We know plenty about making old looking photos but most of is unlikely to know ultra contemporary photography style and how it pertains to lf. A good tessar never goes out of style though.
We know plenty about making old looking photos but most of is unlikely to know ultra contemporary photography style and how it pertains to lf. A good tessar never goes out of style though.
How about an example picture that shows this difference you want to see?Originally Posted by dmeckert
Good point on the shutter. I really don't have the will to hunt down pieces and parts to cobble something together, or the patience for archaic designs. I want to be able to focus on the work and not the process. A recent copal is really key to my sanity with LF. Lol
I'll go scrounge up a comparison to illustrate the difference I mean.
In case it wasn't clear, the upshot of the article is the following:
"After adjusting for minor variations in contrast, it is virtually impossible to see any difference whatsoever between the blur rendition of these lenses. Can you tell the difference ? At moderate degrees of enlargement, it's impossible to tell the difference between these lenses altogether. We're left with other, more practical issues like coverage, size, weight, filter size, price, availability, etc.".
That is the prevailing wisdom I was hoping to investigate. Thank you for putting it all together, it's a great resource.
For what I'll be shooting (studio portraits, probably 3/4 length, backdrop but no environment, no movements), coverage, size, weight, and filter aren't priorities. Price, within reason, isn't a concern either - a few grand on a more recent zeiss is out of the question, but I see a few apo-sironar-s options in the $700 range on the auction site, which is doable for the amount of time this project will take. Once I'm finished it would be back to the prevailing wisdom of any modern lens. Unless of course the prevailing wisdom prevails, in which case I can rest easy and just stick with my trusty Nikkors.
As for examples of what I mean, it's going to be a moment. My Lightroom catalog is in tatters after having to reimage my computer. I'll have to see if i can find examples on the internets.
I used a current 210 Apo Sironar-S for a while, then I got a 210 Apo-Symmar as a backup. After using the Apo-Symmar a few times, I sold the Apo-Sironar-S. They both have an equally modern look in my opinion, and both are incredibly good lenses.
So if you have an unlimited budget, the Rodenstock is sweet. But so is the 210 Apo Symmar and you can find them for around $400.
interestingly, I happen to have acquired an apo-symmar as part of a kit i'm trying to flip. it's got a sticky shutter release, but i can always just switch the shutters with my nikkor and sell that instead. i suppose i'll have to give them both a go and see if one sticks out over the other. i've read people who think the japanese lenses have higher contrast, but i'm less concerned with overall contrast, and more concerned with the "micro-contrast" that seems to be a buzz word the last few years (the zf 100/2 i had for a minute had it in spades...haven't owned a lens with a more voluminous rendering).
my budget isn't unlimited...it's just fairly flexible for a time-limited project. i haven no business holding onto something that expensive for as seldom as i shoot LF. my accountant (me) simply won't allow it. heh.
After shooting with lenses from Nikon and Canon (35mm), Leica M and R, Zeiss ZF, Hasselblad (zeiss), Mamiya 7 and RZ, and Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikkor LF, my general impression is that the Japanese lenses have more overall contrast but the German lenses have more microcontrast and may in some cases be sharper. Of course this is a gross generalization, but it's just my observation and opinion.
I'm not saying that there is no measurable difference between a Rodenstock Apo Sironar S and a Scheider Apo-Symmar, I have no idea about that. But in practice I actually preferred the rendering of the Apo-Symmar and any difference in sharpness, if it even exists, is so minor that you'd never see it. With portrait work differences in focus accuracy between photos will be a much larger variable.
If you swap the shutters, make sure that you don't lose the shims that may be between the lens cells and the shutter.
if you want a 'modern' look ... I would worry less about the lens and more about lighting and digital post processing
It occurs to me that whether your portraits look 'modern' or not will depend mostly on your subjects' clothing and hairstyles. The tiny differences between any 210 lenses made after WW2 will be invisible to viewers, especially without an A-B comparison, except perhaps to members of this forum. And I hope your intended audience is larger than that...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks