Advice on Apo-Lanthars needed

[Greg]

Over the years have come across several Voigtlander Apo-Lanthars FS. First one was a 210mm TECHNIKA Apo-Lanthar in a shutter for only a couple of hundred dollars... always regretted not purchasing that lens. Over the years have come across several 210mm and 300mm samples, but the asking prices were always above my means. But then lately have been asked if I was interested in acquiring a 210mm and a 300mm Apo-Lanthar with both being in shutters. Last year acquired two other "smaller" optics from the seller that were said to be in NOS condition... turns out that they were exactly as described, both in "like new" condition.

Anyways... Condition has yet to be described in detail to me, which scares me a bit. Also don't know what shutters the Apo-Lanthars are in.

Big questions...
What to look for?
Any type of shutter to stay away from?
Color tint of the lenses?
If only shooting B&W, are they really worth pursuing verses shooting with comparable modern optics?

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/Lanthar.jpg http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/Lanthar2.jpg

All other things being equal, to retain the many-bladed iris (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/lenses/index.php#Vintage), I'd try to get one mounted in barrel or a Compound Shutter.

[Bernice Loui]

Previously discussed here, suggest reading this discussion before proceeding.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?145941-Which-210mm-F5-6-for-portraits&highlight=APO+lanthar%2C+kodak+ektar

Lanthium glass was a Kodak invention, it is used in Kodak Commercial Ektar and other Kodak lenses. The moniker Lanthar has to do with Marketing more than substance as there was a time decades ago when APO Lanthars were not expensive or precious.


Bernice

[Hugo Zhang]

Greg,

I have many lenses and several apo-lanthar lenses in 150mm, 210mm and 300mm. There are something special about them, especially for portraits. I only do contact printing and don't shoot color. Not yet. I know many modern lenses have more contrast than Lanthar lenses.

If I were ever forced to sell all my lenses and were allowed to keep only one lens, that would be my 300mm lanthar lens.

Hugo

[Pere Casals]

Any type of shutter to stay away from?

Most are found in synchro-compurs or compounds, both are excellent shutters. Old compurs may often require a simple CLA to recover accuracy. A Compound can be destroyed in two ways: if trying to cock in B or T positions making a lot of force, or with a DIY CLA by a direct ether bath as iris is made of paper. Compounds are pneumatic so clockwork is minimal, this is important if a repair is necessary because it's a simple shutter.

Compounds sound like music, me I feel like a great photographer when firing the compound.



If only shooting B&W, are they really worth pursuing verses shooting with comparable modern optics?

See section 150mm Voigtländer Lanthar versus Sironar-S :

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

If wanting great bokeh alternatives are Ysarex, Xenar and Heliar...

The Lanthar sharpness+bokeh nature has a german description: Duftige Schärfe or amazing "fluffy sharpness", as that article explains. This is what you find in a lanthar... but for portraiture excessive sharpness may not be always what you want anyway, perhaps some may prefer a tessar for that, following Karsh exemplary usage of Commercial Ektar 14" for 8x10, what it would be a 180mm tessar for 4x5.

So for landscape if all in focus (bokeh not useful there) the lanthar has no advantage aganist a modern lens. For portraiture you have the good bokeh but high sharpness may not be necessary/wanted. If wanting smooth OOF with something very sharp in focus, Duftige Schärfe nature, then the lanthar will rock, but then the question is at what print enlargement a (good bokeh) LF tessar is not sharp.

[Bernice Loui]

Pere,

Have you owned, used to make prints both color and B & W using any of these lenses being discussed?
What has been written is of very modest value, what is important does the APO Lanthar or _ lens meet the image needs of OP?

Fact is folks, reading this stuff many not directly apply to actual lens ownership, usage and personal choices of if that specific lens is a keeper.


Knowing the "brand" does not dictate personality or behavior of an individual item. Brand alone is a preconceived expectation, where as the actual individual item is more or less the real deal.

Bernice







See section 150mm Voigtländer Lanthar versus Sironar-S :

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

If wanting great bokeh alternatives are Ysarex, Xenar and Heliar...

The Lanthar sharpness+bokeh nature has a german description: Duftige Schärfe or amazing "fluffy sharpness", as that article explains. This is what you find in a lanthar... but for portraiture excessive sharpness may not be always what you want anyway, perhaps some may prefer a tessar for that, following Karsh exemplary usage of Commercial Ektar 14" for 8x10, what it would be a 180mm tessar for 4x5.

So for landscape if all in focus (bokeh not useful there) the lanthar has no advantage aganist a modern lens. For portraiture you have the good bokeh but high sharpness may not be necessary/wanted. If wanting smooth OOF with something very sharp in focus, Duftige Schärfe nature, then the lanthar will rock, but then the question is at what print enlargement a (good bokeh) LF tessar is not sharp.

[Pere Casals]

Have you owned, used to make prints both color and B & W using any of these lenses being discussed?

Bernice, I borrowed a 210mm one from a friend (who is great collector) and shot a dozen TMX sheets with it, two years ago. A superb lens. But IMHO its price is because it's a nice collectible item. Regarding pure optical performace it has nothing special compared to modern lenses, regarding bokeh it's slightly better than plasmats but equal to many tessars, regarding coatings it's way (technically) inferior than modern lenses. I think that these are facts.

Also it is a fact that APO-Lanthars are heliars with a rare earth middle element allowing a better chromatic correction, so basicly it's a sharper heliar, single coated, which explains very well the lens nature.

In LFPF we have impressive articles like that one https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/ by Jeroen Bruggeman that it would be of extremly good advice, don't you think ?

[Corran]

I have 10.5cm, 15cm, and 21cm APO Lanthars. They are as sharp as modern lenses but have that elusive "look" I think people covet from vintage design. They uniquely open the shadows with a glow that defies explanation (no, it's not flare). They all have a warm tint from the glass, even if you can't see it visually in the lens. Not nearly as bad as Aero Ektar stains but just a free 81a filter. While I use them infrequently they are too nice to sell and I also promised not to from two sellers who sold them at very attractive prices.

PS: I shot most of my formal wedding photos with the 15cm and 21cm APO Lanthars. I can send you a sample or two if you want.

[Bernice Loui]

APO Lanthar, Heilar and .... do have personality. There was a time when this "personality" was not valued by the majority of sheet film users as the market back at that time was commercial work for advertising, and similar. Due to market needs, modern lenses were the preferred choice which set these vintage lenses into the not desirable category. During that time a BIG Heilar (exception would be the Universal Heilar) in barrel would sell for about $50, APO Lanthar for about $100 to $200 in a GOOD shutter, APO tessar can be had for as little as $50 inbox as new for focal lengths over 500mm. During that era, it was easy to try these lenses as they were "cheap". Sheet film was plentiful, processing was not difficult at all..

Point being, that was a different time, place, era. As with fashion, things change. Due to the current market & fashion, these lenses that were once ignored and not wanted have now become desirable .... by a different audience.

IMO, the ideal thing for the OP to do is to get at least one APO Lanthar to use and try. This IS the only way to make just about any lens choice, film choice, print choice and.... As been said many times before, specially in these time of excessive errant information that is easily available, image making tools are a personal choice and decision. Best to do a bit of reading then get the actual item to try then decide.


BTW, did not keep any of the Heilars, APO Lanthars and...
As for why barrel lenses and Sinar shutter, has much to do with vintage lenses having nice round iris. where modern Copal and similar shutters do not.

Bernice

[Pere Casals]

IMO, the ideal thing for the OP to do is to get at least one APO Lanthar to use and try.

Yes, this is a good advice, nothing better than testing, but let me add another choice for the OP.

Just buy a single coated Heliar than has the same bokeh and similar coating, and this is cheap. Heliars typically peak at 45lp/mm.

The Apo Lanthar tested by C. Pérez rated:

f/11 67 67 42
f/16 54 67 54

Which is an excellent rating. But if not enlarging beyond x8 (1m prints from 4x5") then the difference Heliar vs APO Lanthar cannot be technically noticed.

Then if both liking the lens nature and requiring greater resolving power, it would be the time to throw money for an APO Lanthar.

[Bernice Loui]

OK, fine...

Except there ARE visual print differences between APO Lanthar and Heilar and...
BTW, priced a Heilar recently? They have been made for a while, some are coated, some are not and the design evolved over time. There are f4.5 or f3.5 versions and more.

As always, those LPM numbers are meaningless in the overall context and individual evaluation of a given lens for the individual user.


Bernice



Yes, this is a good advice, nothing better than testing, but let me add another choice for the OP.

Just buy a single coated Heliar than has the same bokeh and similar coating, and this is cheap. Heliars typically peak at 45lp/mm.

The Apo Lanthar tested by C. Pérez rated:

f/11 67 67 42
f/16 54 67 54

Which is an excellent rating. But if not enlarging beyond x8 (1m prints from 4x5") then the difference Heliar vs APO Lanthar cannot be technically noticed.

Then if both liking the lens nature and requiring greater resolving power, it would be the time to throw money for an APO Lanthar.

[Pere Casals]

Except there ARE visual print differences between APO Lanthar and Heilar and...


Not significative... at least with under 1m prints. Same bokeh, same flare. For a good photographer the difference is irrelevant, with both glasses the same can be done.




BTW, priced a Heilar recently?

A 150mm, around $200 , in shutter

https://www.ebay.es/itm/Heliar-150mm-F4-5-Voigtlander-large-format-lens-compur-shutter-5x4-inch/123703043014?hash=item1ccd46a3c6:g:nhMAAOSwuTRclRmy




As always, those LPM numbers are meaningless in the overall context and individual evaluation of a given lens for the individual user.


Yes... under 1m prints. Anyway if there is a Heliar vs APO Lanthar difference it's optical performance, the Lp/mm are mostly irrelevant but it tells at what enlargement a human eye may start noticing a difference.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I was warned by repair expert Ken Ruth, while he was overhauling one of my Plaubel Makiflex cameras, was to inspect and test shoot ANY Apo Lanthar. He worked on one, which he could NOT improve it's bad performance. He told me overheating the elements on some examples, can shift the elements inside the barrel. They made an Apo Lanthar at the Plaubel factory, but I will heed Ken's advice.

[Greg]

To all who posted comments, thank you.

Unfortunately the seller, who I had a great experience with last year, this time has been elusive on the condition of the lenses and Emailing me images of the lenses "not possible at this time". So... time to step away from this transaction.

Present plan is to look around for a 300mm Apo-Lanthar, or maybe even a Heilar, in excellent condition that the seller will give me a 10 day return privilege. My current 300mm Fujinon just overall too sharp for a project that I am looking into starting.

thanks again...

[Corran]

The 30cm certainly commands a premium. I see one sold on eBay recently for $3700. The 15cm ask prices have gone way up from a few years ago. Used to be you could snag one for $500-600 if you were patient. Cheapest recent sale though is $850 on eBay, with lots of lenses listed well past a grand. I guess all the cheap lenses got bought and put into collection/use and now the overpriced stock remain.

On the flip-side, the 21cm prices seem to be lower, but they also seem to have more issues. A lot of 21cm lenses seem to have separation for some reason. Mine is mint condition and from a later production it seems, so perhaps early production had issues.

[LabRat]

Not worth paying sky hi prices for one... I have a 15cm (Linhof select) that to me seems like an slight upgrade from a Tessar, but with slightly more color saturation... Don't think that just be cuz it says APO, it is a sharp miracle lens, rather a slightly smoothed over sharpness...

I use Heliars and Tessars and I would not spend big bucks on one...

Steve K

[Bernice Loui]

"Sharp" or higher contrast? The two are often confused as higher contrast image rendition can be easily mistaken for "shaper".
The harder-higher contrast look is common among modern Plasmat and similar LF lenses. This is what the commercial folks who where burning vast amounts of sheet film back in them days demanded. The lens manufactures, Fujinon, Schneider, Nikon, Rodenstock then delivered what the market would accept and demanded... often optimized for f22 with a full aperture of f5.6 to ease focusing with nil focus shift.


Bernice






My current 300mm Fujinon just overall too sharp for a project that I am looking into starting.

[Bernice Loui]

Pretty much agree with the slightly (very slightly upgraded if at all upgraded) over a good Tessar. Having used APO Lanthar & Heilar in the past, they were no better than a Xenar or Commercial Ektar.. with the Commercial Ektar having more neutral color rendition than the APO Lanthar and Heilar depending on vintage and version as they were more than a few variants of Heilar over it's production.

Your Image Result can and will Vary.


Bernice



Not worth paying sky hi prices for one... I have a 15cm (Linhof select) that to me seems like an slight upgrade from a Tessar, but with slightly more color saturation... Don't think that just be cuz it says APO, it is a sharp miracle lens, rather a slightly smoothed over sharpness...

I use Heliars and Tessars and I would not spend big bucks on one...

Steve K

[Corran]

Now we've truly gone off the reservation. There is little comparison between an APO Lanthar and Zeiss (f/4.5) Tessar. I've used multiple copies of both 15cm f/4.5 Tessars and APO Lanthars and it's not even close.

Not to mention, for the fans of smooth out-of-focus rendition, the Tessar with swirly corners at wider stops is just ugly in comparison to the Voigtlander (of course for those looking for that effect, shoot away). Production variance doesn't change that.

The Tessar IMO shines at middling apertures and slightly longer than normal focal lengths if shooting portraits.

BTW, the person I bought my 21cm APO Lanthar from was a decades-old advertising pro who told me the APO Lanthar was his secret weapon before retirement and digital. Apparently that was his most-used lens.

[Ken Lee]

With "cult" lenses we read lots of hearsay with compelling adjectives like buttery, silky smooth and magical but we rarely see any rigorous comparisons of the same scene shot under identical conditions where only the lens has changed.

When it comes to comparing modern lenses for digital cameras, we find better efforts these days online. Perhaps this is because digital equipment has no penalty of time and materials: the results can be obtained and shared instantaneously. Speaking of APO Lanthar, here is a rigorous comparison (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1574251). (Note: Cosina bought the venerable Voigtlander name and out of reverence for the original company brands their new offerings with Heliar, Lanthar etc. and while they are Heliars and Lanthars in name only, many of them are best-in-class.)

Once we stop down a LF lens to around f/11 and correct the resulting images for the inevitivable minor changes in contrast and color rendition, many of the differences between lens designs become negligible (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/BokehComparison.php) at best. Perhaps the most interesting result of that test is that the Heliar exhibited focus shift after stopping down from wide open to f/11: the point of sharp focus moved closer to the camera. Otherwise, the images are indistinguishable for practical purposes.

Shooting at wider apertures where specular highlights appear in the scene, may be the best way to ditinguish the "character" of different lenses. Click here (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/TessarSpecularHighlights.php) for an image made with an old un-coated 135mm Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar at f/8: the aperture is round at all settings. For me, there's no need to purchase a Lanthar at its much higher price point. The old Tessar is impressive enough.

[Corran]

It's true, it's much more difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to run a thorough battery of tests on LF film where no digital sensor equivalent exists in practice (hence the preponderance of "tests" of old lenses designed for 35mm film).

I certainly haven't done it, but I have shot with many f/4.5 and f/3.5 Tessars at wider stops, and they all show the same swirl in the corners. Of course, with black featureless corners, this doesn't matter. I personally think Tessars are overrated. Give me a fast triplet any day, if we are talking cheap normal lenses on LF...

Anyway, I chose not to post any images/portraits taken with the 15cm APO Lanthar because it would be pointless without direct comparisons of the same subject/composition/aperture/etc. but I still would be confident in saying, there is a major difference in the corners at wider stops. Whether or not one cares, or needs, or wants anything other than their Tessar is more on the personal preference side of things. I certainly think Greg, over the years, has expressed interest multiple times about the APO Lanthars and it seems like it is time he tries one for himself :).

[Dan Fromm]

Speaking of APO Lanthar, here is a rigorous comparison (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1574251). (Note: Cosina bought the venerable Voigtlander name and out of reverence for the original company brands their new offerings with Heliar, Lanthar etc. and while they are Heliars and Lanthars in name only, many of them are best-in-class.).

Surely you jest.

[Ken Lee]

Surely you jest.

Perhaps I've misunderstood your brief statement, but the review to which I linked, consists of many pages of side-by-side comparisons and sample images at various apertures. The testers explore a variety of features like blur rendition, coma, flare, etc. It would be helpful if you could share some links to studies of LF Lanthar lenses of equal depth and breadth.

If you're suggesting something else, could you explain further please ?

[Hugo Zhang]

Ken,

I have read somewhere that Apo-Lanthar lenses in 105mm, 150mm, 210mm and 300mm are very different from the lens tested in your link.

[Hugo Zhang]

Here is a good article by one of our members:

https://www.arnecroell.com/voigtlaender.pdf

[Bernice Loui]

Here is a good article by one of our members:

https://www.arnecroell.com/voigtlaender.pdf


"Apo-Lanthars were introduced in 1954 and made until 1972. Most Apo-Lanthars were sold in shutters; barrel mounts are rare, but do exist. The Apo-Lanthars are marked by three colored stripes around the outside chrome surface of the front cell, in red, green, and blue. This designates the apochromatic correction referred to in the “Apo” part of the name, with a considerably reduced secondary spectrum. As Voigtländer wrote in a brochure from 1967 [11]:

“... -a high-performance five-element anastigmat with the remarkable speed of 4.5, fully corrected for the three main colour bands of the spectrum. Its design is based on the principles used in the apochromatic correction of process lenses. In view of its high speed the Apo-Lanthar is thus eminently suitable for shots of live subjects at fast shutter speeds. It is a universal lens in the true sense of the word, guaranteeing perfect sharpness all over the image field, maximum brilliance and contrast, as well as purity of colour rendition.”-

-The second part of the lens name is due to the fact that the front lens is made from lanthanum crown glass. Glasses using rare earth oxides were investigated by George W. Morey in the late 1920’s at the US Geophysical Laboratory, and from 1931on he developed them further for Eastman Kodak. They were initially made and used by Kodak for their Aero-Ektar aerial lenses in WWII

[7, 8]. After the war, these glasses were adopted by all major glass manufacturers. Some of those glasses intentionally contained thorium oxide in addition to lanthanum oxide and are therefore slightly radioactive. This is the case for the Apo-Lanthar (other “hot” LF lenses are some Repro-Clarons, the 135mm f/3.5 Xenotar, both from Schneider, and the Tessar-type process lenses from TTH, such as the Apotal, and others).


Over a long period of time, the radio-activity leads to radiation damage of the glass in the form of so-called “color centers”. This damage is seen as a yellow-brown discoloration of the glass; other glass parameters like refractive index and dispersion will not be measurably affected. The claimed exceptional color fidelity of the Apo-Lanthar is of course made obsolete by this discoloration, giving color slides a warm cast; however, it may be advantageous for black and white, acting as a light yellow filter.

Note that the discoloration can be bleached by exposure to UV for several weeks, e.g. from a “black light” bulb. When doing this, one should remember that UV is harmful for the eyes and take the necessary precautions. The radioactivity of the lens is not high, but measurable: I measured 16μSv/h (Micro-Sievert per hour) a few mm from the front lens of a 15cm Apo-Lanthar, 27 μSv/h for the 21cm version, and 35μS/h for the 30cm one. For comparison, the natural background radiation at sea level is of the order of 0.1-0.2μSv/h, the radiation level in a plane at 30,000ft between 2 and 5μSv/h. It is probably not a good idea to carry an Apo-Lanthar in the pocket for a prolonged time, store it under the bed, or on top of a box of film for several weeks, but otherwise no harm will be done. Note that possession of such lenses is legal in the US - and in most other parts of the world too, I assume (compare [14]). The “Lens Collectors Vademecum” [5] claims that Voigtländer changed the formulation to a non-radioactive glass around 1956, but this is not true. An Apo-Lanthar from January 1964 (serial number 6442XXX) that I measured is still radioactive. A lens made in August 1966 (serial no. 6939XXX) did not show any radioactivity [15], so they apparently switched the production in those two years. Since the production numbers were much lower in their last years, most Apo-Lanthars will be radioactive, and only a few are not.

-With respect to performance, my personal experience is that in terms of resolution and contrast the Apo-Lanthar is in general one stop better than the Heliar at large apertures; that is, an Apo-Lanthar at f/5.6 is as good as a Heliar of the same focal length at f/8. The difference is reduced when stopping down, and at f/22 both lenses perform about the same. For out of focus areas it has the same pleasing characteristics as the Heliar, which means that is well suited for pictures with selective focus at wide apertures.

Based on their exceptional performance (in the 1950’s) and their original high price, as well as their rareness,

Apo-Lanthars have unfortunately become something of a cult item for collectors. Used prices are often as high or higher than a new modern lens of the same focal length, or a factor of 4-5 higher than a comparable Heliar.

Whether or not the performance of an Apo-Lanthar is worth the asking price, can only be decided individually.



See notes in bold.
Bernice

[Corran]

Regarding the radiation damage - most of the Aero Ektar lenses I have had were stained quite badly. The glass looked like weak tea. On my APO Lanthars, the staining is only noticeable if you look through the lens at a white object. It's very slight - not even to the extent of an 81a filter. It's more like some old Nikon L39 filters I have. Just a hint of warmth. I like those filters - so the only issue I can think of is if I was shooting color with the Lanthar alongside other lenses where I needed/wanted the color to stay constant - a rare or non-existent need for me.

