Apo Symmars and the competition?

[Old-N-Feeble]

Mike, process lenses have been sold as apochromats since the turn of the 20th century. Some of their names have the prefix Apo-. Not all process lenses are apochromats. Nikon is categorical that Process Nikkors (that's a trade name that only four lenses bear, not a generic term; Drew Wiley and I tangled about that a while ago) are not apochromats.

For general photographic purposes, the Apo- prefix in the marketing fluff sense was enabled in 1979 -- see post #5 in this thread -- for German manufacturers. Rodenstock and Schneider started using the term for general purpose lenses not much later. Nikon and Fuji both sold true apochromats as taking lenses (f/9 Nikkor-Ms, I'm not sure that the 105/3.5 Nikkor-M is an apochromat; Fujinon-As, Fujinon-Cs) but without the Apo- prefix.

The prefix is not universally used for process lenses. It is close enough to truthful for them, isn't at all truthful for the very fine taking lenses with the Apo- prefix that Rodenstock and Schneider sell.

About slapping, well, if being slapped pleases you by all means go slap yourself.

Dan,

It seems to me that lenses made for 1:1 or those lenses made for very specific magnification ratios are more easily made APO. It seems to me that lenses should be designated 'APO' in a relatively narrow magnification range.

RE being B-slapped: I don't like it... but won't back down from it.

Mike

[Gary Tarbert]

It is interesting i have a slightly older180 Symmar -s this lens is sharp with a lovely natural colour balance i used it on my 5x8 as almost my standard lens , Actually in the time i had the 5x8 almost all of my high achieving ,award winning shots, and indeed most of my best sellers were shot using this lens , Grossly underrated lens , This lens is for sale as i am not shooting this format anymore , And the only question i have had on it is whether it is APo as the 180 was not one of the super symmar apo lengths , I incorrectly listed as super , my error , But as a lens it is very good , Maybe i just have a good sample

[Flauvius]

Old-N-Feeble:

Why do you believe that a 1:1 lens is more easily made APO?

Flauvius

[Old-N-Feeble]

Old-N-Feeble:

Why do you believe that a 1:1 lens is more easily made APO?

Flauvius

Because that's what I've read several times. Supposedly the symmetrical design nearly eliminates most distortions. Maybe Dan F. can explain it better.

[neil poulsen]

. . . I can see the difference in my own prints when I traded out my worn-out Symmar S. What seemed sharp taken with a Symmar-S didn't seem so critically sharp afterwards.

This is really interesting to me. I've picked up Symmar-S lenses, because for their performance, they provide a good value. But, I've been thinking of swapping out the three that I have (100mm, 150mm, & 180mm) for Apo Symmars. Look around a little, and there's really not that much of a price difference.

I tried a Rodenstock once. Too contrasty for my taste. But, that was quite a while ago. I also wonder about Nikon; I've heard that they have a warmer look to them that's suitable, say, for landscape. I should pick one up and give it a try. (On one of two, remaining color films. )

[StoneNYC]

This is really interesting to me. I've picked up Symmar-S lenses, because for their performance, they provide a good value. But, I've been thinking of swapping out the three that I have (100mm, 150mm, & 180mm) for Apo Symmars. Look around a little, and there's really not that much of a price difference.

I tried a Rodenstock once. Too contrasty for my taste. But, that was quite a while ago. I also wonder about Nikon; I've heard that they have a warmer look to them that's suitable, say, for landscape. I should pick one up and give it a try. (On one of two, remaining color films. )

Really? Rodenstock too contrasty? Interesting, I've found Schneider too be much more contrasty than Rodenstock, I found Rodenstock very flat. Perhaps it's a shutter thing? I find fuji sort of in-between, and though I prefer Schneider contrast, the fuji line I use is lighter for field use. I can't comment on Nikon.

[paulr]

I don't understand how a lens can be "too contrasty."

Unless you're going for a soft, old-timey veiled look. Contrast can never be more than 100%, and in real life it's always less, and gets progressively less at higher spatial frequencies.

I'd bet against anyone doing better than a flip of a coin in guessing if a print is from an equivalent Schneider or Rodenstock lens. They are so generally so close in performance that all the other variables are orders of magnitude more significant.

[Ken Lee]

I don't understand how a lens can be "too contrasty."

Unless you're going for a soft, old-timey veiled look. Contrast can never be more than 100%, and in real life it's always less, and gets progressively less at higher spatial frequencies.

+1

A subject has a certain amount of contrast. Our lens + bellows + any other camera internals introduce a certain amount of flare. They can only degrade the contrast inherent in the subject.

The more flare, the less "contrasty" we call a lens... but in fact we're talking about flare, aren't we ?

Flare degrades shadow separation. We can adjust exposure, development and post-processing to accommodate variations in contrast, but other than using a lens shade and other baffles, there's no way remove flare at the time of image capture.

In the darkroom we can use split-filtering to restore contrast to regions where it has been lost. In a photo editor tool, we can boost contrast in selected regions of the image to accomplish the same thing.

[Drew Wiley]

It's damn easy for a lens to be too contrasty, esp if you shoot chromes in open sun rather than a studio environment. And sometimes portrait photographers want something a bit less extreme, even with milder color neg films. Flare is a secondary issue that can generally be controlled. Let's take a couple of apples to apples comparisons from my own kit. I own both a 250 G-Claron (single-contrast) and a 240 Fuji A (multicoated). Both are modern very crisp contrasty lenses of similar optical design and application. But sometimes the "better" multicoated one can be over the top. In any event, owning both allows me to fine-tune the contrast a bit prior to printing, where this might be a added chore in the case of color printing. Then I've owned the most contrasty lens of any camera lens I've even seen, the 14" multicoated Kern dagor with only four air to glass surfaces. It was really difficult to bag chromes with, so I switched to the single-coated version, which still has a LOT of contrast, just not over the top. Now that I mostly shoot color neg film and black and white, the parameters are a little different
than when I mostly shot chromes. Even later generation general-purpose plastmats have more contrast and "snap" to them than earlier ones; but sometimes I
prefer the look of the older ones.

[paulr]

Flare is the only thing we're talking about. It's veiling flair from light bouncing off the elements that visibly reduces contrast.
And you're going to see a difference in contrast between two multicoated German plasmats.
If you want noticeable veiling flare, you're using lenses from the wrong era.