Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?

[manfrominternet]

Hi all,

So, before I begin, I should mention that I shoot color, both negative and transparency (Kodak Ektar and Fuji Provia/Velvia, respectively), almost exclusively. Back last April, you guys all helped me whittle down the huge collection of LF lenses I had amassed. I sold a bunch of those lenses, but I sold a few more since then. The lenses that have the strikethrough line are the lenses I’ve since sold that I was recommended to sell. The lenses in bold are the five ones I currently have.

Anyway, here’s my current list, from wide angle to telephoto:

-65mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4
-90mm Sinar (Rodenstock) Sinaron W f/6.8 (Multicoated)
-135mm Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar f/3.5
-150mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated)
-180mm Fujifilm Fujinon-W f/5.6 (really NW, New Wide)
-210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated)
-270mm Rodenstock Rotelar f/5.6
-360mm Rodenstock Sironar-N f/6.8 (Multicoated)

Given that I shoot color negative and transparency, I basically want to know which lenses you guys think should/could be upgraded, and if so, what lenses I should look into getting to replace that particular lens. From what I know and have been told, the lenses I currently have are all pretty good.

Since I shoot color negative and transparency, how important is it for me to have Apo (apochromatic) lenses? I’ve heard both that it’s vital or that it doesn’t really matter all, given the decent lenses I already have.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Willie]

Take the lenses and use them. Having to ask on a board won't tell you how they perform with your workflow. Using them will show the character and help you decide.

What you are asking is the equivalent of asking "what car to get for the Indy 500" when you are starting with Go-Carts.

[rfesk]

A upgrade in coverage but not necessarily in performance would be to change the Sinar 90/8 to a Nikon 90/8.

Otherwise, any improvement by upgrading to Apo would not be worth the trouble/cost IMO.

[BrianShaw]

I wouldn’t change a thing.

Well... maybe I’d try to buy back that Xenotar...

But a Kodak Commercial Ektar would be good groovy...

[Tin Can]

Keep anything with a good working shutter

I also agree with Brian about Xenotar

[BradS]

Those are all good lenses and I believe that they are also all APO - even if not explicitly labelled as such.

Are you doing 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10? The 65mm would not be very useful of 5x7 or 8x10 but might or might not be useful on 4x5. The 360 would be the only one I'd keep if I where doing 8x10 but if doing 4x5, I'd sell it.

Which lenses do you use most? Which do you use least? Are there any that you have never used? Do all the shutters work well?

Are you dis-satisfied with any of these?

What subject interest you?

and, why did you sell the Xenotar?

[Bob Salomon]

Those are all good lenses and I believe that they are also all APO - even if not explicitly labelled as such.

Are you doing 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10? The 65mm would not be very useful of 5x7 or 8x10 but might or might not be useful on 4x5. The 360 would be the only one I'd keep if I where doing 8x10 but if doing 4x5, I'd sell it.

Which lenses do you use most? Which do you use least? Are there any that you have never used? Do all the shutters work well?

Are you dis-satisfied with any of these?

What subject interest you?

and, why did you sell the Xenotar?
None are Apos.

[Bernice Loui]

Nice balanced set of lenses. There is NO reasons to change much if any. The only lens that might be worth considering to change is the 90mm f8 (think this would be a Rodenstock 90mm f6.8 Grandagon, not f8), to a Rodenstock 90mm f4.5 Grandagon. This is a physically BIGGER lens, larger image circle, slightly less geometric distortion.. But IMO, not a significant enough "upgrade".

No good reason to keep the 135mm Schneider Xenotar, it is a cult lens that just covers 4x5 (spec image circle at f22 of 150mm, 4x5 required image circle 152mm).
Info on Schneider Xenotar and others of that vintage:
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00832/00832.pdf

"Upgrading" to APO will NOT make your images better. Better images will come from image making skills, understanding of lighting and shadows, exposure control, technique and all those FAR more important things that directly affect the images you're creating. Give up the belief lens is the primary factor that affects the images made, while the lens is one item, it is not THE item.


Bernice



Hi all,

Anyway, here’s my current list, from wide angle to telephoto:

-65mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4
-90mm Sinar (Rodenstock) Sinaron W f/8 (Multicoated)
-150mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated)
-210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated)
-360mm Rodenstock Sironar-N f/6.8 (Multicoated)

Given that I shoot color negative and transparency, I basically want to know which lenses you guys think should/could be upgraded, and if so, what lenses I should look into getting to replace that particular lens. From what I know and have been told, the lenses I currently have are all pretty good.

Since I shoot color negative and transparency, how important is it for me to have Apo (apochromatic) lenses? I’ve heard both that it’s vital or that it doesn’t really matter all, given the decent lenses I already have.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[manfrominternet]

Those are all good lenses and I believe that they are also all APO - even if not explicitly labelled as such.

Are you doing 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10? The 65mm would not be very useful of 5x7 or 8x10 but might or might not be useful on 4x5. The 360 would be the only one I'd keep if I where doing 8x10 but if doing 4x5, I'd sell it.

Which lenses do you use most? Which do you use least? Are there any that you have never used? Do all the shutters work well?

Are you dis-satisfied with any of these?

What subject interest you?

and, why did you sell the Xenotar?

Ah, I forgot to mention that I’m shooting 4x5 (with the addition of a Horseman 6x12 medium format back and a Shen Hao 6x17 panoramic medium format back), specifically landscapes and architecture a la Edward Burtynsky, Andreas Gursky, Thomas Struth, Axel Hütte, Franco Fontana, and Bernd and Hilla Becher. (These people are my heroes. I’ve studied nearly all of their works in painstaking detail (especially Andreas Gursky), so I go out of my way and make a concerted effort to try to not copy their style... not that I really can anyway.)

I’ve used all of my 5 lenses. All of the lenses seem perfectly fine, but the image circle of the 65mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4 is almost nil; I can barely make any camera movements without getting into some serious vignetting when stopping down, but that seems true of the other lenses of that focal length. Then again, I’ve read great things about the Nikon Nikkor-SW 65mm lens I have.

The shutters all work fine. The person who owned the camera (Linhof Technikardan 45) and lenses before me only used it several times. Even though the Linhof Technikardan 45 was built in the early 90s, it looks completely brand new, as do all the lenses.

The 360mm Rodenstock Sironar-N f/6.8 (Multicoated) is a beast, but it’s insanely sharp. Perhaps that lens is the weakest link, given it’s hefty weight and size?

I sold the Xenotar because I really needed the money at the time. Plus, it didn’t really work for my shooting style where I want nearly everything in the frame to be in focus. I know the lore about this lens, and yes, I do regret selling it and wish I used it more.

[manfrominternet]

None are Apos.

Bob,

Do you think I should upgrade any of my lens lineup?

[Bob Salomon]

Bob,

Do you think I should upgrade any of my lens lineup?

90mm 4.5 Grandagon N would be superior to what you have now if you can stand the size and weight. Also, it is in a 1 shutter so won’t fit some recessed boards.

[manfrominternet]

Nice balanced set of lenses. There is NO reasons to change much if any. The only lens that might be worth considering to change is the 90mm f8 (think this would be a Rodenstock 90mm f6.8 Grandagon, not f8), to a Rodenstock 90mm f4.5 Grandagon. This is a physically BIGGER lens, larger image circle, slightly less geometric distortion.. But IMO, not a significant enough "upgrade".

No good reason to keep the 135mm Schneider Xenotar, it is a cult lens that just covers 4x5 (spec image circle at f22 of 150mm, 4x5 required image circle 152mm).
Info on Schneider Xenotar and others of that vintage:
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00832/00832.pdf

"Upgrading" to APO will NOT make your images better. Better images will come from image making skills, understanding of lighting and shadows, exposure control, technique and all those FAR more important things that directly affect the images you're creating. Give up the belief lens is the primary factor that affects the images made, while the lens is one item, it is not THE item.


Bernice

Hi Bernice,

Thanks for your note! Yeah, I had a slight suspicion that my lens lineup isn’t really bad enough to warrant a significant change.

I did also want to ask how do I calculate the most optimal f-stop number for each lens?

