PDA

View Full Version : "The big two" - Please tell me about your japanese lenses!



Ig Nacio
25-Oct-2019, 00:04
Hi,

Ken Rockwell may prefer to choose a lens over
another because of "personal heritage".

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/135f56.htm

Are the Japanese lenses as good as the German?

Fuji has a line of 'NW' and 'CM' lenses. What do
you think of them?

Which Japanese lens do you already own or appeals
to you?

Have you tried the lens of the article, the 135mm. W
from Nikon?

Thank you, kind regards,

Ig

blue4130
25-Oct-2019, 02:05
I have a fuji 135 and used to have a Schneider 135. Personally the differences are so small between the two that I'd be hard pressed to say what is what on a print. Modern lenses are so refined at this stage that they are essentially the same in my opinion (barring exotic designs - i mean these common designs). My current kit consists of Fuji, Rodenstock, and Nikkor for modern lenses. All sharp, all a little boring. Like a Toyota Corolla, reliable but a little bland.

Pere Casals
25-Oct-2019, 03:23
Are the Japanese lenses as good as the German?

Of course, not better and not worse. With any lens you will do a lot, but design can be specialized for architecture, landscape, portrait, objects...

There is a sample to sample variation, peak performance varies from one unit to the next, tht variation may not be noticed in practice, and it is larger than any difference between manufacturers for equivalent glasses.

Some color photofographers say that you have to use only german lenses or only japanese lenses, if wanting consistence, because color transmisions are slightly different, personally I've not well tested it.

All four principal manufacturers had lenses in different market segments.





Fuji has a line of 'NW' and 'CM' lenses. What do
you think of them?

Here you have extensive information:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/fujinon.htm

Comapring to other:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html






Which Japanese lens do you already own or appeals
to you?


I shot with Fujinon 65mm and 90mm, Nikon W 210 and W 360.





Have you tried the lens of the article, the 135mm. W
from Nikon?

IIRC John Sexton (http://www.johnsexton.com/) made his career with those, if you have any doubt...

This: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/32535835184/ is not a W 135 but a W 360 in 8x10, anyway see the bolts on the wood, in the real negative is even well sharper, seen with a microscope.

In LF you have anyway tons of insane image quality, usually the phootographer itself is the weak link, not the glass, making an optimal shot can be challenging, you have to nail DOF vs Diffraction vs Movements.





Ken Rockwell may prefer to choose a lens over
another because of "personal heritage".


Ken Rockwell has very, very good articles for learning, it's a very good website, as in any place also there are some mistakes, it's also a business so he also has to get web traffic to make money, it has many personal opinions and some salt, fortunately he tries to make clear what is a technical fact and what is a personal preference.

Havoc
25-Oct-2019, 04:17
I got a japanese camera (Wista) so I got japanese lenses with it. Mostly because my experience with japanese lenses in medium format has been good (Mamiya 645, Fuji 6x9). So I got Fujinons SWD and CM-W as they are the most recent of the line. Only german LF lens I have is an old Symmar 180/5.6 convertible. Never really compared them like taking the same picture with both lenses.

I have far more problems with shutters than with glass. It is a good thing you can just swap shutters.


In LF you have anyway tons of insane image quality, usually the phootographer itself is the weak link, not the glass, making an optimal shot can be challenging, you have to nail DOF vs Diffraction vs Movements.

Ken Rockwell has very, very good articles for learning, it's a very good website, as in any place also there are some mistakes, it's also a business so he also has to get web traffic to make money, it has many personal opinions and some salt, fortunately he tries to make clear what is a technical fact and what is a personal preference.

I have no doubt that I'm a far worse photographer than my lenses. Certainly if I take development, scanning and post-processing into account. I'm glad if I have an image.

Ken Rockwell is a site you need to learn to use. He has tons of information but most is very personal opinion. So you have to keep that always in mind. If your idea of what you look in a piece of gear doesn't line up with his then it can be misleading. On the other hand he is rather consistent so comparing works fine if you know how to filter it.

darr
25-Oct-2019, 04:20
Are the Japanese lenses as good as the German?

Absolutely. My first LF lens was a Schneider 210mm purchased new with a Cambo 4x5 that I used in commercial photography school back in the early 1980s. I thought in the beginning the Schneider and Rodenstock lenses would be better quality lenses because they had cost more. But over the years, I have owned and used Schneider, Rodenstock, Cooke, Nikon and Docter lenses and learned I appreciated the Nikon lens most for size, quality and price. A few years ago I sold off all my LF lenses because I went medium format digital (MFD). I once again bought Rodenstock and Schneider lenses, but now made for digital work and Nikon had ended their LF lens line all together so they would not be making any digital LF lenses and I was disappointed. A few years later, I decided I like MFD, but I also missed shooting 4x5 film. Then I decide to save up for my "retirement 4x5 kit." Guess what lens line I decided I wanted ... Nikon! So today I shoot with a few Nikons (SW 90/4.5, W 150/5.6, W 210/5.6) and a Docter 240/9.




Fuji has a line of 'NW' and 'CM' lenses. What do
you think of them?

The only Fuji lenses I own and use are their XF line for my XPro-2 and X-E2 cameras, so I cannot comment about their LF lenses, but I know photographers that are happy with them. I totally enjoy the Fuji XF lenses I have and their APS-C XPro-2 camera made me decide to sell off my entire Nikon full frame kit and I have never looked back. I still shoot a Nikon F3 occasionally with black & white film.



Which Japanese lens do you already own or appeals
to you?

see above (Nikon)


Have you tried the lens of the article, the 135mm. W
from Nikon?

I had a Rodenstock 135mm years ago and although it was a nice lens, I prefer the 150mm perspective more, so I have not tried a Nikon 135 and probably never will.


Thank you, kind regards,

Ig

You are welcome. I would say buy whatever appeals to you as long as you can return it if you find it does not work for you. I had to return a brand new Schneider lens once because there was something wrong with it. The dealer quickly sent me out another which was a great copy and I still shoot with it today on my MFD camera.

I think Ken Rockwell has worked hard to have a large footprint on the web as a "photographic expert" and many photographers do read his writings. I have read a few of his reviews, but I do not agree with everything he has written that I have read. I use to teach commercial photography on the college level and the advice I gave to students fuzzing over gear was this: find out what gear your favorite photographers used to make the prints you remember most; you might be surprised at how humble their camera bag was.

Getting out and shooting is the hardest part!

Kind regards,
Darr

ic-racer
25-Oct-2019, 05:21
All my 8x10in, 4x5in and 6x9cm lenses are Japanese from the "Big Two." Either Topcor or Fujinon. I think I have about 25 of them. I have all the 6x9cm Topcors and all the 4x5 LF Topcors except the 300mm. Then 5 Fujinons that cover 8x10.

Tin Can
25-Oct-2019, 05:21
I am slowly buying off this brochere: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/pdf/Nikkor_LargeFormatLenses.pdf

I buy from Japan as they have many in VGC with good shutters

so far

Nikkor-SW 90mm f/8S

Nikkor-SW 120mm f/8S

Nikkor-W 210mm f/5.6

Nikkor-W 360mm f/6.5

I also have a Tokyo Kogaku Topcor P.S 105mm F3.5 MF Lens for 2x3 sheet film with a Topcon Horseman 970 Medium Format Camera

One day I will buy a Nikkor-AM ED 210mm f/5.6

John Kasaian
25-Oct-2019, 07:06
For my LF cameras I only have two Japanese lenses---300 and 450 Nikkor Ms, both are sharp and brilliant.
I can compare these with a 12" Dagor and a 19" Artar which I also shoot with.
To say which is better would be difficult, especially since the 300 M and 12" Dagor have entirely different "looks" and I find that brings some nuance to the print party, depending on the subject.
Of course both Nikkors are multicoated while the Artar is single coated and the Dagor is uncoated, which probably has something to to with it.

Dan Fromm
25-Oct-2019, 07:27
Hmm. I have, sometimes even use, Fujinon, Nikon, Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. I have, also sometimes use, lenses from manufacturers in other countries, including France, the UK and the US. All pass light and form images.

The OP's question makes as much sense as the parallel one "Which are better? German or Japanese cars?"

fotopfw
25-Oct-2019, 07:43
I use Nikon, Fuji and Rodenstock for 8x10". Rodenstock and Schneider-Kreuznach for 4x5" as I happen to stumble upon those, not by choice or meaning.
All lenses produce an image that I like and expect.

BrianShaw
25-Oct-2019, 08:13
I honestly don’t think my lenses know their ancestry.

Many moons ago I bought into the “German is better” but after using many other lenses I realized that it’s more about subject, composition , and lighting than anything else.

Bernice Loui
25-Oct-2019, 08:41
Are there differences between Fujinon -vs- Nikon (alphabetical order) yes, Significant, NO_at this point in the LF era. Much the same can be applied to Rodenstock -vs- Schneider.

The more significant challenge will be shutters in GOOD condition.

Seriously, pick a modern lens brand & focal length and move on.

Once into vintage lenses like Kodak Ektar, Cooke, Boyer & etc that is when lens personality can become interesting.



Bernice

Armin Seeholzer
25-Oct-2019, 09:33
I have 4 Nikkors SW 75mm, SW 90mm f4,5, SW 120mm, APO Nikkor 610mm f9 the rest are Schneider/Rodenstock and some old ones like 2 Universal Heliars, Imagons etc.
The lens is never the Problem its alway's me behind the camera!

Armin

Leszek Vogt
25-Oct-2019, 12:49
Didn't check my list, but I only have one Fuji 250/6.3....since it covers 5x7. For me it's mostly mm's that I desire vs where it's made....tho sometimes I look for specific character that the lens may have.

Les

Drew Wiley
25-Oct-2019, 14:17
I find the Japanese lenses to be every bit as good as the German lenses, and in certain cases, even better. Most of the general-purpose plasmats and general wide-angle lenses are quite similar, regardless of brand. But each brand also has their own specialty lenses worth recognition. You refer to Fuji NW vs CMW. You could actually include all the later W,NW,and CMW lenses with outside lettering, all very similar except for minor details like filter size, and all excellent for general-purpose work. But certain older single-coated Fuji W's with inside lettering are also coveted for good reason. There are more highly corrected, more compact "Super Plasmat" Fujinon A lenses too; but these have smaller maximum f-stops (no problem for me), and some focal lengths are rare and quite expensive. Then there is the Fuji C series of compact lightweight lenses, very well made. Nikkor M series lenses are also compact and highly corrected, but have somewhat smaller image circles relative to focal length. People like me who backpack a lot are more likely to pay attention to size and weight rather than brand. Almost all late lenses from any of the "big four" manufacturers are very very good. And so are lots of earlier ones. And there are also good reasons why many of us on this forum choose to ignore Ken Rockwell's half-baked opinions.

hiend61
25-Oct-2019, 14:24
I have 4 Nikkors SW 75mm, SW 90mm f4,5, SW 120mm, APO Nikkor 610mm f9 the rest are Schneider/Rodenstock and some old ones like 2 Universal Heliars, Imagons etc.
The lens is never the Problem its alway's me behind the camera!

Armin

That´s the question. I have never seen a bad LF lens from the big four, but I have seen a lot of bad pictures by me.

Jim Noel
25-Oct-2019, 15:02
YOu're neglecting some great old American lenses.I have Fuji's, Nikkor's, Schneider's and Rodenstock's. But the ones I turn to most often are Wollensak and Kodak. The modern sharp cut-off lenses don't see the way I do. I don't like their "cut & paste" look except for some architecture. It certainly does not render the figure, or nature in anything close to the reality of human vision.

BrianShaw
25-Oct-2019, 15:08
Me too, Jim.

angusparker
25-Oct-2019, 15:09
Big fan of Fuji lenses, mostly because they are modern and a often have a smaller size or slightly different fl. Here is my take on the best 4x5 lenses: https://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2016/3/good-lenses-for-a-4x5-view-camera

Drew Wiley
25-Oct-2019, 15:24
One word of caution about vintage or older lenses. They might have a preferred rendering or "look" for certain genre, which is indeed a valid aspect of choosing a lens. But in the discussion of this, there are a number of practitioners who work only in black and white, and form their opinion based upon that. Nearly all modern lenses are decently color corrected, but not all older lenses are; so that's an important point in lens selection, if you intend to shoot color film as well as b&w.

Warren Clark
25-Oct-2019, 15:59
Hi Ig,
My favorite Fuji lenses:
Fuji A series 240,300,360
Fuji 450 C
Fuji 600C

All optically excellent, lightweight and wide coverage.

Good shooting,

WC
Grand Junction, Co.

Drew Wiley
25-Oct-2019, 17:30
Yeah, I use all of those same ones too, except for the 300A, plus 180A and 200 & 300 Nikkor M's in my field lineup. I could mention several more too, both Japanese and German. You can tell how much certain of these lenses are coveted, because their asking price even used keeps going up, in contrast to most general purpose studio plasmats, where prices have plummeted.

Luis-F-S
25-Oct-2019, 18:01
.

Seriously, pick a modern lens brand & focal length and move on.

+1!! Most lenses are better than most photographers.

Peter Lewin
25-Oct-2019, 18:48
At my level, the issues are my technique, not the lenses. I have 3 Schneiders (80, 120, 210), a Rodenstock 150 (my most used lens), a Fuji (300) and a Congo (180). I would have a hard time detecting quality differences between them, perhaps the Congo isn’t quite as sharp at the edges, but I’m not even sure of that.

