Wide aperture performance of 110mm to 120mm lenses

[Arne]

I am selecting lenses for a documentary project using a 4x5. I'll being working in a wide range of settings, both inside and outside. The lenses I'm considering for a moderate wide angle are:

Super Symmar XL 110mm
Super Symmar HM 120mm
Apo Symmar 120mm
Apo Symmar L 120mm

I understand that most view camera lenses are optimized at smaller f-stops around f/22. Of these lenses which would perform at wider apertures the best? Perhaps in an f/8 to f/11 range.

I have experience using many different formats, and have used 4x5 for some time. I've done a lot of searching on Google, and have also looked at the MTF charts I could find, but don't really know how to read them, so any help from people with experience using these lenses would be most helpful.

Any suggestions for other lenses to consider in this focal length range that perform well at wider apertures would also be helpful.

[Bob Salomon]

None are corrected for wide open. Most should be pretty good at 8 to 11 however, many will probably need a center filter and those will only work with the lens stopped down at least 2 stops

[Dan Fromm]

Bob, are you sure about the need for a center filter? I ask because a 120 shot on 4x5 with no movements will lose at most 1 stop in the corners and center filters aren't often used for such relatively minor optical vignetting. If the OP is going to decenter his lenses much, well, that's another matter.

[Bruce Watson]

I am selecting lenses for a documentary project using a 4x5. I'll being working in a wide range of settings, both inside and outside. The lenses I'm considering for a moderate wide angle are:

Super Symmar XL 110mm
Super Symmar HM 120mm
Apo Symmar 120mm
Apo Symmar L 120mm

I understand that most view camera lenses are optimized at smaller f-stops around f/22. Of these lenses which would perform at wider apertures the best? Perhaps in an f/8 to f/11 range.

The phrase "documentary project" means very little to me. What are you actually trying to do?

Without knowing this, I can forge ahead anyway. ;)

The best lens in my kit is the SS-XL 110mm. It's razor sharp, even at f/8. It's image circle is huge, so plenty of room for movements. And that large image circle means you really never need a center filter. At least, I never bothered to buy one, let alone use one. And I've made some huge enlargements from that lens and not felt the need to correct any kind of light fall off.

I'm just sayin' it's an excellent lens for 5x4 in my book.

[Eric Woodbury]

There is a Super Angulon at 121mm/8 you might want in the mix. It's a wonderful lens and can be had for a song. Almost covers 8x10.

[Arne]

Bob, thank you for the solid information. As always you are a tremendous help.

Bruce, thank you for the info about the 110 and it's quality at f/8. I'm beginning a project photographing people, their homes, and the countryside in my area, which may include central and northern Maine. I will be photographing in unpredictable situations, and having the ability to use f/8 when needed, and still get very good results, is important for me. I may use some lens movements, but nothing too drastic, so really all of these lenses would work. Still I'm intrigued by the 110.

I'll be using both Portra, and black and white 4x5 film, so it will be possible to adjust the prints or scans for any light falloff. I'm planning on analog printing, but may scan the negs at some point if I need to do large prints. If I can find a used center filter I'll try testing both with and without it.

Eric, thank you for mentioning about the Super Angulon. A good suggestion.

[Arne]

One other question.

The 110 Super Symmar has threads for a back filter. I've always just used front filters. But can see the benefits of the smaller filter on this lens.

I've read that when using a filter on the back of the lens you need to focus with the filter in place, and be careful for any dust on the filter.

My question is if the image quality is degraded more than with a front filter, assuming top quality multicoated filters are used.

[Bob Salomon]

One other question.

The 110 Super Symmar has threads for a back filter. I've always just used front filters. But can see the benefits of the smaller filter on this lens.

I've read that when using a filter on the back of the lens you need to focus with the filter in place, and be careful for any dust on the filter.

My question is if the image quality is degraded more than with a front filter, assuming top quality multicoated filters are used.

No, the lens is not designed for rear filters. If it was it would have come with some type of filter in place on it.

[Bruce Watson]

The 110 Super Symmar has threads for a back filter. I've always just used front filters. But can see the benefits of the smaller filter on this lens.

I've read that when using a filter on the back of the lens you need to focus with the filter in place, and be careful for any dust on the filter.

My question is if the image quality is degraded more than with a front filter, assuming top quality multicoated filters are used.

Here's the thing about the 110. The first glass element comes out to about where the threads are. That is, if you screw in a filter tight, you can touch the lead element with the filter. People scratch the lens that way. Design flaw IMHO.

There are a couple of easy ways out of this -- find a junker 67mm filter and remove the filter from the ring. Now you have a 67-67 extension ring that you can use as a spacer between filter and lens.

Second, you can use a 67-72mm step up ring and use 72mm filters (72mm is just an example, use whatever filter size you want).

Third, if you are scanning your film, just forget about using filters and do your adjustments in photoshop.

What I did was to standardize on 67mm filters, used option one above for my 110, option two above for lenses that were less than 67mm, and then for all my photography I used option three, which rendered my filters and step up rings a waste of time and money. :rolleyes:

[Bob Salomon]

Here's the thing about the 110. The first glass element comes out to about where the threads are. That is, if you screw in a filter tight, you can touch the lead element with the filter. People scratch the lens that way. Design flaw IMHO.

There are a couple of easy ways out of this -- find a junker 67mm filter and remove the filter from the ring. Now you have a 67-67 extension ring that you can use as a spacer between filter and lens.

Second, you can use a 67-72mm step up ring and use 72mm filters (72mm is just an example, use whatever filter size you want).

Third, if you are scanning your film, just forget about using filters and do your adjustments in photoshop.

What I did was to standardize on 67mm filters, used option one above for my 110, option two above for lenses that were less than 67mm, and then for all my photography I used option three, which rendered my filters and step up rings a waste of time and money. :rolleyes:

Heliopan filters place the glass closer to the front of their ring thus eliminating this problem.

[Ari]

Here's the thing about the 110. The first glass element comes out to about where the threads are. That is, if you screw in a filter tight, you can touch the lead element with the filter. People scratch the lens that way. Design flaw IMHO.

There are a couple of easy ways out of this -- find a junker 67mm filter and remove the filter from the ring. Now you have a 67-67 extension ring that you can use as a spacer between filter and lens.

Second, you can use a 67-72mm step up ring and use 72mm filters (72mm is just an example, use whatever filter size you want).

Third, if you are scanning your film, just forget about using filters and do your adjustments in photoshop.

What I did was to standardize on 67mm filters, used option one above for my 110, option two above for lenses that were less than 67mm, and then for all my photography I used option three, which rendered my filters and step up rings a waste of time and money. :rolleyes:

I mostly agree with you about using Photoshop in place of most filters, but some still have to account for how to use ND or Polarizing filters, whose effects can't be added after the shot.

[Bruce Watson]

Heliopan filters place the glass closer to the front of their ring thus eliminating this problem.

For me the Heliopan "slim" version is still a problem. But it's a Schneider problem and not a Heliopan problem IMHO.

[Arne]

Thank you to everyone for all the information about the 110 and filters. It sounds like it would be wise to use a step up ring with wider filter. Certainly a minor expense to protect an expensive lens.

We are all so lucky to have access to such amazing gear.

[Bernice Loui]

52mm filter does fit and work on the rear element of the 110mm XL. there is just enough clearance as along as the filter's glass is not at the very edge of the metal filter ring
157366

This is what the threaded area of rear element looks like. If a filter is used on the rear element, focusing need to be done with the filter in place due to the slight shift in focus with -vs- without rear filter. Using the filter on the rear element helps reduce the flare. Rear filter location is common in high performance telephoto lenses like the Canon 300mm f2.8L and many others. Rear filter is also found in the Kinoptik Tegea both 5.7mm and 9.8mm and others.
157367

Edge view of the front element, there is very little clearance between the front element and beginning of the threaded area. If a filter is to be used on the front element, apply a 67mm to 72mm step ring.
157368

According to the folks at Schneider, the 110mm XL was optimized at f16, by f11 the performance is very good. Even f5.6 is very reasonable.