Perhaps age is an issue and the Lanthars will become tea-colored in a few more decades. Who knows. Also "perfect" color reproduction is also not nearly as important for LF photographers today as it would have been back when commercial work was common, though again, the person I bought my 21cm from used it exclusively for that.

[Bernice Loui]

"About 1925, Voigtlander decided to tweak the Dynar design and created an f/3.5 lens with 50 degrees of coverage. This time, Voigtlander decided to go back to calling it a Heliar rather than continuing with the less popular "Dynar" name. Again, this made good commercial sense as the Heliar brand name had garnered a reputation of "prestige and mystique," according to the Lens Collectors Vade Mecum. Aside from its actual optical qualities,

-part of the Heliar's lore is related to Japanese Emperor Hirohito, who is claimed to have so admired the Heliar lens, that he would only allow his picture to be taken with a Heliar." Or part of why Heilar as a brand moniker became coveted in Asia. There is a wide angle "Heilar" for 35mm made by Cosina Voigtländer, nothing to do with the original Heilar design, they licensed using the Heilar name as it has market value specially in Asia.

https://www.antiquecameras.net/heliarlenses.html


Over the decades of tinkering with APO Lanthar & Heilar, this was the only keeper, 210mm f3.5 appear to be coated by Burke & James aka Lens Bank. Purchased decades ago at the local Foto swap for $30 or so.
190543

Not use this lens in decades, not had the interest or motivation to use it.



Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Back in them days of testing lenses to discover which ones to keep, which ones to pass on lens testing was done on color transparency film evaluated for color neutrality, contrast rendition, overall image quality. Few of the "hot" lenses (APO Lanthar, Repo-Claron and....) had a color cast. These were automatically passed on due to color rendition issues. Any keepers had to be as color neutral as possible, via gray card testing and color densitometer testing by the E6 lab. This was a free service by The New Lab back in the day. There was little reason to not take advantage of this.


Bernice



Who knows. Also "perfect" color reproduction is also not nearly as important for LF photographers today as it would have been back when commercial work was common, though again, the person I bought my 21cm from used it exclusively for that.

[Corran]

These were automatically passed on due to color rendition issues.

But why? Let's assume we aren't shooting catalog images.

I think you would agree that if one normally shoots with a weak warming filter, and that this matches their intended color vision, they would instead prefer the result?

Yesterday I shot a product shot with hot lights for a friend. On digital, but regardless, a simple color checker and 2-second grey balance in PS and the colors were back to perfect despite the less-than-perfect white balance from said lights + digital camera settings.

[Bernice Loui]

Lenses were used with 5x7 Fuji Astia to make Cibachrome prints no larger than 4x enlargement. Thy visual demands of color neutrality and fidelity demanded only the very best, anything less was not acceptable. This was common back in the day. More than a few working photographers purchased color matched lens sets partly for this reason.

Being armed with a full set of CC filters to adjust color as needed was quite common back then. Getting a color neutral, properly exposed color transparency to the printer made them happier and they got to know which customers were GOOD and which ones were a pain in thy toosh to make a OK print from their color transparencies.

Oh, cc gels were used on strobes to help bring them into color correction as needed. There was also a problem of strobe color temperature changing with power settings. The common solution was to apply a Minolta flash color temperature meter, test the strobes at various power levels and apply CC filters as needed to bring in the color to neutral as reasonable.

Today, it is mere legacy as those prints are not really possible at all today.

As for color catalog work, that was mostly mass production. The scan-print house could make up for color enough to allow for less than ideal color transparencies, but they were NOT happy about doing this. Color transparencies for catalog work often involved many hundred sheets of 4x5 film. This is where a Sinar P, DB lenses, Digital shutter, product table and powerful strobes came into their own. Second part of this was the ability of the E6 processing house where many thousands sheets of E6 film was processed daily. There was often pre-holiday crush for catalog work and the E6 processing labs were totally backed up.


Bernice



But why? Let's assume we aren't shooting catalog images.

I think you would agree that if one normally shoots with a weak warming filter, and that this matches their intended color vision, they would instead prefer the result?

Yesterday I shot a product shot with hot lights for a friend. On digital, but regardless, a simple color checker and 2-second grey balance in PS and the colors were back to perfect despite the less-than-perfect white balance from said lights + digital camera settings.

[Corran]

Right. What I'm asking Bernice is why anyone should care today about the slight warm cast - when we can correct it if we want in post (scanning) and/or may prefer the look for landscape?

Most of my color images are shot with a slight warming filter or edited to be slightly warmer than neutral in post. The Lanthars need no filter or editing.

[Bernice Loui]

That is how much photography has changed today. IMO, the overall quality of images today is not as good as it once was. To appreciate this is to have a good long look at some of the best work from that era.

Times have changed, my personal demands and expectations for quality of work, quality of images has not... to the degree achieving what once was is not possible any more. This became the transition and interest in traditional Silver B & W today.


:)
Bernice


Right. What I'm asking Bernice is why anyone should care today about the slight warm cast - when we can correct it if we want in post (scanning) and/or may prefer the look for landscape?

Most of my color images are shot with a slight warming filter or edited to be slightly warmer than neutral in post. The Lanthars need no filter or editing.

[Corran]

A lot I would vehemently disagree and debate with that statement but not the thread to do so, so I'll leave it at that.

[Bernice Loui]

Zero to debate as this is not a contest, not a competition or anything of that sort. There are a few Dinosaurs from that era that still remember what those images were much about. Nothing more, nothing less than that.

