Too much contrastOriginally Posted by BrianShaw
Too much contrastOriginally Posted by BrianShaw
Probably because they recently, officially, abandoned us...Originally Posted by BrianShaw
I cast the single vote for Nikon. But I would be just as happy with Schneider, Rodenstock, or Fuji.
I own the 90mm f8 Nikkor-SW, 120mm f8 Nikkor-SW, 150mm f5.6 Nikkor-W, 210 f5.6 Nikkor-W, 300mm f9 Nikkor-M, and 360mm f8 Nikkor-T ED.
To this collection I plan to add the Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 180mm 5.6 and the Fujinon Compact 450mm f12.5.
These lenses will be used on 4x5 and 5x7 cameras.
It was the very high quality of John Sexton's prints that led me to choose Nikon over all the other brands. As you may know, John uses Nikon glass. I also chose Nikon because their lenses deliver a very good price/performance, and because I already own Nikon 35mm manual focusing lenses. Equally important is the fact that I am only an armature photographer and my reproduction rations do not exceed a factor of three times the linear dimensions of the film plane. Nikon makes excellent glass that meets these criteria quite nicely, but so does Fujinon.
Another deciding factor was an article written many years ago by Ron Wisner for Darkroom Techniques that clearly showed once f22 is reached, there is very little difference among large format lenses due to diffraction effects. When one also adds subject movement, camera vibration, and focusing errors, the differences among large format lenses are vanishingly small, and maybe non-existent.
Over the years, I have also been very impressed by the images of Ansel Adams, who used a Cooke XV Triple Convertible lens for many of his finest and most famous images. These photos are among the sharpest I have every seen. So one can use a "classic," non-fixed (convertible) focal length lens (or lenses) and get outstanding results.
Now that Nikon no longer makes lenses for the large format market, I would choose Fujinon without any hesitation based upon their excellent price/performance and upon the wonderful large format landscape work of Shinzo Maeda, who used Fujinon lenses extensively.
If I were shooting 8x10 and could put my own personal "dream team" together, I would choose the Schneider G-Claron 210mm f9, Schneider Goerz 250mm, Schneider Goerz 300mm, Schneider Red Dot Artar 480mm, and Schneider Red Dot Artar 600mm.
For ultra-large formats, I would use pristine Goerz Dagors and Red Dot Artars if I could find them.
Now how's that for a one-line answer?
Wow, indeed. Maybe this will mean used prices dropping on Nikkor lenses.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
I don't mean to insult you, Andre, but your question strikes as at best a contrived attempt to generate responses (= troll) and at worst just plain dumb. I don't think any of us has the budget or need to scrap all of our lenses and use ones from just one maker. You're asking us to reveal our fantasies. And the fantasies that have surfaced so far seem poorly anchored in reality.Originally Posted by Andre_941
Actual practice is more interesting. Never mind what we'd want in an ideal world, what do we actually own and shoot?
I shoot lenses made by, in alphabetical order: Aldis; Bausch & Lomb; Boyer; Ilex; Kodak; Nikon; Reichert; Rodenstock; Schneider; Taylor, Taylor, & Hobson, now trading as Cooke; Wollensak; and Zeiss. Why should I have constrained myself to lenses from just one maker? I'd have been poorer in lenses and ability to take pictures if I did.
OK, let the flaming begin,
Dan
Thanks to all who took up the challenge, suspended reality for a moment to use your imagination (or at least the majority who responded were capable to) and had fun with this poll.
I think that most of us recognize and enjoy that indeed each lens maker has a 'style and personality' to their large format lineup, and that being highly individualistic, we large format photographers gravitate towards one type of 'lens personality' or another...
Regarding the flames you were seeking Dan, I sent you some in a PM.
Thank you, Andre, for the PM. I have replied.
I don't for an instant accept that each lens maker has a 'style and personality' in their lens lineup for any format. I've done some of the highly obnoxious lens trials that Bob Monaghan has, i.e., shot the same scene on the same emulsion at the same aperture with the same lighting with a variety of lenses. Persons skilled in the art can't match image to lens at all. Neither can I without my notes. I and they may be insensitive clods, but I think that people who assert the ability to tell which lens took which shot, other things well-controlled, are deluded.
Now, I did cheat in two ways in my trials.
I used only known good lenses. I have other lenses that are known bad. Images taken with them can easily be told from ones taken with known good lenses. My good lenses all shoot pretty well.
And I used lenses that had more than enough coverage for the format I shoot. Most of the noise people make about 'personality' seems to be about performance towards the limits of coverage. By not practicing lens abuse I may have biased the results towards "all good lenses shoot alike."
Cheers,
Dan
No offense Dan, but I can ALWAYS tell my Cooke shots form the others...
Oh... really?Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
Hope I'm not too late.
"Fuji"
300C, 450C, and 240A are tough to beat on 8x10 for the price/size/sharpness/filter size.
-Rob Skeoch
www.bigcameraworkshops.com
Bookmarks