"Stay with lenses made in the last 15 years."
Let's assume that the lens you purchase doesn't show any signs of abuse. Then, you will most likely get a lens that's very high quality and that is multicoated. It's hard to go wrong with a lens like this.
At the very least, consider staying with multi-coated lenses. You can still obtain good photos with single-coated lenses. But, the later the lens, the less likely it is that you will encounter problems.
Geez, you fellers had me worried fer awhile. I picked up a Scheinder 150/265 convertable from E-bay for $137 'n' thought I got a great deal on a good lens. When I started readin down this thread, I waz gettin a sinkin feeling.
Glad ta hear that at least some folks think they're an ok lens.....
If it is possible in your area to rent a lens, you should rent and test them out before purchasing. I wasn't sure if I wanted a 110 SS or 90 mm SAXL so I rented them and tried them out. Considering the cost of either of the lenses, it was worth it to spend some $ renting. (I eventually got the 90 mm SAXL...lovely).
Bob,
There you have it---twelve different correct answers! While it seems logical enough that you'd want to get the best lens for your hard earned $$, I offer that as long as you get a reputable lens in good condition in a properly working shutter you'll be better off just going out and taking pictures with the thing rather than stressing over a something like a Nikkor vs Schneider debate. As long as you don't get a "dog" or even an otherwise respectable lens thats been somehow futzed up by a shade tree mechanic, you'll have a worthy combination. IMHO, Developing your own imagination and creativity is far more important than the name on your lens, so get out there and take some pictures!
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Jane, while your lens is the second worst normal lens on Chris Perez's test site it is still sharp enough to give good quality 16X20s. What I would worry about is a 50 year old shutter. If it is properly maintained it will probably last another 50 year - still, that kind of age scares me.
As for my recommendation, I say Rodenstock cuz it sounds cool. I like the way it rolls off the tongue. In all seriousness it depends on your budget. I am in the same boat as Jane and I spent $67 on a Schneider 150mm f/9 G Claron and I will be spending $50 to $75 for a shutter to put it in. If I had $500+ that would not be my choice but I don't.
Honestly, I use whatever I can get, i.e., afford. Why? Well, I have a 35mm Nikon Nikkormat. Before the lot across the street got filled with duplexes, I photographed the lot and brick buildings with both the Nikon 50mm lens and Graflex Super Graphic. Guess what the results were: LF had all the detail! Like, duh!
The biggest problem I had with sharpness was that my old Graflex's ground glass had been replaced, and the image on the replacement was not in the film plane. I then bought a new GG/fresnel, and shimmed it up. What did I use for shims? Strips of film from 35mm and 4x5 sheets. The biggest job was getting the measurements right.
From an old Shutterbug article, coated/uncoated has a big effect with color film. For B&W, all contrast adjustment can be done in the darkroom, i.e., film development and paper grade.
So from my perspective, just get _something_. Then learn to use it to its utmost.
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
Basically I think in this context Steve is right, especially for novices. I think it takes a very knowledgeable person to buy older lenses whereas anyone can hardly make a bad choice of major brand "lenses made in the last 15 years".
Let me give you an example. I used to have a 70's vintage 120 Super Angulon and a recent Schneider 210. Images from the early 120 were always about a paper grade flater than images from my newer lenses. The newer lenses were simply more contrasty. The difference meant that I had different normal dev. times for negs. from different lenses. Too much complexity for my tiny little brain. I now have seven lenses, five Schneiders and two Nikkors that were all made in the last ten years. Normal dev. time for all negatives are the same now regardless of the lens used and I can simply worry about expansion and contraction etc. Simplicity in the darkroom for me is a huge virtue.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Bob, if you email me your mailing address, I'll send you a booklet on lens choice.
Just a thought---
Q: What do Large Format lenses have in common with pizza and sex?
A: When its good, its very very good and when its only so-so, its still pretty darn good!
---Cheers!
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks