Yes, if you can afford it; no, if you can't.Originally Posted by Brian Vuillemenot
Yes, if you can afford it; no, if you can't.
If you are in a position to notice, it will buy even more regular sheet film.
And most lenses made over the last 50 years or so are better than most photographers born in the same period anyway.
Brian,
If you can use or need the coverage of the more expensive lenses, then it's worth the price of admission.
If, OTOH, you know the limits of your lenses and those limits meet or exceed your needs, then many lenses built for LF use over the past 50 or 60 years will suffice.
When making fabulous images, the limiting factors are seldom lens design or implementation (except, again, in the case of coverage). Rather, the limits are our imaginative abilities to produce wonderful images.
I was looking at some Weston photographs the other day. I have to go out and get a Rapid Rectilinear.
Seriously, I think that if you can afford it, there is no reason not to have the best glass for your application. Whether it is the extra image circle you will need, or something that you can't explain about the lens that is important to you, by all means take advantage of it.
On the other hand, it is true that outstanding, even monumental, images were made with lenses far less sophisticated than the ones most of us use today. So personally, I don't worry about having the newest, most sophisticated super lens.
I can't afford a 110XL, so I use a 125mm Fujinon W. I can't afford a 150mm APO-Sironar-S, so I use a 150mm Fujinon W. Sure, it would be nice to have a bigger image circle, but given my budget, I have put together a bunch of very nice used lenses, many of them based on the state of the art in the 1980s, and they are plenty good for me. Our predecessors in the early and mid 20th century would have lusted over these lenses. And even so, many of my best photos were taken with my simplest (and first) lens, a 210mm Caltar branded, Rodenstock-manufactured triplet. (Lets see if I do any better with that focal length now that I have a new (used) Caltar branded Rodenstock-manufactured Plasmat.)
The modern wonder-optics (if I am using Christopher Perez's term correctly) frequently offer not only improved coverage but also improved flare resistance. The aforementioned SSXL series, in addition to their excellent coverage-to-weight ratios, are also some of the most flare resistant lenses I have tested. The updated Cooke XVa also has superb flare resistance, even better than that of my APO Sironar S. Since I like making cliched sunrise and sunset shots, modern lenses can make all the difference between a successful or failed shot. A lens hood can help an uncoated or single-coated lens produce excellent results in many cases, but it doesn't help when you shoot directly into the sun.
Wonder-optics in some cases also provide better edge sharpness and, for color shooters, improved resistance to chromatic aberration when extreme movements are applied. They can be a bit more idiot-proof (e.g., a multi-coated optic will be more forgiving if you forget to bring the lens hood along, etc.). That being said, all these additional capabilities typically cover exception cases for the average photographer, providing a benefit maybe 5-10% of the time. So if you have the cash lying around, take the wonder optics and run! But they are hardly a prerequisite for stunning photography if you can't afford them.
Of course the Caltar series has a branding problem: almost no one knows what a Caltar is, and almost no one has any motivation to find out, regardless of how good the glass is. Just be sure you're not the poor sap to have purchased it new (and who will bear the brunt of lost resale value), and you'll come out just peachy, right? What's wrong in selling a Caltar cheap if you bought it cheap?
Wait long enough and probably every LF lens will be considered "legendary"
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Most 210 lenses are pretty darned good. The wider ones tend to show off their maker a bit more. Also, if your format of the day uses the 210 as a wide angle, getting close to the coverage limits, the differences show up more. I woudn't be surprised to learn that your new Caltar is a good lens. As it is a Caltar, at least it won't get Schneideritis ( but Calcreep? ).
Many posts here have referred to a new tripod as the sharpest new lens. What of film types, processing, film flatness and the rest? There are probably many variables. Lenses all do have their characters. If you find one that pleases you, then who cares who made it or what you paid for it unless its an "investment"?
One of my favorite lenses for 4x5 in terms of image quality is a 135mm Rodenstock APO Sironar N. It's not an expensive or large lens, and coverage isn't that much either, but it sure has something magical about images made with it - they just snap. I own the 210 Sinaron S, which I hear is in reality a Rodenstock APO Sironar N. It's just a great lens for 4x5 and I wouldn't bother looking for anything else - it's probably sharper than most of the film I shoot. For the ways I use my 210, I don't miss the extra coverage on 4x5. Same goes with the 135. But for my 90, I got a lens with a lot of coverage because I hate center filters and somehow, I always need a lot of coverage.
It seems that faster lenses, as well as lenses that have more coverage and multicoatings bring the money. After that, perhaps brands matter. Many of the Schneider lenses have desireable specs. If the type of shooting you do doesn't need the costly extra coverage or whatever, and you like the results you get, not much else really matters.
It's easy to get stuck in the lens envy thing too. Sometimes, the "wunder lens" isn't really all that hot when put to one's own personal shooting. I have a Fujinon 240-A, which is generally loved and regarded as a must have. It's good, but really, it's nothing very special and it's not even as sharp as my lowly Sinaron 210. But, it does fill a slot in the kit when needed, and well, it works. I also have a Fujinon 360 6.3 that nobody seems to think is a good lens. For 8x10, it is a real favorite for great color and hair-splitting, distortion free sharpness and joy. I'll never, ever, sell it. So silly me, I absolutely love a lens that has no brand mix status! Maybe the Caltars vary more than others, but all lenses vary from specimen to specimen.
Post back to let us know how your new lens works out!
It never made any sense to me why anyone would prefer the Sironar-N or -MCs to the Caltars. The lenses are exactly the same, but the buy-in cost is higher with the Sironar. And there is no objective performance advantage to the -Ns or -MCs or Caltars versus other lenses--every manufacturer makes a 72-degree multicoated plasmat.
The only time I can see paying extra for the 75-degree coverage of the -S series is when the -N is marginal for the format, like with the 210 Sironar-N or -MC and the 8x10 format. The 3 degrees would allow some movements.
I also don't think of run-of-the-mill Sironars as magical lenses. Some people claim that they have a better OOF rendition, which I kind of agree with but can't imagine anyone paying extra for. When you talk about lenses with reputations, I think of the Sironar-W series: 80+ degree plasmats designed as taking lenses. Or I think of the SSXL series: light, fast, wide. Or Series V Protars. All of these lenses have something that others don't, and are priced accordingly.
Putting aside the magic bullet issue, I wonder how much of the lust for lenses is driven by how much of our lives are caught up in digital - putting aside any aesthetic questions, digital equipment is generic and disposable, and generates little love. Even beyond that, our appliances and everything else is now made just good enough, to last just long enough that we will not be too pissed when it breaks. LF lenses are like jewels by comparison.
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
Funny you should say that...
I have a RR that I used once. I was totally impressed with it but then it found its way into the back of a drawer. A couple of months ago I bought a very clean, functioning Anniversary Graphic that came with an uncoated No 31 Kodak Anastigmat. Compared to my modern lenses I suspect it is a cheap piece-of-junk... but I think it is becoming my favorite lens.
I might even change my name to Edward! (I already use a Weston meter, so I'm halfway there...right?)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks