My $$ on the G-Claron. Period.
My $$ on the G-Claron. Period.
Ian - I have no idea how you're coming up with opinions that run contrary to what the
rest of us have learned from lots and lots of cumulative experience. The question concerned two specific lenses in the 210 range, not old 150's. I'll agree that test charts don't tell the whole story; but any critical test is inherently nullified once you put the film in a conventional holder, which doesn't hold film flat in the first place. But heck, I wouldn't hesitate to use a G-Claron even on a rollfilm back, expecting to get even better sharpness than most modern dedicated MF lenses. An in 210, the G wins
hands down over a Symmar-S. I got thousands of shots, both color and b&w to prove
it.
Lens to lens variability invalidates many of the general assertions of fact in this thread. If your G Claron is sharper than your Symmar-S in meaningfully controlled tests, then I accept that. If you've shot the two side by side for thousands of shots, I think you've wasted some film. Regardless, your personal result isn't the basis for advice for someone else. My own personal tolerance for lens tests is pretty limited, I'd rather spend the time doing other things. When I have an oddball lens, usually something old and brass, I do explore what it can do, and if I have two of something I'll sometimes test them side by side and keep the one I think is better. At least where I can tell a difference at high magnification.
If you seriously think that a LF lens on a roll film back is going to exceed the sharpness of a dedicated MF lens, then I question your conclusions generally. Even 1950's vintage MF lenses on cameras like the lowly Rolleicord will generally kick modern LF glass. It isn't even arguable if you start checking lenses like those on a Mamiya 6.
..well the equation starts out simple:
2 lenses (with NO defects, age is less relevant than, assuming the design was not changed):
a f9 210mm G-Claron versus a silver rimmed convertible 210 mm f5.6 Symmar.
Than it gets complex very fast: how to test, variables as film holder, camera, tripod, focus, test target gets in to play. Analysis: analogue or digital?
Observations and facts get anadotical fast than, nevertheless some common ground can be distilled, my initial question has been answered, thanks all for your contributions.
Best,
Cor
Ian,Originally Posted by IanG
Test charts are flat field subjects perhaps you don't trealise that
So a repro/copy lens will give far better results because that's what they are designed for.
No rocket science in that . . . . . . . .
Bacck in the late 70's & 80's the best lens tests in UK magazines dropped test charts for this reason and used more practical testing under real life situations, that mades far more sense.
Ian
don't get easily fooled. The reason why magazines dropped the test charts was far more practical than you'd believe... The magazines were living on advertisement. They knew it all too well. And advertisement got - well, diversified...They were preying on amateurs and their amateurish chasing of the famous magic bullets. And they discovered that MTF graphs and testing charts looked too intimidating to the amateur masses (the easy digital photography was already prepared in the amateur heads long before it became a reality
) So, instead of the high science they came with the easy - you see for your self - method. They changed to the "real life" tests. And no, you won't see any difference on a real life picture between a flat field lens and a normal LF lens. And no, any "special distortions" you won't see them better than on a test chart either. Quit the contrary! But the amateur masses will much better believe and read the testing made with the "real life" situations - after all, isn't it how they were taking pictures? -rather than looking at dead testing charts. The result of this "clever" advertisement was also the fact, that amateurs started to talk like crazes about their own lenses and their own tests (in the real life, of course, how otherwise, even photo magazines do so!) - and manufactures together with magazines were happy. Ah, the golden age of amateur photography!
So sorry to destroy one of the successful legends... BTW have you noticed how every single camera in those magazine tests were oh so good!? You didn't need to have university to understand the plot...
The proof is in the pudding, Kevin. And I doubt that even 1% of the darkrooms in the
world have process control as tight as mine. I even have my own optical bench
arrangements for testing lenses and vacuum easel filmholders for precise testing with
real film, and dedicated easel desitometers about a thousand times more accurate than a typcial light meter. I'm not guessing. Not that this is such a big deal for general shooting, or where we have lots of good lens options to begin with. But for certain other things it does matter. I won't get into the M7 type lens arguments (got into it
with Sandy once) because we are comparing apples to oranges. Specifically, I work
a lot with relatively long perspectives, and M7 doesn't have much to offer in this category, and where it does, you have no movements to control plane of focus.
Using just the center of the field of lenses like G-Clarons, Fuji A's, or Nikkor M's for medium format holders combined with focal plane options, and you can often blow away the results of any dedicated medium format lens in those frequent cases where the only practical option is to stop the lens down for depth of field. But even with wide-angle lenses, view camera movements can be the key to visibly superior focus.
We're talking about real-world photography here, not flat test targets.
I like to do tests with my lenses but not only to see which is sharper then the other, for me is also the rendering of the out of focus parts very important and also the smooth change from sharp to unsharp and if the lens has a more 3 D look then an other one!
Cheers just start a test this evening with all my lenses except the wide ones because I always learn a bit about my tools Armin
You mean you'd not be relying on a Graflex camera, focused visually on the gg (right on, again), checked visually standards parallelity (good as usual), hoped for a non bulging film (no, doesn't happen to me, never) and took a picture of the fence over there? You don't want to be guessing? Hmm. Either you know something about what matters or you're just kidding...
GPS - where sharpness and enlargement are critical issues, I'm really for optimization
in both camps. Study the numbers, put lenses on the optical bench, verify the exact
shutter speeds etc etc. But then what is the likely real world application of that particular lens? For that field testing is mandatory, especially when it concerns the effects of actual movements in relation to image circle, usable aperture etc, or even
potential vibrations induced on a particular camera/tripod setup. You can simulate some of those things in a lab too if needed. But I do get a little annoyed when people
complain of this and that, and it turns out something totally other than the lens is at
fault, like the film plane itself is uneven, or poor focus on a fuzzy fresnel, or an out-of-whack enlarger, or how everything gets irrelevantly roto-tilled with a scan and pixelated analysis which only described how all that went wrong. Beyond the hard specs, we also all have priorities of the subjective "look" the lens provides. In this
case, just about every pro photographer back in the day knew that the "new" Apo
Sironar (N's) in 210 were looking crisper than the venerable 210 Symmar S. I switched
over to a 250/6.7 Fuji W when my Symmar S got downright ugly with Sinaritis; and it
absolutely blew it away in the sharpness category - but even this did not match what
I got with the 250 G-Claron and 240 Fuji A. But like I already stated, it's all about
nuances and priorites and logistical details like size and weight. They're all very
respectable lenses as far as I'm concerned.
This thread is now closed at the request of the original poster.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks