Rodenstock Grandagon N f6.8 75mn

[Pere Casals]

Just look at the factory curves for MTF, distortion, color, fall off, etc. and you will see how well they perform. And you won’t be mislead by chemistry, atmospheric conditions, eyesight, loupe quality, exposure, lighting, how tired the observers eyes are, etc., etc., etc..

You are right in that, specially I like the accurate technical datasheets from Rodenstock.

Anyway there are vintage lenses that have no datasheets, in that case test like those may point what conceptual kind of performance we can expect. Sometimes this is an small share of what the lens has, we may want some OOF character, to me at least this is the difficult part... Sometimes we may want just extreme optical performance to depict fine tectures in a big print... but in that case it's not necessary to review graphs or tests, we all know what lenses do that job.

[Bob Salomon]

You are right in that, specially I like the accurate technical datasheets from Rodenstock.

Anyway there are vintage lenses that have no datasheets, in that case test like those may point what conceptual kind of performance we can expect. Sometimes this is an small share of what the lens has, we may want some OOF character, to me at least this is the difficult part... Sometimes we may want just extreme optical performance to depict fine tectures in a big print... but in that case it's not necessary to review graphs or tests, we all know what lenses do that job.

The best, and only, test is how it performs for your needs, not how it performs on an AF test chart.

[Pere Casals]

The best, and only, test is how it performs for your needs, not how it performs on an AF test chart.

This is right again, single problem is that sometimes one has to make a purchase without knowing what one needs/wants, and what the product does.

In general IMHO the most difficult is knowing what one needs or wants. An experienced LF photographer sure he won't fail, he knows what he wants. A learner like me sure makes mistakes.

It's after 3 years that I'm starting to understand what I may want to ask from a glass.

[Bob Salomon]

This is right again, single problem is that sometimes one has to make a purchase without knowing what one needs/wants, and what the product does.

In general IMHO the most difficult is knowing what one needs or wants. An experienced LF photographer sure he won't fail, he knows what he wants. A learner like me sure makes mistakes.

It's after 3 years that I'm starting to understand what I may want to ask from a glass.

That is why you should check the manufacturers test charts or, if none are available, find work you want to emulate and look at those results, or, if you still have a professional equipment store near you, rent a lens or two for a weekend.

[Joerg Krusche]

It can be added that a sample of this lens was measured here: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

f/11 67 60 42
f/16 60 60 24
f/22 54 54 38

This is optical performance measured in the center, the mid an in the corner.

The pointed measure at f/16 in the corner, 24, probably comes from a camera alignment or film flatness miss, it's not consistent with 42 and 38.

This was a DIY test, not an absolute Lab test, but it can be very useful to see some trends, see disclaimer at the bottom of the linked page, but if those 67 Lp/mm were seen by Mr Pérez, at least that was there.

Also there is the sample to sample variation... but this test points that, as Bob says, this is a very competent glass, no doubt.

I've tested the old GD 90 a friend has, single coated, also very good but not MC in that case...

How about if that 24 is a typo and should read 42 .. that figure 24 is difficult to explain with 42 and 38 just next to it

[Pere Casals]

find work you want to emulate and look at those results

Bob, really this is best way to realize the character of a lens, sometimes it's also about how the charater of the lens is used, so viewing a master's work it enlights a lot.

How about if that 24 is a typo and should read 42 .. that figure 24 is difficult to explain with 42 and 38 just next to it

hmmmm... you are right, this is a good guess... sure Pérez could realize that this was not consistent, so it should to be a typo. That typo had to be seen, but sometimes typos behave are like that...

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Interesting discussion. Sometimes I think we keep things too sterile and loose sight of the forrest for the trees. I have a friend who now shoots digital and does not like modern so called digital lenses. To him, they are perdect, lacking in many items of character that the older lenses have, such as being slightly warm or cool, not as contrasty, ie, the images dont appear harsh and cold due to their so called perfect optics. The older lenses are for sure less perfect. All that to say, that having the best curves highest resolution, etc is not always a good thing. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Less precise, coated, uncoated, etc older lenses have character. No two are exactly the same. One can say that as well for a so called modern lens, but that character is buried in the 20th decimal place.

Aside from image circle and obviously it can produce a sharp image, I am after the character of a lens when in use. For certain images of course you want the best technical lens you can afford. For landscapes a lens that is slightly warm, with more saturated colors and is not so contrasty it is harsh is what I want from a lens. For architecture a technically perfect lens and forbportraits something like a large format voughtlander 300mm.

This is the question, which produces the most pleasing image, which is in and of itself a highly subjective answer.

[Bob Salomon]

Interesting discussion. Sometimes I think we keep things too sterile and loose sight of the forrest for the trees. I have a friend who now shoots digital and does not like modern so called digital lenses. To him, they are perdect, lacking in many items of character that the older lenses have, such as being slightly warm or cool, not as contrasty, ie, the images dont appear harsh and cold due to their so called perfect optics. The older lenses are for sure less perfect. All that to say, that having the best curves highest resolution, etc is not always a good thing. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Less precise, coated, uncoated, etc older lenses have character. No two are exactly the same. One can say that as well for a so called modern lens, but that character is buried in the 20th decimal place.

Aside from image circle and obviously it can produce a sharp image, I am after the character of a lens when in use. For certain images of course you want the best technical lens you can afford. For landscapes a lens that is slightly warm, with more saturated colors and is not so contrasty it is harsh is what I want from a lens. For architecture a technically perfect lens and forbportraits something like a large format voughtlander 300mm.

This is the question, which produces the most pleasing image, which is in and of itself a highly subjective answer.

Besides your friend’s pontificating, has he ever actually done head to head tests to actually see performance and result differences of the different lenses?

[Bernice Loui]

Or why there are no modern "APO" last version made plasmats in the lens set used. IMO, too many photographers are obsess with how "sharp" a lens or film or print is, but does not see the overall expressive impressions any given image is saying to the viewer. This is the divide between techno photographers -vs- artistically expressive image makers, art fans -vs techno widget fans.

Yet, the hard hitting high contrast, artificially sharpened lenses have become the standard due to market demands by photographers of the current generation. This is why the majority of modern digital camera lenses have this hard hitting, high contrast, software enhanced etched look.

On the other side of image making, film and video folks are far more aware of how images rendered by lens, camera, presentation affects the viewers and have resulted in a return and demand for vintage lenses that do not have this modern "look".

As previously mentioned before, those LPM chart test do not even begin to tell the whole of what a given lens personality is as images produced by lens, film print and mounting is a system not just a single part.

Suggest Rodenstock's offering if that modern hard hitting look is not your think. Matters not the f6.8 or f4.5 version of the Grandagon, they both have a similar image personality. Alternative would be Schneider Super Angulon, with the single coated versions being slightly lower contrast which could be preferred over the later MC versions.


Bernice

Interesting discussion. Sometimes I think we keep things too sterile and loose sight of the forrest for the trees. I have a friend who now shoots digital and does not like modern so called digital lenses. To him, they are perdect, lacking in many items of character that the older lenses have, such as being slightly warm or cool, not as contrasty, ie, the images dont appear harsh and cold due to their so called perfect optics. The older lenses are for sure less perfect. All that to say, that having the best curves highest resolution, etc is not always a good thing. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Less precise, coated, uncoated, etc older lenses have character. No two are exactly the same. One can say that as well for a so called modern lens, but that character is buried in the 20th decimal place.

Aside from image circle and obviously it can produce a sharp image, I am after the character of a lens when in use. For certain images of course you want the best technical lens you can afford. For landscapes a lens that is slightly warm, with more saturated colors and is not so contrasty it is harsh is what I want from a lens. For architecture a technically perfect lens and forbportraits something like a large format voughtlander 300mm.

This is the question, which produces the most pleasing image, which is in and of itself a highly subjective answer.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Besides your friend’s pontificating, has he ever actually done head to head tests to actually see performance and result differences of the different lenses?

Yes he has, he tests everything and has shot large format for 20 years, I would trust his real world judgement over any chart or opinion elsewhere. He knows exactly what he is talking about. So, I would not call it pontificating anything, his conclusions are based on actual side by side real world use.