PDA

View Full Version : Super fast 4x5 lens comparison by Bognacki



joelkphoto
12-Apr-2016, 12:59
For all you shallow DOF chasers out there this is a great little test done by Jason Bognacki. Includes the Aero ektar, Dallmayer pentac, Leitz (Leica) hector, some Buhl projection lenses and more. Oh, also includes a very cool 165mm f/2.7 Zeiss tessar. I'd love to get my hands on one of those!

Check out the shots on his tumblr: https://tmblr.co/ZSFHXy22acjuV

Or look through his Flickr: http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fbognacki%2F&t=MDIyMmJlOGU0Y2ZhYzkyZDY0MGVjMThjY2JlMTQxMzlmYjM2ZjI0ZixzU2VzMmpCTA%3D%3D

koh303
12-Apr-2016, 14:17
almost all equally bad...

jp
12-Apr-2016, 15:49
almost all equally bad...

A bad test or bad photography? I'm not sure calling our LF peers bad photographers serves any useful purpose and I'm not going to do it unless they are asking for critique and then I'll get specific.

Now if someone wants go call Cindy Sherman or Mortensen or Adams bad, that fine as that's healthy debate.

koh303
12-Apr-2016, 16:54
A bad test or bad photography? I'm not sure calling our LF peers bad photographers serves any useful purpose and I'm not going to do it unless they are asking for critique and then I'll get specific.

Now if someone wants go call Cindy Sherman or Mortensen or Adams bad, that fine as that's healthy debate.

all bad lenses.

Corran
12-Apr-2016, 17:11
all bad lenses.

Nope. I've used the Aero Ektar 7", and still have a 16.5cm f/2.7 Tessar. They are both capable of excellent results, as is pretty much any lens. The test above is rather pointless in my opinion.

FWIW, here's a photo from the aforementioned 16.5cm lens:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZV91QFsuUKs/UY2wjiUDfvI/AAAAAAAADeg/3zdDYWceefo/s900/drexel-0487s.jpg

I would use it more but almost immediately after buying this I found a 150mm Xenotar that was much better suited to what I was doing (handheld work, it was cammed to a Technika), so I haven't really shot much with it.

Greg
12-Apr-2016, 17:28
Thanks for your images from the BUHL lenses. I use several of them for making images up to the 11x14 format and making Platinum/Palladium prints. They are surely one of the best buys out there. Petzvals bit better but not all that much to be so very overpriced.

Jody_S
12-Apr-2016, 20:05
I was surprised at how good my 1927 8" Pentac can be. I do think all of those lenses are capable of great results.

Someday I'll get around to mounting my Sony 300mm f2 projection Petzval. I have a 5x7 studio camera that might be able to hold it, though I would have to modify the front a little and attach it permanently.

hoffy
12-Apr-2016, 20:37
Thanks for that.

Robclarke
13-Apr-2016, 00:28
Nope. I've used the Aero Ektar 7", and still have a 16.5cm f/2.7 Tessar. They are both capable of excellent results, as is pretty much any lens. The test above is rather pointless in my opinion.

FWIW, here's a photo from the aforementioned 16.5cm lens:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZV91QFsuUKs/UY2wjiUDfvI/AAAAAAAADeg/3zdDYWceefo/s900/drexel-0487s.jpg

I would use it more but almost immediately after buying this I found a 150mm Xenotar that was much better suited to what I was doing (handheld work, it was cammed to a Technika), so I haven't really shot much with it.

That is beautiful, was it shot wide open?

Lachlan 717
13-Apr-2016, 00:32
almost all equally bad...

As in, "They're all equally 1% bad"?

Or, are you just trolling?

joelkphoto
13-Apr-2016, 04:14
Lovely 3 dimensionality Corran! Anyone else have any examples they'd care to show off?

EdSawyer
13-Apr-2016, 08:17
Examples of the 2.7 tessar or fast lenses in general?

jp
13-Apr-2016, 09:26
all bad lenses.

Perhaps. Many of us like the challenge of making nice photos with bad lenses. It's all going to be different results based on lighting, background, photographer, etc... And not a fools errand as some of my best photos are made with unloved lenses.

Drew Bedo
13-Apr-2016, 10:25
TRy out one of the 50mm/f1.9 Ocillo Paragons (Ilex or Alphax shutter). They were optomised for ~ 1:1 imaging of a 4' oscilloscope screen and will not cover 4x5 at infinity, but will cover for macro work. DOF is about the thickness of a Nat's whiskerwhen wide open.

They are often on the Bay and usually pretty cheap.

fishbulb
13-Apr-2016, 11:14
I'm actually surprised how good most of these look, considering they are pretty old designs being shot wide open. The depth of field is narrow but what's in it is decently sharp, considering.