Neil, meaning like - the other lenses of this brand (Rodenstock?) are only medium sharp? It doesn't make more sense to me either...Originally Posted by neil poulsen
Neil, meaning like - the other lenses of this brand (Rodenstock?) are only medium sharp? It doesn't make more sense to me either...
Thanks, everyone. So far I like these focal lengths, too, except 90mm is a bit wide (although I used 24mm on 135 all the time so I am confident I will grow into it). 180mm is great, natural but not boring.
Maybe my focusing technique is "medium bad;" I'm just very impressed by color rendition and contrast but resolution looks normal, unspectacular to me.
The Sironar-S is nearly three times the price of the Caltar at 240mm. If I'm only using the center of the frame (i.e. 4x5), will I notice a difference? Obviously if money weren't an issue it would be an easy choice but I don't have a lot right now. There's something nice about having a matched set, but there's also something nice about saving like $600. I think I'll probably try the Caltar if I can get a good deal on it.
>>>>I need one last lens...
Famous last words! Try not to box yourself in like that. When you move up to 810 you might wish for a 240 that will cover the format in a nice compact package. Check the Germinar 240 in copal 1 if you can find one.
It's funny, this thing with individual tastes. I have several modern lenses, but somehow i rarely remember I have them nor what they are. So when I reach for a lens, it's about 90% chance I'll use either an old Angulon or an old Symmar. Both do the job I require of them, with all the sharpness and contrast I need. I'll use Super Angulons for wider views (all the way down to 47mm), and a G-Claron 355mm if I think the 360mm Symmar is too heavy to carry around.
My Rodenstock lenses tend to be pre-WWII (or even pre-WWI), and were never among the sharpest lenses even when they were brand new.
KEH has a trio of 250mm Fujinon-W lenses in the $200-$300 neighborhood. You will have 15 days to try them out.
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the North Carolina rainforest.
Wayne's Blog
FlickrMyBookFaceTwitSpacei
APO RODAGON 240/9 could be your choice; only four elements.
I'm kind of a rookie compared to the others here, but it seems that if one is going to own a limited number of lenses, it makes more sense to increase the "distance" between focal lengths as you go to longer lenses. For example, in your case it might make more sense to go 135-180-300 if you want a lens that gives a more compressed look and are going to own a limited number of lenses.
Just a thought...
Thanks all, I'm tempted to stick with Rodenstock because so far so good. I think whether you like soft of sharp lenses has a lot to do with if you shoot color and if you're a beginner. I shoot color and am a beginner so I like a sharp, deep focus look.
300mm may be a better choice, but I want something for portraiture, too, and my bellows don't extend past 300mm very much. But if the price is right...
I Wrote Apo Rodagon 240/9 But I Mean Apo Ronar 240/9
Your allusions to the 135 photography with comparisons let me think that you're perhaps still a little bit kidding yourself. A 24x36 slide will naturally look as having a better resolution as the same scene on a 4x5 slide but it's just a lot of illusion. You have much more elements together on a small slide so it somehow fools us to see it as more contrasty or having better resolution. If you take a close up of something with a fine and contrasty structure you'll be surprised how much better "resolution" you'll suddenly see...
When it comes to the resolution - be sure that you loose more of it by not perfect parallelism of camera's standards, not perfect film registration, not perfect film flatness in the film holder or not perfect focusing (to name just a few of a long list of possible causes) than by differences between this and that modern lens.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks