How NOT To Buy Someone Elses Rejected Lenses ?

[Scott Fleming]

Ok ... OK! I won't worry about it. Sheesh.

I was thinking of ordering my lenses from Rod at Photomark. Do y'all like him as much as some of the other folks mentioned in this thread. I kinda wanted to put one decent order together and angle for some 'consideration'.

[Scott Rosenberg]

scott, lots of people on this site have written glowing endorsments for jim at midwest. in fact, i have yet to hear one person with anything but praise for the man and his business practices. why don't you just order from jim? it seems to me that you are not very receptive to what people are saying to you, unless they are giving you the answer that matches what you've already decided on your own. if you're not looking for advice from others, why are you posting on this forum?

i'm sure rod has a lot of fans out there. i've never done business with him, but i know people that have. those people now only do business with jim at midwest.

good luck with whatever purchases you make... i sincerely hope you find what you are looking for.

[Scott Fleming]

Kevin.

What yardstick? Yes just what yardstick am I using?

Well, you see, that IS my problem. I'm not a scientist. In fact ... I'm not very smart! I'm just an oldish wannabee artist who likes making pictures ... or images, as the case may be.

Here are my pictures:


http://www.pbase.com/sfleming/the_good_stuff

I like it when I can see the little leaves and cypress needles. Like in 06_1620.jpg although this is just a MF shot with the Contax 645AF, 35mm Distagon T f/3.5.

Though I have sold several prints of this particular shot I want to go back and retake it with a camera capable of greater resolution. I don't really want to go through a lot of testing and hoopla trying to determine if my new LF lens is a sharp one. I will probalby just compare it to this shot and if it is better I'll figure its ok.

Does that answer your question? I'm lazy. I like to take photographs. I just want to believe in the tools I'm paying for. You know, like when you buy a new truck.

[Frank Petronio]

I don't think the dealers know which lenses are going to be better than the others, and I bet a lot of the below average ones are used by satisified pros and amateurs alike. About the only practical way to pick the best lens of the lot is to buy and test several, especially from a variety of stores in order to get different serial number batches, and use eBay to resell them or take advantage of a generous store's return policy (that is why you pay top dollar for new, isn't it?).

I also think that people return perfectly good lenses (I have) because they don't fit into a Technika, or I find that I can't afford them, or ? not only because they might not be the pick of the litter.

It is probably a waste of time with LF, but the digital forums that Scott is hanging out on are full of horror stories of people getting mediocre lenses for their high performance DSLRs - the Canon 1Ds2 and Kodak 14n seem to amplify any imperfections. So he is not as crazy as many of you are implying. And no, I do not have OCD either! (YOU are the guys that sell those expensive 110XLs to everybody... not me!)

I think that new Rodenstocks, and maybe those crappy Schneideritis prone lenses, may have enough quality control that even the bottom percentile of the batch is still pretty darn good, and considering all of the other factors involved, the ultimate lens quality is really hard to see in a 4x5 compared to a 35mm DSLR lens (the enlargement factor is so much less with LF). It's kind of like Doctors - even the last-in-the-class doctor has to pass boards and that weeds out the truly bad ones.

[Jim Galli]

Frank, I was with you until the Dr. comparison thing.......
Scott, kidding aside, and just to add to your apprehension, there's a very good reason that people go nuts over Gold Dot Dagor's. I have 2 lenses that can asign a full range of tones to individual pine needles 100 yards away. Both are Dagor's marketed by Schneider Kreuznach. To add to the hand wringing, even those can only do it when the light is perfect. Perfect contrast is actually more important than line pairs / mm.

[Joe Smigiel]

This sort of post always amuses me. Why obsess over which lens is the best, sharpest, etc., unless you really have a need for a specialized optic? If you think about it, most of the photographs we consider icons today were taken long ago with lenses nowhere near the quality of their modern counterparts.

[Henry Ambrose]

What Frank said - the difference between 645 and 4X5 is fairly huge even if the LF lens is not the very best.

[John D Gerndt]

I marvel at the number of responces and smile at how much I have gone through to maximize the quality of my images. Buying the lens is the easy part. If you want good images you must master the process. Much more than lenses, the alignments, the flatness, the degree of enlargement and of motion/vibration during exposure determine the fineness of detail and all this is without diving into the chemical end of things.

There are turkeys out there in the lens world so buy from someone with a reputation at stake. As others have said, most any lens with a brand name on it has already passed muster, that company had a name to defend. I cannot attribute any of my unsharp pictures to lens error.

Cheers,

[Victor Loverro]

This obsession over lens quality of modern lenses is almost a moot point. The quality of all the major manufacturer's lenses is so good that any differences in lenses, even from the same manufacturer, is minimal. Some of the most famous images we know of by well known photographers have been made with less than apo-optimal quality lenses. Several examples have already been given. Weston was contact printing, and may have gotten by with "inferior" lenses, but some of the best known images by Adams were done with a single element of a convertible lens. Never the best. But there are other things more important than the difference between lenses by the same manufacture. Have you verified that your ground glass is properly spaced? This has been discussed. Do you tap the film holder to seat the film before inserting it into the camera? Do you wait a minute after pulling the dark slide to let the film stabilize to temperature differences? These are even more important in time exposures. Do you use an adequate lens hood? And very important: how good is your enlarging lens? Every image you make with all those high quality taking lenses all project through one lens to get to the enlarging paper. Is your enlarging system aligned? The lens stage, film stage and easel? Do you use a vacuum easel? It can make a big difference, especially with large prints.
It seems to me there are other things I would consider in the choice of lenses. How will they be used? Is it a field system? Mention was made of Gold Dot Dagors. These are very compact and sharp lenses. I have a 210mm that I have used for many years and recently acquired a 210 apo-symmar. I made comparative prints, enlarged sections from each and no one viewing them can tell any difference. I use the Dagor all the time. It is compact (40.5mm filter - the Apo-symmar takes 72mm) and sharp. But my main use is in the field. For studio work, I would probably use the Symmar. It is sharper and more contrasty at wider apertures.
I think it is a good idea to buy the best lenses you can afford. But I think there are more important things to "obsess" over than whether the lens in the front of the case is a reject.
By the way, did you verify what day of the week the car you bought was made?
Just my opinion.

[Scott Fleming]

Good post Victor. Lots of good stuff.

I hear ya. Never on Monday or Friday.