For sharpness, I'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between my 150 Heliar and my 150 Sironar-S. I presume that the Sironar has better coverage, but if I had to sell one, it would be the Sironar.
The Heliars blur nicely when stopped down a bit too (see below). There really is a reason why Heliars have been, as Jim said, "long dear".
I'd just look for a good deal and rationalize it with yourself that it is "best" because it is a crapshoot anyways. If $400 Sironar-S comes up, grab it, but don't overlook that $200 Symmar-S in a vintage circular aperture Compur.
In the end, buy and try and see what you prefer in the real world. If you buy right you won't loose any money.
90% of the best damn lens is what you put in front of it. But we'll split hairs over that remaining 10% forever.
Is uncoated (1,5xx,xxx) Zeiss tessar 150mm f:3.5 any good? A friend offered me one in compur shutter. What can it produce at wide open?
Given the OP's stated uses I would be very tempted to speak to Jim Galli about the Heliar. In the 150mm focal length I use an Apo Symmar and a Super Symmar HM for landscapes and architectural details. Both are stunningly sharp, although my HM at least is sharper. However in the studio I find I prefer a slightly "softer", more forgiving but still sharp presentation (I'm struggling for the right words here) . The Heliar should fit this role perfectly.
My own favourite studio lens at the moment is a 250mm Rodenstck Imagon which varies from very soft to quite sharp depending on the aperature selected - I don't tend to use the supplied tea strainers. Sadly I don't think they made a 150mm and if they did it wouldn't cover 4x5. There is a 200mm though which is on my shopping list as and when funds allow.
David Whistance
The best damned lens is the one that happens to be on your camera, in focus and set for proper exposure when you need it.
Seriously, you would have to work hard to find a bad 150mm lens in the sense that just about anything will make a decent negative. Since there can't be any one single best lens, do what Frank Petronio suggests and use as many as you can until you find the one or ones you like best. And that or they will be the best.
The 200mm Imagon was for 6x9cm. The 120 and 180mm were for 6x6 and 6x7cm.Originally Posted by dwhistance
You should really learn to use the disks as the lens will not perform correctly using the aperture blades in the shutter.
Bob, many thanks for your advice, you've just saved me some money. I have seen a few comments on the web suggesting that the 200mm Imagon can be used on 4x5, hence my interest, however the quality of your information is undoubtedly much better than most so I will stick with my 250mm. I have used the disks with the lens and agree that they do just what they are designed to do - I was no doubt too dismissive of them in my first post. I do like the effects the lens gives just by changing the aperature though. I think its an amazing lens given its simplicity!
David Whistance
David,
It isn't hat simple. Think of it as two lenses, one in the center that is the marked focal length and a second lens of another focal length around the outside of the center of the lens. The center lens casts the primary image and the outside lens casts a secondary image on the primary image. The amount of sharpness or softness is controlled by the size of the center opening (hence three disks) and the amount of haloing is controlled by how open or closed the outside holes are.
Assuming you have the proper lighting (no umbrellas) and the proper lighting ratio (5:1) rayou will get the results that the Imagon is known for.
By using the aperture blades rather then the disks you are masking off the outside portion of the lens and losing the proper haloing.
Here's a comparison of 2 shots taken on the same 4x5 film, at the same time and place, developed at the same time. (TMY + Pyrocat HD)
One photo was made with a ~1930's uncoated 150mm Braunschweig Heliar, the other a new coated 150mm APO Sironar-S. Focus was on the sheet of paper taped to the car, on the writing which tells us which lens was used.
As you can see, it is rather hard to tell the difference between the two images in the center. Although my scanner at the time, a Microtek 2500 spi scanner, has its limitations, it tested out to scan rather close to 2500 spi.
This isn't a rigorous scientific test: it's more "anecdotal". Perhaps a better scanner would reveal a difference in sharpness. Perhaps the sharpness of the Heliar, fades as we reach the corners of the image. I presume that the Sironar is better corrected for color too, and is less prone to flair and internal reflections.
Let me know if you would like to see how both lenses stack up, when shot wide-open. (The Sironar has noticeable coma, but the Heliar does not). I also made images with a 180 Tessar and a 210 Heliar, to see how they render out-of-focus when used at a distance. I was surprised to see how nicely they performed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks