Why modern LF lenses all so similar between brands?

[paulr]

Lens companies today are staffed by marketers who are fighting for the same small group of consumers, and designers who have the same basic knowledge, software, and raw materials to work with. It makes sense that they end up in more or less the same place.

[Marko]

Perhaps the manufacturers are all using the same computer and optical engineering software? Grin.

Then there is the price-point for how far do you go with cutting edge design, and still make a profit.

The real question, I think, is how low can you go down the quality ladder and still have people accept it at the set price point. The difference is called profit maximizing.

[Ole Tjugen]

There can be little doubt that the modern WA constructions offer superior sharpness and illumination across the field of coverage compared to the WA Dagors, WA Protars and Angulons of old.

Yet I wouldn't swap my aging 165 Angulon with a 165 Super-Angulon - the old "plain angulon" is small and light enough to be put in the pack along with several other lenses while the Super would almost require a pack on its own. Same, but even more so for the 210mm Angulon vs. the 210 SA or Syper-Symmar XL. If anyone were to make a center filter for the old lenses that would be perfect.

The Plasmats are fairly simple to make, have good sharpness and even better coverage at a reasonably large maximum aperture. From a "performance point of view", it's a sure winner.

There are still tessars made, although Schneider have discontinued the latest series (the 150 and 210mm Xenars - can't remember what the 150 is, but the 210 is a f:6.1). That 210/6.1 Xenar is a great lens, but doesn't offer as much movements (on 5x7") as a plasmat of the same focal length. i believe the reason the 210 lasted somewhat longer than the 150 is that most of these were bought for 4x5" use, where the image circle of the 210mm is more than adequate.

Guys lugging 8x10's around photographing rocks and landscapes were (and probably still are) not significant enough a market.

That's it, I'm afraid. There may be many of us here, but not enough to justify starting a new production run of ultra-compact lenses for 8x10" and larger. We're stuck with our antiques for the forseeable future.

[paulr]

The real question, I think, is how low can you go down the quality ladder and still have people accept it at the set price point. The difference is called profit maximizing.

I see them doing the opposite. Companies like Schneider and Rodenstock are in cutthroat competition with each other for the handful of large format lens dollars out there. Once they establish a pricepoint that that they think will be accptable, they do everything they can to maximize quality within it.

It's a tough job, because the lenses they make are almost all general purpose. They're selling the same lens to fashion photographers, tabletop photographers, landscape photographers, architectural photographers, and scientific photographers, just to name a few. Each of these groups has different ideas about what makes a great lens. They need to try to satisfy all of them, at a high standard, and at specific price points.

I asked a schneider engineer once if it would be possible to make a certain lens better. First he had to ask what my definition of better was, since to him it could have meant any of more than a dozen kinds of improvements. When I said sharper across the image circle in the middle apertures, he said yes, they could easily make the lens 10% or so better, but at more than five times the cost. And there's currenttly no market for a $6000 210mm plasmat. Especially not for one with such limited improvement.

[Gene McCluney]

That is just it. There are no new "economical" lens for LF being made. It is all super whiz-bang ultra-fast Plasmats that weigh 10 tons. I don't expect or want modern lens companies to re-invent the wheel, but surely there would be some market (perhaps a student market) for good entry level lenses, small lightweight, but capable of good performance. As far as Cook and their revival project., It was my understanding that they build those things in batches. So maybe they will build another batch.

[Gordon Moat]

Isn't the small and economical lens market being addressed by Yamasaki Congo? The other choices are Rodenstock Geronars, which often seem to have been bundled with a few field cameras.

I think the trouble is the wide range of really good used lenses for under $300. Couple that with being able to sell a used lens for little to no loss, and you can test out many different lens choices for not much expense.

There are also fewer shutter choices than in the past. The price of a Copal #0 or #1 will affect the new price of any lens. If we wanted something faster than f5.6, then it might mean a Copal #3 and another step up in price point. Maybe if there were more shutter choices available new, it might give more room for lens designers and manufacturers to come out with something different.

Most recent development seems to be coming from Schneider and Rodenstock for digital capture lenses. Considering the prices of the digital backs these might be used with, the lens prices are probably not far off, but I don't see buying these anytime soon.

If I could imagine something really interesting, I would see that Schneider owned Century Precision Optics allow development of an add-on lens for large format lenses. The idea would be a wide converter, like they offer for some video and motion picture lenses.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[David A. Goldfarb]

The Fujinon-C lenses are lightweight and fairly reasonably priced for new lenses in their focal length, based on the Goerz Celor design. At 300mm, 450mm, and 600mm, they're perhaps aimed mainly at 8x10" users.

