What new things would you like to see in LF lenses?

[genotypewriter]

On a serious note, 35mm lenses get most of the cutting edge technology. Which of these would you like to see in large format lenses?

Here's my list:


Ultra-low dispersion glass like Sigma's new FLD that has made them produce very high quality wide-ish lenses recently. And CaF2 when possible.
More aspherical lenses and surfaces. Even if it means old base designs (e.g. Tessar) with aspherical surfaces.
Floating elements that can be moved via a ring.
Sub-wavelength coatings (http://www.canon.com/technology/s_labo/light/003/03.html)
~135-degree lenses for 4x5 and 8x10
Apodisation elements (variable if possible!)

[Ian Greenhalgh]

I'd like to see a company repeat Kodak's strategy of the 1940s - take existing designs (Tessar, Heliar, Dialyte) and refine them as far as possible using the latest technology. In Kodak's case it was new thoriated glass types, new adhesives, coating etc.

An aspherical triplet would be nice to see, revive the old TT&H classics but with updated designs.

The new glass types don't hold much if any advantage in most cases, it has taken a while to overcome the difficulties imposed by the ban on lead. Schott have been campaigning for years to be allowed to produce the old glass types rather than be forced to make everything lead-free. Also, the old thoriated glasses and lanthanum glasses were excellent and more modern exotic glass types like the fluorite elements Canon use are not necessarily better, but they do fit into modern health and safety guidelines whereas production of thorium and lanthanum glass is banned.

So even if you were to make a modern Tessar or Heliar with modern glass, it might not be any better than an old Ektar with old thoriated glass, you could apply better coatings but advanced multi-coating is of little benefit with simple lens designs.

A lot of the modern technologies are needed due to the obsession with zoom lenses. They are still trying (and usually failing) to produce zoom lenses that reach the quality level of old primes lenses. There are very, very few modern zoom lenses that can match the good primes of yesteryear. The same technologies are less needed in a prime lens and in a fairly simple prime design, they are even less necessary.

[vinny]

Autofocus!

[soeren]

Autofocus!

Phase detect or contrast? :D

[kgm]

You don't have autofocus? On my camera, you just turn a little knob and the lens automatically focuses.

[Bob Salomon]

Autofocus!

On what? With movements or without?

And this would not be new! A camera company that tried to start a new view camera system about 20 years ago showed a prototype of this idea at Photokina. The camera was made in 2x3, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and 11x14 sizes. Sensors were in the rails and the standards and you could add as much or as little automation as you needed. It could also compute the required Scheimpflug and position the standards for the required DOF, if desired.

It was never produced.

Sinar also had an electronic version of the P2 for a couple of years and Linhof had an IR rangefinder/viewfinder for the Technika 2000. Neither worked as planned.

[Cletus]

Yep, +1 on Vinny's request for autofocus!

...Of course, that includes auto perspective control and Scheimpflug principle application for the new "Auto-Focus View Camera"!

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting question. Are there any manufacturers of lenses that cover 4x5 and larger formats left?

[Amedeus]

Yep, +1 on Vinny's request for autofocus!

...Of course, that includes auto perspective control and Scheimpflug principle application for the new "Auto-Focus View Camera"!

So that makes it a system solution and not a lens solution ... has been tried before as Bob pointed out at a cost few wanted to buy at.

[vinny]

On what? With movements or without?

And this would not be new! A camera company that tried to start a new view camera system about 20 years ago showed a prototype of this idea at Photokina. The camera was made in 2x3, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and 11x14 sizes. Sensors were in the rails and the standards and you could add as much or as little automation as you needed. It could also compute the required Scheimpflug and position the standards for the required DOF, if desired.

It was never produced.

Sinar also had an electronic version of the P2 for a couple of years and Linhof had an IR rangefinder/viewfinder for the Technika 2000. Neither worked as planned.

joking bob

[GSX4]

A modern, and cheaper version of a Dallmeyer 3b patent portrait lens.

[jp]

AF certainly has appeal. but I wouldn't change cameras to get it.

I think some more minor features would be good. I'm looking for convenience and reliability more than absolute optical perfection.

