Is there a lens comparison resource for LF lenses?

[arkadi]

Hello,
Is there a lens comparison resource / test website for LF lenses?
A place where one can see scores in resolution, vignetting etc? I am new to LF photography and while choosing lenses to buy and looking around one can mostly hear phrases like 'I like my lens'-I don't think it enough. I can't get why a certain focal length of a particular brand and make is considered good while other length of the exactly same make considered not worth attention. Is $2000 lens that much better than a $500 one?
In 35 mm terms http://photozone.de is a superb resource.

thanks

[IanG]

Kerry Thalman (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/) and Chris Perez (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html) have both tested lenses and posted their results on their websites. while the tests are mostly more than 10 years old there's been no new LF lenses since then.

Ian

[Bob Salomon]

Kerry Thalman (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/) and Chris Perez (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html) have both tested lenses and posted their results on their websites. while the tests are mostly more than 10 years old there's been no new LF lenses since then.

Ian

And the test did not include all current lenses back then either. The short answer is no, there is no comprehensive test of all recent and older designs.

[Keith Pitman]

Not entirely what you are asking for, but this resource is a good start: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/

[EdSawyer]

The Perez list is as complete a test as I have seen. http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

[ruilourosa]

buy and test:

like: keep

so so: keep (if you are rich)
so so: sell (if you are poor)

Hate: sell

There is a problem although... i love my 240 g claron up to 3-5 meters in lowish contrast but i hate a sunny mid day landscape with it...

There is another problem... personal preference... use what you like don´t go on mtf or lpm tests...

cheers

rui

[IanG]

And the test did not include all current lenses back then either. The short answer is no, there is no comprehensive test of all recent and older designs.

Yes and there's some glaring omissions like the 165mm f8 Super angulon, and particularly the 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon which are two common Wide angle lenses, also the 75mm f5.6 SA, but to be fair at least they tested what lenses they could.

It's difficult to go wrong with lenses from any of the major manufacturers lenses in the past 40 years, it's down to cost and featurers, aperture and coverage.

Ian

[John Kasaian]

The lens comparison charts linked on the LF Homepage on the blue banner above (which IIRC include links to the Thalman and Perez charts as well as a few others) are extraordinarily useful.
Any companies that still manufacture LF lenses will publish the specs of new lenses on their websites.
FWIW I find that older lenses (Kodak, Goerz, Wollensak, B&L, Cook, Ilex, etc..) work just fine for my B&W endeavors.

[Gary Tarbert]

I only own 5 LF lenses for both 8x10 and 5x4 formats ,only 2 are on the Parez list so not that comprehensive , But a useful document none the less .

[Alan Gales]

Just to add to what has been said, you have to do your research. If you are interested in a certain lens then search it on here and also google it. Look at example photographs if possible but they don't tell you everything. A digital reproduction on the web will not be the same as looking at an actual print but may give you an idea if you want to try a lens. Sometimes like ruilourosa recommends you have to buy a lens to see for yourself. Sell if if you don't like it.

The later lenses in modern Copal shutters like Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, Fujinon, and Caltar are all sharp and contrasty. There is only going to be a slight difference in their "look". Older lenses can be quite different from each other. An Artar is as sharp as a modern lens. A Dagor is less contrasty. A soft focus like a Verito lens is something else entirely.

Supply and demand of course has something to do with lens prices. There is a glut of Schneider Symmar-S 210mm f/5.6 lenses out there so they are cheap. An SA 165mm is a little harder to find but not rare and covers 8x10 as a wide angle with room for movements. You can easily pay $1000 for a nice example. Then there are the rare cult lenses that cost a fortune.

[ic-racer]

Very few (if any) poor name brand lenses were ever made in LF focal lengths. What you need to do is make sure you get a Large Format lens. Any late model (black barrel) Large Format lens will do if it is clean and the shutter works.

[Dan Fromm]

As has been already mentioned, there's no site with tests of nearly all of the LF lenses on the used market. There are few formal tests on the 'net and the Perez/Thalmann tests mentioned above are the best there is.

There's also no site with a comprehensive list of manufacturers' claims. This site has an incomplete list and you've already been directed to it. Allan Rumme has posted a compilation of the manufacturers' claims he's found. I don't give a link to it -- google will find it for you if you have to look at it -- because I don't like it. Incomplete, again, not always accurate.

LF helps those who help themselves. If you're up to helping yourself, here's a link to what I think is the most complete set of links to manufacturers' catalogs and other sources of information: http://1drv.ms/1w0vbMD I'm sure its incomplete too.

