Ken -
Can't point out an article, alas. The only reference I know of online is a passing comment that Ken Rockwell recently tacked on to the bottom of his primer on bokeh here.
Fujinons tend to produce background bokeh that really bothers me. As with other lenses, the specifics vary with the subject configuration. They do OK in confined quarters - backgrounds close in look pretty smooth. As the backgrounds fall off into the distance, though, the bokeh starts to get fuzzy and eventually takes on a sort of oatmealy look that I find really obnoxious in monochrome. Local contrast is a bit on the harsh side for my taste, too.
Once you get clued in to the way Fujinons behave, you start to recognize it in published photographs. For example, when the GA645 was released (this was the autofocus version of the 645 compact camera with the 60mm lens), the photograph that illustrated the ad that Fuji ran in the Japanese photo magazines had background fuzz that reminded me of the behavior that started to sour me on the GS645S that I used to own.
And yes, although that's a medium format camera, the Fujinons do tend to have a strong brand character that's shared across the different medium and large format lenses they offer. I'm sure there's some variation - no doubt the SF Fujinons are different. But on the whole, the effect seems to be consistent enough across the line that I just don't waste my time on them any more.
I know I'm hypersensitive to this sort of stuff, and it may or may not be an issue for you - if you think you might care about it, you really need to run a test for yourself. See if you can borrow an Apo-Sironar-N or -S somewhere, then run some side by sides of a range of scenes typical of what you like to photograph. If I could make only one test photograph, it would be to put the camera in the middle of a stand of trees, set the lens for a middling aperture and focus somewhere at medium range - maybe 15-20 feet, the exact distance will depend on the specific scene. You can learn a whole lot about a lens by looking at what happens to trees more and more distant from the plane of focus. (Especially useful if you love to photograph scenes with trees in them at close to medium range rather than infinity. :-) )
I have probably never noticed this, because most of my images contain little that is out of focus.
This 8x10 contact print was made with a Fuji 450 C at f/22, and has the most bokeh of any of my current images. I gave it a little to make sure the people didn't blend into the background. Does it contain the tell-tale signature, or is there not enough to go on here ?
"The sharpest lens I tested was a Schneider Symmar-S MC (yes, resolved just a little more than a Sironar-S)."
Years ago, when I was shopping for lenses (and didn't have a girlfriend, obviously) I spent a lot of time comparing MTF charts. I noticed something that rarely gets mentioned: the Rodenstock Apo Sironar S lenses are optimized for 1:10 magnification, while the Schneider Apo Symmar S lenses are optimized at infinity. I wouldn't be surprised if the earlier Symmar S was designed for infinity also. The differences appear small, but the result is that you can expect the Schneiders to be sharper for landscape work and the Rodenstocks sharper for studio work. In either case, you'd probably need conditions bordering on laboratory-accurate to notice the difference in a print, but it's there.
For my work, I chose the Schneider lenses, but I've recommended the Rodenstocks to friends who primarily do commercial work.
I can't comment on bokeh, since I have yet to do work with these lenses that involves any kind of selective focus. Oren, I'm curious if you can comment on how both brands look to you in out of focus areas closer than the plane of focus. I've started a body of work with a medium format camera that has a lot of blurry areas in it. The old single coated zeiss planar renders them beautifully (the distant ones much more than the close ones). If I ever start doing work like this with my apo symmar and super angulon, I'll be curious to see how things will look in comparison.
With the caveat that viewing on my junky LCD display is far from ideal, I'm not thrilled with what's going on in the trees and foliage, especially in the most distant stuff in the upper left, although it's nowhere near the worst I've seen from a Fujinon.
Paulr -
I'm curious if you can comment on how both brands look to you in out of focus areas closer than the plane of focus.
Excellent question. The Rodenstocks are not at their best in front of the plane of focus. Not horrible, but the OOF stuff doesn't have the same exquisite coherence as it does behind the plane of focus, and sometimes things in front can take on a look that's amorphous in an unpleasant sort of way, if that makes any sense. I'm less sure about the Symmar-S - I don't have nearly so much experience with it, especially with respect to foreground rendering. I have a couple of Apo-Symmars on hand, and in particular was planning to use a 360 as my normal for some explorations in 11x14. If I manage to get untracked and make any progress on that project, I can report back on my impressions.
In the same vein, those who've read Harold Merklinger's bokeh article will recall that he paid close attention to the difference between what his Nikkor-W was doing behind and in front of the plane of focus.
Ken Lee wrote: "This 8x10 contact print was made with a Fuji 450 C at f/22, and has the most bokeh of any of my current images. "
Ken, what on earth do you mean by "has the most bokeh?"
And how can I measure bokeh? I'd like to evaluate some of my pictures, don't want to rely on you for measurements because you're not always available. And I might outlive you.
Bookmarks