I tire of non-standard filter/hoods; contemporary threaded and cokin/lee style filters+compendium would be nice.
I'd like a wollensak monster studio shutter drop-in-replacement with contemporary materials, multiple speeds, and X-sync.
Perhaps some weather-proof lens+shutter offerings for field use.
Shutters that work better at all temperatures. (electronically controlled or at least built in measurement) But I bet it wouldn't fly because most people aren't like me and don't head out in blustery below freezing weather to get snow photos.
As cheesy as it sounds, a lens where you could "turn the swirl up to 11" would be coveted. Call it a variable swirl or maybe vario-wirbel or something.
I wouldn't pay money for it, but it'd be cool to have a shutter that displays it's settings as an image overlay (like crosshairs overlay a target in a scope) on the groundglass while composing a photo, and the settings go away when you cock it.

[Brian C. Miller]

Hasselblad discontinues its System V cameras (http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2013/2013-04-29_vsystem-discontinued.aspx), and you guys want new development in LF lenses? I'd just be happy that Schneider and Rodenstock keep making something for a while longer. Nikon and Fuji have dropped out. Copal has filled a warehouse, and is concentrating its efforts in other areas.

What new things I would like to see? Gee, Santa, could Schneider and Rodenstock please stay in business?

[Bob Salomon]

Interesting question. Are there any manufacturers of lenses that cover 4x5 and larger formats left?

Of course, Rodenstock is making lenses for both analog as well as digital view cameras from 65 to 360mm in Analog and from 23 to 180mm in Digital + analog 120 and 180mm Macro lenses and 120mm macro lens for digital.
They also make enlarging lenses for 35mm to 4x5 as well as duplicating lenses.

[George E. Sheils]

joking bob


:o

[Heroique]

On what? With movements or without?

And this would not be new! A camera company that tried to start a new view camera system about 20 years ago showed a prototype of this idea at Photokina. The camera was made in 2x3, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and 11x14 sizes. Sensors were in the rails and the standards and you could add as much or as little automation as you needed. It could also compute the required Scheimpflug and position the standards for the required DOF, if desired.

It was never produced.

Sinar also had an electronic version of the P2 for a couple of years and Linhof had an IR rangefinder/viewfinder for the Technika 2000. Neither worked as planned.

Is there a secure way to contact Bob?

Someone has hacked his account and is making posts.

We should let him know as quickly as possible!

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Ananmorphics and Spherical systems!

Am drooling already!!

[Peter Yeti]

Is there a secure way to contact Bob?

Someone has hacked his account and is making posts.

We should let him know as quickly as possible!

No, this one is true. But Rodenstock still making analogue lenses for 4x5" and up? I'm at least sceptical. As far as I know, Schneider is only selling off their warehouse stock but not producing new 4x5" lenses anymore. I wonder if Rodenstock is doing the same. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But both companies are well and producing - for digital.

But I understand that this is all about dreaming, so, how about a "mind reading lens" that produces exactly the image you imagine?;)

[jnantz]

i would love to see affordable lenses for upto 11x14 or bigger, not ones that are new and cost six, seven or eight hundred dollars or even thousands.
something that when used wide open had pleasing out of focus areas, and stopped down was sort of sharp ( or sharp-enuf )
and something that could be used as a barrel lens or have a way to mount a simple shutter on it ...

oh i forgot, reinhold already sells them!

thanks reinhold for making such a great and affordable product !
john

[Reinhold Schable]

Thanks John, it's my pleasure to be of service...

Reinhold
www.re-inventedPhotoEquip.com

[polyglot]

Dark-edge apodisation filters for bokeh control, as per the Minolta/Sony 135 STF.

That should be just a shutter feature though (the filter is approx. coincident with the aperture) and should work with any lens that physically fits that shutter.

