PDA

View Full Version : Linhof Apo-Lanthar 210mm - Duftige Schärfe "fluffy sharpness" - Open Aperture Test



Lockwod
23-Jul-2019, 08:53
Posting this for reference and thoughts - Found some threads and talk here about Linhof Apo-Lanthars and their Duftige Schärfe "fluffy sharpness" – I wondered do they have something different that makes them desirable against other lenses and had the opportunity to get one?

I acquired a Linhof version Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar 210mm mounted in a Compound shutter, which worried me at first because of age and then realised that its multi blade aperture is potentially a big advantage to the look of the results and its probably best in this combination - its actually functions pretty well still. Its a Linhof version so has bigger 60mm diameter to the front - needs slip on filters as has no thread, but found a solution in the Canon S60 60mm slip on hoods which take a 58mm filter slipped inside them and seem appropriate for the focal length (thought it may help any flair as well given the probable single coating). Definitely a radioactive one as it has a strong tea colour stain to the front element group.

So my opinion - definately slightly soft glow with some inside sharpness (Duftige Schärfe) at open aperture when really enlarged (would probably sharpen up stopped down a bit more) but wanted to see what the maximum bokeh/focus transition looked like. There is a 'fluffyness' or haze/flair to small highlight details of hair - I have seen this before shooting wide open on older lenses such as the Nikon AI 35mm f1.4 (again would probably go when stopped down), but its not unpleasant. It looks to make nice images, probably less clinical than modern lenses and has a smoothness to the tone and rendering which looks to work well with portraits.

How does this compare to Heliars or Tessar types etc (I only have plasmats and this) for portraits?

Peter De Smidt
23-Jul-2019, 09:08
It's difficult making useful generalizations, since these lenses have been made for a very long time, and there are myriad variations. For example, a Heliar in a shutter with a very round aperture, perhaps a waterhouse stop, might render background differently than one in a modern shutter, where the aperture isn't round. So apertures, coatings, flare properties of the mount....all these apply, and then there's the different uses. Printing characteristics are strongly affected by printing magnification, and lighting has a huge effect, such as hard/soft, contrasty/low contrast..... In general, uncoated lenses have more flare. The big jump was from no coating to single coating. There's a much smaller jump from single coated lenses to multi-coated ones. Older lenses, especially portrait ones, were often optimized for wider apertures than more modern LF lenses, as the later were predominantly used in commercial studios where depth of field was more important than out-of-focus rendering. Some people seem to hate on Plasmats for portraits, but I've seen some terrific portraits made with them. People like to feel that they have the secret knowledge. "If only that portrait had been made with a Heliar! Then it would be sublime. Since it was taken with a plasmat, it should be thrown out." I suspect that most of this stuff is delusional, the more elaborate and Byzantine the theoretical justification, the more likely to be a load of hooey. This is not to say that there aren't differences, but so many seem to blow them out of proportion.

Corran
23-Jul-2019, 09:15
So my opinion - it is very slightly soft at open aperture when really enlarged (would probably sharpen up stopped down a bit more) but wanted to see what the maximum bokeh/focus transition looked like. There is a 'fluffyness' or haze/flair to small highlight details of hair - I have seen this before shooting wide open on older lenses such as the Nikon AI 35mm f1.4 (again would probably go when stopped down), but its not unpleasant. It looks to make nice images, probably less clinical than modern lenses and has a smoothness to the tone and rendering which looks to work well with portraits.

I believe that's mostly spherical aberration.

Lucky find on the 21cm. It gets discussed here occasionally. I have one, haven't used it in a while but I need to cut a lens board for my new 5x7 and put it on there - would probably be beautiful.

The APO Lanthars have a certain quality to them. I've said it in the past, but they really have open shadows compared to other lenses, vintage or modern, and a certain soft-but-sharp quality (I mean at normal apertures, not necessarily wide-open). Most here will say they are no better than anything else so are vastly overpriced. My opinion is that they seem to bridge the gap between the classic and modern look lenses. I mean, I suppose if a Heliar and APO Symmar had a baby, it'd be a Lanthar.

Agree with Peter too.

Pere Casals
24-Jul-2019, 04:15
the scan is not sharp, I guess.

Inspect the negative with a x20 magnifier, or make a contact copy and also apply the magnifier. Or make a good scan.

To judge the lens I'd use TMX, f/11 and a more dirct illumination.

You also may attach a DSLR in the view camera back, just fix a macro extension ring in a lens board and place that in the back of a monorail, substituting the graflock.


An APO Lanthar is an exquisite lens, it is a Super-Heliar. While it has the same supreme bokeh Heliars sport at the same time these are very sharp lenses for their era, not worse than modern plasmats in practice. Chris Pérez measured peak 67Lp/mm performance at f/16-22, not bad for a 1960s glass, many modern LF lenses don't reach that.


You may expect similar practical image quality than with modern plasmats but with an smoother Out Of Focus. APO Lanthars are single coated, you know that this also has an impact depending on the scene, good for portraiture, for landscape it may require a shade.


The Compund is a very reliable shutter, but don't try to cock it in B/T positions, if you make force you brake it. Also aperture iris is made of paper, so immersing the shutter in ether (DIY shutter repair) will kill the diafragm.


hmmm, nice glass, if one loves bokeh.

Bob Salomon
24-Jul-2019, 04:50
the scan is not sharp.


Inspect the negative with a x20 magnifier, or make a contact copy and also apply the magnifier. Or make a good scan.


You also may attach a DSLR in the view camera back, just fix a macro extension ring in a lens board and place that in the back of a monorail, substituting the graflock.


An APO Lanthar is an exquisite lens, it is a Super-Heliar. While it has the same supreme bokeh Heliars sport at the same time these are very sharp lenses for their era, not worse than modern plasmats in practice. Chris Pérez measured peak 67Lp/mm performance at f/16-22, not bad for a 1960s glass, many modern LF lenses don't reach that.


You may expect similar practical image quality than with modern plasmats but with an smoother Out Of Focus. APO Lanthars are single coated, you know that this also has an impact depending on the scene, good for portraiture, for landscape it may require a shade.


The Compund is a very reliable shutter, but don't try to cock it in B/T positions, if you make force you brake it. Also aperture iris is made of paper, so immersing the shutter in ether (DIY shutter repair) will kill the diafragm.


hmmm, nice glass, if one loves bokeh.

Chris must have been using the good loupe and tested it in the morning, after breakfast, while his eyes weren’t tired! But his test does not tell you anything other then how it performs when shooting newspapers mounted on a board. Very few here do that.

Pere Casals
24-Jul-2019, 05:13
Chris must have been using the good loupe and tested it in the morning, after breakfast, while his eyes weren’t tired! But his test does not tell you anything other then how it performs when shooting newspapers mounted on a board. Very few here do that.

Bob, those APO Lanthars are sharp...

See 150mm Voigtländer Lanthar versus Sironar-S section : https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

"At f5.6, the Lanthar and the Sironar-S are equally sharp. Stopped further down, the Lanthar is very sharp too, although a little less than the Sironar-S. The Lanthar is at f5.6 less contrasty than the Sironar-S (but almost equal at smaller apertures), and it features superior bokeh."

A good review, IMHO.

Bob Salomon
24-Jul-2019, 05:19
Bob, those APO Lanthars are sharp...

See 150mm Voigtländer Lanthar versus Sironar-S section : https://www.largeformatphotography.info/portrait-lenses/

"At f5.6, the Lanthar and the Sironar-S are equally sharp. Stopped further down, the Lanthar is very sharp too, although a little less than the Sironar-S. The Lanthar is at f5.6 less contrasty than the Sironar-S (but almost equal at smaller apertures), and it features superior bokeh."

A good review, IMHO.

Especially since the Apo Sironar S hits optimal performance at 22 and Rodenstock never claimed how performed at 5.6. Don’t believe Voightander did either, but it is more then 40 years since we were the Zeiss Ikon Voightlander distributor.

Pere Casals
24-Jul-2019, 05:37
Especially since the Apo Sironar S hits optimal performance at 22 and Rodenstock never claimed how performed at 5.6. Don’t believe Voightander did either, but it is more then 40 years since we were the Zeiss Ikon Voightlander distributor.

Bob, you have been in many wars :)

I guess that by then the LF APO Lanthar had to be discontinued...

Anyway the APO Lanthar's sweet bokeh surrounding a sharp subject and fine textures... this is an strong point !

Greg
24-Jul-2019, 07:09
Previously the OP on a thread about Apo-Lanthars
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?151926-Advice-on-Apo-Lanthars-needed&highlight=apo+lanthar

also another thread at
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?145941-Which-210mm-F5-6-for-portraits&highlight=APO+lanthar%2C+kodak+ektar

So finally was able to get on trial/loan with potential to buy a 210 Apo-Lanthar. Shot some B&W landscapes side by side with a 210mm Nikkor W and a 210 G-Claron (non-Dagor) at f/32. Apo-Lanthar had the least contrast. G-Claron was the sharpest but not by enough to matter to me. In the end stuck with the Nikkor. I don't shoot portraits, so probably not a good comparison for portrait a photographer. Possibly the Apo-Lanthar would excel for shooting portraits?

Pere Casals
24-Jul-2019, 07:59
Possibly the Apo-Lanthar would excel for shooting portraits?

IMHO it excels when wanting the kind of defocus smoothness the Apo-Lanthar delivers, for portraiture or for other subjects. If a photographer usually places all scene in focus then this won't be seen much.

Jim Noel
24-Jul-2019, 10:21
It is hard to go wrong with the Nikkor.

Corran
24-Jul-2019, 11:21
Apo-Lanthar had the least contrast.

Good for chromes. I've shot a few and was happy with the results, but didn't expressly shoot other lenses side-by-side to see the differences explicitly.

Lockwod
24-Jul-2019, 13:35
Sorry, this wasn't intended to create arguments as such, its just a simple observation and is not meant to be a scientific test, just a having acquired one 'what do I think of it at open aperture and does it look interesting test' - one shot and would others find it interesting or useful

Its a limited real world test but only for me, my camera ( NAGAOKA 4x5 ), my film, processing and scanning technique. I don't doubt another copy of the lens may perform better or worse given the same or different circumstances/equipment but this gives me an idea of how this one performs and if I use it in the same way what will I get. Just to note, condition wise it does have some surface scratches, nothing really horrible, but has an unbelievable amount of air bubbles in the glass - more than you would be bothered to count, but Linhof clearly found no issues with this and maybe this adds something else.

I also have a Sinaron and a G-Claron 210mm so for just a standard shot both of these would perform pretty well and I use each for different things, but the Lanthar has f4.5 (and a reputation) so I wanted to see for me what difference this made. I appreciate the scanning equipment is pretty limited, but in my opinion it is a fairly sharp scan given these limitations and what you are seeing is mostly the lens performance under the conditions - see below 1:1 scratches on the neg from my clumsy handling (it is just a test):

193622

Link to full res screen grab - http://dglockwood.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Untitled-1.jpg

Ultimately I like the look it has and the sharpness is fine for what I would use it for - but in conclusion, would I buy one for the price they fetch having tried this - no, but would I keep this one rather than sell it given it cost me nothing and it does have something about it - yes

Pere Casals
24-Jul-2019, 15:47
the look

hmmm, those defocus discs show a very sweet bokeh.

For sharpness yo may have to stop the lens to around f/11 or 16, and defocus a farther background, IMHO this is the way to obtain the Duftige Schärfe, if you don't stop a bit you won't get the very sharp subject, and background has to be far enough to be OOF at that aperture.

Also illumination can be more suitable for volume depiction, well defined volumes with a sweet background should be a beutiful combination. Of course Duftige Schärfe + Scheimflug should be great.

Corran
24-Jul-2019, 16:00
APO Lanthars are sharp much sooner than f/11.

My 15cm Lanthar is noticeably sharper than my 21cm though, so that may show variability.

f/5.6 or f/8 is a wonderful aperture range to use for sharp images with nice large out of focus areas.

I ordered a hole saw today, 65mm, to cut a lens board for my 5x7 to use the 21cm APO Lanthar. Another day, another project. I shot my wedding formals with the 15cm and 21cm APO Lanthars on 4x5.