More an illustration of how much color image production has changed today.
This is now gone FAR off topic, but in ways related to this topic.

Maybe one day, have a pile of Kodak Demo color transparencies that was used for marketing demos to compare Kodak to various other brands of color transparency films. These were from the regional Kodak office when they closed. Only way to appreciate these is to see them in real life on a GOOD light table. All are on sheet film.



Bernice






A lot I would vehemently disagree and debate with that statement but not the thread to do so, so I'll leave it at that.

[Pere Casals]

Voigtländer made a long trip. Founded in 1756 (!!!) and pioneering photography since 1840.

IMHO the main subject is the Heliar design, a lens manufactured during 70 years ! Perhaps the delicate OOF rendering it's the most prominent feature this design delivers.

My view is that over the years Voigtländer made two remarkable Super-Heliars. One is APO Lantar, that added extreme optical performance for its era, performing at similar level than modern glass while mantaining the bokeh.

The other case is the Universal-Heliar, that instead it added a ring for controlled diffusion.

Not extrange that both lenses are remarkable collectibles, this is a well deserved condition in both cases, sadly this is bad for photographers.

IMHO a question is if the APO Lanthar has a unique footprint that makes the photograph alone or if we can do the same by other means.

No question that the APO Lanthar is a unique glass deserving veneration, but my view is that an skilled photographer may do very similar things with an Heliar or a Tessar.

The remarkable hot point of APO Lanthar is delivering a counterpoint between an extra subject's sharpness and an extra smooth background, the "Duftige Schärfe", but this is not done automaticly by the lens, it requires a photographer in command.

If wanting a "Duftige Schärfe" and not having an APO Lanthar we still require a glass with extraordinary bokeh for the OOF, but the sharp share in the "Duftige Schärfe" (IMHO) it's more related to the technique (light! for example) than to the peak optical performance of the glass, simply because LF photography is sharp by definition, if the photographer in command knows what to do.

Still, having an APO Lanthar is an extraordinary resource...

[LabRat]

Right. What I'm asking Bernice is why anyone should care today about the slight warm cast - when we can correct it if we want in post (scanning) and/or may prefer the look for landscape?

Most of my color images are shot with a slight warming filter or edited to be slightly warmer than neutral in post. The Lanthars need no filter or editing.

True, we have new tools now, but this does not negate the need to get thing right from the get-go... And consider that all work will not go through the digital domain, and the photographer, client, art director, lab, printer, curator, gallery owner etc expects to see a perfect chrome on the lightbox... Because we know if you try to fix color in the process, it will usually cause a color crossover somewhere down the line, so photographers had to be very experienced to avoid these traps, or suffer later... :-(

Color casts are easy to spot, and LF color chromes always had a slim latitude for exposure/processing/color balance and printing, so all had to be perfect... Other things creep in like pure whites can leave a cast when flashed with high UV strobes, or chromes don't match when different lenses were used etc... That's why good photographers made good money back then because they can consistently get good print ready materials...

Does this help the landscape or other worker??? Yes, as materials are expensive now, and getting it right will make shooting LF/ULF worthwhile without burning your budget in an ashtray, and get results where you will very likely will not have the opportunity to replicate again...

And no, this is not just about studio photography, but any situation you might encounter... View cameras do not have AWB, you have to know what to do and what to avoid...

Steve K

[Ken Lee]

Ken,

I have read somewhere that Apo-Lanthar lenses in 105mm, 150mm, 210mm and 300mm are very different from the lens tested in your link.

Yes - sorry my post # 21 below (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?151926-Advice-on-Apo-Lanthars-needed&p=1496090&viewfull=1#post1496090) was probably too long. Perhaps this was easy to miss (emphasis added):

"Cosina bought the venerable Voigtlander name and out of reverence for the original company brands their new offerings with Heliar, Lanthar etc. and while they are Heliars and Lanthars in name only, many of them are best-in-class."

[Corran]

Steve, as you know the sun doesn't stay at 5500K throughout the day. The fact that warming filters exist and are used every day by landscape shooters negates all that. The idea that the hint if warmth would matter whatsoever in most situations today is slim to nil.

[Dan Fromm]

Perhaps I've misunderstood your brief statement, but the review to which I linked, consists of many pages of side-by-side comparisons and sample images at various apertures. The testers explore a variety of features like blur rendition, coma, flare, etc. It would be helpful if you could share some links to studies of LF Lanthar lenses of equal depth and breadth.

If you're suggesting something else, could you explain further please ?

Apo-Lanthar is a trade name. Tests of modern Apo-Lanthars give us no information about heliar-type Apo-Lanthars' performance. Using them as a reference is a joke in poor taste and not like your usual posts.

[Ken Lee]

Apo-Lanthar is a trade name. Tests of modern Apo-Lanthars give us no information about heliar-type Apo-Lanthars' performance. Using them as a reference is a joke in poor taste and not like your usual posts.

Yes - sorry my post # 21 below (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?151926-Advice-on-Apo-Lanthars-needed&p=1496090&viewfull=1#post1496090) was probably too long. Perhaps this was easy to miss (emphasis added):

"Cosina bought the venerable Voigtlander name and out of reverence for the original company brands their new offerings with Heliar, Lanthar etc. and while they are Heliars and Lanthars in name only, many of them are best-in-class."