[Arne Croell]

Yes, autofocus was already demonstrated in a new LF camera at photokina 2010 and 2012, although it is not sold (yet). Its called the CAPcam: http://www.gfae.ch/ViewCameras/CAPcam.html

[Sal Santamaura]

[Fantasy mode on] A 227mm* Apo Sironar N (not S) having a front cell accessory thread long enough so that filters wouldn't collide with the front element in a shutter that has a near-circular aperture using at least 10 blades, preferably more. [Fantasy mode off] :D:D:D

* If some genie grants this wish and is still feeling magnanimous, I'll take 270mm and 395mm versions too. :D

[Bob Salomon]

[Fantasy mode on] A 227mm* Apo Sironar N (not S) having a front cell accessory thread long enough so that filters wouldn't collide with the front element in a shutter that has a near-circular aperture using at least 10 blades, preferably more. [Fantasy mode off] :D:D:D

* If some genie grants this wish and is still feeling magnanimous, I'll take 270mm and 395mm versions too. :D

Keep dreaming. But we do have a demo 240Apo Sironar N that we will sell cheap (been trying to for years now!)

[Sal Santamaura]

...we do have a demo 240Apo Sironar N that we will sell cheap (been trying to for years now!)Thanks Bob, I already have one.

[E. von Hoegh]

Sal, the solution for the filter problem is to take the glass out of a cheap or damaged filter and use that ring as a spacer. Narrow tape around the edge will prevent it coming off with the filter. I know, it's a kludge, but it's better than a damaged front element.

[Sal Santamaura]

...take the glass out of a cheap or damaged filter and use that ring as a spacer. Narrow tape around the edge will prevent it coming off with the filter. I know, it's a kludge, but it's better than a damaged front element.Unfortunately, doing that exacerbates the vignetting caused by using any filter on this series (and the -S series) of lenses. Least-bad, i.e. minimum vignetting, approach is to use a step-up adapter and a larger filter. However, that increases the front assembly's diameter and depth. On my Horseman FA, it prevents the 135mm Apo Sironar N from closing inside the camera. Only Heliopan filters place the glass far enough forward in their rings to avoid colliding with these lenses, but they do restrict coverage. Therefore, I normally leave a Heliopan filter on the 135 N and only replace it with a step-up adapter + large filter in situations requiring substantial movements.

On my other Rodenstock lenses I've taken a similar approach, with Heliopan filters on the 210 and 240 Apo Sironar Ns and a step-up adapter plus larger filter on the 135 Apo Sironar S. These lenses' designers have decided that minimizing front cell size was an overriding consideration. I would have made different configuration choices. :D

[Oren Grad]

I'll take 270mm and 395mm versions too.

270mm Apo-Sironar-S, please. :D

Yeah, I know it's not going to happen. :(

[Teodor Oprean]

The only new product I would like to see is a multicoated/hardcoated version of the classic Tessar/Xenar. It would be nice if I could confidently clean them without having to worry about introducing cleaning marks. None of my Pentax SMC lenses ever get scratched from normal, careful cleaning, but a single-coated Tessar type lens scratches far too easily, even if you are super careful. I very rarely need to clean my lenses, but sometimes it's unavoidable to touch the glass surface.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

Xenars and Skopars both had hard coatings, I cleaned my Xenar 3.5/105 recently and the coatings are still perfect. The blue coloured Voigtlander coating seems to hold up even better than the Schneider one. It's the early Zeiss coating that is soft and easy to damage. The Vade Mecum says Wray lenses have soft coatings on the inner surfaces that can easily be wiped off. Touch wood, neither my Lustrar 7.5 inch or Apo Lustrar 12 inch needs cleaning so I haven't had to find out myself yet.

[Bernice Loui]

Most of this list applies to modern zoom lenses or more complex Gauss designs that would not work at all without multicoatings, aspherical elements and low dispersion glass if these designs have any hope of producing a high definition / good contrast image, flare resistance and...


What I would like to see in LF optics is a return to the past.. The most significant advances in LF optics were wide angle lenses, last of which was the Schneider XL aspheric, before that was the Biogon/Lamagon which resulted in many of the modern wide angle lens designs common today. Optics manufactures did well on this optics family.

LF optics manufactures lost their way when they decided that the common f5.6 Plasmat would be the do-all lens for nearly every imaging need... which was simply wrong based on what optics designers perceptions of what image makers needed. Yes, they spent their design efforts to banish every residual aberrations as best they could, but did not realize some of these "defects" or aberrations are actually a good thing. For what every reason, the decision to standardize on f5.6 was not always a good one as it forces excessively large lenses for some applications.

What the optics manufactures should have done is to continue to production of designs like the f6.8 and f7.7 Dagor, including it's air spaced variant the f9 Dialyte aka Artar, Ronar, APO Nikkor and others.

f3.5 or f4.5 Heliar, f4.5 to f6.3 Tessar (Note what the optics designers at Kodak did with the Tessar to produce a truly classic lens that has stood the test of time with a look that remains it's very own) as a normal focal length lens this includes focal lengths up to 19" or more. Even Gauss (Zeiss Planar, Schneider Xenotar) designs at f2.8 or larger aperture would be quite viable today.

Anyone notice what the market prices for good examples of a Dagor / Heliar and etc is compared to a modern Plasmant of the same focal length?

Out of focus rendition matters, Iris made with far more than 5-7 blades matters, shutters larger than a number 3 matters, smooth contrast rendition may be far perforated over hard edge contrast rendition that produces images that appear "shaper" or of higher resolution when they are actually not.

Lens image circle -vs- focal length should be carefully considered in the overall needs of the image maker as this forces specific trade-offs in a lens design that may not be required for the image to be created.

A return of "soft focus" lens designs would be a good addition to a proper return to classic optics designs. Again, note the market prices of some soft focus lenses...


The golden era of LF lens design and production is pretty much in the past now. One look at the ocean of used LF lenses on the market tells pretty much that few if any new LF lenses, shutters and related will be produced in the future..



Bernice




On a serious note, 35mm lenses get most of the cutting edge technology. Which of these would you like to see in large format lenses?

Here's my list:


Ultra-low dispersion glass like Sigma's new FLD that has made them produce very high quality wide-ish lenses recently. And CaF2 when possible.
More aspherical lenses and surfaces. Even if it means old base designs (e.g. Tessar) with aspherical surfaces.
Floating elements that can be moved via a ring.
Sub-wavelength coatings (http://www.canon.com/technology/s_labo/light/003/03.html)
~135-degree lenses for 4x5 and 8x10
Apodisation elements (variable if possible!)

[Brian C. Miller]

Bernice, Badger Graphic sells Cooke lenses (https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=246) new for $2,900 (convertible, 8x10) and $4,500 (portrait, 4x5).

Not every modern lens has been a f/5.6. I have a Fuji 300mm f/8.5. Lens apertures are constrained by the shutter manufacturers. When was the last time that a lens manufacturer made their own shutters?

The aesthetic of the lens depends on the aesthetic of the consumer. Ultimately, mass production is decided by mass interest. Mass production brings price savings. Now, how many photographers on the board can fork over $5,000+ for a lens without batting an eye? If someone wants Cooke to make a lens to X specs, it's just a matter of the consumer (photographer) coughing up the cash. Or perhaps taking the Newport lens kit (http://www.newportglass.com/share.htm) and making lenses for cameras instead of telescopes.

Personally, I celebrate the Holga and its ilk. It's not about "crappy" pictures, it's about the concept that a photograph doesn't have to be razor sharp to be good. Yes, I have razor sharp lenses. I also have soft lenses.

But back to the market.

Lenses haven't gone out of style. Unfortunately, large sensors have gone out of style, as the phrase "cheap large digital sensor" is currently a contradiction in terms. Reviewers of digital cameras were mentioning the problem with getting a fish-eye lens for sub-full frame cameras. It's only the larger formats that have the advantage of flexibility in lens effects.

Now, what is the market for "soft" lenses? Actually, not much. Perhaps at one time in the past, yes there was a good market, but now? What has to happen is the public needs to be "educated" that they want something that can't be done with a Zeiss Softar filter and Photoshop, or just an Instagram effect, let alone needing a Pinkham-Smith and an 8x10.

But the Lomo/Holga/Diana movement isn't really about "art," it's about people socializing with each other. That's actually the life blood of photography. Look at how photography blossomed with the Brownie, and how people have flocked to the movie houses. While photography got its start with LF and LF has produced a lot of great photographs and photography, it hasn't been the backbone since any kind of smaller film became convenient.

