Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar: does it still stand up to today quality?

[Marco Gilardetti]

Good morning everybody.

I usually don't go for myth-status super-expensive lenses. Although I have always desired to own a Apo-Lanthar, it demanded so much money that it was one of those dreams one basically does nothing to turn into reality. But lately a 150mm f:4,5 Linhof selected Apo-Lanthar landed right in the used camera shop down street, so I though this was indeed a message from destiny and opened the wallet. And we all know that these lenses demand the wallet to be opened WIDE. :rolleyes:

I took some 4x5'' pictures at a family meeting and, although I had the highest expectations from this lens and I was almost thrilled while using it, I must confess that I'm not really impressed by the results. They are good pictures but basically look like pictures taken with a good 6x7 - 6x9 medium format camera.

The lens seems to show good contrast and no flare, which is good. Also, it doesn't loose sharpness when opened wide, which is quite impressive. But it's also my main concern: stopping down nothing "special" happens. I imagined that an apochromatic lens would become a "hair-cutting", ultra-sharp razor blade at around f:16, while it seems just to remain in the same so-and-so grey zone.

So, no resolution targets here or any other scientific test. But can anyone who owned and used a Apo-Lanthar kindly comment on this? Was I simply expecting too much from a lens that has its age? Or it should indeed be very very sharp and I'm perhaps the "lucky" owner of a damaged unit? I'm puzzled and I really don't know what to think. :(

[karl french]

I say this as someone who loves and uses a number of vintage lenses. Based on your post you might be looking for something like an Rodenstock Apo Sironar S. It matches the characteristics you're looking for quite well. It's really quite spectacular. I think with many legendary vintage lenses you're mostly getting a particular look. I love my 15cm Heliar and my various Dagors for just such a particular look each produces on film. For maximum sharpness and contrast both wide open and stopped down the cheap Apo Sironar N I have beats them both.

Really though, I think you need to live and shoot with a lens for quite a while to get to know it's characteristics.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I have the 450mm APO Skopar from the same factory and it is fully open f9 really good, but has not a chance against a Sironar S/Sinaron SE in terms of sharpness, but it is my Bokeh King!
Even the Universal Heliar has no chance recarding bokeh, the Skopar has for me the most beautifull transition from sharp to unsharp and the most beautyfull Bokeh you can get!
Sharpness is only one part of the game, Armin

[RSalles]

Armin,

The problem with the Voigtlaender Skopar is the very common issue with balsam collapsing between glued elements. It's quite common to find this wonderful lens with this issue for sale at the devil bay. BTW, this is a thread suggestion for experienced DIYers: how to repair this lens,

Cheers,

Renato

[Dan Fromm]

Renato, it isn't balsam, it is a synthetic cement. Rodenstock lenses of that era have the same problem. Separations. Apo-Skopars without separations are very rare.

[Bill_1856]

The Apo-Lanthar is a Heliar made with the most expensive glass available at the time.
Heliars aren't noted for their "super-sharp" negatives, in fact your negatives may look a little soft, but the prints should exhibit superb contrast, with beautiful OOF portions, and a uniformity of coverage and consistency across the whole field, as well as great apparent detail (which may not be measurable).
Shoot some more with it, and you'll eventually recognize what a great lens it is.
I've never understood how those slightly soft-appearing negatives can produce such stunning prints.

[Corran]

As a user of both a 15cm and 21cm APO Lanthar, I think they are excellent lenses and hold up just fine. If you are looking for ultimate sharpness, firstly I would ask why, and secondly I would suggest a different lens. The contrast, slightly warm bias, and rendering of these lenses are superb. I do not hesitate to grab my 15cm Lanthar over my 150mm APO Symmar for most uses. Stopped down to f/22 and smaller for landscape work, I do usually use the Symmar simply because it easily takes my standard filter sizes (after I permanently attached a 58-67mm step-up ring to it) and the look of the Lanthar doesn't shine through at that point.

However for wider apertures and handheld shooting, especially with color film, there's just something about the Lanthars that is really nice.

[RSalles]

Corran wrote: "... However for wider apertures and handheld shooting, especially with color film, there's just something about the Lanthars that is really nice."

Indeed, the Apo prefix for apochromatic correction - the 3 colored stripes on the lens barrel - and the Lanthar from lanthanum glass.

[Corran]

I meant that compared to my APO Symmar. So, something beyond just the APO-ness of the lens, probably the rendering and contrast, is something special.

