355 G-Claron or 360 Rodenstock APO Sironar N

[Jim Galli]

Oren's point is well taken. There are portraits and there are portraits. And there are a gamut of lens possibilities way beyond Commercial Ektar's. I'm enjoying Chris Nisperos / Roger Hicks book of Hollywood glamour portraiture. I could duplicate about 90% of those with a $75 Wollensak Velostigmat. But then there's Robb Kendrick's Texas tintypes, and Quinn Jacobson's look he gets with antique daguerrotype lenses and collodion. There's just a whole world of different looks you can go for beyond an ordinary plasmat. Portrait opportunities are sadly few and far between for me in my workaday world but I'm anxious to get someone in front of the old projector lens to see what it will render. I think it might be a contender with some good lights.

[Christopher Perez]

Having spent decades as a working pro (in my early days) and later as an avid hobbiest I have to say, my eyes fail to see any differences between lenses that couldn't be controlled by processing, film type, or the shape of the aperture.

Given a choice between a Rodenstock 360 Sironar-N and a Schneider GClaron 355, I'd choose the smaller lens. I have used both and can say that weight and size are more important to me than things I may or may not be able to detect.

I've been thinking long and hard about this topic. I'm intrigued that people can get so far into it. Being neurotic myself, I understand and feel the affliction. Completely.

I took a look at two plasmats, a 150mm Germinar-W f/9 process lens and a 150mm Fujinon W/EBC f/5.6 lens. My initial findings were posted at http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/GermFuj.html I went back and looked at the 8x10 prints and the 16x20 sectional enlargements last night. I have to say, both lenses look smooth, sharp, and completely wonderful. I fail to see any "harshness" in Fuji's rendition. I fail to see any on print optically related advantage of one lens over the other.

However, I feel the need to look further at out of focus areas with regards to varying lens designs. People have made claims. I want to follow up to see what might be verifiable. To this end, I have a Nikkor 200 M (APO at infinity, according to the marketing fluff), a 210 Schneider Xenar f/6.1 (modern), 210 Docter Tessar f/4.5 (brand new), 210 Schneider Symmar Convertable f/5.6 (old but what the heck), a 210 Rodenstock Geronar f/6.? (modern triplet), and a 240 Germinar-W f/9 (brand new process lens mounted in a round aperture Prontor shutter). If the gods are willing (we've had more rain this month than any time in the past 36 years, so things are drippy and damp just now) I'll haul all of these out, shoot a common subject, maybe even remount a lens or two into the Prontor round aperture shutter, look for sharpness and out of focus area rendition, and post my results. I've got to know for myself once and for all. Though it may take some time to process and print everything.

Still, this is driving me nuts. People see things that I'm not sure I can. Neurosis. Terrible, I know.

[John Kasaian]

JimGalli,

I used to work about 1/2 mile from Delicato Winery! Nice wine, but have you tried Cribari Claret? Its kind of like cheap wine with bokeh----the longer I drink it the better it tastes! ;-)

[Frank Petronio]

It's there Chris, made by German elves...

FWIW, Avedon was reported to have used 360 Fujion Ws and Symmars for his 8x10 full length portriats (the West) but there are no out of focus backgrounds in his pictures...

[Ken Lee]

Oren -



I see the pebbles, and wonder if it is the subject, rather than their rendering, that you don't like.



In some of Henry's other photos, there are also out-of-focus areas, but do they trouble you less ? There are distant trees, mechanical parts, etc., and their rendering looks fairly even to me, with none of the classic "bad bokeh" artifacts shown above. Same lens, different subject, OK bokeh ?



Perhaps I can take this one step further: same lens, same photo. I recall your impressions of the uppler-left-hand corner of one of my images, an 8x10 shot made with a Fujinon 450C. The subject area contains distant leaves. Out of focus, it contains a pattern not wholly unlike the gravel in Henry's dog portrait. Does the flag (equally out of focus) exhibit bad bokeh too, or does it show smooth transitions ?

[Craig Wactor]

Christopher,
thank you for the link to your research. I always enjoy a really scientific comparison between lenses. I actually thought the germinar looked sharper in the detail from 16x20's though!

[Christopher Perez]

Craig, thank you for the kind feedback. Indeed, the Germinar does look a little sharper. But I think it has to do with the way the image was scanned. On photographic paper, there's no difference between the two lenses.

[Kevin Crisp]

I'm struggling here to imagine what I would see that corresponds to these subjective descriptions of lens performance. If a lens is "too harsh," what does that really mean? Too contrasty? Too sharp? Something else? Not being critical, I'm just trying to understand. (Kind of like a hi fi speaker being "really musical" -- I want to know what that means.)

[Roger Richards]

Jim, what about the 14" Commercial Ektar you mentioned? What kind of shutter is it mounted in, and would it fit on a Technika board? Also, I am intrigued by the Schneider Gold Dot Dagor that Scott described.

[Scott Rosenberg]

roger, if memory serves, the Schneider Gold Dot Dagors were made in three batches by the swiss company Kern. i think that only the third run were multi-coated with front filter threads, though someone may chime in here and correct me if i'm mistaken. mine happens to be multi-coated, in a modern compur 3 shutter, and threaded (60mm), which places it in the third run.

if you're looking, i thought this little history might help.

the lens is great for color work, too, but i REALLY love it for black and white.

shoot me an email if you have some specific questions.

scott