Schneider's analogue lens production

[Chrstphrlee]

I didn't see this information listed in a search of the lenses & lens accessories threads. I saw at B & H that a number of the large format Schneider analogue lenses were listed as either "out of stock" or "discontinued". I e-mailed Schneider USA asking what the deal was and got the following response back on 30 June.

"Hi Chris,
I'm afraid Schneider Kreuznach discontinued production of all large format analogue lenses this year.
Inventory is now limited to quantities on hand. Re: the 210mm SS XL, there are no more
Sorry for no better news
Sincerely
Paul

Paul Cousins

Schneider Optics
285 Oser Ave.
Hauppauge, NY 11788
T (631) 761-5000 x 212
F (631) 761-5090
c (631) 830-3645
www.schneideroptics.com
pcousins@schneideroptics.com

Thought those of you who didn't know, might like to know. What a bummer.

[Bob Salomon]

So everyone is up to date:

Rodenstock has discontinued all analog large format lenses EXCEPT for the 135, 150 and 210mm Apo Sironar-S lenses and the macro lenses. There is still one each of the 65mm 4.5, 90mm 6.8 and 90mm 4.5 lenses left in the USA.

Also, both Rodenstock and Schneider have discontinued their loupes as well.

Rodenstock supplies a very large assortment of digital lenses in 4 different lines from 23mm to 180mm in Copal or Rodenstock eShutter (except for the 180mm lenses which are only available in Copal 1 shutter).

[Kodachrome25]

Wow, no kidding, I just looked on B&H for the 350mm F11 Apo Tele Xenar Compact I got a couple years ago and now it is flat out gone! Glad I snatched it up when I did...

With new LF cameras & LF film still being made but no more copal shutters, I wonder what the used LF lens market will look like in 10-15 years?

We all knew this was coming but man, is it happening fast!

[mihag]

This is sad. Didn't Schneider redesigned their Symmar family of lenses less than 10 years ago?

[Regular Rod]

If they have any sense they will carefully mothball everything needed to start making LF lenses again. Things change...

RR

[John Kasaian]

The used market was just too strong for demand of new lenses I guess.
This.
New lenses can be expensive, while new mechanical shutters aren't being manufactured. One goes with the other.
Professional photographers may justify new equipment by passing the costs on to corporate clients, but these days that means digital, not LF.
It's good to know Schneider and Rodenstock have a healthy consumer market for digital lenses so their workers are secure in their jobs.
What does this mean for us? Not much perhaps, other than no brand new lenses.

Recent posts on plastic pipe mounted meniscus lenses and guillotine shutters are harbingers, no?

[Bob Salomon]

This.
...... have a healthy consumer market for digital lenses ......

No, it is a healthy market for digital view camera lenses. Most go into studios, libraries, achieves, military, industrial and OEM applications. Some go into consumer markets but the consumer that buys digital lenses, as well as the pro/industrial customer is also putting them on digital view cameras or, with some markets, custom cameras or machine vision applications.

[Drew Wiley]

These lenses won't wear out easily either, so it's just a matter of time till demand for these tapers off too, though machine optics per se is a somewhat different
category and subject to evolving application technology. Somebody could reinvent some kind of electronic shutter for view lenses. Doing is cost-effectively and finding a market would be a different matter. There are so many used view lenses out there right now, I don't think photographers will have a problem for another century, unless of course, they just absolutely need some very specific item that's already scarce. But if someone is desperately coveting something new, better
buy it while you still can.

[Bob Salomon]

These lenses won't wear out easily either, so it's just a matter of time till demand for these tapers off too, though machine optics per se is a somewhat different
category and subject to evolving application technology. Somebody could reinvent some kind of electronic shutter for view lenses. Doing is cost-effectively and finding a market would be a different matter. There are so many used view lenses out there right now, I don't think photographers will have a problem for another century, unless of course, they just absolutely need some very specific item that's already scarce. But if someone is desperately coveting something new, better
buy it while you still can.

There are the Rodenstock eShutter, Sinar's version of the eShutter, the Schneider electronic shutter and the Rollei Linear Motor Shutter. So electronic shutters do exist. There were also older types like the Compur Electronic, the Prontor Magnetic and the Horseman shutter systems. And Sinar's in camera system shutter as well as the Linhof/Prestor Electronic in camera system for the Kardan cameras.

What is to re-invent?

[Bob Salomon]

These lenses won't wear out easily either, so it's just a matter of time till demand for these tapers off too, though machine optics per se is a somewhat different
category and subject to evolving application technology. Somebody could reinvent some kind of electronic shutter for view lenses. Doing is cost-effectively and finding a market would be a different matter. There are so many used view lenses out there right now, I don't think photographers will have a problem for another century, unless of course, they just absolutely need some very specific item that's already scarce. But if someone is desperately coveting something new, better
buy it while you still can.

Some of these lenses are subjected to very harsh conditions. One University is flying them on the outside of an Air Force cargo plane in the Arctic at extreme cold temperatures. We have several users doing aerial mapping with them and many used for forensic work as well as post mortum applications. While not all are in adverse weather many are used in conditions with some pretty strong chemicals and are also subject to some exposure to some pretty strong bodily fluids.

Demand for the digital lenses is increasing. If an when the digital technology changes then the optics will just simply have to change with it.

[Jim Andrada]

What exactly is the difference between a digital lens and an analogue lens? Is there any reason a digital lens wouldn't produce a good image on film?

[richardman]

I just bought another 100 year old Cooke lens. I think there will be enough lens for photogs for a long time to come.

[Professional]

I think i must buy some new Lf lenses that is still in stock as last package before those are gone too, i always buy new if available until it is gone completely, happy i've got 72XL new, but i want to buy 90mm and 210 brand new from Schneider if they are still available somewhere, those 2 lenses are the only 2 i keep in mind, then i will buy anything used later such as 300, 65 or 75, 240,...etc.

[Bob Salomon]

What exactly is the difference between a digital lens and an analogue lens? Is there any reason a digital lens wouldn't produce a good image on film?

It will produce an excellent image on film, but they do not cover 4x5", some will cover 6x9cm. All hit optimal aperture around F8 rather then F22 since the digital format is much smaller then 4x5. All have higher resolution and less distortion then analog lenses and all have better contrast then most analog lenses. Lastly, since the digital sensors are so much smaller then 45 the normal lens for most systems is a 50mm as opposed to a 135 to 150mm on 45. And, since the normal is 50mm, which is an extreme wide for 45 the digital sensors also need wide angle lenses so the digital lens range is from 23mm to 180mm. 45 lenses, on the other hand ranged from about 35mm to 500mm and above.

[Drew Wiley]

All the electronic shutters I've seen are pretty bulky things, at least for barrel and process lenses. Am I missing something? Not that I'm shopping (sorry). Just curious.

[Bob Salomon]

All the electronic shutters I've seen are pretty bulky things, at least for barrel and process lenses. Am I missing something? Not that I'm shopping (sorry). Just curious.

Yes, both the Rodenstock and Schneider electronic shutters are between the size of a 0 and 1 shutter in diameter and about the same thicness. The Rollei is a bit larger in diameter then a 3 and quite a bit thicker.

All use separate control modules or interfaces. The Rodenstock is controlled by an iPhone, iPod or iPad. You can download its control software from the App Store if you want to see what it does. It is a free download.

Since you are in the Bay area if you go to Bear Images in Palo Alto you should be able to see some, if not all, of the current ones. They may also have them in their SF facility as well. Just if you want to satisfy your curiosity. Samy's SF might also have one in house.

[angusparker]

Wow, no kidding, I just looked on B&H for the 350mm F11 Apo Tele Xenar Compact I got a couple years ago and now it is flat out gone! Glad I snatched it up when I did...

With new LF cameras & LF film still being made but no more copal shutters, I wonder what the used LF lens market will look like in 10-15 years?

We all knew this was coming but man, is it happening fast!

I may have got the last new one last year!

[Jim Andrada]

Thanks Bob

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, Bob. But if I can see Palo Alto thru the office window straight across the Bay (diagonal), it's about a three hour round trip in traffic! My wife's car broke
down there the other evening, and it took three hours one way to tow it home. I have a friend who has a lot of this kind of gear in his studio locally, so when I get a
chance, I'll take a look at it. But the fact that something is software dependent is not in my opinion a good feature in the field, or an indicator of reliability over the long haul. Like all such techie stuff, it has to be amortized pretty rapidly, before the software or accessory device becomes obstolete. But there should be some Gyro Gearloose method to make a simpler electronic trigger. Or maybe they already have it.

[Regular Rod]

Who else besides Cooke is still making LF lenses for use with film?

RR

[Brassai]

Who else besides Cooke is still making LF lenses for use with film?

RR


Congo?

[Bob Salomon]

Who else besides Cooke is still making LF lenses for use with film?

RR
Rodenstock, but only 4 lenses. 135mm, 150mm and 210mm Apo Sironar S and the Apo Macro Sironar.

[Regular Rod]

Rodenstock, but only 4 lenses. 135mm, 150mm and 210mm Apo Sironar S and the Apo Macro Sironar.

Hmmm... What about 8x10?

RR

[mihag]

How come they never announced the discontinuation on their web sites?

[Bob Salomon]

Hmmm... What about 8x10?

RR

Only those lenses. All lenses that could cover 810 have been discontinued for at least a year now. The last one that we had in stock, a 240 Apo Sironar N, was sold several months ago.

[Bob Salomon]

How come they never announced the discontinuation on their web sites?

Probably because they announced in a letter to their major customers late last year that this was going to happen and that those customers could place one last order by the end of this past January for their anticipated needs. That + their inventory at that time meant that lenses would not just stop being available on a given date. Lenses would be in the pipeline for some undeterminable time frame. Plus their customers still had lenses in their inventory.

A blanket announcement to the public would disrupt their and their customers and their retailers from having an orderly run down of the lenses. And they probably wanted to avoid that.

You should expect to hear more about what is and isn't available from both Rodenstock and Schneider at Photokina in a couple of months.

[mihag]

Probably because they announced in a letter to their major customers late last year that this was going to happen and that those customers could place one last order by the end of this past January for their anticipated needs. That + their inventory at that time meant that lenses would not just stop being available on a given date. Lenses would be in the pipeline for some undeterminable time frame. Plus their customers still had lenses in their inventory.

A blanket announcement to the public would disrupt their and their customers and their retailers from having an orderly run down of the lenses. And they probably wanted to avoid that.

You should expect to hear more about what is and isn't available from both Rodenstock and Schneider at Photokina in a couple of months.

Thanks Bob. In 2013 I had no problems purchasing a Schneider lens (via Linhof). It all came rather quick it seems.

[Richard Johnson]

There is a craftsperson in Japan making exotic and compact Leica-mount lenses all by himself, perhaps someone with similar ambitions will tackle making interesting large format optics? But all the same, we have millions of used lenses to choose from and for $200 you can take your choice of many excellent normal 4x5 lenses in a good shutters so it's hard to see a problem here.

[Jody_S]

There is a craftsperson in Japan making exotic and compact Leica-mount lenses all by himself, perhaps someone with similar ambitions will tackle making interesting large format optics? But all the same, we have millions of used lenses to choose from and for $200 you can take your choice of many excellent normal 4x5 lenses in a good shutters so it's hard to see a problem here.

I've been pushing the idea here for a couple of years, to resounding jeers and mockery. But yes, I think this is the future of Large Format, especially as Digital improves and us LF-ers seek niche markets and 'artsy' lenses. Plus, there will always be people with sh*tloads of money to spend, who demand something exclusive (just look where Dallmeyer prices have been going). If I had knowledge of lens grinding, brass turning, assembly, marketing, and classic lens design, plus some talent, I would go for it myself.

[Bill_1856]

What the hell is an analogue lens? And while I'm at it, what the hell is a digital lens?

[richardman]

There is a craftsperson in Japan making exotic and compact Leica-mount lenses all by himself, perhaps someone with similar ambitions will tackle making interesting large format optics? But all the same, we have millions of used lenses to choose from and for $200 you can take your choice of many excellent normal 4x5 lenses in a good shutters so it's hard to see a problem here.

Miyazaki san makes modern 24mm, 28mm, 35mm lens in Leica mount using the Cooke triplet formulas and modern glass. I bet one can recreate the Taylor, Taylor & Hobson Cooke look using modern ingredients as well....

And remember, Lomo sold a lot of their modern Petzval for dSLR.

[Bob Salomon]

What the hell is an analogue lens? And while I'm at it, what the hell is a digital lens?

Read number 15 in this thread.

[Jody_S]

What the hell is an analogue lens? And while I'm at it, what the hell is a digital lens?

I'm with you on this one. Marketing be damned, the only 'digital' lenses are used in fiber optics and opto-couplers, and perhaps some LEDs as well, like those in our remote controls.

I'm pretty sure any lens used in any aspect of 'photography' is 'analog', except perhaps for those still using laser imagesetting techniques to make digital negatives, and of course there might be other digital image-making techniques I've never heard of.

A 'digital' process is anathema to photography, as the result is a '1' or a '0', which doesn't leave a lot of room for tonality. The second you use a larger range (like 0x0000 to oxFFFF) and convert this to grayscale or color, you have a digital to analog (or vice-versa) converter, and the photography part of that is then the 'analog'.

[Jim Andrada]

Uhhhh - "digital" has nothing to do with "binary". Your fingers are actually "digits" - the root of the word had to do with using your fingers (ie for counting) - for example a lot of us old guys get "digital" checks of our prostate from time to time. (Bend over, Smile, Uggggh)

When I got into the computing business in 1959 we were still using large scale computers that operated on "base 10" ie decimal logic. I still have a textbook somewhere that spends a lot of pages on how to choose between base 10 and base 2 in the computer design process. ("Planning a Computing System", by Werner Buchholz as I recall)

[Jim Andrada]

As a follow on to the previous post (too late to edit it,) the only thing "digital" about a "digital" lens is that it's optimized for a sensor instead of film. In other words, there's nothing digital about the lens itself. Maybe it should be called an "analog lens optimized for digital photography" but that takes up. too much space so they just call it a digital lens.

By the way,"0xFFFF" is still digital - no analog to digital conversion here. The example of "0" or "1" vs "0xFFFF" is more properly a discussion about the degree of quantization inherent in using x digits (binary digits (=bits), duodecimal digits, hexadecimal digits - whatever) to represent some real world (ie analog) value since, unless you use an infinite number of digits per sample, there is no way to represent an analog value that falls between two x-digit values.

[richardman]

Jim, if you find that book, let me know. An interesting part of our computing history.

In any case, yes, think of it as "a lens that is optimized for a sensor instead of film." A digital sensor needs much higher flatness tolerance, also that with the exception of the Sigma/Foevon sensors, all 3 colors must be focused on the same plane (in fact, there is no color sensor site per se, but a color filter on top of the same sensor cells).

[Jody_S]

I started my working career programming interfaces between computers and analog electrical devices, typically 0-10V signals or 4-20mA loops, but occasionally home-brew light sensors. That's why I referred to a 'digital-to-analog converter', and vice-versa, above. That is the point in a computing system with analog inputs/outputs (such as a 'digital' camera, and I don't mean one with 5 fingers attached to it), where information is transformed from analog to digital or the reverse as the case may be.

A particular computer may be processing 32 or 64 bit words nowadays, but those words are still collections of 32 or 64 discrete bits, which most definitely are set to either 0 or 1 with nothing in between, and none of our commercial processors have yet to crack this limitation. This is inherently unsuitable for photography (unless you like REALLY high contrast), and any lens that is designed to work with such a system (such as the fiber optics I mention above) would be a 'digital' lens according to the most common meaning of the word 'digital' (from google: dig·it·al ˈdijitl/ adjective 1. (of signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization). Such a lens would be completely unsuited to photography, having generally as its primary goal the projection or concentration of light in such a way as to ensure error-free transmission of.... digital 0s and 1s, using light as a physical medium instead of electricity.

Obviously Schneider has decided to use 'digital' in a different sense, for marketing purposes. But there is nothing about their 'digital' lenses that make them more suitable for digital sensors than for film. The physics are no different, marketing be damned, and yes I am aware that some people have tried to claim there is a difference (*). Light doesn't care if it falls on a Bayer array or a sheet of Tri-X. This misuse of common words for marketing purposes, especially (as here) when done with the express goal of misleading consumers into thinking they need new 'digital' lenses for their newfangled digital cameras, is irritating to those such as myself who try to use the correct words to communicate ideas. And I say this even though I now work in: marketing. Perhaps in a few years I will admire their chutzpah, but for now I just find it irritating. Like when giant conglomerate Unilever tries to sell me an 'artisan' frozen pizza.

* The closest thing I have seen to a real argument is simply that the newest generation of digital sensors is capable of higher resolution than consumer-grade film, ergo we now need lenses with higher resolving power. And those new lenses are still.... analog.


As a follow on to the previous post (too late to edit it,) the only thing "digital" about a "digital" lens is that it's optimized for a sensor instead of film. In other words, there's nothing digital about the lens itself. Maybe it should be called an "analog lens optimized for digital photography" but that takes up. too much space so they just call it a digital lens.

By the way,"0xFFFF" is still digital - no analog to digital conversion here. The example of "0" or "1" vs "0xFFFF" is more properly a discussion about the degree of quantization inherent in using x digits (binary digits (=bits), duodecimal digits, hexadecimal digits - whatever) to represent some real world (ie analog) value since, unless you use an infinite number of digits per sample, there is no way to represent an analog value that falls between two x-digit values.

[Kodachrome25]

Ummmm.......guys....Bob *clearly* stated the main deal-breaking difference between analog and digital LF lenses in post #15:

"It will produce an excellent image on film, but they do not cover 4x5", some will cover 6x9cm. All hit optimal aperture around F8 rather then F22 since the digital format is much smaller then 4x5."

My Nikon 35mm 1.4G has been designed to overcome the edge effects of digital sensors and works fantastic with film in my F100...but it COVERS THE FORMAT!

[Jody_S]

Ummmm.......guys....Bob *clearly* stated the main deal-breaking difference between analog and digital LF lenses in post #15:

"It will produce an excellent image on film, but they do not cover 4x5", some will cover 6x9cm. All hit optimal aperture around F8 rather then F22 since the digital format is much smaller then 4x5."

My Nikon 35mm 1.4G has been designed to overcome the edge effects of digital sensors and works fantastic with film in my F100...but it COVERS THE FORMAT!

Obviously one can (and should!) now design lenses around the particular requirements of today's digital cameras, not that these are any different from the requirements of film cameras of the same format. The resulting lenses are still: analog. In the case of my Canon EF lenses, they are usually called 'crop-sensor' lenses, to indicate that they don't have the image circle of the other line of EF lenses designed for film or 'full-frame' sensors.

[Kodachrome25]

Dude....bottom line, the new digital LF lenses will not cover 4x5 inch film, that is really all anyone needs to be concerned with regarding the topic of this thread, the discontinuation of analog LF lenses.

I could really care less what "digital" format these new lenses cover since digi-crap is not the future of my career and I suspect not the future of those who engage in LF as a hobby.

There is a difference, it is the coverage of the format, or lack thereof...

[Bob Salomon]

Obviously one can (and should!) now design lenses around the particular requirements of today's digital cameras, not that these are any different from the requirements of film cameras of the same format. The resulting lenses are still: analog. In the case of my Canon EF lenses, they are usually called 'crop-sensor' lenses, to indicate that they don't have the image circle of the other line of EF lenses designed for film or 'full-frame' sensors.

There are other differences between digital and analog lenses.
Digital sensors are made up of rows of sensors packed together. Each area where the sensor pixels abut each other is an area of very, very, slight separation between the individual sensors.
Lenses designed for digital sensors are designed so the light rays that fall on the sensors reach them at an angle that fully illuminates the entire sensor, from edge to edge and corner to corner. Lenses that are made for analog (film) work do not illuminate the individual pixels that same way. And it is very possible that all pixels are not evenly illuminated from edge to edge and corner to corner.

Additionally there is another requirement for critical digital that will get the purists here upset. You also need a digital view camera to go with these digital lenses.
What is a digital view camera?
1: It is much smaller since the digital backs are much smaller then a 45 camera. Why hassle with a camera's size, length, weight for 45 when you only need one that handles 6x9cm.
2: All controls on a digital view camera are fully geared, and have much finer gearing, then a film type camera.
3: Film is an imperfect medium. It is not flat, it sags. Various emulsions and film sag differently Film emulsion has depth.
4: Digital is a "perfect" medium. It does not sag, it is perfectly plain parallel. And it has no depth. The image medium is one pixel deep(Foveon is a special case but they don't make backs for view camera work).
5: Since a digital back has an imaging area about ¼ the size of 45 film the optimal aperture of the digital lenses are optimized at about f8 rather then f22 since the DOF will be the same on a digital back as on a sheet of 45 film at the optimal aperture that is proper for each type of lens. But on digital the optimal aperture on an analog lens will be deeply into diffraction on a digital back.
6: Since the normal focal length for most digital backs is about 80mm or less that would mean that film lenses in that range would be the wide angle types from film like the Super Angulon or Grandagon-N and those lenses all have fall-off bad enough to require center filters. Digital lenses in this range have much more even coverage and center filters are not required for them.
7: If the normal lens is about an 80mm then in the film range their are very few wide angles for these backs (and some have a 50mm normal lens) and extremely few extreme wide. The widest film lenses were 32 and 35mm. Pretty wide for cameras where an 80mm is a normal lens but just slightly wide for those that use a 50mm as a normal focal length. Digital lenses are available as short as 23mm today.
8: Conversely digital lenses only go up to about 180mm or maybe 210mm.

So obviously a digital lens is not made digitally. But they are made to perform best on cameras that are equipped with a digital back. And, if that camera uses a film format that the lens covers, they also offer superior performance on those film sizes. However some digital lenses were designed so that the glass cover plate on a digital back is the last element of the lens. If those special digital lenses are used on film cameras then a special optical corrector plate was available that had to be screwed into the back of the lens when used with film to replace that cover glass. This was so infrequently done that those glass correwctor plates are no longer offered by the factories.

What does this all mean? For the purists these lenses are not made digitally. They do not have any software in the glass. They are designed and optimized to perform optimally when one uses a digital camera back. So what would those purists prefer they be called?
What about a view camera that is designed and optimized for those same backs? They are commonly called digital vies cameras. What would the purist call them?

And regardless of what the purist might want to call them that name has to be immediately understandable to the people who will have to sell them and to the people that need to buy them. So far the words "Digital Lens" and "Digital View Camera" have been able to do that very well.

[Jody_S]

(...) that is designed and optimized for those same backs? They are commonly called digital vies cameras. What would the purist call them?

And regardless of what the purist might want to call them that name has to be immediately understandable to the people who will have to sell them and to the people that need to buy them. So far the words "Digital Lens" and "Digital View Camera" have been able to do that very well.

The purist (I guess when it comes to language, that's me) has no problem with the term 'digital view camera'. By extension, a lens for this would be a 'digital view camera lens'. I understand if that might occasionally be shortened, in common usage, to 'digital lens'.

And I knew I would eventually get an explanation about why 'digital' lenses are different from 'analog' lenses ;)

[Arne Croell]

T
8: Conversely digital lenses only go up to about 180mm or maybe 210mm.


Bob, a related question: 180 or 210mm are the equivalent of regular 4x5 LF lenses of 360 to 480mm (approximately, depending on what sensor size the comparison is based on). However, there were longer (telephoto) lenses available like 600, 720, 800, or even 1200mm. Any reason why there are no equivalent lenses for digital view cameras by now? Are they never used outside a studio?

[Bob Salomon]

Arne,
Don't know. Rodenstock has not offered Tele designs for decades. Personally I always felt they were not as good as the Apo Sironar types or Super Symmar types.
But Photokina is around the corner and I don't know what Rodenstock will release there and with Schneider's current situation don't know if they are able to introduce newer lenses this year.
Also, those long Tele lenses never had great market share. They were more of a speciality item. With the cost and time of new lens production these may not be feasible as speciality items in todays's market.

[richardman]

Most "tech" cameras (i.e. Medium Format Data Back) are used for landscapes, usually on the wide end. In fact, it's not uncommon for them to shoot 23/32mm and then make stitched panoramic with HUGE resolution. People that shoot fashion / portrait can use the same back, but on a MF SLR such as the Hasselblad H system, Phase One DF645, the Leica S/S2 etc. and they may use the telephoto range.

[Kodachrome25]

Thanks for the detailed explanation Bob.

For the record, I do use digital gear in my work, just spent 6K on new equipment including the amazing new Nikon D810 for corporate and ad work, but as stated before, I am moving away from it for obvious market differentiation purposes in fine art.

Thankfully, with exception of maybe a 110XL, I have all the LF glass I need and know there is plenty more out there in the used market, a big reason these companies have greatly scaled back or fully ceased making "Analog" type LF lenses.

[Oren Grad]

...and with Schneider's current situation...

which is...?

[Sal Santamaura]

...Schneider's current situation...Please elaborate. Thanks in advance.

[Sal Santamaura]

which is...?


Please elaborate. Thanks in advance.Great minds, etc. :)

[Bob Salomon]

Great minds, etc. :)

http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Schneider-Kreuznach-setzt-auf-hochwertige-Optiken

[Michael E]

Very interesting article, thank you!

[tgtaylor]

Walk into any camera shop these days and you'll see: The crowds are no longer there and once you have purchased a digital camera you have no reason to go back. New lens were primarily sold at the store where all photographers went to on a regular basis to restock on supplies - film, paper and chemistry. They no longer go to the store to restock (there's no need) and the formats, from Minox to ULF, have all been miniaturized into just a couple "formats" (i.e., crops) with an overabundance of essentially redundant lens selection.

Thomas

[Oren Grad]

http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Schneider-Kreuznach-setzt-auf-hochwertige-Optiken

Thanks, Bob.

[Jody_S]

I realize I may have come across as being against the new 'digital' lines of lenses, and that people might think I'm one of those who jumps on the 'Buy this old thing for $200 on fleabay, instead !' bandwagon. In fact I do that myself, because that's all I can afford, but I am all for people buying new lenses if they have the money and have a use for them. This is what keeps lens-makers in business, and that's good for all of us. I would buy new lenses myself, if I had more money; I do not buy junk by choice. The 'digital' lenses are great lenses, perfectly suited for what they're designed for, and I really do want a lot of people to go to the store and buy one. And then I want them to post their now-worthless Apo-Sironar lenses for sale here, hopefully at a price that I can afford, so I can ditch my ancient convertible Symmar.

Eventually, the makers will move from their 'digital' lines to their 'super-digital' lines, and then on to a 'super-duper-digital' line. And hopefully, those who have purchased 'digital' lenses will then put their now-worthless lenses up for sale here at a price that I can afford, and I will buy one. Because they're really good lenses. And when I do eventually buy one, 10 or 20 years from now, I will take a black marker and carefully blank out the word 'digital', and pencil in the word 'analog' where it was. Because I think it will still bother me then.

[David Lindquist]

http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Schneider-Kreuznach-setzt-auf-hochwertige-Optiken

Once more I wish I had taken German to satisfy my foreign language requirement.
David

[tgtaylor]

There are other differences between digital and analog lenses.
Digital sensors are made up of rows of sensors packed together. Each area where the sensor pixels abut each other is an area of very, very, slight separation between the individual sensors.
Lenses designed for digital sensors are designed so the light rays that fall on the sensors reach them at an angle that fully illuminates the entire sensor, from edge to edge and corner to corner. Lenses that are made for analog (film) work do not illuminate the individual pixels that same way. And it is very possible that all pixels are not evenly illuminated from edge to edge and corner to corner.

Additionally there is another requirement for critical digital that will get the purists here upset. You also need a digital view camera to go with these digital lenses.
What is a digital view camera?
1: It is much smaller since the digital backs are much smaller then a 45 camera. Why hassle with a camera's size, length, weight for 45 when you only need one that handles 6x9cm.
2: All controls on a digital view camera are fully geared, and have much finer gearing, then a film type camera.
3: Film is an imperfect medium. It is not flat, it sags. Various emulsions and film sag differently Film emulsion has depth.
4: Digital is a "perfect" medium. It does not sag, it is perfectly plain parallel. And it has no depth. The image medium is one pixel deep(Foveon is a special case but they don't make backs for view camera work).
5: Since a digital back has an imaging area about ¼ the size of 45 film the optimal aperture of the digital lenses are optimized at about f8 rather then f22 since the DOF will be the same on a digital back as on a sheet of 45 film at the optimal aperture that is proper for each type of lens. But on digital the optimal aperture on an analog lens will be deeply into diffraction on a digital back.
6: Since the normal focal length for most digital backs is about 80mm or less that would mean that film lenses in that range would be the wide angle types from film like the Super Angulon or Grandagon-N and those lenses all have fall-off bad enough to require center filters. Digital lenses in this range have much more even coverage and center filters are not required for them.
7: If the normal lens is about an 80mm then in the film range their are very few wide angles for these backs (and some have a 50mm normal lens) and extremely few extreme wide. The widest film lenses were 32 and 35mm. Pretty wide for cameras where an 80mm is a normal lens but just slightly wide for those that use a 50mm as a normal focal length. Digital lenses are available as short as 23mm today.
8: Conversely digital lenses only go up to about 180mm or maybe 210mm.

So obviously a digital lens is not made digitally. But they are made to perform best on cameras that are equipped with a digital back. And, if that camera uses a film format that the lens covers, they also offer superior performance on those film sizes. However some digital lenses were designed so that the glass cover plate on a digital back is the last element of the lens. If those special digital lenses are used on film cameras then a special optical corrector plate was available that had to be screwed into the back of the lens when used with film to replace that cover glass. This was so infrequently done that those glass correwctor plates are no longer offered by the factories.

What does this all mean? For the purists these lenses are not made digitally. They do not have any software in the glass. They are designed and optimized to perform optimally when one uses a digital camera back. So what would those purists prefer they be called?
What about a view camera that is designed and optimized for those same backs? They are commonly called digital vies cameras. What would the purist call them?

And regardless of what the purist might want to call them that name has to be immediately understandable to the people who will have to sell them and to the people that need to buy them. So far the words "Digital Lens" and "Digital View Camera" have been able to do that very well.

Jeez, what a crock of s---! But to Bob's credit he identifies as "HP Marketing" from which you would expect hype such as this to sell its products. But it can be entertaining to pick apart the argument line by line: For example: "Film is an imperfect medium....(it) has depth...Digital is a "perfect" medium..(It) it has no depth. The image medium is one pixel deep." Or, how about: " Lenses designed for digital sensors are designed so the light rays that fall on the sensors reach them at an angle that fully illuminates the entire sensor, from edge to edge and corner to corner. Lenses that are made for analog (film) work do not illuminate the individual pixels that same way (emphasis added). And it is very possible that all pixels are not evenly illuminated from edge to edge and corner to corner." Bob doesn't appear have a firm understanding of the difference between a film "pixel" and a digital "pixel" or how rays of light enter an optic. Is Bob suggesting that the digital lens bends or refracts the light waves in a manner different than the "analogue" lens and, if so, to what advantage considering that both "sensors" are presumed flat and parallel. The notion that one medium is "perfect" is nonsensical as even the Greeks knew that the "perfect" was non existent but was supposed to exist for argument (propositional) purpose only.

But Bob doesn't make any bones about his targeted audience: "What does this all mean? For the purists these lenses are not made digitally. They do not have any software in the glass...And regardless of what the purist might want to call them that name has to be immediately understandable to the people who will have to sell them and to the people that need to buy them..."

Thomas

[StoneNYC]

Jeez, what a crock of s---! But to Bob's credit he identifies as "HP Marketing" from which you would expect hype such as this to sell its products. But it can be entertaining to pick apart the argument line by line: For example: "Film is an imperfect medium....(it) has depth...Digital is a "perfect" medium..(It) it has no depth. The image medium is one pixel deep." Or, how about: " Lenses designed for digital sensors are designed so the light rays that fall on the sensors reach them at an angle that fully illuminates the entire sensor, from edge to edge and corner to corner. Lenses that are made for analog (film) work do not illuminate the individual pixels that same way (emphasis added). And it is very possible that all pixels are not evenly illuminated from edge to edge and corner to corner." Bob doesn't appear have a firm understanding of the difference between a film "pixel" and a digital "pixel" or how rays of light enter an optic. Is Bob suggesting that the digital lens bends or refracts the light waves in a manner different than the "analogue" lens and, if so, to what advantage considering that both "sensors" are presumed flat and parallel. The notion that one medium is "perfect" is nonsensical as even the Greeks knew that the "perfect" was non existent but was supposed to exist for argument (propositional) purpose only.

But Bob doesn't make any bones about his targeted audience: "What does this all mean? For the purists these lenses are not made digitally. They do not have any software in the glass...And regardless of what the purist might want to call them that name has to be immediately understandable to the people who will have to sell them and to the people that need to buy them..."

Thomas

Thomas, it sounds like you fail to understand how digital sensors work, you're also forgetting that certain wavelengths get blocked by coatings that exist on modern lenses that do not exist on film lenses, and would actually cause a detriment to film imagery to a certain extent because it would prevent certain lightwaves that film actually needs to absorb whereas a digital sensor actually causes some interruption in its absorption when a non coated lenses is used.

I probably didn't explain that very well, because my understanding of it is only very vague, but I understand enough to know that what Bob said was not at all BS and was in fact very very accurate.

To give a good example, one of the issues that for a while digital pixel sensors had was this... Imagine your looking at a light grid and the grid has squares, each square is a pixel, each pixel has a depth of its own, it's not flat right at the surface but actually there's a separation between each pixel, that separation when hit by light causes a little diffraction to happen, so the angle of the edge of each pixel can cause problems with light bouncing off of it causing sort of a blur effect and an unsharpness, so I think what Bob is saying is that the newer digital lenses are designed so that they push light in a straight direction as to not hit those edges and not cause as much diffusion or light bouncing, whereas the older lenses might have certain angle of light design flaws that would cause a digital pixel to not be as sharp as it could be.

Also as we all know, many of us struggle with getting the film thing perfectly flat, for years film manufactures struggled with curling Film etc. and making sure the baseplate was properly tooled so that it had the best pressure possible without scratching the film. On top of this, the film itself has a depth of its own, but instead of being a clear depth like the digital sensor it's actually a translucent depth, the film emulsion has a gelatin type top layer beforr you get to the silver, this too layer isn't perfectly clear as much as we want to think it is, so even if the grain is fine, there's a certain amount of scattered light that happens when the light passes through that gelatin.

Anyway, my understanding of it again is very nonscientific, and I'm describing it the best way I can in layman's terms, don't quote me on any of this but this is my understanding so I think you should give Bob some slack because I feel like his explanation was very accurate and it was not to say that digital is better than film, just that it is designed differently than film and therefore requires a different kind of lens to be at its top performance.

[tgtaylor]

Without rewriting the above (it's late enough), I would like to apology to Bob for the adversarial tone in the above but do stand by my argument. Thank you for your understanding.

Thomas

[richardman]

Thomas, whether you apologize or not is irrelevant. You are happen to be incorrect. If you hang around the Leica, Nikon and Canon people on the 35mm realm, or with the MF Data back people, you know Bob is exactly correct.

Fundamentally, the thing is that each ("digital") pixel is like a well/bucket, and light do need to strike as vertical as possible. This is why color fringing is the bane of wide angle on digital sensors because the oblique angles the light are entering the cells on the edge. In fact, Leica famously said that they could not make a digital Leica M up until 2007 when they started producing the Leica M8. What changed? They figured out a way to put microlens on top of the sensor to "redirect" the rays coming in from the edges, and it wasn't 2 years later can they produce the Leica M9 with the full frame 36mmx24mm sensor.

I know APUGers love to trash anything digital, but at least do it with correct information :-O

[hoffner]

Sorry Thomas,
I don't see anything in Bob's good explanation that could justify your harsh critique. But I see points (the Greek mention) in your answer that seem awfully cheap and illogical. Read Bob's answer again to see what he meant with the perfection mentioned. It seems that in terms of "perfection" this time Bob is closer to the technical ideal than you are. If I wanted to be as harsh as you I would add that your critique is one of the reasons (among others) why this forum is more and more missing posts of knowledgeable people willing to explain things in some depth unreachable by the amateur rest. And that I say even knowing where Bob's technical weakness (unrelated to this post) lies.

[Kodachrome25]

Thomas, whether you apologize or not is irrelevant. You are happen to be incorrect. If you hang around the Leica, Nikon and Canon people on the 35mm realm, or with the MF Data back people, you know Bob is exactly correct.

Fundamentally, the thing is that each ("digital") pixel is like a well/bucket, and light do need to strike as vertical as possible. This is why color fringing is the bane of wide angle on digital sensors because the oblique angles the light are entering the cells on the edge. In fact, Leica famously said that they could not make a digital Leica M up until 2007 when they started producing the Leica M8. What changed? They figured out a way to put microlens on top of the sensor to "redirect" the rays coming in from the edges, and it wasn't 2 years later can they produce the Leica M9 with the full frame 36mmx24mm sensor.

I know APUGers love to trash anything digital, but at least do it with correct information :-O

+1, Bob is spot on with this. For example, it took a ton of work to completely redesign Nikon's 35mm 1.4 AIS into a lens that would not totally fall apart on a full frame digital sensor, mid 2011 I do believe. When I got the new 35mm 1.4G Nikkor and compared it to a 35mm 1.4 Leica Summilux Aspheric, they were equal in every area except for price.

But unlike the digital versus analog LF debate, not only can I use the newer Nikon 35 on my more modern Nikon film bodies, the lens is utterly spectacular with film.

Leica chose a different route with retooling the sensors to have micro lenses instead of totally revamping an otherwise legendary lens line. And not even that was enough, many lenses have still been updated like the .95 Noct, 35mm FLE and outlandishly expensive 50mm Apo.

[Dan Fromm]

Leica chose a different route with retooling the sensors to have micro lenses instead of totally revamping an otherwise legendary lens line.

Interesting. I had no idea that Leica made any sort of microchip, always thought that the M8's and M9's sensors were made by Kodak. Live and learn, I guess. Not that this has anything to do with LF.

[Bob Salomon]

Dude....bottom line, the new digital LF lenses will not cover 4x5 inch film, that is really all anyone needs to be concerned with regarding the topic of this thread, the discontinuation of analog LF lenses.

I could really care less what "digital" format these new lenses cover since digi-crap is not the future of my career and I suspect not the future of those who engage in LF as a hobby.

There is a difference, it is the coverage of the format, or lack thereof...

Actually, in Rodenstock's case, the 135mm, 150mm and 180mm Apo Sironar Digital lenses all do cover 4x5. Although just barely so there is no excess coverage to use movements.

[StoneNYC]

Interesting. I had no idea that Leica made any sort of microchip, always thought that the M8's and M9's sensors were made by Kodak. Live and learn, I guess. Not that this has anything to do with LF.

I think Dan means they added a lens in front of the sensor to correct for the light path issue to make the light rays go straight ventricle into the sensor pixels instead if at an angle. At least that's what I think he means, not a microchip, a micro-lens

[Kodachrome25]

Interesting. I had no idea that Leica made any sort of microchip, always thought that the M8's and M9's sensors were made by Kodak. Live and learn, I guess. Not that this has anything to do with LF.

Yes, under the direction of Leica, Kodak manufactured the sensors.

[Kodachrome25]

Actually, in Rodenstock's case, the 135mm, 150mm and 180mm Apo Sironar Digital lenses all do cover 4x5. Although just barely so there is no excess coverage to use movements.

So 6x9 with reasonable movements. That is one way to look at it I guess, take your Rodenstock digital lens off your high dollar studio rig and put it on your field camera with a roll film back for the weekend.

[8x10 user]

One problem with digital is there really is a point of diminishing returns. The lower MP MFD backs can work with pretty much and large format lens and will still produce good results. The high MP MFD backs not only require the most expensive digital lenses with retrofocus designs and if you want those pixels to be sharp then you have to use a very wide aperture which limits depth of field. The problem lies in the physical limits of diffraction. One person that I spoke too said that he had to move to hasselblad and use focus stacking in order to get the best out of his back.

[richardman]

Yes, under the direction of Leica, Kodak manufactured the sensors.

Yes, the same deal happens with (I forgot the manufacturer for the M CMOS sensor - it's not Kodak or its "descendant") - Leica worked with the sensor manufacturers to get the micro-lenses arrangement they want.

There is a LF connection in that Leica bought Sinar a few months ago :-)

[richardman]

OK, here's my personal experience: I own a Leica M9, and I actually shot with a Hasselblad 503 with a 25 Megapixel back for about a year.

However, for amateur uses, I don't see any advantages of MF DB on Tech Cameras over that of the 4x5, which I have been shooting extensively for the last year+. For field use, my pack is lighter than other tech users. The only two advantages of tech cam+MFDB are 1) the tremendous resolution, especially if they stitch, and 2) they do know more or less that "they got the shot" right there rather than waiting to get home to develop the film etc.

But the prices they pay are huge, literally. The cost is ridiculous. To get started: a metal frame (literally) "camera" is $2000+, a lens is at least $3000+. A used 25 MP data back is $5000+, a brand new 80 MP back is... $40,000. Then you need to buy grips, viewfinder, laptop, iPad etc. because tech cam is so small that the ground glass viewing is PITA and not precise enough. Most people don't use movements other than shifting to stitch because those require more "bits and pieces" so now they use focus stacking. Then they go nuts trying to compensate for the color fringing on their wide angles etc. etc.

..and I still don't have to worry about batteries.

I have to say I do enjoy looking at their pictures though :-)

[tgtaylor]

Actually my “critique” wasn't harsh at all and the points that it brought up were by quoting from Bob's own statements verbatim; and I shouldn't have apologized for writing it in a traditional debate style.

But more to the point, why shouldn't one question the wisdom of statements that the newer digital lens are superior to the older analogue lens? Especially when the proponent has no technical expertise in the field of optics and is employed solely to market the new digital lens to the public at, and to quote from one of the posts above, a “huge” price...“The cost is ridiculous.”

Thomas

[tgtaylor]

+1, Bob is spot on with this. For example, it took a ton of work to completely redesign Nikon's 35mm 1.4 AIS into a lens that would not totally fall apart on a full frame digital sensor, mid 2011 I do believe. When I got the new 35mm 1.4G Nikkor and compared it to a 35mm 1.4 Leica Summilux Aspheric, they were equal in every area except for price.

But unlike the digital versus analog LF debate, not only can I use the newer Nikon 35 on my more modern Nikon film bodies, the lens is utterly spectacular with film.



Well here's from one recent review of that lens:

Nikon's sharpest 35mm ever, but exactly the same distortion and falloff as Nikon's first 35/1.4 from 1970.

Sorry,

Thomas

[Bob Salomon]

..... a lens is at least $3000+. .....

Not sure where you got your information but our selling prices at retail for Rodenstock digital lenses run from $1,669.00 to $7,559.00 with a total of 19 digital Rodenstock lenses and, of those 19 lenses, 10 of them retail for less then $3,000.00 and of the remaining 9 lenses 1 is $3,109.00.
So the majority of these lenses are less then $3,000.00 and 4 of them are less then $2,000.00.

On the other hand. $2,000.00 is pretty low for a digital view camera.

[Bob Salomon]

Well here's from one recent review of that lens:

Nikon's sharpest 35mm ever, but exactly the same distortion and falloff as Nikon's first 35/1.4 from 1970.

Sorry,

Thomas

Who did the review?

[richardman]

Bob, I meant especially the wide angles :-) Anyway, lets not detract this further - digital MF cameras and "stuff" are super-expensive. I will just sit back and watch the debates. Looks like Thomas still has some gas left XD

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I meant especially the wide angles :-) Anyway, lets not detract this further - digital MF cameras and "stuff" are super-expensive. I will just sit back and watch the debates. Looks like Thomas still has some gas left XD

You are absolutely correct. The 35, 45 and 55mm Apo Sironar Digital lenses are all well under $3,000.00 each but the 23, 28, 32, 35, 40 and 50mm HR Digaron-W and HR Digaron-S lenses are all from $3799.00 to $7559.00.

And, while $7559.00 is a fair chunk of change we recently heard from a photographer with the 400mm 2.8 from Nikon which was well over $11,000.00! So expensive lenses are not limited by format!
That $7559.00 lens is at the other extreme from the Nikon. A 32mm 4.0. Now if somehow we could sell as many of these as Nikon does those we would have a very good year!

[richardman]

Right - I forgot the other reason for "digital generation" lens: focus shift. This is why Leica redesigned the spectacular 35/1.4 ASPH to the super-spectacular-$$$$$$ 35/1.4 ASPH FLE, and the Nocti 0.95 and the new-even-more-amazingly-spectacular-$$$$$$$$$ 50/2 Summicron AA.

A 150mm APO Sironar-S is dirt cheap comparing to them.

[Corran]

It's too bad that that one guy claiming he was developing a 4x5 digital back on this forum last year disappeared. I wonder what happened? Maybe it's still in development?

As has been stated, it is correct that sensors, as they are today, have a problem with light rays coming in at steep angles (wide angle lenses). That is the problem with the Leica M8/9 and now the Sony A7-series with Leica or other RF glass. I have used a 21mm Voigtlander on my M9 and it looks terrible uncorrected, but luckily some software (CornerFix) helps, though it causes a big increase in noise in the corners when eliminating vignetting!

That said, apparently the new A7S does better with wide-angle lenses due to the much less dense sensor (12 megapixels). It would be quite interesting if one were to make a 4x5-sized sensor with that "density" of pixels - it would be about 160 megapixels if my math is correct. Heck, make it just 100 megapixels.

Yes I know about that 8x10 digital back the guy had made to replace his Polaroid test shots. What was it, like 6 megapixels? That was also about 5 years ago and technology is ever changing. I'm hoping for at least a standard 6x7-sized back someday soon to start with. This ever-changing sensor size for MFD is ridiculous.

[StoneNYC]

It's too bad that that one guy claiming he was developing a 4x5 digital back on this forum last year disappeared. I wonder what happened? Maybe it's still in development?

As has been stated, it is correct that sensors, as they are today, have a problem with light rays coming in at steep angles (wide angle lenses). That is the problem with the Leica M8/9 and now the Sony A7-series with Leica or other RF glass. I have used a 21mm Voigtlander on my M9 and it looks terrible uncorrected, but luckily some software (CornerFix) helps, though it causes a big increase in noise in the corners when eliminating vignetting!

That said, apparently the new A7S does better with wide-angle lenses due to the much less dense sensor (12 megapixels). It would be quite interesting if one were to make a 4x5-sized sensor with that "density" of pixels - it would be about 160 megapixels if my math is correct. Heck, make it just 100 megapixels.

Yes I know about that 8x10 digital back the guy had made to replace his Polaroid test shots. What was it, like 6 megapixels? That was also about 5 years ago and technology is ever changing. I'm hoping for at least a standard 6x7-sized back someday soon to start with. This ever-changing sensor size for MFD is ridiculous.

It was 10mp the 8x10

Also, the new MF digital backs are upward of 80mp so there's no point in making a 4x5 at 100mp in a year the MF will be over 100mp anyway, it would be better to make a 4x5 SCREEN on the back of a MF sensor that fit into a GRAFLEX style back attachment.

[Kodachrome25]

Well here's from one recent review of that lens:

Nikon's sharpest 35mm ever, but exactly the same distortion and falloff as Nikon's first 35/1.4 from 1970.

Sorry,

Thomas

What's to apologize for? I don't give a shit what a review says, I actually use this stuff to make a living, I believe what I see. All I know is that it was equaling a then $3,500 Leica 35mm 1.4 asph.

[Corran]

Also, the new MF digital backs are upward of 80mp so there's no point in making a 4x5 at 100mp in a year the MF will be over 100mp anyway, it would be better to make a 4x5 SCREEN on the back of a MF sensor that fit into a GRAFLEX style back attachment.

You're missing the point. If we assume for a moment that at roughly 10-12mp resolution, a 35mm FF sensor is free from the issues that plague wide-angles, as the A7S seems to be, and then we extrapolate that to a 4x5-sized sensor, then hopefully I could then use pretty much any 4x5 lens as it was designed to be used. Therefore, I theoretically could have a 4x5 digital camera and spend nothing on lenses, since I own them already. As opposed to medium format digital, where lenses could be the bulk of the cost. And let's not forget how fast digital cameras come down in price. Even if someone (Sony?) came out with a 100mp, 4x5-sized sensor camera for $50k, a few years later I could probably buy it for $10k. More importantly, since I'm 28, I can assume that in my lifetime 4x5 film may become extinct, so it'd be nice to have a digital replacement if I absolutely must...

Now supposedly "digital" lenses perform to a higher degree to fully utilize high-performance sensors, but come on, how much do you really need? At 100mp I think a lens performing at 30-40 lp/mm will do just fine.

[richardman]

My back of tissue calculation says you only get ~4x 4x5" sensor from a 300mm wafer. If the yield is 75%, then you only get 3x. That's really costly. I don't know how much it cost to develop a sensor AND the support electronics and firmware, but lets call it 10 million dollars. Lets say they sell it for $50K, they will have to sell 200 units to break even. Seeing that even Copal left the market, why would anyone wants to spend that kind of money?

And no, the price would not come down that much. Prices only come down because of the volume sales.

[Corran]

I'm talking about used prices.
And I'm sure full 35mm-sized sensors cost a pretty penny when they were first made. Either way, who knows where the market is going. It seems like FF digital is quite good enough for almost anything, and for the rest, the MF digital backs are fine, if you have the money to afford it and the lenses. Of course a 4x5-sized sensor is whimsy right now, but let's not forget how far we've come in digital camera technology in these last few years.

[richardman]

You cannot map one thing into another thing. If it is true, your car will get 3000 MPH and we would have flying jetpacks.

A really good case in point is that MF DB has been around for far longer than 35mm full frame sensors and they are not enjoying the scale of price dropping. There are good reasons for it if you know something about electronic and market factors. Wishful thinking will not make things come true.

And there is no such things as "used prices" until there are "new prices" :-)

[richardman]

Or to put it another way: the chance of no 4x5 (or larger) film being available is far LESS than the chance of a digital sensor of those sizes being available :-/

Someone will probably make B&W film for a long time to come. Heck, look at the Impossible Project. Color is more iffy :-/

[Jody_S]

Making wide angle lenses, especially extreme wide angles, has always been a hellishly difficult engineering task. I am prepared to accept that the 'digital' wides have a few tweaks in their design to optimize them for digital sensors instead of film (an obvious one is using retro-focus designs on small-sensor cameras [compared to my 8x10] due to size constraints, but it's not like a retro-focus wide-angle is a new invention). Beyond that, I do remain firmly in the camp that says the marketing material is just that, marketing material. I don't mean they're trying to sell inferior product by using a load of hype (a polite way of referring to animal husbandry by-product). Just that they are trying to create a need. But then much of the digital photography world has more to do with hype and marketing than it does with photography. So perhaps they are correctly reading their customer base, which, with a few exceptions, is not us.

For the record, I come to this website for the photographs above all else, and to learn how translate my vision into reality. I don't spend much time discussing lenses or gear, because I'm not really that interested. My approach to lenses is that I need a tool that will do the job, and I do not need the absolute best tool at all costs.

[Corran]

Richard, I know enough about electronics and technology to know that saying something won't happen is a surefire way of getting proven wrong.
How many camera companies said "FF sensors" were impossible? Both Nikon and Leica at least.

I consider it far more likely that 4x5 film will disappear than a 4x5 sensor will be made for high-end studio usage, at least in my lifetime. I guess we'll see.

[Richard Johnson]

People may avoid the cost and trouble of trying to develop near perfect wide angle lenses for digital in the future if the camera companies begin to think out of the box. They can already fix optical flaws in internal processing. Perhaps cameras with multiple lenses and/or sensors, automatic stitching, focus stacking, and more will become mainstream?

It may be far more practical to design a mechanized rig that would move a small sensor over a 4x5 grid than to develop a 4x5 sensor.

[Jody_S]

People may avoid the cost and trouble of trying to develop near perfect wide angle lenses for digital in the future if the camera companies begin to think out of the box. They can already fix optical flaws in internal processing. Perhaps cameras with multiple lenses and/or sensors, automatic stitching, focus stacking, and more will become mainstream?

You mean like what the US military is already doing for their surveillance cameras?

[richardman]

I didn't say "it won't happen," I said, "the chance of no 4x5 (or larger) film being available is far LESS than the chance of a digital sensor of those sizes being available." I will put $10 right now on the bet :-)

If you read the earlier posts, I started with a Leica M7, then an Epson R-D1, then an M8, then an M9, and I write embedded C compilers for a living, so I know a bit about the technical and marketing aspects of the industry too :-)

Anyway, shoot film, either print in the darkroom or do the hybrid workflow. Life is good. The future is here now. My lowly V700 gives me a scan of 12000x15000 (3200 DPI scan). That's 180 Megapixels and I have the most permanent archival back up available barring stone tablets :-) If I have an image that is worth anything then a $100 Drum Scan will extract the mostest from it. Even if you cannot compare "digital pixels" vs. "scanned pixels," that's still an amazing amount of information on that 4x5 negs no matter how you slice it.

[richardman]

...
It may be far more practical to design a mechanized rig that would move a small sensor over a 4x5 grid than to develop a 4x5 sensor.

Didn't Sinar have something like that a decade or so ago? Also remember the guy who took something like 10 rolls of 35mm on a 8x10 camera?

[Richard Johnson]

Didn't Sinar have something like that a decade or so ago? Also remember the guy who took something like 10 rolls of 35mm on a 8x10 camera?

It's also the basis for the high end flatbed scanners like the Scitex EverSmarts.

[Dan Fromm]

Making wide angle lenses, especially extreme wide angles, has always been a hellishly difficult engineering task.

Not to quarrel with you, but the trick was mastered before 1910. See http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?post/2011/01/27/PERIGRAPHE

[Drew Wiley]

Engineering wide-angle lenses for digital capture without color fringing is trickier than doing it for conventional film. Maybe what you are thinking of is the Sinar Epolux system, which originally cost a small fortune, but now somebody would probably have to be paid to haul it to the dump. It worked with an automated rotating turret with the necessary RGB filters. That kind of thing might be nice for someone to cannibalize on a 3-shot sequential color film camera. It only worked with still life or otherwise stationary subjects.

[Jody_S]

Not to quarrel with you, but the trick was mastered before 1910. See http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?post/2011/01/27/PERIGRAPHE

I have owned a Kodak Zeiss Protar V (in the Volute shutter, because of some of those engineering constraints), and I still own a beautiful Darlot lever-stop wide angle, that both predate that advertisement. They're very good lenses, but the engineering problems were far from solved: they have significant light fall-off around the edges, they have tiny apertures, they often require bag bellows or dedicated cameras just to focus, and they permit almost no movements. Yes, they can make beautiful images, in the right hands (unfortunately, not mine).