Here is one "wow" factor that I've found: a razor-sharp slide and a set of magnifiers. Recently, for grins and giggles I brought in my Toyo 4x5 and photographed the scene outside the company kitchen window (Nikkor 210). Hello, Space Needle and surrounding neighborhood. I brought in the slide and a light box and showed the results to my coworkers. Oohs and ahs. "Why do people make a big deal about digital?" "This has a certain dimensionality to it." "I can make out the stars on that flag!" Etc. Lots of amazed people. And what they saw is what I regard as a snapshot.

And that is really what photography is supposed to do. It's supposed to turn heads.

We have the large format. Let's not think small.

[EdSawyer]

Bring back the fast lenses! Put the whole Xenotar line back into production (including the 210mm). When used ones from 40+ years ago are selling for $2-3k, there's obviously a market there.

Bring back some fast aerial lenses too. Imagine how good an aero ektar could be made with modern glass and coatings? Probably pretty spectacular.

Would be nice to see the Apo El-NIkkor line come back into production too.
-Ed

[Roger Cole]

Interesting question. Are there any manufacturers of lenses that cover 4x5 and larger formats left?


Hasselblad discontinues its System V cameras (http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2013/2013-04-29_vsystem-discontinued.aspx), and you guys want new development in LF lenses? I'd just be happy that Schneider and Rodenstock keep making something for a while longer. Nikon and Fuji have dropped out. Copal has filled a warehouse, and is concentrating its efforts in other areas.

What new things I would like to see? Gee, Santa, could Schneider and Rodenstock please stay in business?

Pretty much what I was thinking, more specifically "available brand new good quality lenses for less than $500 or so with shutters." Dream on.

But even fairly good lenses are usually better than standard film holders and better than many of us who only print to, say, 16x20, actually need. What we need is those lenses to continue to be available new in shutters for prices that don't break the bank.

[Bernice Loui]

Where was "all" written as a gross generalization of the modern f5.6 plasmat? There was a mention of "do-all" lens, but not all modern lenses being f5.6 plasmat.


A better question would be where did the image aesthetics and preferences in the "consumer" come from? Where is this learned ? What are their points of reference and why to they gravitate towards the images they do?

During the infancy of photography stored images were not common and the art and craft was limited to a few who had the technical knowledge and resources to practice this art and craft. It is possible that during this time, "consumers" of images were dictated by the photographers as they had significant control over the images presented to the consumer... this in many ways set the point of reference of what the consumer expected. As photography became common and well within the ability of the consumer, this altered the point of reference for what consumers expected.. the Brownie effect. Yet, photographers still had much to offer by moving photography from simple capture to art and artistic expression... again altering the point of reference..

Today the general public is bathed in an ocean of images most every waking moment. This must have some effect the point of reference for the image consuming public. This could also be why photographers have resorted to high contrast, overly saturated color, wall sized prints or a host of other image gimmicks in an effort to capture that moment of the consumer's attention.. what has this done to those who produce images, how have they responded to the need to please ?

Educating the general public on what is an expressive s not going to be easy. Many of these consumers could have little if any interest in expressive images beyond what captures their initial emotional response.

The topic of lenses are interesting, but they remain only one of the links in the entire image production process. There are a host of other factors that have a significant effect on the finished image. There are no magical lenses that will produce an expressive image on their own, it is merely a tool to be used by the artist as a means to an end.. much like a painter uses a specific brush or pencil as a means to express.

What I dis-agree with regarding modern LF lenses, is the ideology that everything in the image must be sharp which means optimizing the lens typically for f16 or f22 with these as taking apertures or smaller aperatures. If this is an point of design for lens designers, why force a typically aperture of f5.6 on the common general purpose LF lens? Yes, there are quite a number of f8 and smaller modern LF lenses made, but the majority are not..

It is possible that the group f64 ideology has been so ingrained into the tradition of LF photography that this ideology has altered the expectations and points of reference for an entire generation of photographers and what lens designers design into LF lenses.. This could be why soft focus lenses have mostly died out of production and large aperture lenses once a requirement for LF portrait work on plates and sheet film larger than 4x5 has become a thing of the past... even when large aperture LF images have their own brand of expression.

