Which 150 lens?

[Mark Andes]

What are the advantages and disadvantages of these 3 lenses?

1. 150 f5.6 APO-Sironar N Copal 0

2. 150 f5.6 Symmar-s mc copal 0

3. 150 f5.6 Fujinon w copal

I would love to get one of these, but right now have 210 and 90 for my Tachihara.
By the way, this board got me hooked and now I can't put the darn camera down.

[Ken Lee]

Look them up here (http://largeformatphotography.info/lenses/" target="_blank).



Consider size, weight, coverage, and filter size. You'd be hard-put to tell the difference in image quality.

[David A. Goldfarb]

All pretty good. You might add the Caltar II-N to your list, since it is identical to the Apo-Sironar N and usually less expensive.

[John_4185]

You might add the Caltar II-N to your list, since it is identical to the Apo-Sironar N and usually less expensive.

How is it that my Caltar II-N 150mm is in a #1 shutter while the Sironar N uses a #0?

[Christopher Perez]

Other than slight color rendition variances, you will see no difference between the aforementioned optics.

[neil poulsen]

Your list also includes the Calumet-S II Multicoated lens, since it's the same as the Symmar-S lens that you mentioned.

I have and like the Symmar-S multicoated lens and like it. But, I've never done any side-by-side testing with this lens against others in the same focal length.

[Brian Ellis]

Hard to tell the advantages and disadvantages without knowing what your priorities are - cost, size, weight, image circle, etc. I've never used these lenses but from the brands and model designations I believe they're pretty much equal optically so a buying decsion would normally be made on other factors but you don't say which ones are important to you.

[Oren Grad]

My preference among the three is exactly as you've listed them - the Rodenstock first, then the Schneider, then the Fujinon. I really like the Apo-Sironar-N, could probably live with a Symmar-S if I had to, but wouldn't use a Fujinon if you paid me.

They're all excellent lenses by bench test, and each is capable of producing a crisp, contrasty picture under a wide range of circumstances. But there are differences in the characteristic "look" of the different brands, including the balance between resolution and contrast and the way out-of-focus areas are rendered. Most users either never notice these differences or consider them so subtle as to be irrelevant for all practical purposes. A few of us have mutant brains miswired so badly that we groove on subtleties like that.

[Donald Hutton]

A while back, I did some testing of 10 modern 150mm lenses to satisfy my own curiousity about all the "noise" that goes on about various lenses from different manufacturers. The sharpest lens I tested was a Schneider Symmar-S MC (yes, resolved just a little more than a Sironar-S). Of the 10, only one was substantially below the others in optical quality and I suspect that it may have been just a bad sample. For the rest, you had to really go beyond 20X to pick up minor differences and for the top 5, around 40X. . Buy the cheapest modern lens with the coverage you think you need (almost all modern 150's are just fine in coverage for general landscape shooting) and spend your money you save on a spare meter.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Just wondering why you left out the Rodenstock Apo Sironar - S 5.6. I use this and it is a FINE lens, small, lightweight and VERY sharp. By far my favorite lens. Just one more to consider.

[Ken Lee]

Oren -

"...but wouldn't use a Fujinon if you paid me."



Could you describe some of these differences a little more - or point out an article that illustrates some of these differences ?



I have ended up with nothing but Fujinon lenses, because of size/weight/filter size - but am not glued to them by any means.

[Oren Grad]

Ken -
Can't point out an article, alas. The only reference I know of online is a passing comment that Ken Rockwell recently tacked on to the bottom of his primer on bokeh here.

Fujinons tend to produce background bokeh that really bothers me. As with other lenses, the specifics vary with the subject configuration. They do OK in confined quarters - backgrounds close in look pretty smooth. As the backgrounds fall off into the distance, though, the bokeh starts to get fuzzy and eventually takes on a sort of oatmealy look that I find really obnoxious in monochrome. Local contrast is a bit on the harsh side for my taste, too.

Once you get clued in to the way Fujinons behave, you start to recognize it in published photographs. For example, when the GA645 was released (this was the autofocus version of the 645 compact camera with the 60mm lens), the photograph that illustrated the ad that Fuji ran in the Japanese photo magazines had background fuzz that reminded me of the behavior that started to sour me on the GS645S that I used to own.

And yes, although that's a medium format camera, the Fujinons do tend to have a strong brand character that's shared across the different medium and large format lenses they offer. I'm sure there's some variation - no doubt the SF Fujinons are different. But on the whole, the effect seems to be consistent enough across the line that I just don't waste my time on them any more.

I know I'm hypersensitive to this sort of stuff, and it may or may not be an issue for you - if you think you might care about it, you really need to run a test for yourself. See if you can borrow an Apo-Sironar-N or -S somewhere, then run some side by sides of a range of scenes typical of what you like to photograph. If I could make only one test photograph, it would be to put the camera in the middle of a stand of trees, set the lens for a middling aperture and focus somewhere at medium range - maybe 15-20 feet, the exact distance will depend on the specific scene. You can learn a whole lot about a lens by looking at what happens to trees more and more distant from the plane of focus. (Especially useful if you love to photograph scenes with trees in them at close to medium range rather than infinity. :-) )

[Oren Grad]

Sorry, messed up the html for the Ken Rockwell link. It's here:

www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm)

[Ken Lee]

I have probably never noticed this, because most of my images contain little that is out of focus.



This 8x10 contact print was made with a Fuji 450 C at f/22, and has the most bokeh of any of my current images. I gave it a little to make sure the people didn't blend into the background. Does it contain the tell-tale signature, or is there not enough to go on here ?



http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/portraits/sgn2.jpg



Thanks

[paulr]

"The sharpest lens I tested was a Schneider Symmar-S MC (yes, resolved just a little more than a Sironar-S)."

Years ago, when I was shopping for lenses (and didn't have a girlfriend, obviously) I spent a lot of time comparing MTF charts. I noticed something that rarely gets mentioned: the Rodenstock Apo Sironar S lenses are optimized for 1:10 magnification, while the Schneider Apo Symmar S lenses are optimized at infinity. I wouldn't be surprised if the earlier Symmar S was designed for infinity also. The differences appear small, but the result is that you can expect the Schneiders to be sharper for landscape work and the Rodenstocks sharper for studio work. In either case, you'd probably need conditions bordering on laboratory-accurate to notice the difference in a print, but it's there.

For my work, I chose the Schneider lenses, but I've recommended the Rodenstocks to friends who primarily do commercial work.

I can't comment on bokeh, since I have yet to do work with these lenses that involves any kind of selective focus. Oren, I'm curious if you can comment on how both brands look to you in out of focus areas closer than the plane of focus. I've started a body of work with a medium format camera that has a lot of blurry areas in it. The old single coated zeiss planar renders them beautifully (the distant ones much more than the close ones). If I ever start doing work like this with my apo symmar and super angulon, I'll be curious to see how things will look in comparison.

[Oren Grad]

Ken -

With the caveat that viewing on my junky LCD display is far from ideal, I'm not thrilled with what's going on in the trees and foliage, especially in the most distant stuff in the upper left, although it's nowhere near the worst I've seen from a Fujinon.

Paulr -

I'm curious if you can comment on how both brands look to you in out of focus areas closer than the plane of focus.

Excellent question. The Rodenstocks are not at their best in front of the plane of focus. Not horrible, but the OOF stuff doesn't have the same exquisite coherence as it does behind the plane of focus, and sometimes things in front can take on a look that's amorphous in an unpleasant sort of way, if that makes any sense. I'm less sure about the Symmar-S - I don't have nearly so much experience with it, especially with respect to foreground rendering. I have a couple of Apo-Symmars on hand, and in particular was planning to use a 360 as my normal for some explorations in 11x14. If I manage to get untracked and make any progress on that project, I can report back on my impressions.

In the same vein, those who've read Harold Merklinger's bokeh article will recall that he paid close attention to the difference between what his Nikkor-W was doing behind and in front of the plane of focus.

[Dan Fromm]

Ken Lee wrote: "This 8x10 contact print was made with a Fuji 450 C at f/22, and has the most bokeh of any of my current images. "

Ken, what on earth do you mean by "has the most bokeh?"

And how can I measure bokeh? I'd like to evaluate some of my pictures, don't want to rely on you for measurements because you're not always available. And I might outlive you.

Cheers,

[Ken Lee]

Dan - Thanks for your good point. I used the term wrongly.

I should have written "Of all my images, this one has the greatest area which is out-of-focus".

Perhaps it's best to leave the *measurement* of bokeh, to the esteemed mathemeticians and physicists on the list.

[Ken Lee]

Could offer an image that displays a pleasing out-of-focus-area ?

I would like to see what a nice one looks like.

[Ken Lee]

Oops - There I go again.

Could someone offer an example of pleasing bokeh ?

[Donald Brewster]

Well, I'll also vote for the Rodenstock APO Sironar S or N. For those of you who don't have the March/April 1997 issue of Photo Techniques lying around, a feel like a little homework on the Bokeh issue, here are a few sites -- some of which have the illustrations Ken was looking for:

http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column49/

http://www.lulu.com/content/129691

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html

[Ken Lee]

Although large format lenses are not included in the series of tests, this site ("http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.html" target="_blank) compares a lot of lenses. Specular highlights make for quick and effective comparison.



Many thanks for the heads-up. I will try to make some tests, and watch out for the "oatmealy look" - especially as I make more portraits.

[Ken Lee]

Although large format lenses are not included in the series of tests, this site (http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.html" target="_blank) compares a lot of lenses. Specular highlights make for quick and effective comparison.



Many thanks for the heads-up. I will try to make some tests, and watch out for the "oatmealy look" - especially as I make more portraits.

[Oren Grad]

Ken -

I'm not wild about sites that post an eye-popping catalog of contrived test images, like the specular highlight stuff, or that purport to characterize the behavior of a lens with one or two pictures. Yes, they can tell you something if you know what you're looking for, but bokeh behavior can be quite complex, and what really matters is how a lens behaves in making the pictures you want to make across the range of situations you're likely to use it in, and the best test of that is to use it yourself in those situations.

If you're new to this, the best way to get a sense of what the issue is, is to photograph a range of scenes using the identical focal length from different lens lines with substantially different character. Don't go looking for oatmeal, or for anything else in particular, and don't go enlarging small portions of the picture showing OOF backgrounds or specular highlights. Just print the whole picture, as you would do normally, and the look at the paired prints side by side, very carefully. Look at how different parts of the picture, at different degrees of defocus, behave under different circumstances. You'll reach your own conclusions about what you like and what you don't, or conclude that it doesn't matter to you at all. If you do find that this is something to which you're sensitive, this sort of exercise provides a good foundation for being able to evaluate other lenses later on, without having to run a full comparison test each time, because you'll know what you need to look for. For me, the critical test is watching how trees and foliage fuzz out at different degrees of defocus, and more generally the extent to which coherence of form is maintained as you move gradually away from the plane of focus; for you it might be something else.

I see on your website that you mention having a 150 Apo-Sironar-S. In the absence of a direct comparator to one of your Fujinons, I'd go take a bunch of pictures with that lens. Put it on your 8x10, for that matter - it won't cover to the corners, but you'll still get a nice, big picture to evaluate. Take portraits, trees, whatever you normally like to take.

[paulr]

for kicks i just mounted a camera on a tripod and pointed it at an LED headlamp. got an idea how the schneider lenses render things out of focus. the 210 apo symmar appears to have perfectly corrected spherical aberration (interpreting the results according to one of those websites) .... which means you'd expect neutral bokeh (neither harsh nor orgasmic) both in front and in back of the plane of focus. It rendered the light as an evenly illuminated disk, without hard edges, in both cases. The 120 super angulon was about the same, but put a harder edge on the disk at wide apertures.

I tried the same test with my borrowed hasselblad (old lens) and a nikon, but it's much harder to evaluate when you can't put a loupe on the ground glass.

[Jon Wilson]

For example purposes, the following I believe is a nice portrait with bokeh which was made with a "sharp" LF lens- 210mm Red Dot Artar @ f16. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00C7ar&photo_id=3341325&photo_sel_index=0

[Christopher Perez]

This is quite an interesting conversation about "bokeh".

But I have to add that I think someone is being unjustifiably hard on Fuji optics. Here's why:

I recently side by side "tested" a Docter Optic Germinar W 150mm f/9 and a Fujinon 150mm W/EBC (the six element, six group version) and can say a few things with ABSOLUTE certainty:

- There is no difference in the OOF areas between the two optics

- OOF rendition may (and please underscore "may") be influenced by the shape of the aperture. It certainly controls the shape of highlights.

If someone were to come to me and say that lens designers can influence and control the rendition of OOF areas, I'd asked for a physical explanation of how this is even possible! Actually, a friend did this once concerning the "bokeh" of Leica and Contax lenses for 35mm work. But there was NO verifiable objective evidence from the originators or even from lab testers of these optical implementations that showed anything like what was being suggested by my friend.

Bottom line: Yes, by all means take a close look at images if you're that neurotic about OOF rendition. Make your lens choice thereafter. But I have never seen anything like what's being suggested here. A good plasmat design is a good plasmat design. If the lens designers are good enough to control OOF rendition, I'd like to see their formulas and build instructions!

[Ken Lee]

Here is a non-keeper image I dug up: Fujinon 240 A, 8x10, scanned at 1250 ppi. Bright sun with water droplets.



Here is most of the image:

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/bokeh1.jpg



Here is a detail section, from center-right, showing some specular highlights and out-of-focus area.



http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/bokeh2.jpg



Is this "bad" ?

[paulr]

"f someone were to come to me and say that lens designers can influence and control the rendition of OOF areas, I'd asked for a physical explanation of how this is even possible! "

Did you read any of those links from earlier in the thread? Take a close look at the ones that discuss correction for spherical aberration.

[Ole Tjugen]

Based on contemporary literature, the Voigtländer Heliar was designed to "have an exceptionally pleasing transition from sharp areas to unsharp areas". That's as good a definition of "good bokeh" as any I've seen.

[paulr]

"This 8x10 contact print was made with a Fuji 450 C at f/22, and has the most bokeh of any of my current images. I gave it a little to make sure the people didn't blend into the background. Does it contain the tell-tale signature, or is there not enough to go on here ?"

Ken, I'm not someone who's fussed over bokeh before, but to me the background in that picture looks very nice. soft, and without any distracting optical artifacts that i can see. i like it a lot as a portrait, too.