[Marco Gilardetti]

I think with many legendary vintage lenses you're mostly getting a particular look.


your negatives may look a little soft, but the prints should exhibit superb contrast, with beautiful OOF portions, and a uniformity of coverage and consistency across the whole field, as well as great apparent detail (which may not be measurable).

I've never understood how those slightly soft-appearing negatives can produce such stunning prints.

First of all, thanks everybody for your interesting replies and comments. Most of your words really seem to describe well what I have under my eyes. They make a lot of sense.

To those who wrote not to judge it from the first pictures: I'm not doing that. I was just a bit puzzled (quite much puzzled, actually) by the fact that, after reading a lot of words about its unbelievable sharpness, it wasn't really the sharpness what I noted first. The small details on the negative, when greatly enlarged, look somewhat unsharp but still contain a lot of details. You see a not very sharp button of a shirt, but inside it you can see it has four holes and the sewing thread passing through them. You can see a soft skin with almost no texture, but then you can count by how many sewing threads the jacket is made. You see a so-and-so horizon line but then a huge huge huge lot of details of leaves and branches just in front of it. It sure is a lens that has character.

So really, this wasn't at all my "final" word on the regarded Apo-Lanthar. By the way I used it with a cheap film sheet that may very well have degraded its performance. Nonetheless, I took a "panorama" picture on the way back home that left my wife open-mouthed when she saw it. So yes, I think I have to get to know it, and use it for what it can do best.

Is there anyone that owns a 150mm Apo-Lanthar who, just for the sake of curiosity, would like to impress 2 or 3 sheets by photographing the same resolution target printed on a A4 paper at the same distance and see how the two lenses compare? I'm doing it anyway to see at which aperture it is sharpest and where diffraction kicks in. If anyone else would like to do the same, we can agree on the settings and see what comes out.


Indeed, the Apo prefix for apochromatic correction - the 3 colored stripes on the lens barrel - and the Lanthar from lanthanum glass.

I'm not sure wether this was a humorous remark, however, personally, I think that yes: this is one of the all-times best looking lenses. The name itself is as cool as it can be. It has all of the Linhof bells and whistles, lacking just the "TECHNIKA" red writing on the front (but perfection is not of this world...), plus the ultra cool three coloured rings. And of course the super classic "synchro compur" iconic tag in its super classic iconic font. Plus the name Voigtlander, a great great name in photography if there ever was one. A true pleasure for the eyes and the mind, if you ask me.

This, of course, has little to do with pictures' quality. But it adds a lot to the pleasure of using one's gear, which, at least in my opinion, has a significant role in the overall pleasure of classic photography.

[RSalles]

Marco,

It's not a joke at all, the 3 color stripes are sort of trademark of the Apo-Lanthar indicated its Apo correction for color film, and the name Lanthar derives from lanthanum component in the glass - which some people noted that was used in the first time by Kodak including the Aero Ektars, and after that for many lens manufacturer, including Zeiss and russian lens makers.

You can find a nice whitepaper wrote by Arne Croell (which is a forum member) about the Voigtlaender lenses including the Apo-Lanthar in this link:

http://www.arnecroell.com/voigtlaender.pdf

Cheers,

Renato

[Marco Gilardetti]

Thanks for the link, Renato. I know that article and I have it (printed on paper!) at home.

[DrTang]

I've never understood how those slightly soft-appearing negatives can produce such stunning prints.

how do they scan? is it only in the print..or does a scan exhibit the same characteristics?

should I be printing my Heliar negs and scanning the prints instead?

[Mark Sawyer]

Just a general note that with lenses of this quality, choice of developer and developing technique become critical for maximizing resolution.

[Daniel Unkefer]

It's funny, I was talking to the repair guy Ken Ruth yesterday. He asked if I had the 150mm Apo-Lanthar for my Plaubel Makiflexes, as it was available in auto-iris mount for that camera. I told him that is the only Makiflex lens I do not have. I've only seen one in twenty years and it was $1600!

He basically warned me that over time the lens can develop optical problems. He worked on a Makiflex one years ago and he said it "sucked", there was nothing he could to do improve it. I'm sure they are not all like that these days, but for the money, I told him I would never buy one without trying it first. He told me I was right on that.

Maybe one day I will find one at a flea market for $500!

[Old-N-Feeble]

Just a general note that with lenses of this quality, choice of developer and developing technique become critical for maximizing resolution.

What would you recommend, Mark? Rodinal 1:100, semi-stand?

[Mark Sawyer]

I'd say that's a good choice for resolution, though it may kick up the grain size a bit.

