority of modern digital camera lenses have this hard hitting, high contrast, software enhanced etched look.
On the other side of image making, film and video folks are far more aware of how images rendered by lens, camera, presentation affects the viewers and have resulted in a return and demand for vintage lenses that do not have this modern "look".
As previously mentioned before, those LPM chart test do not even begin to tell the whole of what a given lens personality is as images produced by lens, film print and mounting is a system not just a single part.
Suggest Rodenstock's offering if that modern hard hitting look is not your think. Matters not the f6.8 or f4.5 version of the Grandagon, they both have a similar image personality. Alternative would be Schneider Super Angulon, with the single coated versions being slightly lower contrast which could be preferred over the later MC versions.
Bernice
Re: Rodenstock Grandagon N f6.8 75mn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steven Ruttenberg
Yes he has, he tests everything and has shot large format for 20 years, I would trust his real world judgement over any chart or opinion elsewhere. He knows exactly what he is talking about. So, I would not call it pontificating anything, his conclusions are based on actual side by side real world use.
In the 40 plus years that I was involved with Sinar, Wista, Linhof, Rodenstock and Rollei the only time that I have seen actual head to head comparison shots between lenses was at a former dealer, Photomark in Phoenix. I am not sure, unless your friend actually worked at a store like that how he could actually get his hands on all those lenses to do a head to head comparison. Maybe you can tell us how he actually did this, and what his test protocol was.
Re: Rodenstock Grandagon N f6.8 75mn
Perhaps I should have been more precise. He simply compares a lens in the focal length he desires from manufacture he is considering a purchase from that is the latest and greatest to an earlier version of that lens or another manufacturers and what he has found, is that he images by the non-digital lenses produce a more pleasing result. He was not trying to find which one gave the best technical image. The lens that produced the images he most liked, he kept, the rest he sold/returned. I never said he tested every single lens in existence or tested an exhaustive amount. My point was that simply being technically perfect is not necessarily the best lens or even the lens you want as digital lenses seem to lack character.
I grew up in Phx since 1974 and now reside in Mesa.
Re: Rodenstock Grandagon N f6.8 75mn
I'd like to point this interesting test, comparing six 210mm glasses:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html
First we see is that LF delivers an insane amount of resolving power...
So the interesting test would be comparing head to head 6 photographers :)
Of course late models are technically better, and IMHO this can make a difference in some situations, but not always.
For example, I'd like to point that a multicoated Super-Symmar XL-150 can deliver way, way more flare than the old single coated Symmar 150 convertible.
This is because the old convertible has an small 210mm image circle, while the Super-Symmar delivers a 386mm circle so it is illuminating all the bellows inside, thus generating a lot of reflections ending in the film. If using a front hud then the thing is different, but what I'm learning is that there is a lot to learn...
What is also interesting is comparing formats:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...ra-comparison/
Re: Rodenstock Grandagon N f6.8 75mn
Since all of you good people with hairy palms are willing to go blind looking at lens tests and to drive each other crazy wrangling about them, take a look at Arne Croell's: http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf
Re: Rodenstock Grandagon N f6.8 75mn
Dan this is an interesting test, another intersting writting from him is that about eastern block lenses, but best from him is the lesson on photography from his images
Re: Rodenstock Grandagon N f6.8 75mn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steven Ruttenberg
Perhaps I should have been more precise. He simply compares a lens in the focal length he desires from manufacture he is considering a purchase from that is the latest and greatest to an earlier version of that lens or another manufacturers and what he has found, is that he images by the non-digital lenses produce a more pleasing result. He was not trying to find which one gave the best technical image. The lens that produced the images he most liked, he kept, the rest he sold/returned. I never said he tested every single lens in existence or tested an exhaustive amount. My point was that simply being technically perfect is not necessarily the best lens or even the lens you want as digital lenses seem to lack character.
I grew up in Phx since 1974 and now reside in Mesa.
Among other problems with his testing is that no digital view camera lens covers 45!
Re: Rodenstock Grandagon N f6.8 75mn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pere Casals
I'd like to point this interesting test, comparing six 210mm glasses:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html
First we see is that LF delivers an insane amount of resolving power...
So the interesting test would be comparing head to head 6 photographers :)
Of course late models are technically better, and IMHO this can make a difference in some situations, but not always.
For example, I'd like to point that a multicoated Super-Symmar XL-150 can deliver way, way more flare than the old single coated Symmar 150 convertible.
This is because the old convertible has an small 210mm image circle, while the Super-Symmar delivers a 386mm circle so it is illuminating all the bellows inside, thus generating a lot of reflections ending in the film. If using a front hud then the thing is different, but what I'm learning is that there is a lot to learn...
What is also interesting is comparing formats:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...ra-comparison/
With all of the other problems with the Perez test procedure is that there is not one recent, or one predecessor Rodenstock 210mm lens. No 210 Sironar, 210 Sironar N, no Sironar N MC, no 210 Apo Sironar N, no 210 Apo Sironar S, no 210 Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W!
I can’t talk for Schneider, Nikon or Fuji but to leave out all of those Rodenstock lenses does not result in a valid, comprehensive test. In short, it is close to meaningless!
Re: Rodenstock Grandagon N f6.8 75mn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Salomon
Among other problems with his testing is that no digital view camera lens covers 45!
This is true. He is using 35mm now and is using lenses for that format. The point is simply, technically perfect is not always asthetically pleasing. I find that so between digital and film as well. Like a surgical room. Evrything is functional, clean and per perfect, but is it pleasing and inviting? Nope. My living room is clean and functional and perfect based on my interpretation. And yes, I have been in a surgical room some 17 times now and I am pretty sure they are not asthetically pleaseing. :)
Re: Rodenstock Grandagon N f6.8 75mn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Salomon
With all of the other problems with the Perez test procedure is that there is not one recent, or one predecessor Rodenstock 210mm lens. No 210 Sironar, 210 Sironar N, no Sironar N MC, no 210 Apo Sironar N, no 210 Apo Sironar S, no 210 Apo Sironar/Apo Sironar W!
I can’t talk for Schneider, Nikon or Fuji but to leave out all of those Rodenstock lenses does not result in a valid, comprehensive test. In short, it is close to meaningless!
Well, not completely close to menaningles: It also shows that even suposedly outdated lenses still have an insane amount of resolving power, having to enlarge to wall size to see the limit.
A test with the lenses you point also it would be really interesting, on the paper a 210 Apo Sironar S should be optically superior than a 210 Sironar N, but what I'd like to know is in what situations we could see a real difference, and at what enlargement. Sure that in the circle boundary it's easier to see diferences...