Symmar 110mm XL were not created equal. The initial few (I'm guessing about 12 maybe? This example is from the original six that was hand carried from Germany to the US by the Schneider rep) had a hand ground aspherical element, later production versions had aspherical element made by ultra high precision moulding. Schneider had a serious problem producing this lens initially. The back order wait was about one year.

The 110mm XL is considered a wide angle lens coverage of 105 degrees, if this large angle of view is not required, there can be a host of wide aperture lenses that could be more suitable for your project. More about the imaging needs and format size can help solicit lens suggestions.


Bernice

[Arne]

Thank you Bernice.

I've found a 110mm XL to buy in nice condition, so will see how it fits my needs. The wide coverage might come in handy at times.

I used Leica M cameras for many years (many years ago before they became so expensive). Leica lenses were often optimized for wider apertures, as that fit the way you worked with the camera, and because it was possible with shorter focal length lenses.

Lenses for larger formats, and for view cameras tend to have lenses optimized for other properties such as coverage and depth of field, given the longer focal lengths needed to cover the larger film area.

I do know of a few vintage lenses, such as the Planar and Xenotar 135mm, that were optimized for wider apertures. These types were made for 4x5/9x12 format and smaller, and for press style cameras. Very cool lenses, but way too expensive these days. I believe I have seen reference to other vintage lenses in the short normal to normal range that were similar. I haven't heard of any wider lenses that were optimized for wider apertures.

I'm sure the 110mm XL will be a fantastic lens. The only way to know how it will work for me is to try it out.

As far as my imaging needs, I'm using 4x5, B&W or color negative. Analog printing for smaller size prints, perhaps scanning and digital printing if I print larger. I've used 6x6 and 6x7 for similar work, scanned Portra 400, and printed digitally on inkjet to larger sizes. Using 4x5 will change the way I interact with my subjects, and give me slightly better quality.

I'm going to be working on a project exploring the people and places of central and northern Maine. So working inside, outside, various conditions. I'll be supplementing the 110/120 focal length with around a 180mm, a long-normal length. Lots of options there too. Easy enough to get a common f/5.6 lens like a Symmar, Sironar, or Fujinon, or other make.

But if you know of a lens in this 180mm range beyond these that I should look at please let me know. The wider the viewing aperture the better.

[Bernice Loui]

:)

As with most lenses, there will be some variation. Even modern ones have a very small degree of this. Any used lens could have hidden problem or equal to new. Only way to really know is to test and see if any specific lens works for you.

Leica, Zeiss and many other small film format optics with large apertures often share the Gauss formulation for it's ability to achieve reasonable corrections at these apertures. The trade off is very shallow depth of focus. Film makers and video folks have used this to great advantage for a very long time. In the sheet film world, control of focus can be excellent allowing surprising ways of achieving selective focus as one of many creative image making tools. Sheet film optics easily achieves that shallow focus look with what appears to be small aperture in small imager format optics.

For moderate image circle optics (180mm ish), I'm a Kodak Ektar, Schneider Xenar fan. These are essentially Tessar designs and work surprisingly well. There are a limited number of Gauss designs in the LF optics world for a host of real world reasons.

There are also a long history and list of wide aperture soft focus lenses that IMO, only work and perform as designed and intended on 5x7 or larger sheet film contact printed.

Using and experimenting with a wide world of LF optics will reveal tuff like out of focus rendition, contrast differences, color rendition and a LOT more.


There is a very, very long history of discussion about all this optics stuff archived in LFF, do a search on what might interest you, read, post questions, try and figure what works best for you. In time and many, many sheets of film later, a fave set of lenses, camera, film and all related will happen, That is when the shift from hardware to creative image making can honestly begin.

Learning curve for a view camera can be steep. It is a different method of working. Only by doing can one discover if this is the means to an end for any given creative image making personality-artist.



Bernice



Thank you Bernice.

I've found a 110mm XL to buy in nice condition, so will see how it fits my needs. The wide coverage might come in handy at times.

I used Leica M cameras for many years (many years ago before they became so expensive). Leica lenses were often optimized for wider apertures, as that fit the way you worked with the camera, and because it was possible with shorter focal length lenses.