[Bob Salomon]

Yes - sorry my post # 21 below (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?151926-Advice-on-Apo-Lanthars-needed&p=1496090&viewfull=1#post1496090) was probably too long. Perhaps this was easy to miss (emphasis added):

"Cosina bought the venerable Voigtlander name and out of reverence for the original company brands their new offerings with Heliar, Lanthar etc. and while they are Heliars and Lanthars in name only, many of them are best-in-class."

Most consumers of Cosina products today have no idea of what Voigtlander or Zeiss Ikon Voigtlander made or was. The value of the old trade names in today’s market is questionable.

[Bernice Loui]

Sun's color temperature varies a whole LOT, not just by time of day, by location, by altitude, by atmospheric conditions and...
This is why Minolta Color Meters came into being. They worked for strobes as well as continuous light. Armed with a stack of CC filters and tested color transparency film is one of the means to control color post process.

Color cast is easy to see by observing residual color in white, black, gray. This is also why GOOD gray cards and gray scale test strips are not easy to make and not cheap.

Know back in those days, LF landscape photographers were a lot less common. The vast majority of LF image makers and color transparency film burners were folks doing color commercial work that is usually published. Since that time, the users of LF have changed. That once vast majority of LF color commercial work has been replaced by outdoor landscape and similar image makers with very different needs and very different ideas-beliefs of what LF is about. This is also why field LF cameras have survived with a greater market value than monorail LF cameras.

Add to this the easy availably of film scanners and digital alterations making a recipe for, "Not a problem, I'll fix it in Foto Shop." This appears to apply to the majority of digital post process image making. IMO, this promotes lazy and much relaxed discipline to strive for an ideal color transparency or similar foundation color image source. If one were to strive for best possible color images, it begins with the very best possible foundation color source material, then it can be worked with to produce the image in mind rather than struggling post process to achieve a some what acceptable image result. This means using the very best tools and materials from the very start with creative skill equal or better than those image making tools.

For those curious, this is why the preference for Kodak Commercial and similar Ektars and Goerz APO Artars for color transparency work. This is due to their lower image contrast and neutral color rendition. When paired with Fuji Astia properly exposed and properly processed, the resulting color transparency has accurate color and modest contrast which makes the Cibachrome-Ilfordchrome printer's job that much easier. This is something printers really appreciated back then. Add to this the willingness to add contrast masking if they believe it would improve the print result.


This discussion has now tied with the discussion about "Pulling Slide Film to Increase Its Dynamic Range"
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?151855-Pulling-Slide-Film-to-Increase-Its-Dynamic-Range


Bernice
Who today does about zero color LF images.





Steve, as you know the sun doesn't stay at 5500K throughout the day. The fact that warming filters exist and are used every day by landscape shooters negates all that. The idea that the hint if warmth would matter whatsoever in most situations today is slim to nil.

[Corran]

I would have thought that with all the claims of individual evaluation and consideration that you would agree with my assertion of a preference, but instead it's "laziness." Pejoratives aside, can you name any current landscapists who regularly use CC filters to get what you claim as 'accurate color?' Ben Horne or anyone like that? Or are they using the materials and filters that best match their color vision?

[Bernice Loui]

Know the rules before breaking all the rules.

If there is no fixed point of reference, how does one know or control alterations to meet their individual expression?
This is as much science-technology-skill of craft as it is art and creativity. They both must be shared and balanced to achieve a result goal n mind.


Bernice




I would have thought that with all the claims of individual evaluation and consideration that you would agree with my assertion of a preference, but instead it's "laziness." Pejoratives aside, can you name any current landscapists who regularly use CC filters to get what you claim as 'accurate color?' Ben Horne or anyone like that? Or are they using the materials and filters that best match their color vision?

[Corran]

okay

[Bernice Loui]

Understand where I'm coming from and why?

Story was once told by a music teach and student. The music student was to practice your scales, practice your study pieces, practice your performance pieces hours upon hours each day. Music teach will help guide you in an effort to improve your technique and foundational musical instrument skills. One day the music teacher tells the student, time has come for me to remove all of myself from your music lessons and now is the time to apply all the foundational work you have done to create your individual interpretation of performance musical pieces.

Much effort and struggle is put in by any individual to gain the basic skills, knowledge, tools and all related before they gain the ability to use their chosen device as a tool of creative expression. There are no short cuts, or "easy-aka Lazy" ways to achieve this. It takes dedication, discipline, passion and the ability to totally screw-up and learn from what went wrong to gain the foundational pieces to achieve the ability to use their chosen device as a means of creative expression.


Bernice



okay

[Corran]

No, and not interested. You didn't answer my question either. It doesn't matter, more important things to do and this has gotten tiresome.

[Bernice Loui]

Your question was answered (at nauseam), the answer might not have been as expected.


Bernice



No, and not interested. You didn't answer my question either. It doesn't matter, more important things to do and this has gotten tiresome.

[interneg]

If you're going to do a significant amount of post exposure colour alteration to the image, why not start with a negative film & exploit the significant inherent advantages of the neg/pos process? You won't lose the inherent colour rendering of particular lenses if your process is halfway decent.

[Pere Casals]

the inherent colour rendering of particular lenses

With color film, IMHO in most cases any difference between lenses can be easily compensate with a mild filter. Main difference i've found between lenses is flare, depending on

> single vs multiple coating

> narrow circle or very big circle illuminating bellows inside, specially with compressed bellows

and this can be adjusted with a compendium shade or (in some shots) by aligning more or less a Pol filter with in the cross direcction.

The Pol effect it's not the same than the work made by the MC coatings, because different areas in the scene can be more or less polarized, blue sky for example, but it can be close.