[EdSawyer]

"i love my 240 g claron up to 3-5 meters in lowish contrast but i hate a sunny mid day landscape with it..."

Can you elaborate a bit more on that, as to why? Just curious.

[IanG]

A useful resource Dan, thanks.


Very few (if any) poor name brand lenses were ever made in LF focal lengths. What you need to do is make sure you get a Large Format lens. Any late model (black barrel) Large Format lens will do if it is clean and the shutter works.

I assume you mean the later Multi coated lenses as some manufacturers used Black barrels before that, Carl Zeiss Jena & Schneider for instance.

Ian

[Ken Lee]

Professor Arne Croell (http://www.arnecroell.com/) has published his tests of some Large Format lenses here (http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf).

They are the most rigorous and best documented LF tests I have seen.

He is a first-rate physical scientist as well as an accomplished photographer. He has authored several articles on LF lenses and is a member of this forum.

[ruilourosa]

regarding the g-claron 240...

Maybe just a personal preference on rendition of color and contrast. I like the lens but sometimes the contrast is a bit strange on the excessive side, more or less like the geronar triplet.

In black and white things are better...

I wouldn´t sell it... :) i bought it shutterless and i mounted in a compur and measured the f stops!

cheers

[IanG]

Maybe just a personal preference on rendition of color and contrast. I like the lens but sometimes the contrast is a bit strange on the excessive side, more or less like the geronar triplet.

Could you elaborate more on you comments about the Geronar triplets which unlike the G-Clarons are Multi Coated, I have a couple a 150mm & a 210mm but also have an un-coated 135mm Laack Rathenow Pololyt triplets as well. Any examples would be useful.

Ian

[ruilourosa]

I do not sacan a lot... so examples...

the 210 geronar tends to give me more contrast than my plasmats or reverse dagors, either coated or uncoated and although is a different image, g-claron seems to get close...

personal taste and the things i photograph usually get in the way, also i tend to photograph in ektar...


cheers

[John Kasaian]

Any lens comparisons are only as accurate as the sample lenses being compared, which may or may not be exact equivalents to the same make and model lens you may be considering for purchase. I think Kerry Thalman commented that variations between samples of even the same make and model can be significant.

If you're NASA, you can round up a sampling of a given lens, have them tested and use the pick of the litter.
For the rest of us, it probably wouldn't matter.

I like looking at other photographers work and seeing what they can wring out of a lens. If it impresses me enough, then that is the model lens I'd look for.

BTW, never buy a lens from a famous photographer. They're selling it because they've already taken all the good pictures out of it :rolleyes:

[Kirk Gittings]

BTW, never buy a lens from a famous photographer. They're selling it because they've already taken all the good pictures out of it
:)

[Sal Santamaura]

Professor Arne Croell...is a first-rate physical scientist as well as...a member of this forum.Ken, while Arne's Web site is still running, he hasn't been active here since March 28, 2015 and doesn't respond to contact attempts. Do you or anyone else reading this know Arne's status? Thanks in advance.

[Alan Gales]

I like looking at other photographers work and seeing what they can wring out of a lens. If it impresses me enough, then that is the model lens I'd look for.

That's how I bought some of my lenses. I'm a big fan of Yousuf Karsh and since a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar was a good enough lens for him I figured out I couldn't go wrong. Plus you and others on the forum had such good things to say about it. I also like the look of Jock Sturges' work and accidently found a deal on a Fujinon W 250mm f/6.7 lens.

Of course conversely there are lenses out there that others like that just don't appeal to me like the AeroEktar and those swirly Petzvals. I learned this by looking at other's images.

We all have different tastes! :)

[Bob Salomon]

Any lens comparisons are only as accurate as the sample lenses being compared, which may or may not be exact equivalents to the same make and model lens you may be considering for purchase. I think Kerry Thalman commented that variations between samples of even the same make and model can be significant.

If you're NASA, you can round up a sampling of a given lens, have them tested and use the pick of the litter.
For the rest of us, it probably wouldn't matter.

I like looking at other photographers work and seeing what they can wring out of a lens. If it impresses me enough, then that is the model lens I'd look for.

BTW, never buy a lens from a famous photographer. They're selling it because they've already taken all the good pictures out of it :rolleyes:

And that type of test is also subject to variations in film emulsions, atmospheric conditions, stability of the camera support system, processing variations, variations in wet time, loupe variations, and state of tiredness of the tester's eyes. Also the test is usually not of a subject that would be typically shot by the potential buyer.
For these reasons, and more, lens manufacturers stopped doing their tests by this technique. Learning how to read MTF, distortion, color curves will result in better comparisons of, at least, recent lenses.

[Alan Gales]

And that type of test is also subject to variations in film emulsions, atmospheric conditions, stability of the camera support system, processing variations, variations in wet time, loupe variations, and state of tiredness of the tester's eyes. Also the test is usually not of a subject that would be typically shot by the potential buyer.
For these reasons, and more, lens manufacturers stopped doing their tests by this technique. Learning how to read MTF, distortion, color curves will result in better comparisons of, at least, recent lenses.

Bob, I may shoot the same lens as Karsh but my portraits are not as good as his. I guess you can add talent to your list as well! ;)

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I may shoot the same lens as Karsh but my portraits are not as good as his. I guess you can add talent to your list as well! ;)

And tons of experience!

[Drew Wiley]

There's an awful lot that spec charts don't tell you about real-world lens performance or "look" of the image under various conditions. Different brands sometimes also publish their own specs with differing criteria in terms of their own standards, based on market application. Once you narrow down your lens search a bit, it's probably best just to query on this forum for the opinion of people who actually own and use the relevant lenses. But with respect to pricing, certain lenses gained a "cult" reputation way back when, and the asking prices are often ridiculous given the fact that later lenses often outperform them and got be obtained relatively inexpensively. There's also been a shift away from big clunker studio lenses toward more portable ones, since landscape shooters prefer compact lighter gear. That factors into the supply/demand equation significantly. So selling price (other than condition) does not indicate a good lens versus a poor one where used lenses are concerned. It all depends. But bargains do abound.

[Ken Lee]

Ken, while Arne's Web site is still running, he hasn't been active here since March 28, 2015 and doesn't respond to contact attempts. Do you or anyone else reading this know Arne's status? Thanks in advance.

Did you try the contact page at http://www.arnecroell.com/ ?

If that doesn't work, perhaps you can try contacting him at his post at http://www.krist.uni-freiburg.de/index_en.php

[Drew Wiley]

Regarding that 250 G-Claron post a bit back: This lens series is very sharp and what I'd classify as normal contrast for a modern lens. It's deliberately single-coated. I found this characteristic rather important when I shot a lot of chrome film, because I also own the multicoated equivalent, the Fuji 240A, and it was just
too contrasty at times. With color neg film or black and white negs, that's less an issue. I use the 250G all the time, mainly for 4x5 but also as an 8x10 wide. When it wears out I'll just switch to my relatively pristine 240A. With a lens shade in place, the difference in an actual image is very subtle and probably not worth arguing about.

[Bob Salomon]

H
There's an awful lot that spec charts don't tell you about real-world lens performance or "look" of the image under various conditions. Different brands sometimes also publish their own specs with differing criteria in terms of their own standards, based on market application. Once you narrow down your lens search a bit, it's probably best just to query on this forum for the opinion of people who actually own and use the relevant lenses. But with respect to pricing, certain lenses gained a "cult" reputation way back when, and the asking prices are often ridiculous given the fact that later lenses often outperform them and got be obtained relatively inexpensively. There's also been a shift away from big clunker studio lenses toward more portable ones, since landscape shooters prefer compact lighter gear. That factors into the supply/demand equation significantly. So selling price (other than condition) does not indicate a good lens versus a poor one where used lenses are concerned. It all depends. But bargains do abound.

There is a big problem with forum "opinions", they are almost always extremely biased to the poster's experience but their experience is limited to what they currently own or previously used and they do not have direct head to head experience of testing similar lenses. And if they have done that testing when they chose their lens it would not include comparisons of newer lenses or all the other brands.

Have you personally, or can you name anyone that you know for a fact, have at one time compared all Rodenstock, all Schneider, all Nikon, all Fuji, all Congo, all Doctor Optic, all Zeiss 150 mm lenses? And compared them all on the same subject, same emulsion, same processing, same lighting? If not, then they have no basis for objective comparisons and only subjective ones based on limited testing.