The Schneider 550/11 XXL is said to be a Dagor, but it's not a budget lens (well, maybe it is compared to Dagors longer than 14", which are rarities).

Cooke has been selling all the LF lenses they make, but they just don't get the kinds of prices for them that they can get for cine lenses. They used the principles of the PS945 to make a soft focus attachment for some of their cine lenses. That soft-focus attachment costs more than the PS945, and it's just a soft-focus attachment--not a camera lens.

Wisner made and perhaps still makes a convertible plasmat set. Not cheap, alas--

http://wisner.com/Page15.html

But really, why do you need new lenses? There are plenty of fine old LF lenses in good condition on the market.

[Gene McCluney]

Isn't the small and economical lens market being addressed by Yamasaki Congo? The other choices are Rodenstock Geronars, which often seem to have been bundled with a few field cameras.

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

Are you absolutely sure Congo lenses are still being made?? Same with Rodenstock Geronars. While I have a 210 Geronar, I do not see them in the stock lists of such large dealers as B&H etc. I will agree the shutter "issue" is problematical when it comes to offering an econnomical new lens, but again, a "slower" lens requires a smaller shutter. A smaller shutter is a more economical shutter. Why my 183mm Protar F18 (which will cover 11x14) if mounted in a new shutter woud be a copal 0.

While I like buying and using vintage lenses myself, I am a seasoned veteran photographer of over 35 years. A student starting out who doesn't have any camera and purchases an entry level 4x5 field camera doesn't have much choice for a first lens in the economy bracket.. Surely you will agree that if you are learning photography you need standardized gear that has repeatable results, and lenses that have f-stops that can be interpreted according to modern exposure meters...not the old waterhouse stops, or obsolete (pre-f-stop) scales.

I did notice that Freestyle does sell a Field Camera with a Geronar...but that doesn't mean they are readily available in general...could be remaining stock.

[Oren Grad]

Congo lenses are still being offered by Yamasaki, though if I recall correctly there was a post recently saying that Ted Bromwell was no longer importing them because the exchange rate made their prices unattractive. Easy enough to check with him if that's of interest.

You can still buy a new 210 Geronar from B&H for $584.95. At that price, I'd be very surprised if there were many takers - it's a really poor value compared to a clean used 210 Sironar-N or Symmar-S for $300. Even at $200 less, Calumet seems to be having some difficulty unloading stocks of their private-label Caltar II-E version - at least if their eBay clearance listings are any indication. And that, too, makes sense - I'd recommend the used plasmat to a student over a new Caltar II-E any day.

For a first lens of either 150 or 210 focal length, late-model plasmats in good condition are very easy to come by at prices comparable to what the shutter alone would cost new. Lenses in 90, 135 and 180 focal lengths aren't much more expensive.

[Gordon Moat]

Nikon officially stopped producing new Nikkor large format lenses, though a few places still have new lenses. Seems that might be the situation with Rodenstock Geronars, in that the remaining new lenses are old stock. I have no idea if production continues, nor even what would constitute production. I got the feeling after the Nikon announcement that they were not exactly cranking out large format lenses on a daily basis; quite likely production figures are small, even at Schneider.

On the aperture stop markings and shutter speeds, even a thirty years old lens will be somewhat similar to modern light meters, or even other format camera gear. Just looking at large format lenses of the 1970s and newer, there is a huge range of choices under $300. When you get under $200, or under $100, then some odd old stuff appears . . . sometimes weird flash connections, sometimes strange aperture settings, and often a lack of modern threads to mount filters.

My first 4x5 experience was using a 150mm. Now I have a 135mm and a 180mm, both fairly modern designs (perhaps 1980s and 1990s vintage), and an old barrel mount Zeiss Tessar 21cm (rarely used due to lack of shutter). When I got my Shen-Hao, it was tempting to get the bundled deal with the 150mm, but I felt I wanted something slightly different; and I also thought I might do better finding a used lens and used film holders. Mixing old (modern design) and new gear gives me a more versatile kit.

I mentioned Congo lenses because I have considered getting one a few times. The small size is one attraction, and I do think the prices are okay. Sometimes it can take a while to find a lens (or focal length) you want to use. I don't regret getting the old Tessar 21cm f4.5, though after using it I figured out I wanted a 180mm. Then it was patience and a little more effort to find a good used 180mm (thanks MPEX).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio