tiny, sharp lenses for 2x3 [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

View Full Version : tiny, sharp lenses for 2x3

BetterSense

16-Sep-2014, 20:38

For a while I thought 2x3 was the answer to my wishes. Then I realized that the vintage speed graphic-type lenses which suit the format from a form-factor perspective are not overly blessed with sharpness or contrast, or coverage, and if I am to haul around 4x5 lenses, I ought to just shoot 4x5. Yes I know they make nice newer lenses targeted at medium format digital cameras, but those are well out of the budget. Are there any lenses I am overlooking which are small, cheap, and sharp? I can often do without a shutter, so I am contemplating testing some 80mm-class enlarger lenses.

neil poulsen

16-Sep-2014, 20:51

There are many choices available for medium format, without going for some of the dated optics that were available for the vintage graphic cameras. Like, the 100 & 120mm Apo Symmar lenses. The 150mm Apo Symmar lens can be reasonably priced. The 47mm Super Angulon f5.6 is a good choice, as is the 58mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL. If this is too expensive, look for an older 58mm Grandagon for a more reasonable price. (These Grandagon's should be checked for lens separation.)

Oren Grad

16-Sep-2014, 20:58

All of the modern plasmat lines from the major manufacturers have had a 100 or 105 intended as a normal for 6x9cm. They are small and lightweight. I happen to like the Rodenstock "flavor", so I have the 100mm Apo-Sironar-N for when I work with 6x9. It has a tiny, featherweight optical cell mounted in a Copal 0. To my taste it's a jewel, just a lovely lens all around. But if you like Schneider, Nikon or Fuji, they too made lenses for you.

Also, I wouldn't write off all of the classic press-camera lenses. Some of those are very respectable performers too.

Atul Mohidekar

16-Sep-2014, 21:38

Schneider APO Digitar 120mm f/5.6. I will not call it tiny, but it is small. It is the sharpest lens I have owned - proven by my non-scientific testing, the MTF charts and confirmed by the Schneider engineer I communicated with via email (he compared with it Super-Symmar 110mm XL which is a very sharp lens by itself). Digitar's main drawback is the limited coverage. But it covers 2x3 and even 4x5 but with little room for movements.

Bill_1856

16-Sep-2014, 21:40

You're not going to get any sharper lens than the Kodak Ektar 105mm.

George Hart

16-Sep-2014, 23:25

I have had a lot of fun with a 90/3.5 Commercial Congo lens on 6x9. These are small, light, Copal 0 shutter, tessar design, wide open sharp in the centre but soft at the edges, still available and for not much more than the price of the shutter.

Dan Fromm

17-Sep-2014, 05:37

You're not going to get any sharper lens than the Kodak Ektar 105mm.

Interesting. Why do you think so?

I ask because my informal and formal tests of original issue normal lenses for 2x3 Graphics gave this result: 103/4.5 Graflar better (sharper centrally and in the corners) than 101/4.5 Ektar better than 105/3.7 Ektar. The 105 doesn't quite cover the format. When I mentioned this result on www.graflex.org's help board several members chimed in to say that their lenses performed like mine.

Bettersense, if you're willing to shoot at f/16 or smaller without movements the humble 101/4.5 Ektar is nearly (see above) the gold standard for normal lenses for 2x3. Modern plasmats' big advantage is better coverage. If you need movements you need a modern lens, end of that discussion.

I've never had a 100 mm +/- Planar or Xenotar so can't comment on them. I have a 4"/2.0 TTH and a 100/2.5 Uran-27. The TTH lens is no better than a 101/4.5 Ektar from f/4.5 down and is much heavier.

Sal Santamaura

17-Sep-2014, 08:55

...Are there any lenses I am overlooking which are small, cheap, and sharp?...If you want the ultimate and can deal with 90mm rather than 80mm, a bit larger and more expensive, go for a Nikon SW 90mm f/8 and shoot it at f/11. I've a 13" x 15.5" print on my wall made from a 6x7 transparency shot with that lens on my Horseman VH. It's incredibly sharp. See the test results here

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

for exactly how sharp. That's resolution in Mamiya 7 80mm lens territory.

...I have the 100mm Apo-Sironar-N for when I work with 6x9...I have one of those too. It's very sharp, but exhibits resolution just shy of the Nikon SW 90mm f/8 in my subjective assessment. However, it's a full stop faster and closes in my Horseman, so the tradeoff is frequently worthwhile.

Corran

17-Sep-2014, 09:03

I've been shooting a bit of 6x12 lately and I pack a 38mm XL, 58mm XL, Nikkor 90mm f/8, and a 150mm of some sort. They are all very sharp, and yes they cover 4x5 (except the 38mm, barely). It's a nice kit. Roll film is different and certainly more convenient in some ways than 4x5. Depends on what I'm doing. They are all relatively small lenses, especially compared to, say, my Pentax 67 lenses, so there's that.

I actually have some ideas I'm considering for a custom view camera that can be variable 6x6 up to 6x12 shooting. Still chewing on ideas and concepts and thinking about contacting Chamonix for a custom job.

Bill_1856

17-Sep-2014, 09:19

Interesting. Why do you think so?

Just my personal experience. The negatives may not look all that sharp, but the prints look like they were engraved with a diamond. I don't exactly understand the dynamics of this dichotomy.

John Berry

1-Oct-2014, 00:11

Try a 90 angulon. Not the SA version. I have a wollensak 90 that can hang close to it, but nothing can touch my 4" red dot.

Jim Galli

1-Oct-2014, 06:54

Lots of ideas. Some of the lenses associated with the Mamiya Universal 6X9 system were able to resolve in the 80 lppm world. And they're all sized for No. 0 shutter, although the original Seikosha shutters do not have a cable release socket which is frustrating once they come out of the focus mechanism. The 75mm f5.6 is well loved, and there was a 100mm f2.8 which was a japanese copy of Zeiss Planar. Even the tessar types were very excellent. Many 20X30's made with this system back in my youth.

I also agree with Bill. Many of the original Kodak lenses have been tested and proven to be resolving in the extreme high numbers. So you may be looking in the wrong place. Old cameras are notorious for not focusing where their ground glasses claim they are. Be smart before you waste a bunch of $$$. Get John Williams book, Image Clarity and work through the entire system of high resolution instead of going after silver bullet lenses.

Tin Can

1-Oct-2014, 08:39

Ah, 'Image Clarity' available in Kindle format $5. I sat on my Kindle last week, but I can still read it on my Air 11.

Thanks for the book suggestion!

Already have it, instant delivery.

Bob Salomon

1-Oct-2014, 09:09

Now it comes down to what you really mean.

How big, or small is tiny?
How badly do you want sharp?
What about distortion, color fringing (the more color fringing the wider fine lines against a high contrast background will be in black and white), aberrations?

What is cheap? And 80 lppm is not even close to what these lenses can do. Neither is a reversed enlarging lens.

So here is the benchmark of what is easily acheivable with off the shelf lenses for roll and digital material. Note: those lenses that use the cover glass of the sensor as part of the formula require a screw-in rear glass plate with film. 80

"HR Digaron-S special features:
➢ Resolution up to 100 line pairs/mm, pixel size up to 5 μm.
➢ The open aperture is free of vignetting and can be used as a working aperture.
➢ Excellent imaging performance at working apertures from 5.6 to 8.
➢ To avoid blurring and color fringing caused by the sensor protection glass, the calculation of the optical design includes a 2 mm thick sensor glass..
➢ Perfect symmetric reproduction due to special adjustment of the optical elements.
➢ Thanks to the retro focus design of the wide-angle lenses there is no additional light fall-off and no color fringing on the sensors with micro lenses due to extremely oblique light incidence.
➢ Enough space left for camera movement between lens and sensor even withshort focal lengths.

Available focal lengths: 23 mm, 28 mm, 35 mm, 60 mm, 100 mm, 180 mm

HR Digaron-W special features:
➢ Resolution up to 100 line pairs/mm, pixel size up to 5 μm.
➢ Openaperture is free of vignetting and can be used as a working aperture.
➢ Excellent imaging performance at working apertures from 5.6 to 8.
➢ To avoid blurring and color fringing caused by the sensor protection glass, the calculation of the optical design includes a 2 mm thick sensor glass..
➢ Perfect symmetric reproduction due to a special adjustment of the optical elements.
➢ Thanks to the retro focus design of the wide-angle lenses there is no additional light fall-off and no color fringing on the sensors with micro lenses due to extremely oblique light incidence.
➢ Enough space left for camera movement between lens and sensor even withshort focal lengths.

Available focal lengths: 32 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm, 70 mm

HR Digaron-SW special features:
➢ Resolution up to 100 line pairs/mm, pixel size up to 5 μm.
➢ Open aperture is free of vignetting and can be used as a working aperture.
➢ Excellent imaging performance at working apertures from 5.6 to 8.
➢ ITo avoid blurring and color fringing caused by the sensor protection glass, the calculation of the optical design includes a 2 mm thick sensor glass..
➢ Perfect symmetric reproduction due to the special adjustment of the optical elements.

Available focal lengths: 90 mm (further focal lengths will follow)

Drew Wiley

1-Oct-2014, 10:07

I simply use the same small lenses as for 4x5, choosing from among modern Fuji A's, Nikkor M's, and even small plasmats. And I consistently get sharper results than from any of my dedicated MF lenses. People will no doubt contest that assessment, but once you figure in the ability to control plane of focus using view camera movements rather than just stopping down, it is logical. Unfortunately, the shortest focal length tiny lens I own is a 105 Nikkor M, so can't help you with that 80mm
category. But I bet the aspheric 80mm Schneider would do the trick nicely - but it ain't cheap either.

Dan Fromm

1-Oct-2014, 10:09

Bob Salomon

1-Oct-2014, 11:26

Bob, I just went to http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/ to see claimed coverage for these lenses. I'm sure that they're all outstanding but not all will cover 2x3. No HR-Digaron-S covers the format but the two longest HR-Digaron-Ws do. The site doesn't list HR Digaron-SWs, does list Apo Sironar digitals. Is HR-Digaron-SW the new name for Apo Sironar digital? By any name, they all cover 2x3 but the shorter ones have quite short back focus.

The information you posted could be more up-to-date that what's on the site. Or, perhaps, vice versa.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan,

What I listed was taken directly from the new information that will replace what is currently on the factory web site. It is also basically the same as the latest brochure from Rodenstock.

What I quoted was written within the last month.

The 90mm 5.6 HR Digaron-W went out of production over 2 years ago and was replaced at the 2012 Photkina with the current 90mm SW lens. The 90mm SW is the first, and so far the only, lens in this new series. More lenses are in preparation for the SW series. The SW covers 120mm at F8.

6x9cm requires a 100mm circle of illumination at infinity. 6x7cm requires 91mm. So, of the current Rodenstock digital lenses 10 cover a 120mm circle, or larger (including the 120mm Apo Macro Sironar Digital) and 9 cover a 90mm or smaller circle (3 cover 90mm).

However, in the digital lenses from Rodenstock there is a 32mm, two 35mm, a 40mm a 45mm a 50mm and a 55mm as well as a 60mm.

While the 32mm only cover a 90mm circle one of the 35mm covers a 105mm circle, the 40mm covers 90mm but the 45mm covers 125mm. The 50 covers 90mm but the 55 covers 125mm and the 60mm covers 70mm.

So, while not all of them cover 6x9 there are other Rodenstock lenses that do at the same, or very nearly the same, focal length. For digital applications the choice of lens is also driven by the pixel size and that is not a factor for film. The lenses for the smallest pixel sizes also have the narrowest circles.

Unfortunately for film shooters using 6x7 or 6x9 the 23mm and 28mm lenses will not cover those formats. But then again, like the 32mm these are very large and rather heavy lenses. The 28mm weighs 29.3 oz, the 23mm weighs 26.5 oz and the 32mm weighs 28 oz. The 32 uses an 82mm filter and the 23 and 28mm take 72mm filters. Also rather large is the 90mm SW weighing 24oz and using 72mm filters as well.

In comparison the 35mm 4.5 digital weighs 10.6 oz and takes 67mm filters. So the lenses that are the largest, and the shortest and the most expensive would meet only one of the OP requirements, SHARP!

Drew Wiley

1-Oct-2014, 12:45

sanking

1-Oct-2014, 13:04

Does anyone have experience with the shorter focal length lenses Horseman once marketed for 6x9? No - I certainly don't expect them to be as acute as these new
digital lenses, and no, I'm not interested in buying any myself, but am simply curious.

I have the 65mm and 75mm Horseman lenses, called Super Horseman. They are good lenses, capable of about 70 lpm in the center, 45-55 on the corners of 6X9 cm format.

My fairly late vintage Schneider 65mm MC Super Angulon f/5.6 is quite a bit better than the Horseman. It will do about 90 lpm in the center, and 75+ lpm on the corners (of 6X9 cm format).

My personal opinion is that last generation MC lenses like the Super Angulons, Apo-Symmars and Apo-Sironars, etc. are good enough for film of ASA 100 or more because the limit to resolution is usually film, not the lens. For digital sensors of pixel size less than 5 μm you probably need a digitar lens.

Sandy

Drew Wiley

1-Oct-2014, 13:27

My Fuji A's and Nikkor M's seem plenty sharp, and indeed film limited for 6x9. Shot my last roll of Efke 25 on this past trip, and otherwise did all the B&W 120 shots with ACROS, which has better quality control anyway, along with a lovely spectral sensitivity in the mtns. I also carried it in full 4x5 sheets. So it's nice to have one camera and one set of lenses and filters which cover both formats efficiently. The drive back from Wyoming had to be scheduled a bit more carefully because I had
certain campsites in mind, wanted to reach them before dark, was taking backroads rather than the freeway, and therefore only had time to set up the 4x5 for a limited number of shots. So I also had a P67 for quickie road shots, which proved invaluable this trip with rapidly changing dramatic clouds and so forth. Good lenses, but probably not quite as sharp as some MF rangefinder lenses. Better lens selection, however, esp longish, and nice to use in the wind, when view cameras
tend to become kites.

sanking

1-Oct-2014, 13:38

Acros is my favorite film for medium format, by far, both for the spectral sensitivity and low reciprocity failure. To say nothing of the better quality control, handing characteristics, lovely grain, high resolution and acutance. I tried the Efke 25, and it is sharp and fine grained, but retains a severe curl, which makes it difficult to store and handle, and frankly compared to Acros gives little in compensation for its flaws.

No 100 mm version of the Fuji As and Nikkor Ms, right? Fortunately there are many nice options in this format in the last generation apo lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock.

Sandy

sanking

1-Oct-2014, 14:17

To address the gist of the question of the OP I would say no, there are no lenses in the 65mm - 80mm range that are small, cheap and sharp. And by sharp I mean sharp on the corners as well as in the middle of 2X3 format. You can find some older lenses, Angulon for example, that are small and cheap, but not sharp on the corners. And some of the older Super Angulon type lenses may be sharp and cheap, but not small.

And if there are any small and inexpensive enlarging lenses in the 65mm - 80 mm range that cover 6X9 with good sharpness on the corners, I think many of would be interested in knowing which ones!!

Sandy

Dan Fromm

1-Oct-2014, 15:19

Sandy, not to quarrel with you, but per Schneider the 65/8 SA weighs 260g, takes a 49 mm filter. That might qualify it as light and small. However the Perez/Thalmann lens tests at http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html show that not all examples are particularly sharp. I have the Ilex equivalent in #00. It is small, light, and acceptably sharp (still might not suit the OP) when I focus it carefully.

The MC 65/5.6 SA weighs 380 g, takes 67 mm filters. Heavier, larger and, per Perez/Thalmann, quite sharp on 2x3.

Drew Wiley

1-Oct-2014, 15:47

Sandy - there is a relatively rare multicoated, fast 105 Nikkor M which has plenty of image circle for 6x9, but not enough for 4x5. Otherwise, regular plastmats start around the same focal length, though the widest plasmat I personally use with 6x9 is a 125 Fuji W, which is small and plenty crisp. Fuji A's start at 180, though the
similarly-designed (but single-coated) G-Claron starts at 150 mm. The 200 and 300 Nikkor M's are also plenty sharp for roll film. I'd even consider any of the Fuji A's up to 360, or Fuji C's up to 450 acceptable. Beyond that, the big no. 3 shutter is as much as issue as the focal length when it comes to the extra margin of detail needed in a small negative. For actual MF camera use I'd like to try the P67 300 EDIF, which is so sharp that it's prized by "widefield" astro photographers using very
expensive digi backs (in the astro sense of "wide"). But it's more likely limited by whatever the big mirror is doing in an actual 6x7 SLR, and really only good at full
infinity subjects or selective focus use, unlike a view lens. Certainly not nice and light like a Nikkor M; but it would be an interesting contest optically.