Differences between Nikkor lenses [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Pere Casals

29-Oct-2016, 05:18

I am new to LF photography. Can someone tell me the differences between the various Nikkor lenses, i.e. Nikkor, Nikkor M, Nikkor T, Nikkor SW and Nikkor W?

So, since you're new to LF, I will make an example of my own lens kit. I shoot 4x5, and have a 75/4.5 Nikkor-SW and a 90/8 Nikkor-SW as my wide-angle lenses. I use a 180/5.6 Nikkor-W as my 'normal' lens, and a 300/9 Nikkor-M as a long lens. Different lens designs for different purposes. I find them all to be excellent performers; in a more perfect world I might like a 120/8 Nikkor-SW and a 500/11 Nikkor-T to 'complete the set', but I'm doing fine with the ones I have.

Take a look here if have not done it before:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html This is not a completelly scientific guide, but it is extremly useful to understand that there are big diferences between units of the same model. Also it shows it is important to test things in person.

Mark suggest a very nice set, this is a very good advice, also the 90/8 is an extremly sharp glass, not expensive (used) but it has an extraordinary performance.

Also I'm new to LF and I've recently being gathering my lens kit. I've started using Nikkors of a friend, the W 210 and W 360. Very, very good glasses.

One advice is to go slowly, take a lens and push it its limits, then learn what you want from the lenses. Today we are privileged, thanks to digital, because we can acquire very good glass on budget. It is important to avoid G.A.S. gear acquisition syndrome :)

With the set Mark enumerates you can't go wrong, perhaps 90 is too far from 180, a 135 in the middle it could be added.

The important thing is to know what kind of photography you are to shot. The W360 is a brick in a backpack, the M300 is a feather. Some lenses are studio oriented and some are backpacking oriented. Some have larger circles of image that alows extreme movements for architecture, and some are light and perhaps cheaper. And you can get all that at different extra sharpness preformance (that it can be useful or not), more or less flare (coatings)...

As all, it depends on pocket one has, and want one wants, but selecting a lens kit has a problem: one has to know himself, and this is a challenge, more than one can suspect, IMHO.

A possibility is to take a very good lens, like the SW90/8 and then adding some low price options, like old good convertible Symmar 150 and 210. These are single coated and can flare a bit if sun is i the field of view. Also both are convertible, removing the front cell you have a 265mm and a 370mm f/12. When converted those have drawbacks but are also specially suited for portrait, can make much better portraits that "perfect lenses".

Then for under $200 you get 4 focals, so later you can decide better if you prefer having a 180-240-360 set or a 150-210-300. Also you'll learn difference from single coating age to what is manufactured now, and then you'll have 2 spare copal 1 shutters whe you upgrade in the future. Or perhaps you can use the shutters for next lens you buy, often people sell the cells.

Anyway, by buying the kit Mark Sampson just enumerates you can go directly to the field with a very well selected glass armor, perhaps I'd add a 135mm...

Pfsor

29-Oct-2016, 05:57

This is not a completelly scientific guide, but it is extremly useful to understand that there are big diferences between units of the same model.

It is also extremely useful to understand that amateur testing methods can give big differences between units of the same model.

Dan Fromm

29-Oct-2016, 06:40

On Nikon's home-market website, a catalog of Nikkor large format lenses can still be found here, with links to detailed pages for each lens:

http://www.nikon-image.com/products/lens/discontinue_other_lens/

The pages are in Japanese but they are clearly structured, so if one is familiar with lens specifications it's not too hard to decipher the key points.

Its wonderful that you want to be helpful, Oren, but the information on the site you linked to, and more, is available in English at http://web.archive.org/web/20160326041241/http://www.savazzi.net/photography/old_literature.htm LF lenses catalogs and more. His list of Nikon process lenses is incomplete.

Pere Casals

29-Oct-2016, 08:38

It is also extremely useful to understand that amateur testing methods can give big differences between units of the same model.

