I have read your article published at forum of greeenspun website. I think that you must be a skillful camerist. It is difficulty for me to choose large format lens. In the field of large format photography, the brand of Schneider and Rodenstock' s lens are famous for its high quality. Could you tell me what difference or character between them ,compare with simili er structure and same focal length.
Although each of the four major brands (Fuji, Nikkor, Rodenstock, and Schneider) has its partisans, most photographers agree that it's difficult to generalize about entire brands. The differences are certainly there, but they're more often between different lenses within one company's lineup ("their 150 is better than their 120"), or between companies for different focal lengths (one company may have the "best" 90mm lens and another company the "best" 150mm), or between individual samples (your 180 Rodenstock may be sharper than my 180 Rodenstock).
I'd venture to guess that--unless they are affiliated with a lens company--very few LF photographers who own more than three lenses have stuck with only one brand, whether it be R or S or F or N. One of the beauties of LF photography compared to smaller formats is that you can mix and match among brands; if for one focal length you like the Nikkor best and for another focal length you like Schneider, you don't have to choose. As soon as you can afford them, you can buy them both.
So which lens to buy? Depends on your needs and your budget. If you backpack and shoot landscapes you may like small, compact, lightweight lenses, which tend to be slower but cheaper, while if you shoot architecture you may want faster lenses that offer large image circles but are often heavier, larger, and cost more. Either way, you won't go wrong buying from any of the "Big Four" lens compan
I agree with Simon. The differences in your choice of film will be far greater than the differences in modern lenses. Its rare to find a LF lens that isnt 'sharp enough', even with older vintage lenses.
I will not reply straight to your question, but this is how I bought my lenses: I considered the peculiar performances of each specific lens in a particular focal length rather than the name of the m aker. When I say performances, this includes size, weight, shutter size, price, and overall optical performances. Th at's how I ended up with lenses from Schneider, Fuji, Nikon and Rodenstock. I think there is not something such as a best brand but there are lenses best suited and this depends on what your applications and needs are.
There is certainly variation among lens types from a given manufacturer (e.g., Apo-Symmars are quite different from G-Clarons), but if you compare type for type across vendors - say, Apo-Symmar vs. Apo-Sironar-N or -S - Schneider and Rodenstock lenses do look different. They both have a nice balance of contrast and resolution at the plane of focus, but they render out-of-focus parts of the image in different ways, though the differences are sometimes subtle. Speaking specifically of these modern plasmat types, I happen to prefer the Rodenstock look myself, but I could live with Schneider if I had to. OTOH, the corresponding Nikkors and Fujinons are distinctly different - they tend to have a "harder" look at the plane of focus, and are much more prone to do nasty things to OOF backgrounds. Blech! (IMO, at least - your tastes, of course, may be different.)
Oren, it's the first time I hear about the differences in OOF zones between manu facturers (is this what some call the "bokeh"?). I know differences can be visible if the the diaphragm are made with fewer ore more blades but that's mainly the case with small format lenses. The LF lenses all use the same shutter s so would you explain more on what you have noticed, especially what the "nasty effects" of the japanes lenses are? Thanks.
"I have always wanted to line up MTF graphs with images to see how the objective translates to the subjective." Of course the curves produced would only apply to those particular lenses that were tested. Maybe a random sampling of say 50 lenses of each type & focal length from each and every manufacturer pulled off the production line at random times of the year would give you the information you think is relevant . Perhaps every individual lens should come with it's own charts and test images. How much would you be willing to pay for this feature?
Oops, that should have been "by John Kennerdell, Harold Merklinger and me". Apologies to the grammar police...
Paul -
The issue applies very much to landscape photography. Almost everything I shoot is at middle range, which means no matter how far I stop down, the images are almost never anywhere near pan-focus. The character of the OOF image - indeed, just how it slides out of focus as it hits the edge of the conventionally-calculated depth-of- field and beyond - is critical for my purposes.
Cheers...
...Oren
Oren, thank you for your interesting comments on the OOF issue. I wish I knew m ore or could see this in images. I might not be able to access the article in Photo Technique, but will try to make shots between my lenses to see how they compare. Nevertheless, I guess this issue applies primarely to product and portrait photography, landscapes being in general sharp on the whole image.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks