Apo Symmars and the competition?

[Willie]

Are Apo Symmar lenses really Apochromatic lenses? From looking at the 300 5.6 offering it does not look much different from the normal 300 5.6 symmar.

Am looking for a good 300 5.6 for the 8x10. Need the brighter aperture to help with focusing.

Any real difference in the major offerings from Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider? I like the idea of the apo lens but am open at this point to what will give me sharp images with good contrast.

[Dan Fromm]

No. Bob Salomon will tell you that the lens conforms to a DIN norm that's impossible to find and that seems to have been withdrawn. Good lens, but the Apo- prefix is marketing fluff.

Not much. Many people here believe that there are subtle differences, usually agree that they all work well.

[Oren Grad]

As Dan says, the "Apo" label on late-model plasmats provides no useful information.

Assuming that the particular sample hasn't been abused in a way that severely affects the glass or its alignment, all of them will give you "sharp images with good contrast" at the middling-to-small apertures and middling to long distances, with pictures intended for contact printing or moderate enlargement, that are typical uses for such a lens. Under extreme conditions - close-range work, large apertures, extreme enlargements - differences can sometimes be seen. Also, for applications requiring extreme movement, some offer a larger image circle. However, usually you need to pay a very large premium for that.

There are sometimes subtle differences in the way they render out-of-focus foregrounds and backgrounds. These do not matter for most users, and even among users who perceive such differences, there is disagreement about which rendering is preferred. If you have not seen such differences for yourself and arrived at your own opinion about them, the most sane thing to do in buying a lens is to not worry about them.

Buy any of these lenses in good condition at a price you can afford, and start making pictures. With experience it will become clear to you whether you have any needs that aren't being met by the lens you own. There's a fair chance the answer will be "no", but if not, you will have figured out for yourself exactly what else you need to look for.

[vinny]

Rodenstock sironar-s. Take out a loan.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

to a DIN norm that's impossible to find

Hi Dan!

Here is a list of references to those now legendary (but obsolete and withdrawn as of 1991-01-01) German standards DIN 19040; Blatt fünf is relevant to the modern German definition of "APO" we are discussing.

Suffice to say that I do not own this document, and even if I had it, I would, natürlich, never dare to infringe severe German copyright laws to help friends here ;)


However, the standard was introduced in April, 1979, and I'm convinced that pre-existing lenses designed before before 1979 and already compliant with the new standard, became instantaneously "apo" according to DIN 19040-5.

A careful analysis of German lens catalogues at the end of the 1970's and the beginning of the 1980's should easily allow to correlate the change in lens names with the date of April 1979.

-----------------------------------------------

DIN 19040 Beiblatt 1, Ausgabedatum: 1979-04
Begriffe der Photographie; Übersicht, Alphabetisches Verzeichnis

DIN 19040-2, Ausgabedatum: 1979-04
Begriffe der Photographie; Allgemeine technische Begriffe für photographische Verfahren und Techniken

DIN 19040-3, Ausgabedatum: 1979-04
Begriffe der Photographie; Allgemeine technische Begriffe für photographische Aufnahmegeräte und Zubehör

DIN 19040-4, Ausgabedatum: 1979-04
Begriffe der Photographie; Allgemeine technische Begriffe für photographische Materialien und ihre Eigenschaften

======================================================================

apo stuff is here

DIN 19040-5, Ausgabedatum: 1979-04
Begriffe der Photographie; Allgemeine optische Begriffe in der Photographie

And this DIN 19040-5 standard is referenced here, but probably no longer available for purchase (???)

http://www.beuth.de/en/standard/din-19040-5/1724678

======================================================================


DIN 19040-6, Ausgabedatum: 1979-04
Begriffe der Photographie; Allgemeine technische Begriffe für Labor- und Dunkelkammereinrichtungen

DIN 19040-7, Ausgabedatum: 1979-04
Begriffe der Photographie; Allgemeine technische Begriffe der photographischen Beleuchtungstechnik

DIN 19040-8, Ausgabedatum: 1979-04
Begriffe der Photographie; Allgemeine technische Begriffe für Stereoskopie (Raumbildwesen)

DIN 19040-9, Ausgabedatum: 1979-04
Begriffe der Photographie; Allgemeine Begriffe in der Blitzlichttechnik

DIN 19040-10, Ausgabedatum: 1979-04
Begriffe der Photographie; Allgemeine technische Begriffe der Stehbildprojektion (Stehbildwurf)

DIN 19040-12, Ausgabedatum: 1979-04
Begriffe der Photographie; Allgemeine Begriffe der Sensitometrie


=========================

And this other standard, withdrawn as of 1985-05-01
DIN 19040-109 Ausgabedatum: 1.5.1985
Begriffe der Photographie; Optische Systeme.

[8x10 user]

E.D. glass is good

[8x10 user]

All of my Nikon lenses show'ed lateral chromatic aberration, including the Micro Nikkor VR. I moved to a multishot MFD back with the Digital version of Rodenstocks Apo lenses. I have never seen color fringing again.

[Drew Wiley]

More a marketing tweak. There was apparently a slight improvement in sharpness and contrast over the previous Symmar S line. But the change in glass formulation was also mandated by the ban of radioactive glass in the EU. I think of "apo" more in terms of true graphics lenses and their spin-offs. But for general photography, most later (or now, "last") generation view camera lenses from all the "big four" have become so acute that it's a moot question, just a technicality in practical terms. But that doesn't qualify them as necessarily apo in the traditional sense of being capable of precise color separation work, where each color was rendered in exactly the same shape and position over the whole specified field. And sometimes the older Symmar S had a bit more pleasing look for certain subjects. Being "hard sharp" is not always the prime criterion.

[Drew Wiley]

Digital backs compound certain issues in this discussion, particularly color fringing issues, which aren't necessarily the fault of the lens, but might mandate a different design or focal length. So one does need to differentiate between applications, esp film vs digi capture.

[Bob Salomon]

I actually read the standard way back when and if I recall correctly, it basically said that apochromatic simply equates to exceptionally good chromatic abberation correction. The standard no longer required that three colors be brought to the same focus for a lens to be designated as apochromatic. This actually makes perfectly good sense, because using modern optical glass, the secondary spectrum of lenses corrected for only two colors can be so small as to be equal to or even less than that of lenses corrected to bring three colors to the same focus as required by the old definition. Schneider seems to think that Apo Symmars have improved chromatic correction over the Symmar-S, but I think it is mostly at the edges of the image circle. I think most people would think that is a good thing.

It is that the lateral chromatic abberations of the secondary spectrum have been reduced to a very small percentage of the focal length.

Rodenstock and Schneider both used this definition. This would mean no color fringing and in B&W finer lines of high contrast objects thanks to the lack of color fringing. Especially towards the edges of the field.

For microscophy and process work the Abbe definition is used instead which stated that the three primary colors were corrected to come to focus at the same point.

[Mark Sampson]

Professionally, I've used convertible Symmars from the 1950s, a Symmar-S from the early '70s, and an Apo-Symmar made in the early '90s. The Apo-Symmar has more contrast (and thus more color saturation) than the (single-coated) Symmar-S, but either of those lenses has enough resolution for even the most critical user. You really can't go wrong with any standard LF lens made in the last 35 years.

[8x10 user]

More a marketing tweak. There was apparently a slight improvement in sharpness and contrast over the previous Symmar S line. But the change in glass formulation was also mandated by the ban of radioactive glass in the EU. I think of "apo" more in terms of true graphics lenses and their spin-offs. But for general photography, most later (or now, "last") generation view camera lenses from all the "big four" have become so acute that it's a moot question, just a technicality in practical terms. But that doesn't qualify them as necessarily apo in the traditional sense of being capable of precise color separation work, where each color was rendered in exactly the same shape and position over the whole specified field. And sometimes the older Symmar S had a bit more pleasing look for certain subjects. Being "hard sharp" is not always the prime criterion.

Did Rodenstock and Schneider use Radioactive glass?

I heard that lead was banned so the E.D. glass (lead crown?) from the 90's Apo Symmars, and Apo Sironar S / W's could no longer be used. The Apo Symmar L is the newer lead-free version. I assume Rodenstock also had to change their glass but they dont talk about it.

[Drew Wiley]

Toxic ingredients got banned too, at least in the mfg of new glass, so I just used the term "radioactive" in a loose sense, though that was certainly one named excuse for the changes. You'd have to know what went into specific lenses to get the specific answer. And of course, Fuji and Nikon would have to comply also if they intended to market lenses in the EU, not just Schneider and Rodenstock. But at that time, Schneider was a bit behind the others in plant and lens upgrades.
I can see the difference in my own prints when I traded out my worn-out Symmar S. What seemed sharp taken with a Symmar-S didn't seem so critically sharp afterwards. But there was a certain look I still prefer with those older lenses when combined with the older Ektachromes and Vericolor films, now extinct of course. Same reason I might pick a single-coated G-Claron over a multi-coated Fujinon A in similar focal length relative to a particular film, even though they're otherwise very similar optical designs. Just a way to fine-tune things, but not worth fighting a World War over.

[Corran]

How interesting. So would the APO Lanthar lenses be "more" APO than a modern APO Symmar or similar?

I have a 150mm APO Symmar as well as a 15cm APO Lanthar. One day when I have some time and film to kill I should shoot a comparison. The common line I've read is that any modern Plasmat would easily match or exceed a Lanthar, but I don't believe it for a second (and there's more to an image than MTF obviously - like how the out of focus areas are rendered).

[Old-N-Feeble]

Just curious... for how long has the term "apochromatic" been used in commercially available options.

[Drew Wiley]

I suspect the term itself has been around quite a bit longer than I've been alive! It's just that it would more often have been used in reference to graphics reproduction than conventional photography. Many of these had deliberated restricted maximum apertures which didn't encounter the same engineering limitations
as general-purpose plastmats. But any number of super-sharp four-element dialytes were basically borrowed from graphics designs, like Apo Ronars, Artars, etc.
The Lanthar seems to have obtained cult status simply because it was an early entry into specialized glass types which afterwards became commonplace. I won't
go beyond that basic statement, because I don't own anything in 150mm.

[Dan Fromm]

The first apochromatic lenses were microscope objectives.

Fabre (1892) says (my translation):


Dr. Abbe has shown that with the new glasses one can make the secondary spectrum disappear, and he has called lenses so constructed apochromatic objectives. Using data furnished by the wise professor of Jena, the house Zeiss has made quite a series of microscope objectives, known and justly appreciated by serious microscopists who are not content with images approximately sharp and who know how to use an objective (which is rarer than one would expect). Powel & Lealand, in England, Nachet, in France, Reichert, in Austria, have successfully used these new glasses that theory demands be used in making microscope objectives.

See: http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/redir.cgi?8KE304 , download Vol. 5

Apochromatic lenses for photo-reproduction came soon after.

I have a 1901 Zeiss London catalog that says:


For Three Colour Printing and delicate Photo-gravure work we can recommend our Planars with reduced secondary spectrum as absolutely the best objectives now obtainable, although the difficulty and expense of procuring a supply of a special quality of glass render them necessarily more expensive than Planars made of ordinary materials.

See: http://books.google.com/books?id=cnkWAAAAYAAJ&dq=zeiss+unarsource=gbs_navlinks_s

[Old-N-Feeble]

Thank you, Dan. I'm not at all surprised you had the answer. You're very knowledgeable regarding optics. What I 'really' want to know is when the term 'apo' became common in photographic optics and when that term became 'truthful' and/or 'universal'.

You can slap me if you like but it won't hurt my little feelings.;)

[Dan Fromm]

Mike, process lenses have been sold as apochromats since the turn of the 20th century. Some of their names have the prefix Apo-. Not all process lenses are apochromats. Nikon is categorical that Process Nikkors (that's a trade name that only four lenses bear, not a generic term; Drew Wiley and I tangled about that a while ago) are not apochromats.