When I began LF photography years ago, LF images meant everything in the image must be as sharp as possible with as much resolution and information in the image as possible. Over time and many, many sheets of film and many, many, many boxes of fiber base paper went into the trash, my image preferences and ideas of what an expressive image can be changed and evolved. These days, I'm no longer one of those who demands everything in the image must be sharp, have extreme resolution, extreme contrast range or... What matters to me these days is what does the image have to say as a means of expression.. This does not mean hitting the viewer over the head with ____ to lure into that nanosecond of image bliss, rather allowing those who take an initial interest and allow them to be drawn deeper into the image to discover a deeper meaning in what they see.



Bernice



Bernice, Badger Graphic sells Cooke lenses (https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=246) new for $2,900 (convertible, 8x10) and $4,500 (portrait, 4x5).

Not every modern lens has been a f/5.6. I have a Fuji 300mm f/8.5. Lens apertures are constrained by the shutter manufacturers. When was the last time that a lens manufacturer made their own shutters?

The aesthetic of the lens depends on the aesthetic of the consumer. Ultimately, mass production is decided by mass interest. Mass production brings price savings. Now, how many photographers on the board can fork over $5,000+ for a lens without batting an eye? If someone wants Cooke to make a lens to X specs, it's just a matter of the consumer (photographer) coughing up the cash. Or perhaps taking the Newport lens kit (http://www.newportglass.com/share.htm) and making lenses for cameras instead of telescopes.

Personally, I celebrate the Holga and its ilk. It's not about "crappy" pictures, it's about the concept that a photograph doesn't have to be razor sharp to be good. Yes, I have razor sharp lenses. I also have soft lenses.

But back to the market.

Lenses haven't gone out of style. Unfortunately, large sensors have gone out of style, as the phrase "cheap large digital sensor" is currently a contradiction in terms. Reviewers of digital cameras were mentioning the problem with getting a fish-eye lens for sub-full frame cameras. It's only the larger formats that have the advantage of flexibility in lens effects.

Now, what is the market for "soft" lenses? Actually, not much. Perhaps at one time in the past, yes there was a good market, but now? What has to happen is the public needs to be "educated" that they want something that can't be done with a Zeiss Softar filter and Photoshop, or just an Instagram effect, let alone needing a Pinkham-Smith and an 8x10.

But the Lomo/Holga/Diana movement isn't really about "art," it's about people socializing with each other. That's actually the life blood of photography. Look at how photography blossomed with the Brownie, and how people have flocked to the movie houses. While photography got its start with LF and LF has produced a lot of great photographs and photography, it hasn't been the backbone since any kind of smaller film became convenient.

Here is one "wow" factor that I've found: a razor-sharp slide and a set of magnifiers. Recently, for grins and giggles I brought in my Toyo 4x5 and photographed the scene outside the company kitchen window (Nikkor 210). Hello, Space Needle and surrounding neighborhood. I brought in the slide and a light box and showed the results to my coworkers. Oohs and ahs. "Why do people make a big deal about digital?" "This has a certain dimensionality to it." "I can make out the stars on that flag!" Etc. Lots of amazed people. And what they saw is what I regard as a snapshot.

And that is really what photography is supposed to do. It's supposed to turn heads.

We have the large format. Let's not think small.

[Ian Greenhalgh]

When it comes to sharpness, there really are only two types of lenses imho : 'sharp enough' and 'not sharp enough'. Of course, the threshold for sharp enough changes depending on the particular shot and the subject.

[Otto Seaman]

It would be nice if the new lenses flipped the image upright and right-facing.

[E. von Hoegh]

After giving this some thought, there's nothing new I need to see in any lenses of any type or format. I could spend a lifetime with one camera and one (100 year old) lens and never exhaust it's capabilities, so it seems to me that any new features would be superfluous at best, gadgeteering at worst.
Whatever I have ever attempted to do and failed, was due to my inattention, lack of forethought, or unrealistic expectation; not something lacking in my equipment.

[Brian C. Miller]

Today the general public is bathed in an ocean of images most every waking moment. This must have some effect the point of reference for the image consuming public. This could also be why photographers have resorted to high contrast, overly saturated color, wall sized prints or a host of other image gimmicks in an effort to capture that moment of the consumer's attention.. what has this done to those who produce images, how have they responded to the need to please ?