I've been looking to buy a Perigraphe for a couple of years, I just haven't found the right bargain yet. I do own a later clone, a Cooke (?) 'Luxor' f6.8 for 5x7, that is an amazingly good lens. I should use it more often.

[Dan Fromm]

Jody, what you're really saying is that you find bright modern w/a lenses with flange-focal distances > focal length easier to use than old crocks whose flange-focal distances nearly equal to focal length. You didn't mention what I see as one of modern w/a lenses great advantages over the old blunderbusses. Modern w/a lenses are usually in shutter, the ancients are often in barrel.

Interesting that you think the f/6.8 TTH Luxor is a Perigraphe clone. I've wondered what they were, suspected triplet because of low original price. Perigraphes (f/6.8 and f/14) are Dagor types.

The place to look for f/14 Perigraphes is ebay.fr. Try leboncoin.fr too. Going rate depends on focal length. 90/14s typically go for around 100 Euros.

[Jody_S]

Jody, what you're really saying is that you find bright modern w/a lenses with flange-focal distances > focal length easier to use than old crocks whose flange-focal distances nearly equal to focal length. You didn't mention what I see as one of modern w/a lenses great advantages over the old blunderbusses. Modern w/a lenses are usually in shutter, the ancients are often in barrel.

Interesting that you think the f/6.8 TTH Luxor is a Perigraphe clone. I've wondered what they were, suspected triplet because of low original price. Perigraphes (f/6.8 and f/14) are Dagor types.

The place to look for f/14 Perigraphes is ebay.fr. Try leboncoin.fr too. Going rate depends on focal length. 90/14s typically go for around 100 Euros.

I once again wrote a post without bothering to go upstairs and check the lens in question. The Luxor is an f16 lens, though only because the iris is mechanically blocked from opening any further. It appears to be a WAR design. I do periodically look on ebay.fr (and uk) for lenses, but 100 Euros is still over my budget for an ancient lens. Plus I'm looking for something in the 240-300mm range and they usually go for a lot more.

[William D. Lester]

Bob - BH website is showing the 150 Sironar S as being discontinued and unavailable. Same with View Camera Store.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob - BH website is showing the 150 Sironar S as being discontinued and unavailable. Same with View Camera Store.

They are both wrong. But then this is the internet.

The 135, 150 and 210mm APO Sironar S lenses are in current production.

Also, in the USA, while no longer manufactured, there are still one each of the 65mm 4.5, 90mm 6.8 and 90mm 4.5 Grandagon-N lenses still available new.

[Jim Andrada]

@Richardman

A bit OT but FYI here's a link to the book I mentioned.

http://www.amazon.com/Planning-Computer-System-Project-Stretch/dp/B000LCDX06/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407104428&sr=8-1&keywords=planning+a+computer+system+buchholz

I still have mine here somewhere and I'll rustle it up one of these days.

[GG12]

"I am prepared to accept that the 'digital' wides have a few tweaks in their design to optimize them for digital sensors instead of film (an obvious one is using retro-focus designs on small-sensor cameras [compared to my 8x10] due to size constraints, but it's not like a retro-focus wide-angle is a new invention). Beyond that, I do remain firmly in the camp that says the marketing material is just that, marketing material. I don't mean they're trying to sell inferior product by using a load of hype (a polite way of referring to animal husbandry by-product). Just that they are trying to create a need. But then much of the digital photography world has more to do with hype and marketing than it does with photography. So perhaps they are correctly reading their customer base, which, with a few exceptions, is not us."

Both yes and no. At first look, the older lenses are quite fine with a digital back. I got a stitching back and put it on a 4x5 camera with a couple nice analog lenses, and the images were just fine. Ahah, (I thought) they were messing with us, these older lenses (58, 90) are just fine. And on center, they were.

The problem was at the edges - and especially with stitching and moving the smaller digital back around. With modest shifts, say 5mm, they were fine, but at about 15mm shift, or say (if you do the math) at the edge of a 60-80mm lens circle, they began to not look so nice. A bit of distortion, a bit of smearing, and when looked at critically, they just weren't there. Some of the later "analog" lenses, like the 47XL, still work well with digital, but one generation older and there are real limits to working with them. Its not just marketing.

[Jody_S]

Both yes and no. At first look, the older lenses are quite fine with a digital back. I got a stitching back and put it on a 4x5 camera with a couple nice analog lenses, and the images were just fine. Ahah, (I thought) they were messing with us, these older lenses (58, 90) are just fine. And on center, they were.

The problem was at the edges - and especially with stitching and moving the smaller digital back around. With modest shifts, say 5mm, they were fine, but at about 15mm shift, or say (if you do the math) at the edge of a 60-80mm lens circle, they began to not look so nice. A bit of distortion, a bit of smearing, and when looked at critically, they just weren't there. Some of the later "analog" lenses, like the 47XL, still work well with digital, but one generation older and there are real limits to working with them. Its not just marketing.

As I mention earlier in the thread, I'm not trying to talk people out of buying the new lenses. They're fine lenses, unless they're lying about the specs. And the people who buy them seem to love them. I just wish they wouldn't call them 'digital' lenses, because they're not. They do not out-resolve a similarly-spec'd 'analog' lens (unless, again, they're lying about specs) or have any other difference that would make them somehow essential for digital LF photography. That's not to say that there haven't been small improvements in lens design since the advent of computer-assisted design and fabrication. Obviously there are now computer programs that can design lenses with better edge performance, and there are automated lens-grinding machines and automated lathes for the barrels that can execute those designs, not to mention computerized testing and adjusting to pull it all together. And naturally, we have to pay for that level of perfection. So yes, I would expect better performance from a new lens than my 1970s S-Angulon 90/8. And anyone who wants to buy a new lens to get that improved performance has my 100% support. I wish I could go out and buy a whole mess of new lenses myself, but I can't afford it (mainly the resulting divorce).

[StoneNYC]

As I mention earlier in the thread, I'm not trying to talk people out of buying the new lenses. They're fine lenses, unless they're lying about the specs. And the people who buy them seem to love them. I just wish they wouldn't call them 'digital' lenses, because they're not. They do not out-resolve a similarly-spec'd 'analog' lens (unless, again, they're lying about specs) or have any other difference that would make them somehow essential for digital LF photography. That's not to say that there haven't been small improvements in lens design since the advent of computer-assisted design and fabrication. Obviously there are now computer programs that can design lenses with better edge performance, and there are automated lens-grinding machines and automated lathes for the barrels that can execute those designs, not to mention computerized testing and adjusting to pull it all together. And naturally, we have to pay for that level of perfection. So yes, I would expect better performance from a new lens than my 1970s S-Angulon 90/8. And anyone who wants to buy a new lens to get that improved performance has my 100% support. I wish I could go out and buy a whole mess of new lenses myself, but I can't afford it (mainly the resulting divorce).

I think the coatings may be different per my other comment (I think here) about how digital sensors absorb wavelengths of light differently than film and some need to be filtered out and new digital lenses have coatings to prevent certain light from messing up the image on a digital sensor. That's my understanding.

[Corran]

The UV/IR blocking glass (if it has it - see Leica M8) is on the sensor, it has nothing to do with the lens.

[Bob Salomon]

I think the coatings may be different per my other comment (I think here) about how digital sensors absorb wavelengths of light differently than film and some need to be filtered out and new digital lenses have coatings to prevent certain light from messing up the image on a digital sensor. That's my understanding.

I think what you are referring to is the effectiveness of the coatings on the digital lens series to prevent the ghosting that can occur when light rays bounce back off the cover glass and then are reflected back to the sensor off the rear elements. The coatings used by Rodenstock eliminates this from happening. But they also use this same coating on their last and latest analog lenses as well.

[StoneNYC]

I think what you are referring to is the effectiveness of the coatings on the digital lens series to prevent the ghosting that can occur when light rays bounce back off the cover glass and then are reflected back to the sensor off the rear elements. The coatings used by Rodenstock eliminates this from happening. But they also use this same coating on their last and latest analog lenses as well.

Ahh thanks, yes that sounds like what I was thinking of.