Bob Salomon
25-Oct-2019, 18:56
At my level, the issues are my technique, not the lenses. I have 3 Schneiders (80, 120, 210), a Rodenstock 150 (my most used lens), a Fuji (300) and a Congo (180). I would have a hard time detecting quality differences between them, perhaps the Congo isn’t quite as sharp at the edges, but I’m not even sure of that.

There use to be a very good camera store in Phoenix called PhotoMark. Rod Klukas managed the pro department there. He set up some shots that he shot on 57 chromes with Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon and Fuji lenses. All the same shot and same exposure and focal length and same film. You could easily see differences between brands in color, contrast, etc..
Unfortunately nobody does tests like this anymore, or even back then.

Pere Casals
26-Oct-2019, 05:12
Unfortunately nobody does tests like this anymore, or even back then.

A problem is that sample to sample variation in the same brand/model is higher that the difference between brands. An even that sample to sample variation may not be even be noticed most of the times.

Regarding contrast, MC coatings all are very good, and what provocates flare is the photographer himself if not knowing when to use a compendium shade.


I guess that LF glass reached an amazing technical maturity in the 80s/90s. A 5x7" shot with any good modern lens blasts 650Mpix effective taking a 4 GByte 16bit/c file... In fact 1885 wet plates were surpassing 100MPix effective, challenging 2020 $40k digital backs :)

So we mostly need to not buy a (defective) dog and to have the right shimming in place.


A (defective) dog may come from some ebay sellers that take two broken lenses to make one (while manufacturer paired the right front and rear cells to have a good compensation, and placed the right shim in certain cases). Only a few lenses are of that kind, but this it is a probable cause when a dog is barking.

Bob Salomon
26-Oct-2019, 06:59
A problem is that sample to sample variation in the same brand/model is higher that the difference between brands. An even that sample to sample variation may not be even be noticed most of the times.

Regarding contrast, MC coatings all are very good, and what provocates flare is the photographer himself if not knowing when to use a compendium shade.


I guess that LF glass reached an amazing technical maturity in the 80s/90s. A 5x7" shot with any good modern lens blasts 650Mpix effective taking a 4 GByte 16bit/c file... In fact 1885 wet plates were surpassing 100MPix effective, challenging 2020 $40k digital backs :)

So we mostly need to not buy a (defective) dog and to have the right shimming in place.


A (defective) dog may come from some ebay sellers that take two broken lenses to make one (while manufacturer paired the right front and rear cells to have a good compensation, and placed the right shim in certain cases). Only a few lenses are of that kind, but this it is a probable cause when a dog is barking.

I didn’t mention resolution, I said that it was easy to detect differences in color, contrast, etc. between manufacturers.

Jody_S
26-Oct-2019, 07:42
There are very few bad large format lenses. I've tried out, if not used regularly, well over 100 lenses dating from the 1860s to my most recent which is probably late 80s. I've only had 2 where I felt the lens was letting me down rather than vice-versa: a 'Scientific Lens Company' 12" rapid rectilinear circa 1910(?), and a Topcor 90/5.6 that came from a photography school that was clearing out their lf stuff (so likely dropped or abused). In every other instance, if my images were less than satisfactory, the fault rested squarely on my shoulders. And sometimes on my other gear, like leaky film holders or bellows.

My current kit of modern lenses consists of Fujinon and Schneider lenses, but only because of price and availability. I won't pay 50% more for a lens that says 'Rodenstock' or 'Nikkor' if I think I won't be able to see a difference in the results.

Pere Casals
26-Oct-2019, 08:01
I didn’t mention resolution, I said that it was easy to detect differences in color, contrast, etc. between manufacturers.

Bob, regarding color, there are minor differences that ususal come from the particular transmission of the multicoating, IMHO those differences can be compensated perfectly in the post processing and it not requires a different filtration in the taking, what has a severe impact is the spectral response of the different color films (a protrait with Velvia 50 :)), but the sprectral transmissions of modern lenses are all very flat, so easy to correct. For color consistence best is having a kit with the same coating.


Regarding contrast, I found that all MC plasmats have exactly the same: the perfection, 4 MC groups don't generate flare, nothing you can measure on film.

Problem with contrast is flare, but flare from the bellows, not from the glass. Say that you shot with a 300mm MC plasmat, the circle surface is 200,000mm2 , but a 4x5" sheet has 12,900mm2, so 7% of the light entering in the camera goes to the sheet and 93% illuminates the bellows inside, that are black only in theory, thus generating the flare, specially if bellows are very extended or very compressed the amount of flare is amazingly high.

So, at least, it's crazy complaining/comparing about glass flare if not using a very, very good compendium shade, very well adjusted and at small aperture (crops a sharper light rectangle).


Yes, a Sironar-S has an ED element allowing better correction of secondary color aberration (green-magenta fringes) in the corners, allowing larger circle (with top performance) for the same focal...

Tin Can
26-Oct-2019, 08:06
Comments indicate LF lenses are better than the photographer (great)

A good working shutter is a variable and many can work around that

'Hat off' is one, 'Galli shutter' is another, my choice is often Packard shutter

I have yet to pay anyone for CLA of a camera (aka box) or lens which is just a variation on a hole (think pinhole)

The capture is the rapture...(not a religious statement)

Exhibition these days is privacy (or not)

ymmv

Bernice Loui
26-Oct-2019, 09:01
+ Agree, and the beginnings of another totally pointless war of words.

Done these lens test and a LOT more back in the day. As for which "brand" is preferred, that is much a matter of individual opinion and preferences.

There ARE differences of color rendition and contrast between brands... Fact today, this is just no longer that important due to how LF color is done, how color prints are made and market-image maker expectations. There is also no "real" ability to properly support high quality E6/C41 processing and that entire chain of LF color transparency or color negative film production today.

Wanna get into a proper discussion about color rendition, it MUST include lighting color temperature, quality of light, film's color rendition, color balance due to film processing, film's viewing light color temperature and a LOT more... to simply believe lens alone tells the whole story of how color is rendered is absurd as the entire process is a LOT more complex than just lens-optic alone.

~And no, I'm NOT going to get into any discussion or debate over this as that time and era when this was all done to a very high level is essentially extinct.... and totally pointless to go any further with this.

*Regardless, the statement of the big four, Fujinon-Rodenstock-Nikon-Schneider being essentially interchangeable in their LF optical performance remains.*

**What MUST be understood by folks just entering the world of LF, this LF stuff was majority high quality image centric. There were very few if any "hobby-home-photographers" doing LF work. Majority were commercial-advertising-industrial, then the arts folks, with the remainder as others. The LF optics manufactures understood this market and cranked out designs to meet this market need. Second market fact, LF optics are based on fundamental optics formulations without the need for back focus length correction as required for fixed box camera. This significantly alters the demands on optics designs in good ways. It is also why LF optics are often so different than optics designed for fixed mount box camera.**

**Monorail cameras where in the majority back then**


Bernice






I didn’t mention resolution, I said that it was easy to detect differences in color, contrast, etc. between manufacturers.

BrianShaw
26-Oct-2019, 09:06
“... to simply believe lens alone tells the whole story of how color is rendered is absurd as the entire process is a LOT more complex than just lens-optic alone.“

Or camera alone, or film alone, or almost anything alone. :)

Bob Salomon
26-Oct-2019, 09:09
“ Regarding contrast, I found that all MC plasmats have exactly the same:”

When were you able to try “all”? Are you a dealer? A major studio”? Did you test them “all” at one time, on one film emulsion, on one subject?

Or did you read spec sheets?

jp
26-Oct-2019, 10:17
Hi,

Which Japanese lens do you already own or appeals
to you?

Thank you, kind regards,

Ig

I have a 210 Fujinar S 4.5. It's a 210 tessar design that's nearly as good as it gets for single coated tessars in reliable shutters, (probably Nikon 200 is better if budget is not a concern). Plenty of blades on the aperture, reliable, X-sync.

https://live.staticflickr.com/8002/7359179906_3753cab396_w.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/cdiHNb)
img310 (https://flic.kr/p/cdiHNb) by Jason Philbrook (https://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/), on Flickr

"as good as" is entirely subjective since many of us use LF for different purposes and styles.

BrianShaw
26-Oct-2019, 10:33
I have a 210 Fujinar S 4.5. It's a 210 tessar design that's nearly as good as it gets for single coated tessars in reliable shutters, (probably Nikon 200 is better if budget is not a concern). Plenty of blades on the aperture, reliable, X-sync.

https://live.staticflickr.com/8002/7359179906_3753cab396_w.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/cdiHNb)
img310 (https://flic.kr/p/cdiHNb) by Jason Philbrook (https://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/), on Flickr

"as good as" is entirely subjective since many of us use LF for different purposes and styles.

Have you ever had an opportunity to compare it to a Kodak Commercial Ektar?

Tin Can
26-Oct-2019, 10:46
As you so well illustrate in your flickr click through, especially img297c


I have a 210 Fujinar S 4.5. It's a 210 tessar design that's nearly as good as it gets for single coated tessars in reliable shutters, (probably Nikon 200 is better if budget is not a concern). Plenty of blades on the aperture, reliable, X-sync.

https://live.staticflickr.com/8002/7359179906_3753cab396_w.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/cdiHNb)
img310 (https://flic.kr/p/cdiHNb) by Jason Philbrook (https://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/), on Flickr

"as good as" is entirely subjective since many of us use LF for different purposes and styles.

Pere Casals
26-Oct-2019, 13:04
“ Regarding contrast, I found that all MC plasmats have exactly the same:”

When were you able to try “all”? Are you a dealer? A major studio”? Did you test them “all” at one time, on one film emulsion, on one subject?

Or did you read spec sheets?

Bob, I measured it, this is quite easy, with MC in practice all flare comes from light bouncing in the bellows, not from reflexions in the glass.

MC is so perfect that Nikon/Canon/Etc make Pro DSLR zooms with 18 groups and they are perfectly contrasty:

196910

4 MC groups (Plasmat) are always absolutely contrasty, I've checked about 8 MC Plasmats and I found all to be totally contrasty with no exception, what is true is that a too large circle may generate insane amounts of flare. The in camera flare makes irrelevant MC flare.

A difference between modern plasmats can be Out Of Focus rendition, every lens has a character in the OOF.

Bob Salomon
26-Oct-2019, 13:23
Bob, I measured it, this is quite easy, with MC in practice all flare comes from light bouncing in the bellows, not from reflexions in the glass.

MC is so perfect that Nikon/Canon/Etc make Pro DSLR zooms with 18 groups and they are perfectly contrasty:

196910

4 MC groups (Plasmat) are always absolutely contrasty, I've checked about 8 MC Plasmats and I found all to be totally contrasty with no exception, what is true is that a too large circle may generate insane amounts of flare. The in camera flare makes irrelevant MC flare.

A difference between modern plasmats can be Out Of Focus rendition, every lens has a character in the OOF.

So no practical experience? Only theoretical suppositions?

Your way of comparing is like saying all mustards must taste the same as they all have similar ingredients!

Pere Casals
26-Oct-2019, 13:37
So no practical experience? Only theoretical suppositions?

Your way of comparing is like saying all mustards must taste the same as they all have similar ingredients!

Also practical experience, side by sides, and technical measurements. Bob, let me reiterate, I find no differences in the contrast of modern MC plasmats.

Drew Wiley
26-Oct-2019, 14:58
Color rendering differences with analogous design modern LF lenses from the big four? Sheer bunk. I have a far better trained color eye than most people. I specialized in color consultation at one time, and taught pro color matchers. Yeah, certain designs are a bit purer and more contrasty than others, or better apo corrected; but not a single one of you would be able to identify which brand lens I made a print from based on hue characteristics per se. Out of all my current lenses, one and only one lens is perceptibly a bit warmer, which is a Kern Dagor. And I've probably tested these things a thousand times better than any camera dealer could possibly do it! That's the kind of thing stacks and stacks of large format chromes allow one to do over the years, as well as many many prints in an entirely different league than any camera store employee even begins to understand, technique-wise. There are some evident differences in certain current premium 35mm lenses, but that's a topic for a different forum than this one. And if someone like Bernice implies that there's somehow apathy over such things today, them thar is fightin' words to me.

Jody_S
26-Oct-2019, 20:15
If you're a cinematographer shooting a big-budget motion picture on film, you need to worry about the color cast of your lenses. Since the same scene will be shot with several different lenses from different angles, and the result edited together to create the scene, you can't have color shifts between focal lengths in your kit. So you spend +$100K on a set of matched Cooke or whatever lenses. But even most of today's 'cinematographers' shoot digital with their camera set on auto-white balance, and could just as well shoot their movie with a 1980s aftermarket 35mm zoom lens for all the concern today's movie-goers show about cinematography. If all you've ever seen on the big screen is garbage, you're not likely to be a discerning viewer.

For a large format photographer today to worry about color cast in their lenses would imply that s/he has access to a professional lab that can give perfectly reproducible results day after day, year after year, and furthermore this hypothetical lf photographer has an inexhaustible supply of freshly-made lf film from a firm with perfect quality control. To my knowledge, neither condition can be met today. Nor are there any customers left who demand perfect and reproducible color rendition from large format film images. So it's a bit of an academic exercise at this point.

Bernice Loui
26-Oct-2019, 20:50
Drew, do you agree once a sheet or frame of color transparency film has been exposed, processed altering the color balance IN the color transparency film is not so easy to do?

That said, back in the day when color transparency film was THE means for color image reproduction for publications to high quality color prints there was an entire industry that supported this need_demand_expectation. Now Drew, tell us how much of that once HUGE color film industry remains in the here and now?

Or why image maker has once opportunity to get the color balance on a sheet of color transparency film correct, "There is No Try, Only Do." and once at that.

~Hint, still a stack of Sinar & Hi-tech color correction CC filters in the filter pile that was once often used to balance out lighting, film color per lot, E6 color processing and a LOT more. The Minolta color III meter is gone. That was the other mandatory tool to aid in achieving proper color balance in a exposed-processed color transparency sheet of film or frame per roll.~

I'm FAR from being apathetic about critical color rendition, fact is knowing what was once possible and what is nearly impossible to achieve today and why it is SO difficult to achieve for an audience that is less appreciative of what a really good color print could be is simply Depressing.

Given that, how far does one want to push that ten ton boulder up a hill?


Bernice





Color rendering differences with analogous design modern LF lenses from the big four? Sheer bunk.

And if someone like Bernice implies that there's somehow apathy over such things today, them thar is fightin' words to me.

Pere Casals
27-Oct-2019, 01:19
If you're a cinematographer shooting a big-budget motion picture on film, So you spend +$100K on a set of matched Cooke or whatever lenses.

These are rented




But even most of today's 'cinematographers' shoot digital with their camera set on auto-white balance,

You show the camera a color checker, this calibrates the thing. Also edition software makes a nearly perfect auto match between scenes, generating a 3D LUT conversion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0YQNm7TlNM

_____

Anyway, top notch movie digital cameras this 2020 cannot reach, by far, film performance in key features. This (Dec 2019) StarWars Episode IX has been shot in film, and probably next planned trilogy (2022-24-26) will be also shot on film. I guess that one day digital cameras will reach what film does...

Average technical level in cinematography dropped a lot since digitalization. Too much work done with mouse clicks :) and no solution for a good capture ! Fast food cinematography :) Fast food rocks !

Jody_S
27-Oct-2019, 08:26
You show the camera a color checker, this calibrates the thing. Also edition software makes a nearly perfect auto match between scenes, generating a 3D LUT conversion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0YQNm7TlNM



I watch a lot of independent movies, because I don't much care for the movies about the guy with the superpowers chasing after a bad guy with superpowers because he stole some shiny thing with superpowers.

I swear a lot of them are shot on mid-range dSLRs set on full auto, using the kit lens that came with it when they bought it at Costco. When they want to get fancy, they buy a $40 Soviet Helios 44-2 biotar copy for the 'bokeh'. I still watch, because we all have to start somewhere, and I enjoy a good story told in images.

Pere Casals
27-Oct-2019, 08:46
shot on mid-range dSLRs set on full auto,

Canon... with Magic Lantern !!!

jp
27-Oct-2019, 08:56
Have you ever had an opportunity to compare it to a Kodak Commercial Ektar?

I don't have a smaller Commercial Ektar for 4x5. I have one for 8x10 but the Ilex shutter doesn't work as nice as the Shannel shutter. I'd expect a smaller commercial ektar would be a great choice too if the buyer can check shutter function first. But that's getting off topic in a discusson about Japanese lenses. Not as off topic as armchair cinematography color judgement.

BrianShaw
27-Oct-2019, 09:16
I don't have a smaller Commercial Ektar for 4x5. I have one for 8x10 but the Ilex shutter doesn't work as nice as the Shannel shutter. I'd expect a smaller commercial ektar would be a great choice too if the buyer can check shutter function first. But that's getting off topic in a discusson about Japanese lenses. Not as off topic as armchair cinematography color judgement.

True, a bit off topic. But thanks very much for the reply. To get back on topic... as time goes on I’ve been preferring American lenses to either German or Japanese. My favorites are the Commercial Ektar and the Gundlach Radar.

Bernice Loui
27-Oct-2019, 12:25
-Story Repeated-

Back in the late 80's and mid 90's when doing color transparency film test on LF lenses was a matter of going to the local Foto store, pick up a few boxes of film from the film fridge then dropping the exposed film to The New Lab for processing with results in two hours was not difficult to do. Had the chance to try out LF lens samples from the big four (Fujinon, Schneider, Nikor, Rodenstock) and a LOT more thanks to working Foto friends and a LARGE Foto dealer.

