Process lenses

[Pere Casals]

Am I correct that other than the lack of a shutter and the fact that they are flat field, process lenses from a newspaper or print shop style copy camera will work just fine for traditional large format shooting? Please share your experience and knowledge of any draw backs.

My view is that Process Lenses can be pefectly usable, but I see no advantage for a regular LF photography. A process lens may be cheaper, but then you have to find a solution for shutter.

Today LF lenses are very cheap, and I find that a Sironar-N with a working shutter will be a better choice (in "normal" conditions) than dealing with a Process lens.

One important thing is coatings. Modern Photographic lenses have very good multi coatings because scene strong bright points (like sun) can induce flare and ghosts, a process lens may not be multicoated because it simply has less need of it.

Then the process lenses are optimized for near subjects, while (non macro) photography lenses are optimized for perhaps 1:10 or 1:20 to infinity.

So, IMHO, there are some fields where Process lenses are a good choice, like ULF and and perhaps with very long focals, but at current prices I don't see the point of using a 240mm process (celor type) lens instead a Multicoated (plasmat type) Symmar-S (MC), or their Nikon W, Fuji or Rodenstock equivalents. With the Symmar you have no shutter issues, you have multicoating, and you have a lens optimized for common working distances.

Anyway there is nothing wrong in using process lenses if those advantages are not important for you.

Presently I have a russian LOMO O-2 600mm process lens, it was $50 with shipping, and it was in pristine condition. I had to make a custom lens board, and I've no shutter, so I use the cap.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, for one thing, except for wide bargain versions intended for "stat" cameras, process lenses tend to better apo corrected, are sharper all the way from close-up to infinity, might indeed be multicoated, and might turn up even cheaper. The only real downside is that you still need to add a portable shutter.

[Bernice Loui]

Err, Modern APO process lenses ARE higher definition than the typical modern Plasmat multi coated or not. Trade offs are, smaller image circle of definition compared to a Plasmat with a smaller largest aperture. This makes them smaller for longer focal length lenses which IS an advantage. IMO, too many are obsessed with coverage or image circle and might not consider the other factors in optics performance.

APO process lenses tend to have significantly less geometric distortion and more over the larger image circle Plasmat and they are designed to produce identical sized images for Red, Green, Blue the once mandatory requirement for color separation films used for color printing.

Optics are all a set of trade offs, none are perfect or no single optic will meet all image making requirements.

Me, don't have any modern Plasmats in the optics collection. Gave them up decades ago as there are other optics that have proven to be better in many ways. Yet, the modern Plasmat in a modern predictable-reliable shutter is ideal for those beginning the sheet film journey due to their overall good image capability and essentially problem free shutters. Lens and shutter problems will compound the difficulty with learning how to get film and view camera to produce images in mind.



Bernice

Well, for one thing, except for wide bargain versions intended for "stat" cameras, process lenses tend to better apo corrected, are sharper all the way from close-up to infinity, might indeed be multicoated, and might turn up even cheaper. The only real downside is that you still need to add a portable shutter.

[Paul Kinzer]

For me, it's all about finding something really inexpensive that will do what I'm looking to do. I do not, and never will, have much money for LF. Still, I hope to get into ULF, probably 11x14*, and wanted a lens that is not too heavy, will cover the frame, and that I could afford. It may be that multi-coated Plasmats are cheaper than they once were, but comparing prices --whether here, or on eBay, or other places -- I still see a pretty large difference in price. In fact, part of the reason I am considering going up from 5x7 to ULF is because I found out, through threads just like this, that there are lenses out there that will provide excellent results at a really low price. That, along with X-ray film, has me dreaming. Yes, I'll need to figure out a shutter, but that's part of the fun for me. (How about part of the body of a 3x4 Anniversary Speed Graphic, with its shutter? Newer Speeds only go as low as 1/30, but the Anniversary goes as low as 1/10. A kluge might be made to make this a sort of universal shutter to work with cameras with larger front standards.)

By the way, the 19-inch Apochromat Artar I mentioned upthread arrived today. I paid $45 for it, and it was pretty awful looking when I opened the box (hence the price), but half an hour of disassembly and cleaning brought it back to 90% of new, and that is more than good enough! Though Artars typically seem to cost about as much as more modern lenses in shutters, from what I see, I think much of that is because of the mystique and name recognition. There are other, less known lenses that I'm keeping a look-out for.

(*I'll either wait for a really beat up camera to refurbish, or build my own. Right now, I'm exploring making my own bellows. It looks like the most expensive bit might be the film holders, since making them is, I think, beyond my skill set.)

[Pere Casals]

Well, for one thing, except for wide bargain versions intended for "stat" cameras, process lenses tend to better apo corrected, are sharper all the way from close-up to infinity, might indeed be multicoated, and might turn up even cheaper. The only real downside is that you still need to add a portable shutter.

Hello Drew,

IMHO it should be clarified that the term "Process" is loose... APO-Nikkor and Process-Nikkor refer to similar models, for the Process-Nikkor range Nikon do not claim being APO corrected: http://www.galerie-photo.com/apo-pro...ikkors-en.html

In some photoengraving ("Process") works it was not necessary using "colors", by using monochromatic green light they could expose all screens for the 4 or 12 inks used.

For color separation, of course, achromat or apo would be required, depending on the enlarging factor and required IQ.

About long distance subjetcs with process lenses, some ULF photographers do unscreew a bit the front cell (when it is possible) to get best peformance. Distance between cells is a parameter that can be optimized for particular subject distance, and also for corner vs center performance...

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, Pere, thank you for pointing that out. I am well my aware of the distinction among Nikkors, and am using the term "process lens" generically. Most barrel Nikkors which appear on eBay are four-element units which were originally expensive. In this country, cheap process lenses tended to come from other sources and be used for silk-screening and sign shops. Serious print operations went only for the best.

[John Kasaian]

FWIW a Goerz 14" APO Artar in a Dial set Compur was my first 8x10 lens and I cannot fault it for general photography. I still have it although these days it rides aboard the snout of a 5x7

[Dan Fromm]

APO-Nikkor and Process-Nikkor refer to similar models

Reread what I wrote. Apo-Nikkors are either dialyte types (symmetrical) or tessar types (asymmetrical). Both are quite good at distance. Process Nikkors are 4/4 double Gauss types and are poor at distance. Not similar at all, unless you regard all lenses with four elements as essentially the same. I don't.

[Drew Wiley]

There were once lots of print shops and pro photo labs around here, but I've never personally encountered a tessar Nikkor. The standard was dialyte Nikkors, and prior to that, Goerz trigors. T-shirt and flyer shops bought cheap stat cameras already equipped with private-label 3-element lenses that look like Rogonar student- quality enlarging lenses. But dialyte Nikkors seem better at infinity than regular view lenses. In fact, a former Celestron dealer known as the local guru on telephotography finally settled on a big solid Toyo G 8X10 with a Nikon on the back and a long Apo Nikkor on the front. It outperformed all his 35mm Nikon teles.

[DG 3313]

I use a Sinar shutter behind the Cooke 6" Anastigmat lens (series 2 not soft) and love it!