(First, power resolution is normally in excess in LF for most jobs, IMHO)

An amateur can make very, very useful and accurate tests with simple equipment. Just place an eyepiece in the rear of the view camera, shift-rise-focus on the entire circle, and see how a standard resolution target is seen, just looking at what Group/Element one see if the bars are V/H. A bit subjective, but under one element mistake.

Of course one can also place a DSLR in the rear of the view camera or shot film.

Manufacturers were never stating how many Lp/mm a model resolved, in this way they could sell all what they manufactured. They stated %MTF at 6, 12, 20 Lp/mm even at 30, but never said if a model had to reach 65 Lp/mm or 75... in the corners or in the center....

What is clear is that the lower end quality crop did not arrive to Technika or Sinar stamped glasses.

If one wants to know how his lens kit is performing... then the method I described is very plain. This is also extremly useful. (If one wants to know it, of course).

Peter De Smidt

29-Oct-2016, 09:19

<snip>

What is clear is that the lower end quality crop did not arrive to Technika or Sinar stamped glasses.

<snip>

What is the evidence for this?

Pere Casals

29-Oct-2016, 10:08

What is the evidence for this?

Hello Peter,

"Unfortunately we instantly have to inform you that the delivered Rodenstock lens (# xxxxxx) has failed our Linhof quality control. We have to exchange to a new one from Rodenstock, which means possibly a delivery delay. Please inform us how you would like to proceed. We need a confirmation of new time of arrival and delivery address."

Pere Casals

29-Oct-2016, 10:10

Or perhaps you would pick a caltar in place of a sinaron ? (same price and conservation)

Still, resolving power in something mostly overrated

Pfsor

29-Oct-2016, 12:14

An amateur can make very, very useful and accurate tests with simple equipment. Just place an eyepiece in the rear of the view camera, shift-rise-focus on the entire circle, and see how a standard resolution target is seen, just looking at what Group/Element one see if the bars are V/H. A bit subjective, but under one element mistake.

Just don't forget to focus correctly, to make the standards plan parallel correctly, to ensure no unwanted movement will creep in the standards while manipulated and many other details... Ah, it's a piece of cake. Of the amateur cake, of course.

Alan Gales

29-Oct-2016, 13:13

Its wonderful that you want to be helpful, Oren, but the information on the site you linked to, and more, is available in English at http://web.archive.org/web/20160326041241/http://www.savazzi.net/photography/old_literature.htm LF lenses catalogs and more. His list of Nikon process lenses is incomplete.

Sounds like someone needs to brush up on their Japanese! ;)

Leigh

29-Oct-2016, 13:27

...understand that amateur testing methods can give big differences between units of the same model.
The same is true for laboratory testing methods.

The fact is that you can find big differences between individual examples because those differences really exist.

A lens has hundreds of dimensions that are critical to proper operation of the final product.
Different manufacturers impose different tolerances on those dimensions.
Those with tighter tolerances have higher selling prices because they cost more to make in the first place.

Then you have tolerances on the assembled dimensions (i.e. distance between elements, centering, etc).
On cheaper lenses these may not even be measured. The lenses are what they are coming off the assembly line.
Higher quality lenses will have performance tests that determine whether they were assembled accurately.

Lenses look simple when held in your hand.
Nothing could be farther from reality.

- Leigh

Dan Fromm

29-Oct-2016, 13:37

But Leigh, they all look alike in the dark.

Bob Salomon

29-Oct-2016, 13:45

(First, power resolution is normally in excess in LF for most jobs, IMHO)

An amateur can make very, very useful and accurate tests with simple equipment. Just place an eyepiece in the rear of the view camera, shift-rise-focus on the entire circle, and see how a standard resolution target is seen, just looking at what Group/Element one see if the bars are V/H. A bit subjective, but under one element mistake.

Of course one can also place a DSLR in the rear of the view camera or shot film.

Manufacturers were never stating how many Lp/mm a model resolved, in this way they could sell all what they manufactured. They stated %MTF at 6, 12, 20 Lp/mm even at 30, but never said if a model had to reach 65 Lp/mm or 75... in the corners or in the center....

What is clear is that the lower end quality crop did not arrive to Technika or Sinar stamped glasses.