Nothing stops anyone from being an unappreciated artist. The cliche phrase, "starving artist," exists for a very good reason.

While we are bathed in images, are we bathed in good or even magnificent images? We are bathed in the banal, if that. We are not bathed in AA Moonrise or such. When I walk out the door, I see advertising images. Big gross things for whatever. Or I see blank walls. It would be great to see great art advertising products. There is no, "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You produced a billboard from a highly compressed JPG. Prepare to die."


Educating the general public on what is an expressive s not going to be easy. Many of these consumers could have little if any interest in expressive images beyond what captures their initial emotional response.

Well, images are emotional. Unless you really like looking at the schematics of electronic equipment. Just look at what wins a Pulitzer prize.


The topic of lenses are interesting, but they remain only one of the links in the entire image production process. There are a host of other factors that have a significant effect on the finished image. There are no magical lenses that will produce an expressive image on their own, it is merely a tool to be used by the artist as a means to an end.. much like a painter uses a specific brush or pencil as a means to express.

Right, lenses are simply precision pieces of glass. Up to a point. You won't obtain the effects of a wide-open Imagon using a Sironar, etc. Also, the effect of a Zeiss Softar filter is different from an Imagon lens.


What I dis-agree with regarding modern LF lenses, is the ideology that everything in the image must be sharp which means optimizing the lens typically for f16 or f22 with these as taking apertures or smaller apertures. If this is an point of design for lens designers, why force a typically aperture of f5.6 on the common general purpose LF lens? Yes, there are quite a number of f8 and smaller modern LF lenses made, but the majority are not..

The lens manufacturers currently have the choices of Copal #0, Copal #1, and Copal #3. That's it. As for lens optimization, that's actually a factor of optical physics. There's a sweet spot for lp/mm, and it doesn't matter what the lens' maximum or minimum aperture happens to be. LF makes up for that just by being freakin' huge, so a falloff of resolution doesn't hurt the image much. As for a larger lens, not that many people are willing to put up with three pounds of glass on the front, let alone six to ten pounds of glass. Nobody operated a Big Bertha setup hand-held. And besides weight, there's the problem with the shutter. The fastest a Copal 3 will go is 1/125th, and I think the Ilex #5 is 1/50th. As for the common f/5.6, that works for me for focusing. A smaller shutter would lose an f/stop, and a larger shutter would gain an f/stop, but what's available is what we work with. Unless a person is packing the camera out into the wilderness, a heavy lens doesn't really matter.


It is possible that the group f64 ideology has been so ingrained into the tradition of LF photography that this ideology has altered the expectations and points of reference for an entire generation of photographers and what lens designers design into LF lenses.. This could be why soft focus lenses have mostly died out of production and large aperture lenses once a requirement for LF portrait work on plates and sheet film larger than 4x5 has become a thing of the past... even when large aperture LF images have their own brand of expression.

I'll relate something I read in a book on wedding photography. The author wrote that he would tell his clients that he used a 35mm camera, because it produced a better, sharper, image than a medium format camera. His competition was literally down the hall, and he would tell a prospective client to go down and see the big enlargement outside that studio, and then come back and look at his own work. Now, the medium format picture could have been made using an Imagon or other soft lens, or with a Zeiss Softar, but that didn't matter to the buyer. The prospective client never actually went in and asked about the bridal portrait hanging in the window. The buyer was programmed that sharp equals good, and so the book's author got the business.

When people see a soft image, they usually think, "Oh, the idiot can't focus the camera," because that's usually the problem.

As for large aperture LF lenses, those Kodak Aero Ektars are freaking huge! Yes, a Kodak f/2.5 178mm lens has an aesthetic wide open that's different from a Fuji f/5.6 180mm lens, but I'm betting that the average person won't see the difference unless you have prints side by side. And then they might not even care. And once you bump up formats to 8x10, a wide-open f/5.6 has a pretty narrow depth of field in the first place.