Here is a shot I took some years ago of a family I met while out at a WMA. She was learning how to use a new DSLR. I offered to take their photo, mostly because I wanted to see the 21cm APO Lanthar perform. I think it was f/8:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/grandbay-2928ss.jpg

Greg
24-Jul-2019, 16:04
Before my trial/loan with potential to buy a 210 Apo-Lanthar, found that the only paper literature that I had on Apo Lanthars was on page 17 in my vintage TECHNIKA catalog. Cross sections of the Heliar and the Apo Lanthar lenses in the catalog look to be identical. Makes sense that an Apo Lanthar would be great for portraiture, since the Heliar is "particularly suitable for modern portrait ... photography." Anyways, curious as to what makes a Heliar a Heliar and an Apo Lanthar an Apo Lanthat since, per the Linhof's illustration, both optics seem to be the same. Figure that there must be simple answer out there.

Pere Casals
24-Jul-2019, 16:29
curious as to what makes a Heliar a Heliar and an Apo Lanthar an Apo Lanthat since, per the Linhof's illustration, both optics seem to be the same.

Apo Lanthar has then front element made from lanthanum crown glass. This glass allowed a better correction of chromatic aberration. That kind of glass was initially used by Kodak for their Aero-Ektar aerial lenses in WWII, after war many manufacturer used it.

So we have a super-heliar, this is divine heliar bokeh in a very sharp lens.

The other super-heliar is the universal heliar, in another sense.





APO Lanthars are sharp much sooner than f/11.

True, at f/11 it's totally sharp, even better than at f/16, wich speaks about how good it is this glass.

Peter De Smidt
24-Jul-2019, 18:25
Good portrait, Bryan.

Corran
24-Jul-2019, 18:34
Thanks Peter. Some may notice their shoes are a bit out of focus. Perils of using such a big and heavy lens on my little Chamonix, not to mention the limited DOF at those apertures - the front standard was a bit out of alignment, tilted forward. Since then I've only ever used the 21cm on my Linhof 4x5.

DrTang
31-Jul-2019, 08:01
I always understood that Apo Lanthars were color corrected Heliars … so the soft -sharp focus thing makes sense.. I've found shooting B&W with my heliars, the light/dark transitions unlike other lenses in their smoothness.. even when stopped down.. so it's not surprising that they are highly sought after (if one shoots color..if not, then it's for the 'look what I got' factor - as a Heliar will do just the same with B&W)

I remember when I first started selling at camera shows years and years ago, the Japanese buyers would come around and the only English they knew was 'apo lanthar'.. never had one.. but right then I thought...hmmmm… what's the deal?

Bob Salomon
31-Jul-2019, 08:04
I always understood that Apo Lanthars were color corrected Heliars … so the soft -sharp focus thing makes sense.. I've found shooting B&W with my heliars, the light/dark transitions unlike other lenses in their smoothness.. even when stopped down.. so it's not surprising that they are highly sought after (if one shoots color..if not, then it's for the 'look what I got' factor - as a Heliar will do just the same with B&W)

I remember when I first started selling at camera shows years and years ago, the Japanese buyers would come around and the only English they knew was 'apo lanthar'.. never had one.. but right then I thought...hmmmm… what's the deal?

Apo Lanthar sounds more German then English.

Bob Salomon
31-Jul-2019, 08:12
I always understood that Apo Lanthars were color corrected Heliars … so the soft -sharp focus thing makes sense.. I've found shooting B&W with my heliars, the light/dark transitions unlike other lenses in their smoothness.. even when stopped down.. so it's not surprising that they are highly sought after (if one shoots color..if not, then it's for the 'look what I got' factor - as a Heliar will do just the same with B&W)

I remember when I first started selling at camera shows years and years ago, the Japanese buyers would come around and the only English they knew was 'apo lanthar'.. never had one.. but right then I thought...hmmmm… what's the deal?

The old Brooks Camera main store in SF used to have a week long camera show every year in the store and reps from all of the camera and lens companies would work the show for them. Every day before the show opened to the public a few bus loads of Japanese would be admitted. Most did not speak English and none of us spoke Japanese. Once the doors opened they would make a beeline to the counters with a European product. They would point to specific Leicas, Rolleis or Blads and hold up wads of $100.00s. European product, new and used poured out at those sales!