If one wants to know how his lens kit is performing... then the method I described is very plain. This is also extremly useful. (If one wants to know it, of course).

It is important to note that lp/mm means line pairs per mm. Not lines per mm.

Pere Casals

29-Oct-2016, 14:25

It is important to note that lp/mm means line pairs per mm. Not lines per mm.

Hello Bob,

Yes... until I know Lppmm = Lp/mm and Lpmm = L/mm so "p" means "/". USAF 1951 tables are also in Line Pairs / mm, like MTF charts of manufacturers.

Sometimes is found as "cycles", that's also "line pairs".

I found it also important to relate it to digital, as to depict a cycle at least 2 pixels are needed, but if we project 2 perfect lines on 2 pixels, then we can have a 100% perfect modulation if lines are exactly on the pixels, or 0% modulation (MTF) if lines fall just between 2 pixels, so in the space film resolves a line pair a sensor needs to place there a couple of pixels for same IQ.

I was using a Nikon D3200 in the rear of a Norma to test my lenses with a 1951 slide. I used it because is 24Mpix DX, smaller sensor more pixels density per mm.

The D3200 has 6016 pixels in 24 mm wide, this is 250 pix/mm and this is 125 pixel_pairs that can resolve much less than 125Lp/mm. Also it has an optical lowpass filter to avoid moire, that blurs the projection.

I tested my Sironar-N 300 on the D3200 and it exceeds what the D3200 DSLR can resolve, because the lowpass and pixel density per mm (that is not low at all, higher than a D800, 7360/36 = 204pix/mm, 102 pixel_pairs/mm).

I was really surprised, people that says that LF lenses are not very good (compared with smaller sensors) don't know how good they are and how close LF lenses match the film or sensor capabilities.

With the N 300 I measured 70 Lp/mm, but I'm pretty sure that the D3200 was a limiting factor. I've started looking (handheld) with an eyepiece in the rear, I'm to build a board for it.

This is more to learn and for fun than to make better photographs, of course.

Regards

Bob Salomon

29-Oct-2016, 14:44

Hello Bob,

Yes... until I know Lppmm = Lp/mm and Lpmm = L/mm so "p" means "/". USAF 1951 tables are also in Line Pairs / mm, like MTF charts of manufacturers.

Sometimes is found as "cycles", that's also "line pairs".

I found it also important to relate it to digital, as to depict a cycle at least 2 pixels are needed, but if we project 2 perfect lines on 2 pixels, then we can have a 100% perfect modulation if lines are exactly on the pixels, or 0% modulation (MTF) if lines fall just between 2 pixels, so in the space film resolves a line pair a sensor needs to place there a couple of pixels for same IQ.

I was using a Nikon D3200 in the rear of a Norma to test my lenses with a 1951 slide. I used it because is 24Mpix DX, smaller sensor more pixels density per mm.

The D3200 has 6016 pixels in 24 mm wide, this is 250 pix/mm and this is 125 pixel_pairs that can resolve much less than 125Lp/mm. Also it has an optical lowpass filter to avoid moire, that blurs the projection.

I tested my Sironar-N 300 on the D3200 and it exceeds what the D3200 DSLR can resolve, because the lowpass and pixel density per mm (that is not low at all, higher than a D800, 7360/36 = 204pix/mm, 102 pixel_pairs/mm).

I was really surprised, people that says that LF lenses are not very good (compared with smaller sensors) don't know how good they are and how close LF lenses match the film or sensor capabilities.

With the N 300 I measured 70 Lp/mm, but I'm pretty sure that the D3200 was a limiting factor. I've started looking (handheld) with an eyepiece in the rear, I'm to build a board for it.

This is more to learn and for fun than to make better photographs, of course.

Regards

Digital lenses are optimized for f8 while analog of lenses are usually optimized at f22. So when you use the large format lenses on a digital back or camera at f22 you are well into diffraction. Since most digital backs are about 6x7 or smaller the DOF achieved at F8 on the digital back is about the same as the DOF at f22 on 45 film. Hence the optimization at the larger aperture for digital.

Pere Casals

29-Oct-2016, 14:54

Just don't forget to focus correctly, to make the standards plan parallel correctly, to ensure no unwanted movement will creep in the standards while manipulated and many other details... Ah, it's a piece of cake. Of the amateur cake, of course.

I focus very, very accurately, also I remove aligments as factors, (film/holder flatness and film plane vs lens plane parallelism) as I place the DSLR (or eyepiece, from now) in the point or the circle I'm testing and I focus again.

This test doesn't allow to check if the lens has a flat "plane" of focus, but this can be done with a focus check procedure, by taking a shot of a floor with a geometric pattern.

Pere Casals

29-Oct-2016, 15:16

Digital lenses are optimized for f8 while analog of lenses are usually optimized at f22. So when you use the large format lenses on a digital back or camera at f22 you are well into diffraction. Since most digital backs are about 6x7 or smaller the DOF achieved at F8 on the digital back is about the same as the DOF at f22 on 45 film. Hence the optimization at the larger aperture for digital.

I was testing the Sironar-N at f/16 when I found it outresolved the 125 "pixels pairs per mm" of the D3200.

I found that most of my lenses (Sironar-N, Symmar-S, Fujinon EBC) clearly had better optical performance at f/16 that at f/22 in my tests, perhaps in a view camera it may work better at f/22 because DOF at film plane.

Still, I belive you (of course), design and assembly should have been tunned until it performed the better possible at f/22, but I think that anyway a good lens has lower performance at /22 because difraction than at f/16.

In the case of my old convertible symmars (150, 210 and 360 Technika) I found they measured a bit better at /22 in the corner, specially if converted. Best lens I've are the Sironar-N 300 MC and Symmar-S 135 MC.

Pfsor

29-Oct-2016, 15:27

I focus very, very accurately, also I remove aligments as factors, (film/holder flatness and film plane vs lens plane parallelism) as I place the DSLR (or eyepiece, from now) in the point or the circle I'm testing and I focus again.

Little did I know that you could put in shame any optical bench in Rodenstock...

Pere Casals

29-Oct-2016, 15:38

The same is true for laboratory testing methods.

The fact is that you can find big differences between individual examples because those differences really exist.

A lens has hundreds of dimensions that are critical to proper operation of the final product.
Different manufacturers impose different tolerances on those dimensions.
Those with tighter tolerances have higher selling prices because they cost more to make in the first place.

Then you have tolerances on the assembled dimensions (i.e. distance between elements, centering, etc).
On cheaper lenses these may not even be measured. The lenses are what they are coming off the assembly line.
Higher quality lenses will have performance tests that determine whether they were assembled accurately.

Lenses look simple when held in your hand.
Nothing could be farther from reality.

- Leigh

I completely agree with you.

I'd add that a lens can have 6 elements for example, so the combinations of errors that can exist, that are aditive or can cancel are there in high number.

Also there is a shim/washer that adjusts the space between cells, this can be adjusted to have better center or corner performance, better correction near of far...

Manufacturers knew very well what STDEV had in the manufaturing, this is undisclosed. Another thing it was the tolerance they allowed in the different price segments. We can guess that a Sironar-S had tighter tolerance than was sold as caltars (that are still very good...).

Anyway a lens has to be very bad to make a true difference in most LF photographs at usual enlargements. Also there are other limiting factors that overlap.

I think that manufacturers never were talking about achieved Lp/mm but about MTF at lower Lp/mm because real LP/mm at extintion had a dispersion that was bad for marketing.

Bob Salomon

29-Oct-2016, 15:46

I was testing the Sironar-N at f/16 when I found it outresolved the 125 "pixels pairs per mm" of the D3200.

I found that most of my lenses (Sironar-N, Symmar-S, Fujinon EBC) clearly had better optical performance at f/16 that at f/22 in my tests, perhaps in a view camera it may work better at f/22 because DOF at film plane.

Still, I belive you (of course), design and assembly should have been tunned until it performed the better possible at f/22, but I think that anyway a good lens has lower performance at /22 because difraction than at f/16.