[Drew Wiley]

No, Bob. But neither has any manufacturer, much less on a statistical batch rather than individual samples. I've got an old copy of Rodenstocks specs, and it has
been helpful. But the notion that users are somehow prejudiced or limited is itself an unwarranted prejudice. Most modern plasmats from the big four are largely clones which differ only in minor characteristics. Is a Apo Sironar S REALLY all that better than an older Sironar N, or a Fuji CMW than an NW? Sure there have
been incremental improvements, but whether or not they're critical to and end user really depends on the specific situation. In a magazine spread or other typical stock application, nobody will probably ever detect the difference. Maybe in a huge full gloss enlargement. Maybe. G-Clarons have their specs keyed to graphics applications, so are published very very conservatively, while many of Fuji's specs are rather unrealistically liberal. Nobody reading the damn charts will figure out that in the real world, a Fuji 240A and Schneider 250 G perform almost identically in terms of usable image circle, resolution, close range and
infinity performance etc. Just a minor contrast difference, really. But that is something a long-term user can confidently state. I don't know anyone who would even collect all the "Congo" lenses if they could afford Doctor Optic. I deal with German manufacturers. That's what I do for a living. I know about marketing.
And I know that sometimes a user knows the most. That's why I personally test as many items of equipment as I can in real-world environments. I also know
that most web and published "equipment reviews" are 98% BS. But all the "big four" lenses have been around a long time, and there's plenty of relevant feedback to be had from people who have made their living with such things. But you call things "objective" when what really counts is how a lens performs in
the environment the photographer specifically needs. What good is a massive clunker plasmat in a no. 3 shutter if the front standard of someone's field camera
can't even hold that kind of weight stable?

[Bob Salomon]

B
No, Bob. But neither has any manufacturer, much less on a statistical batch rather than individual samples. I've got an old copy of Rodenstocks specs, and it has
been helpful. But the notion that users are somehow prejudiced or limited is itself an unwarranted prejudice. Most modern plasmats from the big four are largely clones which differ only in minor characteristics. Is a Apo Sironar S REALLY all that better than an older Sironar N, or a Fuji CMW than an NW? Sure there have
been incremental improvements, but whether or not they're critical to and end user really depends on the specific situation. In a magazine spread or other typical stock application, nobody will probably ever detect the difference. Maybe in a huge full gloss enlargement. Maybe. G-Clarons have their specs keyed to graphics applications, so are published very very conservatively, while many of Fuji's specs are rather unrealistically liberal. Nobody reading the damn charts will figure out that in the real world, a Fuji 240A and Schneider 250 G perform almost identically in terms of usable image circle, resolution, close range and
infinity performance etc. Just a minor contrast difference, really. But that is something a long-term user can confidently state. I don't know anyone who would even collect all the "Congo" lenses if they could afford Doctor Optic. I deal with German manufacturers. That's what I do for a living. I know about marketing.
And I know that sometimes a user knows the most. That's why I personally test as many items of equipment as I can in real-world environments. I also know
that most web and published "equipment reviews" are 98% BS. But all the "big four" lenses have been around a long time, and there's plenty of relevant feedback to be had from people who have made their living with such things. But you call things "objective" when what really counts is how a lens performs in
the environment the photographer specifically needs. What good is a massive clunker plasmat in a no. 3 shutter if the front standard of someone's field camera
can't even hold that kind of weight stable?
You are proving my point. You have no first hand knowledge of just how an Apo Sironar S would compare. Why not go to Bear Images or Samy's and see if you can rent one to compare?

[Drew Wiley]

Why??? I already own or have owned Kern Dagors, all the Nikkor M's, several Fuji A's, G-Clarons, various German plasmats, and quite a few barrel process lenses optically superior to any general-purpose LF lens, including a number of Apo Nikkors. The whole problem of this mentality is that I have 30x40 Cibachromes taken with garden variety Symmar S lenses on 4x5 old-school Ektachrome 64 film that might look a bit so-so compared to an enlargement using one of my cult lenses from a current 8x10 color film, but still look crisper than any damn inkjet print that size, no matter how modern the lens or film. If the darkroom lenses and associated gear and technique aren't equal, then what's the point? You just lose it. Some color shot in a magazine could be just as have been done in 35mm iflens movements aren't needed. It's like trying to shoot a chipmunk with a 12 gauge shotgun. Overkill. Sure, I always buy the best lens I can realistically afford. But the price difference between a 210 Symmar S or Caltar private label Sironar is gonna be about a tenth of a Sironar S, and most shots will never reveal the difference. I sometimes make big immaculate enlargements, so nitpicky in my case is warranted.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I have never been disappointed with a Rodenstock lens when looking for fidelity.
All my enlarging lenses are Rodenstock.

On the other hand, perfect resolution, fidelity for a taking lens is not always the goal.
If a person has not used a lens, then he does not know how its rendering works for him.
.

[Drew Wiley]

I like 360's (14 inch). But one of my favorites is a silly Carl Meyer (Zeiss) barrel tessar that I paid next to nothing for. Why? It has the best out-of-focus rendering
of the batch, yet is still crisp in the details. Probably nobody ever published specs on that thing. Carl Meyer was the B&J ('Bunk & Junk") private label for all kinds
of surplus whatever lenses they scooped up cheap. They had some losers, but obviously some winners too. It was a "what the heck" purchase for me that sat in a
drawer for a long time.