[Mark Sampson]

DrTang, no one has asked that question before you. Why don't you TRY IT and report back with your answer? But since the resolution of any print is far less than that of the original negative, you can probably guess what I think the answer would be.

[RSalles]

Mark,

If "the resolution of any print is far less than of the original negative", why are we spending that money in super enlargers, enlarger head alignment and stability, THAT enlarger lens, fresh chemicals, the best paper, etc., and even giant negatives for contact printing, if what will come is that crappy thing? Inquiring minds would like to know,

Cheers,
Renato

[Mark Sampson]

(Transparent) film resolves more than (reflective) paper, which can perhaps resolve 10 lp/mm; this is well understood. My suggestion would be to scan from the original neg, get all that's there, then print. There are unavoidable losses when moving farther from the original. If there is indeed something special about an Apo-Lanthar lens, (I've never used one so have no opinion) let's find out. The apparent paradox of a neg that appears soft but prints with great detail, as described above, deserves to be solved, if possible. (The late Fred Picker had a rubber stamp used for replying to letters he got with questions like DrTang's; I was referring to that.)

[RSalles]

Mark sad:
"My suggestion would be to scan from the original neg, get all that's there, then print. ".

10lp/mm. So, what would be the resolving power of the digitally rendered "pico-liter positive print" to outperform by large a silver gelatin print in the same enlargement ratio?

Thanks,

Renato

[Corran]

This is getting way off base. If one were to enlarge onto a piece of paper with 10lp/mm, that's about 500 DPI, while a standard ink print is 300 DPI or so. All of these statistics are irrelevant. Just scan/print or enlarge as you see fit. If you like the result, keep it up.

[jcoldslabs]

Just scan/print or enlarge as you see fit. If you like the result, keep it up.

Wait, wait, wait. What kind of reasonable, on-topic BS is this?

J.

[Corran]

:cool:

[DrTang]

DrTang, no one has asked that question before you. Why don't you TRY IT and report back with your answer? But since the resolution of any print is far less than that of the original negative, you can probably guess what I think the answer would be.

I will..I have no darkroom anymore..I do have a cool old contact device and a bathroom that is pretty light tight with enough towels under the door

thing is..while prints might have less resolution than negs.. if the final output is just for online.. would that matter much?...both should still be way more than monitor resolution

[RSalles]

What I got after this quick conversation:

If you're contact printing an image taken with a lens with max. resolution greater then 10lp/mm you're trowing your money away.
If the enlargement ration results in an image with more then 10lp/mm of max. resolution, same story.
These facts, against the deceiving perception that can be taken at first glance about silver gelatin printing, are very useful when taking into consideration our intended enlargement limit. 10lp/mm is a limit that the most crap lens on the market can cope. Double this and you're on the cheap side yet, where those obscure named russian lenses are living - remembering that a 2x enlargement for a 5x7 negative will be a beautiful 10x14 silver gelatin print - as an Heliar 4.5/240mm with its 16/32 lp/mm at f5.6 and 20/46 at f22 can easily cover.

Long story short, if resolution of the lens only could cover all our needs - left out bokeh, micro % macro contrast, refraction, coverage, flare resistance, max aperture, etc. we could choose lenses only reading MTF charts, but our world is more complicated then that.

I would like to apologise Marco for this small deviation of the original content, for sliding off a bit toward lens resolution in general instead of being more implicit to the Lanthar resolution case,

Cheers,

Renato

[Drew Wiley]

All this sounds like bringing along a gold-plated fork to eat a Big Mac.

[Marco Gilardetti]

No excuse needed, I'm glad if this thread was useful to set other questions and issues on the fly.

As someone alluded to "faulty" units with non better described "unsolvable" problems, I renew to other 15 cm Apo-Lanthar lucky owners my proposal of performing a comparative resolution test, just to see if my unit is more or less in line with others. Same test target at same distance, same sheet film.

[philosomatographer]

Just wanted to chime in that this is so true, also for the 50mm f/3.5 Heliar for Leica M mount. The negatives look soft-ish, but the prints are spectacular.


Heliars aren't noted for their "super-sharp" negatives, in fact your negatives may look a little soft, but the prints should exhibit superb contrast, with beautiful OOF portions, and a uniformity of coverage and consistency across the whole field, as well as great apparent detail (which may not be measurable).
Shoot some more with it, and you'll eventually recognize what a great lens it is.
I've never understood how those slightly soft-appearing negatives can produce such stunning prints.