In the case of my old convertible symmars (150, 210 and 360 Technika) I found they measured a bit better at /22 in the corner, specially if converted. Best lens I've are the Sironar-N 300 MC and Symmar-S 135 MC.

So, go test say the 90 Apo Sironar Digital SW and then see how it compares to anything else at any image ratio from 1:1 to, say, 1:20.

Pere Casals

29-Oct-2016, 15:51

Little did I know that you could put in shame any optical bench in Rodenstock...

I'm not to do that, at all !

What those benchs measured was not disclosed. Every lens they produce is well measured in Lp/mm, this can range for example from 55 Lp/mm to 85 Lp/mm at center f/16 but they don't tell it to anyboby, no measurement is included in the box. They had to sell those that measured 55 and 85. Instead they include an optimistic average graph, about MTF, that not many understand very well.

But, belive me, if I place a USAF 1951 slide on a lighttable, and then with an HQ eyepiece in the rear I discern a Group and an Element this is for sure. My old Norma has a beautiful knob to focus on it.

It is my lens, my slide and my eyes. If one of my lenses is worse that another (considering resolving power) I will now it for sure.

And also, I repeat, for most jobs resolution is overrated, and even the worse lens the big four sold was very good, not potential customer will realize if a fine art print was shot with a 50 or 70 lp/mm lens.

This said, would I'd like a Sironar-S kit ? of course !!!

Mark Sampson

29-Oct-2016, 16:04

I think this thread has gone far astray from the OP's question; but that will happen.
Mr. Casals, thank you for your kind words. I should have mentioned that I also use a 1957 Schneider 121/8 Super-Angulon and a 1948 Kodak 135/6.3 Wide Field Ektar. I never tried to test any of these lenses beyond using them to make photographs; they have all been fine performers in my personal work, and some rather picky architecture clients never had any complaints when I used 4x5 for that. During my many years at Eastman Kodak I learned a lot about the difficulty of running really accurate tests... which is fine on the job; for me, on my own time, not so much. I won't say "don't bother to test", especially if you like to; I've just had other things to do. My pictures have given me answers that I like.

Peter De Smidt

29-Oct-2016, 17:35

Hello Peter,

"Unfortunately we instantly have to inform you that the delivered Rodenstock lens (# xxxxxx) has failed our Linhof quality control. We have to exchange to a new one from Rodenstock, which means possibly a delivery delay. Please inform us how you would like to proceed. We need a confirmation of new time of arrival and delivery address."

Linhof sent you that message? Even if true, how does that apply to Sinar. Sure, Linhof now owns Sinar, but that wasn't the case during the time that most Sinar lenses were sold.

Leigh

29-Oct-2016, 19:33

This said, would I'd like a Sironar-S kit ? of course !!!
That's what I did.

I have the APO-Sironar-S in 135mm / 150 / 180 / 210 / 240 / 300 and 360mm focal lengths.

I think they're extremely good lenses.

- Leigh

B.S.Kumar

29-Oct-2016, 20:39

Linhof sent you that message? Even if true, how does that apply to Sinar. Sure, Linhof now owns Sinar, but that wasn't the case during the time that most Sinar lenses were sold.

I think you meant Leica owns Sinar now. :)

Kumar

Peter De Smidt

29-Oct-2016, 21:04

Thanks, Kumar. You're right!

Bernice Loui

29-Oct-2016, 22:40

There is FAR more to lens image personality than simple line pairs per mm test. What these test does not convey or reveal,

*Out of focus rendition.

*Color balance.

*Contrast rendition.

*Lens geometry rendition (distortion).

*Lens personality before, near, at and after diffraction.

*Flare personality.

*And more...

All of this obsessive technoid lens testing often does not reveal how a specific lens renders image on the imager be it film or chip.

IMO, skip all this techno centric obsession, find a set of lenses that is most agreeable and make creative images. It's that simple. If Nikkors are agreeable, then use them or what ever else works for you.