Lenses for larger formats, and for view cameras tend to have lenses optimized for other properties such as coverage and depth of field, given the longer focal lengths needed to cover the larger film area.

I do know of a few vintage lenses, such as the Planar and Xenotar 135mm, that were optimized for wider apertures. These types were made for 4x5/9x12 format and smaller, and for press style cameras. Very cool lenses, but way too expensive these days. I believe I have seen reference to other vintage lenses in the short normal to normal range that were similar. I haven't heard of any wider lenses that were optimized for wider apertures.

I'm sure the 110mm XL will be a fantastic lens. The only way to know how it will work for me is to try it out.

As far as my imaging needs, I'm using 4x5, B&W or color negative. Analog printing for smaller size prints, perhaps scanning and digital printing if I print larger. I've used 6x6 and 6x7 for similar work, scanned Portra 400, and printed digitally on inkjet to larger sizes. Using 4x5 will change the way I interact with my subjects, and give me slightly better quality.

I'm going to be working on a project exploring the people and places of central and northern Maine. So working inside, outside, various conditions. I'll be supplementing the 110/120 focal length with around a 180mm, a long-normal length. Lots of options there too. Easy enough to get a common f/5.6 lens like a Symmar, Sironar, or Fujinon, or other make.

But if you know of a lens in this 180mm range beyond these that I should look at please let me know. The wider the viewing aperture the better.

[IanG]

There's a big difference between Tessar and type lenses and the quite modern lenses in the initial post, they are like chalk and cheese. It's worth looking at Ken Lee's pages on Tessar lenses. (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tessar/) Many of his images are with uncoated Tessars and coating does significantly improve the contrast.

However a 180mm or even 210mm Tessar design has excellent coverage with 5x4 and you'd only be using the centre of the image circle, the 210mm f6.3 Congo Osaka is a nice modern coated Tessar, small and light it's also a nice focal length with 5x4. However the 210mm f5.6 Symmar S is plentiful and inexpensive second hand and a excellent lens.

You may want to think about the overall weight etc of your kit, and portability.

Ian

[Bernice Loui]

Know any visual comparisons of images results via web driven electronic display is not going to be anywhere near the same as viewing the same results in real life. This is a very fixed and real limitation.

Another example of Tessar and others in the 200mm_ish focal length range. Overall optics performance is EXTREMELY complex is way far beyond the metric of "sharpness & contrast" so commonly applied to what some consider the "best" lens... not that simple.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/BigMash210.html


Not directly related to view camera optics, but does give examples of imaging optics behavior for the film and video folks can be found here. Those serious film folks tend to pick a set of matched optics to deliver a specific look that matches well with how the story needs to be presented. In the world of serious film making, both state of the art optics and best of the vintage is used to their best offerings with great effect. This has resulted in many vintage cinema optics being completely rebuilt and rehoused to function properly in current film and digital cinema cameras. Interestingly, film remains one of the preferred choices for major cinema releases.. even when the film production must be digitized for view distribution to viewers.

http://join.sharegrid.com/ultimate-vintage-lens-test.html



Bernice

[IanG]

Bernice, the only problem with Christopher Perez's 210mm lens tests you linked to is he appears to be testing them with a 5x4 camera/enlarger and these are lenses designed for normal use on 7x5 cameras. It's also a pity a more modern plasmat like a 210mm Symmar S wasn't included.

In the context of this thread where the OP is shooting 5x4 what's relevant is Perez shows 210mm Tessar & type lenses are excellent performers for the format, he states the 210mm f6.1 Xenar is the sharpest of the lenses he tested. But of course he's only tested the central parts of the image circle where we'd expect better sharpness.

Ian

[dave_whatever]

No, the lens is not designed for rear filters. If it was it would have come with some type of filter in place on it.

How do you think the rear filter threads got there, by accident?

[Bob Salomon]

How do you think the rear filter threads got there, by accident?

No, they are the threads for the retaining rings for the Les. AGAIN, placing a filter behind the lens ALWAYS degrades the image. Placing anything behind the lenswill always create a focus shift. All lenses that have been designed for a filter inside the lens or with the lens are always manufactured and sold with at least one filter installed in or on the lens.

The only possible exception to this were the Rodenstock HR Digital lenses which required an optional corrector glass behind the Lens to be used if the lens was to be used with film rather then digital. The reason for this was that the cover glass over the digital sensor was part of the lens design. A few universities bought these lenseswith the corrector plate for film use. But the sale of corrector plates was so minimal that they were discontinued after a year or so.

[dave_whatever]

No, they are the threads for the retaining rings for the Les.


The rear retainer may also use that thread (I will have to check my copy of the lens at home) but Schneider's own literature says the thread on the back of the 110XL is a "Rear screw-in thread for a further filter". They designed the lens to take a filter, it is even the correct standard 52mm size and 0.75 pitch.

https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/LensCharts.pdf

Nobody is arguing that using a rear filter won't theoretically impact on optical performance. The fact remains Schneider designed the lens to give you the option of using a rear filter.

[Bernice Loui]

Matter of individual preference, no?

Being one who has tried ALL of the current modern plasmats on the market in the past (Nikkor, Rodenstock, Schneider, Fujinon and others) they do have a specific image quality and it is a matter of individual preference as to what is ideal for the image maker. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are four lens formulations that appeal to me in these focal lengths Kodak Ektar, Schneider Xenar, Dagor, Artar. None deliver the modern high contrast overly etched look some are interested in. There are many other factors than simple "sharpness, contrast" and all of those metrics overly abused these days as to what constitutes the best-ideal lens. So there ya go.

Flawed is much a matter of individual opinion. Get the optics, try them out and use what is preferred plain and simple.



Bernice





Bernice, the only problem with Christopher Perez's 210mm lens tests you linked to is he appears to be testing them with a 5x4 camera/enlarger and these are lenses designed for normal use on 7x5 cameras. It's also a pity a more modern plasmat like a 210mm Symmar S wasn't included.

In the context of this thread where the OP is shooting 5x4 what's relevant is Perez shows 210mm Tessar & type lenses are excellent performers for the format, he states the 210mm f6.1 Xenar is the sharpest of the lenses he tested. But of course he's only tested the central parts of the image circle where we'd expect better sharpness.

Ian

[Bernice Loui]

Using a filter on the rear impacts the image no more than using a filter in the front. Filter in the front has a different set of problems than filter in the rear.

After ownership of this Schneider 110mm XL for nearly two decades and use a filter on the rear element (and filter in the front with 67mm-72mm step ring or Sinar 103mm glass filter system) over that course of ownership, curious to read using a filter in the rear cannot be done and affects image quality..

Focus shift due to filter on the rear element is irrelevant as the image to be created will be focused on the ground glass with the rear filter in place. This accounts and compensates for the slight focus shift due to adding a filter on the rear element.


Why have some of the relies become SO combative and trolling for arguments that are not fact?


Bernice




The rear retainer may also use that thread (I will have to check my copy of the lens at home) but Schneider's own literature says the thread on the back of the 110XL is a "Rear screw-in thread for a further filter". They designed the lens to take a filter, it is even the correct standard 52mm size and 0.75 pitch.

https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/photo/LensCharts.pdf

Nobody is arguing that using a rear filter won't theoretically impact on optical performance. The fact remains Schneider designed the lens to give you the option of using a rear filter.

[Bob Salomon]

Using a filter on the rear impacts the image no more than using a filter in the front. Filter in the front has a different set of problems than filter in the rear.

After ownership of this Schneider 110mm XL for nearly two decades and use a filter on the rear element (and filter in the front with 67mm-72mm step ring or Sinar 103mm glass filter system) over that course of ownership, curious to read using a filter in the rear cannot be done and affects image quality..

Focus shift due to filter on the rear element is irrelevant as the image to be created will be focused on the ground glass with the rear filter in place. This accounts and compensates for the slight focus shift due to adding a filter on the rear element.


Why have some of the relies become SO combative and trolling for arguments that are not fact?