For general photographic purposes, the Apo- prefix in the marketing fluff sense was enabled in 1979 -- see post #5 in this thread -- for German manufacturers. Rodenstock and Schneider started using the term for general purpose lenses not much later. Nikon and Fuji both sold true apochromats as taking lenses (f/9 Nikkor-Ms, I'm not sure that the 105/3.5 Nikkor-M is an apochromat; Fujinon-As, Fujinon-Cs) but without the Apo- prefix.

The prefix is not universally used for process lenses. It is close enough to truthful for them, isn't at all truthful for the very fine taking lenses with the Apo- prefix that Rodenstock and Schneider sell.

About slapping, well, if being slapped pleases you by all means go slap yourself.

[paulr]

The first apochromatic lenses were microscope objectives.

I had a conversation many years ago with a Schneider technician. He said that (as of then) the only true apochromatic lenses were microscope lenses. Meaning, these lenses could be designed to completely eliminate any visible chromatic aberrations. For camera lenses, "apo" meant that longitudinal chromatic aberrations were essentially eliminated, and lateral color was reduced according to a measured standard.

He said that the Germans used a different means of measurement than the Japanese, but that there was no practical difference between the two to the end user.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Mike, process lenses have been sold as apochromats since the turn of the 20th century. Some of their names have the prefix Apo-. Not all process lenses are apochromats. Nikon is categorical that Process Nikkors (that's a trade name that only four lenses bear, not a generic term; Drew Wiley and I tangled about that a while ago) are not apochromats.

For general photographic purposes, the Apo- prefix in the marketing fluff sense was enabled in 1979 -- see post #5 in this thread -- for German manufacturers. Rodenstock and Schneider started using the term for general purpose lenses not much later. Nikon and Fuji both sold true apochromats as taking lenses (f/9 Nikkor-Ms, I'm not sure that the 105/3.5 Nikkor-M is an apochromat; Fujinon-As, Fujinon-Cs) but without the Apo- prefix.

The prefix is not universally used for process lenses. It is close enough to truthful for them, isn't at all truthful for the very fine taking lenses with the Apo- prefix that Rodenstock and Schneider sell.

About slapping, well, if being slapped pleases you by all means go slap yourself.

Dan,

It seems to me that lenses made for 1:1 or those lenses made for very specific magnification ratios are more easily made APO. It seems to me that lenses should be designated 'APO' in a relatively narrow magnification range.

RE being B-slapped: I don't like it... but won't back down from it.;)

Mike

[Gary Tarbert]

It is interesting i have a slightly older180 Symmar -s this lens is sharp with a lovely natural colour balance i used it on my 5x8 as almost my standard lens , Actually in the time i had the 5x8 almost all of my high achieving ,award winning shots, and indeed most of my best sellers were shot using this lens , Grossly underrated lens , This lens is for sale as i am not shooting this format anymore , And the only question i have had on it is whether it is APo as the 180 was not one of the super symmar apo lengths , I incorrectly listed as super , my error , But as a lens it is very good , Maybe i just have a good sample

[Flauvius]

Old-N-Feeble:

Why do you believe that a 1:1 lens is more easily made APO?

Flauvius

[Old-N-Feeble]

Old-N-Feeble:

Why do you believe that a 1:1 lens is more easily made APO?

Flauvius

Because that's what I've read several times. Supposedly the symmetrical design nearly eliminates most distortions. Maybe Dan F. can explain it better.

[neil poulsen]

. . . I can see the difference in my own prints when I traded out my worn-out Symmar S. What seemed sharp taken with a Symmar-S didn't seem so critically sharp afterwards.

This is really interesting to me. I've picked up Symmar-S lenses, because for their performance, they provide a good value. But, I've been thinking of swapping out the three that I have (100mm, 150mm, & 180mm) for Apo Symmars. Look around a little, and there's really not that much of a price difference.

I tried a Rodenstock once. Too contrasty for my taste. But, that was quite a while ago. I also wonder about Nikon; I've heard that they have a warmer look to them that's suitable, say, for landscape. I should pick one up and give it a try. (On one of two, remaining color films. :))

[StoneNYC]

This is really interesting to me. I've picked up Symmar-S lenses, because for their performance, they provide a;) good value. But, I've been thinking of swapping out the three that I have (100mm, 150mm, & 180mm) for Apo Symmars. Look around a little, and there's really not that much of a price difference.

I tried a Rodenstock once. Too contrasty for my taste. But, that was quite a while ago. I also wonder about Nikon; I've heard that they have a warmer look to them that's suitable, say, for landscape. I should pick one up and give it a try. (On one of two, remaining color films. :))

Really? Rodenstock too contrasty? Interesting, I've found Schneider too be much more contrasty than Rodenstock, I found Rodenstock very flat. Perhaps it's a shutter thing? I find fuji sort of in-between, and though I prefer Schneider contrast, the fuji line I use is lighter for field use. I can't comment on Nikon.

[paulr]

I don't understand how a lens can be "too contrasty."

Unless you're going for a soft, old-timey veiled look. Contrast can never be more than 100%, and in real life it's always less, and gets progressively less at higher spatial frequencies.

I'd bet against anyone doing better than a flip of a coin in guessing if a print is from an equivalent Schneider or Rodenstock lens. They are so generally so close in performance that all the other variables are orders of magnitude more significant.

[Ken Lee]

I don't understand how a lens can be "too contrasty."

Unless you're going for a soft, old-timey veiled look. Contrast can never be more than 100%, and in real life it's always less, and gets progressively less at higher spatial frequencies.


+1

A subject has a certain amount of contrast. Our lens + bellows + any other camera internals introduce a certain amount of flare. They can only degrade the contrast inherent in the subject.

The more flare, the less "contrasty" we call a lens... but in fact we're talking about flare, aren't we ?

Flare degrades shadow separation. We can adjust exposure, development and post-processing to accommodate variations in contrast, but other than using a lens shade and other baffles, there's no way remove flare at the time of image capture.

In the darkroom we can use split-filtering to restore contrast to regions where it has been lost. In a photo editor tool, we can boost contrast in selected regions of the image to accomplish the same thing.

[Drew Wiley]

It's damn easy for a lens to be too contrasty, esp if you shoot chromes in open sun rather than a studio environment. And sometimes portrait photographers want something a bit less extreme, even with milder color neg films. Flare is a secondary issue that can generally be controlled. Let's take a couple of apples to apples comparisons from my own kit. I own both a 250 G-Claron (single-contrast) and a 240 Fuji A (multicoated). Both are modern very crisp contrasty lenses of similar optical design and application. But sometimes the "better" multicoated one can be over the top. In any event, owning both allows me to fine-tune the contrast a bit prior to printing, where this might be a added chore in the case of color printing. Then I've owned the most contrasty lens of any camera lens I've even seen, the 14" multicoated Kern dagor with only four air to glass surfaces. It was really difficult to bag chromes with, so I switched to the single-coated version, which still has a LOT of contrast, just not over the top. Now that I mostly shoot color neg film and black and white, the parameters are a little different
than when I mostly shot chromes. Even later generation general-purpose plastmats have more contrast and "snap" to them than earlier ones; but sometimes I
prefer the look of the older ones.

[paulr]

Flare is the only thing we're talking about. It's veiling flair from light bouncing off the elements that visibly reduces contrast.
And you're going to see a difference in contrast between two multicoated German plasmats.
If you want noticeable veiling flare, you're using lenses from the wrong era.

[Drew Wiley]

Internal lens flare is a function of several things, esp the number of elements and type of glass and coatings. But when you compare apples to apples, meaning
last-generation multicoated plasmats from any of the big four (Fuji, Nikon, Schneider, Rodenstock), the contrast is going to be virtually equal for any equivalent focal length, or at least a lot more similar to each other than to a generation back like the Symmar S. Kinda a non-issue in this respect from any practical standpoint. If you want something with more contrast of similar vintage, you have to reduce the air/glass interfaces; and only a few lenses would do that, like the Nikkor M's, which are multicoated advanced tessars with only six surfaces.

[paulr]

This Coastal Optics lens (http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-nir-60mm-slr-lens-mainmenu-155/80-uv-vis-ir-60-mm-apo-macro.html)is probably the closest thing to a truly apochromatic optic for photography. As a bonus it's corrected into the IR and UV spectrums.

Small format only.

[Taija71A]

... I found Rodenstock very flat.

Since this thread is about Schneider Apo-Symmar Lenses... Which 'Late Model' Rodenstock 6/4 Plasmat Lens did you compare it to -- Before making this conclusion?

(*Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N or perhaps Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S) ???


... Perhaps it's a shutter thing?

Stone, the 'mere' fact that you think... "Perhaps it's a shutter thing?" -- Tells me that you perhaps...
--
Regards,

-Tim.
_________

[Taija71A]

__

>> A subject has a certain amount of contrast. <<

Yes.

>> Our lens + bellows + any other camera internals introduce a certain amount of flare. They can only degrade the contrast inherent in the subject. <<

Yes.

>> ... but in fact we're talking about flare, aren't we ? <<

Perhaps, not entirely...

For Example: If you were to 'mount' a series of different Lenses on the same Camera (Schneider Symmar-S, Schneider-Apo-Symmar and Schneider-Apo-Symmar L, Rodenstock Sironar-N, Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N, Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S, etal )...

... You should notice small differences in 'Contrast'.

However, since you haven't changed your Camera 'Set-Up'...
Obviously, there are other things that also come into play here. One of these things... Is of course 'Lens Design'.

Also, before lens coatings were invented... Lens flare was a major determinant of image quality. Today of course... That is no longer the case.
_________


Flare is the only thing we're talking about.
__

Quick Answer:

As per above... Not entirely.
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

[Ken Lee]

Sorry if I was unclear. I think we are in complete agreement.

I wrote (emphasis added) "Our lens + bellows + any other camera internals introduce a certain amount of flare."

By "Our lens" I meant the taking lens: its design, internal reflections, coating, etc. By flare I meant lens flare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare).

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/flare.jpg

Using a curve adjustment in Photoshop, we can simulate flare. Note the right half of the image: the low values have been filled-in with what amounts to white noise.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/panaflex.jpg

Lens flare is not lower contrast, it's a loss of image fidelity. People who spend a lot of money making images know about this.

[Taija71A]

__

No problem Ken.
Understood in full now and in 'Complete Agreement' with yourself...

I too... Was perhaps unclear in my original post. Very sorry about that.
--
I 'believe' that "Lens Design" and the inevitable 'Tradeoffs and Choices' that always have to be made (*and not 'Lens Flare')... Plays a larger/more significant role in the final 'Contrast' (*i.e. 'Look') of a Lens.

Perhaps... This is why some individuals like the look from 'say' 1 or 2 or 3 of the Manufacturers of modern Plasmat Lenses (Fujinon, Nikkor, Rodenstock, Schneider, etal ) -- And yet are not as 'viscerally' drawn to one of the others?
--
This of course, reminds many of us...

Of the 'merits' of Carl Zeiss/Contax vs. Leica lenses and all of the ensuing 'Technical' debates that have taken place during the years -- Over in '35mm' Land.
______


... By "Our lens" I meant the taking lens: its design, internal reflections, coating, etc.

... By flare I meant lens flare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare).

+1.

--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

[paulr]

For Example: If you were to 'mount' a series of different Lenses on the same Camera (Schneider Symmar-S, Schneider-Apo-Symmar and Schneider-Apo-Symmar L, Rodenstock Sironar-N, Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N, Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S, etal )...

... You should notice small differences in 'Contrast'.



I bet you wouldn't. Not without laboratory conditions. Compare the MTF curves of those lenses ... they are so close in contrast that sample-to-sample variation might be greater than model-to-model variation. We're no good at seeing differences of a few percent in MTF at any frequency. But we're very, very good at imagining that differences we see in prints can be explained by generalizations about lenses.

[paulr]

Using a curve adjustment in Photoshop, we can simulate flare. Note the right half of the image: the low values have been filled-in with what amounts to white noise.

And the cat is out of the bag. As soon as we figure out that the look we like is just a case of lo-fi love, it becomes trivially easy to reproduce.

[Taija71A]

... Compare the MTF curves of those lenses ...
__

Paul, would you please be so kind... As to send me the 'specific' six (6) MTF Curves that you are referring to above. I would be... 'More than Happy' to look at them!

(*Schneider Symmar-S, Schneider-Apo-Symmar and Schneider-Apo-Symmar L, Rodenstock Sironar-N, Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N, Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S)... Will do just fine.

Thank-you!
_____


... We're no good at seeing differences of a few percent in MTF at any frequency.
__

Paul, I personally... Have 'No problem' seeing the following difference in 'Contrast' levels (*Between 2% and 5%)... As illustrated (below) -- For the following variable frequency sine pattern:


Introduction to resolution and MTF curves.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html


131022

--
Regards,

-Tim.
__________

[paulr]

__Paul, I personally... Have 'No problem' seeing the following difference in 'Contrast' levels (*Between 2% and 5%)...

The difference between 2% MTF and 5% MTF is 250%. So yes, you can see it.

Since we're talking about how "contrasty" a lens is, presumably this means contrast at low spacial frequencies, and we're not as concerned with the corners of the image as the center. So we're dealing with MTF values that are upwards of 90%. One lens might have a value of 91% where another has a value of 93% (at 5 lp/mm). You're not going to notice this outside of a laboratory.

You can probably find the Apo-symmar-L curves on the Schneider site. I can send you an Apo-symmar-S curve for 210mm. I've seen curves for the Symmar-S (spoiler alert: besides differences in image circle, they're not significantly different). I have hard copies of the Apo Sironar S and W lens curves. Differences are also minor, again except for image circle.

I collected this stuff when shopping for lenses, and chose based on nitpicking. In retrospect I doubt I'd ever have seen a difference in my prints.

If you start comparing to older single- and uncoated lenses, or lenses of significantly different designs, then it's a different story. I've used old Kodak Ektars and single-coated angulons. These look different from the plasmats.

[Taija71A]

__

Thank-you for taking the time to post this information Paul. Greatly appreciated!

Let me do some further research Re: Your latest post... And I will try to post a 'succinct' reply.
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

[StoneNYC]

Since this thread is about Schneider Apo-Symmar Lenses... Which 'Late Model' Rodenstock 6/4 Plasmat Lens did you compare it to -- Before making this conclusion?

(*Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N or perhaps Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S) ???



Stone, the 'mere' fact that you think... "Perhaps it's a shutter thing?" -- Tells me that you perhaps...
--
Regards,

-Tim.
_________

Rodenstock 75mm Grandagon-N "Green Stripe" lens.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't understand how a lens can be "too contrasty."

Unless you're going for a soft, old-timey veiled look. Contrast can never be more than 100%, and in real life it's always less, and gets progressively less at higher spatial frequencies.

I'd bet against anyone doing better than a flip of a coin in guessing if a print is from an equivalent Schneider or Rodenstock lens. They are so generally so close in performance that all the other variables are orders of magnitude more significant.

I agree with this. A lens can never add contrast... only reduce it. This is a modification of the original scene which is a form of distortion. Lenses with higher contrast have less flair-ing into the shadows. I would much rather control contrast with exposure and development than to allow my shadows to be fogged which destroys shadow detail and local contrast.

[paulr]

And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with preferring older, more flair-prone lenses. It's a look. And as Ken showed, it's a very specific kind of quality loss—one you can achieve in other ways. You can start with an image from a high-fidelity lens and get a lo-fi look; you just can't go in the opposite direction.

[Drew Wiley]

But we are getting awful nitpicky here. Lots of 35mm shooter are out there shooting "super sharp" modern zoom lenses with 17 elements or so. That old shot which AA misidentified as Mt Williamson (which is actually 7 miles away and 2,000 ft higher), not only suffered from plenty of flare, but had a big thumbprint on one corner which caused spotting hell. With our modern multicoated optics and len shades a better than a cowboy hat, we've got life pretty easy and can just sit back pontificating about these finer points of lens brand etiquette. Perhaps others of you, besides me, have seen that "Willamson from Manzanar" AA print in the 4ft wide version, and believe me, it's absolute mush compared to typical present standards, with a lot of tonality loss for something taken on 8x10 film. But he still bagged a classic! I can get nitpicky myself when it comes to plopping down hard earned money and selecting a specific lens for a specific niche. But there's so many damn good ones out there that sometimes it's hard to go wrong.

[Sal Santamaura]

...People who spend a lot of money making images know about this.Yes, but those people usually have large, uncoated rectangular filters in the slots of those matte boxes. :D


...With our modern multicoated optics and len shades a better than a cowboy hat, we've got life pretty easy and can just sit back pontificating about these finer points of lens brand etiquette...Actually, with most modern multicoated large format lenses and filters, whether using a cowboy hat or the film holder's dark slide, simply keeping direct sun off the front element (or shading from above if the sky is overcast) results in flare levels barely different than what a compendium hood would provide.

The contrast differences between various large format lenses discussed in this thread are real and not subtle. Compare a 355mm f/8 multicoated Kern Dagor to a 250mm f/6.7 single-coated Fujinon W. Both will make 8x10 negatives with sharpness greater than can be seen on a contact print or even in a modest enlargement, assuming the finest enlarging lens/technique. However, unless film development times and/or printing contrast are tailored for each one, there will be radical contrast variations in how they render a given scene.

[Drew Wiley]

Having used both those lenses you mentioned quite a bit, Sal, even though that Fuji 6.7 was only single-coated, when I first started using it, it amazed me how
that it has distinctly more contrast and hue saturation than some of the MC plastmats I had previously used. I suppose that related to some unknown special glass type. I could say the same thing about a G-Claron of equivalent focal length (250): contrast and saturation are right up there with the best of modern plastmats, despite the single coating. And flare is only an issue where it would likely occur with any other lens of comparable angle of view. The 14"MC Kern dagor was simply over the top for me. Too much contrast. Yeah, it could be a wonderful black and white portrait lens if someone had a flawless complexion; otherwise... And I HATED that Compur 3 shutter with no time function and a distinct buzz. So for better or worse I switched to the single-coated Kern in Copal 3S. I like my 360 Fuji A better than either. Now where flare can be a serious issue is taking a lens with a huge image circle and using it on 4x5. What comes to
mind is my 450 Fuji C. It has superb contrast and definition, but also greatly benefits from a true compendium shade with 4x5. With 8x10, flare is much less an
issue. But I often use flare creatively. After all, our own eyes aren't equipped with anything more than modest eyelash shades. That's how we see the world.
So I also have an older Zeiss single-coated tessar in 14" as well. None are really "best". It just depends on what you are after, and how much fun you're willing to have experimenting. But 8x10 is a bulky system, and if I can only have one lens in the pack in this focal length, it will be the 360 Fuji A - it has the best close
range correction, a lightwt no.1 shutter, a huge image circle, and modern multicoating.

[Arne Croell]

To emphasize again the fact that the current plasmats are mostly interchangeable in performance, here is a comparison of 150mm MTF curves based on the manufacturers data for the Apo-Symmar, the Apo-Symmar L, and the Apo-Sironar S 150mm. I made this graph years ago for a similar discussion when our forum was still at photo.net: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/005/0054fC-12655384.jpg

The switch from the plain Apo-Symmar to the "L" version was mainly to accomodate the switch to lead-and arsenic free glasses required by the RoHS guidelines of the EU (RoHS=Reduction of Hazardous Substances)

[paulr]

The biggest differences the chart shows is image circle, and the results of the Sironar-S being optimized for 1:10; the Symmars are optimized for infinity. Rodenstock only publishes the 1:10 magnification but schneider publishes curves for infinity and 1:5 as well.

Even so, you can see that as spatial frequency diminishes, the central MTF curves get closer (the top lines are 5 lp/mm). It's likely that at 1 or more lp/mm, which is really what we're talking, there would be no difference.

Nice graphic, by the way ... I wish I'd known you back when I was lens shopping.

[Arne Croell]

Here are the infinity curves for the two Apo-Symmars, not a big difference to 1:10: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/005/0055AW-12674684.jpg

[Sal Santamaura]

Here are...That was the most recent post Arne made on this forum. His last activity here was a bit more than one week later on March 28. He hasn't responded to attempted private contacts since.

Does anyone know Arne's status? Is he doing well? Thanks in advance for whatever information you can share.