It should be noted that the lack of saturation in old photographs comes more from the ancient films nature, and sometimes from the aging of the materials.

Another important factor is that APO condition of a lens is not related to a better general color neutrality, but to a better sharpness (specially in the corners) from a lower dispersion provocating smaller fringes.

There is the poor's man APO, this is a strong color filter (say a yellow one) that narrows a lot the light spectrum,

a deep (and spectrally narrow) filter removes chromatic aberration better than best APO lens !

Anyway an APO glass may have a superior design/manufacturing.

Speaking on the APO Lanthar, it's amazing how sharp those old lenses are, my guess is that this came more from the top notch quality market segmentation than from the rare earth middle element. It would be interesting to see if a substitution of the middle La element by a cemented group of 2 or 3 elements it would end in the same.

[Bob Salomon]

With color film, IMHO in most cases any difference between lenses can be easily compensate with a mild filter. Main difference i've found between lenses is flare, depending on

> single vs multiple coating

> narrow circle or very big circle illuminating bellows inside, specially with compressed bellows

and this can be adjusted with a compendium shade or (in some shots) by aligning more or less a Pol filter with in the cross direcction.

The Pol effect it's not the same than the work made by the MC coatings, because different areas in the scene can be more or less polarized, blue sky for example, but it can be close.

It should be noted that the lack of saturation in old photographs comes more from the ancient films nature, and sometimes from the aging of the materials.

Another important factor is that APO condition of a lens is not related to a better general color neutrality, but to a better sharpness (specially in the corners) from a lower dispersion provocating smaller fringes.

There is the poor's man APO, this is a strong color filter (say a yellow one) that narrows a lot the light spectrum,

a deep (and spectrally narrow) filter removes chromatic aberration better than best APO lens !

Anyway an APO glass may have a superior design/manufacturing.

Speaking on the APO Lanthar, it's amazing how sharp those old lenses are, my guess is that this came more from the top notch quality market segmentation than from the rare earth middle element. It would be interesting to see if a substitution of the middle La element by a cemented group of 2 or 3 elements it would end in the same.

Depending on the filter it might be:

1 not coated and possibly two glass plates held together by a colored substance.
2 single coated possibly on one side only.
3 single coated on both sides.
4 multi coated.

1, 2 and 3 can all be flare prone and, depending on quality, may not be optically flat.

[Pere Casals]

Bob, I agree, using bad filters is to generate flare, specially if lens is not MC !

Or if we stack bad filters...

Anyway today many affordable filters are not bad at all, still top quality ones cannot be cheap.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I agree, using bad filters is to generate flare, specially if lens is not MC !

Or if we stack bad filters...

Anyway today many affordable filters are not bad at all, still top quality ones cannot be cheap.

“Not bad at all” means that they can effect optical quality and is no excuse not to use the best filters possible if you need a filter!

[Pere Casals]

“Not bad at all” means that they can effect optical quality and is no excuse not to use the best filters possible if you need a filter!

Bob, this depends on the pocket depth... There are many benchmarks around showing flare, etc in different price segments. If having a tight budged then one should understand what cost/performance choices are out there, and what practical impact the choice has for the particular situations each photographer face. Of course a Pro should consider best quality for the filters, no doubt.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, this depends on the pocket depth... There are many benchmarks around showing flare, etc in different price segments. If having a tight budged then one should understand what cost/performance choices are out there, and what practical impact the choice has for the particular situations each photographer face. Of course a Pro should consider best quality for the filters, no doubt.

If you are shooting LF the cost of a quality filter should not be an issue.
After all, you buy the filter once, unless you are careless, but you are always buying film, lenses, bodies, etc.

[interneg]

With color film, IMHO in most cases any difference between lenses can be easily compensate with a mild filter. Main difference i've found between lenses is flare, depending on


It's not that simple. If it was, why would cinema rental houses offer such a wide selection of optics, especially when it would be well within the abilities of Panavision etc to offer filters of the sort you describe?

[Pere Casals]

It's not that simple. If it was, why would cinema rental houses offer such a wide selection of optics, especially when it would be well within the abilities of Panavision etc to offer filters of the sort you describe?

In a movie shooting they have a legion of colorists/illumination staff and they nail the job. Lens spectral transmission is very continuous and by filtering a bit the illumination or the lens they have total control.

There are many flavours in the cinematography glass, but I'd say that a cinematographer is concerned by other factors than the spectral transmission, like OOF rendition or the through focus MTF.

http://cinematechnic.com/optics/super-baltar

[interneg]

In a movie shooting they have a legion of colorists/illumination staff and they nail the job. Lens spectral transmission is very continuous and by filtering a bit the illumination or the lens they have total control.

There are many flavours in the cinematography glass, but I'd say that a cinematographer is concerned by other factors than the spectral transmission, like OOF rendition or the through focus MTF.

http://cinematechnic.com/optics/super-baltar

It might help your cause if you actually read what you linked to. Specifically the bit about the differences with the Kowa lenses. It matters rather a lot if you're choosing which mood you want to convey, or how much you hate your focus puller. And I should add that it's the overall 'look' of an optic in real world testing (including colour rendering) that drives choice in TV & cinema, not getting all worked up into a hyperactive lather by the spec sheet. Budget & timescales are often far bigger deciding factors however.

If specific optical behaviour matters to you, try the lens & see if it works for you in the circumstances you want to use it in. If it does, keep it, if doesn't, sell it. That's about all there is to it.