Bernice

When a filter is used in back, besides creating a focus shift, any dust, fingerprints, smudges, etc. that are on that filter will effect the image as those defects were not part of the lens itself.

[dave_whatever]

The main theoretical problem with rear filters on a wideangle lens is the focus shift is not constant over the image circle, as light passing from the lens to the edges of the image circle do so at a progressively steeper angle to the perpendicular. Hence a 2mm thick filter causing x focus shift on axis will cause a worse focus shift at the edge of the film area because the light might at that angle be passing through say 2.5 or more of glass, since light there has passed through a 2mm filter at a steep angle.

Clearly though this effect could well be more than masked by other effects, tilt, depth of field etc, which folk's real world experience above attests to.

[Bernice Loui]

Bob,

Why are you so combative on this..

Any focus shift is compensated for when the rear filter is on the rear element and the projected image focused on the ground glass. If this is not correct, the laws of Physics has changed. Small to moderate amounts of dust affects the image a lot less than most would imagine. Simply calculate the actual area of the dust particle relative to optics area. It is no worst then bubbles in the glass and such. Fingerprint-smudge can happen on ANY optical surface. If the smudge, finger print or similar covers a large enough optical area, it will affect image quality.

Losing face due to being factually incorrect is not the end of the world. Don't be learning resistant. Learning is how one grows their intellect and this is a matter of intellectual honesty, intellectual integrity.


Bernice



When a filter is used in back, besides creating a focus shift, any dust, fingerprints, smudges, etc. that are on that filter will effect the image as those defects were not part of the lens itself.

[IanG]

Matter of individual preference, no?

Being one who has tried ALL of the current modern plasmats on the market in the past (Nikkor, Rodenstock, Schneider, Fujinon and others) they do have a specific image quality and it is a matter of individual preference as to what is ideal for the image maker. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are four lens formulations that appeal to me in these focal lengths Kodak Ektar, Schneider Xenar, Dagor, Artar. None deliver the modern high contrast overly etched look some are interested in. There are many other factors than simple "sharpness, contrast" and all of those metrics overly abused these days as to what constitutes the best-ideal lens. So there ya go.

Flawed is much a matter of individual opinion. Get the optics, try them out and use what is preferred plain and simple.

Bernice

When I said flawed I qualified why - the tests Perez made were based on 5x4 with no movements with lenses designed for 7x5 and some small amount of movements so not being used to their full capability.

What Perez did show was there was little to choose from other than greater edge/corner softness with the Geronar at wider apertures when these lenses are used with a 5x4 camera. As it happens I do use Tessars, Xenars and Ektars (dialyte - so in that respect the same as an Artar) and Dagors as well as modern Plasmats. My point really is with shorter FL lenses of these same types on a 5x4 camera you will see greater differences particularly at wider apertures, and the same would be true with the lenses Perez tested if he'd tested with a 7x5 camera.

The point we are both making is these older lenses Tessar, Xenar etc are very capable lenses my only caveat is coated versions. I used a 203mm f7.7 Ektar (Compr #1 - a very late US version) on a 6x7 MF camera a few weeks ago and the sharpness is outstanding, Do I prefer it to my 210mm f5.6 Symmar S or 210mm f6.3Osaka Commercial, not really except it's small and light, a touch harder to focus but for close up work will out perform a Tessar or Plasmat.

Ian

[Bob Salomon]

Bob,

Why are you so combative on this..

Any focus shift is compensated for when the rear filter is on the rear element and the projected image focused on the ground glass. If this is not correct, the laws of Physics has changed. Small to moderate amounts of dust affects the image a lot less than most would imagine. Simply calculate the actual area of the dust particle relative to optics area. It is no worst then bubbles in the glass and such. Fingerprint-smudge can happen on ANY optical surface. If the smudge, finger print or similar covers a large enough optical area, it will affect image quality.

Losing face due to being factually incorrect is not the end of the world. Don't be learning resistant. Learning is how one grows their intellect and this is a matter of intellectual honesty, intellectual integrity.


Bernice

But it does affect me he image, as you just admitted. Filters belong in front for best results from the lens. Assuming that you are using high quality filters to begin with.