[manfrominternet]

Also, can anyone tell me what the optimal f-stop range for each of my 5 lenses are, or how I can calculate it? While I want my images to be as sharp as possible from corner to corner, I want to also make sure I avoid diffraction and subsequent degradation of image quality.

So far, this is my estimate. Please let me know if and where I’m wrong. (I’m almost certainly wrong.) :/

-65mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4 ——— f/11-f/16 (the more I stop this lens down, the more pronounced the vignetting)
-90mm Sinar (Rodenstock) Sinaron W f/8 (Multicoated) ——— f/16-f/32
-150mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated) ——— f/16-f/32
-210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated) ——— f/16-f/32
-360mm Rodenstock Sironar-N f/6.8 (Multicoated) ——— f/16-f/45

[Bob Salomon]

Also, can anyone tell me what the optimal f-stop range for each of my 5 lenses are, or how I can calculate it? While I want my images to be as sharp as possible from corner to corner, I want to also make sure I avoid diffraction and subsequent degradation of image quality.

So far, this is my estimate. Please let me know if and where I’m wrong. (I’m almost certainly wrong.) :/

-65mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4 ——— f/11-f/16 (the more I stop this lens down, the more pronounced the vignetting)
-90mm Sinar (Rodenstock) Sinaron W f/8 (Multicoated) ——— f/16-f/32
-150mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated) ——— f/16-f/32
-210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated) ——— f/16-f/32
-360mm Rodenstock Sironar-N f/6.8 (Multicoated) ——— f/16-f/45

They are diffraction limited at f22.

[Bernice Loui]

This is a set of modern multi coated lenses. They would be optimized for about f22, ideally used between f11 to f45. f5.6 was done to aid focusing.

As for the smallish image circle of the 65mm f4 SW nikkor, the image circle would be much the same for other 65mm lenses of this type. To gain a larger image circle, moving to a slightly longer focal length makes a significant difference. The 65mm f4 has a spec image circle of 170mm at f16 which is very, very good. The 75mm f4.5 SW nikkor is spec'ed at 200mm at f16.
http://www.galerie-photo.com/manuels/nikkor-lenses-for-large-format%20cameras.pdf

The other way to gain a larger image circle would be the Schneider XL series of 110 degrees -vs- the typical and more common about 105 degrees LF wide angle lenses. Choice really depends in image making needs. Know larger image circle often produces more internal lighting flare due to light bouncing off the bellows on to the film. As with most things, it is a trade off.


Bernice




Hi Bernice,

Thanks for your note! Yeah, I had a slight suspicion that my lens lineup isn’t really bad enough to warrant a significant change.

I did also want to ask how do I calculate the most optimal f-stop number for each lens?

[manfrominternet]

It turns out that I have the 90mm Sinar (Rodenstock) Sinaron W f/6.8 (not an f/8, as I had originally written).

Any word on how good this lens is? Should I trade it in for a 90mm Rodenstock Grandagon-N f/4.5?

[aphcl84]

The Sinaron W is a Sinar branded Grandagon-N, unless you need the larger image circle of the 4.5 lens (236mm vs 221mm) I'd suggest you stick with the 6.8. The 4.5 lens is going to have a larger 82mm filter thread, almost twice the weight at 700g vs 460g, is in a larger #1 shutter and has no major differences in image quality other than image circle. The Rodenstock mtf and distortion data suggests that the 6.8 lens is ever so slightly sharper in the corners while the 4.5 has a little less distortion.

[Alan Klein]

Since you're shooting color chromes, how is the vignetting with the 90mm and 65mm without a center filter? Can you show us samples?

[manfrominternet]

Well, I just sold my enormous 360mm Rodenstock Sironar-N f/6.8 (Multicoated) lens on eBay just yesterday. It was a good performer, but just way too massive and heavy to carry.

That said, I wanted to ask you guys if you had any recommendations on what to replace it with. I'm looking for a good telephoto lens in the 300mm - 500mm range to round out my set.

Here's my current lineup:
-65mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4
-90mm Sinar (Rodenstock) Sinaron W f/6.8 (Multicoated)
-150mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated)
-210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated)
-360mm Rodenstock Sironar-N f/6.8 (Multicoated) [Sold]

I wanted to also ask if you guys think I should replace any of the other 4 other lenses I currently have. I have a 6x17 Shen Hao medium format back that I like to use with my Linhof Technikardan 45, but the only lens that has enough coverage for it is my 150mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6. :/

[EdSawyer]

Nikkor-T 360mm , and maybe if you want it, the extra 500mm rear group (convertible) would be the best choice in that focal length range.

[Corran]

I wanted to also ask if you guys think I should replace any of the other 4 other lenses I currently have. I have a 6x17 Shen Hao medium format back that I like to use with my Linhof Technikardan 45, but the only lens that has enough coverage for it is my 150mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6. :/

All of your lenses except the 65mm will work on 6x17. However, if what you have is an "extension" back, only the 90mm will work without mechanical vignetting of the sides of the image. The longer lenses will be slightly less than 17cm wide on film. This is not the lens' fault but the back.

If you care, "APO Symmars" and other newer may be marginally better than your Symmar-S lenses. No reason to switch unless you see deficiencies in your current images.

[manfrominternet]

EdSawyer, yeah, I was thinking about the Nikkor-T 360mm with the extra 500mm rear convertible. Do you have it? Is it a good lens?

Anyway, to Corran's point, I do notice that the 65mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4 is very soft for my liking. Not only that, the image circle is so small that I can barely make use any movement on my Technikardan.

Is there a better wide angle lens in that focal length that I should take a look at?

Many thanks :)

[Corran]

I have read from various places similar accounts of softness from the 65mm f/4 Nikkor, but other times I have heard people say it's a sharp lens. Don't know if it's a QC issue or maybe just expectations not quite meeting reality, especially with wide-angles - the wider view can make things "seem" soft compared to imaging similar subjects with a normal lens. I've noticed this with respect to ultrawides myself anyway.

All of the widely-available 65mm lenses have about a 170mm image circle (or smaller). If you want a BIG image circle around that focal length, about the only game in town is the Schneider 72mm XL. Which is an excellent lens that covers 6x17 (but will likely not work with expansion backs, though to be clear I never tried it as I got rid of my expansion back for 6x17 in favor of a dedicated 6x17 camera before buying the 72mm XL).

[Hmuessig]

A couple of thoughts: I too shoot architecture.

The 65mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4 I used professionally for years was very sharp, but I've heard others say their's was not as sharp. My current 65 us a Rodenstock Grandagon f4.5. It is SHARP. It also uses smaller filters than the Nikkor 58mm vs 67. So the center filter, nearly essential, was less expensive. And the Rodenstock 65 is smaller than the Nikkor 65.

If image circle is an issue with your wide lens the Schneider XLs might be a solution. I've not used any but the 47 and the 110.

As for 90s. Someone else mentioned the Nikkor 90 f8. Absolutely superb! There is a reason Kerry Thalman listed it as one of his classics. it's image circle is as large as any of the other 90s except the Schneider XLs.

Longer lenses . . . have you thought about the Fuji As? 240 and 300? Both are APOs. Or the Nikkor 300 f9 or 450 f9 They are apochromats at infinity, the Fuji's apparently are better corrected for closer than infinity.

My 2 cents. Happy shooting

[Bernice Loui]

Based on previous ownership of both the 65mm f4.5 Grandagon & 65mm f4 SW Nikor, both are plenty "sharp" with more than good enough optical performance with 4x5 sheet film.. If, the lens is stopped down to f16 to f32 and very little if any camera movement. IMO, they ~just~ cover 4x5 regardless of what their ad claims are. Both have enough light fall off with color transparency film to highly recommend a center filter. Both are more similar than different.

As for the 90mm f8 SW Nikor, it does have a large image circle for it's size with good optical performance in a small package.. ideal for those that need this set of trade offs. For non-field or low light indoor images, the full aperture of f8 is not as desirable as a f4.5, 90mm Grandagon. Bigger yes, but brighter enough on the edges of the GG to justify the larger optic. Being one of those who do not back pack, camp or similar outdoor activities, the small size of the 90mm f8 Nikkor has zero added value for these needs, where as the brighter GG image of the 90mm f4.5 absolutely does.


Bernice

[peter schrager]

Nice balanced set of lenses. There is NO reasons to change much if any. The only lens that might be worth considering to change is the 90mm f8 (think this would be a Rodenstock 90mm f6.8 Grandagon, not f8), to a Rodenstock 90mm f4.5 Grandagon. This is a physically BIGGER lens, larger image circle, slightly less geometric distortion.. But IMO, not a significant enough "upgrade".

No good reason to keep the 135mm Schneider Xenotar, it is a cult lens that just covers 4x5 (spec image circle at f22 of 150mm, 4x5 required image circle 152mm).
Info on Schneider Xenotar and others of that vintage:
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00832/00832.pdf

"Upgrading" to APO will NOT make your images better. Better images will come from image making skills, understanding of lighting and shadows, exposure control, technique and all those FAR more important things that directly affect the images you're creating. Give up the belief lens is the primary factor that affects the images made, while the lens is one item, it is not THE item.


Bernice
repeat; rinse; repeat

[manfrominternet]

To anyone who has read Kerry Thalman's Future Classics guide and has/had any of his recommended lenses, what are your experiences with the lenses on his list?

[Bernice Loui]

Relevance is completely dependent on your specific print or finished image goals. Lens alone is not the sole means to an end. There are other FAR more important factors like lighting, composition, film used, film processing, print making, print finishing and much more. While there is a signature from a given lens, these other factors are equally if in some ways more important than lens or camera which IMO, is really one of the much lesser regarding sheet film images or the means to use a given lens-optic).


Bernice


To anyone who has read Kerry Thalman's Future Classics guide and has/had any of his recommended lenses, what are your experiences with the lenses on his list?

[Greg Y]

Relevance is completely dependent on your specific print or finished image goals. Lens alone is not the sole means to an end. There are other FAR more important factors like lighting, composition, film used, film processing, print making, print finishing and much more. While there is a signature from a given lens, these other factors are equally if in some ways more important than lens or camera which IMO, is really one of the much lesser regarding sheet film images or the means to use a given lens-optic).

Bernice

Bernice, It's always a pleasure to see your posts. You are 100% correct, and it would be nice to see more discussion of those elements you list, rather than the mundane gear chat.
Buy a lens, (or use what you have). Take photographs. Make prints.

[Greg Y]

Manfromtheinternet. Kerry Thalman has contributed a great deal to the FL community. His "Future Classics" compendium is definitely a worthwhile read especially for someone just getting into LF photography. I have used a bunch of those lenses and still own a few. There's not much more to be said than Kerry already has. My personal preference is for the character of older lenses.... Dagors and Commercial Ektars...so that's what i've mostly gravitated to. Bernice has offered the best advice, i think. What tool will give you the result you're looking for?

[manfrominternet]

Bernice, It's always a pleasure to see your posts. You are 100% correct, and it would be nice to see more discussion of those elements you list, rather than the mundane gear chat.
Buy a lens, (or use what you have). Take photographs. Make prints.

Of course Bernice is right, and I agree.

But it may also be pertinent that I wasted about $300 in film and processing using a - now independently confirmed by an LF photographer far more experienced than me - dud of a lens (65mm Nikon Nikkor f/4) because I bought the whole "it's-not-your-lens-it's-YOU" mentality, not to mention the cost of the lens itself. All of the processed color negatives and transparencies (Ektar, Portra 160, Provia, and Velvia) that I shot using this lens came back extremely soft, to the point that I had to shelve the project I was working on. (Note that all of my color negs/transparencies shot with either my 150mm or 210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/6.8 are tack sharp.) While the work done with my 65mm Nikon Nikkor might have been okay for small prints, my goal for said project was to make digital c-prints prints around 8' x 6' (2.4m x 1.8m). I only continued to work with the lens because, as I mentioned, I was convinced that it was really just me.

Anyway, since I'm not Jeff Bezos, this is exactly why i'm asking such a, ahem, pedestrian or perhaps inane question about the quality of the lenses I have. I know that the prevailing wisdom is to tell others to not worry about their lens quality and to just go out there and shoot, but if I'm looking to make as-sharp-as-possible 8' x 6' color prints, I'm fairly confident that no one would recommend using any beat up LF lens from a junkyard either.

In any case, I agree that a lens alone (or camera, for that matter) does not make a photographer, but a good one can certainly help.

I apologize if I sound sour. I'm not. I'm simply trying to get a better understanding of which lenses are known to be extremely sharp for extremely large prints of color negs/transparencies.

[Bernice Loui]

Dud lenses happen more often than folks realize. This is why reading on the web this or that lens is Absolutely Superior to all might not be fact and reality. Back in the day, any lens to be considered for purchase was tested LOTs using color transparency film under controlled studio conditions and lighting. Film and processing cost were modest, high quality color transparency processing was easy, fast and modest cost. If the lens proved to be no good, it went back to the seller-dealer. Same applied to new or used lenses. More than a few never got past this test. The keepers are still here and are not going any where fast as too much has been spent proving them to be good with predictable results.

This is why testing ALL your lenses, camera, processing method and all related to print making is SO important to getting that finished print goal.

The potential wast is a LOT more than film cost, the loss of your time which is your limited time alive cannot be recovered and there is the effort to try replicating what that image could be.

Lots of "Crowing" about new to LF folks to get a proven good modern lens (both optically and shutter). Physical appearance does not imply good optical performance. For anyone new to LF, a dud lens will result in huge amounts of frustrations, cost and worst of all discouraging results that reduce the interest or desire to use any view camera.

Choice is, get another 65mm lens, be it another Nikor, Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schineider and test it lots to your satisfaction before trying to produce any meaningful work with that lens. IMO, do this with ALL your current lenses to make absolute sure they are "up to snuff".


Bernice



Of course Bernice is right, and I agree.

But it may also be pertinent that I wasted about $300 in film and processing using a - now independently confirmed by an LF photographer far more experienced than me - dud of a lens (65mm Nikon Nikkor f/4) because I bought the whole "it's-not-your-lens-it's-YOU" mentality, not to mention the cost of the lens itself. All of the processed color negatives and transparencies (Ektar, Portra 160, Provia, and Velvia) that I shot using this lens came back extremely soft, to the point that I had to shelve the project I was working on. (Note that all of my color negs/transparencies shot with either my 150mm or 210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/6.8 are tack sharp.) While the work done with my 65mm Nikon Nikkor might have been okay for small prints, my goal for said project was to make digital c-prints prints around 8' x 6' (2.4m x 1.8m). I only continued to work with the lens because, as I mentioned, I was convinced that it was really just me.

Anyway, since I'm not Jeff Bezos, this is exactly why i'm asking such a, ahem, pedestrian or perhaps inane question about the quality of the lenses I have. I know that the prevailing wisdom is to tell others to not worry about their lens quality and to just go out there and shoot, but if I'm looking to make as-sharp-as-possible 8' x 6' color prints, I'm fairly confident that no one would recommend using any beat up LF lens from a junkyard either.

In any case, I agree that a lens alone (or camera, for that matter) does not make a photographer, but a good one can certainly help.

I apologize if I sound sour. I'm not. I'm simply trying to get a better understanding of which lenses are known to be extremely sharp for extremely large prints of color negs/transparencies.

[Tin Can]

All education is expensive

whether Harvard, Art school or Tin Can College aka the school of hard knocks

Bernice is correct and you must satisfy yourself, all other judges may have bias

IMHO you are pushing your format too far with too large a print


Nikon Wide Angle 65mm f/4 Nikkor-SW Lens with Copal #0 Shutter (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36998-USA/Nikon_1341_65mm_F4_Nikkor_Copal.html/specs)

[neil poulsen]

I suppose one could consider upgrading the two Symmar-S lenses to either Apo Symmar, or better, to Apo-Symmar L lenses. But years ago, I spoke with Schneider Optics about this, and they indicated that one would be hard pressed to see a difference in an actual photograph. Maybe one might see a difference on close examination with a loupe, they suggested.

As a question, do either of these lenses have Schneideritis, the malady where one can see tiny, shiny silver spots in the black area beneath the surface of the lens? (Symmar-S lenses can be prone to this.) Since you're intent on having excellent optics, and depending on the seriousness, you could replace any such examples.

The 72mm Super Angulon XL is a large lens, but it's near the focal length of the 65mm lens, and it would offer greater movements. At the very least, I would replace the 65mm with a 75mm f5.6 super-wide for the greater movements that it would offer. For me, 75mm is sufficiently wide.

[Greg Y]

All education is expensive

whether Harvard, Art school or Tin Can College aka the school of hard knocks

Bernice is correct and you must satisfy yourself, all other judges may have bias

IMHO you are pushing your format too far with too large a print



Manfrom, This goes back to one of Bernice's statements, about working back from the desired output to choose your tools....

[Alan Klein]

Dud lenses happen more often than folks realize. This is why reading on the web this or that lens is Absolutely Superior to all might not be fact and reality. Back in the day, any lens to be considered for purchase was tested LOTs using color transparency film under controlled studio conditions and lighting. Film and processing cost were modest, high quality color transparency processing was easy, fast and modest cost. If the lens proved to be no good, it went back to the seller-dealer. Same applied to new or used lenses. More than a few never got past this test. The keepers are still here and are not going any where fast as too much has been spent proving them to be good with predictable results.

This is why testing ALL your lenses, camera, processing method and all related to print making is SO important to getting that finished print goal.

The potential wast is a LOT more than film cost, the loss of your time which is your limited time alive cannot be recovered and there is the effort to try replicating what that image could be.

Lots of "Crowing" about new to LF folks to get a proven good modern lens (both optically and shutter). Physical appearance does not imply good optical performance. For anyone new to LF, a dud lens will result in huge amounts of frustrations, cost and worst of all discouraging results that reduce the interest or desire to use any view camera.

Choice is, get another 65mm lens, be it another Nikor, Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schineider and test it lots to your satisfaction before trying to produce any meaningful work with that lens. IMO, do this with ALL your current lenses to make absolute sure they are "up to snuff".


Bernice

Bernice, How do you test a lens simply? I'm new to LF photography. I have a Fujinon 75mm SWD F5.6, Nikkor 90mm SW f/4.5 with CF (Schneider IV), Schneider 150mm f5.6 APO Symmar, and I just ordered a Nikkor M 300mm, f/9

[Bob Salomon]

Bernice, How do you test a lens simply? I'm new to LF photography. I have a Fujinon 75mm SWD F5.6, Nikkor 90mm SW f/4.5 with CF (Schneider IV), Schneider 150mm f5.6 APO Symmar, and I just ordered a Nikkor M 300mm, f/9

You use it to take pictures of what you want to use it for. Stop down 2 stops and then take additional shots down to f22.
Pick the best. Is that result make you happy? Make sure what you shoot has fine detailsacros# the frame

[Bernice Loui]

Been a while since doing any of this.

Mount the lens to be tested on the Sinar P. There is a reason for this, lenses are checked at full aperture and stopped down. Camera alignment cannot be an issue that affects the performance of the lens. If the camera's front to rear standards are NOT absolute parallel out of focus due to the front to rear standards being out of alignment this applies to full aperture more than stopped down. Lens must be properly mounted to it's lens board. If the lens mounting is outa-whack, this can and will affect lens performance.

Point the lens out a open window on a bright sunny day at some far distance object with fine details like a building, tree cluster or similar. Apply a high quality 5x to 7x loupe on the GG, examine the GG image very carefully for focus, image quality and all that at full aperture, then two stops down then f22, then f45 across the entire area of the GG. If the lens cannot pass the GG basic test, stop here and reject the lens. Don't bother wasting any film as the lens will be an automatic dud.

Film flatness is an issue, simplest way to aid this is to apply a small piece of double stick tape ( 1/2" x 1/2" or so will do for 4x5) to the center of the film holder before the film is loaded (bit tricky as the film sheet might want to hang up on the small piece of tape while loading, so do this upside down or curve the film slightly while loading) . Press down gently with a cotton cloth at the center of the film after it is loaded. Yes, it raises the film by a few thousands of an inch, but it is a LOT better than having the film pop out or not stay flat to the film holder affecting the test results.

If the lens looks GOOD on the GG, make two color transparencies at full aperture then at f22. Exposure will typically be sunny 16, verify with a good light meter. Take the film to the processing lab, get the film processed then examine the results on a 5000K light table with a good microscope or high quality loupe 10x or so. Schneider once made high magnification loupe that were not bad, there is certainly equal to better ones easily available today.

If the lens gets this far. To the color rendition test as noted in post# 20.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155445-Easy-Testing-Used-LF-Lenses/page2&highlight=elinchrome

Rinse-repeat what was done above. If the results are acceptable. Apply the lens to your print image goals, evaluate the results to see if all is acceptable. This is where the personality of the lens begins to be revealed in ways those test above cannot reveal.

For image circle test. lenses for 4x5 is easier than lenses for larger film formats. Set up a 8x10 view camera (easy with a Sinar) mount the 4x5 lens to be tested and do the point the lens out a open window on a sunny day test. This will give some idea of how big the image circle is and how the lens behaves at the edges of it's image circle. Keeping film flatness and camera alignment is a LOT more difficult with 8x10 due to the physically large parts involved.


:)
Bernice




Bernice, How do you test a lens simply? I'm new to LF photography. I have a Fujinon 75mm SWD F5.6, Nikkor 90mm SW f/4.5 with CF (Schneider IV), Schneider 150mm f5.6 APO Symmar, and I just ordered a Nikkor M 300mm, f/9

[Alan Klein]

You use it to take pictures of what you want to use it for. Stop down 2 stops and then take additional shots down to f22.
Pick the best. Is that result make you happy? Make sure what you shoot has fine detailsacros# the frame

Bob, I don't understand. Right now, I've been shooting at f/22 on all my lenses because everyone seems to be saying that's the sweet spot. So could you explain your process above?

[Alan Klein]

Been a while since doing any of this.

Mount the lens to be tested on the Sinar P. There is a reason for this, lenses are checked at full aperture and stopped down. Camera alignment cannot be an issue that affects the performance of the lens. If the camera's front to rear standards are NOT absolute parallel out of focus due to the front to rear standards being out of alignment this applies to full aperture more than stopped down. Lens must be properly mounted to it's lens board. If the lens mounting is outa-whack, this can and will affect lens performance.

Point the lens out a open window on a bright sunny day at some far distance object with fine details like a building, tree cluster or similar. Apply a high quality 5x to 7x loupe on the GG, examine the GG image very carefully for focus, image quality and all that at full aperture, then two stops down then f22, then f45 across the entire area of the GG. If the lens cannot pass the GG basic test, stop here and reject the lens. Don't bother wasting any film as the lens will be an automatic dud.

Film flatness is an issue, simplest way to aid this is to apply a small piece of double stick tape ( 1/2" x 1/2" or so will do for 4x5) to the center of the film holder before the film is loaded (bit tricky as the film sheet might want to hang up on the small piece of tape while loading, so do this upside down or curve the film slightly while loading) . Press down gently with a cotton cloth at the center of the film after it is loaded. Yes, it raises the film by a few thousands of an inch, but it is a LOT better than having the film pop out or not stay flat to the film holder affecting the test results.

If the lens looks GOOD on the GG, make two color transparencies at full aperture then at f22. Exposure will typically be sunny 16, verify with a good light meter. Take the film to the processing lab, get the film processed then examine the results on a 5000K light table with a good microscope or high quality loupe 10x or so. Schneider once made high magnification loupe that were not bad, there is certainly equal to better ones easily available today.

If the lens gets this far. To the color rendition test as noted in post# 20.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155445-Easy-Testing-Used-LF-Lenses/page2&highlight=elinchrome

Rinse-repeat what was done above. If the results are acceptable. Apply the lens to your print image goals, evaluate the results to see if all is acceptable. This is where the personality of the lens begins to be revealed in ways those test above cannot reveal.

For image circle test. lenses for 4x5 is easier than lenses for larger film formats. Set up a 8x10 view camera (easy with a Sinar) mount the 4x5 lens to be tested and do the point the lens out a open window on a sunny day test. This will give some idea of how big the image circle is and how the lens behaves at the edges of it's image circle. Keeping film flatness and camera alignment is a LOT more difficult with 8x10 due to the physically large parts involved.


:)
Bernice
Thanks Bernice. What is the criteria for sharpness between an acceptable lens and a dud? ?

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks Bernice. What is the criteria for sharpness between an acceptable lens and a dud? ?

How well you think fine detail is resolved in the final print. Good enough or not? Come to think of it, sharpness is overrated.

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I don't understand. Right now, I've been shooting at f/22 on all my lenses because everyone seems to be saying that's the sweet spot. So could you explain your process above?

To test it take shots of what you will use it for. If you will use it for copy work shooting a flat page from a newspaper is fine. If for landscapes test it on a landscape, etc..

[Bernice Loui]

"Sharpness" IS over rated. There are a LOT more elements and factors to what makes an emotionally expressive print than "sharpness" alone.

Being obsessed with sharpness alone could be the result of Chronic f22 syndrome where f22 has been defined as the optimal taking aperture for modern lenses. Difficulty with chronic f22 syndrome, it tends to limit the vast expressive image possibilities made incorporating out of focus rendition and LOTs more. It is very possible chronic f22 syndrome, "sharpness", everything in print in ~sharp~ focus is a result of the Group f64 legacy and the "Straight Photography" Doctrine. While this is a very viable technique and method, it can be self restraining in exploring ALL the potential expressive means photography can offer.

Early on in my LF endeavors with 4x5 (during the mid 1980's), chronic f22 syndrome was combined with the Group f64 Doctrine.. "sharpness" was primary and what mattered most.. Those images made by AA and other like them held a very significant influence over what my image goals were.

Not long after that working photographer friends and artist, did not think the obsession with everything "SharP" and the Group f64 Doctrine myopia was good at all. This was when trips to the local art museums, considering what film makers were doing and LOT more were imposed on me.. This resulted in a long term influence with how images made to this day or why image quality of a LF lens at full aperture is as important as "f22"... View camera movements can be applied to keep items in an image in focus, what is not always considered, view camera movements can also be applied to controlling what is out of focus, using geometric distortion that can be done using movements of the rear camera standard. This is much about using all the tools available to achieve the print goal in mind.

Numerous other lens personality factors beyond sharpness:

~Contrast rendition. High contrast can be easily mistaken into the perception of higher sharpness.

~Out of focus rendition.

~Transition from out of focus to in focus.

~Color rendition.

And more.. How does any given image maker pin a point of reference on what is acceptable -vs- what is not acceptable?

Yet other factors like film, film processing, print making, print making materials, chemistry, method of projection and much more all have
an effect on the finished print and can impose their personality more on the finished print than lens alone.

Essentially, once a lens is tested and verified it is good enough, move on to address and deal with all these other aspects of print making as the lens along or "Sharpness" alone will NEVER define the results finished print alone.


Bernice

[Alan Gales]

Even the digital crowd is discovering sharpness is overrated and are looking for lenses with character. They now make adapters to adapt old 35mm lenses to mirrorless cameras. Some of the most popular lenses are old M42 screw mount lenses.

They would probably "freak out" over all the lens options for large format!

[Havoc]

They would probably "freak out" over all the lens options for large format!

I really don't see it that way. For LF the choice of lenses is very restricted, not to say extremely restricted. Also very little optical formulas compares to 135, even compared to MF. And then the 4 major makers made lenses so comparable that it isn't even a contest. And they make even more 135 lenses every day!

I think there are more different 50mm 135 lenses than all LF lenses together.

[Bernice Loui]

Majority of 50_ish mm lenses for 35mm film from back in the day evolved to become variant the Double Gauss Lens Formula.

Majority of modern f5.6 full aperture LF lenses evolved to become Plasmat lens formula design.

Ponder why?


Bernice




I think there are more different 50mm 135 lenses than all LF lenses together.

[Kiwi7475]

This is the most sensible and knowledgeable answer anyone can give, to which I subscribe wholeheartedly.

Just a note however that for those learning, mastering sharpness is important. Like everything else in the tool bag, achieving full sharpness is a technical tool that should be mastered, and so striving for sharpness (within reason) is not a bad goal it in itself as long as it's understood as a path for learning. Once that is achieved, and you know the tools of the trade, ie. what apertures do to the image you intend to capture, out of focus behavior, you know your lenses, and the technicalities about the movements and many other aspects on exposure, development, etc., then you effectively have at your disposal a deep understanding of all those tools to achieve the expression that you're looking for.

[Bob Salomon]

This is the most sensible and knowledgeable answer anyone can give, to which I subscribe wholeheartedly.

Just a note however that for those learning, mastering sharpness is important. Like everything else in the tool bag, achieving full sharpness is a technical tool that should be mastered, and so striving for sharpness (within reason) is not a bad goal it in itself as long as it's understood as a path for learning. Once that is achieved, and you know the tools of the trade, ie. what apertures do to the image you intend to capture, out of focus behavior, you know your lenses, and the technicalities about the movements and many other aspects on exposure, development, etc., then you effectively have at your disposal a deep understanding of all those tools to achieve the expression that you're looking for.

Much simpler is that you can not increase sharpness if your lens can’t deliver it. But any lens can be made softer.

[Alan Gales]

I really don't see it that way. For LF the choice of lenses is very restricted, not to say extremely restricted. Also very little optical formulas compares to 135, even compared to MF. And then the 4 major makers made lenses so comparable that it isn't even a contest. And they make even more 135 lenses every day!

I think there are more different 50mm 135 lenses than all LF lenses together.

I'm talking about character. Look at Cooke, Dagors, Commercial Ektars, Heliars, Aero Ektars, Imagon's, Verito's, Kodak Portrait, Pinkham and Smith's, Petzval's and on and on.

Most 35mm camera lenses are sharp and contrasty. I can't even think of a soft focus lens for 35mm cameras.

[abruzzi]

Most 35mm camera lenses are sharp and contrasty. I can't even think of a soft focus lens for 35mm cameras.

they definitely exist: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-F-85mm-F2.8-Soft-Lens.html

[Alan Gales]

they definitely exist: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-F-85mm-F2.8-Soft-Lens.html

Thanks. I learned something new.

[Greg Y]

Here's another option Alan, if you find it difficult to decide, when looking at the negative or tranparency with a loupe, make a few sectional prints. Rack your enlarger to large print magnification, or if you're not doing the lab work, have your lab make you a couple of 8x10" prints from a portion of your negative scaled to the actual large print size you desire.

[Bob Salomon]

Here's another option Alan, if you find it difficult to decide, looking at the negative or tranparency with a loupe, rack your enlarger to magnification, or if you're not doing the lab work, have your lab make you a couple of 8x10" prints from a portion of your negative scaled to the actual print size you desire.

That’s a bit confusing, if you are using a loupe it’s magnification could be different then the print size you want.

[Bernice Loui]

Kiyohara VK70R = 70mm, VK50R = 50mm. These "soft focus" lenses were specifically designed for 35mm film. Sort of a fad item back when new, few years ago they were mostly unknown and very low $ on eBay and else where, not any more once it was discovered they work on modern mirrorless digital cameras. They are sort of like a miniaturized Kodak Portrait lens.

206418


Sample image made using a Canon mirrorless digital:
206419

206420

Canon made a 85mm FD (manual focus) soft focus lens and a 135mm EF (auto focus) soft focus lens. Canon and others past and present made small format soft focus lenses. IMO, they are Meh... compared to 5x7 and larger sheet film made using soft focus lenses then contact printed. These prints have a unique and rather special image quality in many ways.


Bernice








I can't even think of a soft focus lens for 35mm cameras.

[Tin Can]

Rodenstock Imagon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodenstock_Imagon

[Alan Klein]

Thanks everyone for the ideas about sharpness. Since I shoot landscapes mainly, greater DOF is my usual criteria. Of course with LF, tilts allow a different focusing technique over MF I had been shooting. For what it's worth, these are sample shots from the first three LF lenses I've used - 75mm, 90mm, and 150mm. I just got a 300mm from Japan (three day shipment time, pretty amazing), but haven't tried it yet.

Could you tell from scans how the three lenses are? To me they seem sharp OK. I realize these are scans with a lot of sharpening that's required of scans. But I don't think I have experience enough to know if a negative/lens is really sharp just looking through my 8x loupe.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157714124881023

[Greg Y]

That’s a bit confusing, if you are using a loupe it’s magnification could be different then the print size you want.

