I need one last lens...

[Policar]

I didn't mean to imply the lens is anything less than very sharp; I haven't used it enough to have an educated opinion. It's just that what impressed me about it wasn't sharpness so much as color rendition and micro-contrast (and no visible longitudinal chromatic abberation in out of focus areas, my SLR lenses totally do this, green on one side and magenta on the other). I could care less if a cheaper lens is as sharp if it doesn't give the same "look" and isn't as good with color film.

Unfortunately for me, lens prices go way up around 240mm or 300mm--so I'm trying to find a way to get something as similar as possible without paying four figures.

[slrlounge]

This looks like the answer to your question. I'm sure you'll get fine results with any of the 240mm lenses but you'll always wonder. I think you should get the lens you want and not look back.

This is an amazing lens for landscapes. I never go out on a photo excusion without one!

Gluck!

-Chris
Lin and Jirsa Photography

[Jack Dahlgren]

I didn't mean to imply the lens is anything less than very sharp; I haven't used it enough to have an educated opinion. It's just that what impressed me about it wasn't sharpness so much as color rendition and micro-contrast (and no visible longitudinal chromatic abberation in out of focus areas, my SLR lenses totally do this, green on one side and magenta on the other). I could care less if a cheaper lens is as sharp if it doesn't give the same "look" and isn't as good with color film.

Unfortunately for me, lens prices go way up around 240mm or 300mm--so I'm trying to find a way to get something as similar as possible without paying four figures.

The differences between brands of modern LF lenses are minimal. Nikon, Fuji, Schneider, Rodenstock ... I doubt that many would be able to identify the lens by looking at a print from any of these. Largely you pay for coverage in these lenses.

Have you read this?:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ic-bullet.html

[Policar]

Good point. I'll get the less expensive lens. Coverage should not be an issue and I don't plan to go to 8x10 any time soon. If it's not good enough, I'll know soon.

Or I could go with my original plan and put a threaded macro lens (close up filter) on the 180mm. Could I do that and then extend the bellows further to focus on infinity?

[Jack Dahlgren]

Good point. I'll get the less expensive lens. Coverage should not be an issue and I don't plan to go to 8x10 any time soon. If it's not good enough, I'll know soon.

Or I could go with my original plan and put a threaded macro lens (close up filter) on the 180mm. Could I do that and then extend the bellows further to focus on infinity?

That in my opinion would bring in CA problems, but you can try anything.

[rdenney]

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?

I don't have your eyes, so I can't tell you what you will notice. But I am confident that the differences between the Sironar N and the Sironar S, other than coverage, are extremely subtle at best. The color rendition of the S might be a touch more accurate, which is important probably only in product shoots. I doubt I could tell the difference in real prints of a real subject, and even if there was a difference, I'm sure I could not assert that one was better than the other.

And on the subject of resolution, remember that the ultimate performance of the lens exist only on the focus plane, and then only when focused at the optimal distance (maybe 25:1 or 50:1) and at the optimal aperture. And then the result can be affected by the accuracy of the camera, the flatness of the film, the resolution of the film itself, the rigidity of the tripod, and the rigidity of the subject. When any of those real-world factors intrudes, the ultimate performance of the lens is no longer important. The trick with large format that all of us had to learn when we were new to view cameras is that one manages apparent sharpness by tilting the focus plane and applying depth of field. A 4x5 image at f/45 might be just fine as an image, but diffraction will prevent it from displaying the ultimate performance of the lens, even if the camera and subject can stay still for the required seconds imposed by that small aperture. But one may have to live with that to get the required depth of field.

Rick "noting that larger format lenses don't resolve as finely as small format lenses, but they resolve pretty well over many times the image area" Denney

[Policar]

Thanks! That was my thinking, too. The better lens is corrected for good performance at f16, but how often will I shoot at f16 with such a long lens? Just past f22 there's already the loss of sharpness from diffraction with the 180mm, so why pay more for performance I won't use? Now I just need to decide for sure on 300mm vs. 240mm.

That said, I am lucky enough to have good eyes (20/15 vision and better when wearing glasses--and perfect color vision) so little flaws stand out as obvious to me.

I was kidding about the macro filter, btw, but now I might try it just to see what happens. Thanks for the help.

[venchka]

One of the 250mm Fujinon-W lenses at KEH is the 1:6.7 version. For $300 and change it's worth a look. Besides, you never know when you may want to go larger.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I

don't have your eyes, so I can't tell you what you will notice. But I am confident that the differences between the Sironar N and the Sironar S, other than coverage, are extremely subtle at best. The color rendition of the S might be a touch more accurate, which is important probably only in product shoots. I doubt I could tell the difference in real prints of a real subject, and even if there was a difference, I'm sure I could not assert that one was better than the other.

Rick at full open the Sironar S is sharper and this is visible with any good loup 4-6x up to f 11 its sharper also to the corners at f 16 it starts to only the outer corners are sharper at f 22 they are almost at the same level!

Cheers Armin

[Policar]

Thanks Armin, have you tried the sironar-s wide open, by the way? At what stop does it become acceptable in terms of contrast and corner sharpness? How is the "bokeh"? It seems very good to me around f11-f16 with no green/magenta tint at all.

I will probably use f16 or smaller and near-to the center of the frame 95% of the time with this lens. With the shorter focal lengths I'm likely to use f11 and more of the frame, so I'm glad I spent the extra money there. I'll probably get the Caltar if it's nearly the same by f22, though. The Fuji looks as good, but not significantly less expensive, and if a brand works for me I stick with it until it doesn't.