[Jac@stafford.net]

IMHO, we have not yet experienced all the lenses that already exist.
There are so many available. If a person has not actually used them,
then they they cannot know how they render.

A new sharper, uber-expensive LF lens is impossible to market, but there
might be some from military aerial application already out there to meet some challenges.
Who with the financial resources and in his right mind would mount one of
those monsters on an 8x10" format?

So, for those who wish 35mm metrics to be applied to LF formats, the end
occurred about fifty years ago.

It ain't gonna happen.

Glassless lenses are next in the evolution of image renderings.

[Tin Can]

Jac, wrote, 'Glassless lenses are next in the evolution of image renderings.'

Absolutely!

[genotypewriter]

Lenses haven't gone out of style. Unfortunately, large sensors have gone out of style, as the phrase "cheap large digital sensor" is currently a contradiction in terms. It's easy to confuse popularity with direction. Just like with film, what's popular in digital hasn't always had the biggest sensors... but if you're taking the time domain in to consideration, you can see that larger and larger sensors are becoming the norm. Full frame cameras are now $1900 or less brand new and they are found even in tiny point and shoots now. Medium format digital is also available for under $7000 brand new.



As for lens optimization, that's actually a factor of optical physics. There's a sweet spot for lp/mm, and it doesn't matter what the lens' maximum or minimum aperture happens to be. LF makes up for that just by being freakin' huge, so a falloff of resolution doesn't hurt the image much.I think the impact of diffraction is giving you the impression that there's a common peak for all lenses. And larger image circle of large format lenses is not necessarily achieved through a special lens design but by simply making the lens bigger (larger focal length)... so it would be incorrect to say that the large image circle compensates for resolution. In absolute terms, the larger image circle lens has less resolution per unit area than a small format one.



Bring back the fast lenses! Put the whole Xenotar line back into production (including the 210mm). When used ones from 40+ years ago are selling for $2-3k, there's obviously a market there.

Bring back some fast aerial lenses too. Imagine how good an aero ektar could be made with modern glass and coatings? Probably pretty spectacular. Interesting you say that... makes me think of how the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1.2 sells for crazy prices even though there has been two new versions that are faster (f/1 and f/0.95). On the other hand, up until Zeiss re-released their 21mm f/2.8 Distagon in Nikon and Canon SLR mounts, their old C/Y version used to sell for very high prices. Can't think how it'll go for LF lenses like Xenotars and Aero Ektars, etc.


Nice to hear everyone's opinions so far :cool:

[Ben Syverson]

There are so many great LF lenses out there which are sharp across the entire frame... Small formats need to fuss with high index low dispersion elements because the imaging area is being enlarged so drastically, and because those users demand huge ƒ/1.4 apertures.

It seems to me the area to innovate is shutters! I would love a #0 or #00 size self-contained electronic shutter. You would set the ISO of the film on the dial, aperture would adjust as it does now, and the shutter speed could be set to manual or automatic (aperture priority).

It should use the same meter philosophy as the Minolta CLE: instead of putting the light meter outside, put it inside, looking at the film. It would read the light reflected by the film during the exposure, and close the shutter whenever the film got enough. That way it would automatically compensate for filters and bellows factor. Pretty cool! You could even do LF pinhole with autoexposure.

[Tin Can]

Ben, careful big thinker!

Why not?

I love your ideas!



There are so many great LF lenses out there which are sharp across the entire frame... Small formats need to fuss with high index low dispersion elements because the imaging area is being enlarged so drastically, and because those users demand huge ƒ/1.4 apertures.

It seems to me the area to innovate is shutters! I would love a #0 or #00 size self-contained electronic shutter. You would set the ISO of the film on the dial, aperture would adjust as it does now, and the shutter speed could be set to manual or automatic (aperture priority).

It should use the same meter philosophy as the Minolta CLE: instead of putting the light meter outside, put it inside, looking at the film. It would read the light reflected by the film during the exposure, and close the shutter whenever the film got enough. That way it would automatically compensate for filters and bellows factor. Pretty cool! You could even do LF pinhole with autoexposure.

[John Kasaian]

Actually I'm quite happy with my old school Ektars and Artars and projection petzval, but having the larger slip on series filter adapters available would sure be nice;)