You're right Bob..... I meant make a print or have a print made. Not an 8' x3' print made..... but small (8"x10") sectional prints.... BUT portions at high magnification.

[Bob Salomon]

You're right Bob..... I meant make a print or have a print made. Not an 8' x3' print made..... but small (8"x10") sectional prints.... BUT portions at high magnification.

You misunderstood me. If you use a 4x loupe on 45 you are seeing what to expect on a 16x20” print.
If you are having 810 prints made from a section of a large print you may easily be looking at more then 4x.
And things that are acceptable at 4x, like depth of field, may be very unacceptable on a 30x40” print.

[Alan Gales]

Kiyohara VK70R = 70mm, VK50R = 50mm. These "soft focus" lenses were specifically designed for 35mm film. Sort of a fad item back when new, few years ago they were mostly unknown and very low $ on eBay and else where, not any more once it was discovered they work on modern mirrorless digital cameras. They are sort of like a miniaturized Kodak Portrait lens.

206418


Sample image made using a Canon mirrorless digital:
206419

206420

Canon made a 85mm FD (manual focus) soft focus lens and a 135mm EF (auto focus) soft focus lens. Canon and others past and present made small format soft focus lenses. IMO, they are Meh... compared to 5x7 and larger sheet film made using soft focus lenses then contact printed. These prints have a unique and rather special image quality in many ways.


Bernice

Thanks, Bernice!

[Alan Gales]

Rodenstock Imagon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodenstock_Imagon

I wouldn't mind having an Imagon for my Fujifilm Xt3!

I doubt they made a lens close to the focal length of my Fujifilm 56mm APD. Of course if it had a Nikon or Canon mount, I could use a speed booster. Probably be cheaper to just buy one for 4x5 or an RB with a Mamiya 150mm SF lens. ;)

[Bob Salomon]

I wouldn't mind having an Imagon for my Fujifilm Xt3!

I doubt they made a lens close to the focal length of my Fujifilm 56mm APD. Of course if it had a Nikon or Canon mount, I could use a speed booster. Probably be cheaper to just buy one for 4x5 or an RB with a Mamiya 150mm SF lens. ;)

Not as common but Rodenstock also made a 120 and a 150 Imagon. The most recent ones were made for and sold by Schmactenburg. We were both the Rodenstock and the Schmactenburg distributor in the USA until he went out of business.
He also made and sold a Helicoid, a focus tube and camera adapters for most 35 and 2 ¼ cameras. He also had Prontor Werke make a special version of the Prontor Professional shutter for use with those Imagons on Hasselblad 500 and EL cameras as well as Rollei 6000 and SLX cameras. His version of those Imagons were in a black barrel. Much older ones were in a brass barrel.

[Alan Gales]

Not as common but Rodenstock also made a 120 and a 150 Imagon. The most recent ones were made for and sold by Schmactenburg. We were both the Rodenstock and the Schmactenburg distributor in the USA until he went out of business.
He also made and sold a Helicoid, a focus tube and camera adapters for most 35 and 2 ¼ cameras. He also had Prontor Werke make a special version of the Prontor Professional shutter for use with those Imagons on Hasselblad 500 and EL cameras as well as Rollei 6000 and SLX cameras. His version of those Imagons were in a black barrel. Much older ones were in a brass barrel.

Thanks, Bob!

[Mark Sawyer]

Which of my 5 LF lenses are worth keeping or worth upgrading?

The lenses that will make the photographs you want to make are the one's worth keeping.

I always figure if I sell a lens I'm not interested in using, the lens needed to upgrade to a better owner.

It all becomes so clear after a couple of tangerine martinis.

:)

[manfrominternet]

I have some news. Someone wants to sell me 5 immaculate Nikon Nikkor lenses for a very good price. I'm very close to purchasing the set, but before I do, I wanted to ask you experts a question or two, if I may.

Here is what my potential future lens set may look like. (The ones in bold are the Nikon lenses I'd be getting. The others are lenses I currently have.):

-65mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4
-75mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/4.5
-90mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/8 (Kerry Thalmann Future Classic)
-90mm Sinar (Rodenstock) Sinaron W f/6.8 (Multicoated)
-120mm Nikon Nikkor-SW f/8
-150mm Nikon Nikkor-W f/5.6
-150mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated)
-210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (Multicoated)
-300mm Nikon Nikkor-M f/9 (Kerry Thalmann Future Classic)

The seller is only selling it as a set, unfortunately, and is unwilling to break it up. If I went ahead and bought it, the obvious point of contention is that I'd have two 90mm lenses and two 150mm lenses. The 90mm Sinar Sinaron W f/6.8 and the Schneider 150mm Symmar-S f/5.6 that I currently have are already pretty great lenses, so I'm not sure if I'd sell these and keep the Nikon lenses or vice versa.

That said, in my beleaguered effort to try to build a nice rounded set, do you guys have any input on which lenses I should keep or sell? I want to mention that I have a 6x17 panoramic medium format back for my Linhof Technikardan 45 and the only lens I can currently use with it is my 150mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6. Also, if this helps, I shoot color film (both negative and transparency) for landscape and architecture almost exclusively, so I don't know if the future lenses I purchase should be apochromatic or not. Are these Nikon lenses apochromatic?

For those of you who are fortunate enough to have tested many large format lenses, how do these Nikon lenses I'd be getting stack up against, say, those Schneider Super Symmars and Rodenstock Apo Sironars?

[Mark Darragh]

If you went ahead you would have a great set of lenses. The Nikkor 90mm would work well for 6x17 and give you a little more coverage than the Roddie. If you need to sell any off, shoot some comparisons with the duplicate focal lengths and keep the ones you prefer.

[Corran]

Unless the price is way too high, just get them. Nikon is/was one of the "Big 4" and makes lenses just as good as Schneider / Rodenstock (if not better depending on the lens).

There literally isn't a bad lens among every one you have or are looking at buying. It's all just splitting hairs, unless something has been dropped / abused.

[Bernice Loui]

Until you have tested and used each of these lenses lots, how can any determination of what they are or might be?
Said this many times before, brand and lens type alone does not automatically imply or offer assured performance that meets your image goal needs.

Yes, this is a serious hassle, yes this is demands time, resources and all that. Until each lens has been tested, used and their images produced considered lots.. any lens remains questionable.


Bernice





I have some news. Someone wants to sell me 5 immaculate Nikon Nikkor lenses for a very good price. I'm very close to purchasing the set, but before I do, I wanted to ask you experts a question or two, if I may.

For those of you who are fortunate enough to have tested many large format lenses, how do these Nikon lenses I'd be getting stack up against, say, those Schneider Super Symmars and Rodenstock Apo Sironars?

[manfrominternet]

Hi all,

I was recently very fortunate enough to come across and get a 150mm Rodenstock Sironar-S f/5.6 as well as a 180mm Sinar Sinaron SE f/5.6 (with the Sinaron SE being Sinar's branding of the Rodenstock Sironar-S line). Anyway, I compared the negatives shot with the 150mm Rodenstock Sironar-S with the negatives shot with my trusty 150mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 (with the same film, shutter speed, and aperture) and the results of the Rodenstock were noticably sharper than the results obtained with my beloved Schneider. Of course, the results weren't significantly better, but they were good enough to make me consider upgrading two of my other lenses, specifically my 210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 and my 90mm Sinar Sinaron-W f/6.8.

As of now, my lens lineup is as follows:

-75mm Sinar (Rodenstock) Sinaron W f/4.5 (With the green strip)
-90mm Sinar (Rodenstock) Sinaron W f/6.8 (Without the green stripe. I'm not sure if this green strip really means anything or not.)
-150mm Rodenstock Sironar-S f/5.6
-180mm Sinar (Rodenstock) Sinaron SE f/5.6 (With the red stripe. Exact same as Rodenstock Sironar-S)
-210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6
-300mm Nikon Nikkor-M f/9

As mentioned, I'd like to eventually replace the 210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 and especially the 90mm Sinar Sinaron W f/5.6 since I can't use it with my Shen Hao 6x17 roll film extension back on my Linhof Technikardan 45S. At the same time, however, I'm thinking that, instead of replacing these focal lengths outright, it might be better for me to get an in-between lens with a focal length in between 90mm and 150mm for the wide end (to replace the 90mm Sinar Sinaron W f/5.6) and a focal length between 210mm and 300mm (since my 180mm Sinar Sinaron SE is already somewhat close in focal length to my 210mm Schneider Symmar-S and has the added benefit of being usable with the 6x17 Shen Hao extension back).

That said, I was considering the 120mm Super Symmar HM f/5.6 or the 110mm Super Symmar XL f/5.6 (both of which can be used with the Shen Hao 6x17 roll film extension back) to replace my 90mm Sinar Sinaron W and the 240mm Fujinon A F/9 to replace my 210mm Schneider Symmar-S. If there are better options, I'd love to hear them. If it helps with any suggestions, I shoot almost exclusively with color transparency and color negative and print up to 50"x60".

Any advice from you experienced shooters would be much appreciated. :)

[Tin Can]

Keep them all

Shutters may be needed one day

soon

[CatSplat]

As mentioned, I'd like to eventually replace the 210mm Schneider Symmar-S f/5.6 and especially the 90mm Sinar Sinaron W f/5.6 since I can't use it with my Shen Hao 6x17 roll film extension back on my Linhof Technikardan 45S.

I'm a bit confused, why can't you use the 90mm with the 617 back? I've been using that exact lens (90/6.8 Grandagon-N) with a 617 back for years. You're not going to get a ton of movements on 617 but it certainly covers it with room to spare.

[Bernice Loui]

Higher contrast or overall "higher" lens performance?

Don't be fooled by lenses with higher contrast -vs- actual higher optical performance. There are a HUGE number of other factors (film flatness, camera alignment, lighting, film type, film exposure and...) far beyond optical performance of any lens affecting the perception print quality. Resolution is just one of many, many, many other more important aspect of any expressive print.

Of this collection of modern lenses from 90mm to 125mm (90mm f4.5 Grandagon, 105mm f8 swd Fujinon, 110mm f5.6 schneider SSXL, 115mm f6.8 Grandagon, 120mm f8 Super Angulon, 125mm f8 swd Fujinon), none of them are clearly better than one or another, they ALL have pluses and negatives. All are absolutely capable of creating extraordinary quality prints.
216414

Film exposure aperture will become another factor given the projection enlargements of prints. View camera lens performance tends to start out ok or more than acceptable at full aperture then reach peak lens performance at some range of lens apertures then falling off as the lens aperture grows smaller due to diffraction. Keep in mind, stopping the lens aperture down to gain the perception of what is in focus is just that "perception of what is in focus", as they are not on the actual plane of focus and could never be in true focus. Exception being when all objects imaged by the lens is at true infinity focus.

Point being, focus on expressive print making and lessen much the obsession over fantasy of "THE" lens.

If you're making projection enlargement prints up to 40"x50" or 10X from a 4x5 sheet of film, seriously consider going up in film format size as that can make more difference in print quality overall than the fantasy uber best lens. But, know there is a limit to going up film format size as larger film alone is not automatically better as there area host of problems gained with going up in film format size.

Know what Fotographers often so myopically focus on can be of zero value to their intended audience, projection of values that their audience might place little of any value on.


Bernice






That said, I was considering the 120mm Super Symmar HM f/5.6 or the 110mm Super Symmar XL f/5.6 (both of which can be used with the Shen Hao 6x17 roll film extension back) to replace my 90mm Sinar Sinaron W and the 240mm Fujinon A F/9 to replace my 210mm Schneider Symmar-S. If there are better options, I'd love to hear them. If it helps with any suggestions, I shoot almost exclusively with color transparency and color negative and print up to 50"x60".

Any advice from you experienced shooters would be much appreciated. :)

[manfrominternet]

If you're making projection enlargement prints up to 40"x50" or 10X from a 4x5 sheet of film, seriously consider going up in film format size as that can make more difference in print quality overall than the fantasy uber best lens. But, know there is a limit to going up film format size as larger film alone is not automatically better as there area host of problems gained with going up in film format size.

Bernice

Bernice,

Thank you for this. I think you're right - I was, indeed, thinking (and hoping) that an uber 4x5 lens would be good enough to compete against a 8x10 camera with a so-so lens. (Of course I know a 4x5 wouldn't be as good even with said uber lens, but I did think that it would be good enough.) In any case, the size of the prints that I'm making with the resolution that I'd like will eventually necessitate the need for a larger format camera. While I'm pretty well versed in the 4x5 world, I'm not at all in the 8x10 world. I'm not even sure which type or brand of 8x10 field cameras I should be looking at. I do know that I'd like for it to be light, accept Technika boards, and either has a Fresnel or the ability to install one. As a landscape photographer, I'm not using very crazy movements.

That said, do you (or anyone else here) have any suggestions for a light 8x10 camera? I was thinking of the Intrepid 8x10 Mark II, but I've read about users' concerns that it's actually too light a camera and almost acts like a sail on even a slightly windy day.

Many thanks again!

[angusparker]

Bernice,

Thank you for this. I think you're right - I was, indeed, thinking (and hoping) that an uber 4x5 lens would be good enough to compete against a 8x10 camera with a so-so lens. (Of course I know a 4x5 wouldn't be as good even with said uber lens, but I did think that it would be good enough.) In any case, the size of the prints that I'm making with the resolution that I'd like will eventually necessitate the need for a larger format camera. While I'm pretty well versed in the 4x5 world, I'm not at all in the 8x10 world. I'm not even sure which type or brand of 8x10 field cameras I should be looking at. I do know that I'd like for it to be light, accept Technika boards, and either has a Fresnel or the ability to install one. As a landscape photographer, I'm not using very crazy movements.

That said, do you (or anyone else here) have any suggestions for a light 8x10 camera? I was thinking of the Intrepid 8x10 Mark II, but I've read about users' concerns that it's actually too light a camera and almost acts like a sail on even a slightly windy day.

Many thanks again!

Not sure that an 8x10 is going to give you much of a boost in resolution over 4x5. The problem with 8x10 is film plane flatness. Not to forget the extra cost of film, lenses, camera, and the weight of holders….. finally 8x10 enlargers are rare versus 4x5 and usually huge. My general feeling now is 4x5 is the sweet spot for optical enlarging and for scanning. However, if you want to simplify then 8x10 and ULF is for contact printing.

Your lens kit is outstanding. You are not limited by your equipment! Experiment with improving your output with what you have. My suggestion is spend money on a better developer like XTOL (finer grain, increased speed) and perhaps use Tri-X 320 which will give you a stop over slower cheaper films.

[manfrominternet]

Angus,

Thanks for your message. To put things in some perspective and corroborating what you've mentioned, I did a little hunting and noticed that Jeff Wall still shoots with his 4x5 Linhof Master Technika and Sinar X and still manages to blow up his 4x5 images wayyy more than 10X (40"x50") without any stitching. In the following short documentary you can see him using his Sinar X: https://art21.org/watch/art-in-the-twenty-first-century/s8/jeff-wall-in-vancouver-segment/ He seems to have no trouble scanning and printing these negatives either as enormous prints or lightboxes.

Also, I know first hand that Andreas Gursky mainly used a Linhof Master Technika and Technikardan 45S for most of his work through the 90s, right through to 2008, even more so than his 5x7 camera. (And, contrary to popular belief, he never used an 8x10 for the simple fact that he found enough quality with his 4x5 and 5x7 cameras.) One of his most important works is Salerno (https://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1990/salerno-1), which has an image size of exactly 51" x 65¼". He said in a inteview with Jeff Wall - ironically enough - that he managed to take exactly four shots of the Italian port city of Salerno with his 4x5 camera before the encroaching shadows at the borders of the image ruined the photo. This work was created in 1990 and there was definitely no stitching going on. Stitching and digital editing came later for Gursky, starting around 1992.

And thank you for mentioning XTOL! I had no idea what that was until you mentioned it. I googled it and saw that it could be tremendously helpful. Developing and printing are the two areas that I have absolutely no mastery of. As much as I would really like to, I don't even develop my own film since my living quarters is pretty cramped. (I have 4 roommates!) Once I'm able to get a place of my own is when I'll throw myself fully into film development and learn everything I can about it.

[Bernice Loui]

You've already have some of the best modern lenses made for 4x5. IMO, the lenses are not the limitation to producing excellent-expressive images, it is much about getting out there and making images. Technique, skills, creative passions will go greatly further than any small incremental improvement in the hardware stuff that might offer. While there is an image quality gained in larger film format size, it depends on the images made and the image goals. 8x10 results in a much larger camera, difficulty and $ for truly good lenses, film flatness, what is in or out of focus issues and more. 5x7 is the 'tweener size, which has many of the benefits of 8x10 and 4x5. Again, 5x7 has inherent limitations and does not work for all image making. Same applies to 35mm to 8x10 and larger. In the end, these are mere tools to achieve a means ad method of creative images.


Bernice

[manfrominternet]

Bernice, I fully agree with you. Lenses can only be part of the equation. I'd be one of the first to argue that a phenomenal lens will in no way, shape, or form make you a great photographer or, indeed, take great photographs for you. Although the options afforded by a very sharp lens are great, I have noticed that some of my favorite work of my own was done with a lens that is not the best. In many cases I have works that I shot that are purposfully blurry. I'm not necessarily wanting every photo I take to be razor sharp.

Nonetheless, I am interested in larger high-res prints. A 5x7 would be an ideal camera for the reason you've mentioned, but alas, no one out there makes color negative or slide film for that format anymore. (I shoot color slide and color negative exclusively.)

That said, I recently also bought a Fuji 240mm f/9 A for my lens set, in anticipation that I may someday use this lens (as well as my Nikon Nikkor 300mm f/9 M) for an 8x10. I do like all of my lenses, but I have noticed that, in comparison to my new 150mm Rodenstock Sironar-S, my 150mm Schneider Symmar-S is actually a rather weak performer. The softness and vignetting I get from using the 150mm Schneider Symmar-S on my 6x17 Shen Hao extension back was enough to make me want to upgrade. The Symmar-S is no slouch, but after testing it against the Sironar-S, there really is no comparison - the Sironar-S is a lot sharper with a much more pleasing contrast, and the larger image circle comes in very handy when using it with my 6x17 back.

What I'm really after now is a lens that I can use for my 6x17 Shen Hao extension back. With said extension back, the 90mm Sinar Sinaron W f/6.8 is too wide for my taste and my new 150 Rodenstock Sironar-S crops in too much, so I'm looking for something in between 110mm and 135mm, but I'm not sure where to start given that the options are so vast.

[jnantz]

The lenses that will make the photographs you want to make are the one's worth keeping.

I always figure if I sell a lens I'm not interested in using, the lens needed to upgrade to a better owner.

It all becomes so clear after a couple of tangerine martinis.

:)

+1

[angusparker]

Angus,

Thanks for your message. To put things in some perspective and corroborating what you've mentioned, I did a little hunting and noticed that Jeff Wall still shoots with his 4x5 Linhof Master Technika and Sinar X and still manages to blow up his 4x5 images wayyy more than 10X (40"x50") without any stitching. In the following short documentary you can see him using his Sinar X: https://art21.org/watch/art-in-the-twenty-first-century/s8/jeff-wall-in-vancouver-segment/ He seems to have no trouble scanning and printing these negatives either as enormous prints or lightboxes.

Also, I know first hand that Andreas Gursky mainly used a Linhof Master Technika and Technikardan 45S for most of his work through the 90s, right through to 2008, even more so than his 5x7 camera. (And, contrary to popular belief, he never used an 8x10 for the simple fact that he found enough quality with his 4x5 and 5x7 cameras.) One of his most important works is Salerno (https://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1990/salerno-1), which has an image size of exactly 51" x 65¼". He said in a inteview with Jeff Wall - ironically enough - that he managed to take exactly four shots of the Italian port city of Salerno with his 4x5 camera before the encroaching shadows at the borders of the image ruined the photo. This work was created in 1990 and there was definitely no stitching going on. Stitching and digital editing came later for Gursky, starting around 1992.

And thank you for mentioning XTOL! I had no idea what that was until you mentioned it. I googled it and saw that it could be tremendously helpful. Developing and printing are the two areas that I have absolutely no mastery of. As much as I would really like to, I don't even develop my own film since my living quarters is pretty cramped. (I have 4 roommates!) Once I'm able to get a place of my own is when I'll throw myself fully into film development and learn everything I can about it.

You are welcome. Printing (and developing) are great pastimes. Right now I’m taking images of a fishing stream I love and am dreaming on the large silver prints I’m going to make.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Scraps]

Thanks for the link. I know it's outside the main topic of this thread, but Jeff Walls' methodology yields great photos.

[Eric Leppanen]

A 5x7 would be an ideal camera for the reason you've mentioned, but alas, no one out there makes color negative or slide film for that format anymore. (I shoot color slide and color negative exclusively.)In the U.S. Kodak ships Portra 160 and 400, Ektar 100 and Ektachrome 100 in 5x7 through group orders via Keith Canham. In my experience he has been easy to reach on the phone if you would like more info.

https://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html
https://www.facebook.com/K-B-Canham-Cameras-Inc-131324393576850/

I have a bunch of 5x7 color film in the fridge and freezer right now. I'm also a predominantly color shooter and migrated to 5x7 after my 8x10 kit had become too ponderous for field use. A group order usually occurs once each year per emulsion (Ektar less frequently, I'm not sure how popular the new Ektachrome has been). Managing film stock like this is a bit of a hassle, but it is very do-able. My back thanks me when I am out in the field.

[Bernice Loui]

5x7 and 13x18cm film in the freezer, precisely what has been done since the early 90's and to this day. 5x7 & 13x18cm color film has often been a order ahead then keep it around then use as needed. B&W less so, but similar applies.

Gave up doing any 8x10 in the mid 90's with the realization 8x10 did not significantly improve the quality of BIG color prints over 5x7 (easy to get GOOD color prints during the 90's). Add to this, darkroom space needed for a proper 8x10 enlarger (Durst 810, anything less is not gonna do) was excessive for B&W prints. Yet, the step from 4x5 to 5x7 was a Significant improvement in image quality, specially if printing B&W at 2x from 5x7 to 10"x14".

GOOD 8x10 camera, lenses and all are a serious investment and more. These days, contact printing 8x10 and larger makes a LOT of good justifications for these big sheet film formats. If not, consider the long list of reasons why 8x10 and larger.


Bernice





I have a bunch of 5x7 color film in the fridge and freezer right now. I'm also a predominantly color shooter and migrated to 5x7 after my 8x10 kit had become too ponderous for field use. A group order usually occurs once each year per emulsion (Ektar less frequently, I'm not sure how popular the new Ektachrome has been). Managing film stock like this is a bit of a hassle, but it is very do-able. My back thanks me when I am out in the field.

[manfrominternet]

In the U.S. Kodak ships Portra 160 and 400, Ektar 100 and Ektachrome 100 in 5x7 through group orders via Keith Canham. In my experience he has been easy to reach on the phone if you would like more info.

https://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html
https://www.facebook.com/K-B-Canham-Cameras-Inc-131324393576850/

I have a bunch of 5x7 color film in the fridge and freezer right now. I'm also a predominantly color shooter and migrated to 5x7 after my 8x10 kit had become too ponderous for field use. A group order usually occurs once each year per emulsion (Ektar less frequently, I'm not sure how popular the new Ektachrome has been). Managing film stock like this is a bit of a hassle, but it is very do-able. My back thanks me when I am out in the field.

Well, I'll be damned! That's AWESOME! In this case, I really will start considering migrating to a 5x7 camera.

[Bernice Loui]

Majority of your current lens set works on 5x7 _ 13x18cm negating the pressing need to acquire new lenses.

5x7 view cameras remain lower cost than 8x10 cameras even with the Foto current fashion of view camera images. Camera choice should be driven by image goals.

Film holders are mixed availability, but should be lower cost than 8x10 film holders. Other than these Foto items and figuring out film processing, you're mostly good to go.


:)
Bernice




Well, I'll be damned! That's AWESOME! In this case, I really will start considering migrating to a 5x7 camera.