Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Which 150 lens?

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Which 150 lens?

    Oren -

    "...but wouldn't use a Fujinon if you paid me."



    Could you describe some of these differences a little more - or point out an article that illustrates some of these differences ?



    I have ended up with nothing but Fujinon lenses, because of size/weight/filter size - but am not glued to them by any means.

  2. #12
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Which 150 lens?

    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. :-) )

  3. #13
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Which 150 lens?

    Sorry, messed up the html for the Ken Rockwell link. It's here:

    www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Which 150 lens?

    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 ?







    Thanks

  5. #15
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Which 150 lens?

    "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.

  6. #16
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    Which 150 lens?

    Ken -

    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.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    8,470

    Which 150 lens?

    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.

    Cheers,

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Which 150 lens?

    Dan - Thanks for your good point. I used the term wrongly.

    I should have written "Of all my images, this one has the greatest area which is out-of-focus".

    Perhaps it's best to leave the *measurement* of bokeh, to the esteemed mathemeticians and physicists on the list.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Which 150 lens?

    Could offer an image that displays a pleasing out-of-focus-area ?

    I would like to see what a nice one looks like.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Which 150 lens?

    Oops - There I go again.

    Could someone offer an example of pleasing bokeh ?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •