Is there a lens comparison resource for LF lenses?

[Drew Wiley]

I won't get into that digital argument with either of you, Stone or Corran, unless you do your homework first. There are INHERENT technological limitations in getting color INKS through nozzles that determine that. That's not going to change anytime soon. It would require a quantum leap in colorant technology greater than what has transpired over the last century. Nothing of that character is even on the horizon. The mere fact the colors get through at all proves that they're not true pigments but have a significant dye component. But neither are they pure dye, and involve larger particles (lakes). Monochrome inkjet is a somewhat different subject because there are different options. Just depends. Therefore you could have a billion megapixel capability in your camera and it woudn't mean a thing. The limiting factor is the print medium itself, at least in terms of we basic photographers who aren't named NASA. When I want extreme detail, I'll print color on Supergloss for 8x10 Ektar. But I hope to soon start up dye transfer printing, which is nowhere near as sharp as current inkjets, but has wonderful color
control. Even I don't want big tack sharp prints every single day. Sometimes I want something soft and poetic, though I don't imply soft-focus by that. I've never
been a soft focus type. I'm really a format schizophrenic, alternating between fast film in the Nikon and 8x10 sheets with those superb Fuji C's, A's, and Nikkor M's. Tomorrow I hope to get some MF snapshots of hazy amber shots of farm country veiled in forest fire smoke. They're going to be inherently unsharp except
in certain details. But that's what I want. The day after I'll be heading into high altitude with my Nikkor M's and a 4x5 field camera. Whole different ball game.

[IanG]

There's plenty of images posted on this website made with a wide variety of LF lenses and mostly the posters state what lenses and sometimes aperture & shutter speed they used. I's worth the OP looking at some of the image sharing threads.

Ian

[Alan Gales]

As a relative newbie to LF, I find it difficult to wrap my head around lens designs and stuff like that. I'd hardly know a Tessar from a Dagor......I don't know why I would or wouldn't want 6 lenses in 2 groups......

I do keep hearing over and over that there are few bad LF lenses, that's good, I guess.... But whereas so much in the smaller formats is somehow is canonized, I know what a zeiss lens renders like, I know how Leica renders.... A Schneider..... Not so much.... And I think this is where people's confusion sets in.

LF isn't cheap to get into, dropping several hundred on a lens without really knowing what to expect is tough. Maybe it's true that there aren't any really bad large format lenses, I feel like the two I have are great....


Maybe some broad overviews on lens design and rendering characteristics would be a good place to start.

Here is some excellent information written by Ken Lee that you should read.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/lenses/

[John Kasaian]

As a relative newbie to LF, I find it difficult to wrap my head around lens designs and stuff like that. I'd hardly know a Tessar from a Dagor......I don't know why I would or wouldn't want 6 lenses in 2 groups......

I do keep hearing over and over that there are few bad LF lenses, that's good, I guess.... But whereas so much in the smaller formats is somehow is canonized, I know what a zeiss lens renders like, I know how Leica renders.... A Schneider..... Not so much.... And I think this is where people's confusion sets in.

LF isn't cheap to get into, dropping several hundred on a lens without really knowing what to expect is tough. Maybe it's true that there aren't any really bad large format lenses, I feel like the two I have are great....


Maybe some broad overviews on lens design and rendering characteristics would be a good place to start.

You may want to get a copy of Kingslake's A History of the Photographic Lens.
It is fascinating reading, but seeing what other photographers can do with a given make/model will probably be more of a practical help in your decision making. Late model 150 & 210mms by the big three are cheap and plentiful right now. If you're shooting 4x5 that would be the place I'd start looking unless you happen across something like a 203mm Ektar or 215mm Paragon or 162mm Wollensak Velostigmat for a pittance (not hundreds of dollars.)
Again, see what other photographers have done with these lenses. If you can't get excellent results after learning how everything works together, it won't be because of the lens.
John Sexton and Roman Loranc, for example, have produced much of their earlier portfolios---beautiful and brilliant work, btw, shooting commonly available 20 year old or older design lenses.
FWIW, if I had to choose between a Schneider, a Rodenstock, a Fuji or a Nikon, I'd select the one on the best condition

[Corran]

There are INHERENT technological limitations

The proof is in the pudding. My pudding. Delicious pudding. Sorry, more nonsense to compliment your post.

[Drew Wiley]

Pudding with a lot of seeds in it that get stuck in the teeth (nozzle clogging if they go smaller). That's the problem at this point, along with dependence upon that glycol syrup to keep the inks from drying out.

[StoneNYC]

I'm not at all pro digital, in fact I've sold off all of my digital gear except my iPhone, and I exclusively shoot film now, but even I know that film also has technological limitations and that digital imaging has taken leaps and bounds forward in both image detail and print detail, there's no denying it at this point unless you bury your head in the sand.

But the point of making an image for a print is about more than just the finite details and color renditions, it's about the impact it has on the viewer, sure details are important, but sometimes the flaws can be more beautiful than perfection, the image itself is really all that matters, you can make beautiful color images of shitty. photos and it's not worth a damn.

This argument is tired and I'm out...

[Drew Wiley]

I doubt you know half the argument. Glycols are on the EPA hit list. They're already being phased out of industrial colorants. But that means the colorant dispensing machines become very expensive and prone to clogging. That's even with pigments smaller than ever and nozzles about 1/16 inch in diameter! Inkjet inks don't have a lot of glycol involved at the amateur use level, but at the manufacturing scale of use and overall footprint, it adds up to an enormous amt in the air. And it's only a matter of time till it gets pinned on health or climate consequences (something already known). So basically, they're deliberately overlooking a very $$$ influential industry for awhile, but just until some hypothetically better technology is on the horizon. So what is defined as inkjet today is on borrowed time. I wouldn't worry about that fact, because all the extant machines and pigment sets will themselves be changed several times over, no doubt, before a massive regulatory shift. But it's the ogre hiding in the closet.

[Bob Salomon]

I doubt you know half the argument. Glycols are on the EPA hit list. They're already being phased out of industrial colorants. But that means the colorant dispensing machines become very expensive and prone to clogging. That's even with pigments smaller than ever and nozzles about 1/16 inch in diameter! Inkjet inks don't have a lot of glycol involved at the amateur use level, but at the manufacturing scale of use and overall footprint, it adds up to an enormous amt in the air. And it's only a matter of time till it gets pinned on health or climate consequences (something already known). So basically, they're deliberately overlooking a very $$$ influential industry for awhile, but just until some hypothetically better technology is on the horizon. So what is defined as inkjet today is on borrowed time. I wouldn't worry about that fact, because all the extant machines and pigment sets will themselves be changed several times over, no doubt, before a massive regulatory shift. But it's the ogre hiding in the closet.

I am definitely not a chemist, so I can't really comment on the above comments. But I can read and understand most of a MSDS sheet and see that glycol seems to be no more dangerous then say hypo or blix or developers.

http://hazard.com/msds/mf/baker/baker/files/e5125.htm

And I do check Wikipedia when necessary and if glycol is used in ink jet it appears to be one of its most minor use

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_glycol

I spent several years in an USAF photo lab shuffling large prints by hand in the darkroom, returned home many nights with dark brown finger nails from the exposure to chemistry and feel far more comfortable running the ink jet printer then I ever did in the darkroom.

[David Lindquist]

12

Yes, many months ago. No response.

Thanks for the suggestion. I just sent a message to his secretary. I'll update here (and in the dedicated "Arne Croell's status" thread I previously started) with any information she sends.

I will be very interested in what you hear, Sal.
David