As for Nikkor LF lenses, their offering was similar-identical to LF lenses from Fujinon, Rodenstock, Schneider of that era. They are more similar than different within those offerings. There are exceptions, but generally, similar in lens formulations, focal lengths offered, and image results.

Going back to before this industry commonality, LF lenses tended to have a LOT more personality, individuality and distinction with the images created on film.

Bernice

I'm not to do that, at all !

What those benchs measured was not disclosed. Every lens they produce is well measured in Lp/mm, this can range for example from 55 Lp/mm to 85 Lp/mm at center f/16 but they don't tell it to anyboby, no measurement is included in the box. They had to sell those that measured 55 and 85. Instead they include an optimistic average graph, about MTF, that not many understand very well.

But, belive me, if I place a USAF 1951 slide on a lighttable, and then with an HQ eyepiece in the rear I discern a Group and an Element this is for sure. My old Norma has a beautiful knob to focus on it.

It is my lens, my slide and my eyes. If one of my lenses is worse that another (considering resolving power) I will now it for sure.

And also, I repeat, for most jobs resolution is overrated, and even the worse lens the big four sold was very good, not potential customer will realize if a fine art print was shot with a 50 or 70 lp/mm lens.

This said, would I'd like a Sironar-S kit ? of course !!!

Pfsor

30-Oct-2016, 04:31

My old Norma has a beautiful knob to focus on it.

Of course! That says it all.

Pere Casals

30-Oct-2016, 04:46

Linhof sent you that message? Even if true, how does that apply to Sinar. Sure, Linhof now owns Sinar, but that wasn't the case during the time that most Sinar lenses were sold.

I've never bought a new lens, all gear I've is "battle proven" :)

When I say battle proven I mean that the norma/symmars/sironar I own made most of forensic jobs (autopsies included) in the city of Barcelona (4 million) for 30 years...
....let's say portraiture :)

Still a Norma is something eternal, it was very well mantained. Included used parts said it.

What I quoted was stated user Vieri here:

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/32759-linhof-lenses.html

If you search the net you'll find a lot of testimonials and debate about if "Technika selected" lenses were much better than the general crop. What I concluded (I think that like most). Is that Linhof (and other luxurious camera manufacturers) had an additional QC for the glasses that were significatively tighter than the manufacturer. I belive that "Technika selected" is not the creme of Schneider, but lenses that still perfect for photography with lower Lp/mm rating were not accepted by Linhof (or Arca-Swiss, or Sinar).

Calumet was in another market of much cheaper cameras, and perhaps with lower requirements. Today auction prices of "Technika stamped" lenses are higher, as it may happened when new.

We can open here a debate about if Technika/Sinar "selected glasses" had a higher requirements than Schneider/R or not, IMHO this is a well debated issue with clear conclusions:

1) There is a performance dispersion in the manucfatured lenses. If perhaps most of the production of a model was in the 10Lp/mm interval but some sold units (5% to 30% depending on model) were way beyond that interval, and still marketed. Some manufacturer, Fuji is told to have few products in the low end, at least in some markets (Japan/USA).

2) Luxury camera brands had higher requirements than glass manufacturers, a differenciation that justified a higher price.

Of course Linhof, Sinar and Calumet both inspected the glasses they were marketing and each brand had its own requirement level, that was in pair with the retail price of their branded glasses, that was in pair with the price of the manufactured cameras.

Sinar was in the proffessional market, a photographer that is all day long with hands on a P3 making product shots wanted a good glass, try to sell him a dog glass and you'll see... the glass will come back and reputation will suffer a lot.

My experience... I've a Symmar 360 Technika (1964 vintage) that is very, very good for the focal and coverage. Still I've not measured it well, I'm to do it, but informal test I made shows me that it will be close to a modern lens, in the resolving power concern, of course, because it's single coated.

I was told by a retired photographer that Technika selected symmars were interesting because they worked much better when converted, I was interested in the 620mm focal, so I picked a Technika one.

Pere Casals

30-Oct-2016, 05:30

There is FAR more to lens image personality than simple line pairs per mm test. What these test does not convey or reveal,

*Out of focus rendition.

