lenses, the best of best

[Varakan Ten Tipprapa]

The best lens for me is the most lens I've used.. That why is the best lens... almost 85% of all shots I use 150mm. ... Schneider 150/5.6 APO Symmar

[paulr]

"It's what allows me to say that an early 1940's 183mm f/18 Bausch and Lomb Series V Protar(coated) is as sharp under normal B&W working conditions as the latest super 200mm/210mm APO-whatever at f/22."

off axis or just on axis?

at what range of magnifications?

if you only use the center of a lens's coverage, only use its best aperture and stay near its optimum magnifiction, then there's little reason to spend more than one or two hundred bucks on a lens. it's outside this little performance cocoon where lenses have improved a lot in recent decades.

[Richard Schlesinger]

Ken, what kind of mascara do you use?

[David Richhart]

I really really really REALLY like my Kodaks. The 14" Commercial Ektar for when I'm shooting portraits, and my 10" WF Ektar for when I'm not.
Besides... carrying 2 of those old #5 shutters around keeps the camera bag from blowing away...

[CXC]

I'm with Varakan: what gets used most is the 'best'. That would be the old G-Claron 240mm.

[Ken Lee]

Ken, what kind of mascara do you use?

I wish I could take a pair of those lenses with me - along with the rest of the model - but I'm stuck with the ones I was born with.

[Ole Tjugen]

90mm f:8 Super-Angulon on 4x5 and 5x7".

121mm f:8 Super-Angulon on 5x7" and 18x24cm, or 121mm f:6.8 leitmeyr Weitwinkel-Anastigmat on 4x5" and 5x7".

135mm f:3.5 Zeiss Planar on 4x5" and 9x12cm.

150mm f:4.5 APO-Lanthar on 4x5, or 165mm f:6.8 Angulon on 5x7" and 18x24cm.

240mm Symmar f:5.6 on 4x5", 5x7" and 18x24cm.

210mm f:6.8 (1947 vintage) on 18x24cm and 30x40cm; the newer ones won't cover the 30x40cm.

Any other lens I can lay my hands on. They're all sharp, and all better than I deserve.

[Christopher Perez]

paulr writes/quotes:
"It's what allows me to say that an early 1940's 183mm f/18 Bausch and Lomb Series V Protar(coated) is as sharp under normal B&W working conditions as the latest super 200mm/210mm APO-whatever at f/22."

off axis or just on axis?

at what range of magnifications?

For 4x5 work, the 183 Bausch and Lomb Series V Protar I mentioned has nearly unlimited rise and fall. It lights up 11x14 and is reputedly sharp enough for contact print work at f/45 on that format.

Coming back to 4x5 for a moment, the Protar looks good all across the field and holds an image together nicely with significant rise to the limits of a 200mm Nikkor M image area.

You're right, if you shoot at just one or two aperture settings, then old lenses work very well indeed. Shockingly well in my case. I did a side by side real world image comparison (since some people have heart burn about "believing" there is any value in USAF resolution test charts). At 40x enlargement I can begin to see differences in image quality (sharpness and contrast) between an uncoated Protar V and the Nikkor 200M at f/22. But the coated Protar hangs in there to the point that differences between it and the Nikkor are really only noticable at 160x.

I am a creature of habit and shoot around f/16 to f/22. So using wider apertures isn't a huge issue for me. Some of the new lenses are indeed better at wider apertures than the old stuff. But have you ever shoot an early 1950's Schneider Xenotar f/2.8 or a Zeiss Planar f/2.8 on 120 format at wide apertures? Yikes! They're good. Real good.

[John Z.]

Question for Ole; what brand is your 210mm f6.8 vintage lens with the big coverage? I am looking for a 210 lens to cover 11x14. Thanks.

[paulr]

I do agree with Christopher that the tripod can be more important than the lens (but the magic wand that stops the wind from blowing is more important still).

I only have a couple of lenses. The striking thing I notice is that with both of them, the difference betwee the sharpest negatives I make and the average ones is huge. This tells me that only occasionally am I getting the full benefit of all that optical wizardry. Most of the time the lens is compromised by the usual suspects: inability to get everything important in the focal plane (big problem doing the urban stuff that I do), diffraction, and things blowing in the wind (the big tripod helps, but it doesn't stop the trees and grass from blowing around!).