[John Kasaian]

In photography as in most endeavors,
it's the Indian, not the arrow!

[Sal Santamaura]

Did you try the contact page at http://www.arnecroell.com/ ?...Yes, many months ago. No response.


...If that doesn't work, perhaps you can try contacting him at his post at http://www.krist.uni-freiburg.de/index_en.phpThanks for the suggestion. I just sent a message to his secretary. I'll update here (and in the dedicated "Arne Croell's status" thread I previously started) with any information she sends.

[RSalles]

J. Kassaian wrote:

"In photography as in most endeavors,
it's the Indian, not the arrow!"

I like that,

Renato

[Jac@stafford.net]

Recent LF lenses are about as sharp as one would want. For such requirements I use a 14 3/4" lens purchased from a renowned member who is famous for his soft focus work. I love that lens.

For other lens qualities, you must use the lens to know how it renders; how it works for you.

I will be posting a Goerz Dagor for sale soon. It absolutely SUCKS. :)
.

[Corran]

...crisper than any damn inkjet print that size

Do you ever get bored spouting nonsense just because you can't/won't use the process in question?

[StoneNYC]

Professor Arne Croell (http://www.arnecroell.com/) has published his tests of some Large Format lenses here (http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf).

They are the most rigorous and best documented LF tests I have seen.

He is a first-rate physical scientist as well as an accomplished photographer. He has authored several articles on LF lenses and is a member of this forum.

Ken, it's nice to share information, however...

The problem I have with this particular chart is that it doesn't have a key ... I don't know why, but there's no explanation of what anything means, so the numbers don't mean anything to someone who doesn't know how to read this chart, it just looks like gobbledygook.

Secondly of all the lenses on the chart, only one of the ones I own is listed on the chart. I own a decent amount of lenses...


Why??? I already own or have owned Kern Dagors, all the Nikkor M's, several Fuji A's, G-Clarons, various German plasmats, and quite a few barrel process lenses optically superior to any general-purpose LF lens, including a number of Apo Nikkors. The whole problem of this mentality is that I have 30x40 Cibachromes taken with garden variety Symmar S lenses on 4x5 old-school Ektachrome 64 film that might look a bit so-so compared to an enlargement using one of my cult lenses from a current 8x10 color film, but still look crisper than any damn inkjet print that size, no matter how modern the lens or film. If the darkroom lenses and associated gear and technique aren't equal, then what's the point? You just lose it. Some color shot in a magazine could be just as have been done in 35mm iflens movements aren't needed. It's like trying to shoot a chipmunk with a 12 gauge shotgun. Overkill. Sure, I always buy the best lens I can realistically afford. But the price difference between a 210 Symmar S or Caltar private label Sironar is gonna be about a tenth of a Sironar S, and most shots will never reveal the difference. I sometimes make big immaculate enlargements, so nitpicky in my case is warranted.

Have you seen any recent 30x40 ink jet prints taken with a 50mp or 80mp camera?

I don't disagree that a 4x5 image will look excellent and nothing can beat the luminance if the Cibichrome papers, even the Fuji metallic C-Print paper which is excellent, but in terms of detail, digital has come a long way.

My 20x24 taken with a 21mp camera looks sharper than my 400 speed B&W prints at 20x24, not so with my Acros100 shots however. But at 30x40... With a modern digital, it's going to beat any 4x5 in technical sharpness.

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

OP, don't get so caught up in the specs, any Symmar-S will be more than sharp enough and easily had for $200 give or take $50.

If you care greatly about ULTRA-light, the Fujinon-C line for 8x10 and the Nikkor M line for 4x5 are excellent, but costly, also read up on "LF future classics" (google it) if weight isn't a serious issue (and the 150 symmar-s is pretty light, the 210 gets a bit heavier etc) as in you aren't trekking 20 miles a day and hiking for 8 days to 1 month out in the wild, then don't worry about it. Focus on making good images.

Good luck!

[Ken Lee]

The problem I have with this particular chart is that it doesn't have a key ... I don't know why, but there's no explanation of what anything means... it just looks like gobbledygook

You may find it helpful to read the article. The numbers represent lp/mm, a fairly common measure which stands for line pair per millimeter.

[Atracksler]

As a relative newbie to LF, I find it difficult to wrap my head around lens designs and stuff like that. I'd hardly know a Tessar from a Dagor......I don't know why I would or wouldn't want 6 lenses in 2 groups......

I do keep hearing over and over that there are few bad LF lenses, that's good, I guess.... But whereas so much in the smaller formats is somehow is canonized, I know what a zeiss lens renders like, I know how Leica renders.... A Schneider..... Not so much.... And I think this is where people's confusion sets in.

LF isn't cheap to get into, dropping several hundred on a lens without really knowing what to expect is tough. Maybe it's true that there aren't any really bad large format lenses, I feel like the two I have are great....


Maybe some broad overviews on lens design and rendering characteristics would be a good place to start.

[IanG]

And that type of test is also subject to variations in film emulsions, atmospheric conditions, stability of the camera support system, processing variations, variations in wet time, loupe variations, and state of tiredness of the tester's eyes. Also the test is usually not of a subject that would be typically shot by the potential buyer.
For these reasons, and more, lens manufacturers stopped doing their tests by this technique. Learning how to read MTF, distortion, color curves will result in better comparisons of, at least, recent lenses.

Bob Salomon raised very valid points. Another is that test charts used by many bear zero resemblance to real world photography unless it's copy lenses being tested which is why lenses like G-Clarons do so well in these tests, it's what they are optimised for.

Apart from two poor early 90mm f6.8 Angulons I've never had a poor post WWII LF lens, for B&W work they've all been remarkably flare free even the pre multi-coated lenses, I don't like the term Single coated because some lenses had more than one coating but not the very balanced Multiple Coating that Pentax introduced with the help of Zeiss. I'd add that my 1968 65mm f8 SA has poorer coatings (in terms of colour balance) compared to my 1965/6 f5.6 75mm & 90mm SA's, it's Linhof Select and in a silver (unpainted barrel) while the other two are in (supposedly) later black barrels and more modern Compurs.

This forum opened my eyes, I was 110% against using non Multi-Coated lenses after some bad experiences with 3rd party 35mm camera lenses (all MC as well). Now I'll happily shoot with a 150mm CZJ T (coated) Tessar that's about the same age as I am and know that the images made with it are on a par in terms of final print quality as images made with my 150mm Sironar N, same goes for my coated 90mm Angulon & Super Angulons (non MC) compared to my 90mm Grandagon.



In photography as in most endeavors,
it's the Indian, not the arrow!

Similar to - a bad workman blames his tools.

A lot of it is about knowing the limitations or weaknesses of equipment & lenses and how too get the best out of them.

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

Maybe some broad overviews on lens design and rendering characteristics would be a good place to start.

If you want to read it, write it.

[Jac@stafford.net]

If you want to read it, write it.

Once again, you made my day.

OP - another wise man, Brooks Jensen, wrote that one can know all about lens designs, but if he has not used a particular lens, then he doesn't really understand how it renders. Or as Dan Fromm wrote, "Ask the lens."

Many have written that moderately priced modern lenses are more than adequate. That is correct. Choose one and be prepared to experiment with several lenses if you feel there is something missing in the look. Comparing others' lens outcomes online is difficult, in particular if the print is your goal.

The world is not flat so resolution charts and MTF data is, IMHO, useless in LF.

Good luck

[Peter De Smidt]

As others have pointed out, good lens testing is challenging to do, and even if it is done correctly on someone else's lens, your lens will probably perform differently due to sample-to-sample variation. One approach when starting out is to pick lenses according to the characteristics that you need, focal length, coverage, weight, filter size, sync..... and then buy a widely recognized high value/good performer. Photograph with it. Evaluate if it has any deficiencies for your type of photography. If not, enjoy... If so, figure out the problem. Be specific. Talk to others and find out if it is a short coming of your sample or your type of lens. If you have the money, research what might be better, borrow, buy.... and compare to your first lens. There's simply no way around testing for yourself.

[Bob Salomon]

As others have pointed out, good lens testing is challenging to do, and even if it is done correctly on someone else's lens, your lens will probably perform differently due to sample-to-sample variation. One approach when starting out is to pick lenses according to the characteristics that you need, focal length, coverage, weight, filter size, sync..... and then buy a widely recognized high value/good performer. Photograph with it. Evaluate if it has any deficiencies for your type of photography. If not, enjoy... If so, figure out the problem. Be specific. Talk to others and find out if it is a short coming of your sample or your type of lens. If you have the money, research what might be better, borrow, buy.... and compare to your first lens. There's simply no way around testing for yourself.

Or a shortcoming in how you use it.

[Peter De Smidt]

Or a shortcoming in how you use it.

Absolutely. A number of years ago, I bought a Keith twin lens 4x5. When I picked it up, I asked the owner, "How are the pictures?" "Soft!" he said. On examination, there was a piece of silk mounted on the back of the taking lens, and the ground glass for the viewing/focusing lens was mounted the wrong way. No doubt the pictures were soft! When these issues were remedied, the lens, an Ilex 254mm Paragon, was an excellent performer.

[Drew Wiley]

If you want a good read on traditional lens design history, there's a book by Rudolf Kingslake. Names like tessar, dagor, plasmat, dialtyte, artar, etc have been around for decades. This book goes into the evolution of camera lens design. But within each of these types or brands there has obviously been a lot of internal evolution based upon changes or upgrades in design options, glass types, coatings, shutters, etc. A very late tessar or dagor might perform quite differently from an early one, so it's risky to generalize performance based merely on generic category of lens or even upon objective tests. Besides, older lenses were often marketed for a different kind of visual rendering than modern ones, and are still prized for those very characteristics in analogous applications. A portrait photographer might have a very different opinion about a certain lens than a nature photographer, for instance. And standards for graphics lenses were different
from those marketed to photographers, though many of these lenses can be excellent on view cameras too.

[Oren Grad]

But whereas so much in the smaller formats is somehow is canonized, I know what a zeiss lens renders like, I know how Leica renders.... A Schneider..... Not so much.... And I think this is where people's confusion sets in.

There's plenty of variation in how Zeiss lenses render, and how Leica lenses render... and how LF lenses render, even within optical design types. Canonizations confuse and mislead. People "know" lots of things that aren't true.

As so many others have already said: best to test and judge for yourself.

[Drew Wiley]

I won't get into that digital argument with either of you, Stone or Corran, unless you do your homework first. There are INHERENT technological limitations in getting color INKS through nozzles that determine that. That's not going to change anytime soon. It would require a quantum leap in colorant technology greater than what has transpired over the last century. Nothing of that character is even on the horizon. The mere fact the colors get through at all proves that they're not true pigments but have a significant dye component. But neither are they pure dye, and involve larger particles (lakes). Monochrome inkjet is a somewhat different subject because there are different options. Just depends. Therefore you could have a billion megapixel capability in your camera and it woudn't mean a thing. The limiting factor is the print medium itself, at least in terms of we basic photographers who aren't named NASA. When I want extreme detail, I'll print color on Supergloss for 8x10 Ektar. But I hope to soon start up dye transfer printing, which is nowhere near as sharp as current inkjets, but has wonderful color
control. Even I don't want big tack sharp prints every single day. Sometimes I want something soft and poetic, though I don't imply soft-focus by that. I've never
been a soft focus type. I'm really a format schizophrenic, alternating between fast film in the Nikon and 8x10 sheets with those superb Fuji C's, A's, and Nikkor M's. Tomorrow I hope to get some MF snapshots of hazy amber shots of farm country veiled in forest fire smoke. They're going to be inherently unsharp except
in certain details. But that's what I want. The day after I'll be heading into high altitude with my Nikkor M's and a 4x5 field camera. Whole different ball game.

[IanG]

There's plenty of images posted on this website made with a wide variety of LF lenses and mostly the posters state what lenses and sometimes aperture & shutter speed they used. I's worth the OP looking at some of the image sharing threads.

Ian

[Alan Gales]

As a relative newbie to LF, I find it difficult to wrap my head around lens designs and stuff like that. I'd hardly know a Tessar from a Dagor......I don't know why I would or wouldn't want 6 lenses in 2 groups......

I do keep hearing over and over that there are few bad LF lenses, that's good, I guess.... But whereas so much in the smaller formats is somehow is canonized, I know what a zeiss lens renders like, I know how Leica renders.... A Schneider..... Not so much.... And I think this is where people's confusion sets in.

LF isn't cheap to get into, dropping several hundred on a lens without really knowing what to expect is tough. Maybe it's true that there aren't any really bad large format lenses, I feel like the two I have are great....


Maybe some broad overviews on lens design and rendering characteristics would be a good place to start.

Here is some excellent information written by Ken Lee that you should read.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/lenses/

[John Kasaian]

As a relative newbie to LF, I find it difficult to wrap my head around lens designs and stuff like that. I'd hardly know a Tessar from a Dagor......I don't know why I would or wouldn't want 6 lenses in 2 groups......

I do keep hearing over and over that there are few bad LF lenses, that's good, I guess.... But whereas so much in the smaller formats is somehow is canonized, I know what a zeiss lens renders like, I know how Leica renders.... A Schneider..... Not so much.... And I think this is where people's confusion sets in.

LF isn't cheap to get into, dropping several hundred on a lens without really knowing what to expect is tough. Maybe it's true that there aren't any really bad large format lenses, I feel like the two I have are great....


Maybe some broad overviews on lens design and rendering characteristics would be a good place to start.
You may want to get a copy of Kingslake's A History of the Photographic Lens.
It is fascinating reading, but seeing what other photographers can do with a given make/model will probably be more of a practical help in your decision making. Late model 150 & 210mms by the big three are cheap and plentiful right now. If you're shooting 4x5 that would be the place I'd start looking unless you happen across something like a 203mm Ektar or 215mm Paragon or 162mm Wollensak Velostigmat for a pittance (not hundreds of dollars.)
Again, see what other photographers have done with these lenses. If you can't get excellent results after learning how everything works together, it won't be because of the lens.
John Sexton and Roman Loranc, for example, have produced much of their earlier portfolios---beautiful and brilliant work, btw, shooting commonly available 20 year old or older design lenses.
FWIW, if I had to choose between a Schneider, a Rodenstock, a Fuji or a Nikon, I'd select the one on the best condition:)

[Corran]

There are INHERENT technological limitations

The proof is in the pudding. My pudding. Delicious pudding. Sorry, more nonsense to compliment your post.

[Drew Wiley]

Pudding with a lot of seeds in it that get stuck in the teeth (nozzle clogging if they go smaller). That's the problem at this point, along with dependence upon that glycol syrup to keep the inks from drying out.

[StoneNYC]

I'm not at all pro digital, in fact I've sold off all of my digital gear except my iPhone, and I exclusively shoot film now, but even I know that film also has technological limitations and that digital imaging has taken leaps and bounds forward in both image detail and print detail, there's no denying it at this point unless you bury your head in the sand.

But the point of making an image for a print is about more than just the finite details and color renditions, it's about the impact it has on the viewer, sure details are important, but sometimes the flaws can be more beautiful than perfection, the image itself is really all that matters, you can make beautiful color images of shitty. photos and it's not worth a damn.

This argument is tired and I'm out...

[Drew Wiley]

I doubt you know half the argument. Glycols are on the EPA hit list. They're already being phased out of industrial colorants. But that means the colorant dispensing machines become very expensive and prone to clogging. That's even with pigments smaller than ever and nozzles about 1/16 inch in diameter! Inkjet inks don't have a lot of glycol involved at the amateur use level, but at the manufacturing scale of use and overall footprint, it adds up to an enormous amt in the air. And it's only a matter of time till it gets pinned on health or climate consequences (something already known). So basically, they're deliberately overlooking a very $$$ influential industry for awhile, but just until some hypothetically better technology is on the horizon. So what is defined as inkjet today is on borrowed time. I wouldn't worry about that fact, because all the extant machines and pigment sets will themselves be changed several times over, no doubt, before a massive regulatory shift. But it's the ogre hiding in the closet.

[Bob Salomon]

I doubt you know half the argument. Glycols are on the EPA hit list. They're already being phased out of industrial colorants. But that means the colorant dispensing machines become very expensive and prone to clogging. That's even with pigments smaller than ever and nozzles about 1/16 inch in diameter! Inkjet inks don't have a lot of glycol involved at the amateur use level, but at the manufacturing scale of use and overall footprint, it adds up to an enormous amt in the air. And it's only a matter of time till it gets pinned on health or climate consequences (something already known). So basically, they're deliberately overlooking a very $$$ influential industry for awhile, but just until some hypothetically better technology is on the horizon. So what is defined as inkjet today is on borrowed time. I wouldn't worry about that fact, because all the extant machines and pigment sets will themselves be changed several times over, no doubt, before a massive regulatory shift. But it's the ogre hiding in the closet.
I am definitely not a chemist, so I can't really comment on the above comments. But I can read and understand most of a MSDS sheet and see that glycol seems to be no more dangerous then say hypo or blix or developers.

http://hazard.com/msds/mf/baker/baker/files/e5125.htm

And I do check Wikipedia when necessary and if glycol is used in ink jet it appears to be one of its most minor use

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_glycol

I spent several years in an USAF photo lab shuffling large prints by hand in the darkroom, returned home many nights with dark brown finger nails from the exposure to chemistry and feel far more comfortable running the ink jet printer then I ever did in the darkroom.

[David Lindquist]

12
Yes, many months ago. No response.

Thanks for the suggestion. I just sent a message to his secretary. I'll update here (and in the dedicated "Arne Croell's status" thread I previously started) with any information she sends.

I will be very interested in what you hear, Sal.
David