*Color balance.

*Contrast rendition.

*Lens geometry rendition (distortion).

*Lens personality before, near, at and after diffraction.

*Flare personality.

*And more...

All of this obsessive technoid lens testing often does not reveal how a specific lens renders image on the imager be it film or chip.

IMO, skip all this techno centric obsession, find a set of lenses that is most agreeable and make creative images. It's that simple. If Nikkors are agreeable, then use them or what ever else works for you.

As for Nikkor LF lenses, their offering was similar-identical to LF lenses from Fujinon, Rodenstock, Schneider of that era. They are more similar than different within those offerings. There are exceptions, but generally, similar in lens formulations, focal lengths offered, and image results.

Going back to before this industry commonality, LF lenses tended to have a LOT more personality, individuality and distinction with the images created on film.

Bernice

I completely agree with you. To me one of the most important feature is bokeh. One of the lenses I desire is an Universal Heliar 36 to add some spherical aberration. I like how difusion is directed to the center of the circle, providing a soft focus image without producing an halo...

It is too expensive for me, but I'm considering to take an Heliar syster lens and to make a new barrel (3D SLA printer) to gear the inner element like the Universal version...

Anyway high resolving power can be desired if HiRes films are used, like TMax or even Velvia. It is well true that most LF jobs won't benefit in practice of having 80 Lp/mm instead 55.

In my opinión a very sharp glass can make a difference when we want to depict fine textures. Still there is a market: normally a sharper lens is more expensive (not the universal:) ).

To me it is very interesting knowing about the resolving power of glasses, but I know very well that photography is another thing.

Pere Casals

30-Oct-2016, 05:44

Of course! That says it all.

Dear Pfsor,

The micro gear of a Norma advances 5mm in 90º. This is 18º for each 1 mm of bellows extension. And this is more than perfect to focus a LF lens on a glass slide at f/5.6, not to say it at f/11.

Mr C. Koch designed it in person.

Here you have Mr AA with the Norma. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-ZCEXWdIMg

If it was good for him...

Pere Casals

30-Oct-2016, 06:31

So, go test say the 90 Apo Sironar Digital SW and then see how it compares to anything else at any image ratio from 1:1 to, say, 1:20.

Hello Bob,

I guess that lenses designed for digital are another war.

For example distortion and lateral chromatic aberration can be addressed in digital post process with very good results, so design can go better to the other corrections. Also digital lenses have to cover smaller sensors. In that context also corrections can be better for that smaller area.

Still, what I'm discovering is that digital sensors also have unsuspected (to me) limitations that limits overall performance.

Of course time pases, if Rodenstock had a marked in LF photography perhaps they were making new state of the art products for film, but that market ended in the auction site.

Still, what digital bug can beat a Sironar-S 300 on ADOX CMS 20 4x5 ??? Or over TMX 8x10 ? (Well, PS can gather 10 digital shots... )

Pere Casals

30-Oct-2016, 06:34

I think this thread has gone far astray from the OP's question; but that will happen.

As usual :)

When OP has been all information... the rest can get some fun :) (With OP permission, of course)

Pfsor

30-Oct-2016, 07:07

Dear Pfsor,

The micro gear of a Norma advances 5mm in 90º. This is 18º for each 1 mm of bellows extension. And this is more than perfect to focus a LF lens on a glass slide at f/5.6, not to say it at f/11.

Mr C. Koch designed it in person.

Well, dear Pere Casals, it's not only the hand that focuses - it's also the eye. Yours is very, very accurate, of course. Even if not designed by C. Koch.

Bob Salomon

30-Oct-2016, 08:24

Hello Bob,

I guess that lenses designed for digital are another war.

For example distortion and lateral chromatic aberration can be addressed in digital post process with very good results, so design can go better to the other corrections. Also digital lenses have to cover smaller sensors. In that context also corrections can be better for that smaller area.

Still, what I'm discovering is that digital sensors also have unsuspected (to me) limitations that limits overall performance.

Of course time pases, if Rodenstock had a marked in LF photography perhaps they were making new state of the art products for film, but that market ended in the auction site.