This is how Kodak Commercial Ektar f6.3 & Ektar f4.5 became the favored lens to use for both color and B&W. Problems with the shutter was addressed by using a Sinar shutter. This allows using lenses in shutter or barrel with good shutter accuracy, repeatable, reliable.

~Using vintage lenses like this is NOT recommended for those beginning LF due to possible shutter problems and all the stuff that comes with using vintage lenses~ difficult enough to deal with the LF learning curve, adding the potential problems with a shutter compounds the problems from exposure and a lot more greatly.

Learn LF using a modern LF lens from any of the big four then once far enough up the LF learning curve, experiment and figure out what LF optics fit your needs and intended print results.


Bernice



True, a bit off topic. But thanks very much for the reply. To get back on topic... as time goes on I’ve been preferring American lenses to either German or Japanese. My favorites are the Commercial Ektar and the Gundlach Radar.

BrianShaw
27-Oct-2019, 13:08
Respectfully noted. If one isn’t willing to get vintage gear overhauled and put back in spec the you’re right, life could be difficult. But with a rudimentary understanding of photographic exposure theory and a decently operating vintage shutter there shouldn’t be much trouble at all. Under some circumstances I completely understand and agree with your point... by under other circumstances or really might not matter. :)

Having lived theough the 80’s also... it was a much different experience that I’m glad I was able to enjoy!

Drew Wiley
27-Oct-2019, 17:42
The FACT is that no extant color printing medium even exists which is capable of reproducing the very minor variations in hue rendering between late major brand LF lenses. Inkjet is particularly limited. There are contrast issues which vary via specific design, coating, shading. And Bernice, please tell me something I haven't already known for the past for the past 40 years. And all one has to do is a little homework to discover that companies like Fuji and Nikon themselves have some very expensive lens capability well beyond the needs of typical still photographers. Very high quality control has been routine for a long time now. They don't use beer bottle glass. If a lens looks interesting to the Antiques Roadshow, well, I guess that would be a different topic. Commercial Ektar expectations are routinely exceeded today. My own brother sold em, and had access to the pick of the litter; but every single LF lens I own is better corrected.

Jody_S
27-Oct-2019, 18:00
Canon... with Magic Lantern !!!

Sony Handycam, if your name starts with "Lars".

Again, I enjoy a good story told in images. I also enjoy images made with Diana F or Kodak box cameras, if the photographer has something to say.

Ig Nacio
3-Nov-2019, 16:09
Hi,

Thank you for your messages to this post : ) !!!

Hopefully, people who find this thread in the
future will write further suggestions!

Thank you again, kind regards!

Vaughn
3-Nov-2019, 18:30
Quite happy with my Fuji Ws -- 250/6.7, 300/5.6. and 360mm.

goamules
4-Nov-2019, 13:24
Are French portrait lenses as good as the German originals circa 1841-50? Are the British copies of the French as good? Are the American copies of the British?

It's all relative to who, what, when, and how the lenses of each generation were made. But the French probably had the earliest renown for photographic optics.

Drew Wiley
4-Nov-2019, 15:25
Raccoons ate the snails (escargot) in my yard, so maybe they prefer French lenses too.

Ig Nacio
14-Nov-2019, 18:45
Hi,

Thank you for your messages : ) !!!

The way I do it, is that I google each
of your recommendations to learn
more about each of them.

Thank you again, kind regards!

Eric Woodbury
14-Nov-2019, 20:12
This is too confusing unless I limit my answer to 4x5 lenses. However, I use several of these with 5x7 and 8x10, too.

Fujinon 65, 135, 180, 450. I like all these but the 65 and 180mm don't see much use. I always buy them in Copal shutters, so all my shutters are approximately the same making it easier to use in difficult circumstances.

Nikon 90, 200, 300. I like all of these too. Never used the 300 much until recently when I changed the spacing on my lenses.

German lenses are 47, 58. These are fine lenses too. The 47mm I permanently mounted it to a point & shoot 4x5.

I had the Fujinon 400T for a short bit. I didn't like it. I thought it was off. Unsharp. I traded it while it still looked new.

I had the Fujinon 105 and 125 at one point. 105 coverage was too close for comfort and the 125 spacing was unnecessary. Both gone.

There was a time when I avoided Japanese lenses. Mostly for lack of knowledge and distribution. Now I like them the most. Different focal lengths, lighter, and less expensive. Expense has fluctuated over the years, but I will say that having less expensive lenses is freeing. I don't worry so much about their loss or replacement. The 135mm is common as dirt, about the same price, and wonderful -- my favorite lens and used the most. It would be fun to try one of those thousand dollar German versions with the fancy review, but it wouldn't make my photographs any better at all.