Which 'old' lenses are as good as the 'new' lenses?

[duff photographer]

I have read in the forums that one or two older lenses are still as good as their modern counterparts (with image circles to cover 4x5 format), at least in terms of resolution.

As an example (and judging by the MTF's) I would guess that the older lead-glass Schneider Apo-Symmar range is as good as the newer lead-free Apo-Symmar L range albeit with a smaller image circle (or am I wrong?).

Are their any users out there who have been able to compare the older lenses with the modern lenses (in the same focal length) from the same manufacturer? If so, which old lenses are inseperable, or even better, than their modern brethren in terms of resolution, flare suppression, colour rendition, etc.?




-----
www.fineartofnature.co.uk

[Gene McCluney]

Lenses are such a personal choice for photographers. I use old Eastman Commercial Ektars in my studio product photography..they give me everything I want..tack sharp, good color, dependability. For some photographers this would seem absurd, considering some of the supposed "advantages" offered by newer computer-designed multi-coated lenses, but I have made a living from my work for over 30 years. I do use more modern lenses on location work, though.

[Dan Fromm]

Since when is an Apo Symmar an old lens?

[Eric Rose]

What is "good"?

[BrianShaw]

What is "new"?

[John Kasaian]

IMHO the 'tog is far and away more important than the glass. As an example, I can make absolultely horrible photographs with the late$t and greate$t wunder optic$ (trust me on this!)

[Kevin Crisp]

What is the purpose of the question? Of what use is an answer, any answer? Are you thinking you could buy older lenses and save money? If so, give some focal lengths you want and collect recommendations. Some older lenses cost a lot more than new ones.

[John Schneider]

In math/engineering in academia one would call this question "ill-posed." (1) There are too many variables, (2) I'm not even sure what you're really asking, (3) there's no certainty an answer even exists, and (4) I'm sure a unique answer doesn't exist. Unless you know what you really want to find out, there can be no answer. Q.E.D. Then there's the totally separate matter of perception. A rendition I find pleasing may be too harsh/sharp/soft/uncontrasty/etc. to you.

[Asher Kelman]

I have read in the forums that one or two older lenses are still as good as their modern counterparts (with image circles to cover 4x5 format), at least in terms of resolution.

As an example (and judging by the MTF's) I would guess that the older lead-glass Schneider Apo-Symmar range is as good as the newer lead-free Apo-Symmar L range albeit with a smaller image circle (or am I wrong?).

Are their any users out there who have been able to compare the older lenses with the modern lenses (in the same focal length) from the same manufacturer? If so, which old lenses are inseperable, or even better, than their modern brethren in terms of resolution, flare suppression, colour rendition, etc.?
-----
www.fineartofnature.co.uk

This depends on a lot of things, in a simple way, if one is stopping down and not using the periphery of the lens, then difference get less and less. However, open lenses use the outside of the lens where the money is to get light to end up focused in the right place.

Some of the old lens were excellent and even very fine stopped down.

If you really want to know then it's straightforward to test the lens. See Imatest.com .

Asher

[Mark Sawyer]

I have read in the forums that one or two older lenses are still as good as their modern counterparts (with image circles to cover 4x5 format), at least in terms of resolution.

As an example (and judging by the MTF's) I would guess that the older lead-glass Schneider Apo-Symmar range is as good as the newer lead-free Apo-Symmar L range albeit with a smaller image circle (or am I wrong?).

Are their any users out there who have been able to compare the older lenses with the modern lenses (in the same focal length) from the same manufacturer? If so, which old lenses are inseperable, or even better, than their modern brethren in terms of resolution, flare suppression, colour rendition, etc.?

The old just doesn't compare with the new. Really, comparing some old Velostigmat or Cooke Aviar with a new Apo-Super-Multicoated-XXXL, well that's like expecting Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly to live up to the standards of Brittney Spears or Lindsey Lohan...

Really, we come so far, who would want to go back?