Still, what digital bug can beat a Sironar-S 300 on ADOX CMS 20 4x5 ??? Or over TMX 8x10 ? (Well, PS can gather 10 digital shots... )

I am not sure exactly what you are asking. In all teats that digital lens will have higher and flatter MTF curves, less distortion and better color curves then a film lens and deliver those results, without diffraction, at f8. But if you can not test them yourself then there is no way you will see what you are missing. Maybe you want to look at the digital results on the Alpha or Phase One web sites to see some of those results.

Pere Casals

30-Oct-2016, 09:03

Well, dear Pere Casals, it's not only the hand that focuses - it's also the eye. Yours is very, very accurate, of course. Even if not designed by C. Koch.

I've a 130 sight score. Anyway this is not necessary to get perfect focus at 1:10 magnification at f/11. One of the tests I made was taking shots of series 1/4mm moves to see if slide center was in the best focus plane. An slide also allow to test with different constrast ratios.

Taija71A

30-Oct-2016, 09:17

If things get much worse... They'll soon be taking somebody off to the "Funny farm".

Pere Casals

30-Oct-2016, 09:24

I am not sure exactly what you are asking. In all teats that digital lens will have higher and flatter MTF curves, less distortion and better color curves then a film lens and deliver those results, without diffraction, at f8. But if you can not test them yourself then there is no way you will see what you are missing. Maybe you want to look at the digital results on the Alpha or Phase One web sites to see some of those results.

Of course... lens manufacturers doesn't invest anymore in new film products, so new generations of glasses are optimized for digital marked.

The Digaron product range offers 70mm to 90mm and 120mm image circles. So optical corrections have to be good in that small circle. "Apo-Sironar digital" goes from 100mm to 150mm...

But a Sironar-S 360 has a 468mm image circle, and the corrections have to provide an acceptable image also at the boundary, so it is difficult that corrections for the image center are as good as with a "Digital" lens that projects only a 70mm circle.

We can talk about how much optical information contains a Sironar-S-TMX-8x10" vs Digaron+IQ280. I'm pretty sure that the film choice out-resolves the digital result by a factor from x3 to x6, at least.

Still the digital choice has much more optical information than any commercial need may require, as a IQ280 can fill 10 TVs or the 4k rate. So professionals don't use much film, IMHO...

Bob Salomon

30-Oct-2016, 11:13

Of course... lens manufacturers doesn't invest anymore in new film products, so new generations of glasses are optimized for digital marked.

The Digaron product range offers 70mm to 90mm and 120mm image circles. So optical corrections have to be good in that small circle. "Apo-Sironar digital" goes from 100mm to 150mm...

But a Sironar-S 360 has a 468mm image circle, and the corrections have to provide an acceptable image also at the boundary, so it is difficult that corrections for the image center are as good as with a "Digital" lens that projects only a 70mm circle.

We can talk about how much optical information contains a Sironar-S-TMX-8x10" vs Digaron+IQ280. I'm pretty sure that the film choice out-resolves the digital result by a factor from x3 to x6, at least.

Still the digital choice has much more optical information than any commercial need may require, as a IQ280 can fill 10 TVs or the 4k rate. So professionals don't use much film, IMHO...
Just as a point of correction, Rodenstock digital lenses go from 28 to 135 mm and include a 120mm macro lens.

Pere Casals

30-Oct-2016, 12:38

Just as a point of correction, Rodenstock digital lenses go from 28 to 135 mm and include a 120mm macro lens.

I've seen that for HD Digaron range they publish "up to 100 LP/mm" and for "APO Sironar Digital" they say "up to 55 LP/mm". Not common that a manufacturer says about peak Lp/mm instead MTF charts.

I guess these are conservative values, probable most lenses may go beyond if they say a number, this comes at a price...

Best Phase One IQ3 has 216pix/mm this is 108 "pixel_pairs", a density that is like the D810 one.

So if Phase One guys want to outresolve a D810 they need lenses like these, that have a lot of quality over the larger MF sensor...