Pere Casals
31-Jul-2019, 08:22
, the Japanese buyers would come around and the only English they knew was 'apo lanthar'.. never had one.. but right then I thought...hmmmm… what's the deal?


Japanese artists have a dozen adjectives to describe bokeh, some subtleties are very important for some but they are irrelevant for other people...

You tie a japanese artist to a chair in front of an image with bad bokeh and he has a 95% chance to start having seizures in just 10min. Seriously, in their aesthetic subculture bokeh nature is often very important.

Corran
31-Jul-2019, 10:02
Thank you Rick.


You tie a japanese artist to a chair in front of an image with bad bokeh and he has a 95% chance to start having seizures in just 10min. Seriously, in their aesthetic subculture bokeh nature is often very important.

Let me respond to this once more, because I think it needs addressing.

I will simply post a screenshot from a beautiful animated series called "Violet Evergarden." The OOF highlights are characterized by what some would call "bad" bokeh. This series was made by a Japanese studio (sadly, the one recently burned down in an arson attack). Opinions are varied and nuanced, when it comes to OOF rendering.

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/veb.jpg

Pere Casals
31-Jul-2019, 12:02
The OOF highlights are characterized by what some would call "bad" bokeh.

We have to consider that "bad bokeh" it is not the same than "bad aesthetics". One may want triotar soap "bad bokeh", it can be at the same time "great aesthetics" and "bad bokeh".


Bokeh is "smothness in the OOF", it is not related to the degree of defocus but in how smooth is that defocus. Bad bokeh is "bad smoothness" so it tells a harsh nature in the OOF.

I one likes smoothness or harshness in the OOF this is a YMMV, "bad bokeh" should be translated to "low smoothness" in the OOF.


Of course many portrait photographers want smoothness in the background to bring attention on the subject, as harshness in the OOF can be distracting. But one may want a "bad bokeh" for a great image, like with Aero Ektars.



This is (Tommy) Toshihiro Oshima by Urs Bernhard, I guess Urs made the kind of shot that it would please Tommy:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ursbernhard/3811100377/sizes/z/
193852

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/4907443653/in/photostream/

Tommy uses both good and bad bokeh for great images, it's not if bokeh (smoothness) is good or bad (high or low), it's the way he uses softness or harshness for a sound aesthetics. I try to learn specially from this photographer but of course also from other, me I like how some japanese photographers use defocus, I find they have a very refined sense of defocus nature.

It is also true that, in "general", japanese artists have a "general" preference for softness in the OOF, with many subtleties, but this is not a rule for all.

In particular the Heliars were/are very valued in Japan, and this is because they render a good/high smoothness in the OOF, or say good/high bokeh.


Here Ken Rockwell explains it very well what is "good" and "bad" bokeh:

https://kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

This is "Bad Bokeh", so a harsh OOF, that can be good or bad for a photographer:

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/images/KEN_0193-bokeh.jpg


The APO Lanthar has first class good bokeh, not a better or worse lens than an AE, because good bokeh can also be bad for the image we want, YMMV.

interneg
31-Jul-2019, 12:15
Opinions are varied and nuanced, when it comes to OOF rendering.


Yes - and as your example illustrates, anyone who demands compliance with a singular type of out-of-focus rendering is pretty ignorant of photographic or cinematographic history. For that matter, it used to be the case that the flaring of certain anamorphic lenses was not seen as a positive part of their aesthetic appeal, whereas it's now seen as key feature - to the extent you can rent blue flare filters...

Pere Casals
31-Jul-2019, 12:38
anyone who demands compliance with a singular type of out-of-focus rendering is pretty ignorant of photographic or cinematographic history.

Interneg, of course, every lens nature can be exploited in a situation, harsh and soft OOF both have their own usage for great aesthetics. What we debate is how things are named. We name "Bad Bokeh" to harshness in the OOF and "Good Bokeh" fo softness in the OOF, if Bad/Good Bokeh is Bad/Good or Good/Bad for our image this is YMMV, isn't it.

is that naming wrong? Is Ken Rockwell wrong in that?